A-Level History Britain: Britain’s position in the world 1951–1997

What is evidence of hostility between Britain and USSR from 1945 to 1953 (Stalin in the Cold-War)

Feeling that WW3 would break out imminently after the 'Iron Curtain' and the 'Berlin Blockade'

What is evidence of hostility between Britain and USSR in the 1950s (Khruschev onwards)

- USSR bidding support of recently independent countries - e.g. Suez crisis largely due to Nasser accepting aid from USSR

- UK tried to get countries in sphere of influence, e.g. HUngary 1956, to become independent

What is evidence of friendship between Britain and USSR in the 1950s (Khruschev onwards)

- Khruschev's speech on 'peaceful co-existence'

- K visited Britain in 1956, Macmillan visited Moscow in 1959

What is evidence of hostility between Britain and USSR in the 1960s and 1970s

- espionage e.g. Britain expelled 105 Russian diplomats in 1971 in suspicion on espionage

- NATO concerned with build-up of Russian forces after Cuban Missile Crisis

What is evidence of hostility between Britain and USSR in the 1980s

Thatcher seen as the 'iron lady' in Soviet media and advised USA not to reduce nuclear disarmament at nuclear conferences in the early 1980s

What is evidence of friendship between Britain and USSR in the 1980s

Better after 1984 as Thatcher saw Gorbachev as 'someone she could do business with' and consquently went to Moscow in 1984 to calm them down over USA

What is evidence of cooperation in the 1950s between Britain and USA (Korean War)

Britain's troops fighting alongside the USA's and other UN troops in North Korea gave important multinational support for US actions. Truman promised Attlee that he would consult the British before using nuclear weapons.

What is evidence of disagreement in the 1950s between Britain and USA (Korean War and Suez Crisis)

- Britain was clearly subordinate to American decisions - the American General MacArthur led UN forces in Korea. Limited scale of British troop action showed the USA that it could not rely on massive British support.

- President Eisenhower was furious at Britain's conspiracy with France and Israel to use force against Egypt despite his clear instructions not to do so. The USA refused to help Britain financially until British troops were withdrawn and Britain had to use its veto in the UN Security Council to prevent the USA's vote to use sanctions against British actions.

What is evidence of cooperation in the 1960s between Britain and USA (Berlin, Cuba and Vietnam)

President Kennedy regarded Macmillan as a political father figure and consulted him for advice during the Berlin crisis of 1961, in which the Soviets constructed a wall to prevent the movement of people from communist Eastern Europe to the West through Berlin and a tense stand-off between US and Soviet forces. Kennedy also consulted Macmillan over the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, in which the USA resisted the placing of Soviet missiles on Cuba.

What is evidence of disagreement in the 1960s between Britain and USA (Vietnam)

Britain's refusal to send troops to help the American military efforts in Vietnam was made worse by Harold Wilson's attempt to broker peace in the conflict, which irritated US President Lyndon Johnson.

What is evidence of cooperation in the 1970s between Britain and USA

The personal friendship between James Callaghan and US President Jimmy Carter helped restore the special relationship somewhat.

What is evidence of cooperation in the 1980s between Britain and USA

US President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher shared a warm friendship, reinforced by foreign policy agreement. American logistical and intelligence assistance was vital to Britain's victory in the Falklands War. Thatcher reciprocated in April 1986 by allowing the USA to use British-based F111 aircraft to bomb Libya in retaliation for terrorist actions against American targets. Both Thatcher and Reagan opposed United Nations sanctions against the white supremacist apartheid regime in South Africa

What is evidence of hostility in the 1980s between Britain and USA

Thatcher and Reagan disagreed about three main aspects of foreign policy - in all three Thatcher's objections were ignored. Reagan was prepared to reduce the US nuclear arsenal beyond Thatcher's wishes in disarmament conferences with the USSR. Secondly, Thatcher opposed the USA's proposed Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI or Star Wars), believing that the balance of nuclear weapons had made the world a safer place. Finally, Thatcher opposed the USA's invasion of Grenada in 1983 to overthrow its communist regime.

What is evidence of cooperation in the 1990s between Britain and USA

Close cooperation between the USA and Britain over the First Gulf War, working together to build up a multi-national force to force Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Britain made the third largest contribution to the international taskforce. Britain and other European NATO powers cooperated with the USA in the conflict in the Balkans, bombing Bosnian Serbs in retaliation for the 'ethnic cleansing' attacks on Muslims, particularly the massacre at Srebrenica. This resulted in the Dayton Peace Accords which ended the bitter civil war in the states which had made up Yugoslavia.

Overall what were the relations like between Britain and USSR

There was particular tension during the peaks of Cold War tension such as the beginning of the Cold War and the 1960s. When there was less Cold War tension e.g. Kruschev coming to power tensions fell but they still had some distrust

Overall what were the relations like between Britain and USA

Despite tensions during the Suez Crisis relations were generally good between the 2 nations - largely due to having a non-equal relationship

Why did Britain grant independence to other colonies: WW2

- Strain on Britain's relations with colonies e.g. farmers in Kenya resented having to sell crops at prices fixed by government in Westminster who wanted to provide cheap raw materials and food for Britain

- As the Indian National Congress demanded full independence in return for war efforts shows how WW2 increased indian nationalism and subsequently led to India's independence in 1947 (paved the way for other colonies to follow)

- Hard to justify an empire after opposing dictatorship (link to the USA)

Why did Britain grant independence to other colonies: influence of USA

- After WW2 they had increased influence over Britain so they pushed for decolonisation

- At times they wanted to slow the decolonisation process in case newly independent nations fell under communism - weak point though as the USA continued to prevent communism to reach countries

Why did Britain grant independence to other colonies: Britain's economic success

Owed India £1200 million

Poor economy meant they exploited colonial resources even more - worsening relations LINK to WW2 e.g. East African Groundnut Scheme which aimed to produce oil disrupted local communities leading to demands for independence

Why did Britain grant independence to other colonies: growth of colonial nationalism

- In Ghana the Convention's People Party led the campaign for independence

- In Kenya there were violent uprisings such as the Mau Mau uprising

- Grew in response to India independence (link to WW2) and Britain's failure to suppress nationalist actions of Nasser during Suez Crisis

How successful was the change from Empire to Commonwealth: successful

The CAF

- Brought Nyasaland, Northern and Southern Rhodesia in 1953 in an attempt to give power to people

- However, black people of Zambia and Malawi saw it as an attempt to hand power to the white minority

- Any violence that occurred were mainly related to the federation not the formation, hence why it was eventually dissolved in 1963 due to internal tensions (SUCCESS for BRITAIN)

BIGGEST SUCCESS: avoiding violence

How successful was the change from Empire to Commonwealth: successful in the long-run

Malaysia

- Ethnic diversity of Chinese, malay and Indian

- Malaysian Chinese communist insurrection required 40,000 British and Commonwealth troops to stop it

- 1957 independence granted - new gov headed by conservative, anti-communist Malays

SUCCESS: stable and moderate government

FAILURE: unable to avoid violence

How successful was the change from Empire to Commonwealth: unsuccessful

Kenya

- The British colonial government exploited ethnic divisions and tensions to maintain control, leading to inter-ethnic conflicts and violence - e.g. white farmers owned land, Asian commerce and Kikuyu, Masai and Luo (allocating fertile highlands displaced many African communities) - these differences continued even after independence in 1963

- These divisions led to the Mau Mau uprising aimed to reclaim land and was met with mass arrests and torture - Cold War context was perceived as communism by some

BIGGEST WEAKNESS: violence

How successful was the change from Empire to Commonwealth JUDGEMENT

The Central African Federation (CAF) comprised British colonies with smaller populations and less ethnic diversity, facing less organised resistance compared to Kenya. Kenya's larger population, greater diversity, and the Mau Mau uprising posed a significant challenge to British rule. The violence in Kenya attracted international attention, increasing pressure for independence. British colonial rule in Kenya was marked by harsh repression and discrimination, fueling resistance. In contrast, the territories in the CAF had smaller populations and less complex socio-political landscapes, making control easier for the British.

How successful was the Commonwealth: promotion of democratic values

- 1971 Singapore declaration condemned racial prejudice and promoted democracy - these values were formally coded into the Commonwealth charter 2012 - actually valued as Nigeria suspended 1995-99 for violating them

How successful was the Commonwealth: facilitating political transitions

- In 1994 Nelson Mandela's government for SA rejoined after the apartheid regime - Commonwealth remained a viable institution

- 1995 Mozambique and Cameroon joined - 1st countries to join with no tie to Britain - happened as neighbouring countries already involved

How successful was the Commonwealth: (unsuccessful) furthering racial prejudice

- 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act resented by black nations as it was clearly designed to limit immigration into Britain

- In 1961 SA left Commonwealth rather than facing criticising for the apartheid policies by other members , during the 1970/80s britain faced criticism for economic ties with SA - particularly the sale of armaments - hence with Thatcher's gov found itself isolated on refusing to impose economic sanctions on the apartheid regime

What is judgement for how successful the Commonwealth was during 1950 to 1990s

most of the successes were later on as the rapid dismantling of the British empire changed the nature of the Commonwealth as new independent countries joined

What are 2 points supporting nuclear rearmament

1. Britain needed their own weapons

2. Needed to contribute to Western Europe defence

Britain should undertake nuclear disarmament: they needed their own weapons

Such as the 1960 Polaris Sales Agreement with the USA allowed the UK to purchase Polaris missile systems and establish its own ballistic missile submarines - providing the UK with an independent nuclear deterrent.- however became dependent on US trident missiles since 1962 (not independent) WEAK

Britain should undertake nuclear disarmament: needed to contribute to the Western Europe defence

from 1979-1989 missiles were stationed at British air bases due to increased Soviet threat LINK to virtually irrelevant

Britain should NOT undertake nuclear disarmament: virtually irrelevant scale-wise compared to USA and USSR

by the late 1960s, despite treaties the nuclear arsenals of USA and USSR dwarfed Britain hence why 1972 Britain had not influence in the SALT treaties 1972 and 1979 - LINK TO USA TRIDENT MISSILES and in the 1990s Britain maintained fewer than 200 weapons on 4 submarines MOST IMPORTANT

Britain should NOT undertake nuclear disarmament: immoral threat

women camped in protest outside the airbase at Greenham Common - protest against nuclear weapons that lasted 19 years during the 1980s - not important as by this point the UK nuclear weapons had been dwarfed

Britain should NOT undertake nuclear disarmament: heavy costs could be used for other things

could use their money to invest in companies and create jobs e.g £5 billion to be spent on 5 new submarines during 1990s - unemployment reached 10% in 1990 HOWEVER since WW2 military spending had decreased from over 50% to around 4% by 1990

Why was Britain's integration with Europe so controversial: Britain's main priority was maintaining a strong relationship with the USA (1950s)

- Didn't join the Schuman Plan and EEC when first set up 1945-57 as it thought the USA wanted it not to integrate with Europe but rather focus on the US

- Tried to join the EEC in the 1960s as USA wanted a more united Europe to stop aggression from USSR during Cold War

JUDGEMENT: by the 1970s this was no longer their biggest priority shown by integration with Europe such as EEC referendum and arguments about the EU not occurring because of the USA

Britain European integration: Controversial because of concerns about Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth (1950s and 60s)

+ Not joining the EEC when first set up (1957) as tariffs would have been put in place on Commonwealth items - hence why Britain joined EFTA (1959) as they could maintain free trade with former colonies

HOWEVER:

- After the Suez Crisis (1956) there was a continued decline in the empire - despite some discussions about concessions e.g. lamb from NZ free trade when trying to join the EEC in the 1960s

- Joining the EEC in 1973 meant they had to put trade tariffs - showing decline of the importance of empire as willing to put in place tariffs

Britain European Integration: Controversial because it depended on whether cooperating with Europe would help Britain's economy (throughout)

- Joining EFTA (1959) shows that they wanted to benefit from both Europe and the Commonwealth

- Tried to join the EEC throughout the 1960s as Europe has higher growth (5-6%) compared to Britain (2%)

- After joining EEC in 1973 Britain has become a net-contributor e.g. CAP was a big cost to Britain - hence why they had a referendum in 1975 (more so the 2:1 majority was largely due to the perception it would help the economy in the long-run)

- Euro-sceptics believed that UK wouldn't have had such strong economic progress in 1980s and hence didn't wanted further integration with Europe with ERM - Black Wednesday (1992) proved that it was not a good idea as economy improved after

Britain European Integration: National Sovereignty (1990s)

- Didn't join EEC in 1957 due to restricted trade rights and subsequent joining EFTA in 1959

- Big issue when EEC nature changed through ERM and Maastricht Treaty (1991) which would draw Europe together through shared currency and defence policies - alarmed british Parliament as they believed that they should have priority over British politics

HOWEVER:

Left Labour wanted further nationalisation (Benn + Foot) hence didn't want to join free market EEC - HOWEVER only a small minority