• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Who is saying that? I'm saying that the african states as they exist are not the products of the colonial powers but of the movements against colonialism. The colonial powers by and large didn't *do* state-building: They wanted to *prevent* it. (in practice, if not in theory and rhetoric)

Very true. If you actually look at how most African colonies were actually run, they were incredibly messy patchworks of recognized protectorates ruled by local monarchs, barely controlled "tribal zones", directly-ruled areas with authoritarian government, white settler communities with different rights and local government, and areas where state-functions were more exercised by extractive mining and plantation companies. You're not dealing with single systems of government, but very ad-hoc and ramshackle constructions designed to operate as cheaply (in both economic and manpower terms) as possible.

It's no real wonder that working all that into a single functional state post-decolonization didn't work very well in many cases.
 
Very true. If you actually look at how most African colonies were actually run, they were incredibly messy patchworks of recognized protectorates ruled by local monarchs, barely controlled "tribal zones", directly-ruled areas with authoritarian government, white settler communities with different rights and local government, and areas where state-functions were more exercised by extractive mining and plantation companies. You're not dealing with single systems of government, but very ad-hoc and ramshackle constructions designed to operate as cheaply (in both economic and manpower terms) as possible.

It's no real wonder that working all that into a single functional state post-decolonization didn't work very well in many cases.

And that would be assuming post-colonial relations were actually post colonial.

Instead of, say, Oceania's intelligence agencies conniving to get some post-independence leader bumped off and replaced by a corrupt but pliant successor. (Thereby derailing beneficial reforms that would run counter to the Acme Banana Company or General Widgets Incorporated. Improving the prestige of The President/state/Humphrey Appleby's second cousin twice removed. Making sure it doesn't fall into the orbit of The Other Guys, etc.)
 
Decolonisation happened because the European nations were too devastated by war, and the post-war order was too anti-colonial for them to survive. They could not have held them longer then they did, and when they tried the results were messy. See: Portugal and its African colonies.
One could argue though that Portugal was a third-rate colonial power. The Netherlands,another third rate colonial power almost reconquered Indonesia until international pressure forced it to withdraw.Major powers like France mainly 'lost' due to domestic pressure as well as international support towards rebels.The Viet Minh hardly would have won if it wasn't for Chinese and Soviet military aid.

The main problem about decolonization is that once a colony has been granted independence, it causes a domino effect where other colonies wanted independence as well with support being granted towards such a cause by former colonial nations.
 
Last edited:
The whole initial question is somewhat irrelevant. The Imperial powers were there to extract profit or resources, and once the colonies proved to be more expensive to run than what was to be extracted, they got out. If they had stayed, in a largely futile attempt to continue squeezing "benefits" from the colonies, there still would have been no systematic attempt to prepare those colonies for independence. That would have cost additional money being pumped in, not coming out.

Prolonging the situation would have made no significant difference, other than on a purely local basis of what individuals and local organizations happened to be there at the time to pick up the pieces.
 
Decolonisation happened because the European nations were too devastated by war, and the post-war order was too anti-colonial for them to survive.

By post-war order, one should read "the Soviets and Americans training and supplying insurgents" and "diplomatic and economic pressure".

One could argue though that Portugal was a third-rate colonial power. The Netherlands, another third rate colonial power almost reconquered Indonesia until international pressure forced it to withdraw. Major powers like France mainly 'lost' due to domestic pressure as well as international support towards rebels. The Viet Minh hardly would have won if it wasn't for Chinese and Soviet military aid.

Portugal lost it's colonies due to a leftist military coup in Lisbon, whole leaders granted them independence afterwards.

The local insurgencies had been very much put down in all the colonies by 1974, except for Guinea (those guys were armed with the latest Soviet AA missiles and other weaponry and operated from neighbouring countries).
 
Wow, a Portuguese nationalist! A rare sight. As you may know, pointless and hugely unpopular colonial wars were one of the causes of the "leftist" "coup" in the first place.
 
Nationalist? lol

Yes, it's true that it was unpopular, like the authoritarian regime of the time. The rest of my post is true also. And it *was* a leftist coup.
 
The whole initial question is somewhat irrelevant. The Imperial powers were there to extract profit or resources, and once the colonies proved to be more expensive to run than what was to be extracted, they got out. If they had stayed, in a largely futile attempt to continue squeezing "benefits" from the colonies, there still would have been no systematic attempt to prepare those colonies for independence. That would have cost additional money being pumped in, not coming out.

Prolonging the situation would have made no significant difference, other than on a purely local basis of what individuals and local organizations happened to be there at the time to pick up the pieces.

Largely untrue.

The colonies, with rare exception, were never profitable. Even if they had, it's also rather unlikely that all the colonies would cease to be profitable at exactly the same time.

Colonies made a lot of money for the ruling class, coincidentally the people who actually had a vote. They lost money overall and when the electoral franchise was expanded, it was inevitable that decolonisation would occur.
 
Largely untrue.

The colonies, with rare exception, were never profitable. Even if they had, it's also rather unlikely that all the colonies would cease to be profitable at exactly the same time.

Colonies made a lot of money for the ruling class, coincidentally the people who actually had a vote. They lost money overall and when the electoral franchise was expanded, it was inevitable that decolonisation would occur.
Largely depends on the circumstances. A lot of colonies are profitable.The British Raj,French Indochina and the Netherlands East Indies are some of them.The latter actually made the Netherlands as a country extremely wealthy. This profitability is mostly maintained,however,to detriment of the native population.The colonies that are unprofitable are largely the African ones.
 
Last edited:
No, no, no, no.

Britons ruling Indians = bad, bad, bad racist Britons
Portuguese ruling Indians = good, enlightened, non-racist and progressive

Have you learned nothing?

They weren't Indians, they were/are Portuguese! :mad:

I guess a racist Briton such as yourself couldn't understand an advanced multicultural pluricontinental society such as Fascist Portugal was.
 
They weren't Indians, they were/are Portuguese! :mad:

I guess a racist Briton such as yourself couldn't understand an advanced multicultural pluricontinental society such as Fascist Portugal was.

Indeed. I always get confused and start imagining that India was a democratic state and Portugal was a fascist dictatorship.
 
Largely depends on the circumstances. A lot of colonies are profitable.The British Raj,French Indochina and the Netherlands East Indies are some of them.The latter actually made the Netherlands as a country extremely wealthy. This profitability is mostly maintained,however,to detriment of the native population.The colonies that are unprofitable are largely the African ones.

That's rather more true.

The unprofitable colonies being abandoned wasn't that surprising but the profitable ones were abandoned as well. The exact reasons vary but it wasn't because they'd all suddenly become unprofitable at the same time.
 
That's rather more true.

The unprofitable colonies being abandoned wasn't that surprising but the profitable ones were abandoned as well. The exact reasons vary but it wasn't because they'd all suddenly become unprofitable at the same time.

I think they would have squirmed at the prospect of admitting they were holding onto the profitable ones for financial reasons, as it would undermine at lot of the ridiculous alleged high-minded reasons for colonialism in the first place.
 
I think they would have squirmed at the prospect of admitting they were holding onto the profitable ones for financial reasons, as it would undermine at lot of the ridiculous alleged high-minded reasons for colonialism in the first place.

Clement Attlee was the leader of the party that Keir Hardie had led. Labour's policy was one of decolonisation even at their birth. There was no sudden "Damascus conversion".
 
The colonies, with rare exception, were never profitable. Even if they had, it's also rather unlikely that all the colonies would cease to be profitable at exactly the same time.

Not really, because since around the 1930s colonial powers began to justify their presence more and more in terms of development - specially after WW2 - and this required quite a bit of investment and expenses, which previously the colonies didn't need as much of.
 
Not really, because since around the 1930s colonial powers began to justify their presence more and more in terms of development - specially after WW2 - and this required quite a bit of investment and expenses, which previously the colonies didn't need as much of.

Beginning to justify was a choice that they had made. Nobody was forcing them to develop those countries.
 
actually i allways wonder why this decolonization happened at all. I mean why should you give away land away for no real reason other than moralic ones. Which are like white man is evil and has to leave or something like that.
 
actually i allways wonder why this decolonization happened at all. I mean why should you give away land away for no real reason other than moralic ones. Which are like white man is evil and has to leave or something like that.

Because the majority of the people there wanted the colonisers to leave.
 
That had always been true though.

I'm not sure that's true. There must have been times when white rule was accepted by most. These were pre-democratic times and people may not have had much concept of "mandate to rule".