Germany for instance had no colonies of any real consequence, and neither did Russia or Italy, yet all were majorly powerful nations, on par with a colonial emp

Germany for instance had no colonies of any real consequence, and neither did Russia or Italy, yet all were majorly powerful nations, on par with a colonial empire that owned 25% of the planet, and another that owned almost as much (Britain and France). If colonies were capable of providing wealth and economic power at scale, the UK alone would have been vastly more powerful than all 3 aforementioned nations combined. In fact you can make a reasonably persuasive argument that the UK's laser focus on colonialism rather than native industry was directly responsible for Germany's rise to begin with. The UK was far more interested in pouring economic resources into colonial ventures (especially in India), which in the end didn't yield net gains, while Germany went from a patchwork network of independent, mostly underdeveloped state, to a world superpower in less than 50 years through obsessive focus on industrial development. Plenty of British industrialists and inventors found a far more receptive audience in Germany after their attempts to raise funding at home were ignored. The German chemical industry largely owed its origins to this for instance. There is also plenty of argument to be made that slavery as a purely economic concern is far less efficient and profitable in the long run than free men doing the same jobs.[2] Again, its something that's very profitable for elites, but it is a handicap for a nation as a whole. [2] https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slave...