Why and how?

File: British exoticism.png (210KB, 769x1283px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 769x1283px

Global free trade made that type of imperialism largely obsolete and it was probably not that profitable either way. What's the point of conquering shit on the other side o the globe when you can have their resources and populations delivered to your doorstep without firing a shot?

>>1476589
I mean I'd argue some places were bound to become decolonized eventually. India especially was coming to a simmering point, and if the Brits didn't let out when they did, there would be even more violent rebellion. India as a whole was a mess, and it was quickly becoming more of a nuisance rather than an investment. Maybe if they had played their cards correctly before-hand it would've lasted longer. As for Italy, losing a World War doesn't help.

commies and arms proliferation

>>1476612
>What's the point of conquering shit on the other side o the globe when you can have their resources and populations delivered to your doorstep without firing a shot?
I assume that, as an independent nation, a country like Algeria or Vietnam would strive for its own economic prosperity, as opposed to the colonial system in which all the wealth goes straight to the metropolis.

>>1476625
>I assume that, as a free man, the worker will strive for his own economic prosperity, as opposed to slavery in which all the wealth goes straight to the owner

>>1476618
Even for the African colonies the minute India leaves they'll agitate for independence.

File: anger.gif (895KB, 232x137px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 232x137px

>>1476589
>Western Sahara
>(Morocco)

>>1476635
You might have to spend some money with military ukeep, to repress rebellions, but it would still be worth it, I assume. Again, when a country is independent they start trading with other nations, impose taxes on imports, and so on. Basically they prioritize their own well economic being instead of the metropolis.

>Roosevelt tells major powers to eat shit, advocates self-determination of all people in Atlantic Charter
>former major powers find themselves up shit creek as they try to figure out how to decolonize like they said they would
>France fucks it all up
>Britain fucks it all up
>Everyone fucks everything up
>Britain: "L-l-let's be sensible about this Sub-Saharan Africa, we'll give you independence in 10 or 20 years, trust us"
>Algeria: "Hey maybe we don't need French colonists dominating our legislature, economy, and military any longer. What do you have to say about that, France?"
>"Hon hon hon, I'm still a major power, and now I'll prove it!"
>civil war, 200,000 dead, French motto a collateral casualty
>nationalism, nationalism everywhere!
>Britain, France, and Portugal: "Shit."
>Du Gaulle: "Fucking niggers. Fucking SAND niggers."
>Soviets: "Anyone want to be friends?"
>Americans: "Anyone want to get shot?"

File: chinese in africa.jpg (40KB, 468x393px)

40KB, 468x393px

>>1476589
>Why and how?

India and the various Asian countries should have never been colonized in the first place, as these were advanced civilizations in their own right but Africa should have remained a colony even today.

Decolonialism was an utter disaster for Africa, as the vast majority of Africans were (and many still are) essentially stone age people and simply could not adapt to the modern world on their own.

America deserves the blame for this, demanding that Europeans set their colonies “free” after WWII in the naive belief that they’d somehow magically become civilized nations.

File: 2pqq1d5.jpg (17KB, 350x234px)

17KB, 350x234px

>>1476755

>>1476589
Britain ran away when they got rifles.