1945–1950s: (The Second Colonial Occupation — Britain, France, Portugal, and Belgium Perceiving African Territories as More Important Than Ever, Intervention…

1945–1950s: (The Second Colonial Occupation — Britain, France, Portugal, and Belgium Perceiving African Territories as More Important Than Ever, Interventionist Policies Pursued with Renewed Vigor, the African Contribution Deemed Vital to Europe’s Postwar Recovery, the Paradox of Intensified Colonial Investment Coinciding with Intensified Nationalist Protest, and the Speed of Decolonization Wholly Unanticipated by Empire Builders): If the demand for independence was one significant outcome of wartime experience, the revival and strengthening of colonial states was another — a profound paradox at the heart of the postwar moment. For Britain, France, Portugal, and Belgium, their African territories were more important than ever, and interventionist policies were pursued with renewed vigor after 1945. The belief in laissez-faire economics that had predominated until the early 1930s had given way during the Depression to state management, and the war made clear that intervention must continue and intensify. The African contribution to Europe’s postwar economic recovery was deemed vital, requiring European governments to become more closely involved in managing colonial economies — in the British zone this amounted to what has been described as a second colonial occupation, stretching from about 1945 to the early 1950s. Thus were postwar battle lines drawn: just as African nationalist protest became a force to be reckoned with, colonial governments became more determined than ever to invest in, develop, and defend their African possessions. The colonial moment had in some places lasted little more than two generations, and the speed with which it came to an end was wholly unanticipated — the empires set up in the 1890s and 1900s were meant to last rather longer than they did. In the end, they were overcome by both unforeseen external events and the organic pressures of African protest and militant identity. In the course of the 1950s, successive governments in London and Paris would recognize both the power of nationalist movements and the possibility of exercising continued economic and cultural influence without the trouble of political administration — African sovereignty, in the metropolitan mind, was often seen as the happy coalescence of various interests, even if the actual process was invariably messier.