As we all know, WW1 marked the decline of the west. The only thing that was ultimately able to topple European hegemony was Europeans themselves. With that in mind, what would have happened if WW1 didn't occur, or at the very least was not as cataclysmic as it was? Would decolonization still have happened, or would European hegemony continue through most of the 20th, possibly into the 21st, century?
>>325999
Top hats never would have gone out of fashion.
Also, everyone would probably still be racist, because the europeans would have an interest in keeping public opinion in favor of continuing to subjugate the colonies and maintaining maximum control over them, in order to extract all those resources with impunity, which would be more difficult if the locals begin to get a say in governance, or any respect from the european public.
The european states would probably be forced to become more decentralised, or otherwise eventually fail or lose their colonies. Britain had a plan before WW1 to change administratively into an imperial federation (with britain, canada, australia, new zealand and south africa forming a single parliament)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation
As for tech, it's interesting to think about. We wouldn't have all the war tech that we developed in ww1 and ww2, but at the same time, millions of people would be alive, many of whom may have become artists, scientists, engineers etc.
The russian state likely would have evolved into a constitutional monarchy like britain, as they already had the duma in 1905. So we probably wouldn't see a big rise in communism, and the cold war probably wouldn't have happened.
Japan was already expanding, and it may still threaten America's pacific dominance, so a conflict there is still possible.
Without germany alienating its jewish population and generally fucking up in a big way, it probably would remain the most important nation in science, and the lingua franca of science would be german. In general, there would be multiple lingua francas for different things, rather than just english as we have it now.
Without the spread of communism, its difficult to say what would have happened to china. Perhaps it would reform and integrate with the capitalist powers straight away.
The Ottomans would probably still collapse.
The main powers in 2000 may be Britain, France, Russia, and the US.
>>325999
>Sweden-Norway owns Norway but not Sweden
>>325999
>Japan gets a color but Persian doesn't
>>327184
Or, some subtly different spin on 20th century politics might have resulted in global nuclear apocalypse.
For all the shit of WW1, WW2 and the cold war, at least we came out of it with a civilization left. It came pretty close several times.
It's easy for me to imagine an impetuous, more aristocratic europe deploying nuclear weapons in some war of secret alliances during the 50s.
>>327421
I'm not convinced that nuclear weapons would still have been developed if ww1 and ww2 never happened. Are they inevitable?
If they had still been created, why wouldn't we have just seen proxy wars between multiple sides, like the cold war but with less ideology? I don't think there's any need to assume a nuclear apocalypse.
Perhaps a functional league of nations would have developed.
>>327421
>no exodus of german scientists in america
>no manhattan project
>nuclear weapons in the 50's
>>325999
>based Ethiopia
>>325999
>WW1 marked the decline of the west
So apparently the Roaring Twenties happened in Japan huh? Was the V-2 rocket invented by Cambodians?
>>327601
>Once a region starts to decline, no new technologies will appear and no part of the region will do well economically again.
>>325999
>US is dominant to this day
nice decline you got there
Things would be incredible. Because the wars didn't happen technology might have lagged but if WWI didn't break out industry probably would have expanded so that famine and material poverty were virtually gone.
The Russian revolution might not have happened but either way Russia would be completely westernized and considered "Western" by the 1930s or 40s at the latest.
Colonial regions probably wouldn't become wouldn't have rebelled the way they because
>No Soviet Union
>Widespread peace and prosperity
>No muh holocause
>No muh white people are nazis.
The colonial domain would have a MUCH better standard of living versus today. I think China might be a more impoverished shithole and belong to Japan, while India would probably be pretty well off besides a few regions. Ottoman Empire would have collapsed into a civil war in a Balkanization type fashion but once things got sorted would be a lot better than today.
Man if people rose up and killed the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, etc before 1914 things would be so much better.
>>327574
>origin of mankind
>never colonised
>>327613
>declining
>exponential growth
I suspect that your idea of "decline" involves the cool kids not liking you.
>>327736
>Man if people rose up and killed the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, etc before 1914 things would be so much better.
But if there aren't any revolutions, and things are incredible, then at what point did they kill those dynasties?
>>327736
>india
>well off under british rule
top jej
>>327841
Obviously decline has to be taken relative to the rate of growth of other world powers, and on the log scale.
If exponential growth means there is no decline, then pretty much no region ever declines these days.
>>327814
>an allegory for starvation in the modern era
>actually lost to Italians
>>327601
Do you honestly not think the West began its decline with WW1?
Think about what you are saying- your example of the V-2. It was used at a time when the West was fighting a terrible civil war that would cause it to lose its grip on its global colonies, and millions of westerners were dying. There's not much to be celebrated.
In 1900, the West had an unassailable global rule and also a demographic dominance. Since then, the standard of living disparity between the West and non-westerners has narrowed, the share of Westerners as a portion of the global population has sharply declined, and Western political supremacy has retreated from non-Western areas.
It's a decline, not a collapse- The West is still the richest, most prosperous, most powerful place around. But I can't wave away the decline of the west by pointing out we invented the internet or sent someone to the moon. Technological advances do not change the general trend of our loss of power, significance and importance.
I believe since that power and significance is so huge to this day, it' a little hard to understand, but the West's supremacy really was universal in 1900. We've definitely slid down.
>>327736
>I think China might be a more impoverished shithole and belong to Japan
But japan was still growing its empire and was bound to clash with the US over control of the pacific.
Also, you are aware that noone has ever gained complete control of china, not even the mongols? The best the japanese could hope for is partial colonisation of coastal (and some inland) areas.
>>327916
In what sense did the mongols not gain "complete control?" And what about the Manchu? They certainly gained complete control.
That said, Japanese policy with China was schizophrenic and hard to pin down, but I don't think they entertained any ambitions of ruling anything but the coastal areas. Actual colonization efforts, including mass settlement of Japanese, were directed toward Manchuria.
>>327924
Alright, I concede that the mongols and the manchus fully conquered china. But I don't think the japanese would have been able to do so if they tried.
And in any case, japan was bound to clash with america, and barring a strong alliance, it would likely lose its empire in any situation.
>>327889
>actually lost to Italians
They only got a part of it. I think the Italians technically lost, as they were trying to get all of Ethiopia.
>>327916
not even china has ever had complete control of china
>>327993
>But I don't think the japanese would have been able to do so if they tried.
pretty sure Manchuria wasnt a colony, just a vassal
>>327851
eh, more of a figure of speech. I just wish people were more aware and stood up for themselves more back then even if it was outside the context of "the law", maybe we wouldn't have be in this situation today.
>>327863
Poo in loo detected
>>327916
Japan probably wouldn't have taken over all of it but I would say that the Japanese Empire at it's peak in the 30s and 40s, minus parts they took from Western controlled areas, would be what it would look like. "China" would not really be a thing like we know it today.
Japan would no doubt clash with America or another Western power but would learn it's place.
>>327914
>In 1900, the West had an unassailable global rule and also a demographic dominance. Since then, the standard of living disparity between the West and non-westerners has narrowed, the share of Westerners as a portion of the global population has sharply declined
>do not change the general trend of our loss of power, significance and importance.
>We've definitely slid down.
The proliferation of the west's technology into other regions and their subsequent economic, population, and ultimately political growth was inevitable, especially after the west directly ruling the majority of other regions. I fail to see how their catching up translates to a "decline" for the west. Do we get our value from being above other people? If some of those places had stayed shitholes, would we be better off? If they develop, they can start producing new technologies and new inventions, and everyone benefits from that.
>>328078
yes, the raj was benevolent and kind, and nothing bad happened under it.
>>328061
I considered putting "except china obviously" but decided against it.
>>327601
>>327841
>>327914
>In 1900, the West had an unassailable global rule and also a demographic dominance
>be me, europe, in 1900
>25% of the world's population (+5% in US/Canada)
>who else cozy here?
>100 years later
>7.5% of the world's population (+3% US/Canada)
>exponential growth
Europe barely even has control over its own countries right now.
>>328078
>eh, more of a figure of speech. I just wish people were more aware and stood up for themselves more back then even if it was outside the context of "the law", maybe we wouldn't have be in this situation today.
I think you need to pick between
A) people stick up for themselves and murder rothchilds etc
B) everything is wonderful and stable
>>328169
>>328169
Looks like africa is going to be a big player in the 22nd century.
>>328078
>Japan would no doubt clash with America or another Western power but would learn it's place.
It would lose its entire empire when it "clashed".
>>327914
>It was used at a time when the West was fighting a terrible civil war that would cause it to lose its grip on its global colonies
You are aware that a civil war is a war that is fought between elements of a single country?
>>328192
I'd say they're a player right now considering Europe can barely deal with a million of them
>>328169
>Europe barely even has control over its own countries right now.
Would you mind elaborating? I have no idea what you mean here.
>>327184
>>327736
One thing I don't understand is, in whatever scenario Ottoman Empire collapses regardless. I also believe that it would, but what makes the difference? Why does it collapse in every scenario?
Is Ottoman Empire a failed attempt on different way of colonization or just interference from more powerful empires?
>>328109
> I fail to see how their catching up translates to a "decline" for the west.
Decline is a relative term, bud. It's a decline in the west's population, industrial might, military presence, and influence on the global stage. In 1900, the west was undisputed in its dominance in all these areas. In 2000, just a mere century later, it is being rivalled and in some areas surpassed be non-western nations. That is a decline, if you can't see that then you are blind.
>>328109
>>328231
Also, you can see this decline in a very literal and pronounced sense via this map. Look at all the territory lost/given up by Europeans in the span of a couple decades. This is one of, if not the, biggest declines in power in recorded history.
>>328214
They'll be a big player when their nations are doing well economically, and europeans are immigrating to africa en masse.
Anyway, I think the refugee crisis is mostly syrians, who are from the middle east.
>>328221
They have basically no policy towards the huge influx of refugees and other migrants. Even if they did, it seems unlikely they could actually implement one. Their decisionmaking moves at a glacial pace. Migrants were drowning by the thousands in January and the only thing the EU accomplished was helping to bring them there faster.
There's no real plan for what to do with them when they get there. Germany is scrambling to find, build, and claim housing for them. They actually floated the idea of keeping them in Dachau at the Nazi concentration camp.
There's a shantytown in Calais, France, where migrants routinely try to hop on trucks, occasionally try to run or walk through the chunnel, and have been the cause of rail or road traffic shutting down. Brussels, where the EU is headquartered, was just shut down for like 4 days with barely anybody outside because of terror threats having to do with Batalclan and police investigations in majority-immigrant neighborhoods.
There's even less of a long-term plan for what to do with them all, and there's basically no sign of fewer refugees and migrants coming. Germany has accepted more migrants this year than the US ever has in any single year of its entire history.
I mean, sure, there are still functioning governments, but they're facing a crisis and basically doing nothing. What are they going to do? The EU has enough military power to more than handle any serious threat, but what do you expect them to do, slaughter people until they turn around? Forcibly expel them? Are they going to have an apartheid society where a quarter of the people living there cannot vote or partake in their government? Are they just going to grant citizenship to anyone who comes?
If Europe and more specifically the EU doesn't have the will or the power to deal with a crisis like this, how are they going to deal with it in the future?
That's what I mean by not in control. They're not the ones making decisions about what will happen.
>>328226
I think after 600 years in power, the ottoman system was starting to show a lot of wear and tear. In the early 20th century some of the other european powers refered to it as the "sick man of europe". A big factor is that in the late 19th century other european powers had already started annexing ottoman colonies e.g. tunisia, algeria, the balkans, the caucaus etc, which had set a precedent, showing that it could be dismembered. Several indiginous ethnic groups had already started independence movements and revolts, including the greeks and bulgarians, which was is a classic sign of a dying empire.
Barring some very astute political maneuvering combined with some thorough reforms, and perhaps better propaganda to get the majority of the population back on board with the whole ottoman project, it would likely collapse.
>>328249
>Anyway, I think the refugee crisis is mostly syrians, who are from the middle east.
No, it's a large number of Syrians and Afghanis, but also Pakistanis, Iranians, and others from the East. Africans were coming en masse earlier this year, fleeing Boko Haram or poverty in West Africa and a huge number of Eritreans who are given refugee status because of their government. There are lots of Moroccans coming. It's basically everywhere.
The future of their economies and how stable their governments is up in the air because nobody can predict the future, but the fact is that having hundreds of millions of people means you're underperforming if you're not a powerhouse.
>>328212
What's the difference? China is China, but Europe is hundreds of small city-states? If you consider western civilization a single entity, then you can surely consider it a civil war from an outsider's perspective.
>>328169
I always find amusing that nobody consider Latin America as part of the West.
Just because they are "poor" doesn't mean they are not western.
>>328231
>>328246
I wasn't contesting the fact that the west's proportion of the global economy had decreased. I was commenting on the general negativity that >>327914 seemed to it, and the fact that in "the west's decline", actual western loss is synonymous with other countries' gain, which is silly. If the west grows less economically, it's bad for everyone. If the rest grow more economically, it's good for everyone. However, this guy >>327914 saying things like "we've definitely slid down" seem to imply that both these things are bad.
>>328109
>The proliferation of the west's technology into other regions and their subsequent economic, population, and ultimately political growth was inevitable, especially after the west directly ruling the majority of other regions. I fail to see how their catching up translates to a "decline" for the west. Do we get our value from being above other people? If some of those places had stayed shitholes, would we be better off?
How was their population growth any more inevitable than a hypothetical similar European population growth? In 1900 Europe had ~25% of the world's total population and the best industry, technology, and economy in the world. Today it's like ~7.5% of the population, and, as you say, the rest of the world now benefits from the proliferation of technology. Also their populations have all tripled or quadrupled or more.
I mean, take a look at some of the populations of Arab countries in 1900, 1950, and today. The wars and refugee crises that are in the news now would barely even matter if Europe and the Middle East had seen similar levels of population growth over the same period.
If Syria had seen similar population growth as Europe did over this period, do you think there'd be a Syrian refugee crisis? There are as many Syrian refugees living in Jordan and Turkey today as there were Syrians living in Syria in 1960.
I fail to see how this can be categorized as anything other than a massive decline. If you were looking at this from the year 2350, how would you describe it?
>>328339
I laughed at myself when I was adding in the US/Canada numbers for that very reason. I didn't do it because it's poor but mostly because of language and the fact that US+Canada are so inextricably linked to the UK still. Easy for me to do as an American desu
>>328274
How is Buhari likely to do in your opinion? Also how do they get rid of corruption and make their oil industry more efficient?
>>325999
>As we all know
>>328352
>If you were looking at this from the year 2350, how would you describe it?
That far away time at the start of colonization.
Of space.
How would you describe population changes that happened in 1650?
>>327184
>In general, there would be multiple lingua francas for different things, rather than just english as we have it now
I find this hard to believe with the British Empire still going strong and the US advancing further.
>>328373
You mean when the Americas were discovered and almost its entire native population died off?
The pre-Columbian / post-Columbian divide and subsequent population shifts from Europe to the Americas is one of the most monumental changes in world history, shaping not just the world's human societies but also transfer of plants and animals from continents which had been essentially isolated for millennia beforehand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange
How would you describe it?
>>328352
>How was their population growth any more inevitable than a hypothetical similar European population growth? In 1900 Europe had ~25% of the world's total population and the best industry, technology, and economy in the world. Today it's like ~7.5% of the population, and, as you say, the rest of the world now benefits from the proliferation of technology. Also their populations have all tripled or quadrupled or more.
Because every nation undergoes a huge population growth when it industrialises. Europe industrialised in the 19th and 20th centuries. The rest is industrialising now. Any nation is bound to industrialise, barring some special condition e.g. global sanctions.
>I mean, take a look at some of the populations of Arab countries in 1900, 1950, and today. The wars and refugee crises that are in the news now would barely even matter if Europe and the Middle East had seen similar levels of population growth over the same period.
But europe didn't continue that population growth because it has finished industrialising. The middle east as a whole is not experiencing it right now because of widespread conflict, which prevents it from fully industralising. The few middle eastern nations that are stable are experiencing that growth now.
>If Syria had seen similar population growth as Europe did over this period, do you think there'd be a Syrian refugee crisis? There are as many Syrian refugees living in Jordan and Turkey today as there were Syrians living in Syria in 1960.
That's not because of the population growth though, it's because of the Syrian war. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here exactly.
>I fail to see how this can be categorized as anything other than a massive decline. If you were looking at this from the year 2350, how would you describe it?
I never contested that europe's portion of global wealth had decreased. See this: >>328346
>>328386
>Strong France
>Strong Russia
>Germany completely dominates science
>>327863
Explotation of Colonial India was unsustainable, sooner or later they British would have to give them more freedom (and food), specially if the Imperial Federation thing actually gained traction.
>>328363
No idea how Buhari will do, don't follow African politics that in-depth to accurately say. As for corruption, depending on how widespread, some large purges of the current government will probably be needed over the next few years. As for oil, the government should probably nationalize the industry, but once again that requires an uncorrupted and efficient government.
>>328462
>As for corruption, depending on how widespread, some large purges of the current government will probably be needed over the next few years.
I think Buhari's already effectively started that by only just finishing forming his cabinet after half a year in power.
>>328460
Then if India did that then the rest would be getting some dissenting thoughts.
>>328460
and yet, they refused granting dominion status to India in the first place.
>unsustainable
yeah right, I wonder if the brits would have left if thorium reactors ever became a thing in this alternate future
>>328501
>I wonder if the brits would have left if thorium reactors ever became a thing in this alternate future
Sorry if it's kind of a nonseq but anyone know how much of the progress in nuclear enery we owe to the second world war? I know the short answer is "a lot" but I'm pretty sure there already was some research on how fission could be harnessed for useful purposes, I just don't think weapons research was originally such a huge part of it as it turned out to be in our world.
>>328516
possibly not that much, otto hahn did have it documented pre ww2, and it would be a giant jump from nuclear power plants to actually enriching uranium to blow gooks up
>>328321
>No, it's a large number of Syrians and Afghanis, but also Pakistanis, Iranians, and others from the East. Africans were coming en masse earlier this year, fleeing Boko Haram or poverty in West Africa and a huge number of Eritreans who are given refugee status because of their government. There are lots of Moroccans coming. It's basically everywhere.
Interesting, I was under the impression that it was mostly syrians emigrating to europe. Other groups are obviously also doing this, but I'm fairly sure that the lion's share a syrian. Would you mind providing statistics that show that they aren't the majority? I'll concede the point if you do.
>The future of their economies and how stable their governments is up in the air because nobody can predict the future
The overall trend is towards more stability, economic growth and democratisation, even if you take into account boko haram and the arab "spring".
>>328321
>What's the difference? China is China, but Europe is hundreds of small city-states? If you consider western civilization a single entity, then you can surely consider it a civil war from an outsider's perspective.
I think western civilization is generally considered a single entity culturally and economically, however in terms of states, it is definitely many entities, and whether a war is a civil war or not depends on the whether it is inter-state or intra-state. It doesn't depend on whether those states are economically/culturally linked or not.
>>328525
fucking hell, is it that easy to immigrate to europe?
I am studying my ass off in poo-in-loo land so that I can emigrate as skilled labor eventually, and random jihadi wannabes are just running willy nilly to europe on a refugee ticket.
>>328535
>I think western civilization is generally considered a single entity culturally and economically
Hell, no.
We all share certain cultural backgrounds and ideals but culture differs a lot between western countries.
And economically, lol no. Literally what is globalization.
>>328296
>They have basically no policy towards the huge influx of refugees and other migrants. Even if they did, it seems unlikely they could actually implement one. Their decisionmaking moves at a glacial pace. Migrants were drowning by the thousands in January and the only thing the EU accomplished was helping to bring them there faster.
I think the refugee crisis is severely overblown in the media. Make no mistake, it is a crisis, but I think they will manage to deal with it. If anything, in the long run europe is going to benefit economically from the extra young labor which is desperately needs. Although it's certainly bad for european PR when thousands drown in the mediterranean on their way there.
>There's no real plan for what to do with them when they get there. Germany is scrambling to find, build, and claim housing for them.
By letting in millions of immigrants Germany is effectively shielding the rest of europe from the brunt of the immigration crisis, and simultaneously creating a huge opportunity to take in a massive amount of young labor. It's not even unprecedented, they had a worse immigration crisis during the reunification. The worst that could happen to the EU is an end to Shengen.
>There's a shantytown in Calais, France, where migrants routinely try to hop on trucks, occasionally try to run or walk through the chunnel, and have been the cause of rail or road traffic shutting down.
That has been there for years.
>Brussels, where the EU is headquartered, was just shut down for like 4 days with barely anybody outside because of terror threats having to do with Batalclan and police investigations in majority-immigrant neighborhoods.
Belgium shut down Brussels because they suspected there would be a terrorist attack in the vain of the paris attacks. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the EU is headquartered there.
>>328588
>Hell, no.
Alright, I should have said "if they can be considered a single entity, it would be only in a cultural or economic sense".
>>328452
>That's not because of the population growth though, it's because of the Syrian war. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here exactly.
Look at the chart again. Of course it's because of population growth. If Syrian's population growth had been similar to Europe's over that period, and there were a war, there couldn't possibly be so many refugees. It wouldn't be a crisis, it would be easy for Europe and its neighboring countries to deal with. Turkey and Jordan right now are housing what would basically be almost the entire remaining population of the country of Syria.
>The middle east as a whole is not experiencing it right now because of widespread conflict, which prevents it from fully industralising.
Then how do you explain their population growth? Syria's practically quintupled since 1950 until the war. Egypt's roughly tripled to around 90 million. Ethiopia went from like 20 or 25 million to nearly 100 million.
Think about what you're even saying here:
>Because every nation undergoes a huge population growth when it industrialises
What makes industrialization cause population growth to spike? Does it have to be because of their industry? Is it just the byproducts of better technology? Is it because they need workers for factories? Is it just the effects of economy? Take a look at >>328187 again.
I'm incredibly skeptical of this argument because we just "know" it's because of industrialization, and that, therefore, China, India, Africa population growths will slow down. We don't really know anything. How come Latin America's growth mirrors the US so much only to spike in 1950? The US industrialized earlier and was the massive focus of European emigration.
pic related is the population of Yemen quadrupling over the last 50 years. Is that from industrialization?
>>328612
so if you are a well educated shitskin that can speak kraut, they will gladly take you in then?
>>328612
It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the EU is headquartered there.
Of course not, why would the capital of the European Union be a target?
>>328452
>>328623
Population of Somalia despite famine and warfare
>>327184
>its difficult to say what would have happened to china
It would become part of Japan
>>328612
>economically from the extra young labor
Pretty retarded argument when I'm talking about European population growth desu. How does Europe benefit from foreign young people instead of its own young people? If young people are so beneficial, how come Europe doesn't have them? And why would it subsidize others?
>By letting in millions of immigrants Germany is effectively shielding the rest of europe
No. What? They will be able to travel from Germany. Germany has practically invited them, either dallied on coming up with solutions, or actively worked against other countries trying to prevent them from coming. Shielding Europe? Shielding Europe would mean having the capability of controlling the EU's exterior borders and letting in manageable amounts of people. Or constructing refugee camps inside of non-EU countries which might house them adequately. Or whatever. Shielding Europe is not hundreds of thousands of people just walking in through 5 or 6 other countries, all of whom can't handle them either.
>The worst that could happen to the EU is an end to Shengen.
Right. Not sure I'd call that the worst-case scenario, but it's certainly bad. Is that what the EU wants? Did they decide they wanted that? No, of course not.
>That has been there for years.
How is that supposed to be an example of being in control?
>because they suspected there would be a terrorist attack in the vain of the paris attacks
that's what I said. Brussels, where the EU is headquartered, was shut down for 4 days because of a fear of a military assault on random citizens. Is that what being in control means?
I think they'll manage to deal with it too, but it's crazy to suggest that this is planned or under control or is supposed to be beneficial. It's a clusterfuck through and through with a bunch of wishful thinking sprinkled on top (and to stay somewhat on topic, is a thousand times worse because of dissimilar population growths between the middle east and Europe over the last decades)
>>328296
>>328612
>
There's even less of a long-term plan for what to do with them all, and there's basically no sign of fewer refugees and migrants coming. Germany has accepted more migrants this year than the US ever has in any single year of its entire history.
Germany is extremely good at integrating immigrants, and they're taking most of the brunt of the crisis.
>I mean, sure, there are still functioning governments,
Yes
>but they're facing a crisis and basically doing nothing.
Again, you're strongly over-hyping how bad it is.
>What are they going to do?
They should take them in, and integrate them fully. Again, it's mostly germany taking them in, who are the most adept at handling this kind of thing, except for maybe the netherlands or sweden.
>The EU has enough military power to more than handle any serious threat, but what do you expect them to do, slaughter people until they turn around?
That really won't be necessary
>Forcibly expel them?
That's not as difficult as you're making it sound, but again, I'm confident that they can integrate them.
>Are they going to have an apartheid society where a quarter of the people living there cannot vote or partake in their government? Are they just going to grant citizenship to anyone who comes?
I think you may need to read up on this a bit more. Europe has one billion people. The EU has 500 million people. Assuming you're just talking about the EU, there would need to be 125 million immigrants to become "a quarter of the people living there". Syria has a total population of only 23 million. To date, there have been 4 million syrian refugees. That's 0.8% of the population.
>If Europe and more specifically the EU doesn't have the will or the power to deal with a crisis like this, how are they going to deal with it in the future?
They have both the will and power to deal with it. It's making the news because it's never happened before. Not because europe can't deal with the crisis.
>>328525
>Interesting, I was under the impression that it was mostly syrians emigrating to europe. Other groups are obviously also doing this, but I'm fairly sure that the lion's share a syrian. Would you mind providing statistics that show that they aren't the majority? I'll concede the point if you do.
I don't think anyone really knows because it's such a disaster. Not sure anyone has up to date statistics, Germany revised their estimates of how many migrants and asylum-seekers a month or so ago to practically double it to 1.5 million.
cool interactive map here http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/overview
tables http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/demographics
EU asylum stats in 2014, pic related http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics
The numbers have spiked massively this year but I've never even seen anyone claiming that they're majority Syrian. A lot, obviously, but the first quarter of 2015 you were more likely to see Africans drowning trying to make it to Italy from Libya than anything to do with Syrians.
>>328716
>Again, you're strongly over-hyping how bad it is.
I'm not hyping how bad it is, I'm hyping how little anyone is doing.
>That's not as difficult as you're making it sound
Of course it is. Are you kidding? If you don't have the heart to handle them on the way in, there's no way you can kick them out. Do you think they'll just go?
>I think you may need to read up on this a bit more
No. I was just talking. Germany's estimate is 1.5 million migrants this year alone, which is as many as the US has ever legally accepted in any year of its entire history, despite being ~4x the population and infinitely more space and the New World good luck charm of forced integration through all-consuming American culture. That's almost 2% of its population just this year.
I think you might need to read up on it more if you think it's only Syrians. Half of the countries don't want any refugees. Some countries are already dealing with a ton of migrants, like Poland taking in Ukrainians. 500 million is a lot of people if it's split up evenly, except it's not. The refugees don't even want to go to those places. They head for the UK and Germany and Sweden.
>They have both the will and power to deal with it.
I disagree completely and I think you're either daft or naive to believe this. Schengen has been crumbling slowly without anyone preparing for it or realizing it would happen, even criticizing Hungary at first before each successive country decided to follow suit. The EU's plan for border control is to rely on Greece to handle it? To pay a non-EU country like Turkey to do it? It took them 11 complete months to come up with that plan.
>It's making the news because it's never happened before.
It's making the news because it's a crisis. Considering it's never happened before, I think you should check your optimism about how well it's being handled and what the plans are for the future for it.
So basically, because of the US' short-sighted hatred of European empires and their desire to be the only player in the world, the West is now irreversibly and permanently fucked.
>>328699
>Pretty retarded argument when I'm talking about European population growth desu.
What? I said europe may benefit from all the young labor it gets from the immigrants. Are you saying that's not relevent?
>How does Europe benefit from foreign young people instead of its own young people?
It benefits from any young people, and could use a lot more than it is producing.
>If young people are so beneficial, how come Europe doesn't have them?
How do you think birth rates work? The government sets a number every year?
>And why would it subsidize others?
I'm sorry but I can't tell what you mean with this question.
>>By letting in millions of immigrants Germany is effectively shielding the rest of europe
>No. What? They will be able to travel from Germany. Germany has practically invited them
Right. The amount of people fleeing from syria doesn't change because of Germany's immigration policy. So germany will take a (much) higher proportion of the immigrants who come to europe, sparing many of the other EU countries.
>(Germany) either dallied on coming up with solutions, or actively worked against other countries trying to prevent them from coming.
Germany is loosening the load on other EU countries, as I have said. That doesn't seem particularly antagonistic to me.
>Shielding Europe? Shielding Europe would mean having the capability of controlling the EU's exterior borders and letting in manageable amounts of people. Or constructing refugee camps inside of non-EU countries which might house them adequately. Or whatever.
Not necessarily. They are shielding europe by taking the brunt of the crisis.
>Shielding Europe is not hundreds of thousands of people just walking in through 5 or 6 other countries, all of whom can't handle them either.
But Germany can, and by letting in millions of immigrants, they have made it easier for those countries on the EU borders, and for the rest of the EU in general.
>>328699
>>328914
>Right. Not sure I'd call that the worst-case scenario, but it's certainly bad. Is that what the EU wants? Did they decide they wanted that? No, of course not.
It's not terrible. Shengen doesn't actually have a lot of practical economic effect, although it will of course be sad to see it go. I'm not convinced that there will be a worse scenario though.
>How is that supposed to be an example of being in control?
Are you saying that any country that has an immigrant shanty town on its borders is lacking control? My point was that it has nothing to do with the current immigration crisis.
>that's what I said. Brussels, where the EU is headquartered, was shut down for 4 days because of a fear of a military assault on random citizens. Is that what being in control means?
They got intelligence on the supposed attack, and they prevented it, so that would make them in control, yes. Also I have seen zero evidence that the paris attack or the brussels shut down was because of the current immigration crisis. All known suspects have lived in europe all of their lives.
>I think they'll manage to deal with it too
Sorry, but that's not what you were saying in the black text here >>328169
>but it's crazy to suggest that this is planned or under control or is supposed to be beneficial.
Are you talking here about the terror attacks / brussels scare or about the immigration crisis? If the former, I'd challenge you to quote one post that suggests that is planned or controlled or beneficial. If the latter, although obviously not planned (that almost sounds like a strawman), I would argue that the EU is exacting sufficient control to manage it with germany at the helm, and that it will ultimately be beneficial for europe.
> It's a clusterfuck through and through with a bunch of wishful thinking sprinkled on top
I think I've exhaustively stated how I disagree with this.
>>328748
Ah, I'm aware that this isn't usually the case, I was talking about this year's refugee crisis. Perhaps majority isn't correct, in the sense that non-syrian immigrants outnumber syrian immigrants, but the number of syrians is more than double any other individual ethnicity.
So should I concede based on my misuse of the word majority?
>>328265
>implying they're linked in any non-superficial way
>>328914
>They are shielding europe by taking the brunt of the crisis.
The problem they caused
>>329001
Forgot pic
Is it generally agreed upon that western civilization IS in decline or is that just a meme? Honest question.
>>329019
In what way did they cause it? By taking them in? They are decreasing the amount of immigrants other european countries will need to take in by doing this. That is what I meant by shielding europe. So if they are causing a problem for anyone, it is for themselves. And they did that purposefully.
>>328863
Just out of interest, how would you define the West? Which countries are in and which countries are out?
>>328624
Of course, why wouldn't they want to?
>>329001
>>329063
That looks similar in proportions to the 2014 data. Close to 60,000 more Syrians than 2014, but Iraq nearly tripled to 60k and Afghanistan more than doubled to almost 90k.
The 2013-2014 eurostat chart I posted only has two countries of origin over 40k (Syria, Afghanistan), but this 2015 one has Iraq, Kosovo, and Albania. I can't find the 2015 data on the eurostat website though
It's just not even close to a majority even though Syrians are obviously the largest single group. 2014 eurostat has Syria as 20% of the total and it looks similar besides numbers up across the board.
>>328917
>The amount of people fleeing from syria
Check out the numbers. It's not just Syria, it's millions of people, and they all want to go to Germany, UK, Sweden. Germany is giving them incentives to go. Is Istanbul a bad city? Why do people flee it to reach Germany?
>sparing many of the other EU countries
How is it sparing them something they might not have had to deal with in the first place? Greece, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria have had millions of people walking through their nations to get to Germany. Italy had to deal with boats reaching Lampedusa, even though they almost universally did not want to go to Italy in the first place. Most of them are unequipped to deal with this crisis and they have gotten barely any help from the EU to do it. Greece and Italy in particular have basically just had to look the other way and pretend they didn't see them leaving.
>beneficial
I don't understand how it's beneficial and it's never how you would choose for things to be. This is what I mean by the planning of it. EU has just let it happen, they are not proactive, there are economic incentives encouraging migration and discouraging native citizen birthrates, and then EU leaders are like "well our birthrates are low, we'll take 'em!" They are not making decisions, they are just reacting.
>>327184
>Also, everyone would probably still be racist, because the europeans would have an interest in keeping public opinion in favor of continuing to subjugate the colonies and maintaining maximum control over them, in order to extract all those resources with impunity, which would be more difficult if the locals begin to get a say in governance, or any respect from the european public.
Was still the case after WW1
Hitlet's chimp out is what put a end to this by creating white guilt
>>328067
That's mistaken. There was a great deal of colonization going on even during the war. When the Soviets invaded, they captured 850,000 settlers- many had gotten out before then. That's a very sizeable colonial investment in a small and perilous window of time.
It's fascinating to read about, if you care to do so.
