Development of Africa and Asia If Europe Still Held Colonies

RousseauX

Donor
Its also twice the size and population of my country,it can be riches simply off of numbers,and my country was also wreacked by communism and a war not to long ago,id expect them to be richer.

Still a few diamonds in a bucket of garbage dont change the fact its a bucket of garbage.

We could probably say that fascist ruled europe wasnt that bad,look the sweedes did fine,the problem is the general state of the continent which is flooded by issues that will never be resolved without serious restructuring.

I'm talking about per capita income dude

As in, on the average, an individual from equatorial guinea is richer than the average person from Croatia.

Still a few diamonds in a bucket of garbage dont change the fact its a bucket of garbage.
So would you support putting the government of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Croatia for 50 years so it's richer?
 
Although we should give NK credit for somehow breaking the known function that bad economy usually leads to wider dissent.

Actually the most dangerous point is when things are improving but not fast enough - or if things have been improving then slow down.

Societies in true famine conditions almost never revolt. You need to not be hungry to actually be able to revolt. (Which is why I think that an uprising in North Korea is actually a possibility, if admittedly a remote one, since by all accounts there *has* been some sustained, low-level economic growth over the past decade there.)
 
I'm talking about per capita income dude

As in, on the average, an individual from equatorial guinea is richer than the average person from Croatia.

So would you support putting the government of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Croatia for 50 years so it's richer?

Sure,they cant do any worse of a job,im not racist,all i care is that the person is capable enough to do the job,we can also deport our government to them as a sign of thanks.
 
I'm talking about per capita income dude

As in, on the average, an individual from equatorial guinea is richer than the average person from Croatia.

So would you support putting the government of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Croatia for 50 years so it's richer?

Although, you should know, Equatorial Guinea is mainly a renter state based on dat black gold.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Sure,they cant do any worse of a job,im not racist,all i care is that the person is capable enough to do the job,we can also deport our government to them as a sign of thanks.

Ok, at least you are fair in that aspect.

But still though, don't you kind of see how that government probably -wouldn't- do better than the Croatian government because the set of circumstances in Croatia is so different from the set of circumstances in Equatorial Guinea?
 
My countries problem was pure corruption,and croatia will have adriatic oil soon,all in all the situations are preaty similair.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Although, you should know, Equatorial Guinea is mainly a renter state based on dat black gold.

Oh yeah, that's kind of my point though.

Europe is pretty fundamentally different from Africa in 1945 and I'm just not sure the logic of "this government worked well in europe, it would also do well in Africa" is very sound.
 
My countries problem was pure corruption,and croatia will have adriatic oil soon,all in all the situations are preaty similair.

Croatia's problems don't end at corruption. Corruption is there, true, but the bigger issue is that you've got a cultural history of twitchiness to taxes ever since the SFRY redistributed Croatian and Slovenian taxes to BiH, Serbia, Macedonia and Kosovo.

Combine that with a small population unable to create a self-sustaining internal market, half-assed economic liberalisation and the long-held idea that the EU is a panacea to the country's problems, which hasn't survived collision with reality. Oh and don't even get me started on the tourism industry. Croatia's problems are largely macroeconomic. I reject the notion that corruption is a macroeconomic issue. It's often just the most significant and ever present microeconomic issue.

The business success of Croats in places like New Zealand suggests that Croatia's relatively low income isn't because of the Croat people themselves.
 
I'm talking about per capita income dude

As in, on the average, an individual from equatorial guinea is richer than the average person from Croatia.

So would you support putting the government of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Croatia for 50 years so it's richer?

You've got to be kidding about the average person from Equatorial Guinea being richer than the average Croatian. Per capita GDP is not the average salary of a country, rather it is the agregate of goods and services produced by a country divided by its inhabitants. In Equatorial Guinea 60% of the population lives on less than $1 per day. The country has a high per capita GDP because it has a small population and produces a large quantity of oil. However, the majority of that oil wealth goes into the hands of the government elite. Per capita GDP is not the way to look at how rich a nation's populace is, rather its median household income is a better indicator.
 

RousseauX

Donor
You've got to be kidding about the average person from Equatorial Guinea being richer than the average Croatian. Per capita GDP is not the average salary of a country, rather it is the agregate of goods and services produced by a country divided by its inhabitants. In Equatorial Guinea 60% of the population lives on less than $1 per day. The country has a high per capita GDP because it has a small population and produces a large quantity of oil. However, the majority of that oil wealth goes into the hands of the government elite. Per capita GDP is not the way to look at how rich a nation's populace is, rather its median household income is a better indicator.

Yeah I was wrong about that, something like Botswana is a much better example
 
Ok so well the debate died down.

So what caused Africa and Asia's baby boom was that the continent reaped the successes of the Green Revolution. Of course what came with it were medical advances to help the population. And then came infrastructure projects, water sanitation, schools, all that stuff.

So what would it look like if Europe still held control? Would they even bother to care?

Europe wouldn't bother to develop their colonies lest it is for their own gain. For the Green Revolution maybe they can allow their colonial subjects to reap the rewards but once the population starts controlling they may use medical advancements just to stem the growth of the population to prevent dissident. Any thoughts?
 
So what would it look like if Europe still held control? Would they even bother to care?
Why wouldn't they care?
They cared at the time, even if that care might be considered part of the
general "Screw you, guys!".

Have you had a look at what was actually done in the colonies at the time,
besides oppression and atrocities?

Have you had a look at the welfare system, education and labour
rights IN Europe at the time colonialism took off?

And why would "Europe" care less if they still had the colonies, and thus
were still responsible for them, than they are now when the colonies
are independent?
 
OTL France still own a few of overseas departaments, most notably French Guiana.

French overseas territories are undoubtely much better off than neighbours, but French Guiana include significant space industry, and their population size is very low in comparision to mainland France. Comparable prosperity in larger colonies would be much more difficult.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana
 
if Europe Still Held Colonies

Africa would have been more Developed like South Africa and have Better Life with Less Wars, Less Poorness and Diseases

Europeans had Plans to Built Infrastructure in Africa before Decolonization in OTL

In Asia

India would have been a Commonwealth Nation like Canada and Australia and Ruled by Queen Elizabeth II

Indonesia would have been similar Style to the British Commonwealth Nation and would look Similar as in OTL but More Richer and Better Life

Vietnam War would never Happened without Decolonization and Vietnam would be Resemble like Japan and Better Life but under French and World would have been More Conservative

Cambodian Genocide will never Happened without Decolonization and People would have better Life

But No Offense
 
Top