2 ms·

Colonies were always irrelevant to metropolitan standards of living. See how Norway, Sweden and Denmark with tiny or non-existent empires did as well as Britain

Colonies were always irrelevant to metropolitan standards of living. See how Norway, Sweden and Denmark with tiny or non-existent empires did as well as Britain, or how Germany and Austria-Hungary were no less wealthy than France. Developing makes a country rich. Looting a non-developed country is a one time thing. Developing is ongoing.

oska 3y ago
> See how Norway, Sweden and Denmark with tiny or non-existent empires did as well as Britain, or how Germany and Austria-Hungary were no less wealthy than France. Sweden had an empire, Austria-Hungary was an empire up till the end of WWI. Also, there was extreme poverty in Norway and Sweden not that long ago (the 19th century), leading many to emigrate to the US. The same with German emigration.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > Austria-Hungary was an empire up till the end of WWI It was _called_ an empire, but it wasn't an empire in the same sense as the British empire; if Britain had been feeling particularly grandiose they could have called Queen Anne the Empress of England and Scotland as part of the Act of Union on a similar basis. Sweden's was also not a modern colonial empire; it economically did not work at all the same way. > Also, there was extreme poverty in Norway and Sweden not that long ago (the 19th century), leading many to emigrate to the US. I mean... there was in the UK, too. For the most dramatic example see the Great Famine in Ireland, but there was extreme poverty all over the UK.
tuukkah 3y ago
Any single colony may have been irrelevant but the colonial world order was and still is relevant. All the western countries that you listed got advantage of participating in the looting, slave trade, resource extraction etc. either directly or indirectly. Even today, the western life depends on e.g. child labor in factories and cattle farming that destroys the rainforests - elsewhere.

oska 3y ago

> See how Norway, Sweden and Denmark with tiny or non-existent empires did as well as Britain, or how Germany and Austria-Hungary were no less wealthy than France. Sweden had an empire, Austria-Hungary was an empire up till the end of WWI. Also, there was extreme poverty in Norway and Sweden not that long ago (the 19th century), leading many to emigrate to the US. The same with German emigration.

rsynnott 3y ago
> Austria-Hungary was an empire up till the end of WWI It was _called_ an empire, but it wasn't an empire in the same sense as the British empire; if Britain had been feeling particularly grandiose they could have called Queen Anne the Empress of England and Scotland as part of the Act of Union on a similar basis. Sweden's was also not a modern colonial empire; it economically did not work at all the same way. > Also, there was extreme poverty in Norway and Sweden not that long ago (the 19th century), leading many to emigrate to the US. I mean... there was in the UK, too. For the most dramatic example see the Great Famine in Ireland, but there was extreme poverty all over the UK.

tuukkah 3y ago

Any single colony may have been irrelevant but the colonial world order was and still is relevant. All the western countries that you listed got advantage of participating in the looting, slave trade, resource extraction etc. either directly or indirectly. Even today, the western life depends on e.g. child labor in factories and cattle farming that destroys the rainforests - elsewhere.