The (Oliver, 2016). This can be argued that

The British Empire included
leaders, colonies etc. There are many reasons that could support the claim that
the British Empire dismantled after 1945 for instance Winston Churchill
policies during the Second World War, had a negative impact on during that time
and after the war. Some people believed that Winston Churchill led Britain
through the Second World War. However, some people may argue that Winston
Churchill speeches were not motivating and that he had bad things in mind.
Also, things like decolonisation had a major impact for the dismantling the
British Empire. Moreover, some people may argue Clement Richard Atlee also
played a major role after 1945 because he gave India their independence and he
also had a big impact on the National Health Service.

 

One reason that could back the
statement that Winston Churchill was not part of the reasons for the
dismantling the British Empire is that he was a good leader. He became the
prime minister of Britain in 1940, and he was identified as a respectable good
leader since he helped Britain get through the second world war and because of
his inspiring motivational speeches. Instead of Churchill using weapons he used
his words to fight. This is evidence of a good leader because not only was
Churchill promoting that violence isn’t the answer he was also teaching
individuals in society       that
fighting isn’t the answer (BBC newsround, 2015). This shows Churchill was not
part of the reason for the dismantling of the British Empire. However, it can also
be argued that some Winston Churchill ideas were not ideal for example, Churchill
believed that white people were superior that it was superior than any other
race.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Due to this, it affected his perspective
on other races such as Indians and Africans. (Oliver, 2016). This can be argued
that Winston Churchill could have contributed to dismantling the British Empire
due to his perspective on different races. As a leader it’s important to treat
everyone equally without having prejudice thoughts. However, Winston Churchill
did not do that.

After the second world war,
Clement Attlee was part of Winston Churchill coalition party then later he became
prime minster in 1945 when the whole economy was crashed and bankrupt (BBC, 2014). The welfare state
was very important to Atlee, so he wanted to work on it to make improvements. An
example of one of his improvements was that he created National Health Service which
is also known as the NHS. Clement Attlee wanted to work towards the ‘Beveridge
Report’, the Beveridge report was to implemented to make sure that there was a way
that individual’s in society should be living ‘protection from cradle to grave’.
Clement Attlee intention was to implement four acts that could help society: the
national insurance act of 1946 was to end want, the industrial injuries act of
1946, the national assistance act of 1948, the national health service act of
1946 (Lynch, 2001, p. 133). On the other hand,
the labour party wanted to introduce a programme called nationalisation which
is known as when the government takes over industries and takes control. For instance,
in this case the Labour party wanted to take over some of Britain’s industries
such as: transport, iron, steel power industries and air services etc. “Nationalization refers to the process of a
government taking control of a company or industry, which generally occurs
without compensation for the loss of the net worth of seized assets and
potential income. The action may be the result of a nation’s attempt to
consolidate power, resentment of foreign ownership of industries representing significant
importance to local economies or to prop up failing industries” (investopedia , 2018). However, the UK
borrowed money from the USA to help them meet their financial difficulties. This
caused problems for the economy because at the end of the second world war
Britain had debts of £3,500 million according Lynch (Lynch, 2001,
p. 136).
Moreover, even with all the stern economic difficulties that Britain was facing
they were still able to have a high level of success. This shows how much work
Attlee put into Britain they were still able to have some positive outcomes.
Therefore, it could be argued that Attlee did not contribute to dismantling the
British Empire.

It could be debated that
Britain demonstrates it’s retreat from Empire through decolonisation. Decolonisation
is giving a country their independence that was formerly a colony. “the process in which a country that was
previously a colony (= controlled by another country) becomes politically
independent” (English collins dictionary, n.d.) Britain did not
have enough money to fund countries such as: India, Nigeria, Jamaica and Hong
Kong etc. This resulted in the colonies gaining their independence. “the gaining of Indian independence opened
the way for the dismantling of the whole British empire” (Lynch, 2001, p. 237). This was very
hard for Britain due to the fact that they had local soldiers in India their
military force was vast. Allowing India to gain their independence had negative
impacts to Britain because this meant that they lost out soldiers, the Indian troops
helped Britain fight during the wars in the 18th  and the 19th century. Britain was
not able to maintain India so they had to allow them gain their independence. (Lynch, 2001, p. 237) On the other hand,
Britain was also scared on behalf of India because of the rioting between
Muslims and Hindus. (Samudranil, 2015) Because Britain was
not able to maintain India as their colony this could argued that this could be
a reason for the dismantling of the British Empire. It could be claimed that it
wasn’t a good idea for Britain to leave India because illiteracy between women
were high.

The financial cost was a big weight
on Britain and with the loss of India in 1947 sustaining a big military force organization
to back the Britain empire was no longer possible. If Britain held down, the
engagement in wars against other countries they would not have been able to
maintain their colonies. Moreover, Britain was already in debt, there was a big
burden over them.

Based on research, we got to
know that the there is decline in relation of the European partners wchich has
been so marked, so that today they were not only no longer a world power, but
they were not in the first rank even as a European one. Income per head in
Britain is now, for the first time for over 300 years, below that in France.
They were scarcely in the same economic league as the Germans or French. We
talk of ourselves without shame as being one of the less prosperous countries
of Europe. The prognosis for the foreseeable future is discouraging. If present
trends continue we shall be overtaken in gdp per head by Italy and Spain well
before the end of the century. This train of thought did not come completely
voluntarily but came about as a result of a number of factors, these include
but are not limited to: World Wars & debt – As fellow Quorans have quite
rightly pointed out the world wars which were very much about challenging the
existing world order took it’s toll on Britain. The human cost and monetary
cost was a huge burden on Britain and with the loss of India in 1947
maintaining a huge navy and military infrastructure to support the empire was
no longer viable. Returning soldiers proved not just a logistical nightmare,
particularly given the post-war shortage of merchant shipping, but were also a
potential source of domestic unrest. Many of the veterans returning to the
French colony of Guinea resented the local chiefs who had helped force them
into military service and, during 1919-1920, were at the forefront of
industrial disputes, assaulting chiefs and settler plantation managers, symbols
of the unequal colonial system of economic and political rule. Many colonial
territories were particularly unsuited or ill-prepared for the sudden injection
of a large number of young male workers back into the economy. In the case of
Jamaica, returning soldiers from the British West Indies Regiment were
frequently disappointed by the lack of job opportunities within the restrictive
plantation economy.