Why did they fuck up so much?

Not an argument.

Wrong.
>After 1975 though we threw money at UNITA.

Literally JFK supported UPA/FNLA Holden's Roberto - economically and military. JFK also imposed arms embargo on Portugal to not use American/NATO weaponry. JFK also tried to topple down Salazar with Abrilada '61. From JFK to LBJ. Just until Nixon they stopped largely supporting liberation movements.

UNITA was just offspring of that movement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Angola#Foreign_aid

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Angola#Nixon.27s_policy_to_Angola

Not making an argument, just satisfying your need for attention bro

Because colonies are a meme. Look around Western Europe today. Portugal is the poorest country in the western half of the continent. Spain, which had nearly as long an involvement in colonialism, is only a little ahead of them. Germany, which had very little involvement in colonialism, is one of the most successful countries in Europe. Ireland, which virtually was a colony of Britain, now has a higher standard of living than Britain. Etc. etc.
Bismarck knew this.

Doesn't help that they fell under the Personal Union of Spain for a period of time in the late 1500's.

The King of Spain dragged Portugal into his wars against England and the Netherlands. This made the Portuguese colonies fair game to the English and Dutch, who eagerly took the poorly-defended colonies for themselves.

>JFK

Fucking cancer, 22 november best day ever

>Colonies are a meme

t. idiot

What makes oil, diamonds, ivory, farming and fishing land a meme?

>Pic is our colonies in the middle of a war

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it due to their obsession with Catholicism? Weber strikes my mind when i think aboit Portugal and Spain. Plus I remember reading somewhere that during the 1600s a third of portugal's population survived by the crown's handouts

Natural resources aren't that important to the wealth of nations. Japan has shit for natural resources. Britain doesn't have much. Etc. The whole "natural resources" thing is an explanation in search of a phenomenon. The empirical facts are that they don't create national wealth. Any theory you have that says that they do, however clever it may be, is just a clever mistake.

Because Portugal fucked itself due ot other factors. Portuguese colonies in the 20th century when they could ramp up output actually made a fuckton of money for the state.

>Britain doesn't have much.

They had a lot of Iron and coal though lol

Japan was a backwater until recently.
Britain was a backwater until it got a colonial empire and urbanized.
Nobody really needs natural resources now as long as they can import them from somebody else but up to the start of the 20th century, it was colonies = power.

Britain had a ton of coal that fueled the industrial revolution. Yes, they are important.

socialmatter.net/2017/08/07/jfks-failed-coup-lisbon/
>during the John F. Kennedy administration than General Kaúlza de Oliveira de Arriaga, a stalwart Salazar loyalist, nationalist, imperialist, and one of the most vocal military men within the Portuguese hard right.

>In his work, Kaúlza de Arriaga noted four key hostile actions[1] taken by the Kennedy regime, three of which were: arming Holden Roberto’s terrorist band of “nationalists” – the UPA; voting with the Soviet Union against Portugal in the UN Security Council; and ultimately instituting an arms embargo against the Salazar regime. The three objective and uncontroversial points were joined by a fourth one: that the United States sponsored the failed 1961 coup against Salazar led by then-Defense Minister General Júlio Botelho Moniz.

Is this characterization accurate?

>A more holistic question would be: what role did the U.S. play in undermining the Salazar regime? By examining the failed Abrilada[2] or Botelhada,[3] as the coup came to be known colloquially

Did Portugal fear the brown asian warrior?

Whites are subuhman anyway.

The short, easy, answer is that Portugal had (and still has) relatively low population and limited resources and limited riches. Their position in the 16th century was already stretching their capabilities beyond what was long term sustainable. They achieved their powerhouse status by continuously being first, either in reaching new areas or in using newest ships, learning and developing new skills, creating charts, maps and general experience - basically investing into their maritime and naval activities to be on the cutting edge of technology. But this they could only do until the limit of their resources allowed them, and until other nations, especially ones with overall better socio-economic position, finally caught up.
The peak of the Portuguese power is usually given at around mid 16th century, by which time they controlled or had access to various key points and territories scattered through Japan, China, Malacca and Spice islands, India and Sri Lanka, Persian gulf, East and West coast of Africa, Brazil, Atlantic islands as well as a string of fortresses in coastal Morocco, all managed from mainland Portugal. Yet they never managed to conquer all they hoped for. Entrance to Red Sea for instance remained outside Portuguese control, despite being considered of huge strategic importance.
The accepted Portuguese naval supremacy (sporadically tested by local indian ocean rivals with commonly Portuguese victory) was achievable only where their ships could enforce it, and the huge area of Indian ocean and the comparatively few ships Portuguese had created many holes. By the 2nd half of 16th century new trade paths, outside of Portuguese power to regulate, started appearing and increasing in importance. While Portuguese were pretty secure in controlling their areas, they were already unable to counter these new challenges.

Economic base of the Portuguese empire was actually on a weak footing, as the loans needed to maintained of the huge empire and constant fighting, was slowly draining the profits from the trade. Bad years were more and more common, good years more and more rare. Bad economic practices and choices from the Portuguese royal authority, and even worse execution from the selfish, corrupt or incompetent Portuguese personnel on the ground, only made matters worse. With all this in mind it might be more of a wonder how did they hold out so much, rather then why did they fail.
However the central events usually connected to the decline were in Europe and Morocco. In 1578 young and heirless king Sebastian went with an army to Morocco in an ill-fated attempt to rekindle Portuguese involvement in Morocco. The expedition was defeated and king was lost. The defeat has serious consequences. Military, the Portuguese army was crushed. Economically the Portuguese had to pay enormous ransoms to free their captured kin. Political consequences were more important. The throne was claimed by Spanish king Phillip II and Iberian union was born
The Portuguese were soon directly involved in the Spanish conflict with the Dutch and the English, and the Portuguese ships participated in the ill-fated Armada campaign. Already praying on the Portuguese, those nations now had an open hand to attack the Portuguese possessions and wrestle control of trade routes for themselves, in which they had much success. Unlike the traditional Portuguese royal-centred administration, they ( Dutch in particular ) developed a new proto-capitalistic environment with their Company model, which enabled them to raise much more capital, and with it acquire more ships, weapons, everything. It didn't hurt that they were already major centers of commerce, with highly urbanized population with access to whole bunch of northern resources from scandinavia, baltic, germany, and the netherlands and england themselves

Dutch attacked Portugal on various, well, all fronts. They took Elmina on Guniea coast in 1637 . They took Brazil in 1630 . In Indian ocean VOC reached indonesia and founded Batavia in 1619 and from there they slowly wrested control of the spice trade and joint forces with various local enemies of Portuguese. After some attempts, with final aid from Sultans of Johor they took Malacca in 1641. Ceylon fell in 1640. The English EIC helped Persians and kicked Portuguese from Hormuz in 1622. Newly risen Omanese finished the job of kicking the Portuguese from Persian gulf from Muscat, and continued to take over Zanzibar in East Africa.
But the Portuguese haven't been losing everything. They successfully defended Goa from multiple attacks, as well as kept Macau, Angola, Mozambique. Brazil was recaptured in 1654. Other Indian possessions were defended successfully, but some were later granted to English in exchange for support after the proclaimed Portuguese Restoration.
Basically the Portuguese control of the Indian ocean in the 16th century was based on their monopoly on naval power. Once that power was no longer theirs alone, and by 17th century it wasn't, the many deficiencies were laid open. The direct conflict of the Old (Portugal) and the New (Dutch, England) was decidedly win for the new.

The Spanish rule was less then helpful. The many wars and economic turmoil spanish themselves were experiencing, spread to Portugal. Military, the Spanish weren't any help in the far reaches on Asia and other Portuguese colonies and instead of helping, the king was trying to increase his control and use portugal's riches to fund his own wars. Portuguese used the Catalonian revolt for themselves to proclaim independence from Spanish rule in the 1640, which lead to a state of war with Spain till 1663, end of which coincided approximately with peace with the Dutch in the 1661.
So by this time Portugal was almost in a state of continuous war with various english, dutch, and spanish for many years. The economic landscape Portuguese were operating in completely changed. The VOC took over the spice trade by taking over indonesia, ceylon and malabar coast and started importing so much spice the prices massively dropped anyway. By this time the new main import item changed to textiles, which English exploited best. Portuguese, mostly but not completly pushed out of the spice and India, and probably anyway more sympathetic to this type of business focused on Brazil, plantations and the slave trade from Africa. This state of affairs remained until 19th century when Napoleon's invasion of Portugal made the royal family move to Brazil. Brazil's independence, end of slavery trade and industrialization (or lack of in Portugal's case) further reduced Portugal's diminished role.

Brown asians are rude

NOT A SMALL COUNTRY REEEEE

Enjoyed the posts thank you senpai

The Portuguese were the first to establish African colonies. They had no laws prohibiting movement of Africans in the home country and interracial marriages were not looked upon as any lesser than regular ones. This lack of racial awareness eventually led to the gene pool in Portugal becoming mixed with African and iberian genes before Germany was even a country.
Tldr: nogs
Captcha: prestige 9000

>if the Estado Novo lasted longer Angola and Mozambique would be Eastern Europe-tier

Portugal is eastern europe tier

>Japan was a backwater until recently.
What, the fuck

Says more about poor/mid parts if east europe.

Because of 40 years of socialism. If it weren't for the EU Portugal would be Venezuela tier today.

On average we have 3% nog blood.

Great summary.

This is the truth of post WW2 Iberia.

>Salazar
He was terrible as well, Portugal was ridiculously poor during his rule. So Portugal's problem is a century without economic reforms and free markets.

>Portugal was ridiculously poor during his rule
False.
For example, HDI was relativaly higher during Estado Novo than it is now. We lost 20 places in the HDI list since Salazar.
Also, check pic.

Whatever, Salazar was no Franco and the Portuguese economy was stagnated and poor as fuck because of his protectionism and autarky.

Just because what came afterwards was worse doesn't make him a hero, not even a good ruler.

>up to the start of the 20th century, it was colonies = power.
Switzerland and the German states did just fine without them. Portugal and Spain were deep in decline by even the early 19th century (despite continuing to have vast natural resources throughout their empires).
And Japan didn't get to where it was by obtaining natural resources or building extensive colonies. They simply made structural reforms.
This is all without eve taking into account the huge number of countries that have vast natural resource reserves and failed to translate these into national prosperity.

>Portuguese economy was stagnated and poor as fuck because of his protectionism
No it wasn't. I'm not even a fan of Salazar's economic policies and prefer freer trade, but to deny te Salazar took the heritage of the anarchic 1st republic, a country in shambles, and managed to raise hugely HDI and gold stocks and decrease the enormous public debt of the 1st republic is just leftisit propaganda.

Whether you like it or not Salazar ecnomic policies worked.

Glad you fixed the Black Sea because in the original it isn't painted blue

>that map
>portuguese edumacation

>Whatever,
>Salazar was no Franco
Are these arguments at least?

Man, this board is been going downhill.

>They had no laws prohibiting movement of Africans
Africans didn't move to Portugal on their own, they were taken by slave boats to other colonies and rarely the mainland

They didn't make an African Brazil

>to just disappearing after WW2?
Portugal disappeared much earlier. Our WWI campaign was a joke for instance

rip
youtube.com/watch?v=xqyWMVc9Gus

youtube.com/watch?v=3U9r4AQ_AQo

Reeeeeeeee ill never forgive never forget

>tmw when you look at Saudi Arabia

They made up one quarter of the trade of the metrópole at it's peak, but Portugal beneficted from a diverse economy and abundance of raw materials

Pretty comfy