World War II as the Trigger for African Decolonization

Although today it is rife with civil wars and rampant corruption, still struggling to find its place in the modern world, this was not always the case in Africa. European colonization in the latter 19^th century, and its subsequent decolonization of Africa in the mid-20^th century, has undeniably taken its toll on the Dark Continent, both socially and psychologically. This paper seeks to examine the role European imperialism has played in Africa from before the Great War to the rise of the Cold War. In this it will analyze the rationale ascribed to colonization, the justification for a maintained European presence in Africa through World War II, and how and why the events of that war triggered its rapid decolonization.

Prior to the latter 19^th century, Africa was of little strategic interest to Europe outside of its obvious slave trafficking potential. With the rise of empire, however, it became the focal point of imperial geopolitical hegemony. By the mid-1880s the "scramble for Africa" had begun in earnest, culminating in complete and utter European domination of the continent by 1905; the British and French Empires claimed the most of this new territory.[1]

Although accompanied by the admonition of the slave trade, as well as a manner of selective prohibition and arms control, the role European colonization played on the African continent was largely exploitative and self-aggrandizing in nature (e.g. the British Empire maintained a stark trade imbalance with its African colonies in an effort to bolster its own faltering economy at the end of the 19^th century.) Coupled with this obvious exploitation was the popular notion of the "White Man's Burden" in Africa, as Rudyard Kipling called it: the calling of all white Europeans to help steward and civilize the backwards African peoples so as to better guide them towards modernity and European-style self-reliance.

Take up the White Man's burden -
Send forth the best ye breed -
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild -
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.[2]

Such self-important notions became the justification for maintaining a European imperial presence in Africa up through the mid-20^th century. While there, Europe took the opportunity to use Africa as its personal political Petri dish, especially once Germany emerged as the tertiary imperial power on the continent. Western-style democracy and National Socialism were introduced in the colonies, pitting African against African in an ideological struggle the likes of which they had neither the inclination nor the understanding. Africa thusly became an early staging ground for the World Wars.

Moving ahead to World War II, Africa found itself forced to take sides in a European struggle that had seemingly little to do with the African condition. Nevertheless, many African colonies answered the call, supporting their imperial masters; at no point throughout the War, however, was there ever any mention made of African independence as a possible reward for this service. This intentional oversight, coupled with relentless European economic exploitation, compelled many Africans to support the Axis Powers. This was especially true in the French colonies where many supported the Nazi-aligned Vichy government.[3]

Throughout World War II, German U-Boat maneuvers around the African coast enabled the colonies, for a time, to experience economic and industrial self-reliance independent of their European masters. It was an experience they rather enjoyed, and along with their newfound sense of nationalism - as instilled by European influence - coupled with the emerging concept of négritude (black African cultural identity), the decolonization of Africa was set in motion.[4]

By 1945, the agenda set by the 5^th Pan-African Summit in Manchester, England was focused entirely on the push for decolonization and independence. Naturally, much of the European power structure was opposed to this idea, citing the under-preparedness of African society for self-rule.[5] Having just come out of World War II, though, few nations were in any position to impede African independence. A defeated Germany's possessions were granted their independence by proxy through Italy (e.g. Libya.); most other European nations simply withdrew their forces. France and Great Britain put up the greatest fight when it came time to let go; however, their motives were intrinsically different.

In the case of France, their African colonies had become part of la Communité Française, a literal extension of the francophone family; the prospect of decolonization was, therefore, tantamount to breaking up the family. This sentiment was especially strong where Algeria was concerned. With the liberation of Libya by Italy, and the severing of ties with Morocco and Tunisia, Algeria was raring for its independence. France was unwilling to grant this request, though, for fear it would mean forfeiting territorial control of North Africa to the British. A haphazard war for Algerian independence thus ensued, resulting in the 1962 withdrawal of all French forces from the country. After the Algerian debacle, however, France was far more conciliatory with its remaining African holdings, offering each the opportunity to vote for either independence or autonomous republic status within the French Community.[6] The French decolonization of Africa went far more smoothly thereafter.

Great Britain, meanwhile, did not share the same sense of "community" or "family" with its African possessions as the French did. Rather, Britain ascribed to a more Kipling-esque perception of Africa as a continent of "children" in need of guidance. They "believed Africans were essentially different from Europeans and would stay that way. This point of view invited racism, implying that Africans were not just different but also inferior." [7] Likewise, the British had an economic stake in maintaining imperial rule in Africa, most notably control of the Suez Canal through Egypt.[8]

It seems the most pressing concern decolonization presented to the British, however, was the potential for the spread of Communism throughout Africa. To quote a 1950 report by the British Foreign and Colonial Office, "generally speaking, it is the detribalized native who responds best to communism, as he misses the narrow confines of tribal life and a leader on whom to bestow loyalty." [9] This African "red scare" may account for why the British declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 when the Mau Mau uprising started; the military response that followed resulted in the deaths of more than 13,000 black Africans, but only 32 Europeans. Given such staggering, one-sided casualty numbers, public support for maintaining a British presence in Sub-Saharan Africa waned soon thereafter, prompting their 1963 withdrawal.[10]

African decolonization was inevitable, although the pace at which it occurred and the timeframe can be tied directly to the events of World War II. Had the European powers maintained a more active role in Africa throughout the war, rather than setting it aside while they dealt with their own internal matters, they might have forestalled total decolonization, or, at the very least, delayed it; in this they might have facilitated a more incremental withdrawal / independence strategy, one that would have precluded the many African wars for independence that followed. Similarly, had the Europeans sought to amalgamate their political ideologies with preexisting African tribal customs rather than simply force Western-style nationalism and democracy on them, Africa as a whole might have been less inclined to resist and revolt against the European presence. As it stands, though, the exploitation, negative characterization, and, ultimately, the war-time abandonment of Africa by Europe precipitated this decolonization.

[1] Anthony Esler, The Western World: A Narrative History. 2^nd Edition. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), 578.

[2] Rudyard Kipling. "The White Man's Burden," The Modern History Sourcebook,http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html (accessed 15 April 2007).

[3] Jerry H. Bentley and Herbert F. Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past, Volume II, 2^nd Edition (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 1114-1117.

[4] Ibid, 1112.

[5] "Independence," 2. The Story of Africa,http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/14chapter1.shtml(accessed 15 April 2007).

[6] James Wilkinson and H. Stuart Hughes, Contemporary Europe: A History (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004), 439-441.

[7] "Independence," 3

[8] Wilkinson, 444-445.

[9] "Independence," 2

[10] Ibid, 9