Pretty relevant here since thats basically all Portugal did with it's own wealth acquired from Brazil & co
L’Aigle Triomphant: A Napoleonic Victory TL
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
Let's face it, Portugal was not very visionary in the development of its colonies.
Yup, the US is still upset that the Philippines are no longer a colony.
Reality Check on the 3 largest western European countries & prosperity after WW II:
-UK:
Lots of colonies before WW II
Meh post-WW II economic growth despite limited damage compared to other major combatants and discovery of large oil/gas reserves
Many still butt-hurt over loss of colonies
-France:
More colonies than most but not as many as the UK
Lots of devastation in WWI and WWII, and solid growth post WW II considering the devastation and not having any giant off-shore oil and gas fields
Most folks not all that upset about loss of most colonies (except some are still angry about Algeria, but Algeria wasn't really a colony; also these folks who are angry about loss of colonies are also often angry about people from current & former colonies moving to metropolitanFrance)
-Germany:
Very few colonies compared to the UK or France;
Tremendous economically damaged by WWI and WWII, and miraculous economic development after WW II
Also, probably most German are probably pretty darn happy at this point about losing what colonies Germany had as it's one less thing to feel guilty about
My conclusion: All-in-all, not everyone's upset about losing colonies at this point, imho
Last edited:
The point here was more that at the time (I mean immediately after the losing) people considered losing the colonies a tragedy, not whether if +50 years later they considered it a good thing or were indifferent.
Sure, there will be people who are still angry about the issue, but you are right in that they are usually in the minority, the majority eventually move on, even their grandparents and parents were very upset about the issue.
What you've done is basically like saying:
"No, the United States NEVER, EVER, at ANY TIME in its history, supported or practiced slavery. And this is because, 'reality check', in 2024 Americans consider slavery as the vilest of evils."
Last edited:
That's kind of a heavy statement to imply in regard to gis intended meaning bro, I didn't get that message from his text when I read it....
I explicitly mentioned in the original text that this was the opinion of the inhabitants of the past, that is, from the time when the colonies were lost. But another person tried to counterargue with "well, at present it's considered a good thing." I don't think it's such a "heavy" "implication" at all, it was actually quite explicit.
Its not really
Before he edited it his comment just said
And to that Mitridates's response
Was fitting
Indeed, there was a reason why the German Empire and Italy wanted colonies so much, it was a proof of a country prestige and great power statut. To lose them was a blow to national prestige and the demotion to a third rate power.
In fact Bismarck was apparently one of the few people in his time who considered colonies to be a waste of money... but he had to reluctantly agree to Germany having any colonies because people WANTED to have colonies for exactly that reason. We can further see this if we consider that the people of XIX century Europe in general took pride in having colonies even if they were worthless wastelands.
Strange for me I only read the expanded message but even counting that seems like he loses the point.
His post was clearly talking about past people, specifically past Portugal
I have no idea where this confusion came from
Strange, I read your post, and what you wrote differs from what you intended.
Next time, I'll use a medium to interpet your posts before I comment or I'll miss their point if I have to rely on the on the plain meaning of the words you post.
Last edited:
Well if the post wasn't clear to at least two people, then it probably wasn't clearly clear.
ETA: That's a well known problem in human communications--I just read a bunch of papers on it.
Again edited to add: I added the clause "I just read a bunch of papers on it" not only becaue I did but also to some level of facetiousness, which is why in part I added this addendum to this rather silly line of commentary
Last edited:
Or the post could have been very clear and both these people could be arguing in bad faith
In doubt and to avoid unnecessarily accusing someone I'll go with what the post itself says, and it says that
Edit:
Since everyone is making edits to their comments now I might as well make mine
I just want to make abundantly clear, again, that I am not in fact saying anyone is acting in bad faith, but that appealing to the number of observers is inherently flawed because said observers are unreliable and so what should matter for real is the prime source of the given information
Last edited:
No the common peoples themselves cared nothing for colonies and had little say in the matter, but the elites and politicians certainly did and even sometime it was the ambition of a few select individuals. Saying Europeans wanted colonies is wrong, most of them cared about making ends.