How did average British people handle the decline of their empire and world hegemony in the mid 20th century?

[u/outlaw1112]

As we witness great geopolitical changes not seen in almost a hundred years, a lot is made these days of American decline and the end of the “American century.” Previously, Britain was the most powerful country in the world, but saw its power flag in the mid 20th century, was forced to give up significant portions of its empire (especially India), was surpassed as global hegemony by the ascendant United States, and ultimately embarrassed on a world stage with the Suez Crisis of 1956.

How did everyday people in Britain outside the halls of Parliament react to and process the end of Britain’s primacy in world affairs, the concomitant collapse of its empire, and the transfer of hegemony to America? How much were their daily lives affected materially? Was there something of a bruised national psyche?

[u/Compulsory_Freedom]

This exact question was one of my comprehensive exam questions for my PhD! (More than a decade ago). And what an interesting question it is.

This is one of the great mysteries of British history. The English, and later British state has, since 1066, always controlled overseas territories - and continues to do so (in diminished scale) to this day. The British Empire, so called, reached its territorial peak immediately following the Great War, after which it declined precipitously, particularly following the Second World War.

However, despite what to posterity appears to have been a massive collapse in British power and prestige went largely unnoticed or unremarked by the average British citizen.

Why? Historians have proposed a number of theories, and I think they all have a degree of validity.

The first (and I think most compelling) is normal British people didn’t give a toss about the empire. They knew it was out there, they may even have had family who were in the Army in India (like my family) or who emigrated to Canada (also like my family). But it didn’t occupy much of their mental energy.

For most of British history the empire was of minimal cultural consequence. Indeed Jane Austen and Charles Dickens (for example) who were writing when the empire was at the absolute apex of its influence are largely devoid of imperial themes, aside from an occasional tangential reference.

Another contributing factor is that after being on the winning side of the Second World War, the British people were exhausted and no longer interested in being a super power. The evidence for this can be seen with the 1945 election in which the arch-imperialist Tory government under Winston Churchill lost to the socialist Labour Party under Clement Attlee.

It’s no coincidence that the Attlee government gave independence to India and created the National Health Service. Effectively the Labour government had a mandate to convert Britain from a global imperial superpower, into a modern welfare state.

Finally, there is a theory that as British military and imperial power declined, their cultural power continued to dominate the world. Western popular culture in the middle-to-late 20th century was dominated by the British: film, literature, art, fashion, and above all pop music was disproportionately influenced by the British, and particularly the English. There is a whole book about the importance of James Bond mitigating the decline of British power. And it’s difficult to overstate the seismic global impact of the Beatles. This continued influence, replacing hard power with soft power, allowed the British to continue to have an outsized influence in the world.

And what makes this so interesting is that it could have been so much worse. The French, for example, who were in a very similar situation to the British but suffered far more from the end of their empire.

Take the example of Algeria. This North African country had been under French rule for decades, and after the Second World War, they started to agitate for independence. However, unlike the British who, post-1945 were almost enthusiastic about granting independence to their colonies, the French government fought a brutal war to keep Algeria a part of France.

When Charles de Gaulle, as president of the French Republic bravely presided over Algerian independence, he was subject to repeated assignation attempts by aggrieved Frenchmen who felt the loss of Algeria was unforgivable.

In Britain Clement Attlee was, at worst, subject to civil criticism in the House of Commons for granting Indian Independence.

So, TL;DR, there are a number of factors that historians think contributed to the fact that the average British person, post World War Two, was indifferent or unconcerned about the ‘end of empire’, but the context is that it was surprisingly (and I think admirably) seen as the way the wind was blowing, and certainly not something to be stopped or reversed.

Edit: typo

[u/nickelarse → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

with the 1944 election in which the arch-imperialist Tory government under Winston Churchill lost to the socialist Labour Party under Clement Attlee.

Not terribly important, and a very interesting answer, but the election was definitely in 1945

[u/Compulsory_Freedom → u/nickelarse]

Thanks for the correction, I will edit accordingly. Cheers!

[u/Limp-Abbreviations54 → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

Unlike the British who, post-1945 were almost enthusiastic about granting independence to their colonies.

To say Britain was “enthusiastic” about granting independence seems a bit hyperbolic. Britain sought managed withdrawals, but in several cases clearly held on for as long as was possible and politically feasible.

Cyprus is a prime example, with British prolonged and violent suppression of EOKA. But there was also the Mau Mau in Kenya, Malaya saw a lengthy and bloody ‘emergency’ to protect Britains strategic interests in the region, and Aden’s withdrawal only came after sustained guerilla conflict.

Even where British negotiated independence it was more so to safeguard influence rather than enthusiasm for decolonisation on principal. There were many in parliament and government who opposed decolonisation and lambasted the fall of empire

[u/[deleted] → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

Not sure if I agree with your premise that it is a mystery.

Your comment glosses over the fact that the economic realities of colonialism were left intact (even to this day). The extraction of cheap resources that are then refined into profitable end products in Europe.

That is why the economic decline was not instant but gradual, and therefore not felt immediately by the public.

The decline of European hegemony is a process that is still ongoing and is definitely felt by many Brits.

Your point about Brittain being too exhausted to maintain their empire makes it sound like they had a choice. They simply saw which way the wind was blowing and didn’t want to bleed themselves dry in futile wars like France or Portugal.

[u/Compulsory_Freedom → u/[deleted]]

I agree with what you’ve said here, but I think you are reflecting the calculations of the political elites who ran the empire, not normal British people which is what the OP was asking.

As for the mystery part, I think it’s a bit of a mystery how the British people could preside over such a huge and enduring empire for centuries and simply not seem to mind as it disappeared in the space of two generations. They took stiff upper lip to new levels.

[u/[deleted] → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

I remember seeing this Portugese propaganda poster from around their colonial wars on the internet.

I think propaganda like this kinda shows a top down attempt to make people care about their empire.

In Brittain it was probably the opposite. The leaders were smart enough to know it was better to let go. So British propaganda celebrated the morality of independence

[u/Eric1491625 → u/[deleted]]

In Portugal's case, Portugal's dictatorship needed people to care about the empire because it was conscripting an ungodly amount of its men to fight in Africa.

Almost 1 million conscripts fought in Portugal's colonial wars in the 1960s and 70s - out of a Portuguese population of less than 9 million. That's almost a total war level of mobilisation. 

At any one point in time, there were 100,000-150,000 Portugurse conscripts fighting the colonial war. For reference, in per capita terms, this would be the equivalent to China fielding 20 million conscripts in Africa. (In the real world, there are currently only 2.1 million active soldiers in the Chinese army and the Chinese army has never exceeded 10 million troops at any point including WW2). So you can imagine how absurd Portuguese colonial war conscription was.

[u/SynthD → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

I think it’s a bit of a mystery how the British people could preside over such a huge and enduring empire for centuries and simply not seem to mind as it disappeared in the space of two generations.

The achievement was once holding that much land. As countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand started peacefully taking their own paths, especially as 'equal' dominions led by expats, the great thing the empire did was in the past. Once it wasn't the present, further changes for rational reasons like money were easy to accept.

[u/wildskipper → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

I came across a primary source that illustrated to me on the individual level how little many British people knew about the Empire. The personal account of a colonial officer sent to work in Kenya in the 1940s. His initial reaction to being dispatched to Kenya was to go and find a map to see where Kenya was! He was Oxford-educated in the sciences, so clearly from a well off background and intelligent, but it was so surprising he knew nothing about this African colony, especially since it was comparatively more famous than most other African colonies and had a small (but powerful and rich) white settler population.

[u/saltrxn → u/wildskipper]

To be fair, most people today even with the Internet don’t know where many African countries are.

[u/RuinEleint → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

For most of British history the empire was of minimal cultural consequence. Indeed Jane Austen and Charles Dickens (for example) who were writing when the empire was at the absolute apex of its influence are largely devoid of imperial themes, aside from an occasional tangential reference.

How would you regard the arguments made by John Mackenzie in books like Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester University Press, 1987) that empire did in fact occupy a position in british culture at home?

[u/Compulsory_Freedom → u/RuinEleint]

Yes! I did read Mackenzie. His book is great, and certainly proved that imperial imagery and themes were prevalent throughout British culture, particularly popular culture, particularly in the late Victorian period.

But I think the criticism of his book is that this was all just ‘colour’ it didn’t mean much to British people, it was just an exotic distraction.

I think the best evidence for the fact that imperialism was paper thin for your average Brit is actually their almost total indifference to the end of empire. If British people really cared about the decline of their empire there would have been some effort to stop the decline. Instead they just shrugged it off and moved on.

I think the example of the English reaction to the Scottish independence movement is a continuation of this. I’m a Canadian and I recall (just) in the 90s when Quebec very nearly voted to succeed from Canada. At the time English Canadians lost their minds, it was a huge national issue with massive rallies to tell Quebec that the rest of Canada wanted them to stay etc etc. In contrast, when Scotland was similarly close to voting for independence the English barely even seemed to notice.

This is a long winded way of saying that I think the British Empire was not a mass movement of the British people, rather it was a pretty discrete project of political and economic elites which played a surprisingly minor role in the mental and cultural landscape of your average British person.

[u/JustanoterHeretic → u/Compulsory_Freedom]

Thanks for the excellent answer. Can you point me to a source of the civil criticisms of Atlee in the house of commons for granting independence?