I just went through the exams to get into the Brazilian Foreign Office, and one of the items said, in the context on Imperialism and following decolonization, UK was more successful in negotiating its colonies independence than France. (The right answer was TRUE).
Right away I thought about Algeria's war and compared it do Canada's and Australia's emancipation. But then I thought about India's independence movements and wasn't that sure.
Also, success in this context is a relative and subjective concept. I ended up marking it as TRUE because I remembered it being a direct quote from a book from José Flávio Sombra Saraiva, a Brazilian International Relations professor who is held in great regard by the Foreign Office.
But I would like an historical and non Brazilian-IR-academic perspective.
What do you guys think about this assertion? Is there a accepted historical view on this or historians diverge? Do you think it's an important question at all or it doesn't matter?
Would love your insights!
The French decolonisation process was a disaster. Algeria is, of course, the most famous one but the fact is that there are many other examples of this. My favourite is that of Guinea where they stated they would be gaining independence and refusing to retain any ties so the French, in reaction, left but not before cutting off all electricity and water supply out of spite.
The difference is that, unlike Britain, France did not want to lose any colonies. While there was violence in British colonies (India, Malaya, Kenya) whether through weariness, penury or clemency, Britain allowed many colonies to leave without strife, particularly those with majority white populations.
Of course, British decolonisation had negative Unintended effects - Israel is the most prominent one, but the slipshod division of India and the Pakistans has caused even more conflict.
This is oversimplifying, but they developed quite different ideologies of Empire. The French sought to integrate their Empire into the metropolitan state. So, Algeria became part of metropolitan France. Britain on the other hand tended to think of the Empire in terms of a trading bloc. So, it didn't matter so much how the colonies were governed, as long as they traded with Britain, and used British shipping. There are of course exceptions. Ireland was critical to the security of the British Isles. India became an important symbol of national prestige. etc.