My professor insists that most colonization efforts by European

>>2472612
>most
Yes

>all
Definitely not.

>>2472612
I don't see how that was possible. While most silver and gold, mostly silver, was going to China, after the Opium war, Europe became fucking rich, especially with the industrial revolution.

>>2472623
I should clarify maybe not Portugal or Germany, but the majority of the colonial powers probably saw some return.

>>2472623
>>2472616
Was India profitable? I hear that the tea plantations alone accounted for half the Royal Navy's budget but that was only one part of it.

>>2472634
>maybe not Portugal or Germany
Coincidentally, Germany was the only power with colonies that were self-sufficient (Togoland and Kamerun) despite the colonies overall being a net drain on their admin. The administration costs for the other colonial powers did not make up for the returns they saw.

>>2472645
>Was India profitable?
No. Aspects of it were, as you noted, but the entire colony was not.

Early colonial exploits were mostly profitable, maybe too much even. Spain flooded Europe with so much gold from New World that the prices went at least 5x higher during 16th and 17th century.

19th century colonial exploits, "Scramble for Africa" etc were generally a failure in the long run. The investments in the colonies proved to be much higher than the profits, which is why colonialism eventually failed.

Today great powers have more subtle approach about acquiring riches from other countries, they don't need to occupy them anymore.

>>2472645
It was a pain to hold onto, but it did provide manpower and tea, as well as cotton for textiles. Did it account for half the budget? Probably not, but it could have been close.

>>2472650
But did colonies have value beyond monetary that we can calculate? Like being in a strategics location (the Philippines, Gibraltar) or having massive amounts of manpower to press into service. (India, Algeria).

>>2472650
Really? I heard Germany was terrible at managing their few colonies. Could it be that because they had a lot less to look after and because they were smaller, they became a little better to administrate?

>>2472665


The later 19th century ones did. A lot of them were coaling ports; those later steamers didn't have the same range before needing to resupply that older sailing vessels had, so it was important to have a stretch of dirt on the water somewhere so your vessels could stop and refuel on their way to more important places. (A lot of the Sub-saharan English colonies were this to protect the route between the home country and India before the digging of the Suez Canal)

>>2472665
Oh yeah. The British had Singapore which they used to connect their empire together in Asia, and all Empires used colonial soldiers in WW1. Some more than others, but you know.

>>2472665
>But did colonies have value beyond monetary that we can calculate
Most Pacific colonies were just coaling stations between China and Europe. The manpower really means fuck all because you can't drain a colony of manpower and expect to hold on to it. There's a reason that non-European forces made up a small percentage of the conflict. Britain could have easily flooded the continent with Africans and Indians, but they didn't. On top of this, the manpower is better-served gathering resources. It's the same reason Spain didn't go genociding across the Americas but instead enslaved the locals.

>>2472682
Varied so wildly from colony to colony it's difficult to give you a straight answer. A short summary is: You had terrible administrations like Sudwestafrika and Ostafrika. You had mediocre administrations like Tsingtao and Samoa. You had good administrations like Togoland and Kamerun. They didn't have a set colonial policy as each colony administration was effectively an independent entity from the Reichskolonialamt and you don't really see any interference from the Rka until 1907. The reason Togoland really shined is the Germans never needed to control the interior and the Togolese adapted extremely quickly to the German system and were more than happy to oblige the plantation system Germans were using for resources in the region (and even use it for themselves). The railroad that was planned from the coast to the interior probably would have changed the balance, but it was interrupted by WWI.

File: txDkpak.png (202KB, 485x274px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 485x274px

>tfw actually get to talk about my historiographical specialty for a minute and everyone jumps ship
Why does /his/ hate actual discussion about colonial historiography and colonial studies?

>>2472857
OP here, plz tell about how the various colonial powers governed their premier colonies (India, Algeria, the US Philippines) and how efficient it is.

Plz also tell about what goals and expectations the different powers had.

>>2472882
I can't tell you much about Britain, France or the U.S. (outside of the basics that you can find with a simple Google search), but I can tell you about German colonialism.

>>2472896
Why did they even bother when everything of worth was accounted for?

>>2472896
Can you at least tell me if US imperialism was imperialism in the classical sense? It always seemed to be they were more interested in bases than exploiting the natives.

>>2472898
Not everything of worth was accounted for. Tanganyika was desperately desired by Portugal and Britain, but went to Germany and was intended to become their India (but never came close for various reasons). German colonization of Samoa almost led to a three way war between Britain, the United States and Germany but was miraculously prevented by a fucking typhoon. Plus, prestige reasons. Anybody who was anybody had colonies.

>>2472907
Absolutely imperialist (and the U.S. has been imperialist since 1776 for that matter). Cuba and Puerto Rico were based around exploiting sugar for American use while FREEDOM was the rallying cry. Even the Canal Zone was an exploitative colony. The U.S. (and Germany) intervened and broke Panama away from Colombia for FREEDOM and mostly to build the canal and exploit the local population to build and staff it for American gain.

>>2472929
Were the German colonies worth it in the end or was Bismark right?

>>2472953
Some were, some weren't. Bismarck being anti-colonialist is actually a meme. He personally signed all but two of Germany's colonial charters. Publicly he disagreed with the decision, but privately he not only did not dissent and pushed for the charters to progress as quickly as possible.

>>2472967
>>2472953
It also depends on what you mean by worth it.

>>2472612
Eventually they all became a loss, which is why they abandoned the idea. Without a lot of passive slaves it simply did not make fiscal sense.

There is no denying, however, that for a period colonization was very profitable.

Spain's colonies in South America are likely the exception to all rules. They made an ungodly amount of money from their conquest and colonization of South America.

>>2472985
Until they went bankrupt by producing so many precious metals that their currency became hyper inflated. It's literally the first inflation crisis in history.

>>2472612
>My professor insists that most colonization efforts by European powers resulted in a net loss money wise.

That is true if we are talking about 2nd wave colonization, aka Africa and Asia.

>>2472857

This is how it goes here. Someone posts a thread, someone who knows what they're talking about drops some knowledge, then the thread dies.

>>2472612
Wait so he's meaning to say that the wealth of European nations is NOT due to colonial exploitation, but perhaps due to the differences in race??

>>2473082
Probably exactly what the OP says on the tin, that most colonial administrations never saw the return of the money they sank into colonies.

So why were the American colonies so profitable while the Africa and Asian ones were not?

>>2472612

> My professor insists that most colonization efforts by European powers resulted in a net loss money wise. Is this true? Did they make up for it with manpower/bases/rare strategic resources?

No. It resulted in a net profit for European states, that was a net loss to European governments. Businesses are part of the state.

>>2473110
>Sugar, cotton, coffee, tobacco
>conducive to infrastructure
>self-contained and sufficient administrations

>>2472612
In money, probably most because they didn't succeed.
In spirit, Europeans shall forever be remembered as Lions among men.
In overall value. The subhumans are now colonizing Europe, net loss.

>Spanish colonies
Very profitable
> English colonies
>13 colonies
Profitable
>Canada and Australia
Not profitable but had their uses
>India
Very profitable
> African shitholes
Net lose
>Jamaica
Profitable
>France
> Haiti
Very profitable
>the rest
Worthless shitholes
>Portugal
>Brazil
Profitable
> The rest
Net lose
> Dutch colonies
Very profitable
>Italy
Net lose

France invested a massive amount of money in its 19th century colonies with little to no return.

>>2473822
They repaid us terrorism and invasion

HOW GREAT !

>>2473836
Should have just killed them all.