Why couldn't the empires of Western Europe survive the mid-late 20th century?
>>18102845Because the age of tiny countries running naval empires has ended. Only superstates like the US, USSR, and China can survive in the modern world.The British were very foolish in creating America
>>18102845They blew each other up in dumdum wars.
>>18102845They just do it with money now. They figured out it doesn't matter what a country is named, what matters is who controls its wealth and there are easier ways to do that now.
Because Adolf Hitler destroyed them and American capitalism and the USSR took world power and both those demanded and forced decolonization
>>18103316>and both those demanded and forced decolonizationWhy?
>>18103309That's just a cope to throw about nonsense words like neo-imperialism. or subscribe to the asinine reductionist "global north poor south" theories
>>18103349Once upon a time the preposterous wealth buried under Saudi Arabia would have simply resulted in it being invaded by a European power. In the 20th century that wealth was channelled in to financing the west in a far less obvious manner than simply invading.
>>18103342Communist wanted to free oppressed workers, capitalists wanted new cheap markets dependent on American finished goods and cheap labor they could exploit. Win win for both commies and capitalists
Density ideology is correct ideology. Women's rights or whatever doesn't affect fertility. What affects fertility is density.>People having more sex causes less kids Tard reasoning.>Saudi Arabia has high fertility Density. >Saudi Arabia has highest fertility in the worldIt doesn't, the highest fertility is Nigeria with large arable land and low density per rainfall, and also Afghanistan which is just a fraud and driven by ngo statistic.
>>18103380>Communist wanted to free oppressed workerslollmao even>>18103349This, neo-colonialism is lame as fuck. In the peak colonial era if you were a european wandering around the British Raj or the Chinese concessions and a local dared touch you their governments would beg for mercy as your country of origin threatened to navally bombard them. Nowadays if you're a "neo-colonialist" you cant do shit in any of the countries you're neo-colonizing
>>18102845The communists funded a bunch of independence movements and the colonies became too expensive to maintain
>>18102845Britain voluntarily gave up it's colonies. Portugal lost them because of a domestic revolution stabbing them in the back. The Russian Empire you could argue is still around today, if not claiming that it died in the 90's. France went bankrupt from WWII and fought as hard as they could to retain their colonial empire and they actually managed to hold on to a surprisingly large number of overseas possessions and one whole colony.
>>18102845Colonies are not profitable for countries in the aggregate, with the exception for Spain for some time when America was giving them plenty of Gold.The Brits as a whole didn't really benefit from their Indian colonies.(Of course some individuals did benefit from this)
>>18102845>rising tide of poo
>>18102845The soviets were handing out guns like candy, mantaining an empire became too expensive. Look at Portugal.
>>18104211>The communists funded a bunch of independence movements and the colonies became too expensive to maintainand then the communists from the USSR did the exact same thing too.
>>18102845The Portuguese survived pretty well in Angola and Mozambique. But they were losing hard in Guinea because it's surrounded on three sides. Rather than give up on Guinea the government pressed on until it was toppled by a Portuguese military coup in Lisbon itself. Had they given up Guinea they might have been able to keep holding on in Angola and Mozambique.
>>18105159>Colonies are not profitable for countries in the aggregateHaving a coaling ports is a massive advantage to have. That and being able to secure resources. A fuckton of the rebuilding effort post ww2 was built up on the taxation of the colonies and their exports on top of securing key materials.
>>18102845They were all bankrupt after the WWII but most importantly all the colonies had agitators sponsored and promoted by both the US and the USSR, both of which aimed to dismantle the empires. However, the goals were different. The USSR wanted to attract new countries into the Communist camp while the US did it out of aversion to European imperialism.
>>18107002Oh and ww2 as well.
>>18107005>colonies had agitators sponsored and promoted by both the US and the USSRThey always existed and had previous flare ups, just that post ww2 outright denying reforms and fucking over trained colonial soldiers who fought in ww2 was not a good idea pretty much set it all loose woth no way to turn the clock back.
>>18102845The African colonies never turned a profit. The Asian ones were too expensive to control once the Asians started actively fighting for independence.
>>18107118>The African colonies never turned a profit. The Asian ones were too expensive to controlPeople say that sans any concrete source or actual scale of their budgets. Its basically the "Paula Abdul's first kiss" of midwit history
>>18107306And a lot of the research of many colonies in SEA, South Asia and Africa shows how thin the wire was in colonial administration being cheap as fuck or the sheer number of basically serfs/slaves in many of these jurisdictions.
