To What Extent Do You Agree With This Statement Concerning Britain 1951 To 1964

To what extent do you agree with this statement concerning Britain 1951 to 1964 – ‘Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role’ [45]

From 1951 to 1964 there was a period of change for Britain. The government came to reality that Britain didn’t have the necessary resources to maintain their empire. Military demands on events such as Korea (1950-53) and Malaya (1948-60) placed major stress on Britain’s manpower and the prideful Navy was in decline driven by financial expediency. Now Britain was no longer an imperial power, its international status was questioned.

The retreat from empire created an idea to some that Britain was no longer as powerful as it once was and no longer a world power. This viewpoint can be supported in a number of different ways. One of them being the British desire to have the independent nuclear deterrent. British opinion was very split over this matter, not only the public but also the government. The decision split Labour party but generally pleased the conservatives. Attlee’s government decided that we needed nuclear weapons despite the cost. Historians claim few factors that fuelled this decision. Firstly being as Britain needed something to account for its loss of empire to reinforce the idea that Britain is still a world power and nuclear weapons was a good way to reflect this image – specially as they were so scarce at this time and Britain ended up 3rd to get their hands on the nuclear deterrent, behind Soviet Union and the USA. In 1951, Britain’s first atomic bomb was detonated.

The view that Britain’s strength was in decline was supported by the Suez Canal affair. Britain’s withdrawal from Suez was a failure not of military resolve but of political will. Due to Britain acting independently of NATO and the USA, without consultation with the Commonwealth and in disregard of the UN – Eden was well and truly aware that he made a big mistake and feared the consequences of being internationally isolated and came to conclusion of withdrawal as he was fully aware he could not continue a policy that pretty much the entire world was against – this was an act that represented the idea that post-war world Britain could not act alone and was a landmark for Britain’s last imperialistic venture.

However, it was not just Britain who had lost their empire. Other pre-war imperial powers were in a similar situation – France fought to hold onto its empire which was seen from the French Indo-China war in 1954, whereas Britain merely accepted the fact it was no longer capable of holding an empire and accepted the idea that independence was increasingly viewed as a right of the people still within the Empire. This creates an opposing viewpoint that Britain let its empire go and it was not lost which leaves the British government with a sense of pride. Stating that Britain had lost an empire reflects weakness, this is an opposite viewpoint showing they let go of their empire as a moral and strategic move.

In conclusion, I agree with this statement to a far extent. It’s a statement which summarises Britain’s foreign policy in the time period of 1951 to 1964. When Britain loss its status of an imperial power, Britain lost its ‘claim to fame’ and attempted to find alternative measures to prove it was as strong as it once was, through acts like Suez Affair and even the desire of the independent nuclear deterrent reflects this.