What was the real reason Britain and France had to give up their colonies?

What was the real reason Britain and France had to give up their colonies?

American economic domination?
Mass Debt?
Natural progression?
Civil Rights?
Moral change?

I'm guessing two countries wrecked by war had no real power to keep their colonies in line? Pure guess tho

The French territory had a small population and no real weaponry or organization.

Vietnam was guerilla warfare, but it couldn't be replicated in Africa. Not to mention most North Africans were devoted Christians and Muslims who hated godless communism.

Well then who forced them to give up their colonies? Was it the international jewish cabal ruling over both the US and the USSR?

Hippie liberals.

Mostly America
In the Algerian War for exemple, the US actively supported the rebels, to the point that even though they militarily won, the French had to leave

soviet union giving african tribes ak47s

Colonies weren't worth it to maintain. Ex-colonies still have strong trading ties with those countries and often have assets owned by former colonizers.

Bankruptcy from the world wars, and the availability of technology to more people.

Britain and France took different approaches to decolonization, with one giving the colonies willingly to avoid expensive wars of suppression, and France fighting those wars of suppression and losing in Vietnam and Algeria.

But after the world wars, France and Britain were spent, with the only 2 nations that left WWII better than when they started being the US and USSR. With their treasuries gone, they didn't have the ability to raise new global armies/navies anymore.

next was people in the colonies getting the latest technology to stand up against the colonial government in a real fight. with Vietnamese having access to assault rifles, surplus WWII weapons, Howitzers and Soviet tanks/trucks, France wasn't fighting people armed with sticks and primitive rifles anymore like they were in 1880.

This translated everywhere else as well, with the cheap, easy to make, easy to repair, and readily available AK-47 being the poster-fun of revolution, these people now had the firepower to win real battles against colonial garrisons, leading the European Power with little choice but to either let them go, or fight costly suppression wars.

Power is not given up. It's taken away.

Their declining relative economic power compared to other the USA who sought to end Old-world style colonialism. The world wars and the war debts (especially to the USA) and economic stagnation that this caused accelerated the process but it almost certainly would have happened anyway.

giving up*

>Vietnam was Guerilla Warfare
A yes, the great guerilla battles like Dien Bien Phu. Those sneaky short attacks, those sneaky artillery pieces, those sneaky tanks...

A combination of reasons, but Marshall help was denied to countries that refused to give up their colonies.

The Netherlands tried to keep a colonial war running in Indonesia after it had already declared independence in their absence (japs had occupied it). We were not

a) unsuccesful
b) forced by the Americans to leave

Fucking retard.

Disregard the 'not' there, I fucked up. We were unsuccesful and persuaded by the Americans to leave.

It must be humiliating to get your asses kicked by some monkeys with bamboo spears.

I disagree

The enemy of all non-orthodox white people.

white guilt

retard.

britain didn't
france bantu

>implying britain wasn't arm twisted by the United states into leaving India.

western countries have low attrition tolerance
after 2 world wars how do you justify sending your sons to die in bumfuck nowhere for no benefits

both Britain and France lost all the people with balls in WW2, thats why we have to import niggers now

You weren't allowed to genocide the natives to suppress the rebellion. It's very hard to win a war against an enemy whose anchor cannot be destroyed, especially if you aren't willing to eat the casualties and money / material over the fifty or so years it takes for your enemy to give up. The only one I can think of is North Ireland,

*while your country is still a bombed-out shithole with UXO and homeless/traumatized people all over/

frankly I think the french were somewhat sick of shit but too nationalistic to admit they were sick of shit.

Portugal gave up their colonies because of changing dominant political stances, despite defeating the uprisings in practice. It's probably not much different.

Based

>France
>doing any fighting in WW2

Pick one

This.
The truly powerful view power as a tool, and know when to relinquish it when there's no need for it any more. Those who don't tend to fall victims to it.

Capitalism. There is no longer a need to conquer nations to exploit their resources because they now can be reasonable bought for a fair market price.

Colonialism made more sense back during Mercantilisms hey-day, was artificially prolonged with "muh white burden" stuff, but when the two world wars forced the countries to come face to face with economic reality, the colonies were more of a problem than a boon.

Plus they had promised them freedom after WW1, but scammed them. It'd be tough to do it again, and with a growing middle class people felt it was immoral.

The greatest tragedy of the 20th century was that after forcing Britain and France to give up their colonial empires America absolutely failed to step up to the plate and help these people. It's like forcing parents to give up their kids and then throwing the kids out onto the street instead.

>and France fighting those wars of suppression and losing in Vietnam and Algeria.
Hello /int/.
1. Algeria wasn't a colony. It was legit French territory, as much as Britanny or Provence was. The British equivalent situation was Ireland, not any colonial war. De Gaulle eventually pulled out because Muzzies.
2. The problem with Vietnam was Communism, as evidenced by how the war ended. Not with an entirely independent Vietnam, but with a pro-Western South Vietnam and a Communist North Vietnam. This is also why the Americans supported France in the conflict while opposing Dutch military intervention in Indonesia (after Soekarno had proven himself to be a staunch non-Communist).

All other French colonies gained independence through referenda, except French Somaliland which had initially voted to remain French. Same with France's current overseas territories: they all voted to remain.

If you want to oppose something to le glorious British maymay, try Portugal. The country that actually tried to keep its African colonies deep into the 70s.

WWI and WWII bankrupted Europe. And there was no real incentive other than bride to keep the colonies. And in theory private companies could still hold on to the natural resources.

Had the world wars or at least WW2 not have happened they could have kept on to their colonies much longer. Without a strong USSR to fund world revolutions.