Why did europeans just decide to give up their colonies shortly after World War 2?

why did europeans just decide to give up their colonies shortly after World War 2?

Other urls found in this thread:

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12909-rothschild
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The US forced us to give them up mr meme flag.

It was to balkanize Africa and make its eventual take over by the next nation in line who sold out to (((them))) way easier and in fact downright approved by western governments under the guise of humanitarian effort.

Basically jews being jews, pretending to be sorry for the Goys, starting revolutions only to be among the first one in line to trade with the warlords who now ruled the country.

Variety of reasons, Europe was decimated & great powers could not afford imperial overstretch, growing trend of disdain for colonialism, etc.

One reason that’s often overlooked is that with increased free trade, having colonies no longer was highly economically beneficial. I find this ironic because in Marxist thought imperialism is the ultimate form of capitalism. In reality, capitalism trumped imperialism as it became more beneficial to trade than practice resource exploitation via colonies

Nothing to do with you sabotaging the remnants of European empires, allying with commies, niggers and arabs in your pursuit to make sure there were no powers other than yourself? All the while smiling.

should have fought better europoor
you're our colony now

ATLANTIC CHARTER

The US allied with Commies in WWII, as did the UK.. and post WWII Western Europe also allied with anti-soviet Arabs and blacks. Maybe colonization fell apart due to Europe’s inability to have even a semblance of foresight. But no, act like a nigger and blame America for your self inflicted problems

1) they were basically forced to by America and the (((UN)))
2) after WW2, they were all too weak to put up much resistance against colonial rebellions.

Reminder that if Britbongistan just signed a peace treaty with Germany instead of autistically fighting them on behalf of the kikes, they could've kept their entire fucking empire.

Most colonies were never profitable at all, with exceptions being ones like India.

In short, the USA forced them to release colonies.

I'm just glad we got rid of our colonies after WW1 and aren't guilt trapped into housing thousands of niggers

Because the jews decided to stop financing them having achieved their objective of turning us all into debt slaves and using us to kill Hitler.

>From 1800 to 1947, the House of (((Sassoon))) controlled most of the trade within India: banking, trading, shipping, insurance etc., from their Mumbai headquarters.
>But the House of (((Sassoon)))’s handled the trading in opium and other goods in India. Thereafter, the House of Jardine and Matheson handled their distribution in China and the House of Inchapes handled the shipping of these goods. House of (((Openheimers)))/Rhodes handled the gold and diamond mining business. The American operations were handled by the House of Rockefellers, (((Seagrams))), (((Sassoons))), (((Japhets))), Jardine-Mathesons etc. The Houses of (((Rothschilds))) and (((Warburgs))) coordinated the banking aspect of this trade.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12909-rothschild

>housing thousands of niggers
mohammed...i

Yet here we are, housing thousands of niggers

Because the mutt empire forced them to do it.

it would be the reverse they will stay in their countries if european would have stay enought to make them south african tier

Yes. The (((USA))).

i wouldnt be so bad if at least they would have controlled the jews ,we are in the worst posible timeline

>they could've kept their entire fucking empire.
No.

Certainly more than what you have left now (falklands and st helena?)

*Maybe*. Certainly not any of the more important ones (Singapore, Aden, Hong Kong, Malta, etc)

>Anglo putting jewish subversion above reality
Hitler saw the British Empire as a positive means of civilising Africa with Whites. He wouldn't have destroyed it like America.

"A year later in the Hossbach Conference of November 1937, Hitler would refer to Britain and France as “hate-filled antagonists.”

Contrary to what this board may believe, the British Empire was declining in the years prior to World War Two, and even, perhaps, World War One.

how?

>Ethiopia was never colonized
this meme needs to die
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa

For all the same reasons why the US would be better off if we dissolved all the ex-confederate states from the union

((()))

Mine gave theirs because it became democratic and had a shitload of foreign pressure to do it.
It was done on a rush and it could have been more organized. Democracies cant really hold colonies, unless its some deserted parcel of land.
In the case of british Gibraltar is different though. Its there to remind spain how big of a faggot it is for betraying the entire Iberian Peninsula to Napoleon.

Savimbi was their insurance. Funnily enough, I think the Krauts were our primary weapons supplier.
Also the war was pretty much won in all territories except guinea-bissau.

The end of World War 2 was the end of European power.

Soviets started promoting Marxist leftist nationalism in African countries to start revolutions

Probably too expensive.

Why have colonies?

When you understand the point of colonies you will understand why they stopped being important.

I found a colony because I believe the only way I can get access to the strategic resources there is through direct control of the territory. This was more relevant in the 1600s for example because nations often embargoed trade from other nations and refused to trade in certain goods - basically using trade as a weapon (google mercantilism).

After WW2 the emerging international order as well as the liberalisation of trade and the incredible, insurmountable power of the industrial economies and the reduction in travel time made access to strategic resources trivial. It's still trivial.

As mercantilism declined towards the end of the 1700s and early 1800s and countries began to feel a little bit more secure about trading in "military" goods like lead and timber, there was another reason to keep colonies. In India, for example, it was cheaper to buy British textiles imported from the other side of the world than Indian textiles produced half a mile away due to the massive competitive advantage of industrialisation. The Indian market employed - and paid for - tens of thousands of British textile workers. When you manage to force, cajole, and convince the world to embrace free trade you no longer need to directly rule (and control access to) those markets.

By the 1940s colonies were positively vestigial. There was an American "advisor" in every "court" handing out loans and developmental aid to impoverished nations if they would only embrace the free market (embrace being an export market for American goods, that is). Who eats American food? Africans, Indians, Chinamen.

By the current day a colony is an economic drain on the public purse that serves no point. If we want to trade with them, we don't need to own them. If we want access to their strategic resources, they'll gladly trade them like anything else.

Also there were various other reasons that mostly boil down to securing monopoly control of a certain trade route/good, or setting up military outposts to extend the range of your navy, but you can see why these become irrelevant in time.