AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why **self-determination** raised hopes in European colonies after the world wars
- Distinguish between self-determination as an ideal and its limited application in colonial settings
- Identify the importance of the **Atlantic Charter (1941)**, **UN Charter (1945)**, and **UN Resolution 1514 (1960)**
- Analyse how disappointment with European promises strengthened anticolonial nationalism
- Use examples such as India, Algeria, Vietnam, Ghana, and the Suez Crisis in exam answers
- Build causation and continuity/change arguments about decolonization in Unit 9

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how self-determination encouraged decolonization after World War II, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that European claims about liberty and national rights raised colonial expectations after both world wars
- Identify the difference between **Woodrow Wilson’s self-determination** after World War I and the **Atlantic Charter** during World War II
- Explain how the **UN Charter**, especially **Article 1(2)** and **Article 73**, supported claims for self-government
- Understand that colonial soldiers and colonial wartime contributions strengthened demands for reform or independence
- Explain why European powers often applied self-determination selectively, especially in colonies
- Identify how anticolonial nationalism, European weakness, and superpower pressure combined to speed decolonization after 1945
- Understand why outcomes of self-determination were often violent, delayed, or shaped by Cold War conflict
- Use examples such as **India 1947**, **Ghana 1957**, **Suez 1956**, **Vietnam**, and **Algeria**

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did colonial peoples believe that the principle of self-determination should apply to them after the world wars?
2. How did the **Atlantic Charter (1941)** raise colonial expectations without actually granting independence?
3. What is the difference between **League of Nations mandates** and **UN trusteeship**?
4. Why did disappointment matter as much as promises in the growth of anticolonial nationalism?
5. Name two examples showing that decolonization after 1945 could be either negotiated or violent.

## Introduction

In Unit 9, decolonization is not just a list of colonies gaining independence. The deeper issue is that European and Allied leaders repeatedly used the language of liberty, rights, and self-government, while often refusing to apply those ideas to colonial peoples. That gap between promise and practice raised expectations and then turned frustration into stronger nationalist movements.

This topic sits in **Period 4** and connects strongly to the AP themes of **interaction of Europe and the world**, **states and other institutions of power**, and **national and European identity**. A strong AP answer explains both cause and effect: rhetoric about self-rule mattered, but it mattered most because colonized peoples used it against empires that had become weaker after 1945.

> **Key Term: self-determination**
> The principle that a people should choose its own government and political status.

### Why colonial expectations rose before and during World War II

Self-determination did not suddenly appear in 1945. Colonial expectations had already been shaped by the end of World War I. Woodrow Wilson’s language about national self-determination made many colonial activists think the postwar order might include them. In practice, it mostly helped redraw Europe and parts of the former Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, not Africa or Asia.

That selective application mattered. Colonial subjects learned an important lesson: European powers were willing to talk about national rights, but they often meant rights for Europeans first. This is the core contradiction you should remember.

> **Key Term: anticolonial nationalism**
> Nationalist movements in colonies that demanded self-rule or independence from imperial powers.

After World War I, many former German and Ottoman lands were placed under the **mandate** system rather than granted full independence. Officially, mandates were temporary and meant to prepare peoples for self-government. In reality, many people experienced them as empire under a new label.

> **Key Term: League of Nations mandates**
> Territories taken from Germany and the Ottoman Empire after World War I and administered by other powers, supposedly as a temporary step toward self-government.

World War II raised expectations even more sharply. Colonies supplied labour, raw materials, and soldiers. This mattered because wartime propaganda stressed freedom and the defeat of tyranny. If colonial soldiers were expected to fight for liberty, many asked why that liberty stopped at empire.

India is the clearest example. More than two million Indians served in the war effort for Britain. That service strengthened the case that Indians were fully capable of governing themselves. Similar expectations grew in Africa and North Africa, where veterans returned with military experience, wider horizons, and less respect for the myth of European invincibility.

The **Atlantic Charter** of **1941**, issued by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, became especially significant. It spoke of peoples having the right to choose the government under which they lived. Churchill did not mean immediate decolonization of the British Empire, but colonial readers often interpreted the language much more broadly.

> **Key Term: Atlantic Charter**
> A 1941 statement by Roosevelt and Churchill that outlined war aims and included language many colonial peoples read as support for future self-government.

This is one of the most tested distinctions in this topic: the Atlantic Charter was not a law granting independence. It was a wartime statement of principles. Yet its wording still mattered because it made imperial rule look hypocritical.

> **Test Tip:** In an SAQ or LEQ, do not claim that the Atlantic Charter gave colonies independence. A stronger answer says it raised expectations because colonial peoples interpreted its language on government and freedom as applying to them.

### How postwar institutions gave anticolonial movements stronger arguments

After **1945**, self-determination gained a stronger international platform through the **United Nations**. This did not end colonialism overnight, but it gave anticolonial leaders new language, new forums, and greater legitimacy.

The **UN Charter** was especially important. **Article 1(2)** listed respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples among the purposes of the United Nations. **Article 73** addressed **Non-Self-Governing Territories** and said administering powers had obligations to promote the well-being and political advancement of colonial peoples.

> **Key Term: UN Charter Article 73**
> A section of the 1945 UN Charter stating that powers governing non-self-governing territories should promote their advancement and self-government.

This mattered in two ways. First, it gave colonial activists a recognized international vocabulary. Second, it made it harder for European empires to claim that colonial rule was fully consistent with the postwar order they themselves had helped create.

The **UN trusteeship** system also reflected this shift. Like mandates, trusteeships were presented as temporary arrangements leading toward self-government or independence. The difference is chronological and institutional: mandates belonged to the League of Nations after World War I, while trusteeship belonged to the United Nations after World War II.

> **Key Term: UN trusteeship**
> A post-1945 UN framework for administering certain territories with the stated aim of moving them toward self-government or independence.

By **1960**, the principle became even clearer in **UN General Assembly Resolution 1514**, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It declared that all peoples had a right to self-determination and called for a speedy end to colonialism.

This did not give the UN the power to force every empire to leave at once. But it changed the moral and diplomatic balance. Colonial independence movements could now argue not only from nationalism but from internationally recognized principle.

A further sign of change came from the **Bandung Conference** in **1955**, where Asian and African states met to promote cooperation and anticolonial solidarity. This showed that former colonies were not simply receiving independence from Europe; they were creating their own voice in world politics.

> **Key Term: Bandung Conference**
> A 1955 meeting of Asian and African states that promoted anticolonial solidarity and helped prepare the way for non-alignment.

### Why disappointment turned expectations into decolonization

The most important analytical point is that raised expectations alone did not cause decolonization. Expectations became politically explosive because they were denied, delayed, or only partly met.

This is why disappointment matters so much. If European states had promised nothing, nationalist anger would still have existed. But when empires spoke the language of rights and self-government while keeping control, they made themselves look inconsistent and weak.

India shows both success and complication. Britain granted independence in **1947**, but the result was **partition** into India and Pakistan. That produced massive violence and displacement. So self-determination did not automatically mean orderly nationhood. It could also mean competing national claims.

In Africa, **Ghana** became independent in **1957**, and British withdrawal from colonies with relatively few settlers was often less violent than in some French territories. Yet even there, veterans and educated elites had become more assertive after wartime service and postwar rhetoric.

By contrast, in **Algeria**, expectations of equality and reform after wartime sacrifice were frustrated by continued French rule. Because Algeria had a large European settler population and had long been treated as closely tied to France, the conflict became bitter and violent. The Algerian War showed that when an empire resisted self-determination, anticolonial nationalism could turn into prolonged war.

**Vietnam** offers another pattern. Ho Chi Minh had fought the Japanese during World War II and used the language of national liberation in demanding independence. France tried to restore control after the war, but nationalist resistance proved too strong. By **1954**, France accepted division at Geneva. This shows how self-determination could also become entangled with the Cold War, since Vietnam was soon divided between communist north and anti-communist south.

The **Netherlands** and **Indonesia** fit the same broad pattern. Indonesians under **Sukarno** declared independence in **1945**. The Dutch fought to keep control but finally recognized Indonesian independence in **1949**. Again, nationalist mobilization mattered, not just Dutch weakness.

The **Suez Crisis** of **1956** was a major turning point because it showed that old imperial powers could no longer act freely. When **Gamal Abdel Nasser** nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain and France joined Israel in attacking Egypt. Yet pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union forced Britain and France to withdraw.

> **Key Term: Suez Crisis**
> The 1956 crisis in which Britain and France were forced to withdraw from Egypt, showing the decline of old European imperial power.

Suez was symbolic. Colonial peoples could now see that Britain and France were no longer the unquestioned masters of global politics. Self-determination no longer looked like an unrealistic dream; it looked achievable.

> **Test Tip:** For causation essays, use a layered argument: self-determination raised hopes, colonial nationalism organized those hopes, European weakness made repression harder, and U.S./USSR pressure further weakened empire. One cause alone is too simple.

### How to use this topic in an AP argument

A strong AP answer should frame this as both **continuity and change**. There was continuity because European powers remained reluctant to surrender empire. There was change because after 1945 they were poorer, militarily stretched, and under greater international pressure.

The best evidence is specific and comparative. For example:

- **Continuity:** Britain and France still tried to hold colonies after World War II.
- **Change:** The Atlantic Charter, the UN Charter, and Resolution 1514 gave colonial demands stronger legitimacy.
- **Escalation:** When reforms were denied, nationalism intensified, as in Algeria and Vietnam.
- **Possibility:** After Suez, imperial decline became visible to the world.

A good thesis might argue that self-determination raised colonial expectations because wartime declarations and postwar institutions made self-rule seem legitimate and possible; when European powers failed to apply those principles consistently, anticolonial nationalism grew stronger and accelerated decolonization.

This also works well in DBQ or LEQ responses because it lets you explain multiple causes and qualify your claim. Rhetoric mattered, but it mattered most when joined to organization, wartime service, and European decline.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Self-determination meant that peoples should choose their own government and political status
- Wilsonian language after World War I raised colonial hopes but was applied selectively
- League of Nations mandates were presented as temporary but often felt like continued imperial rule
- Colonial service in the world wars strengthened demands for reform and independence
- The Atlantic Charter of 1941 raised expectations but did not itself grant independence
- The UN Charter of 1945, especially Articles 1(2) and 73, strengthened claims for self-government
- UN trusteeship differed from mandates because it belonged to the post-1945 UN system
- UN Resolution 1514 in 1960 declared that all peoples had a right to self-determination
- Disappointment with limited or delayed reform intensified anticolonial nationalism
- India’s independence in 1947 showed both achievement and the violent limits of self-determination
- Algeria and Vietnam showed that resisted decolonization could become long and violent
- The Suez Crisis of 1956 showed the decline of British and French imperial power

## Key Terms and Concepts

- self-determination
- anticolonial nationalism
- League of Nations mandates
- Atlantic Charter
- UN Charter Article 73
- UN trusteeship
- Bandung Conference
- Suez Crisis


Decolonization - Self-determination raised colonial expectations