Were colonies ultimately good for the colonizer?

[Dracolithfiend]

The British and French we're not in alliance until 1904/05 and this wasn't designed explicitly to counter Germany but more or less to secure their empires from proxy wars as well.

German naval buildup began in 1895 - 1897 to counter the French fleet not the British.

 

[keynes2.0]

German naval buildup began in 1895 - 1897 to counter the French fleet not the British.

Germany laid down the four Bradenburg battleships in 1890. Personally I would put that as the start of the buildup.

German naval construction focused overwhelmingly on battleships not heavier cruisers. That's the exact opposite of the priorities they would want to fight the French given the French naval doctrine and the obvious geographical constraints (i.e. jeune ecole and the channel). Germany didn't build their first destroyer until 1898.

Nations weren't building to counter a single nation in the 1890s, they were building to counter everyone. It's uncontroversial to say that the French (for example) were interested in being ready to fight not only Germany but Britain or America or Italy as well. Similar statements could be made about the British and Americans. Given that Germany was building not only cruisers but battleships as well, I think it's obvious they were no exception.

 

[Gordy]

They had to be. When the French are selling opium like ice lollies in Indonchina you already know this isn't a charity. In later stages this debate only cropped up because Britain thought of whole scale modernizing its empire to compete with the USSR or USA as a super-power, then realized it would cost an impossible amount.

That's utter nonsense. The British elected a government after WW2 whose agenda included getting rid of the Empire (as they saw it as morally wrong and befenitting only an over-privileged elite) - at no point did they think that there was any point in trying to compete with the USA and USSR by modernising the Empire - the country was sick of war and had no interest in chasing this kind of stupidity.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

That's utter nonsense. The British elected a government after WW2 whose agenda included getting rid of the Empire (as they saw it as morally wrong and befenitting only an over-privileged elite) - at no point did they think that there was any point in trying to compete with the USA and USSR by modernising the Empire - the country was sick of war and had no interest in chasing this kind of stupidity.

The Labour government right? forgot who was leading it. Good man though.

 

[Okawoa]

That's utter nonsense. The British elected a government after WW2 whose agenda included getting rid of the Empire (as they saw it as morally wrong and befenitting only an over-privileged elite) - at no point did they think that there was any point in trying to compete with the USA and USSR by modernising the Empire - the country was sick of war and had no interest in chasing this kind of stupidity.

Winston "Gas the Iraqi's" Churchil was strong armed by Roosevelt to disband the empire. This whole "we did some good for the world" came after they were brow beaten, as you said. Britain like Belguim and Holland looked towards international cooperation after they realized they couldn't go on.

By later stages I'm talking about the early 20th century with the "Imperial economy" v.s. "free trade" debate.

EDIT: I looked at my original post and despite France selling opium to Vietnamese to make a profit being a, you know, HISTORICAL FACT ... I guess I won't be convincing anyone in a forum dedicated to power tripping.

 

[Semper Victor]

Winston "Gas the Iraqi's" Churchil was strong armed by Roosevelt to disband the empire. This whole "we did some good for the world" came after they were brow beaten, as you said. Britain like Belguim and Holland looked towards international cooperation after they realized they couldn't go on.

By later stages I'm talking about the early 20th century with the "Imperial economy" v.s. "free trade" debate.

EDIT: I looked at my original post and despite France selling opium to Vietnamese to make a profit being a, you know, HISTORICAL FACT ... I guess I won't be convincing anyone in a forum dedicated to power tripping.

The Dutch did the same in the DEI, it wasn't just a French thing. And then there's the issue of the opium trade in China, of course.

EDIT: Here you have a picture of a sampling box with opium samples, property of the colonial Dutch government, which established a state monopoly over opium trade in the East Indies in the late XIX century:

 

[DoomBunny]

Winston "Gas the Iraqi's" Churchil

Myth.

was strong armed by Roosevelt to disband the empire.

Given that Churchill wasn't in power, Roosevelt was dead, and the British only really started withdrawing in the 50's/60's, that doesn't really hold.

This whole "we did some good for the world" came after they were brow beaten, as you said. Britain like Belguim and Holland looked towards international cooperation after they realized they couldn't go on.

By later stages I'm talking about the early 20th century with the "Imperial economy" v.s. "free trade" debate.

Actually a lot of the contemporary justification for colonialism came from a desire to civilize the natives and develop the land.

EDIT: I looked at my original post and despite France selling opium to Vietnamese to make a profit being a, you know, HISTORICAL FACT ... I guess I won't be convincing anyone in a forum dedicated to power tripping.

Those poor Vietnamese people, being sold the exact same goods everyone else was buying.

 

[Okawoa]

Myth.

And this quote isn't real then?
""I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]"

Given that Churchill wasn't in power, Roosevelt was dead, and the British only really started withdrawing in the 50's/60's, that doesn't really hold.

Sorry DoomBunny I was responding to the poster who said in '45 Britain was prepared to disband their colonies. We are on the same timeline here.

Actually a lot of the contemporary justification for colonialism came from a desire to civilize the natives and develop the land.

Even in parliamentary notes in the 19th century concluded that the textile industry in the Indian sub-continent was being stunted artificially. The Metropole was reaping the benefits, please don't buy into this "civilizing mission" dogma. London was very pro-native but the majority of the empire, including parts of Britain, wasn't. "Civilizing natives" is such a blanket broad term like "socializing" or "making good christians", of course it was being abused. Of course I can buy exceptions like Cecil Rhodes who were genuinely selfless but generally ex-pats weren't looking to empower subjects. Britain in Nigeria actually stunted the development of a culture already at the Renaissance city state stage.

Those poor Vietnamese people, being sold the exact same goods everyone else was buying.

The cynic is strong and I'm not a hippie. I've lived through peak alcoholism in Russia when people were selling their children on the street for alcohol. While you get far-fetched African-Americans who talk about the government selling crack to them, this was genuinely a colonial state that marketed addictive drugs to the population. We live in a time where the U.S. government is actively trying to save heroin junkies, imagine a government where they actively tried to get people hooked on substances. I used Vietnam as an example but yes this was happening by ALL colonial governments and it makes my point more potent rather than wishy-washy.

 

[DoomBunny]

And this quote isn't real then?
""I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]"

Yeap. Using teargas to disperse enemy combatants rather than kill them. What a monster.

Even in parliamentary notes in the 19th century concluded that the textile industry in the Indian sub-continent was being stunted artificially. The Metropole was reaping the benefits,

Not true. What did occur was a decline in cottage industry (natural in the circumstances) due to importation of cheap goods from Britain. This however gets turned into Britain somehow ruining the Indian economy, for which there is no evidence.

please don't buy into this "civilizing mission" dogma. London was very pro-native but the majority of the empire, including parts of Britain, wasn't. "Civilizing natives" is such a blanket broad term like "socializing" or "making good christians", of course it was being abused. Of course I can buy exceptions like Cecil Rhodes who were genuinely selfless but generally ex-pats weren't looking to empower subjects.

There's so much wrong here that I'm not really sure where to start.

Britain in Nigeria actually stunted the development of a culture already at the Renaissance city state stage.

Is this trolling or genuine? I hate to ask but there are genuinely people who believe this.

The cynic is strong and I'm not a hippie. I've lived through peak alcoholism in Russia when people were selling their children on the street for alcohol. While you get far-fetched African-Americans who talk about the government selling crack to them, this was genuinely a colonial state that marketed addictive drugs to the population. We live in a time where the U.S. government is actively trying to save heroin junkies, imagine a government where they actively tried to get people hooked on substances. I used Vietnam as an example but yes this was happening by ALL colonial governments and it makes my point more potent rather than wishy-washy.

Terrible. Those poor natives clearly needed the protection of a benevolent colonial government to stop them doing what they couldn't themselves. If only the benevolent colonial government hadn't also been opium addicted.

 

[Okawoa]

I think we won't see any agreement. "Poisoned gas" is a killing weapon in any case. It is like supporting someone bombing civilians if they "disperse". Man those dead people they shoulda dispersed! Also re-read he isn't talking about enemy combatants but "uncivilized tribes".

Concerning India I think we are agreement "circumstances" declined the cottage industry.

The rest I'm not really mad about because I feel I pulled your card at the "power trip" stage. All I'm getting is petty "your wrong" arguments when you've read one general history on the topic. Throw me some sources rather than outlines of an arguments. Altho I understand its a forum so this isn't serious and not worth our effort to go into depth. I just get the feeling DoomBunny we could have a better conversation later when you've read up a little, because we're not giving a shit but your arguments are coming out ... well you read them.

 

[Gordy]

Winston "Gas the Iraqi's" Churchil was strong armed by Roosevelt to disband the empire. This whole "we did some good for the world" came after they were brow beaten, as you said. Britain like Belguim and Holland looked towards international cooperation after they realized they couldn't go on.

By later stages I'm talking about the early 20th century with the "Imperial economy" v.s. "free trade" debate.

EDIT: I looked at my original post and despite France selling opium to Vietnamese to make a profit being a, you know, HISTORICAL FACT ... I guess I won't be convincing anyone in a forum dedicated to power tripping.

It's perhaps best if you don't talk about "historical fact" especially not if you capitalise it since you don't seem to have a very strong grasp of it.

In the real world, Churchill lost the election after World War Two and Clement Atlee took over. Atlee was an old school socialist and had been in favour of getting rid of the Empire his whole life. Nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Churchill won the next election then died in office. Most colonies were abandoned in the sixties; by which time Churchill had been dead for twenty years. They'd probably have been given up mnuch earlier but they were hardly in a fit state to rule themselves in the forties (they weren't really in the sixties either but at least people thought they were).

 

[Gordy]

The Labour government right? forgot who was leading it. Good man though.

Clement Attlee

 

[bz249]

It's perhaps best if you don't talk about "historical fact" especially not if you capitalise it since you don't seem to have a very strong grasp of it.

In the real world, Churchill lost the election after World War Two and Clement Atlee took over. Atlee was an old school socialist and had been in favour of getting rid of the Empire his whole life. Nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Churchill won the next election then died in office. Most colonies were abandoned in the sixties; by which time Churchill had been dead for twenty years. They'd probably have been given up mnuch earlier but they were hardly in a fit state to rule themselves in the forties (they weren't really in the sixties either but at least people thought they were).

Churchill resigned due to health problems and eventually died, but it was 10 years later

 

[Okawoa]

It's perhaps best if you don't talk about "historical fact" especially not if you capitalise it since you don't seem to have a very strong grasp of it.

In the real world, Churchill lost the election after World War Two and Clement Atlee took over. Atlee was an old school socialist and had been in favour of getting rid of the Empire his whole life. Nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Churchill won the next election then died in office. Most colonies were abandoned in the sixties; by which time Churchill had been dead for twenty years. They'd probably have been given up mnuch earlier but they were hardly in a fit state to rule themselves in the forties (they weren't really in the sixties either but at least people thought they were).

Um duh. But the seeds were planted before the Labour victory. Roosevelt openly stated he wanted freedom for the African colonies and this sealed the impossibility of the empire surviving in any case. Since you believe that, unlike yourself, I didn't know this beforehand try reading this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...7997/How-victory-spelt-the-end-of-empire.html

but seriously ... are you disagreeing with the Vietnam fact? It is a fact despite what you want to call it. You can sleep on it and it will still be true. European colonial powers marketed opium to asians in order to ramp a profit. I don't care if it was right or wrong, it is just a fact. I think it is best you don't talk about history if you deny facts, that would be in the realm of holocaust denial and shit.

 

[RichStrat]

The point about European colonialism is not that it was some of Nirvana, some sort of Utopia. Not every action, not every rule was in the best interests of the colonised people, but overall European Colonialism was clearly beneficial to non European peoples. Because in virtually every case the alternative was not some native democracy but another empire. Take India for example, no Britain wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than both the local Muslim rulers and the Hindu rulers. Were the Spanish perfect? Again no but they were better rulers than the Aztecs and Incas. Did White Europeans commit atrocities against the natives of North America? Sure but they were as nothing compared to the systematic, murder, rape and torture practised by the native tribes. North America, Africa, New Guinea, had suffered thousands of years of incessant warfare before Europeans arrived and brought peace and the rule of law.

 

[Gordy]

Um duh. But the seeds were planted before the Labour victory. Roosevelt openly stated he wanted freedom for the African colonies and this sealed the impossibility of the empire surviving in any case. Since you believe that, unlike yourself, I didn't know this beforehand try reading this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...7997/How-victory-spelt-the-end-of-empire.html

Roosevelt could openly state that he wanted the moon to orbit in the other direction if he wanted, it would not mean that his opinion had any impact on the moon's orbit.

Your source does not ever say that the Empire was abandoned because Roosevelt put pressure on. It says that Roosevelt wanted the Empire gone and the Empire went, the two facts are not related and your article doesn't say that they were.

but seriously ... are you disagreeing with the Vietnam fact? It is a fact despite what you want to call it. You can sleep on it and it will still be true. European colonial powers marketed opium to asians in order to ramp a profit. I don't care if it was right or wrong, it is just a fact. I think it is best you don't talk about history if you deny facts, that would be in the realm of holocaust denial and shit.

I think it's best that you don't post on forums if you are going to make stuff up. I never once commented on Vietnam or opium in this thread. Yet you accuse me of denying "facts". You are either trolling or you are illiterate.

 

[Okawoa]

Roosevelt could openly state that he wanted the moon to orbit in the other direction if he wanted, it would not mean that his opinion had any impact on the moon's orbit.

Your source does not ever say that the Empire was abandoned because Roosevelt put pressure on. It says that Roosevelt wanted the Empire gone and the Empire went, the two facts are not related and your article doesn't say that they were.



I think it's best that you don't post on forums if you are going to make stuff up. I never once commented on Vietnam or opium in this thread. Yet you accuse me of denying "facts". You are either trolling or you are illiterate.

Essentially the chain began when you called out my fact. You said it wasn't a fact so I was surprised. Now I see you are just calling me names to call me names I'll leave you be. In the future if you don't have anything to do with an argument don't barge in. I think you're more of the troll and I don't know why I responded to a poster who insults people out the gate. I leave this discussion happy I was more civil.

 

[Gordy]

Essentially the chain began when you called out my fact. You said it wasn't a fact so I was surprised. Now I see you are just calling me names to call me names I'll leave you be. In the future if you don't have anything to do with an argument don't barge in. I think you're more of the troll and I don't know why I responded to a poster who insults people out the gate. I leave this discussion happy I was more civil.

You are making things up again.

I said you were wrong when you claimed that the Empire was only abandoned "because Roosevelt pressured Churchill". This has no basis in fact and I found it ironic that you had written "HISTORICAL FACT" elsewhere in your post given that you don't seem to know very many historical facts. The reality is that Attlee started the ball rolling on decolonisation, it reflected British public will with very few people objecting and Roosevelt wasn't a factor.

I never said a word about either Vietnam or opium. You are simply making that up or failing to read properly.

 

[keynes2.0]

EDIT: Here you have a picture of a sampling box with opium samples,

What are those wrapped in? Was foil wrapping a thing yet?

 

[Semper Victor]

What are those wrapped in? Was foil wrapping a thing yet?

Apparently, yes. I saw that box myself last year in August at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (although the picture is not mine). The foil guaranteed the quality, the quantity and good preservation of the opium inside. The official reason given for establishing a state monopoly on opium trade was to "ensure" the quality of the sold product; all for the natives health's sake, of course. I guess that the fact that it also left an equally healthy profit for the Dutch state also helped a bit.