I say that mittleafrica need decades to get to european level. what we talking about here is the industial revolution the later you start with it the faster it goes. all changes had been pretty small before the industrial revolution but when it start its like a explosion.
My point exactly.
Bold: Well, yes, pretty much.
I live in one part of Europe that never fully industrialised, and even whan it did, it was 100+ years after England- and concequences are visible even today.
So essentially during all recent years, no matter what politicians or the population could have done, it wouldn'T have any effect? Essentially, your country is doomed to be poorer than Britain no matter what you do? That sounds more like a comfortable excuse to me...
I, for a counterexample, live in an area which until well after WWII was amongst the poorest regions in Germany, yet today is one of the richest regions. Germany as a whole started from a lower standard of living than England and at a later date - yet surpassed them in short term. There are plenty of examples which proof that industrialization could be concluded faster than Britain did it.
Because, Arica isn't poor because bad white man robbed them from their wealth, it's poor because it ALLWAYS was poor.
Again, my home region was always poor as well, but now it isn'T anymore. It's not even 100 years that Swiss families sent their children to Swabia because they were too poor to feed them. After all, Switzerland has always been poor...
And if Europeans did never come to Africa, they would still be on a stone age or little better level as they were in 1880-s.
Be careful - one could take this as a racist argument. If the Europeans were able to develop further than the stone age, why shouldn'T Africans be able to do so on their own?
Nevertheless, that's not the point. Germany is going there, investing, educating, teaching, constructing to develop them.
OK, why today any african country isn't even 20% of standard of average western EU-country?
In 50 years of independence, they should accomplish at least that...
First, note that the fact that Africa didn't industrialize just as Europe - or many Asian countries - does not proof your hypothesis that the European way to industrialization is the ultimate and fastest way ever possible.
Domestic dictatorship, tribal thinking, nepotism and general mismanagement are IMHO the main reasons that Africa is left behind. This is actual proof that politics CAN determine development of a country - just look into Eastern Europe for another example which prooved devastating as well. The fact that the countries in Africa often have arbitrary frontiers, are multi-ethnic and multi-religious increased the likelihood of such negative government and civil war.
And then you also have the general problems of the tropics - diseases, of which Africa clearly has the worst package you can get, draught, natural catastrophes, and lately also overpopulation.
It is interesting, though, that Rast already established that the Germans help Mittelafrika to overcome this problems. Germany educates police and bureaucracy. That should limit corruption and nepotism to an amount seldomly found outside developped countries IOTL. The Germans enforced German as a common language - and promoted christendom as a common religion. In an early discussion of the timeline, it was already stated that this helps to overcome tribalism. German federalism should help to stabilize multi-ethnic countries. The Germans are also beginning to emancipate the locals by introducing democracy - an important tool to prevent corrupt dictators and widespread corruption. Considering diseases, even IOTL German colonies the medical service was very good for a colonial service. Overpopulation at this early state is not a problem yet - and with standard of living rising it probably will never get a serious problem in Mittelafrika. You see that many of the reasons which contributed to Africa bein left behind economically are directly adressed by the Germans.