AP United States History

## Learning Outcomes

- Understand how decolonization changed the Cold War after **1945**
- Identify the difference between **nonalignment**, neutrality, and formal alliance
- Recall the importance of the **Bandung Conference (1955)** and the **Non-Aligned Movement (1961)**
- Explain how U.S. **containment** policy shaped responses to new nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East
- Use **Egypt**, **Congo**, and **Vietnam** as case studies of decolonization in practice
- Analyse how anti-colonial nationalism and communism were often treated as the same thing by U.S. policymakers
- Apply this topic to APUSH causation, comparison, and continuity-and-change questions

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand decolonization and nonaligned nations during the Cold War, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that **decolonization** after World War II weakened European empires and created many new states in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East
- Identify **nonaligned nations** as countries that tried to avoid formal alignment with either the United States or the Soviet Union
- Understand the significance of the **Bandung Conference (1955)** as a major step toward Afro-Asian solidarity and later nonalignment
- Know that the **Non-Aligned Movement** was formally established at **Belgrade in 1961**
- Explain how U.S. **containment** policy shaped interventions and alliances in the decolonizing world
- Understand the importance of the **Suez Crisis (1956)** as evidence of declining British and French imperial power
- Explain how **Vietnam** began as an anti-colonial struggle against France before becoming a major Cold War conflict involving the United States
- Distinguish between **anti-colonial nationalism** and communism, and explain why U.S. leaders often confused the two

## 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. What is meant by **decolonization** after **1945**?
2. How were **nonaligned nations** different from formal U.S. or Soviet allies?
3. Why was the **Bandung Conference** important?
4. How did the **Suez Crisis** show both anti-colonial nationalism and Cold War rivalry?
5. Why can **Vietnam** be described as both a decolonization conflict and a Cold War conflict?

## Introduction

After **1945**, the Cold War was not just a contest between Washington and Moscow. It also became a struggle over what would happen to the collapsing empires of **Britain**, **France**, and other European powers. As colonies gained independence across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the United States had to deal with a new reality: many newly independent states did not want to join either side.

This matters in APUSH because it complicates the simple idea of a two-sided Cold War. The United States often spoke in the language of freedom and self-determination, but in practice it frequently put **containment** ahead of anti-colonial ideals. That tension helps explain U.S. actions in places such as **Egypt**, **Congo**, **Iran**, **Guatemala**, and especially **Vietnam**.

> **Key Term: decolonization**
> The post-World War II process by which colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East gained independence from European empires.

### Decolonization reshaped the Cold War

Before World War II ended, much of Asia and Africa was still under European control. After the war, that became harder to maintain. European powers were weaker economically and militarily. Colonized peoples were also more determined to claim sovereignty after years of sacrifice, occupation, and wartime disruption.

The result was a wave of independence movements. **India** became independent from Britain in **1947**. **Indonesia** declared independence in **1945**, with Dutch recognition coming in **1949**. **Ghana** gained independence from Britain in **1957**. **Algeria** won independence from France in **1962** after a violent war. These events mattered to U.S. history because they created many new governments that the United States and Soviet Union both wanted to influence.

> **Key Term: self-determination**
> The principle that a people should have the right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by an outside power.

New nations did not automatically become American allies. That is a common mistake. Many leaders in Asia and Africa had just fought against outside domination. They did not want to replace British or French control with U.S. or Soviet pressure. Their goal was often **postcolonial nationalism**: political independence, economic development, and freedom to act in their own interests.

> **Key Term: containment**
> The main U.S. Cold War strategy of limiting the spread of communism.

For American policymakers, this created a problem. U.S. leaders tended to see world politics through the lens of containment. If a nationalist leader accepted Soviet aid, criticized Western influence, or threatened U.S. business interests, Washington often suspected communist expansion even when the real motive was anti-colonial independence.

That is one of the biggest ideas in this topic: the United States often treated **nationalism** and **communism** as if they were the same. On APUSH essays, this is a strong line of analysis because it explains why U.S. actions could conflict with its stated support for freedom.

> **Test Tip:** In a causation essay, do not just say “decolonization caused more Cold War conflict.” Explain the chain: empire weakens → new states emerge → superpowers compete for influence → local nationalism meets containment policy → crises and intervention follow.

### Nonaligned nations and the “Third World”

Many newly independent nations rejected alignment with either superpower. In Cold War language, these countries were often called the **Third World**. On the AP exam, remember that this term did not simply mean “poor countries.” It referred to states outside the two main blocs.

> **Key Term: nonaligned nations**
> Countries that sought to avoid formal alliance with either the U.S.-led Western bloc or the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.

Nonalignment was not the same as passivity. It was an active strategy. Leaders hoped to protect sovereignty, accept aid when useful, and avoid becoming pawns in superpower rivalry. Some countries leaned one way on some issues and another way on others. That flexibility was part of the point.

The key milestone before formal nonalignment was the **Bandung Conference** in **Indonesia**, held from **April 18–24, 1955**. Delegates from **29 Asian and African countries** met to promote anti-colonialism, sovereignty, equality, noninterference, and peaceful coexistence. Bandung did not create a formal organization, but it laid the political foundation for later nonalignment.

> **Key Term: Bandung Conference**
> A 1955 meeting of Asian and African states in Indonesia that promoted anti-colonialism, sovereignty, and independence from great-power domination.

The **Non-Aligned Movement** is usually dated from the **Belgrade Conference in 1961**. Important associated leaders included **Jawaharlal Nehru** of India, **Gamal Abdel Nasser** of Egypt, **Sukarno** of Indonesia, and **Josip Broz Tito** of Yugoslavia. Tito was not a decolonized leader, but he mattered because Yugoslavia itself stood outside Soviet control and became central to formal nonalignment.

> **Key Term: Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)**
> An international grouping formally launched in 1961 at Belgrade by states seeking independence from both the U.S. and Soviet blocs.

India under **Nehru** is one of the clearest examples. India was independent but did not want to become an American client state or a Soviet satellite. Indonesia under **Sukarno** also followed this path and hosted Bandung. Egypt under **Nasser** combined Arab nationalism with an effort to avoid subordination to either bloc.

Students often miss an important distinction here. **Nonalignment** is not the same as **neutrality** in every sense. Neutrality suggests standing aside. Nonalignment often meant speaking loudly against colonialism, bargaining with both superpowers, and trying to shape world politics without joining a bloc.

> **Test Tip:** If a question mentions the “Third World,” define it in Cold War terms. Avoid writing that it only means poor or underdeveloped countries. Examiners reward precision.

### Egypt, Congo, and Vietnam as case studies

A strong APUSH answer needs specific examples. Three of the best are **Egypt**, **Congo**, and **Vietnam** because each shows a different part of the relationship between decolonization and Cold War rivalry.

Egypt under **Gamal Abdel Nasser** shows postcolonial nationalism clearly. In **1956**, Nasser nationalized the **Suez Canal**, a major waterway long tied to British and French interests. In response, **Britain**, **France**, and **Israel** attacked Egypt in the **Suez Crisis**.

> **Key Term: Suez Crisis**
> The 1956 conflict that followed Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, exposing the decline of British and French imperial power.

Why is Suez so important? First, it showed that old European imperial powers were weakening. Britain and France could not act as they once had. Second, it boosted Nasser’s standing in the Arab world because he appeared to resist imperialism successfully. Third, it showed that the United States did not always support its colonial allies. **Eisenhower** pressured Britain and France to withdraw because the invasion looked imperialist and risked pushing Arab states toward the Soviet Union.

This is a useful APUSH insight. The United States often supported anti-communist intervention, but in Suez it restrained its own allies. Why? Because U.S. leaders feared that blatant imperial aggression would damage American influence in the decolonizing world.

The **Congo Crisis** gives a different picture. The Congo gained independence from Belgium in **1960**, but independence quickly gave way to chaos. Regional secession in **Katanga**, the role of **Patrice Lumumba**, UN intervention, and superpower suspicion turned decolonization into a Cold War battleground. Washington often viewed Lumumba through an anti-communist lens even though African nationalism, not Soviet control, was central to the crisis. This is a classic case of U.S. policymakers conflating nationalism with communism.

Vietnam is the most APUSH-relevant example because it became a major U.S. war. But before it was “the Vietnam War” in American memory, it was a decolonization struggle against France. **Ho Chi Minh** and the **Vietminh** fought first for independence from colonial rule. Ho even appealed earlier to the language of self-determination. After World War II, however, the United States backed France rather than Vietnamese independence because Ho was a communist and France was a crucial ally.

France’s defeat at **Dien Bien Phu** in **1954** ended French control in Indochina. The **Geneva Accords** temporarily divided Vietnam at the **17th parallel** and called for elections. Those elections did not happen. The United States then supported **Ngo Dinh Diem** in South Vietnam and increasingly treated the conflict as a Cold War test rather than as a decolonization issue.

> **Key Term: proxy war**
> A conflict in which larger powers compete indirectly by backing local forces rather than fighting each other directly.

Vietnam became a **proxy war** because local anti-colonial struggle merged with U.S.-Soviet-Chinese rivalry. American leaders relied on **domino theory**, believing that a communist victory in Vietnam would lead other countries in Southeast Asia to fall in sequence. That logic drew the United States deeper into the region.

The wider pattern also includes **Iran (1953)** and **Guatemala (1954)**, where U.S. covert action removed governments seen as threatening American interests. These are not usually labeled nonaligned cases in the same way as India or Egypt, but they fit the broader story: in the decolonizing world, the United States often responded to instability with intervention shaped by containment.

### Why this topic matters in APUSH essays

This subtopic works especially well in causation and comparison essays. If asked how decolonization increased U.S. involvement abroad, you can argue that the fall of empire created political openings that superpowers tried to fill. The United States expanded its diplomatic, covert, and military role because newly independent states mattered strategically, economically, and ideologically.

If asked to compare, Egypt, Congo, and Vietnam are excellent choices. In Egypt, the U.S. restrained old colonial allies. In Congo, it viewed African nationalism with suspicion. In Vietnam, it turned an anti-colonial conflict into a major American war. These are not identical responses, but all reveal the same larger tension: U.S. support for self-determination often stopped where containment seemed to begin.

For continuity and change over time, note both sides. What changed? The Cold War became far more global after 1945, extending deeply into Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. What stayed the same? The United States continued to defend strategic and economic interests while presenting its actions in the language of freedom.

A strong thesis might argue that decolonization expanded the geographic scope of the Cold War and challenged a simple two-superpower narrative because many new states sought a third path through nonalignment. Washington often answered that challenge inconsistently, praising self-determination in theory while backing intervention in practice.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Decolonization after **1945** weakened European empires and created many new independent states
- Nonaligned nations tried to avoid formal alliance with either the United States or the Soviet Union
- The **Bandung Conference (1955)** was a major precursor to formal nonalignment
- The **Non-Aligned Movement** was formally launched at **Belgrade in 1961**
- Key nonalignment figures included **Nehru**, **Nasser**, **Sukarno**, and **Tito**
- The Cold War “Third World” meant states outside the two main blocs, not simply poor countries
- U.S. leaders often confused anti-colonial nationalism with communism
- The **Suez Crisis (1956)** showed the decline of British and French imperial influence and the rise of postcolonial nationalism
- The **Congo Crisis** showed how decolonization could become a Cold War battleground
- **Vietnam** began as an anti-colonial struggle against France before becoming a major U.S. Cold War war
- U.S. responses in the decolonizing world were shaped by **containment**, strategic concerns, and fear of Soviet influence
- This topic is useful for APUSH causation, comparison, and continuity-and-change arguments

## Key Terms and Concepts

- decolonization
- self-determination
- containment
- nonaligned nations
- Bandung Conference
- Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
- Suez Crisis
- proxy war


America as a World Power - Decolonization and nonaligned nations