The British Empire includedleaders, colonies etc.
There are many reasons that could support the claim thatthe British Empire dismantled after 1945 for instance Winston Churchillpolicies during the Second World War, had a negative impact on during that timeand after the war. Some people believed that Winston Churchill led Britainthrough the Second World War. However, some people may argue that WinstonChurchill speeches were not motivating and that he had bad things in mind.Also, things like decolonisation had a major impact for the dismantling theBritish Empire. Moreover, some people may argue Clement Richard Atlee alsoplayed a major role after 1945 because he gave India their independence and healso had a big impact on the National Health Service. One reason that could back thestatement that Winston Churchill was not part of the reasons for thedismantling the British Empire is that he was a good leader.
He became theprime minister of Britain in 1940, and he was identified as a respectable goodleader since he helped Britain get through the second world war and because ofhis inspiring motivational speeches. Instead of Churchill using weapons he usedhis words to fight. This is evidence of a good leader because not only wasChurchill promoting that violence isn’t the answer he was also teachingindividuals in society thatfighting isn’t the answer (BBC newsround, 2015). This shows Churchill was notpart of the reason for the dismantling of the British Empire.
However, it can alsobe argued that some Winston Churchill ideas were not ideal for example, Churchillbelieved that white people were superior that it was superior than any otherrace. Due to this, it affected his perspectiveon other races such as Indians and Africans. (Oliver, 2016). This can be arguedthat Winston Churchill could have contributed to dismantling the British Empiredue to his perspective on different races.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
As a leader it’s important to treateveryone equally without having prejudice thoughts. However, Winston Churchilldid not do that.After the second world war,Clement Attlee was part of Winston Churchill coalition party then later he becameprime minster in 1945 when the whole economy was crashed and bankrupt (BBC, 2014).
The welfare statewas very important to Atlee, so he wanted to work on it to make improvements. Anexample of one of his improvements was that he created National Health Service whichis also known as the NHS. Clement Attlee wanted to work towards the ‘BeveridgeReport’, the Beveridge report was to implemented to make sure that there was a waythat individual’s in society should be living ‘protection from cradle to grave’.
Clement Attlee intention was to implement four acts that could help society: thenational insurance act of 1946 was to end want, the industrial injuries act of1946, the national assistance act of 1948, the national health service act of1946 (Lynch, 2001, p. 133). On the other hand,the labour party wanted to introduce a programme called nationalisation whichis 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 industriessuch as: transport, iron, steel power industries and air services etc. “Nationalization refers to the process of agovernment taking control of a company or industry, which generally occurswithout compensation for the loss of the net worth of seized assets andpotential income.
The action may be the result of a nation’s attempt toconsolidate power, resentment of foreign ownership of industries representing significantimportance to local economies or to prop up failing industries” (investopedia , 2018). However, the UKborrowed money from the USA to help them meet their financial difficulties. Thiscaused problems for the economy because at the end of the second world warBritain had debts of £3,500 million according Lynch (Lynch, 2001, p. 136).Moreover, even with all the stern economic difficulties that Britain was facingthey were still able to have a high level of success. This shows how much workAttlee put into Britain they were still able to have some positive outcomes.
Therefore, it could be argued that Attlee did not contribute to dismantling theBritish Empire.It could be debated thatBritain demonstrates it’s retreat from Empire through decolonisation. Decolonisationis giving a country their independence that was formerly a colony. “the process in which a country that waspreviously a colony (= controlled by another country) becomes politicallyindependent” (English collins dictionary, n.d.) Britain did nothave enough money to fund countries such as: India, Nigeria, Jamaica and HongKong etc. This resulted in the colonies gaining their independence.
“the gaining of Indian independence openedthe way for the dismantling of the whole British empire” (Lynch, 2001, p. 237). This was veryhard for Britain due to the fact that they had local soldiers in India theirmilitary force was vast. Allowing India to gain their independence had negativeimpacts to Britain because this meant that they lost out soldiers, the Indian troopshelped Britain fight during the wars in the 18th and the 19th century. Britain wasnot 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 betweenMuslims and Hindus. (Samudranil, 2015) Because Britain wasnot able to maintain India as their colony this could argued that this could bea reason for the dismantling of the British Empire.
It could be claimed that itwasn’t a good idea for Britain to leave India because illiteracy between womenwere high.The financial cost was a big weighton Britain and with the loss of India in 1947 sustaining a big military force organizationto back the Britain empire was no longer possible. If Britain held down, theengagement in wars against other countries they would not have been able tomaintain their colonies. Moreover, Britain was already in debt, there was a bigburden over them.
Based on research, we got toknow that the there is decline in relation of the European partners wchich hasbeen so marked, so that today they were not only no longer a world power, butthey were not in the first rank even as a European one. Income per head inBritain 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.
Wetalk of ourselves without shame as being one of the less prosperous countriesof Europe. The prognosis for the foreseeable future is discouraging. If presenttrends continue we shall be overtaken in gdp per head by Italy and Spain wellbefore the end of the century.
This train of thought did not come completelyvoluntarily but came about as a result of a number of factors, these includebut are not limited to: World Wars & debt – As fellow Quorans have quiterightly pointed out the world wars which were very much about challenging theexisting world order took it’s toll on Britain. The human cost and monetarycost was a huge burden on Britain and with the loss of India in 1947maintaining a huge navy and military infrastructure to support the empire wasno longer viable. Returning soldiers proved not just a logistical nightmare,particularly given the post-war shortage of merchant shipping, but were also apotential source of domestic unrest. Many of the veterans returning to theFrench colony of Guinea resented the local chiefs who had helped force theminto military service and, during 1919-1920, were at the forefront ofindustrial disputes, assaulting chiefs and settler plantation managers, symbolsof the unequal colonial system of economic and political rule. Many colonialterritories were particularly unsuited or ill-prepared for the sudden injectionof a large number of young male workers back into the economy.
In the case ofJamaica, returning soldiers from the British West Indies Regiment werefrequently disappointed by the lack of job opportunities within the restrictiveplantation economy.
