Skip to main content

What were the consequences of World War II for the colonized people of Asia ?

The eventual consequence of World War II for the colonized people of Asia was that they stopped being colonized.  WWII caused the colonial powers to give up their colonies, with most of them giving the colonies up rather quickly.


WWII freed the people of Japanese colonies from colonization immediately.  Japan was ejected from Korea and Taiwan, ending colonialism in those lands.  Also gaining their freedom rather quickly were the people of the large British colonies in Asia.  The British had been so weakened by WWII that they knew that they could no longer resist large colonial movements for independence.  For this reason, they freed all of the Indian subcontinent as well as Burma.  France was also severely weakened by the war both in terms of its economic and military power and in terms of its prestige.  It had lost to Germany so quickly that its colonial subjects were certainly no longer in awe of it.  This helped lead relatively quickly to the loss of France’s colonies in what was then called French Indochina.  The same thing happened with the Dutch, who lost what is now Indonesia rather immediately after the war.


There were some colonies, mostly smaller, that continued to remain in European hands for a long time after the war.  The British held onto Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong for at least a decade (and in the case of Hong Kong, five decades) after the war.  However, these were smaller colonies whose circumstances were different from those of the colonies that gained independence quickly.  In general, WWII led to the decolonization of Asia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more