Would the European powers have been able to re-consolidate control over their empires if WW2 never happened?
Would Imperialism have fallen so far out of style if the Nazi's hadn't taken it to such extremes?
This is honestly the best question I've seen on /his/ in a while
The anticolonial backlash was not tied to the rise of Nazism.
They were always going to transition to a multinational, corporate, IMF, World Bank kind of generalized control over the colonized parts of the world.
No European power wanted to spend money on colonized peoples like they did on citizens, so even the colonies that voted to stay in Empires, the idea being that they would be citizens now, they were often told they could not stay.
>>1417473
Imo you can't just say "if WW2 never happened" and go with it, because something must have happened. There was of course the economic crisis, half of europe was fascist, USSR was a thing, corridor was fucking retarded, nations had unresolved inner ethical issues and there was still the shift from traditional to consumerist society that couldn't go through without any issue.
Though it was merely a question of time when is colonialism going to fail, ever since "every nation has a right to determine itself", plus even though hitler and all, afaik in Britain and France there were still less and less people believing in racism or "advanced culture has to rule over less advanced"
I heard somewhere that the mass production of small arms, particularly the Kalashnikov, tremendously weakened the total military dominance colonizers had over the colonized people.
>>1417473
Nazi's were colonialists? I thought they just wanted their autism reich in Europe. I know the natives preferred the Germans to the British in North Africa, but I don't remeber any major endeavour to colonize. I thought the fall of colonialism was more "the dutch were conquered/lost them all to the nips" and "britain was broke and couldn't support its colonies/war" more than the nazis made it a taboo. It's not like colonialism looked much better before with folks like Leopold
>>1419675
no? interesting. eleborate
>>1420375
Not him, but anticolonialism had been about for centuries. See, the idea behind colonialism was that these empires would take this land and private companies and citizens would move in and exploit it. However, private citizens had little to no interest in moving to Bum Fuck Africa/India/America, etc., and private companies tried to solve the problem through expense. Turns out colonialism is expensive as fuck and most of these companies went bankrupt and ended up getting bought out by the government. The government itself couldn't afford these massive money sinks and suddenly government money was stretched extremely thin. This led to either mass taxes in colonies which led to revolts, or expenditure cuts at home which led to revolts. Colonialism just wasn't profitable for the most part. There were exceptions, but they weren't the rule by any means.
tl;dr
Take a look at the causes of the Hottentot Election for Germany.
>>1419782
Germany had no North African colonies.
