Is it accurate to say that colonialism fell out of favor because the net profit of trading for resources was higher than the net profit of sending and maintaining an army to take them? For example:
>Profit = Resources - Cost to obtain them
>Resources = 10
>Cost Of Goods You Trade For Resources = 5
>Cost Of Long Term Occupation = 8
>10 - 5 = 5, 10 - 8 = 2, 5 > 2
Sort of. Short of it is that it was just too expensive to maintain.
No it fell out of favour because the Americans wouldn't let European powers regain control of their former colonies after WW2
Wrong
(mostly)
This, but with the caveat that it was a combination of
>the world wars turned America into a superpower
>the world wars turned the Soviet Union into a superpower
>the world wars devastated the economies of Western Europe
>in their weakened state, the colonial powers were in no condition to resist two superpowers bearing down on them and demanding the end of colonialism
enlighten me then.
I'm pretty sure Suez crisis was all about America enforcing their supremacy over weakened colonial powers
That was about keeping the arabs onside in the cold war. OP is mostly right, through free market capitalism, unfair protectionist policies and the west's economic dominance value could be extracted without having to pay for expensive unpopular wars, alongside the fact the colonial powers were greatly weakened following the two world wars. Colonialism was decreasing since WW1 with previous possessions becoming more autonomous and striving for independence. America actually supported colonial powers in many conflicts the most obvious being Vietnam.
This. Both the USSR and USA, as well as liberalism and capitalism, were anti-European and anti-colonial in nature.
Because of outside international pressures from the Cold War powers and other nations, people realizing what shit went on in colonies and experiences with WW2, the potential of war being costly and in the case of Kenya and Malaysia were costly. Colonies agitating for independence etc.
Like You can totally hold on to a colony to this day totally regardless of what the natives do but it will be a PR problem but then again many "PR problems" have been swept under the rug. Britain actually evicted everyone from an island and sold it to the U.S as a base and the islanders got not money from it nor compensation
