Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS and Android: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/Whatifalt... Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
@sandrotabidze
2 жыл бұрын
Cool
@RayFog1
2 жыл бұрын
No
@Atabanza
2 жыл бұрын
Hello greetings from Colombia
@r9prezent4
2 жыл бұрын
.
@hadtrio6629
2 жыл бұрын
You sure are full of 💩 Africa didn't help Europe says the American France still suck the hell out of it's ex-colonies they just took what they want You really need to stop saying it didn't help Europe cause your wrong from extracting the raw materials and resources to forced labors it all went overseas to build up whatever home country was colonizing the country
@toobeast673
2 жыл бұрын
I’m surprised you didn’t mention anything about Ethiopia in this timeline. Historically they had more contact with European and Middle Eastern states which allowed them to purchase weapons and expand even in our time line. Without the colonial powers land locking Ethiopia they could dominate Red Sea trade similar to how the Auxumites had done thousands of years before.
@fritoss3437
2 жыл бұрын
Ethiopia would probably be crushed by Egypt
@toobeast673
2 жыл бұрын
@@fritoss3437 Egypt fighting Ethiopia would be extremely far from their power base. The mountainous terrain also makes invading hell. The result of the Ethiopian Egyptian War of 1874 would likely repeat
@wafflecone6968
2 жыл бұрын
@@toobeast673 This. If a much weaker ethiopia manage to beat back egypt then I don't see how they would lose now.
@fritoss3437
2 жыл бұрын
@@toobeast673 yeah but the ethiopian could not expend bc of egypt tho
@diargakande6740
2 жыл бұрын
@@toobeast673well in this timeline islamic states are pretty well established and powerful in east africa so I could see Ethiopia being cornered and conquered with an alliance with between those states and egypt
@ComicalRealm
2 жыл бұрын
Portugal claiming the entire continent of Africa was a total chad move
@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338
2 жыл бұрын
to be fair, the treaty of todisillas DID mean that all of africa belongs to portugal in terms of colonization, and they were one of the first to do so. the only reason they didnt take more land was because there was no real profit incentive.
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338 It was because they couldn't. They lost against Zimbabwean, Senegambian (including Mali) states and Kongo. So much so that they didn't try anything militarily when Bini stopped selling them slaves and the Ethiopians expelled them. Also, tropical diseases
@rubiconprime1429
2 жыл бұрын
Portugal agreeing to give up Africa so the smaller colonial powers could have a crumb of colony was an even bigger chad move. After all they still had all of Asia.
@scholaroftheworldalternatehist
2 жыл бұрын
I think Belgian actually getting an enormous swath of central Africa 70x its size was even more of a chad move
@76456
2 жыл бұрын
@@ikengaspirit3063 Portugal only went to war against Kongo once and Won. Those countries you mentioned never entered in war whit Portugal. Ethiopia fought whit Portugal not against it Can you source what you said? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Portugal
@KratosAurion7777
2 жыл бұрын
"Algeria would still be part of France" you just triggered an entire nation and 10% of france :D
@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen
2 жыл бұрын
Cursed comment but true.
@KratosAurion7777
2 жыл бұрын
@@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen Don't worry, Eric Zemmour will wear his favorite Napoleon Hat and conquer it back.
@scholaroftheworldalternatehist
2 жыл бұрын
Algeria would probably be better off as part of France, tbh
@thedude5294
2 жыл бұрын
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist Not really, Better be ruled by an incompotent local tyrant, than even the most "benevolent" of outsiders.
@veritasprima
2 жыл бұрын
@@KratosAurion7777 Good comment but I strongly disagree with the last part of it. Just as this excellent video showed. It is absolutely not necessarily because your country is controlling more territory that it is stronger. The more France keep Algeria the more France suicides herself. In fact you your comment reveal it itself, Algeria would be the winner at the end. France having algeria oil is nothing compared to the implacable demographic and religiou pression France would have suffered (even more than today !)(moreover France would probably not emphase nuclear energy with lots of oil).
@TheAnon03
2 жыл бұрын
European scramble for Africa is basicly "If we don't take it someone else will and they might possibly maybe find something worthwhile there and we can't have that."
@icarusunited
2 жыл бұрын
Honestly though, if Europe didn't scramble for Africa; Arabic regions at the time would of definitely. While other African tribes may have eventually came to together. It was unlikely. On par with say France giving up all there power to merge with the british empire at the time, or perhaps the Austrian Empire merging with the Russian Empire. The arabs would of definitely enslaved them in there own homes. While the european powers at least had the decency of buying 90% of them from african warlords of the region. Arabs were casually stealing from the east & west coasts
@M30W3R
2 жыл бұрын
It's textbook realpolitik, literally Soviets and NATO did the same to each other
@makeytgreatagain6256
2 жыл бұрын
@@icarusunited Arabs weren’t kidnapping anybody you low IQ joke they brought the Africans from East African black Muslim warlords who happily sold pagans for lolz. Arabs very very very rarely needed to raid or could get away with it. The only places in africa that were colonised by MENAS would be Sudan and Zanzibar the rest of the continent was far to powerful to be defeated by a couple yellow boys with turbans
@Hollywood2021
2 жыл бұрын
Ugh! Educated people getting all competitive
@M30W3R
2 жыл бұрын
@@Hollywood2021 mmh ugh yikes sweetie
@someguysomeone3543
2 жыл бұрын
Btw I would say the main reason how western Europeans conquered Africa so easily was diplomacy. Basically the whole "we help you against these other African tribes" loop hole, turning them into a vassal and then annexing them. And not keeping promises.
@markm2092
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, many don’t know this.
@Fu3g0.100
2 жыл бұрын
They were only diplomatic with tribes that were big enough to barter with. The rest were just there
@peterdisabella2156
2 жыл бұрын
Basically how the British took over India
@fullmetaltheorist
2 жыл бұрын
Kinda sounds like what happened to Lesotho. They teamed up with the British to beat the Dutch and got annexed against their will after defeating the Dutch.
@scholaroftheworldalternatehist
2 жыл бұрын
Nah, in most of those places the Africans didn't even know white men were "ruling" over them. In the British colonies especially, they used very few administrators and left power largely with the chieftains
@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753
2 жыл бұрын
Damn, 2 releases in barely more than half a day? We’re spoilt
@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753
2 жыл бұрын
Gotta hand it to those Belgians tho, they really punched above their weight eh? Actually on 2nd thought, I think they have enough hands as-is
@VasilyMusic
2 жыл бұрын
@@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753 I really like the way you talk dude
@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753
2 жыл бұрын
@@VasilyMusic thanks! I don’t know you obviously, but I’ve yet to meet a Vasili (whichever way it’s spelt) that hasn’t been an absolute legend, and I’m sure you’re no exception - cheers
@VasilyMusic
2 жыл бұрын
@@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753 Lol it's pronounced "Vah-see-leey", and frankly I'm impressed you've met other Vasilii's because even in my country it's not a very common name Btw you're the first person named uydagcusdgfug hfgsfggsifg that I've met in my life. That's quite a rare name too lol... Cheers bruv!
@die_lokki287
2 жыл бұрын
That's a surprise, for sure, but a welcome one
@smorcrux426
2 жыл бұрын
2 videos in a day! I forgive your hiatus now (but fr if you needed to take a break you should absolutely do it)
@hamzehshashaa2659
2 жыл бұрын
Yes i was surprised too!
@davidfryer4353
2 жыл бұрын
Bro, I thought I was busy because I had midterms, this Canadian is gettin' after it
@REDI____
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah I genuinely revise his videos from time to time because of the massive amount of information in them
@ceterfo
2 жыл бұрын
We don't need another burntout nerd.
@yungstallion2201
2 жыл бұрын
I’d love to see someone attempt to draw the complete African borders in this scenario.
@SauloA333
2 жыл бұрын
It would be incomplete and full of guesstimations. How do you measure If the Fulani jihad would've expanded east and reach the Blue Nile? Do you think that the Xhosa and Zulu would've joined and fused in a single political entity with borders and bureaucracy? Can you put that on a map? It's a dumb attempt. It would be like using that crappy Marvel movie Black Panther as a source, it doesn't take on account that that's not how people develop technological advances.
@user-go1zt9ib4p
2 жыл бұрын
@@SauloA333 Black Panther is a good move
@yungstallion2201
2 жыл бұрын
@@SauloA333 Thats why i said it
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
Well, that would take someone with a big and detailed Knowledge on pre-colonial African history which I don't think there are enough of for those simultaneously also highly interested in and involved in Alternate history to exist yet.
@JeremyMacDonald1973
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah - this was essentially what I was interested in here as well. I'm also not sure about the idea that Britain does not intervene in World War I. The Germans are about to so completely disrupt the balance of Power in Europe and that was always (well almost always) why Britain intervened historically. Britain is not going to stand by while Germany takes most of the continent. It might actually be the trigger that stops the war. Germany being on the verge of winning in late 1906 or early 1907 but is also exhausted from what turns out to be such an awful and brutal type of war is basically told by Britain "All right you won - take some gains but keep it reasonable or we are entering the war against you". Germany gets another slice of France and all of Poland and the Baltic States. This had been how the wars where generally settled by Europeans between the Napoleonic Wars and the actual historical World War One.
@markm2092
2 жыл бұрын
Strong Tribal Groups like the Igbo, the Tutsi, the Zulu, the Kikuyu etc. would trade at the coast and dominate other groups. This would mean they would have much larger territories and not be tied down to current national borders. Eventually large kingdoms and chiefdoms competent enough to contact groups outside of Africa would emerge and this would facilitate social change such as promotion of capitalism etc.
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
Some of these are more ethnic than tribal groupings.
@markm2092
2 жыл бұрын
@@ikengaspirit3063 quite right
@taoriq3632
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@jakesmall8875
2 жыл бұрын
So why didn’t it happen the previous 100k years that Africans existed and Europeans didnt
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
@@jakesmall8875 why did humans not develop agriculture for the 2 million to 100,000 years of human existance then and not now.
@anotherone3340
2 жыл бұрын
A special shout-out to Ethiopia. That didn't let the scramble for Africa to happen in their territory until the italian invasion in world war 2 (but that doesn't count as a colonization).
@stealtho
2 жыл бұрын
Italy in Ethiopia was a pyrrhic victory
@joundii3100
2 жыл бұрын
And also shoutout to Morocco being the last African country to be colonized even though it's at the 2nd most strategic point of Africa after Egypt ( and also beating the sh*t out of the Spanish at Annual)
@occam7382
2 жыл бұрын
@@joundii3100, how exactly is Morocco the 2nd-most strategically vital territory in Africa after Egypt? Just curious, because I would think that if anything, South Africa would be the one to make that spot, being on one of the only two points in Africa where you can go from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and all, but Im interested in what you have to say.
@joundii3100
2 жыл бұрын
@@occam7382 Well basically, Strait of Gibraltar.
@occam7382
2 жыл бұрын
@@joundii3100, ohhh, right. That makes so much more sense now. Thank you for reminding me about that. Now I know what you mean.
@bluewatson4341
2 жыл бұрын
Yooooo! I can’t believe we’re getting two in a day!
@miguelsantiago398
2 жыл бұрын
:D
@dawood1547
2 жыл бұрын
:D
@yusuffusuy4971
2 жыл бұрын
Second time now
@MVera1044
2 жыл бұрын
He is inspired
@EKIANandWolvesGaming
2 жыл бұрын
It's because it's the end of the month meaning sponsorship deadlines lol
@QuentinWatt
2 жыл бұрын
“The European discovery of the railroad” You mean… construction of the railroad?
@mattvickers8639
2 жыл бұрын
You mean... British inventing railways?
@Bombsbombsbombs
2 жыл бұрын
you men…
@jimpickins7900
2 жыл бұрын
nope the brits literally discovered them in their natural habitat high up in the Scottish highlands.
@Byronic19134
2 жыл бұрын
@@jimpickins7900 Literally. Like that's literally where they mined the iron and got the lumber.
@jimpickins7900
2 жыл бұрын
@@Byronic19134 dammit man trying to make a joke as if trains were naturally occurring and could be discovered
@-socialcredit
2 жыл бұрын
"What if Africa was never divided" Me a Vic2 player: Well, those effective occupation casus bellis are really tempting you know?
@Ktotokroto
2 жыл бұрын
Game: Disallows to invade/colonize Africa Vicky 2 Players: Fine, _China_ it is.
@darken2417
2 жыл бұрын
As a Victoria 2 player I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Never heard of the effective occupation cb. And going for China instead of Africa? But China requires AE to conquer whereas Africa is mostly free. So confused.
@Ktotokroto
2 жыл бұрын
@@darken2417 You never went to war with China?
@darken2417
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ktotokroto Hmm... Maybe that is my issue. I assume it has special mechanics then, will have to check it out.
@Ktotokroto
2 жыл бұрын
@@darken2417 It really doesn't, the whole point is that you can lock Chinese army on a island at the very bottom(Don't remember the name) and either siege them while it's stuck there or kill it. Chinese army being so huge and under tech that you can get the warscore without taking any land. And for example, there is a province with gold with almost the population of your country prior to annexation(depending on you who you play of course) located there. If you're not a great power that can boost up your economy with all the people paying taxes and the land itself bringing in profits. Perhaps it's not as effective in vanilla but still should have some benefits. China becomes a burden late game though when every farmer suddenly feels the urge to rise up all over the world
@misterec5834
2 жыл бұрын
Basically, the cause of whole colonial era, was that European countries wanted their name to be bigger on the map
@tiagorodrigues179
2 жыл бұрын
You just explained HOI4, EU IV and Victorian II.
@CombatHD3
2 жыл бұрын
@@tiagorodrigues179 Literally
@1000eau
2 жыл бұрын
yeah
@abuqadr629
2 жыл бұрын
Me in every map-based strategy game
@FoxPonyShift2013
2 жыл бұрын
So the entirety of the colonialism era... is a massive dick measuring contest in a nutshell?
@LucasBenderChannel
2 жыл бұрын
There's this myth, or at least an urban legend, that German chancellor Bismarck once met with an official, who advocated for a greater expansion of German colonialist endeavours. That official apprently folded out a map of Africa in front of Bismarck and started explaining where Germany should grab new land. Bismarck allegedly then took a map of the German empire off the wall, pointed to it and said: "This is my Africa." As in: I don't care about that other continent. I'm concerned with this nation first and foremost. Pretty cool, if true.
@croixfadas
2 жыл бұрын
yeah they genocided east european instead.
@dynamicwarfare
2 жыл бұрын
Blessed Bismark.
@benshiotsu8553
2 жыл бұрын
@@croixfadas two different germanys
@whitelightning2100
2 жыл бұрын
Well it didn’t really matter in the end anyways bc Germany would go on to commit atrocities in East Africa
@1000eau
2 жыл бұрын
@@whitelightning2100 Wasn't it in Namibia that they genocided tribes ?
@LibertyJefferson
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think most people truly realize how vast Africa actually is.
@SauloA333
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, the Congo is MASSIVE. And as massive as it is unproductive and extremely difficult to explore. The Amazon is a Sunday stroll compared to the Congo. You also have the dilemma of having to think "Is it really worth demolishing thousands of hectares of almost virgin forest for some charcoal in the name of progress?"
@patmccall4647
2 жыл бұрын
Good ol mercator projection
@sirjordancarter
2 жыл бұрын
That just goes to show how epic our ancestors were for conquering it so easily
@secularjihadi
2 жыл бұрын
@@sirjordancarter they didn't conquer all of it, bc they didn't have to to claim conquest. You do not understand geopolitics if you do not understand this
@drago939393
2 жыл бұрын
Like how "tiny Madagascar" is literally more than twice the size of Britain... Or how the (contiguous) USA is basically equal to just West Africa. The "true size" website is really helpful for visualizing it.
@scholaroftheworldalternatehist
2 жыл бұрын
I feel like Africa's development and colonialism is a touchy subject, so don't be surprised much if you get accusations of racism
@JcLazy1
2 жыл бұрын
How is it racism ?
@fullmetaltheorist
2 жыл бұрын
Well I won't accuse him of racism. His own personal opinions aren't my problem.
@aapkefather1872
2 жыл бұрын
@@JcLazy1 Anyone who dares having a different opinion than the Wokes, is a patriarchal racist homophobe.
@dannysoda4401
2 жыл бұрын
Seems positive so far thankfully
@shadowofhawk55
2 жыл бұрын
@@akselamundsen2193 Advanced? No. Saintly and minding their own business? Now that's more like what I've heard people say. And they get all clammy when I bring up the prexisting slave trades.
@mourningireland4560
2 жыл бұрын
Europeans didn't "discover" the railroad. We invented it.
@gfortunate8650
2 жыл бұрын
based.
@shadowofhawk55
2 жыл бұрын
Preach Partner
@Cool-123
2 жыл бұрын
Based
@lakshaygupta9061
2 жыл бұрын
The kangings have begun
@9delta988
2 жыл бұрын
"We" didn't do Jack. Ancesters through...
@miguelpimentel5623
2 жыл бұрын
I might add something about Angola and Mozambique in this timeline, and the fact that without a scramble for Africa and a British ultimatum, Portugal would have probably expanded itself to make railroad connecting Maputo to Luanda and the mines. Also no British ultimatum would probably mean the Portuguese empire would probably still exist as a kleptocratic constitutional monarchy
@martim6828
2 жыл бұрын
I doubt the Portuguese would have any economic or political reason to expand their colonies until they would connect. It would make no sense to do so in a world that wasn't scrambling for Africa. The railroad would have no practical reason to exist as the goods that came from the Indian Ocean would just be shipped via the sea furthermore, and as he points out in the video, the center of Africa is a cesspool of diseases, further deterring the expansionistic endeavor. And as for the connectivity between colonies, neither was important enough that railroad connection was of necessity, and trade between them could easily be done via the ocean. But yeah, the kleptocracy, some things never change.
@Kannot2023
2 жыл бұрын
@@martim6828 Angola and Mozambique have natural resources vthat must be transported and naturally a rail road will be built to take those resources and in time east and west coast of Africa would have been united
@cristiano7541
2 жыл бұрын
I doubt it, yes the Portuguese empire could still exist as a monarchy, but it would end nearly exactly how it did in our timeline, war, independence of the colonies, Portuguese empire's death
@Ktotokroto
2 жыл бұрын
France looking at Algeria: I don't need it. I don't need it. I don't need it. ... France: I NEED IT!
@sadeksama5057
2 жыл бұрын
And they never wanted to let it go until the revolution war happend in 1954 which resulted to 1.5 million Algerians getting killed by the French between 1954 and 1962 " the independence"
@mr_bridou6507
2 жыл бұрын
@@sadeksama5057 That's called war. Welcome to the world my boy. And th FLN used to do terrorist attack on the civilians, like the Islamic State or Al-Qaida are doing today. Not great guy neither on the algerian side.
@sadeksama5057
2 жыл бұрын
@@mr_bridou6507 lol are you seriously defending the France side here ? Even the US was against the occupation after ww2 And if the FLN didn't fight for their freedom algeria won't be liberated Just like if the founding fathers didn't fought for america freedom America would be apart of the Britain
@Brookigetit
2 жыл бұрын
@@mr_bridou6507 bruh Algeria was definitely the good guy here
@mrright9437
2 жыл бұрын
@North Sea Pirate hhhh France end slave trad 😂😂😂 😂😂😂 😂😂😂 Okay 😂😂 Okay 😂😂😂😂 End slave trade to start another Good move 🙂🙂🙂
@Antonio-xq2hg
2 жыл бұрын
Europeans din't build any railroads, Indians and Africans built the railroads, Europeans just cracked the whip
@BuiltSimilarG
2 жыл бұрын
I personally dont understand how people with no knowledge on how to build, build railroads across the entire continent.
@Antonio-xq2hg
2 жыл бұрын
@@BuiltSimilarG the europeans told them how to build the railroad, the europeans did not build the railroads. what is ur point
@BuiltSimilarG
2 жыл бұрын
@@Antonio-xq2hg im not arguing, you dont show anybody how to build a railroad is my point. People take years to learn construction right? WHY DOES EVERYTHING IN THE COMMENTS HAVE TO BE AN ARGUMENT TO YOU
@penzorphallos3199
2 жыл бұрын
In that timeline slavery wouldn't be 'the white man's guilt' and would still exist in Africa, as it still does today with more or less 10 millions estimated enslaved in our Africa, but would probably be twice to tenfold in that world.
@cavaugnsharkey2699
2 жыл бұрын
Probably, but I'm curious as to where you got the estimation of that number from.
@penzorphallos3199
2 жыл бұрын
@@cavaugnsharkey2699 UN
@marcuscole1994
2 жыл бұрын
Stfu lol and we blame Africans too trust we do
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
@@penzorphallos3199 I mean, if you are going by UN definitions of Slavery, alot of that is still Western Run companies like Nestle that are running them.
@penzorphallos3199
2 жыл бұрын
@@ikengaspirit3063 even without considering corporate slaves, Africa is n'1. There's more house slaves in Africa right now, then there were slaves caught and shipped off to the Americas during the triangular slave trade in total.
@micahistory
2 жыл бұрын
This is going to be one of your most interesting alternate histories
@mbathroom1
2 жыл бұрын
love your channel
@lawbringer9857
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine taking this garbage video seriously. This is just fantasy writing nonsense but it was worth a good laugh.
@gennericrapperalt2120
2 жыл бұрын
@@lawbringer9857 how is it garbage
@millionelectricvolts6117
2 жыл бұрын
@@gennericrapperalt2120 Because it dont agree with their opinion. They didnt even notice that alt history is literally fiction and tries to shit on the video on being "fantasy writing". Cpt. Obvious strikes again!
@t0xic661
2 жыл бұрын
@@gennericrapperalt2120 because he's a marxist and it conflicts with his ideology
@JediAcolyte94
2 жыл бұрын
What if the Knights Templar never fell? What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry was successful?
@imperators_8700
2 жыл бұрын
That second one is basically impossible, there would need to be insane divine intervention for John Brown to succeed in his noble endeavors
@jessetaran7116
2 жыл бұрын
@@imperators_8700 Alien space bats
@Bordeaux1979
2 жыл бұрын
They never fell they formed Switzerland
@bruhhhhhh1
2 жыл бұрын
oooooooooo knights templar would be dope
@AnotherConscript
2 жыл бұрын
Idk about the "no major resistence on the Europeans part" I could think of 4 instances of the top of my head which the europeans where incredibly brutal
@kingoliever1
2 жыл бұрын
Well single atrocity´s are not what this is about but more the sending of serious troops to suppress the unrest. Algeria i would think comes to mind as an exception but in general it seems we just simply packed and left after ww 2 whiteout a serious fight. Don´t really know what you mean, sure European nations at first obviously tried to prevent it but there where not many interventions and such to acutely keep power and it was more let happen. Also i would think this just means things after ww 2 in the new US world order where western society reformed.
@AnotherConscript
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingoliever1 sure just ignore that most of western subseherean africa is still subservient economically and militarily to france. That the British waged a decades long war across eastern africa and other such actions. There was heavy resistance and this is why the French, Dutch and other such european powers still have holding accros the world. If the USSR and the USA weren't forcing them too give up there colonies they just weren't going too do it.
@kingoliever1
2 жыл бұрын
@@AnotherConscript What decade long battle the British had in Africa? While French influence in Africa today is just something totally different and sure not based on them whit there military occupying foreign lands. This rather has to do whit economics as African countries are generally poor and probably have some huge advantages when they also get help and a bit integrated into European systems. For example Africa gets basically a huge tariff deal gifted by the EU which allows them to tariff anything from Europe they want while also getting themselves to import whiteout tariffs in the EU. I really never seen anything where this claim that Europe exploits Africa is somehow is acutely true, like that we somehow steal there raw resources when buying them as the trade whit Africa is simply just a rather small part of our economy think just 10% of imports from outside the EU come from there which is simply not much whit 5 of our BIP % while they also get 10% of this money back as development aid. While this modern holdings simply have the right to vote for independence, there was recently some referendum where some French oversea territory decided to stay and there is a whole list on wiki whit them. I am also not really trying to deny European atrocities but from what i know this was just mostly before ww 2 and the only thing i really would know about is France in Algeria. What seems more to be the case that then as many nations where build on the idea of divided and conquer where going into chaos while we in many cases somehow where still involved but in the time after the second world war which i just referring to this where simply not the colonial conflicts from before about them keeping control but rather preventing civil wars. For example Israel would be the example i mean whit this where the Brits wanted to go rather sooner then later but had to deal whit being in the middle between fighting Jews and Arabs which both hated them. Or the South African bush war would be another example which sure was caused by the colonial legacy but the war reason was not colonialism.
@Battyj
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingoliever1 Im guessing he is talking about the north African military campaign against Italy? Which lasted for like 3 years
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingoliever1 The Mau Mau rebellion lasted nearly 10 years.
@ishthewall1915
Жыл бұрын
Who knew this would be his final what if
@ComicalRealm
2 жыл бұрын
Africa: *Exists* Europe: Well, it's free real estate.
@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen
2 жыл бұрын
That and America.
@ericcartmann
2 жыл бұрын
Everything is Free. I mean if you can overcome the forces putting a price on something, that means your force can put the price to zero. In a lot of grocery stores, the only force preventing theft is personal shame. If you dont care about that, you can set the price to zero. No one will stop you from taking that shit. Likewise they equally dont give a rats ass if you pitch a tent an live in their parking lot. Just ready to leave once the force escalates to the police. Then you can promptly return. I mean, you take the whole grocery store if you can kill every cop and serviceman.
@PA-1000
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericcartmann very true.... IN FACT i will do that right now.
@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericcartmann ok.
@COLDoCLINCHER37
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericcartmann to be fair that does sound accurate
@GAZAMAN93X
2 жыл бұрын
So trade wouldn't exist in this timeline? The outside world wouldn't want African resources & goods? I find it highly unlikely that railroads,etc. Won't make it to Africa.
@learningagain4094
2 жыл бұрын
Railroads were only created in Africa, because they were an interest to Europeans. All trade between Europe and Africa was practically only slavery up until colonisation. And Europe never bothered to push inwards, only maintaining costal trade hubs. Trade might exist, but it would be very slow and very gradual to have any actual impact on Africa. Colonialism forced administration and unification between tribes. Without it, Africa would be far more divided and far less developed. In fact conflict might have gotten more brutal, since guns would be imported from Europeans and the power gap between Natives with guns and Natives without guns would be extreme. Also, most of African resources couldn't be extracted by Africans, because they hadn't the technology to do so.
@Ttegegg
2 жыл бұрын
@@learningagain4094 but then again. Eithopia and Egypt could possible spread the technology through conquest.
@cqpp
2 жыл бұрын
@@learningagain4094 not entirely true. Countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco and mali have existed for thousands of years. Egypt is extremely close to Europe and already had modern technology such as guns, the printing press and factories etc, while Ethiopia closely connected to Egypt and the oman sultanate could get technology by trading with them. It wouldn't take long until countries like Congo and Ghana pop up, the rest of Africa will still stay mostly tribalised until the 20th century. However the poverty and separate would be alot less due to less ethnic and tribal conflict due to messy borders created specifically by the French, British, Portuguese and Spanish.
@miketacos9034
2 жыл бұрын
Me two days ago: “Tell me, how am I supposed to live without you~?” Me today: “This is getting out of hand! Now there are TWO of them!”
@firetreeman
7 ай бұрын
this is the last actual althistory video
@gatuarhin
2 жыл бұрын
The main thing that determines the success of nations are their economic policies. For a variety of reasons, most of Africa would be better of in this timeline then our own, albeit with some parts in the interior staying underdeveloped. African states were mostly decentralised empires and city states, which means that it is difficult to form hyper tyrannical governments like in much of the rest of the world. Without colonisation, the African states wouldn’t have nonsensical borders and would thus have less internal conflicts and civil wars, making business and the society stable. The hybridisation of Abrahamic Religions with native polytheistic religions means that strict religious fundamentalism is less likely in most of Sub-Saharan Africa. The Sahel has a long history of being united and will most likely reunite later on. Coastal West Africa was already quite advanced and had stable governments. The Ashanti Empire (which started as a federation of city states) for example reformed in the 1700s to have a meritocratic parliamentary system where the Kotoko Council would regulate the king’s decisions. The Igbo also had a semi-democratic government that guaranteed equal rights for citizens. Ethiopia was already a robust state and was more powerful than its neighbours. Without European colonies on its border, it would be able to expand. The states of the Swahili Coast were wealthy city states, which have a good track record in the industrialised world. Buganda and the African Great Lakes nations were states that also looked promising from East Africa. Central and parts of Southern Africa had many states like the Luba and the Rozvi Empire at were quite powerful and had trade connections with Portugal. The main problems that Africa faced were diseases, difficulty of transportation and slavery. The first two wouldn’t be a problem with medical technology and later roadways connecting the developed parts of the continent. Slavery would be a bigger issue but as technology diffuses into the continent, the economic problems of slavery would slowly make the practice go away. When the Atlantic Slave Trade ended, it hurt the economies of many coastal African nations, however, in the long run this would have decreased the amount of wars for slaves, kept the population growing and lead to more diverse economies later on. Africa in this timeline would probably be more like Southeast Asia, with a lot of both developed and undeveloped parts, but broadly be growing rapidly.
@christiandauz3742
2 жыл бұрын
What if a Time-traveler Industrialized Ancient Sumeria and Egypt?
@gatuarhin
2 жыл бұрын
@@christiandauz3742 If they had that technology and governments didn’t ban it, then they could genuinely conquer the world, especially with the lower world population at the time. Over time, the technology would probably diffuse into the rest of the world and lead to everyone gaining independence, since you can’t effectively control the whole planet.
@myagrimm4719
2 жыл бұрын
You seem to have a pretty nuanced view, do you have any video suggestions to watch about African history and development?
@christiandauz3742
2 жыл бұрын
@@gatuarhin Wouldn't the Sumerians and Egyptians assimilate everyone?
@gatuarhin
2 жыл бұрын
@@myagrimm4719 There’s a KZitemr called From Nothing who makes good videos about African history without being overly afro-nationalist. He focuses more on pre-European African history and less on stuff like slavery.
@sethgreen2459
2 жыл бұрын
Not that I don’t love the alternative history, but I would love to have a series. Break down the history of human interaction by region, illustrate it via map etc., and then describe macro level interactions now.
@gaelicpatriot3604
2 жыл бұрын
Another alternate history to look at: What if disease weren’t a factor and Europeans were able to colonise Africa much earlier
@johnl.7754
2 жыл бұрын
If disease weren’t a factor then Africa might have been more developed and proven harder to conquer.
@gaelicpatriot3604
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnl.7754 that’s true. Or maybe we could have a weird reverse scenario were once Europeans started to enter sub Saharan Africa the Africans start dying from diseases like the native Americans did. A pretty odd alternate history though.
@markm2092
2 жыл бұрын
Africa was much more populated than native America and had already had contact with diseases European had through contact with Arab traders. Europe entering Africa much earlier would be very interesting. Conquest would be MUCH harder without the maxim gun and repeating rifles and the like. That’s a very interesting scenario indeed.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@markm2092 There would be no conquest.
@markm2092
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 some would. Minor gains probably on the coast and the like.
@badmoth242xl3
2 жыл бұрын
Two videos, one geopolitics and another alt history, not even 15 hours apart? Man I can get used to this one-two punch
@Flyingclam
2 жыл бұрын
"Egypt was ruled by a dynasty of Albanain origin" Im sorry, you cant just gloss over that like its not a meme statement
@duncanlutz3698
2 жыл бұрын
The Ottomans, essentially. Albanians had immigrated, through the Ottoman Empire, to Egypt. Over centuries, a sizeable and powerful minority of Albanian governors, generals, mercenaries, etc, coalesced into their own dynasty. After kicking Napoleon out of Egypt, the Albanian soldiers forced the (dying) Ottoman Empire into accepting their rule over the territory. Eventually Western powers stepped in and checked the Khedivate dynasty in Egypt from truly taking off. Then a revolution in the 50's kicked out the last Albanian king, Farouk, and the rest of the Albanians largely fled back to Europe. The Ottomans had a habit of using slave soldiers from far flung corners of the Empire, but then freeing them and giving them political power after good service. Which is how the Albanian's originally got settled into Egypt.
@Qwerty-yp3jq
2 жыл бұрын
@@duncanlutz3698 When’s the last time An Egyptian ruled Egypt? Arabs, Albanians, British, Turks, Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc
@aceambling7685
2 жыл бұрын
@@Qwerty-yp3jq The Bronze Age.
@Qwerty-yp3jq
2 жыл бұрын
@@aceambling7685 it was 338 BC before the Persians became back and then the Greeks
@mohammad.alkurdi.
2 жыл бұрын
@@Qwerty-yp3jq egyptian arabs are originally egyptian they just speak Arabic.
@ahmedmuawia2447
2 жыл бұрын
This is very nice indeed. As a Sudanese person I will say the greatest benfit of colonial rule was creating a sense of solidarity that didn't really exist before helping form our contemporary nation states. Hell my country has a personal history with that (the brutal Mahdist uprising which united the nation against Turk-European rulers). One correction I would make there was even more profitable colonies in Africa but all of them were almost entirely British. Another would be I can't really understand the economic downturn you showed after the end of colonialism. Also lmao we did build many rail roads, bridges, roads since the British left I don't know where you got that part from. From what I know at least in my own country we we had vast economic growth unprecedented under British rule until the Socialists got in power. . I don't know where you got the railways part, my country has been expanding railroads since the 1960s, Hell we built a ton of high way roads thanks to American aid in the 70s. . It must also be said that colonial nations did in fact oppose letting go of their colonies but their hands were forced by being both physically destroyed by ww2 and the Global powers in the form of USA and USSR.
@JcLazy1
2 жыл бұрын
You guys just had a civil war a few years ago.
@ahmedmuawia2447
2 жыл бұрын
@@JcLazy1 our existence was a civil war lmao, still matter is hilariously irrevlant in contemporary Sudanese society. The civil war is treated as 'Security Hazzard' not a war with actual loses as much country side banditry and counter banditry. The exception to that is south sudan during the 90s, that one was our Vietnam. It got much better however with 2005 peace deal, and unfortunately separation it was. We still have many southerners in my city, lovely people!
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@ahmedmuawia2447 They don’t understand anything about Africa. Most people in the comments think they are less intelligent and unable to modernize.
@ahmedmuawia2447
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 nah nah bro, it's just misunderstandings that's all. Using a language of superiority when trying to make someone else understand is not good. If you want to make someone understand you try to explain to them. If they refuse to understand well truth doesn't care for my opinion nor anyone else's
@harshjain3122
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 it wouldn't. Africa was huge dude with a lot of labour. Europeans could invest into those machines or else they could just throw enough men at it to make it work but then black death happened which was exactly why had no other choice then do expensive 'gambling' into machines. This is the reason why, not just africa...india and china couldn't industrialise. All three were just huge.
@stefanfoot3047
2 жыл бұрын
As a South African I am always happy to see it when we get featured, especially in this detail. Just a note on the pronunciations. Natal is pronounced Nah-tal, not Nay-tal. Keep it up. I love your videos!
@JustinianG
2 жыл бұрын
Can you check out this similar timeline I made? I also talk a lot about South Africa kzitem.info/news/bejne/koaqm4yrcXeTlaw
@flowerflower-mo6oc
2 жыл бұрын
As a colonizer*
@davidvanniekerk356
2 жыл бұрын
Dankie Stefan. Ek het ook in detail na hom geluister. Die man (Jay Girgis?) het beslis talent, maar sy vertolking van Geskiedenis is aweregs. Sy interpretasie is sy voorreg, en nie noodwendig die waarheid nie. Byvoorbeeld:"The Dutch/ Afrikaners is responsible for Apartheid"' Joe Slovo vd ANC en Europese Kommunis het ook uitgewys. Die Engels kielhaal die Afrikaners oor Rasseskeiding, terwyl die Engelse dit begin het...
@tiagorodrigues179
2 жыл бұрын
@@flowerflower-mo6oc What?
@davidvanniekerk356
2 жыл бұрын
@yo yo Thx Yo yo 4 reading, thinking, writhing and responding. A person has to understand and know History. Merci beaucoup.
@TheTrooper1878
Жыл бұрын
The last,,What if" video in this channel
@codysparks1454
6 ай бұрын
Yep, I just noticed that too. Wish he’d make more of these
@westube3493
Жыл бұрын
Remember when whatifalthist made what if alternate histories?
@superpacocaalado7215
2 жыл бұрын
I love to see how the quality of videos is constantly raising as time goes by. Maybe some parts of Africa that are more stable could slowly industrialise, selling goods for European merchants, buying weapons to defend their lands, been open for foreign investment as fertilizers became cheaper and more available, etc.. One good point is that borders would make more sence and be mostly divided by culture.
@jimpickins7900
2 жыл бұрын
well to industrialise/ have a reason to produce so much stuff they kind of need access to the ocean, so maybe the coastal people groups who arrange by culture and industrialise. those kingdoms may go on to colonise the interior.
@jonathangoedeke7085
2 жыл бұрын
it's been almost a year since this video. I hope you make more What If? scenarios in the future. I love the socio-political analysis videos, but I miss the what ifs
@neltins5308
2 жыл бұрын
Didn't the belgians literally invent the saying "Crimes against humanity". The british seemed to be the only European nation in history that treated African colonies in any decent way towards the end of it, perhaps this is why so many weller off Africans live in UK? Also it's crazy that polygamy & exploitation of natural African resources is still happening to this very day just in different ways than colonialism, it seems to be one of most abundant places of resources on the planet.
@sirjordancarter
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the bongs were cringe
@JohnDoe-sw1rs
2 жыл бұрын
Britain treated their African colonies fairly well compared to countries like France, Spain and Portugal. A lot of African countries who were colonized by Britain aren’t as resentful as countries like Angola and the Congo
@immortalituss
2 жыл бұрын
well off? what? nigeria is a shithole, malawi is a shithole, sudan is a shithole etc etc
@commisaryarreck3974
2 жыл бұрын
Indeed, the Brits just committed a genocide against the boers Their treatment was awful too, don't be delusional.
@NYG5
2 жыл бұрын
Theres a reason why former british empire colonies are more advanced than former iberian/french colonies
@sauceynugget3371
2 жыл бұрын
"America, a country that is usually anti colonial." Phllipines, Puerto Rico, and Guam: "You were saying."
@perniciousseizurehellio3438
2 жыл бұрын
@Danny Tallmadge They dont have a choice it's either that or starve
@perniciousseizurehellio3438
2 жыл бұрын
@Danny Tallmadge it's generally anticolonial when colonialism is against its interests otherwise it's very colonial lol
@luizy6701
2 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂 what?
@Dbainel
2 жыл бұрын
243 days since the last alternate history video. Give it up for day 243.
@retrohoarder2447
2 жыл бұрын
In my time zone it's 2 releases in 1 day! I'm honoured you exist
@Zen-sx5io
2 жыл бұрын
By far, one of your best videos IMO.
@JustinianG
2 жыл бұрын
I made a pretty similar but much more optimistic timeline about Africa you should like even more (although my mic and editing weren't as good back then) Don't let the title fool you THIS ISN'T A TROLL I SWEAR! kzitem.info/news/bejne/koaqm4yrcXeTlaw
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
Nope horribly researched and he provides no sources once again.
@lilemont9302
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 Point out your criticisms
@Christian-qq5sx
Жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 true
@RM10Prod.
2 жыл бұрын
Having played conflict of nations, I can say for certain that it is crap compared to the other game by bytro (the devs of CoN and CoW) call of war, to me it always seems to be more polished
@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen
2 жыл бұрын
What other game did they make ? Wanna play them.
@RM10Prod.
2 жыл бұрын
@@exaggeratedswaggerofablackteen they made Call of War, which is a WWII startegtly game in the same vein as conflict of nations
@Neion8
2 жыл бұрын
So would you say that it's a a CoN? ;)
@RM10Prod.
2 жыл бұрын
@@Neion8 nice
@michigandersea3485
2 жыл бұрын
"Africa wasn't claimed for economic reasons--well actually, it was, but the colonies lost money so it doesn't count." Yeah, sorry, that is pretty incoherent. It was claimed in competition with other European powers for the future prospect of wealth. Also, it probably isn't too wise to say that America was "anti-colonial". It's hard to get more colonial than 19th and early 20th century America. We just were colonial on our own continent, adjacent to established territories. We also practiced economic colonialism and military interventionism in Latin America and also East Asia. What, for example, is Commodore Perry's "Opening of Japan?" Or US Marines fighting against the Boxer Rebellion? Sure, we did oppose European-style political colonialism in our sphere of influence (the Monroe doctrine).
@jessetaran7116
2 жыл бұрын
Plus the westward expansion and colonization of the indigenous peoples.
@ressljs
2 жыл бұрын
This gets into how you define colonialism versus straight up conquest. And neither of these are particularly moral, so don't take this as me saying "America did nothing wrong!" But the westward expansion generally isn't considered colonialism. Colony implies that an outside power takes over a region and harnesses their work force and economy to serve the colonial power. America didn't want the natives as a work force, they just wanted them gone so American citizens could have the land to work for themselves. So it's much more a case of conquest. A "colonial America" would have had plantations and ranches across the midwest where the only white people would have been the land owners and administrators, but all the workforce would have been native.
@jessetaran7116
2 жыл бұрын
@@ressljs That’s a good point, wouldn’t that be considered settler colonialism, where the goal is to replace the original population with a new one of settlers?
@ressljs
2 жыл бұрын
@@jessetaran7116 There seems to be an impulse to use "colonialism" in the context of the Americas where it wouldn't be used elsewhere. Let's look at similar cases in history. The Saxons invaded Roman Britain and pushed out the Celts from what we now call England. The Arabs spread out over the middle east and now the lands they ruled are populated by Arabs rather than the people there before 600 AD (probably due more to assimilation rather than expelling the previous population). I've never heard those described as colonialism, just conquest. I can't help but think "settler colonialism" is just rebranding "invasion" or "conquest" because colonialism is a hot buzzword. And before anyone forgets my original argument and thinks this is an excuse for everything America did, invading and expelling natives is hardly a moral act. It's just not the same thing as colonialism and I think doing a switcheroo on the terminology just makes history harder to talk about and understand.
@jessetaran7116
2 жыл бұрын
@@ressljs I think colonialism and conquest aren’t super rigid or distinct categories. The borders are fuzzy and sometimes they cross into each other. I’ve heard the Anglo-Saxon conquest and Arabization be referred to as colonialism (although you’re right that Arabization is mostly due to assimilation over the centuries, but could even that be considered colonialism?) I think conquest works for all the examples we talked about, but I wouldn’t rule out colonialism being a part of it as well. And I also agree that it can be a buzzword nowadays, and buzzwords can be irritating as hell sometimes. Idk when the term “settler colonialism” originated, but I’m almost certain it was in the 20th century. I’ll have to look into it
@cedarcoll
2 жыл бұрын
The Italian colonies labelled as FOMO I'm dead
@voyagerkamen1386
2 жыл бұрын
Something that kept bothering was that Guinea Bissau was shown under Spanish rule, but it reality it was under Portuguese rule.
@TheRusty
2 жыл бұрын
Also the argument that "the colonies mostly didn't turn a profit so profit wasn't their motive" is extremely bad thinking. You can go look up the charters of all of these companies, and listen to them laugh at you, if you like. They were all there to turn a profit. Or "facilitate trade" as the rhetoric of the day was. First: All of these colonies were intended to be long-term investments. This is, I understand, a very alien concept in modern capitalism. It used to be that people would sink a lot of money into something now, and expect to gain profit years, even decades later through accrual. No German alive in 1884 dreamed that establishing a colonial company over Tanganyika would see a single pfenning profit for anyone in 1885... and so no one was surprised when it didn't. In every case, no matter the chartering government, it was held that a big investment up front for subdual of the native peoples, construction of infrastructure, and creation of "civIlIzAtIoN" would turn a profit EVENTUALLY. Second, remember that most nations at the time still ordered their economies on mercantilist thought. strict objective monetary profit was rarely the point of trade. For an example, the Barbary Company, strictly speaking, lost money hand over fist. It traded high-quality British cloth in Morocco, mostly in exchange for Moroccan sugar. it short-sold the cloth and was charged exorbitant rates for the sugar, but since England had a surplus of cloth and absolutely no capability of producing sugar at home, it was still seen as a good deal. Third, I think you underestimate profitability. Consider France in west Africa. Here's a fun fact about France; it has absolutely no domestic gold production, yet it has the largest gold reserve in Europe. France also controlled Africa's largest gold-producing region for almost a century, and still maintains an economic stranglehold on its former colonial states - none of which have any governmental gold reserves. Why is that do you think? Correlation is not causation, I know, but I think a very strong inferral can be made that Malian and Mauritanian gold is going into French treasuries, and has been for over a century. This goes straight into state coffers instead of the general economy, so might not track as "profit."
@TNS10000
2 жыл бұрын
Suggestions: -What if Ukraine became anarchist under Nestor Makhno? -What if the Pernambucan Revolution suceeded and established the 3rd republic in modern history?
@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986
2 жыл бұрын
how can a place be anarchist if it has a leader when the word anarchy means 'no ruler'
@TNS10000
2 жыл бұрын
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 Are you seriously expecting coherence from a goverment led by ancoms?
@marrymekatsuya
2 жыл бұрын
Ukraine would have been fucked by the soviets or other ukrainians, i don't think makhno would have lasted very long
@TNS10000
2 жыл бұрын
@@marrymekatsuya he could if he became a strongman and abandoned almost everything that anarchism represented or if he aligned himself with the USSR(considering in this timeline someone who isn't as centralist as Stalin becomes leader,like Bhukarin) or other eastern european countries
@kingarthur1217
2 жыл бұрын
I wish we could borrow some of that testosterone from the 1890s and brought it here so that we could function properly as a society.
@neinno8172
2 жыл бұрын
Pointless wars, rebellions and carnage, exactly what we need
@kingarthur1217
2 жыл бұрын
@@neinno8172 Well we have had pointless wars and rebellions in recent years as it is; No, I mean men need to have more balls in the Western world right now, then things will fix themselves.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingarthur1217 No it was absolutely worse back them and going back to that times means you have a higher chance of dying in a war or war induced famine.
@neinno8172
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingarthur1217 Not on that scale, no. What you're asking for, with the weaponry we find ourselves armed with in the modern world, entails catastrophe. Worth mentioning it was due to the amount of young men, not the quality.
@kingarthur1217
2 жыл бұрын
@@neinno8172 No one wants a nuclear war. I hope to God every day for no nuclear war. I do mean that today’s men need to be better, not that we need more young males. The men we already have should get their act together (as well as women) and know THE TRUTH so that societal stability, prosperity and success is ensured.
@allenpradhan2063
2 жыл бұрын
The scramble for Africa is happening again but most people don’t realise that.China has already given 300 billion dollars of loans to poor African nations and is establishing military bases in Djibouti and India is countering China by providing loans to other African nations and is establishing military bases in Mauritius. Japan is also doing the same. I guess history is repeating itself
@Jack-oj7dq
2 жыл бұрын
it never stopped, decolonization was just a simple trick to cover up the exploitation of africa
@Battyj
2 жыл бұрын
@@Jack-oj7dq it's just what happens when you are bottom of the food chain
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
Literally everyone has a base Djibouti. The fuck is your point? France and the Us has bases all over Africa.
@jackpelleaon55
2 жыл бұрын
This video and subject were really well done, thank you. However, I was wondering if you could start linking at the bottom or at the end of the video putting some of the books you used to research? Some of these subjects are really interesting and I want to know more than (no offense) a cursory glance. You’ve done similarly for your historical misconceptions videos and I think it would be really neat to do here too! Cheers
@paxchap1254
2 жыл бұрын
You think this guy is actually researching shit? This is literally just some guy making up things that fit his world view. None of this is based on critical analysis.
@liambuchan4162
2 жыл бұрын
@@paxchap1254 I'm sure you could do a much better critical analysis oh armchair historian
@lilemont9302
2 жыл бұрын
@@paxchap1254 Proof?
@Naveen-tq7cg
2 жыл бұрын
@@lilemont9302 I'm not saying it's all bad, but there are some glaring problems. There were multiple brutal wars and military campaigns to supress African independence by France, Portugal and Britain. France still maintains economic hegemony over most of West Africa. He says that none of the colonies were profitable except the Congo. Zimbabwe was, as was Mali, Djibouti and the Swahili coast, to name a few.
@toobeast673
2 жыл бұрын
2 vids in a day and an African alternate history video!! Big W
@helpiamstuckonthismanshead3385
2 жыл бұрын
W?
@manuelmanuel3554
2 жыл бұрын
Your wrong about the reason Europeans colonized Africa, Europeans did colonize Africa in part for glory and strategic importance, but the truth is that most of their colonies provided invaluable raw materials, like gold, rubber and resource intensive crops, that their economies slowly became dependent upon, in fact the only reason they decolonized so willingly is that they found a cheaper way through multinational companies.
@fritoss3437
2 жыл бұрын
That actually a myth bro The vast majority of european lose money in africa
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@fritoss3437 Hes talking about the companies themselves.
@michaelweldon4699
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 Yep, same thing happens today with the US in our middle eastern efforts. The country loses big amounts of capital but a lot of companies make solid profits.
@ericlitts9917
2 жыл бұрын
I just hope our Mother Africa can someday live in its own peace that it decides for itself. Too many world powers delight in its chaos.
@martim6828
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, just want to point out that in the map that shows at 6:32, Guinea-Bissau belongs to the Portuguese, and not to the Spanish.
@SauloA333
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, he confused it with Güinea Ecuatorial territory.
@KalixtoKahlo
2 жыл бұрын
the word " belongs" is soo abhorrent! wish you would have said "was brutaly colonized" ...
@martim6828
2 жыл бұрын
@@KalixtoKahlo Well, I am fine with the word I used, after all it was de jure Portuguese land, or does brutally colonizing something not make it yours?
@KalixtoKahlo
2 жыл бұрын
@@martim6828 what! how in the world Portugal had right to own an African territory? Last time i checked the map Guiena-Bisau is located west of central Africa 11.8037° N, 15.1804° W
@martim6828
2 жыл бұрын
@@KalixtoKahlo So under that logic, countries can't have exclaves, for example, all the French islands scattered around the globe and French Guiana aren't rightfully French, or the Azores aren't rightfully Portuguese? Regardless, that is besides de point. What I am saying is that, just because a territory is far away, doesn't mean it can't belong to a faraway nation. The coastal parts of Guinea-Bissau had been under Portuguese rule since around the 1500s, the rest was later explored and settled over the 1800s; The Portuguese had, in guinea-Bissau, a permanent PORTUGUESE population inhabiting the region under Portuguese law, using Portuguese money and in a region in which (granted not everyone did) speak Portuguese. So what your telling me is that owning something for around 350 years (to be in line with the Berlin conference), whilst having a permanent population from the mainland living there not give you the right to say it is, rightfully, yours?
@gamerdude116
2 жыл бұрын
Hmm French colonization of Africa was very much Jules Ferry’s attempt to redirect the populace’s energy away from Alsace-Lorraine and avoid a war with Germany that France would definitely not win. I wonder if a general European war might have broken out earlier if the scramble had not happened
@allangibson2408
2 жыл бұрын
The French colonisation of Africa was a direct result of the suppression of the Barbary pirate kingdoms. It could have just as easily been Britain or the United States (as both were getting tired of repeatedly suppressing them).
@Merle1987
2 жыл бұрын
For some reason the contrast between the rockin' music and that old ship always gets me.
@aceambling7685
2 жыл бұрын
It's 100% golden age KZitem and I love it.
@thechosenone1533
2 жыл бұрын
@6:55 As an Indian it feels wierd to see that the Europeans conquered like a third of Africa just to secure their route to India.
@Battyj
2 жыл бұрын
India was incredibly valuable, it makes sense
@d-1beats
2 жыл бұрын
Couple disagreements - The primary purpose was for economic reasons to maintain access and extraction to raw materials in their colonial areas - The decolonization process was brutal especially when it came to covert coups to prop up dictators and Portugal's wars against its former colonies and France/Algeria. There's couple more but those are the main disagreements
@jacobevanoski1221
2 жыл бұрын
Me normally when someone is sponsored: frantically skips Me when Whatifalthist is sponsored: It is... acceptable
@christopherhoffer6643
2 жыл бұрын
What if Germany stayed with China as an ally instead of Japan?
@JustinianG
2 жыл бұрын
I'm working on a timeline where Just that happens. Subscribe and stay tuned
@lee-fc5bu
2 жыл бұрын
Japan would just beat china since germany wouldnt send troops there but maybe USA wouldnt join the war
@liambuchan4162
2 жыл бұрын
Time to make this a reality in Vicky II
@sirjordancarter
2 жыл бұрын
Japan would fuck China up, Germany even weaker
@marrqi7wini54
2 жыл бұрын
What if Japan from WW2 and modern Japan, switched places in time? I'm curious what both Japans would do.
@DudeWatIsThis
2 жыл бұрын
Everyone: go back to the thumbnail and hover over it. "What if the Scramble for Africa Never Happened?" 1. 13,000 Gold reward 2. Switzerland gets bombed 3. World War III
@heresyhunter4100
2 жыл бұрын
Can you do an alternate history video explaining what would happen if Wawa didn't explode across the Mid-Atlantic region?
@michaela2634
2 жыл бұрын
Dark times
@ressljs
2 жыл бұрын
Appalachia and the Piedmont would descend into cannibalism.
@pat7785
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t think the scramble for Africa couldn’t have happened. It’s the worlds largest power vacuum that also happens to be full of diamonds, gold, and precious gems.
@Hispanocel
2 жыл бұрын
But it barely affected the European powers though. Britain was paying less than 2% of its budget in africa
@pat7785
2 жыл бұрын
@@Hispanocel either way it was still a vacuum relative to Europe. And why would you industrialize Africa when adequate industry exists at home? Export raw material from Africa at a ridiculous bargain because you can and process it to create products with 100x the value of the raw material for sale domestically. That’s why trade with Africa was always such a small percentage of total trade in Europe. Africa is cheap.
@Hispanocel
2 жыл бұрын
@@pat7785 what
@nicocola284
2 жыл бұрын
@@pat7785 actually taking ressources from Africa could have been done without colonisation as it was before. Colonisation appeared because of nationalism it had no financial interest
@gregetter6137
2 жыл бұрын
I'm now thinking there needs to be a list of how many scenarios ends up creating a Central Powers victory in WWI outcome. WWI Seems to be the biggest butterfly effect target
@Boiling_Seas
2 жыл бұрын
Anything that keeps Britain out of the war. Weaken Russia enough to either keep them out of WW1 or collapse relatively early on. Anything that weakens France enough. Strengthening the pan-German ties from the HRE while forming the German Empire. Strengthening Arab loyalty to the Ottoman Empire. Italy not allying itself with France. Italy's army not being so bad. Austria-Hungary's army not being so bad. Germany not pushing to become a naval power. Plenty of options to choose from.
@ccityplanner1217
2 жыл бұрын
Germany fought better in WWI, & only lost because it turned into a war of attrition & they ran out of resources first.
@Omer1996E.C
2 жыл бұрын
This is one of the greatest channels i know
@scholaroftheworldalternatehist
2 жыл бұрын
Whaddaya think about my channel? Inspired mainly by whatifalthist himself
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
Horrible video.
@lordavy7469
2 жыл бұрын
Congrats on almost 300k, you deserve all the subs
@LordPeachew
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t really think you know what you talking about. African was definitely invaded for resources and it was very profitable.
@blkgardner
2 жыл бұрын
The cost of conquering land is generally greater than the cost of resource extraction. It is not as though mineral wealth is just laying around on the ground. Rather, there is the cost of mining, the cost of building infrastructure, the cost of governance, and the cost of conquest. The colonial powers are not more wealthy than the corresponding non-colonial powers. In fact, the two poorest and most backward nations in Western Europe: Spain and Portugal, had the oldest colonial empires.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@blkgardner private companies
@skeletonkeysproductionskp
2 жыл бұрын
So glad you've done this topic, I did the same topic a few months ago and as you're a massive inspiration for my channel I'd love to get some feedback, and maybe one day to do a collaboration! Keep up the great work and stay blessed!
@quadeevans6484
2 жыл бұрын
I hope this comments section is full of interesting discussion and not toxicity unlike other videos on Africa
@Fu3g0.100
2 жыл бұрын
Lmao read the comments it's amazing. I think it's because the people here are more respectful
@quadeevans6484
2 жыл бұрын
@@Fu3g0.100 yea ikr it's pretty awesome. I like African cultures and civilizations and it's awesome to see them discussed with a historical lens rather than hoteps and racists screaming in tangents
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@quadeevans6484 This guy literally said the Europeans introduced cities and that the Egyptians conquered the Congo. Some of these comments show pretty clear bias.
@quadeevans6484
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 dont gemme wrong there is biased but i think that this comments section is infinitely more civil than some of the other ones
@cavaugnsharkey2699
2 жыл бұрын
@@quadeevans6484 I think it has to do with the apparent positive praise than the lack of toxicity. More or less would be the same, especially on a topic about Africa.
@abdirahmanbadal781
2 жыл бұрын
Hey,this topic Is closer my heart coz am an African,from Kenya.
@kucingsedihjojofan1428
2 жыл бұрын
Continent exist: Europe: its free real estate
@gheorghitaalsunculitei9146
2 жыл бұрын
Whatifalthist be like: What if a post 2 videos on 2 consecutive days and nothing for a month
@AMR_k400
2 жыл бұрын
What would really happen Colonization doesn't occur in africa Egypt and Ethiopia : fine I'll do it my self
@yasuke230
2 жыл бұрын
Egypt was colonized by the British,💡 genius
@sabrina1380m
2 жыл бұрын
Egybt was under the ottomans
@AMR_k400
2 жыл бұрын
@@sabrina1380m yes but they didn't prevent them from colonizing others because they did conquer sudan and tried to conquer Ethiopia while they were under ottoman rule in our time line
@AMR_k400
2 жыл бұрын
@@yasuke230 if colonization didnt happen in africa egypt wouldn't have been colonized too because its in africa Genius
@yasuke230
2 жыл бұрын
@@AMR_k400 pass the blunt mate
@ericborbely6048
3 ай бұрын
This is the last “What if” alt hist I have seen. Damn, two years ago.
@Thunder103093
10 күн бұрын
yep, miss when he did those videos
@mohdadeeb1829
Жыл бұрын
7:18 Congo Crisis Mau Mau Uprising (Borderline Genocide) Malagasy Uprising (50,000 people killed just for protests) Algerian War Cameroon Conflict Portuguese Colonial War Spanish Moroccoan War Egyptian Revolution etc.
@wunmifash3116
2 жыл бұрын
As an African myself I thank you for this video..this is a narrative that is not Marxist..I hate how people think Europeans underdeveloped Africa as if Africa was a paradise before they came
@Nero-ox5tw
2 жыл бұрын
Based
@usuarionaoidentificado9918
2 жыл бұрын
Most of the talk about Africa in the West is conducted by SJWs and black-nationalists who have never even been to Africa and think of it with the same stupidity of the racists they claim to fight.
@jaybee4577
2 жыл бұрын
Ok this is pretty concerning because nobody calls Africa a paradise before colonialism but Africa has been altered negative. This is still affecting the continent today. Ways of life and tradition have been demonized even though the people have been living their lives for hundreds of years the way the deemed fit. From your name I can tell you have Yoruba ancestry and you should be ashamed of your comment.
@Nero-ox5tw
2 жыл бұрын
@@jaybee4577 cringe
@makeytgreatagain6256
2 жыл бұрын
@@Nero-ox5tw the irony of your comment
@gurgelurk
2 жыл бұрын
14:29 shows the Mountains of Kong. They were drawn on most 19th century maps of Africa, but never existed.
@aksaraylicelali
2 жыл бұрын
best part: we won't have to hear ''Europe get rich from africa'', ''but Belguim'' and shit
@rmar127
2 жыл бұрын
Without the scramble for Africa, Abyssinia/Ethiopia could have become a great power once more.
@duruarute5445
2 жыл бұрын
Doubt
@ivanf.482
2 жыл бұрын
It would remain independent, and maybe expand a bit at the cost of neighbouring peoples, but nothing more. It wouldn't industrialize like Japan did.
@juliomontoya8214
2 жыл бұрын
The argument that colonial Africa was not profitable is to me much the same as the modern anti foreign aid arguments. All of the raw materials are taken through terrible deals or just force and then we act like that does not play into their economic viability. It’s not like the free oil Britain took from their colonies in Africa during the colonial period helped them no? Your views are inescapably myopic.
@blkgardner
2 жыл бұрын
What "free oil?" Mining minerals requires mines, wells, railroads, pipelines, and so on. Plus there is the cost of governing the area, education of the native population, and so on. Also, those minerals were there without the input or even knowledge of the native population. The resource argument only makes sense if you look at from the perspective of failed African states. They see most of their income being generated from resource extraction, because they have little industry. Therefore, they assume that is how the rest of the world works, and that all industry and manufacturing just sort of happens.
@juliomontoya8214
2 жыл бұрын
@@blkgardner so an economy being run largely off of the back of raw materials from its colonies and the subsequent markets and opportunities they generate is not benefiting from the colonial relationship?? I suppose the tobacco farms of Malawi are to this day a benefit to their population and not to British American Tobacco (established 1902 btw) and those like us more easily enjoying the capitalist benefits associated with higher rank in the current world system. It’s not like whole industries were/are entirely reliant on extracting raw materials from developing countries. The only reason they were willing to leave the colonies behind is because they realised they could more easily engage in the same actions through corporate activity. Yes there was investment made into the infrastructure of the colonies but it was mainly to the benefit of the ones exercising their rule. Western Chauvinists tend not to understand that everything comes from somewhere. From chocolate to tobacco to the fruit you get to enjoy, everything is coming from somewhere and if you don’t think those markets were and are still set up to the requirements of the colonists then you are truly blind.
@juliomontoya8214
2 жыл бұрын
@@blkgardner you also I fear failed to understand my point. I was not talking about whether the colonies were using the resources or whether they were stolen; I was stating the simple fact that these resources and most of the labour behind them were definitely producing positive effects in the west regardless of their effects on the colonies.
@blkgardner
2 жыл бұрын
@@juliomontoya8214 That is basically "I pushed the button, now I rightfully own the factory" logic. Many of those natural resources only have value because the rest of the world is developed. Additionally, all commerce that is not coerced is mutually beneficial to both parties. For example, running oil well only makes money if you sell the oil. (Or move to your downstream refineries. But even then, you need to sell the product at some point.) Likewise, nobody will buy your product unless it is mutually beneficial, or you force someone to buy to your product. So basically, any production for sale, by definition, is for the benefit of someone else. The "exploitation argument" basically assumes that resources create "wealth" out of thin air, and that commerce, manufacturing, education, and technology just sort of happen. In nations which are impoverished by civil wars and bad economic policies, industry and commerce collapse, leaving only mineral extraction, since that can not be relocated.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@juliomontoya8214 He also forgets to mention private companies which sure as hell made killings in Africa.
@lionelhutz-attorneyatlaw4443
2 жыл бұрын
Good video, but one caveat. The Bantu people are not native to most of South Africa - they were pushed there by the British because they didn't want the Nederlanders, later Afrikaners, to have a majority presence in certain regions. But we, and the San people, were there before the blacks and the English. That's our land and if anyone wants it they'll have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.
@lionelhutz-attorneyatlaw4443
2 жыл бұрын
@@Winston.S.Churchill No thanks to you I do Engelsman.
@abdiabdi3225
2 жыл бұрын
the bantu we already going there long before britain was a thing they had left their homeland in 2000bc and were moving all across africa to reach south africa and even kenya.
@lionelhutz-attorneyatlaw4443
2 жыл бұрын
@@abdiabdi3225 And yet even in Gauteng and nearly everything west and south of it we showed up first.
@JcoleMc
2 жыл бұрын
@@lionelhutz-attorneyatlaw4443 The groups in south Africa regularly migrated but Bantu's have been there since 2000 BCE
@compatriot852
2 жыл бұрын
I can't really see a world where this didn't happen given that the Americas had already been colonized years prior and Europe was still in the colonial mindset to get more power/prestige and resources to one up each other. For this to have happen, Europe would have never colonized at all to begin with.
@InquisitorXarius
2 жыл бұрын
However, you have to consider the people of the Americas’ were almost completely wiped out by Eurasian diseases that left only a few scattered tribes and multi-racial groups. When comparing Europe to Africa, it was the reverse because the Africans had developed relative tolerance to the same diseases Europeans experienced. Still, they also had developed tolerance to diseases that Europeans were unfamiliar with; thus, Europeans who had no level of tolerance or immunity to those diseases usually on mass when colonizing the interior of the African continent. That's why Europeans could only colonize the coasts, North-Eastern Africa, and Southern Africa because everywhere else was filled to the brim with extremely lethal diseases to Europeans that the tonic water made manageable. That's why the conditions in the Americas don’t apply to Africa by any measure. This is because foreign diseases would not wipe the Native African populations. That depopulation was the number one reason for quick and relatively easy European conquests of the Americas. For Africa, it would be the reverse and was for most of History Europeans died in mass from native African diseases. At the same time, the Native Africans would not lose the massive proportions of the native populations that native Americans lost from foreign diseases. Those deadly diseases made the conquest of Africa by Europeans significantly more difficult, if not impossible, in most areas for most of history, except in the regions of Africa I mentioned previously.
@archiij1707
2 жыл бұрын
Wish ghangis khan had colonized Europe
@jbertucci
2 жыл бұрын
@@archiij1707 you wouldn't be alive nor have any internet to write your hateful vomit on.
@jbertucci
2 жыл бұрын
@@InquisitorXarius Open a damned book ffs. Most aboriginal population did not die. Most intermarried with european migrants, forming the vast mestizo population that forms a big % of the americas population now.
@archiij1707
2 жыл бұрын
@@jbertucci eh neither would you, but doesn't sound sweet does it.
@JL-ti3us
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, appreciation from South Africa.
@welwitschia3756
2 жыл бұрын
2 videos In one day is really a privilege.
@sollymadeit
2 жыл бұрын
I will say there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in this video. Doesn’t mention the frequent battles off the Mozambican coast with the Portuguese or the prior more devastating Arab slave trade that stole faaaaar more Africans. Also you don’t mention Ethiopia which remained free and was never colonized. Or great Zimbabwe that not only fought back canon fire but actually repelled invaders before surrendering. I could literally go on talking about how it was not as easy as you think. Just that all of Africa is classified under Africa while Europe both changed history and had deaths spread out across Spain, Britain, Germany, etc… There is sooooo much more I’m leaving out but please redo this video cause it is so factually inaccurate. I’m African so I know this. Please do better research. I love your videos 💙
@NorthSudan
2 жыл бұрын
I agree that the video doesn’t involve most intricacies, and mostly just generalizes sub-Saharan Africa to the rest of the continent. One thing you said piqued my interest though. I can’t seem to find anything regarding Great Zimababwe and the way they fought back, most of what I found said they were crushed. Could you point me in the right direction or at least provide some keywords so I can find the battles you’re talking about?
@tomwest472
2 жыл бұрын
Colonisation didn’t ‘end’ in the 60s… it changed form.
@coolman6139
2 жыл бұрын
Hell yeah two videos in one day!!
@zacknstuff1611
2 жыл бұрын
Me watching the video: hey this version of Africa isn’t as bad as I thought! Whatifalthist at the end of the video: oh and the Germans will win WWI Me: DAMMIT!!!
@aceambling7685
2 жыл бұрын
Germany winning World War 1 is the best outcome for the world. I can't understand why you would want World War 2 to happen.
@zacknstuff1611
2 жыл бұрын
@@aceambling7685 World War II would still happen in a German dominated world just with a German victory and France being a fascist state
@lucianboar3489
2 жыл бұрын
@@zacknstuff1611 less likely, they were used to losing to the Germans
@zacknstuff1611
2 жыл бұрын
@@lucianboar3489 and the germans weren’t used to losing to the french British etc?
@lucianboar3489
2 жыл бұрын
@@zacknstuff1611 they weren't. French Hitler makes me laugh. Another funny thing is that strong fascism started in Italy, one of the winners of WW1. So there's no recipe.
@BruceWaynesaysLandBack
2 жыл бұрын
“Economic exploitation in the Race for Africa is a myth” *shows a picture of economic exploitation*
@michaelweldon4699
2 жыл бұрын
Well, even places that don't turn a profit can have some kind of dominant economic activity. And even if overall no money was made it doesn't mean that some smaller groups did not turn resources or vital locations into some level of profit for them, if not for the overall colonizing nation.
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
It is annoying when people don't listen to the context of someone's language. "Economic exploitation as the main driver for more and more of Africa getting colonized in the late 1800s to early 1900s is a myth".
@centercannothold
2 жыл бұрын
The colonies don’t even turn a profit . The European just did it for their ego .
@ikengaspirit3063
2 жыл бұрын
@@centercannothold most of the colonies didn't turn a profit but that isn't to say all of them didn't. As the video later shows, most of the coastal/southern West African coast turned a profit and would still be colonized in this timeline but even then, even to a lesser extent.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@centercannothold Companies sure as fuck made a profit. The Us lost a few trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the weapons and equipment manufacturers made a killing.
@Grymbaldknight
2 жыл бұрын
I know a handful of Americans - particularly African-Americans - like to push the "Wakanda Theory", wherein they argue that Africa would've been highly advanced if it weren't for European "exploitation". This is nonsense... although that's not to insult Africans themselves. It's just that, in terms of geography, most of Africa is the "hard mode" of civilisation building. It doesn't lend itself well to agriculture, much less industrialisation.
@akjdhajkdjhaghjkadh9804
2 жыл бұрын
very fair argument
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
Two states at least would have industrialized in that time line by the mid 20th century in this scenario in my opinion. My main picks are the Ashanti and the Ethiopians. Most Africans were indeed farmers, some pastoralists and the very few hunter gatherers. Out of Asia only Japan was able to industrialize. Oh yeah and Africa would be much better off today.
@awsomeboy360
2 жыл бұрын
But African would infact be wayy better off today. The civil wars wouldn't be everywhere and the kingdoms would have the ability to expand.
@oosgarragsoo3675
2 жыл бұрын
"America a country that's normally pretty ati-colonial" accept for Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Liberia, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Hawaii, Guam, Alaska and THE ENTIRE KONTINENTAL US WEST OF THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS!
@Battyj
2 жыл бұрын
'Rule for thee not for me' is the best way to summarise the USA's foreign policy since it became a country
@Maussiegamer
2 жыл бұрын
i always learned that europe started colonizing africa because germany unified then france went to war with germany to show that it was still the dominant force, lost, and to regain pride started colonizing africa and the other nations followed because france would have too much
@Nnuhu1
2 жыл бұрын
This video is based on European accounts of history, that's why there is no mention of thriving Africa states before the europeans arrived. Based on accounts of africans of africa before the europeans arrived, i believe africa would have been more stable and peaceful if the europeans never came here. (my informed opinion )
@Neion8
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe so, but those who could trade to acquire modern weaponry would have a massive amount of power compared to those that couldn't - the whole MGs vs spears/muskets would've still happened in any wars between exterior and interior regions. Maybe on the whole African nations would've all lived in peace and harmony being paragons of virtue compared to the rest of the world, but it would only have taken one Shaka Zulu type to come into power in an industrialising nation for a bigass empire to be formed via conquest and slaughter. Meanwhile, without the scramble for Africa, the rest of the world would have no real interest in Africa and therefore no reason to step in should any bad shit happen like the Rwandan genocide or worse (not that outside powers did jack shit during the Rwandan Genocide, but still).
@NP1066
2 жыл бұрын
3:12 "discovery"??? More like an invention and technological breakthtough. It's not like europeans were handed railroad technology from the skies. It was a product of european ingenuousness.
@kingdmind
2 жыл бұрын
I think it should also be clear that it was invented not because europeans were necesarily ingenious, rather it’s one of many products of necessity. The pressure to further interconnecting countries and colonies due to expansion made it necessary for it to be invented for stability despite growth
@NP1066
2 жыл бұрын
@@kingdmind no dude. You're just falling for the usual depreciation, belittling and trivializing of European accomplishments. Yes every invention could be argued to be borne out of some necessity. But are you ingenius enough to come up with a technological solution? Let alone smart enough to recognize what your necessities and options are? Or even ambitious and creative enough to even consider the option of innovation and change? These questions are what showcases to you how truely ingenius were these european accomplishments in the first place.
@lif3andthings763
2 жыл бұрын
@@NP1066 “European” it was some British guy.
@fisher1634
2 жыл бұрын
@@lif3andthings763 British people are european.
@aromata1
2 жыл бұрын
@@NP1066 This greater European identity you keep talking about is a pretty recent change in thinking, same with greater African/Asian identity. Mostly from Americans that are a mix of like 4-5 different European ethnicities and want a more simplified background to latch onto, very similar with African-Americans who don't know what country their ancestors were from. No one is trivializing European accomplishments, European inventions are omnipresent in the lives of first world inhabitants. They're extremely normal to us, the norm to us is in fact appreciating them. Stop creating a strawman to get angry at, why do you want to be victimized? Get off /pol/ for a few days bud
Пікірлер: 2,9 М.