Decolonization

The decolonization is a process of emancipation of the colony S compared to the metropolises. It generally implies the accession with the independence of the colonized Pays. It is supposed to have begun as of 1775 in America, but it is the shortly after the Second world war that the term is born, at the time when the phenomenon becomes true world extensive with the development of the Nationalisme S. One can say that it is not finished yet to date.

Origins of the decolonization

At the 18th century

The War of independence of the United States of America

It was often regarded as the first movement of decolonization, in particular by the Americans themselves, which were going to be claimed some later on to encourage with independence the European colonies, and particularly Spanish.
But, actually, the United States owed their independence has a revolt of the colonists, but not of the natives, against their metropolis. The natives then were more radically oppressed, and even decimated by the colonists independent, when those had the freehands, with the reinforcement of the emigrants come from other countries from Europe.

Detailed article: War of independence of the United States of America

The war of independence of Haiti in the past named Santo Domingo

Causes

The war of independence occurred, at the time of the French revolution, after:

of the reserves of part of the metropolitan revolutionists to grant the equality to the slaves (either because they were regarded as large children still inapt to move themselves, or because their access to the equality would have been likely to deprive the plantations of their labor, and thus the colonies of plantation of their profitability)
of the hostility of the Creoles (white born with the colonies, called today the “Békés”), of richest with poorest, with an equality with the former black slaves, inconceivable in their eyes.
of the particular problem of the mongrels, often landowners, and thus little carried to accept the end of slavery.

See also: History of the Dominican Republic

Consequences

Revolt of the colonists who call the Spaniards with their help
Révolte of the mongrels
finally victorious Révolte of the slaves, on part of the Island (Haiti), in spite of the repression of the Général Leclerc and in spite of death in a metropolitan dungeon of All Saints' day Louverture, stopped by the treachery, while the Spaniards and colonists preserved the other part of the Island, richest (Dominican).

A decolonization of appearance

the slaves, while being oppressed, indeed, were to them-also of the colonizers, being forced certainly, but being colonizing all the same. That had been, often also, the case of the first white colonists, recruited among the “ convicts ” (captive Europeans of right common) and off-set against their will, in particular in Australia and New Zealand. That was also the case of some of the first French colonizers (in French Louisiana) and Spanish of the New world.
indigenous truths of the the Antilles, the Caribbean Indians and others, exterminated for a long time, could not benefit from independence.
Enfin it is thanks to the work of the black slaves that the Creoles could eliminate these Indians of the Antilles, less resistant and less productive, without it being undermined the profitability of their plantations.

At the 19th century

Independence of the Iberian colonies

Independence of the Spanish colonies

a movement of independence occurs in Latin America, partly under the influence of the encyclopedists, the philosophers of the Lumières and the ideas of the French revolution.
This movement succeeds, by a succession of military campaigns, with the independence of the continental Spanish colonies

Independence of Brazil

the Brésil reaches independence, like the Spanish colonies, but without revolution, under the crown of a family member reigning Portuguese.

Helps of the United States

Doctrines of Monroe (“America with the Americans”) at the 19th century.
Military interventions of the United States with Cuba and the Filipino , decolonized in 1946.

Failure of the ideals bolivariens

the independence of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of the New world for was not as much followed application of the Bolivarisme, antagonisms quickly appeared between certain of the new sovereign nations sudaméricaines, the Argentine was at the edge of the civil war between federalists and unit. Simón Bolívar, Jose de San Martín and Antonio Jose de Sucre, which was among the main actors of independence, was isolated capacity little time after the end of the wars (San Martín exiled as of 1824, Sucre was assassinated in 1830 and Bolívar gave up the capacity then mourrut the same year, 1830).
In spite of independence, the fate of the Amerindian still majority in the majority of these countries did not evolve/move much. Slavery in frontage was abolished in certain released countries (Chile since 1811, Argentina in 1813, Venezuela in 1816, Bolivia in 1826) but generally under condition, for example in exchange of enrôlement of the men in the army. Slavery will perdura longer in other countries in particular in Peru (abolition in 1851), in Brazil (abolition in 1888). Abolition became total in Argentina in 1853 and in Venezuela in 1854. Argentina and Chile led a policy of colonization and extermination against the Mapuches to the end of the 19th century.
In addition the interventions of the United States, by the doctrines of Monroe or the military aid with the insurrectionists, resembled in practice, by certain sides, with a new form of Impérialisme.

“Principle of nationalities”

This principle emerged, in Europe, at the 19th century and was prolonged at the next century with the US president Woodrow Wilson in his famous list of the 14 points.

Application in Europe of the principle of nationalities

This principle was translated, in Europe, according to two tendencies:

Right to the unit:

Italian Unit (with the assistance of France)
German Unit (against Austria and France)

Right to independence:

Greece
Moldo-Valachie (Romania)
Serbia

But, in these first forms, the principle related to only the European nations (colonized nations being supposed inapt to move themselves) .

First extension of the “principle of nationalities” apart from Europe, by the Zionism

This first extension of the principle of nationalities to the third world was carried out by the Sionisme and theorized by Theodor Herzl, which asserted the rebirth of a Jewish State, on the ground of Palestine, where the Jews would be majority, and would not be thus any more at the thank you of the acts of intolerance resulting from the changes from controlling or the whims from crowd.

the Turkey, having the Palestine, was unfavourable with a project of State, but without being able to be opposed frontally to this primarily European immigration on this territory without much value neither strategic, nor economic. Moreover, the United Kingdom which held the reality of the capacity in Palestine according to the agreements of Sykes-Barb (1916), and largely for financial reasons (appropriations of war), had initially been favorable to a Jewish hearth in Palestine (Balfour declaration of 1917).
Uganda had been proposed to the leaders Zionists to carry out their State, by certain British leaders. But the Zionists refused this proposal, since they considered that their movement did not aim at constituting a new colony, but on the contrary with ressusciter the State of Israel on its territory antique". It was thus on the basis of this identity (historical, religious and national) that they intended to found an independent State.
This project of ressusciter an ancient State, destroyed by the force, of many centuries before, did not appear necessarily utopian, since Greece, destroyed it also of long time by the Romans, had reappeared in the concert of the nations. Poland it had also disappeared during one century.
In this measurement, the movement Zionist was regarded as a movement of decolonization.

At the 20th century

To the difference of the majority of the preceding decolonizations, the decolonizations of the 20th century will benefit with the natives and not the colonists.

The first shock of European military supremacy

the War Russo-Japanese woman of 1905, ends in a military victory of the Japanese, in particular over sea, with Tsoushima, where their modern vessels and their artillery with longer range outclass those of the Russians.
This victory of an Asian country, certainly not colonized, but which had engaged on the way of industrialization a few tens of years only before, watch with the elites of the other nations of Asia which the European domination is not fatal, and which, on the condition of assimilating the techniques of the Occident, the colonized countries would have the means of affirming itself vis-a-vis them.

Soviet decolonization

At the time of the Russian Revolution, Mencheviks with the capacity (social democrats), while claiming principle of nationalities, had refused to recognize, before the behavior of general elections, the secession of various provinces of the Empire, like the Ukraine and the Finland (proclaimed by Split Ukrainian and the Finnish Diet) . At this point in time the Bolsheviks, after being itself seized Petrograd, by their Revolution of October 1917, decided to recognize the independence of nationalities which wished it (Ukraine, Baltic States, Poland and Caucasian nations). But this independence did not last: the Ukraine was taken again by the USSR in 1921-1922, at the conclusion of the civil war. The Baltic States were reinstated in the authoritative USSR of way under Stalin in 1940, following the Pacte germano-Soviet. As for Poland, it was occupied by the Red Army and placed in the orbit of Moscow after the Second world war.
But they adopted for the remainder of the country, from now on called “federative socialist Republic of the Soviets of Russia” (RSFSR), a federal constitution. Inside this federation, the alien people which did not have made secession were set up in autonomous republics or autonomous provinces, equipped with self governments. Admittedly, the domination of the Communist party, which controlled all the Member States by a system of elections with single list, made it that, in all these republics, only the local Communists whose party was centralized exerted the power. But at least the citizens of nonRussian nationalities had the satisfaction of love clean to feel their recognized identity.

Also this autonomy recognized with the old colonies of the Tsar, was going it to become a model for certain patriots of the nations colonized throughout the world, such as the future “Ho Chi Minh”.

The policy panarabe of the United Kingdom

During the First World War, the Arab policy of the the United Kingdom, already preexistent in Egypt, was widened, thanks to its agents, like Lawrence, to obtain a revolt of the Arab nations against Turkey. All the possible promises were then made not only to the Arabs, but also to the Zionists and the Kurdish to weaken the adversary turc.
At the conclusion of the conflict this policy led to the birth of new States in the Middle East, such as the Syria, the Iraq, and the Transjordanie, temporarily under mandates of the Société of the Nations, as well as Territory under mandate of Palestine set up in “Jewish national Hearth”, with the agreement of Prince Faycal, chief of the nationalist Arabic who had fought the Turks.

Methods of the decolonization

The decolonization resulted in 3 possibilities of option:
- Assimilation,
- Internal autonomy,
- and independence,
nonexclusive from/to each other.

Assimilation

the assimilation is the mode of decolonization which allots to the natives the equality civil and political, and, correlatively, integrates the ex-colony at the colonizing State.
Of the precedents of this solution existed of long time, since the Roman Empire made use of it periodically, until the Édit of Caracalla, the example most imposing of this policy, which granted in 212 the full Roman citizenship to all the men and free women of the Empire.
France tried out this type of reform in its colonies, initially in Algérie where the Senatus consult of 1865 granted to all the natives, prone French Moslem or Jewish, the possibility individually of becoming citizens, on the condition of adopting the laic civil statute of common right (not of polygamy) and to accept of them all the duties (military service, taxes).
Then, always in Algeria, a step moreover concerned the Jewish natives. Those, treated before bet (" of it; Dhimmis") in their own country by the Moslem conquest, in 1830 the French as liberators and adoptee from the start had accommodated the language and the French culture. This is why, when, in 1870, the Cremieux decree of the Government of National defense allotted office the French citizenship to the Jewish natives, but by removing their mosaic religious civil statute , those less better did not accommodate of it the new reform and duties which resulted from this. That was largely checked on the battle fields of 14-18 and of 39-45.
This Crémieux decree was certainly a first act of decolonization, but it was partial. It would have had to be extended later on to the Moslems, as in particular several Jewish leaders claimed it, such as professor Henri Aboulker and Doctor Loufrani, and especially like asserted it several large Moslem patriots, like the Emir Khaled, descendant of Abd El Kader, in 1920, and Ferhat Abbas, until 1943.

This is why the colonialists mediums never ceased requiring the suppression of the Crémieux decree, and attacking the Moslem patriots who asked for a similar text, i.e. the access to the equality and the right to vote for their co-religionists.

However, in 1936, the government of Popular front put forward a measure of partial assimilation limited in favor of the Moslems, the Blum-Violet project: according to this project, the natives, holders of a military quotation, or a French diploma, such as the certificate of studies, is some 25 000 individuals out of 6 million, would have become citizens without renunciation of their statute. The colonialists and their charges then made move back the government in front of this measurement actually insufficient.
In 1940, the government of the Pétain Marshal (see Mode of Vichy) gave satisfaction to the colonialists by abrogeant the Crémieux decree retroactively and by withdrawing their French citizenship with the Jews of Algeria, without taking account of the blood which they had poured for France since 1870. As for the Algerian Moslems, it did not do anything for them.

Also, after the allied unloading (see Operation Torch), the withdrawal of citizenship inflicted to the Algerian Jews was maintained by François Darlan and Giraud (see Régime of Vichy in released Africa). Ferhat Abbas estimated whereas this assimilation, which could be withdrawn by a simple decree, was without future. Also he chose, in 1943, for internal autonomy, by publishing his “Proclamation of the Algerian People” (in the arguments of which, it quoted the withdrawal of the Crémieux decree, among the reasons which had made it give up asserting the French citizenship) .
Thereafter, in 1943, the French Committee of the national Release chaired by the de Gaulle general restores the Crémieux decree.
Then, it adopted, on March 7th, 1944, an ordinance which began again, by widening them, the provisions of the Blum-Violet project, in favor of the Moslems.

Starting from 1946, the French colonies became “departments” or “Territories of overseas”, and all their inhabitants of the citizens, but this reform was carried out fully only with the the Antilles and the Meeting.
In the other colonies, indeed, the old subjects, while receiving the quality of French citizens, were made “citizens of the 2nd college”, so that an uneven statute was perpetuated with their detriment: thus, in Algeria, in 1947, the million citizens of the 1st college (with civil statute of common right) profited from as many representatives to the Algerian Parliament (60), that the 8 million citizens of the 2nd college (with Koranic civil statute), and this after 117 years of French presence. They were thus of the 1/8 citizens, which was likely to justify their dissatisfaction.
the multiple colleges were finally removed in 1956, in all the Territories of overseas, and equality thus instituted, on the initiative of the Defferre minister. But the fusion of the two colleges was carried out in Algeria, only at the time it return to the capacity of Charles de Gaulle, in 1958.

Internal autonomy

Recognition of clean competences

In this system, one holds for the ex-colonies the right to enact their own laws in a number of more or less broad fields. The central capacity preserves in theory competences of foreign affairs, soldiers and of the interior order. The local governments of the ex-colonies exert all other competences then.
But very often, even in these basic fields, competences of maintenance of law and order (police force), soldiers (National guard) and even of Foreign affairs (representation in France of Quebec, member of the Canadian Federation) can be divided. Conversely, of new central competences can appear, such as for example on social matters, where as regards nuclear energy, when the autonomous States cannot exert them.

Autonomy interns Dominions

internal autonomy was very much used, initially in the old British colonies transformed into Dominion S, like the Canada, the colonies of Australia, the New Zealand, etc, whose local competences are by stages become increasingly wide.

The federalisation of the old Russian empire

But this internal autonomy could remain in a durable way, only in the federations. Thus in Russia, at the time of their Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks had to face the problem of the national minorities:

Certain European minorities tore off by the force their independence (Finnish, Baltes, Polish) or their fastening in another state (the Moldavie, Rumanian until 1940). Others knew an attempt at short and tumultuous independence. The Ukraine, disputed between freedom fighters, Russian white, anarchistic makhnists, Pole and Bolsheviks, ended up returning to the latter. In the the Caucasus, it is the Turkish threat which encouraged the Armenians and Géorgiens to return in the Russian bosom. In all the outlying areas, the Red Army could be based on local Communists who were often only the modernistic anti-feudal ones, the traditional forces (great landowners and monk) being rather counter-revolutionaries. The Union of the Soviet socialist republics is a confederation of republics, theoretically equal in right and where the national languages and autonomies are recognized. In fact, the essential bodies (Sole party, political police, planned economy) are narrowly centralized from Moscow. The Soviet mode imposes partly to upheavals modernisateurs (elimination of illiteracy, women's right) but imposes also contestable economic choices (Monoculture of cotton in Central Asia) and often follows a policy of terror (Collectivisation of the grounds in the years 1930, Déportation whole people, Tatars of the Crimea, Tchétchène S, etc, in 1945). In the years 1980, the system appears weakened by economic collapse, the war of Afghanistan and by the demographic variation growing between the European republics (with weak birthrate) and the Asian republics (with strong birthrate). However, it is not the revolt of not colonized, but the fall of the Soviet central capacity into 1991 which involves the bursting of the last European colonial empire.

Independence

the decolonization by independence consisted in recognizing full sovereignty with an old colony:

It should be noted that the movements of decolonization militated, the ones for internal autonomy, like the UDMA of Ferhat-Abbas in Algeria, or the GDR of Felix Houphouët-Boigny in French Black Africa, and the others for independence, like the PPP of Messali in Algeria, the Viet Minh or the Daï-Vietnamese soldier in Indo-China, etc But it is clear that it is the independence which had mainly their favor. So that internal autonomy often a stage constituted on the way of independence.
the process which leads to independence thus could be carried out:

- by stages,
- by revolution.

Independence obtained by stages

Independence by stages was generally obtained while making pass the decolonized country, by one (or several) stage (S) of internal autonomy.

the evolution of the British dominions was an example. Canada, Australia and New Zealand became fully sovereign only in the years 1920, while preserving a Head of common State however, the British monarch, represented on the spot by a governor. As this last does not have, in practice, more capacities than the monarch does not have any in the United Kingdom, its presence is hardly awkward and all decides from now on on the spot. Thus the the Commonwealth was inaugurated. It should however be observed that independence was, in these three cases, allotted to the descendants of the European colonists and the later immigrants, not with the natives. Because those were practically marginalized for a long time in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand. However, the descendants of these colonists conceded advantages to them, nowadays, with the heirs statutory to the Amerindian tribes, indigenous or mahories. Despite everything, question of knowing if there remain stages to cross to obtain a complete decolonization remains open.
Tunisia in 1956 was one of the first country which reached, thanks to Habib Bourguiba, with independence.
the emancipation of the French colonies of Black Africa was initially slow, because the claims of the Africans were generally limited, except in the island of Madagascar, which was the theater in 1947 of a dramatic repressed insurrection. Indeed, after the Second world war, a new party had been born in all the French colonies of Black Africa, except with the Senegal, and had developed in the opinion and at the French Parliament, the African democratic Rassemblement (GDR). This party used the right to vote allotted to the natives of the ex-colonies by the Constitution of 1946 (although the electoral results were undervalued by the system of the colleges) , to penetrate the parliamentary groups of certain metropolitan parties. As from 1956, thanks to their contacts in metropolis, elected officials GDR obtained that engages a peaceful process which will allow a progressive transfer of sovereignty. Initially by the outline law Removes iron (1956). This law and its decrees on enforcement of a law, adoptees whereas the socialist party of Guy Mollet was engaged thoroughly in the Guerre of Algeria, granted a very thorough decentralization to the overseas territories, with the removal of the multiple colleges still into force in Algeria, of the freely elected local assemblies and the government councils designated freely by those in each territory. This new electoral mode, applied for once without faking, allowed finally the accession the head of each territory of representative leaders like Felix Houphouët-Boigny or Léopold Sédar Senghor.
Thereafter, in 1958, at the time of the vote on the new constitution of the 5 {{E}} Republic, all the T.O.M., except the Guinea, voted favorably, and had the choice then, in the 3 months, between the maintenance of their statute of T.O.M., the adoption of the statute of department, or that of the new statute of autonomous State. During these three months, the assemblies of all the T.O.M., Africa and Madagascar adopted the autonomous statute of States, except that of Dimension of Somalis. All other TOM, including New Caledonia, decided for the maintenance of their statute, such as it rose from the law Defferre.
the new autonomous States entered the Community led by France, with the title of Member States. As for Guinea, it had become independent, immediately its negative answer to the referendum, under the influence of its president Ahmed Sékou Touré.
But this French Community of 1958, was not going to make failure in its federative form. Indeed its members were going in their turn to reach independence, in 1959 and 1960, by the negotiation, but with the concluding of cooperation agreements with France.

Independence without transition

It was the case of the Congo (also known under the name of Zaire), whose king of the Belgians announced with the improvist, in 1959, his decision to decolonize it within one year.

But, before, Belgium had practiced in Congo a policy ultra colonialist, while sticking to form only executives subordinates and by closing the access of its universities to the natives, so much so that there did not exist more than one about thirty Congolese students in the world, at the time of independence (even if the rate of elimination of illiteracy and schooling of the natives were higher than the other countries of Africa). Finally in the Congolese Police force, not only one candidate was not trained, even during the last year preceding independence, because the Belgians made a point of preserving control narrowly of it.
So that when independence was proclaimed, the unit party of Patrice Lumumba, only with being present in all Congo, obtained only one relative majority of 45% of the voices. Indeed, for lack of any serious political framing, the other voices scattered between the centrifugal tribal parties, of which one, the Bacongo party joined his to control. Lumumba then became Prime Minister and Kasavubu chairs.
Of the impromptu persons in charge was then distributed the highest stations of the State, whereas, in the army, the warrant officers remained warrant officers. From where disorders, after which the warrant officers and Congolese soldiers, supported by Lumumba. revolted against their Belgian officers. Unfortunately the rioters were also caught some to other Europeans, so that Lumumba asked the assistance of UNO, so that the blue helmets restore the order.
At this point in time the rich person province of Katanga, directed by its president Tschombé made secession, with the support of a solid gendarmerie remained under Belgian command, and with that of the industrial large companies. Another province, that of the diamantiferous South-kasaï was proclaimed it also independent.
Also, when Lumumba wanted to send its troops, with the head of which it had to name improvised generals, those little disciplined, made some massacres which were assembled out of pin. At this point in time Lumumba was betrayed at the same time by president Kasavubu, who took the party of Tschombé, and by UNO which affected to actually recognize only this president tribalist (which did not represent, that 10% of the Congoleses).
Mobutu, one of the impromptu generals named by Lumumba, seized the power then, and, with the complicity of UNO whose blue helmets had stopped Lumumba, delivered this one to Tschoumbé, which immediately made it assassinate.

It is in these circumstances that Congo was delivered to a bloody anarchy, then with the long corrupted dictatorship of Mobutu.

In short it seems well that the accession with the independence of a large country, without it being able to be prepared is hardly desirable.

the independence of the Indies was granted in 1947 by the British government. It was largely prepared by the non-violent action of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The “Mahatma” (“Great heart”, of the Sanskrit mahā , large and ātman , heart) is one of the founding fathers of the modern India and a defender of the Non-violence like average revolutionist. The August 15th 1947 India became a dominion in the the Commonwealth, under the direction of the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Dissensions violent one between Hindus and Moslems involve the British with to divide India, creating the Pakistan Eastern, future Bangladesh, and Westerner, where were Moslem majorities. India becomes a laic republic, member of the Commonwealth, after the promulgation of its Constitution the January 26th 1950.

Independence torn off by the force

When no hope is left with colonized to obtain the equality either by the assimilation, or by independence, temptation to revolt becomes large. But it should then be noted that then independence is seldom acquired on the battle field, but rather when the metropolitan public opinion, wearied to fight against the rebellion, decides for independence.

War of independence of Vietnam

France undertook to reconquer the Indo-China in October 1945 with the general Leclerc. In December 1946, the war burst because the French authorities were in disagreement, in spite of many contacts, with President Ho Chi Minh, directing Viet Minh, federation of Vietnamese patriotic movements, and especially with its Giap general, as well on the principle of independence, as on the future fate of Cochinchine. On their side, Ho Chi Minh and Giap all two French-speaking people and francophile sought costs whom a bloody war with France costs to avoid. They seemed of agreement to sign with Jean Sainteny and the general Leclerc, which had known to gain their confidence, of the agreements envisaging a peaceful autonomy-independence of Vietnam inside the French Union. Whereas they travelled with this last and the Général Salan to Biarritz to sign these agreements with the French government, Georges Thierry d' Argenlieu, related with the family Michelin - which had immense interests in the plantations of hévea of Indo-China - made hood the agreement by causing the creation of the republic of Cochinchine, on June 1st 1946. From this action the loss goes back from Indo-China and consecutively to all the French Empire, as well as the two wars which followed.
Started following provocations coming from the two camps, this war of decolonization becomes then a stake of the Cold war, insofar as the Vietnamese soldier-Minh, although patriotic organization gathering in the beginning, the nationalist parties and the sects, was dominated by the Indochinese Communist party.
the Vietnamese soldier-Minh although driven out cities held firmly in the interior, particularly in the north of the country and invented novel methods of combat adapted to its poverty in material and ammunition.
France sought a political solution then, without passing through the Vietnamese soldier-Minh: in June 1948, it recognized the associated State Vietnam, Cochinchine included/understood, directed by the Emperor Bao Dai. This too late solution did not change the military situation.

The war was internationalized in 1949, when the Chinese Communists, having reached the border of Indo-China, brought an direct aid to the Vietnamese soldier-Minh. The Americans initially favorable to the Vietnamese soldier-Minh, supported France financially.

In 1954, the demolished Diên Biên Phu, during which, the valiant French combatants paid for the impéritie French generals who had sent them to bury themselves in a basin and had underestimated the average soldiers of the Vietnamese soldier-Minh, convainquit France to be withdrawn.
Mendès France, after having constituted a going government of the center to the right-hand side, was given one month to solve the conflict with the International Conference of Geneva. Independences of Laos, Kampuchea and Vietnam were then proclaimed there.
But Vietnam was then temporarily divided into two States, north under the authority of Ho Chi Minh, and the south directed by Bao-Daï. This one, at the conclusion of a referendum, was promptly replaced by a catholic nationalist anti-French, Ngo Dinh Diem.
This one refused the behavior of the elections, envisaged, in all Vietnam, for one year after independence, and founded in the south a dictatorship fascisante calling upon American military advisers. Thus it caused the insurrection of the “National front of release” (FNL), soon known under the name of “Vietcong”, and started it the second Guerre of Indo-China.

See also: War of Indo-China and War of Vietnam

War of independence of Algeria

In the case of Algeria, also, the decolonization was imposed by the people of metropolis wearied to continue this war, especially as from the moment when called had to take part in it: The French, consulted first once, at the time of the legislative ones of 1956, on the negotiation with the FLN, had voted for the “republican Face” which recommended it (but whose Guy Mollet chief, once elected, did not carry it out). , Consulted thereafter later, and this time directly by referendum, they were going to answer de Gaulle, “yes” for self-determination.

the Guerre of Algeria burst in 1954 by a series of attacks of the FLN, whose most popular leader near the Algerians was Ahmed Ben Bella. This group, secessionist of the MNA of Messali Hadj, was in favor of the violent action to obtain independence. The shock was hard for France which regarded Algeria as French territory where, on ten million inhabitants lived a million Europeans, the Pieds-Noirs.
The latter, for the majority, refused independence categorically, although they are mainly responsible for this situation. Indeed, the representatives of the French of Algeria had constantly blocked all the reforms the assimilatrices, even tiniest, tending to finally recognize with the Algerian Moslems the full French citizenship. The Minister of Interior Department, François Mitterrand declared following the attacks of the FLN of All Saints' day 1954: " the only negotiation, it is the guerre".
This war mobilized average soldiers and increasingly important policies. In 1957, the parachutists of the general Massu were charged to invest Algiers and to remove the FLN there, by the Socialist government. They dismantled the networks terrorist FLN, by using means rejected as well by the law as morals and the military payment, in all knowledge of the French government of the time. At the end of this " battle of Alger" , the French parachutists were guided in their arrests of sympatisants FLN by young Moslems, who impressed by their " résultats" believed in the final victory of France.
French military successes were undeniable, but the average employees, in particular torture and the summary executions baptized “wood drudgeries”, ran up against the metropolitan opinion. So that the successes gained under these conditions did not cease increasing the number of the partisans of the rebellion. At the point to make forget the very many atrocities made by certain FLN, as the massacre, women and children included/understood, of the population of Melouza controlled by a rival nationalist maquis. So that in Algeria, the nationalist cause progressed, with the support of UNO.
on May 13rd 1958, the European population of Algiers caused a riot, involving the garrison of the city, then, with the support of factious officers and military units parachutists, imposed on the metropolis a change of government.
At this point in time the general de Gaulle, who had recommended in vain, for released France, a democratic regime equipped with a strong executive, to the great displeasure of the leaders of IVe République, was recalled. There started by supporting the soldiers in their effective fight against the ALN (Armed with Algerian National Release), as from 1959 it be more armed action with the FLN and ALN against the French presence. It is only after the agreements of Evian that attacks anti-French could begin again.
Starting from 1959, it engaged a process which was going to lead to the independence of Algeria. It is on September 16th, 1959, which he recognized the right of the Algerians to self-determination, and made approve this principle, by referendum, the French.
It ran up then against the resistance of pied-noir, and a fraction of the army, of which more the extremists, directed by four generals, tried a putsch in April 1961. This last was a failure, but certain Europeans of Algeria created the secret armed Organization then (OAS), with an aim of being opposed to the negotiations between the government and the FLN. OAS started an insurrection against the French Army, which repressed it severely, as well as attacks in metropolis. March 18th 1962, the independence of Algeria was not proclaimed of it, pursuant to the Accords of Evian.
Malheureusement this independence was accompanied by massacres of many “black feet” and tens of thousands of “Harkis”, i.e. Moslems having been used the French Army in quality as back-up troops. It is true that the massacreurs were only seldom members of the ALN, but rather of the cowards who, not having done anything for independence, tardily sought to prove their patriotic zeal thus. But the FLN, which had not known to protect them, had not violated its obligations less than France which had disarmed and given up the harkis with their fate, refusing to them to be installed on its territory and going even until returning to Algeria those which had arrived in metropolis. The responsibility essential fell about it on the French authorities with the top, which far from to have protected Harkis, made them disarm and put administrative obstacles at their arrival in metropolis.

Detailed article: War of Algeria

War of independence of Angola

The Portuguese colonies, the Angola and the Mozambique, reach independence at the end of interminable guerillas in 1974, after the Révolution of the eyelets which reverses the mode salazarist. In the case of Angola it is the insurrection of the movement “Unita” of Joseph Savimbi, only the truly indigenous one (and the only one who truly fought the Portuguese forces). Thus it obliged the Portuguese population of metropolis, which refused the war, to support the putsch of its rebellious officers against the government salazarist. Thus the success of the latter it made it possible to put an end to the conflict.

To note that the independence of Angola was confiscated by the mongrels of Luanda, of which one, connected with the admiral salazarist Coutinho, was made transmit the capacity by this one at the time of independence. Then, the mongrels, incompetents to overcome only Unita, had to appeal, thanks to the incomes of oil, with the former gendarmes katangais of Tchoumbé, then with the cuban regular army, to break, at the price of long years of war, the true resistant Angolans.

Causes of the decolonization

The shock of the colonial empires under the Second world war

The Second world war involved an enormous loss of prestige for the colonial powers: The image of their invincibility there was very reached, because of the German victories then Japanese.

Moreover, during the war, British and French needed the colonies and multiplied the promises of emancipation, to start with that of the Empire of the Indies.

Admittedly, in 1944 at the time of the Conference of Brazzaville, France recommended the assimilation rather, in the form of the accession per degrees of the natives to the citizenship, rather than the autonomy of the colonies or their independence. But if it is considered that this conference brought together primarily governors of the colonies, he should be admitted that it was émancipatrice all the same. Moreover, it is necessary to know that the CFLN and the Consultative Assembly of Algiers, readies to go to very far defend French sovereignty, against the Germans and with respect to the Américano-British, did not recognize the right to give up the least piece of the French territory, giving the decisions of this kind to the future authorities democratically elected of France after the release. Besides after 1945, the political opinion put very a long time to evolve/move in France, in spite of the Guerre of Indo-China, the revolt of Madagascar and the Guerre of Algeria.

The influence of the various international charters

The international opinion, it, was increasingly favorable to the decolonization, under the influence of the Charte of the Atlantic of August 14th 1941, by which Roosevelt and Churchill recognizes the right of all the people to self-determination, of UNO, the Universal declaration of the Human rights.

Inversion of position of the movements of thought

The Churches which had played a big role in the work of colonization, so much by its missionary sending, that by the release of military forwardings to protect them when they were persecuted, started to give up their positions colonialists, to take the defense of the natives. That had already arrived sporadically at the previous centuries, in particular by the interventions of Mow Put or the Jesuits of Paraguay. But after the Second world war, this orientation tended to spread, at the same time as of the indigenous prelates gradually reached the functions of high ranking monopolized before by Europeans. The intellectuals, were still as a majority favorable to colonization, before the war of 1939-45. The colonial work of France bringing civilization to the disinherited people was one of the topics impossible to circumvent of the speeches on colonization. But following the shock produced by the collapse of France and the United Kingdom in 1940, the point of view of the natives was ignored less by the intellectuals. Those consequently were shown increasingly held or straightforwardly hostile, parallel to the development of the socialist ideologies in the metropolises, especially after the Second world war.

The exemplary force of each new independence on colonized

The accession with the independence of a whole series of new countries encouraged the political movements anticolonialists in all the not yet independent countries of overseas: In 1946, Philippines, in 1947, Indian Union and Pakistan, in 1948, Burma and Ceylon, etc It is particularly the accession with the independence of the Empire of the Indies, promised in full war by the United Kingdom, which impressed the opinions of the still colonized or colonizing countries. British India, known by the novels of Rudyard Kipling and by many films, like by its imposing surface on the charts of the school handbooks, was imagined like a pillar of colonization. If the United Kingdom victorious which dominated the seas gave up it, how to imagine that the colonies of the other countries could be preserved? The division of this Empire in two separated States, the Indian Union, whose population was as a majority of religion brahmanist, and populated Pakistan mainly of Moslems, who had reached independence separately showed that the decolonization did not have only advantages: It had indeed resulted in terrible massacres of the massive exoduses, and had let remain of terrible tensions, and many unsolved problems. But the massacres seemed distant and only the colossal image of the new independent States remained. The colonial movements militated, the ones for independence, PPP of Messali in Algeria, Viet Minh and Daï-Vietnamese soldier in Indo-China, the others for autonomy, UDMA of Ferhat Abbas in Algeria, GDR of Felix Houphouët-Boigny in French Black Africa, etc, etc It is often, while reaching the political conscience and while turning over against the colonizing countries their own values, that these movements, were going to develop sympathy to their action in the metropolitan opinions.

The cost of the colonial empires

The awakening of the cost high for the economy of the European colonial empires, which will be called later Complexe Dutch, weighed much on the colonial powers. Indeed, following the loss of the Indonesia, the Netherlands knew a reinvestment of the colonial capital in their economy as well as the redeployment of the public expenditure on the metropolis Dutchwoman. It thus appeared as of the middle of years 1950 that the loss of Indonesia, far from being a catastrophe for the economy Dutchwoman, was on the contrary favorable.

In France, Raymond Cartier (see Cartiérisme), journalist with Paris-Match, the end of the years 1950, estimated that the colonies were too expensive, and that it was to better finance “ the Corrèze before the Zambezi ”. He will write:

“ colonialism was always a load at the same time as a profit, often a load more than one profit. Under the conditions and under the constraints current policies, it is truer than ever ” (Paris-Match, August 18th 1956)

De Gaulle will also say decolonization: “ it is a fact: the decolonization is our interest and, consequently, our policy ”. One will twice note for example that the France spent in its colonies, between 1945 and 1960, the received amount of the the United States under the Marshall plan.

The thesis of colonial “plundering” is disputed, and it is notable that the recent development of capitalism required on the contrary an abandonment of the colonies, a divorce by amicable agreement between the two parts. If one of divorced largely benefitted from it, the metropolis, the case of the second is more moderate.

The " question; raciale" , the French case

Jacques Soustelle, general governor of the Algeria in 1955, thought that it was necessary to gradually transform the Algerians into French with whole share, going even until proposing the fusion of the Algerian and French economies, by regarding the Algérie as the Brittany or the Lorraine and its inhabitants like subways.

the reflections of Jacques Soustelle were not taken into account by the general De Gaulle who, thought to him that it is only about a Utopie universalist. De Gaulle wanted the decolonization because of impossibility for the France, according to him, to be able to compare the populations of the colony S. In its confidences to Alain Peyrefitte, it was very clear on this subject:

" When monarchy or the empire joined together with the France the Alsace, the Lorraine, the Franche-Comté, the Roussillon, the Savoy, the Pays of Gex, or the county of Nice, one remained between Blancs, Européens, Christians. We are nevertheless before a whole European people of white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion. Try to integrate oil and vinegar. Agitate the bottle. At the end of one moment, they separate again. The Arab S are Arab, the French are French. You believe that the French body can absorb ten million Moslems, who tomorrow will be perhaps twenty million and the day after tomorrow forty! It is very although there is of the yellow French, the black French, the brown French. They show that France is opened with all the races. But provided that they remain a small minority. If not, the France would not be any more France. If we made integration, if the Arab S and Berbère S of Algérie were considered as a French, how would one prevent them from coming to settle in metropolis, whereas the standard of living is so much higher there? My village would not be called any more Colombey-the-Two-Churches, but Colombey-the-two-mosques ! "

One of the reasons which led to the decolonization was the refusal of the authorities of the metropolises to integrate the whole of the colonized populations when the question had arisen.

Intrigues of the Nonmember states

The role of Germany and Japan

The Germany, although having lost all its colonies after the First World War was an influential actor in the process of decolonization. While taking part in the international higher bid that these countries had to undergo during the Second world war. The mode Nazi tried thanks to the radio to sap the moral one and to create revolts in the colonies. It tried to approach the countries dominated by the allies in order to obtain raw materials from them, and presented this manner like a friend of colonized. Actually Hitler in Mein Kampf had clearly expressed its contempt for colonized Arab and Indian ones. Nevertheless propaganda Nazi took part in the process of decolonization, because while proposing more than the metropolises, Germany encouraged the claims against the colonizers. The Japan made in the same way in the South-East Asia by supporting the local separatists. But the latter, after having accommodated the Japaneses favorably quickly noted the contempt in which those held the other Asian ones. Nevertheless by the constitution of governments fantoches against the Dutchmen (in the Indies Dutchwomen), against the United States (in Philippines), against the United Kingdom (in Malaysia and Burma) and against France (in Vietnam, in Kampuchea, and Laos), they showed with the natives that the Westerners had ceased being invincible.

The role of the Soviet Union

With the conference of Bakou, in 1920 already, the Soviets were interested actively in the problems of the decolonization: they compared colonized to the proletariat, those were thus to release. Their propaganda carried, because they appeared sincere: after all, they had given themselves the example by apparently carrying out their own decolonization by the way of internal autonomy, whereas other colonizing countries as France were well far. Their support with the decolonization was however not unlimited after the death of Lénine. Indeed, two theses were opposed then, that of Stalin, for a consolidation of the Soviet State, and that of Trotsky for a priority with internationalism. It is Stalin who had carried it, and had consequently concentrated his efforts on Europe.

It was especially after the death of Stalin (March 5th 1953) that the USSR started to support independences, with the cold war. The USSR was opposed then in the Third World countries to the action of the Americans. There was a ceaseless higher bid between these two countries to obtain broadest control, and the greatest possible influence in these countries.

The role of the United States

The United States is clearly anticolonialists, with for example Franklin Roosevelt. Symbolically, Harry Truman at the time of sound Discours on the state of the Union of 1949 opened the era of the development (in opposition to the underdevelopment characteristic of the colonized countries) and preaches the assistance. After this speech, the Congress of the United States adopts the Act for International Development , and so much UNO which Europe create of the institutions of co-operation. The American pressures and interventions contributed significantly at the end of the European empires.

See too

Internal bonds

External bonds

Summarized on the decolonization

Simple: Decolonization

Random links:

Fonio | Atlantic Bird 3 | Grammia | Rio Pardinho | RS-143