Give up colonies

Why did Europe give away all the colonies? There was no reason to other than muh human rights, especially the brits and french.

Pressure from America.

War fatigue, both material and cultural.

Why dont you at least google or wiki an answer before starting a conversation?

It was not worth it economically or politically.

They couldn't keep them anymore. WW2 was like the Mongol invasion for the Muslim world. But instead of Turks ruling us we have (((them)))

Well this is mostly due to the Atlantic Charter of 1941 after WWII.

Because i wanted a more detailed answer

Contrary to the leftist narrative, colonies were a huge money pit and economic drain on the host country. India was the only colony that produced more than it cost to administer, and it took its own freedom into its own hands. After this, the Brits had no interest in holding on to less-than-worthless colonies when they were struggling to repay the Americans for the loans they used fighting the G*rm, and entering into a 40 year long period of decline.

There was also the fear that the subject peoples in the colonies would emigrate to Britain and swamp the natives there, which is doubly ironic given that this happened despite Britain giving up her colonies.

As for the Frogs, they tried to hold on to their colonies despite facing economic ruin but got BTFO over and over again by independence movements.

Holding onto the African colonies was very expensive, and the protectionist bloc those colonies had created were destroyed in order to secure Marshal plan aid, it's arguably the most important factor in America deciding to implement the Marshal plan

Couldn't afford them after WW2 + American dominance had emerged and they were gonna tell (force if need be) Europe to give them up anyway.

>they were persuaded

Most countries were afraid of eventually fighting in guerrilla-style independence war.

Because there was no point. Perhaps some could've been held militarily or by exterminating half the population, but that would defeat the purpose of colonies, and all you'd have would be remote money pits.
So in short, economic reasons, the reason why colonies were formed in the first place.

>giving up all colonies
British, french,dutch, danish and american colonies are still a thing

Even as an american it's hard to not admire the vietnamese people. First they fight off the french, then they fight off the Americans, then the chinese and then they topple the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Politics aside they're a country of hard mother fuckers.

>american colonies

t. member of the CPUSA

The colonies were glorified PR projects for the most part, and they'd become negative PR by that point in time, so it only made sense to cut them lose. Nobody bought into the "spreading civilization" line anymore.

>I'm illiterate and proud

Technically those were all colonies of Spain or UK. I'd prefer to call those American "possessions" instead of actual colonies.

The colonies were generally a drain on the colonizing nation, and it became hard to justify their existence in the postwar era when ideals of equality and self-determination for all really started to take hold. It also helped that a lot of the colonies were suffering from independence movements that were costly and unpopular to fight.

Though it took the West a while to figure it out, they eventually realized that neocolonialism was better. Ceding official control to the locals cuts costs for the colonizer, but the economy remains firmly in control of foreign powers, so you get all the benefits for a fraction of the cost. France ended up being really good at that.

because commies were handing out ak47s like candy

ironically the right thing to do would be to support the colonies for a little longer so that the independent states had decent security, however european leftists and socialists wanted out now and that suited everyone but old school conservatives just fine

>HURR Murrika don't have no colonies!
>DURR we calls 'em "possessions", that's totes different!

Google it you fuckwit

>colonies were a huge money pit and economic drain on the host country

That's completely bullshit

Some powers (like the Brits) tried to prepare their colonies for decolonization, and they went (relatively) well. The ones that were the worst off tended to be the ones where the colonizers decided to fight for the colonies until they were exhausted and just pulled out without warning like Angola.

>praises them for fighting off the chicoms
>praises them for removing the khemer rouge
>implying i'm a commie

>amerishits

>Why did Europe give away all the colonies?

No quite a few of them fought to hold them.

Multiple reasons
>Britain, France and Netherlands were severely damaged by ww2, it was increasingly difficult to maintain colonies and put money into them when your economy is damaged and you're forced to rebuild your own country, war fatigue also would also mean less response to a independence movement but that was obviously not always the case.
>Pressure from the US and USSR and them backing independence movements. Portugal could not hold onto places like Angola largely because of a steady stream of support from the USSR and US.
>Colonies were often burdensome and colonisers would sometimes put more money into them then what they got out. It was draining to maintain them.
>Globalisation, freer markets and technology changes. Maintaining a colony because it's coal rich and can be used to power your fleet became obsolete as boats began to use less coal. A freer market meant less need to sit on an oil rich nation as now you could trade more openly for oil. A more globalised world meant less need to hold onto strategic territory, have buffer states, compete as nations generally became more friendly with each other and there was less competition between European colonisers because of their levelled position on the world stage post ww2.
>A very obvious one is having your empire destroyed as a result of war like Italy and Japan.

>american education

Obviously the Jews.

1. European countries were in ruins and nearly bankrupt so they couldn't afford to keep their colonies / weren't worth holding onto anymore.
2. Invention of nuclear weapons made large empires way less relevant than before as nukes would decide the new world players.
3. You can still control your former colonies indirectly by providing foreign aid and keeping shit leaders in power who can't build their countries up to challenge yours in future.

> 3. You can still control your former colonies indirectly by providing foreign aid and keeping shit leaders in power who can't build their countries up to challenge yours in future.
The eternal a*glo never changes

>eyes that blue on a beady eyed anglu

French were actually the best at this. Their colonies have been heavily economically dependent on France since their independence, and to this day they still use the Franc.

They were possessions. Americans weren't colonizers.

They bred too slowly thus didnt have populations that could independent manage colonies.

test

Neo-colonialism is cheaper. You can exploit their resources without having to worry about running the country.

>There was also the fear that the subject peoples in the colonies would emigrate to Britain and swamp the natives there, which is doubly ironic given that this happened despite Britain giving up her colonies.
I still don't understand why and how Britons let it happen? Who thought that having millions of people like pakistanis would be a great idea?
it should be pretty obvious that when you bring hundreds of thousands or millions of pakistanis somewhere this place will start to look more like Pakistan? No-one in sane mind should want that

>especially the brits and french
The french never gave up their colonies as the colonies still pay a large part of their income to france to this day.

the US, USSR and China supported the rebels and the war began shortly after neighboring states achieved independence

They also installed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the first place.

>Bro we will help you become Independent bro.
>LOL BRO SIKE

better track record for removing installed hostile regimes than some other countries though

I mean, the only country that didn't fight one was U.K (inb4 Malaysia) and the mandatorily decolonized nations.

>1000 years under China
>A century almost under French

>Also a communist government.
Lmao.

> Who thought that having millions of people like pakistanis would be a great idea?
Anti-White leftists who thought it would be worth it just to rub multiculturalism in the face of the Tories. Not even meming.

US destabilized it first, the Khmer Rouge were "nicer" when Norodom is still around.

> have immigration laws that are set up on the basis of commonwealth rules on mostly apolitical grounds
> people migrate into the country for 40 years
> ree fucking leftist mass immigration conspiraccy

>have immigration laws that are set up on the basis of commonwealth rules on mostly apolitical grounds
>implying

ur a retard

It's a specialized board for History, Op is totally in his rights to ask this. If everybody does this Veeky Forums would be empty.

America is literally a colony, though.

>Who thought that having millions of people like pakistanis would be a great idea?
Industrialists looking to break the trade unions' back. Politicians looking for new voting demos. Insane globalist commies and members of the Multi Cult.

The United States demanded it.

WW2 and labour shortages, basically. The left wing in Britain was staunchly opposed to this at the time as it would (and rather prophetically did), have huge ramifications on the white working classes. Political correctness is more of a corporate product than a socialistic one; or at least it was at this time as it incentivised the economic migrants from being discriminated and turned away from employment in the home country.

And naturally, if you think about workplace discrimination laws that is literally why they exist.