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
You have to remember that white colonial powers were getting their asses handed to them in the beginning of WWII. That was the reason why colonial empires soon ceased to exist. For the first time ever, the navtives saw that not only can the white man be beaten, but he can be beaten by asians. Combine that with the horrible conditions in which the natives lived and you get the death of the colonial empires.
Scenes like pic related destroyed the prestige that white people had in the colonies
Also these anons are right:
Britain and France had universal suffrage by the 30s and commoners have no interest in conquest and imperialism. After ww2 there was no longer a national security need to hold onto the colonies to keep them out of the hands of rival powers.
Not to be hard on you but alot of your talking points kinda seem like modern leftist bullshit.
>or the first time ever, the navtives saw that not only can the white man be beaten
Never mind that fact that European powers had been beaten many times by Asians and Africans.
What is Ethiopia, the Russo-Japanese war, Haitian war of independence ect?
Also having colonials go to Europe and seeing it not be the fabled land, destruction, whites working shit jobs that are normally designated only for non-whites in the colonies ruined that one advantage colony owners had in preventing subject from going to the metropole in anything but very small numbers.
>hites working shit jobs that are normally designated only for non-whites in the colonies ruined that one advantage colony
You realize Whites have worked every brutal condition and manual labor known to man, right? Especially at this time you had a large blue color class of Europeans.
>commoners have no interest in conquest and imperialism
Lol no they got a lot to benefit from it and many had no issues./liked it back then. the empire and imperialism was pretty big in regards to national identity for many powers.
>the Russo-Japanese war
Yeah, Russia was a major fucking colonial power
>Ethiopia
It was conqured in the end.
>Haitian war of independence
You can't compare the scale of that to WWII
>European powers had been beaten many times by Asians and Africans
Yes, but the white people would usually still win the war.
>seem like modern leftist bullshit
I know nothing about the modern western left so I can't really comment on that.
Do you not get it user?
When you live in a place where all the whites were much better off then you, more educated, richer, worked better jobs, had power and much more you tend to think that they are "super" in a way that makes adhering to their power or authority even if you don't like to a thing.
It's the equivalent of some kid realizing that women do fart or that yes, old people still get horny and fuck A LOT once women menopause on par with teens in many cases. The illusion of they are innate better r in another league collapses which make people then just realist the situation they are in.
>Yeah, Russia was a major fucking colonial power
Unless you want to treat land powers different Russia was a major colonial power.
>It was conqured in the end.
literally WWII
>You can't compare the scale of that to WWII
No. But it was brutal and an example of darkies winning against Europeans.
>Yes, but the white people would usually still win the war.
Sure. Various European powers were the strongest in the world at that time. This being said, European defeats were not unheard of or of so rare nobody would have known about them who studies history.
>I know nothing about the modern western left so I can't really comment on that.
Fair enough.
Ethiopia was taken over before ww2 idiot.
>No. But it was brutal and an example of darkies winning against Europeans.
and then Haiti proceeded to get fucked over and dominated/fucked by nearby states and France as well. They won the war but lost everything
>Sure. Various European powers were the strongest in the world at that time. This being said, European defeats were not unheard of or of so rare nobody would have known about them who studies history.
Yes Euros have lost but in the end they won and often making the previous wins nullified and the entity castrated or destroyed like what typically happens elsewhere.
>Russia was a major colonial power.
It had zero fucking colonies.
>literally WWII
Before the war, actually
>It had zero fucking colonies.
Define "colony." Russia had conquered subjects.
>Russia had conquered subjects
Which were a part of the country. If you seriously consider Russia to be a colonial power then you don't belong here.
>Which were a part of the country.
uhh user. The colonies of European empires were part of the countries as well.
>The colonies of European empires were part of the countries as well.
No, they were not. French guiana in 2017 is a part of France. Colonies were not a part of the country itself. They were a different territory that the country controls.
>No, they were not.
Yes they were. Mexico was just as much a part of Spain as Madrid.
Oh wow this includes Russia as part of the colonial empires. en.wikipedia.org
Algeria was a part of France.
Portuguese Africa too.
They were still imperial possesions that were not part of Russia proper.
They were still within the same contigous landmass, but they don't have to be overseas to be a colony.
In the Russian empire, people of different nationalities were forced to learn the Russian language and conquered nations would have natural resources used by Russian companies.
It's pretty much the same thing t b h they jusg didn't have an overseas empire like the Europeans
yes and whites in colonies were living in large palatial mansions, eating 5 times a day and were engaged in the higher echelons of business and society.