Fall of european empires

Former Member · February 2008

To what extent did the cold war contrubite to downfall of european empires?

I've an essay to do for this but we haven't covered it yet but was just wondering on peoples opinions on this and where would be the best place on the internet to get relevant information, can't find anything as of yet.

Former Member · February 2008

Other than the Soviet Union I'm not sure there were any European Empires per se. The likes of Britain, France, Spain or Belgium still had outposts and colonies then but I don't think they were significant and numerous enough to qualify as an Empire.

Former Member · February 2008

Well we are studying about British,french,dutch so i'm thinking you would have to include them somehow.

What way would you speak of the soviet union in context to the cold war though?

I'll see the lecturer tomorrow but was wondering for now.

Former Member · February 2008

There is a school of thought that Cold War contributed to the final demise of the Soviet Unioin because it did not have enough money to keep up militarily with the West.

I have never believed that was the reason- it is far more complex than that IMO- but that is the argument spouted by some.

Former Member · February 2008

Britain still had India at the start, and not sure when Australia became independent. But certainly they were still had leftovers of empires after the second world war.

Is this any good to you?
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_cold_war_studies/v004/4.2cox.html

Former Member · February 2008

commies took vietnam from the french did the same happen to the dutch in indonesia?

Former Member · February 2008

Aladdin wrote: »

There is a school of thought that Cold War contributed to the final demise of the Soviet Unioin because it did not have enough money to keep up militarily with the West.

I have never believed that was the reason- it is far more complex than that IMO- but that is the argument spouted by some.

My personal opinion was that over time the capitalist economy is far more ruthless and efficient whereas whilst the economy of scales (mass production farming etc.) were effective in the short run for the soviet economy over time there was never any incentive for innovation or gaining a 'competitive advantage' because for the average joe whether they worked their ass off or just did the bare minimum it didn't make a difference.

And I quote office space:

Peter Gibbons: The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
Bob Porter: Don't... don't care?
Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime; so where's the motivation? And here's something else, Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.
Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?
Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.
Bob Slydell: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

Former Member · February 2008

Aladdin wrote: »

There is a school of thought that Cold War contributed to the final demise of the Soviet Unioin because it did not have enough money to keep up militarily with the West.

I have never believed that was the reason- it is far more complex than that IMO- but that is the argument spouted by some.

How do you view it to be much more complex?

Former Member · February 2008

I'd see it more that the Cold War highlighted the end of European power rather than contributed to the downfall.

I'm thinking of Churchill stood on the sidelines watching Roosevelt and Stalin, realising England's power was gone.

The French only included on the security council to appease Churchill.

The final collapse of European power in the shambles of Suez.

I would think that Russia is absolutely not counted as a 'European' power here.

I reckon you could also make a case that argues that the overwhelming weight of the two superpowers facing up against each other forces the european powers to pick sides - so they have no way to try and rebuild their empires.

But yeah, it's the colonial freedom movements and the two world wars that really end european power - the cold war perhaps just shows it.

Former Member · February 2008

If the Cold war starts around Berlin Blockade (arguably even earlier 1945) most of the European Empires were still pretty much around.

That said the Cold War was pretty minor as a direct cause - US pressure was much more important (though as indirect casue part of the US pressure was the embarrasment of having to support European Colonial Empires eg the US was angered at Suez, because it undermined any criticism of the Soviet invasion Hungary if us and the French did the same).

That said the biggest reason they fell was that the Europeans didn't want to hang onto them - the cost in blood and treasure was too great for countries which were still recovering from WW2.

Former Member · February 2008

Thanks for your help.

Former Member · February 2008

Not sure whether to at least suggest something like Schama's final episodes in the History of Britain for an easy and entertaining overview of the period? Not too hard to find online.

Former Member · February 2008

I'd use the argument that the Cold War forced independent European states to merge together economically to stem the influence of Communism spreading to Westrn Europe, ending the colonial interests of sovereign states. Look at the formation of the ECSC, EEC and later the EU to see this.

Fall of european empires

Comments