11th November 2007
I've recently read "Englishness and Empire: 1939-1965" (Oxford University Press, 2005), in which the author, Wendy Webster, describes how the way the British Empire was portrayed (in the press and films) changed during and after the Second World War.
During the war, 'heroic' narratives of empire, as a story of British power and conquest, were superseded by a story of a multi-racial community of (more or less) equal nations, loyal to Britain as the 'mother country' and united in the fight against a common enemy. Wendy Webster calls this a 'People's Empire', to complement the idea of a 'People's War', which united everyone within Britain regardless of wealth, class or status.
The projection of a 'People's Empire' reached its high point at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953, but soon faded to be replaced (in the press and in feature films) by siege narratives of isolated British people defending their threatened homes in colonial wars in, for example, Malaya and Kenya, as the native inhabitants of these countries fought to achieve independence from Britain.
Instead of a multi-racial 'Commonwealth of Nations' the empire was now increasingly portrayed as a racial community of (white) people, with the British sharing ties of kinship and culture with the (white) inhabitants of the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. If this was extended to the idea, popularised by Winston Churchill, of a community of the 'English Speaking Peoples', the US could also be included as part of the family.
In parallel with these changing images of empire, the Second World War was presented, not as a 'People's War', but as a story of heroic individuals. (For example in numerous adventure feature films such as The Dam Busters, in contrast with high-minded documentaries such as those by Humphrey Jennings, which showed the teamwork and heroism of ordinary men and women in wartime). In Wendy Webster's words "The idea of heroic British masculinity, transposed from an imperial to a Second World War setting, offered a far more exclusive image of the nation than the 'People's War'.
So what is the relevance of all this to my own research on the British Occupation of Germany after the war?
Firstly, many of the British behaved as if their Zone in Germany was an extension of the empire. Noel Annan in his memoirs 'Changing Enemies' gives his chapter on post-war Germany the title 'Britain's new colony' and Donald Cameron Watt, in his book 'Britain looks to Germany: British Opinion and Policy towards Germany since 1945' says of the occupation: "... it will be obvious that the method of control and re-education bears a strong resemblance to the systems of indirect rule administered in the 1890s by Lord Cromer in Egypt and Lord Lugard in sub-Saharan Africa."
In the early days of the Occupation, many of the British thought they would need to stay in Germany for a long time, 25 years or more, to complete their civilising mission to make Germany a democratic country, much like Britain, but this soon changed to an overriding concern with the cost of occupation, and the transfer of government back to German control. So the withdrawal from Germany could be seen in some ways as similar to the British retreat from empire elsewhere (though there are clearly many differences as well as similarities).
Secondly, I think Wendy Webster's description of changing attitudes to Englishness and empire after the war helps to explain why the British Occupation of Germany has faded from popular memory. It doesn't fit easily with any of the themes she discusses: a multi-racial 'People's Empire' united against a common enemy (Germany), or a community of 'English speaking peoples' united by common ties of kinship and culture. In the retreat from empire, nostalgia for former British national power and glory could be preserved in heroic memories of the war, and what happened afterwards conveniently forgotten.
To some extent, I suppose, you could say the countries of western Europe after the war, including both Britain and Germany, did unite in a new People's Empire, but this time it was a Cold War empire led by the US, against a new enemy, the Soviet Union. From a British point of view, this was a far less exciting story than that of the 'finest hour' when British people 'stood alone' to defend civilisation from barbarism.
This left no room for an alternative theme of reconstruction and reconciliation, of international fellowship and of seeing people, whoever they are, as individuals (rather than as collective members of an ethnic or racial or national group, and therefore different).
In my work, I try to restore the memory of how people, on both sides, worked to achieve reconciliation with the former enemy. Heroic war stories are not enough. What really matters is 'Winning the Peace.'
So to finish this posting, I'd like to quote from the front page of the final issue of the British Zone Review, the quarterly journal of the Military Government and British Control Commission in Germany. This was published on September 20th, 1949, a little over four years since the end of the war and sums up how the British in Germany wished to portray their work of 'winning the peace' after 'winning the war' - as a task of reconstruction, not destruction, and of reconciliation, not revenge. To my mind it's just as relevant now as it was then:
"We have grown and developed with the changes brought about by the reconstruction of Germany and now our task has come to an end. In this, our last issue, we should like to express our very sincere thanks to all our readers in all parts of the world and to our many contributors, whose support and co-operation has made success possible. We are glad to think that this spirit of good will and the desire shown for better understanding between British and Germans may have contributed towards a better international co-operation and fellowship which alone can ensure a lasting peace."