Copy these headings and write as many facts as you can under each one. Britain wanted to maintain and develop their colonies Britain wanted to decolonise

Did Britain decolonise because of the Suez Canal Crisis Did Britain decolonise because of the Suez Canal Crisis? C aim – to explain how the Suez Canal Crisis made Britain decolonise B aim – to explain both sides and give a judgement A aim – to explain both sides and give a supported judgement Starter Egypt became independent and broke away from the British empire in 1922. Britain retained their shares in the Suez Canal. What problems could develop later on?

What happened in Suez? In July 1956 the USA refused to fund the Aswan Dam which could have improved Egyptian living standards. To get their own back, Nasser nationalised the canal to get money in this way instead. Nasser kept saying how evil imperialism was July 1956 – Nasser announced the Suez was nationalised, although it never seemed that free movement would be restricted. He also offered to fully compensate Britain for the nationalisation. Britain were outraged. October 1956 - France, Britain and Israel secretly meet to arrange for Israel to attack Egypt, for which Egypt will defend itself, and then Britain and France can enter on the premise it is splitting up two warring countries 29th October 1956 – Israel attacks Egypt 30th October 1956 – Nasser realises France and Britain may attack. He blocks the canal and rallied much of world opinion to his side. 4th November 1956 – Britain and France land and move along the Suez Canal. 5th November 1956 – Eden flies to the USA to seek their assurances they will help financially by giving them loans. The USA says they will allow sterling to fail if they stay in Egypt. They also condemned the attack at the UN. Late 1956 and early 1957 – Britain withdrew their troops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_yl2pU0u4 Why did Nasser nationalise the canal? Why were Britain so outraged? Why did America react in the way it did? Summarise each point in a few words

Define the Suez Canal Crisis Define the Suez Canal Crisis. Why would the British have drawn a cartoon like this?

What is this stating? Is this still true?

America put pressure on Britain to replace Eden by insinuating this in diplomatic communications, saying they wouldn’t support Britain with their current leadership Macmillan replaced Eden as PM from pressure at home and America due to the scandal from the Suez Canal Crisis. PM Macmillan and Macleod as minister of the colonies were both younger and much less traditional. They both thought that the old Conservative ‘strong and free’ policy towards the colonies was out of date and should be replaced with gradual independence and the introduction of close trading links. They were more worried about living conditions at home than political ties. What was the policy of Strong and Free? 2. What was it replaced with? 3. Why did this replacement occur?

Britain had withdrawn troops from Egypt in 1954 and their bases (British bases were still there even though they were independent) and seemed happy for them to be completely independent. Eden simply wanted to assert his authority after becoming PM The 1951 Conservative policy said that Britain should be ‘strong and free’. The colonial office continued to recruit university leavers to work in its officers and the colonies after 1957 – showing that they thought the colonies would continue Does this show that Britain withdrew from the empire because of Suez?

Did Britain decolonise because of the Suez Canal Crisis Did Britain decolonise because of the Suez Canal Crisis? C aim – to explain how the Suez Canal Crisis made Britain decolonise B aim – to explain both sides and give a judgement A aim – to explain both sides and give a supported judgement Rebeka, David and Mohammed – how did the Suez Canal Crisis make Britain want to decolonise? Iman, Devante, Ali, Ishraq – explain both sides to the question and give a judgement. Ewan, Nathaniel - explain both sides to the question and give a supported judgement.

Using your homework, how would you draw this pie-chart? Changing international climate Economy Post WWII Suez

How significant was the impact of the Suez Crisis in the decision to grant African colonies independence in the years 1957–65?

Attitudes are positive Attitudes are negative

Labour 1945-1951 What would they traditionally think of imperialism? Why did they support it from 1945-1951? Bevin ‘More completely than ever before economics and empire had come together’ Cripps said “we should increase out of all recognition the tempo of African economic development....boosting production of anything....that will save dollars or will sell in a dollar market”. Groundnuts and Tanganyika. It was estimated that the colonies could provide an extra 400,000 troops for the army. Labour 1945-1951

“The strategy adopted by the Labour party was one of unified and distanced opposition to colonialism. It accelerated decolonisation.” Do you agree?

Conservatives 1951-1964 1951 “strong and free” colonial policy as part of the election campaign There were tensions in the Conservatives. Who were they between? The preferentialists – who wanted closer economic integration over free trade, the Suez group who didn’t want Britain to pull out of Suez, and the white-settler lobby who became known as the Monday Club From 1954 older imperialist Tories were marginalised as they failed to economically unify the colonies, prevent withdrawal from Egypt or decolonisation of Cyprus

Labour in opposition 1951-1964... Fenner Brockway and Tony Benn started the Movement for Colonial Freedom. They tried to show the Conservatives at backward looking racists. It is questionable how much influence they had on the leaders Form 1956 Labour campaigned on ‘one man one vote’ in Eastern and southern Africa and criticised the Conservatives for holding onto outdated concepts of multiracialism. However, in 1961, Callaghan said that the party was committed to supporting British interests in Africa and creating a African dominion in East and Central Africa

Conservatives 1951-1964 1959 election – new younger Tories entered parliament, including Macmillan and Macleod who appeared to accept Labour’s pragmatic approach to decolonisation and introduce black-majority rule and depart from multiracialism. Macmillan’s wind of change speech contributed to this. This kept the older imperialist ‘die- hards’ happy as they felt that ‘decolonisation was the continuation of empire by other means’. What came from above went as the Tories were very hierarchical. The preference for political rather than military solutions led to a blurring of lines on colonialism. It was hoped that the Commonwealth would ‘remain part of a great British-cenrted world system’ where the countries would continue the ideals that Britain had installed in them.

Wind of Change Speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx0sx m9VTs8 What is the message of this speech? How would this speech affect decolonisation? Wind of Change Speech

Labour 1964-1970 Traditionalist Labour Wanted Britain to remain a world power, linked by the Commonwealth “One man one vote” on election campaigns Couldn’t say no to nationalism Labour 1964-1970

“The strategy adopted by the Labour party, one of unified and distanced opposition to colonialism, speeded decolonisation”. Do you agree? Are there any other factors?

How did attitudes change over time? Did the British government want to decolonise? C aim – to explain how the British government’s attitudes towards decolonisation changed over time B aim – to explain why the British government’s attitudes towards decolonisation changed over time A/A* aim – to explain why and the impact of the British government’s attitudes towards decolonisation over time How did attitudes change over time? How did these views affect decolonisation? Why did political parties have their particular viewpoints?

Britain withdrew from its empire primarily due to Macmillan’s ‘audit of empire’. How far do you agree? (30) Homework – due Thursday