would we still have colonies if WW2 didn't happen

This is false. Technology advances faster when there are many competing states. Empires stagnate. They become decadent. They become repressive and authoritarian and crackdown on creativity. Liberal democracies shit on Empires when it comes to producing technology. The small but highly motivated and competitive countries of Europe ran rings around the big empires that had nothing left to conquer and had tremendous wealth like the Indians and Chinese.

That is some of the most ignorant nonsense I've seen here

Indians and Chinese Empires did not stagnate because they had nothing left to conquer, they were conquered by the far technologically advanced western civilization, who were highly motivated and competitive, but they were certainly not 'small', and not only did they amass tremendous wealth but they used it well

At this point in time, western countries are really shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to R&D, China may seem like a backward country compared to ours, who only steals our tech, but in a couple of decades they will surpass us because they invest a significant amount of their capital in research, especially pertaining to quantum tech and artificial intelligence, while we are still relying on the magic of free market, which certainly moves ahead but at a slower rate
 
Last edited:
I do wish the Ottoman Empire survived until WWII, that way the Middle East would've been breaking away from a single Empire and might've done so in an organic way instead of the irrational way the region was divided in the wake of WWI.

Or maybe if Mehmet Ali's imperial ambitions weren't thwarted by the British he could've united the region under his dynasty and have it evolve into a constitutional monarchy as the Urabi revolt attempted to do in the 19th century(which also failed due to British interference). Would've been bad ass if everything from Arabia to Syria to Egypt and Sudan existed under a single constitutional monarch.
 
Last edited:
That is some of the most ignorant nonsense I've seen here

Indians and Chinese Empires did not stagnate because they had nothing left to conquer, they were conquered by the far technologically advanced western civilization, who were highly motivated and competitive, but they were certainly not 'small', and nor did they only amass tremendous wealth but they used it well

At this point in time, western countries are really shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to R&D, China may seem like a backward country compared to ours, who only steals our tech, but in a couple of decades they will surpass us because they invest a significant amount of their capital in research, especially pertaining to quantum tech and artificial intelligence, while we are still relying on the magic of free market, which certainly moves ahead but at a slower rate

It's not ignorant at all. The Portuguese for i.e. were small. You should read their descriptions of the tremendously wealthy cities and kingdoms they encountered. Those people had it made. The Portuguese had nowhere to go BUT do the insane thing of exploring the open oceans. The renaissance didn't occur in some big empire but happened in city states in Italy. Science and philosophy advanced way more under the Greeks than the big roman empire. Europe was far more dynamic and competitive. China was what Europe would have been if Rome conquered all of Europe.

You know for a fact that had the Mughals wanted to sail everywhere and explore the world they would have. They didn't because they had no reason to. Ming China could have done the same but for some reason all the sailing, colonization and exploration and new trade routes were built by 'small squabbling states' forced to find power in unconventional ways. These modern countries like Japan and the USA shit on the colonial empires.
 
I do wish the Ottoman Empire survived until WWII, that way the Middle East would've been breaking away from a single Empire and might've done so in an organic way instead of the irrational way the region was divided in the wake of WWI.

Or maybe if Mehmet Ali's imperial ambitions weren't thwarted by the British he could've united the region under his dynasty and have it evolve into a constitutional monarchy as the Urabi revolt attempted to do in the 19th century(which also failed due to British interference). Would've been bad ass if everything from Arabia to Syria to Egypt and Sudan existed under a single constitutional monarch.

Imagine a more secular Otto empire Islam might be a lot different today.
 
Yes I know Churchill was quite wedded to the Empire, which is why he resented Gandhi for dismantling it. But whatever Churchill felt about it didn't matter, the Indians were agitating for it and gaining momentum over decades and Gandhi's efforts were the culmination of that. It wasn't just an uprising, that could be put down. The Independence movement under Gandhi became a mass movement and a mass movement among one of the largest populations on earth, 3-400 million at the time, is not something you can put down simply with force.

Like I said, maybe it takes a little longer but eventually independence was coming.

Thanks for the laugh, that Gandhi dismantled the Empire. I'll let you know that you're wrong on that. He played a part but nothing big enough to take the whole thing down, you're delusional.

I agree though that it still would've happened because managing the Empire became too much of a hectic and after two world wars there were enough problems at home to handle. The benefits outweighed the costs of keeping it.
 
Think about it, what if Hitler stopped at Poland and Austria, and made peace. Then Britain, France, Spain, could focus on preserving their colonial empires, which were really magnificent, if you look at the map they dwarf anything the Romans or Mongols have accomplished spacewise. We really wasted tremendous resources killing each other on European continent for no reason. How awesome would it be to live in an Empire today, especially with today's technology.

i think so. people here are major arrogant to think not.
Yes I know Churchill was quite wedded to the Empire, which is why he resented Gandhi for dismantling it. But whatever Churchill felt about it didn't matter, the Indians were agitating for it and gaining momentum over decades and Gandhi's efforts were the culmination of that. It wasn't just an uprising, that could be put down. The Independence movement under Gandhi became a mass movement and a mass movement among one of the largest populations on earth, 3-400 million at the time, is not something you can put down simply with force.

Like I said, maybe it takes a little longer but eventually independence was coming.

it likely that some african colonies would still exist. it was not morals but economic reasons is why european empires gave up there colonies at end of world war II. Really it was only france and uk that did it. Spain at that point had already lost all of it major colonies. Spain had western sahara man. I mean lol place is barren shithole land with no people there it like mauritania and mali there is nothing same with niger, but niger has uranium mines. I could also see India being allowed more autonomy but being economically owned by Britain. Maybe they would of cared out pakistan and bangladesh for the muslims.
 
Yea, maybe we should enslave black people again too.....

*sarcasm
 
it likely that some african colonies would still exist. it was not morals but economic reasons is why european empires gave up there colonies at end of world war II. Really it was only france and uk that did it. Spain at that point had already lost all of it major colonies. Spain had western sahara man. I mean lol place is barren shithole land with no people there it like mauritania and mali there is nothing same with niger, but niger has uranium mines. I could also see India being allowed more autonomy but being economically owned by Britain. Maybe they would of cared out pakistan and bangladesh for the muslims.
I don't think Indians would've accepted any British control, the independence movement had too much momentum already. And India was the linchpin colony of the British Empire, losing that is a huge blow that could lead to a domino affect for the other colonies. Maybe they keep a few colonies a bit longer but there's no way they would've kept anything into the 21st century.
 
Thanks for the laugh, that Gandhi dismantled the Empire. I'll let you know that you're wrong on that. He played a part but nothing big enough to take the whole thing down, you're delusional.

I agree though that it still would've happened because managing the Empire became too much of a hectic and after two world wars there were enough problems at home to handle. The benefits outweighed the costs of keeping it.
He fought for the independence of their most valuable colony and got it, after that the other colonies fell like dominoes over the next few decades and that was his intention all along.
 
He fought for the independence of their most valuable colony and got it, after that the other colonies fell like dominoes over the next few decades and that was his intention all along.

There were other colonies that gained independence long before India did. Gandhi was only instrumental in India gaining independence. But even then, he wasn't the most significant factor. It was Britain being exhausted and worn out from the two world wars. Colonial era was over and most choose independence peacefully(kind of) and some are still overseas territory.
You know I'm right.
 
There were other colonies that gained independence long before India did. Gandhi was only instrumental in India gaining independence. But even then, he wasn't the most significant factor. It was Britain being exhausted and worn out from the two world wars. Colonial era was over and most choose independence peacefully(kind of) and some are still overseas territory.
You know I'm right.
Nope. Most of the British Empire was dismantled after India gained independence, you yourself said it was because Britain could not afford it. You're gonna tell me that has nothing to do with losing the economic center of gravity of the Empire?
 
I suspect probably not. From what I've read one of the problem with having colonies is expense. Colonies are expensive to have and hold. Having favorable trade programs is less of a mess in obtaining desired goods. That is my guess.
 
I am not so sure about that, if you know anything about Churchill, he was a true patriot of the Empire and he wanted to preserve it at all costs, so if there was no WW2 you can bet he would marshal British resources to put down uprising in India and other places

If there was no WWII Churchill never would have been Prime Minister
 
I don't think Indians would've accepted any British control, the independence movement had too much momentum already. And India was the linchpin colony of the British Empire, losing that is a huge blow that could lead to a domino affect for the other colonies. Maybe they keep a few colonies a bit longer but there's no way they would've kept anything into the 21st century.

well the british kept hong kong for long time. I think personally they would of. As long as they did not have aparthied system going everywhere it possible. I think it naive to think that spain for example could not keep equitorial guinea or unpopulated western sahara. Portugal also kept angola for a long time
 
well the british kept hong kong for long time. I think personally they would of. As long as they did not have aparthied system going everywhere it possible. I think it naive to think that spain for example could not keep equitorial guinea or unpopulated western sahara. Portugal also kept angola for a long time
Hong Kong is a city, nothing compared to the Indian subcontinent.
 
Hong Kong is a city, nothing compared to the Indian subcontinent.

well maybe they dont keep india but they had so much more land i think it is possible. and in cases like spain few unpopulated holding of land and few of portugal it for sure is possible. So much would be different without ww2 and i bet certain stuff not invented. And personally i think colonies will make a come back under future chinese world domination lol
 
Think about it, what if Hitler stopped at Poland and Austria, and made peace. Then Britain, France, Spain, could focus on preserving their colonial empires, which were really magnificent, if you look at the map they dwarf anything the Romans or Mongols have accomplished spacewise. We really wasted tremendous resources killing each other on European continent for no reason. How awesome would it be to live in an Empire today, especially with today's technology.

"we" didnt waste resources.

America was made rich by the world wars, and our competition economically was decimated.

but yea, sad for europe. they could have kept subjugating people around the world i suppose. now the US does it in much more subtle ways.
 
Nope. Most of the British Empire was dismantled after India gained independence, you yourself said it was because Britain could not afford it. You're gonna tell me that has nothing to do with losing the economic center of gravity of the Empire?


No. And I don't even need to reply to you. Since my previous posts cover this already. In fact, I repeated it to simplify it for you. But you're blind to facts.
 
We never should have went to war with Japanese Empire either, just let them have Asia[/QUOTE]

The two thousand American servicemen at Pearl Harbor and the entire British navy would disagree. The Japanese army also attacked in India, Burma, the Philippines. I could go on but there was no possible of just letting them have an empire after all that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top