(Relatively) Peaceful 20th Century

Canada, Australia, NZ all progressed from Colonies to Self Governing Dominions due to the investment made in them, both human and capital. How was this not a benefit?


Canada, Australia, NZ were all white settler colonies. They were never treated in the same way as India, Malaya, Hong Kong, Kenya etc. You are once again agreeing with my point that Europe would benefit but the non-white parts of the world would not.


Your graphs show that most British investment was going to the white settler colonies, apart from India. Almost nothing was invested in Hong Kong or the Straits Settlements. This is precisely why I find it rather galling for you to insinuate that we would have somehow been better off under British rule when they contributed so little to our development. Instead of being a first world country, Singapore would have remained as a colonial backwater and someone like myself would have been treated as a second class citizen in his own home while living in a slum. How was this possibly a benefit?
 
Your graphs show that most British investment was going to the white settler colonies, apart from India. Almost nothing was invested in Hong Kong or the Straits Settlements.

Um, you know how small these settlements were. Why finance 1000 miles of railway if it wont physically fit. If financiers can get better returns and at lower risk then the money will go elsewhere.

This is precisely why I find it rather galling for you to insinuate that we would have somehow been better off under British rule when they contributed so little to our development.

Woah, I've provided data and sources when asked to support my assertion that the entire world would be better off from many more decades of free trade and investment than the poverty produced by 2 world wars and tens of millions of dead in not just Europe but by extension, Asia as well. I have not specifically talked about Singapore and you've conflated that to how it would affect you personally.

I'll quote from Chiang Hai Ding's conclusion in his thesis: A History of Straights Settlements Foreign Trade 1870-1915:

The expansion of the colony's trade reflected the rapid economic development that took place in the countries of Southeast Asia in these 45 years, particularly in Malaya. The flow of trade through the Straits Settlements from East to West developed more rapidly than the reverse flow of West-to-East, indicating the strong demand for Southeast Asian goods and the rapid response from the region. The rapid economic development in Southeast Asia is also revealed by the rapid growth of the intra-Asian flow of trade.

It was obvious, however, that the interests of the Straits Settlements were most closely linked with those of the Malay States which formed the hinterland to the colony. Following the extension of British control in Malaya they came under common British rule. The capital, labour and enterprise that developed these states came very largely from or through the Straits Settlements and the exports of these states, the most important of which were tin in the nineteenth and rubber in the twentieth century, can be regarded as returns to investment. Their unity of interests is "best illustrated "by the firm and deliberate action taken by the FMS government to retain the smelting of tin ores in the Straits Settlements and to prevent it from passing into USA hands.

The Straits Settlements depended on its ability to bring about the exchange of goods more efficiently than could be done by the trading countries trading directly. The flows of trade through the colony were attracted by its central location in relation to Southeast Asia and its strategic position on the trade routes between Europe and East Asia. They were also attracted by the provision of trading services, credit facilities and the freedom of the ports and of trade. The last advantage meant that the value of goods was enhanced by their being made more marketable in the colony while there was no cost incurred in the form of taxes on trade which would have discouraged such flows and encouraged direct trade. The colony therefore took great pains to ensure that these freedoms were not impaired or curtailed, and though some taxes were levied, they fell only on goods consumed in the colony while the entrepot trade -- of re-exports from the colony -- was not taxed at all and great care was taken to see that impediments to its flow were kept at a minimum. The Straits Settlements, unlike other regions in Southeast Asia, had virtually no exports of its own except value added to reexports, its production consisting not of goods "but of services. It had therefore virtually nothing to trade with and paid for the imports it consumed with the profits it made as a market-place. It had no permanent claim on the trade that came to it and its role in Southeast Asian trade may he compared with the position occupied by a highly attractive mistress who was aware that her fortunes depended on her ability to continue to charm. The colony was unable to retaliate against French discriminatory tariffs in Indochina which adversely affected its trade because its true interests were served by attracting trade and not by discouraging it.

The Straits Settlements, however, enjoyed complete political stability in these 45 years when rapid political changes took place in Southeast Asia. It did not suffer from the general instability that was part and parcel of the Malayan mainland before British intervention; it was not involved in wars of conquest as was the case of Sumatra; nor did it face the uncertainties of Siam arising out of Anglo-French diplomatic disputes. There were neither civil disorders nor invasions although the colony made yearly contributions towards the maintenance of its defences. Political stability and the security of life and commerce were, in the final analysis, the cornerstones of Straits Settlements prosperity without which all its other advantages would have been in vain. This situation is not without relevance to the trade of Singapore today.

You singled out British Rule, here is the economic consequences of Japanese Rule on your region.

I'll be lazy and quote wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#British_Malaya
Malaya and Singapore were under Japanese occupation from 1942 until 1945. The Japanese issued banana money as the official currency to replace the Straits currency issued by the British. During that time, the cost of basic necessities increased drastically. As the occupation proceeded, the Japanese authorities printed more money to fund their wartime activities, which resulted in hyperinflation and a severe depreciation in value of the banana note.

From February to December 1942, $100 of Straits currency was worth $100 in Japanese scrip, after which the value of Japanese scrip began to erode, reaching $385 on December 1943 and $1,850 one year later. By 1 August 1945, this had inflated to $10,500, and 11 days later it had reached $95,000. After 13 August 1945, Japanese scrip had become valueless.
 
Canada, Australia, NZ were all white settler colonies. They were never treated in the same way as India, Malaya, Hong Kong, Kenya etc. You are once again agreeing with my point that Europe would benefit but the non-white parts of the world would not.


Your graphs show that most British investment was going to the white settler colonies, apart from India. Almost nothing was invested in Hong Kong or the Straits Settlements. This is precisely why I find it rather galling for you to insinuate that we would have somehow been better off under British rule when they contributed so little to our development. Instead of being a first world country, Singapore would have remained as a colonial backwater and someone like myself would have been treated as a second class citizen in his own home while living in a slum. How was this possibly a benefit?

I'm of your opinion. I do think there's room for a statement close to what @Dorknought is saying that doesn't endorse imperialism.

It's irrefutable that an extra decade or two of imperialism would be a really bad thing.
But it's possible that the immense scale of global destruction unleashed by two World Wars was worse.

I accept there are counterarguments to this as well- perhaps having more white people around means more white settler colonies, more sequestration of wealth away from natives, when countries do gain independence they might be forced into imbalanced trade relationships by a skewed world order. This is all very possible.

It's hard to visualize the balance sheet, but there is a point where, whatever your metrics are, a TL hits the benchmark that makes it better than OTL or worse, by those metrics.
 
Here is where UK's foreign investments were going:
2VgzeS1.jpg

As you can see the bulk was going to the Empire although a significant proportion was in the USA, Latin and South America.

From the earlier graph, there could be another £1,200 million of UK funds to invest by 1920 without WW1.
It's interesting that that the investment in South Africa, Canada , Australia is pretty much on par with India, which has a population many times over the others

Shows the investment per capita was actually very lopsided to the white settler colonies
 
You singled out British Rule, here is the economic consequences of Japanese Rule on your region.

I'll be lazy and quote wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#British_Malaya
The hyperinflation was a direct result of the British scorched Earth policy while retreating and the subsequent wartime policies of the Japanese & embargo as a whole.

During the same time, the Bengal famine in British controlled India as well killed 2-3 million, an outcome of British wartime policy that is often forgotten
 
I'm of your opinion. I do think there's room for a statement close to what @Dorknought is saying that doesn't endorse imperialism.

It's irrefutable that an extra decade or two of imperialism would be a really bad thing.
But it's possible that the immense scale of global destruction unleashed by two World Wars was worse.

I accept there are counterarguments to this as well- perhaps having more white people around means more white settler colonies, more sequestration of wealth away from natives, when countries do gain independence they might be forced into imbalanced trade relationships by a skewed world order. This is all very possible.

It's hard to visualize the balance sheet, but there is a point where, whatever your metrics are, a TL hits the benchmark that makes it better than OTL or worse, by those metrics.

Yes it is undeniable that humanity would be better off if 60 million people in WW2 weren't killed, along with the huge amounts of physical damage that crippled nations for years to come. In hindsight, I will agree with @Dorknought that my personal case as a Singaporean is perhaps a bit unique lol. I live and work in Yangon at the moment and many locals view the colonial era with nostalgia, though perhaps because they didn't live through the more unsavoury aspects of it.

Let me rephrase it: the world as a whole would be a better place in absolute terms; but the Western world would be better in relative terms to non-Western countries as compared to today.

 
Yes it is undeniable that humanity would be better off if 60 million people in WW2 weren't killed, along with the huge amounts of physical damage that crippled nations for years to come. In hindsight, I will agree with @Dorknought that my personal case as a Singaporean is perhaps a bit unique lol. I live and work in Yangon at the moment and many locals view the colonial era with nostalgia, though perhaps because they didn't live through the more unsavoury aspects of it.

Let me rephrase it: the world as a whole would be a better place in absolute terms; but the Western world would be better in relative terms to non-Western countries as compared to today.

Yeah, more of an imbalance, very likely outcome. We could probably come up with AH scenarios where there are no wars and everyone benefits, but it's not going to be by a continuation of the status quo.
 
My opinion is that without world war 2 and the Cold War, US manufacturing would be in a much better state. The US virtually had a monopoly on world manufacturing after world war 2 (european and japanese industries were destroyed), making their companies soft and complacent. Japan and Europe were rebuilding by protecting their industries and subsidizing their exports. The US allowed these exports to be dumped on their market to appease Europe and Japan in the name of fighting Communism, even ignoring complaints by their domestic producers. Without world war 2, Japan and Europe would have continued to industrialize and produce peacetime goods to trade on the world market. Japan and Europe would not have felt a heavy need to engage in industrial policy and state intervention. Without going to a cold war vs communism, the US would not have pimped out their working class to cater to other countries. This may be a controversial opinion to some.
 
Top