Tbh I’m not a real national socialist. That’s more a German thing. Every man has a right to exist with his people. I do not think all cultures are equal but that is for history to vindicate not a bayonet.

What annoys me is when other cultures infringe on others and drag them down. No wether you say that about Colonialism is up for debate but most of the empire lost us money. Keeping Singapore or Hong Kong would have helped Britain. Keeping Tanzania or Pakistan would not. I may have kept certain parts of the empire as devolved government dependencies but to garrison 1/4 of the globe wasn’t worth it

Tanzania and Pakistan actually did help Britain quite a lot.

It's just most of the help wouldn't have been your type.

Pakistan had a huge population which allowed for outsourcing.

Most of British Raj's economy was derived from outsourced manufacturing.

Tanzania though was mostly used for resources from what I remember. Not bad considering it wasn't too heavily invested and not much was spent on it.

@Rigmond @One Fire One Nail
You guys should do the politiscales instead of the 8 values test. It goes into more depth

Yeah but most people don't care about the names it gives.

I know what I believe in, I just don't know the ideology.

But outsourcing doesn’t help Britain. It helps British corporations but not the English. That is probably the only describable socialist “Belief “ I hold. If given the choice to outsource or buy British. Always and twice on Sunday’s buy british. And true there are resources in Tanzania but the majority could be found in the friendly nations of the anglo countries. Any resources needed could be administered by the respective government but we did handle one thing wrong

Any resources couldn't be administered.

Rubber can't be found everywhere.

I think we dropped the colonies to quickly. We were war weary so we did but in hindsight we should have taken 10-25 years. Implemented a british style legal code. A parliament and prime minister. Start with a devolved government. The dropping of the colonies caused many problems in Africa such as the dictatorships in Uganda. We should have merged the nations of : South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana and Rhodesia to ensure a white community in Africa but not too oppressive. Rhodesia was ok to the blacks. And although rubber cannot be found everywhere it because essential for production relatively recently. And it can be synthesised from oil. To secure some key resources like Cocoa, Coconuts or Rubber we should have focused on two nations. If we would have implemented a proper british style legal code in Malaya and Ghana we could secure a supply. But for the majority of resources like Coal, Steel, Aluminium, Oil and grain can all be sourced from the Anglo sphere

I do admit to my country’s shortcomings. The way we handled the situation with Africa and the raj was wrong in hindsight

"***We should have merged the nations of : South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana and Rhodesia to ensure a white community in Africa but not too oppressive.***"

Why would merger have worked?

Blacks would outnumber whites in South Africa more than before thanks to those countries.

"***If we would have implemented a proper british style legal code in Malaya and Ghana we could secure a supply. But for the majority of resources like Coal, Steel, Aluminium, Oil and grain can all be sourced from the Anglo sphere***"

How would a British style legal code have secured a supply?

What's to stop the new governments from just saying they don't like Britain thanks to years of colonialism?

They could have also just nullified the legal codes.

Creating a culturally secular state Africa could have been achieved. There was already a white population. The black population was still smaller as a proportion. We would start gradually to grant more rights to tribes and native cultures over time. And touching on the solution on the legal codes let’s say around 1947 we create regional parliaments for each colony. Matters of defence are still administered from London but you have elections every four years. You also adjust the population of this routine. And after roughly 20 years of effective self governing why would they nullify it. The point of the 20 years was to create a country ready to go out into the world as a prosperous nation. We would have also on the sidelines interfered with the education. If every child is taught the rule of law. English. Respect from a young age then you have a class of the population who would be in favour of the style of government. Wether you like Britain or not most people are pragmatists. If a religiously secular democracy wound keep the people happy, healthy and safe they would keep it. And we have real works examples of this. The more countries have adopted this style of government they have been solid nations. Namibia for example. If such style of government was in place it could have prevented many wars such as the indo Pakistani war or the Nigerian civil war.

You do know by 1945 the black population had exploded to be equal to the white population right?

They weren't a smaller proportion.

Especially not in Rhodesia.

North Rhodesia (Zambia) was majority black.

India has adopted this. There are many ethnic groups and religions in India. Perhaps we could have done the same in Southern Africa. For instance in South Africa we could have used a common English language and the church for a common South African identity. And wether the population was 90% Even is sort of irrelevant. Multiculturalism can work in countries like Rome or the Ottoman Empire. Wether you white or black you are South African. In hindsight apartheid was bad. So is white genocide. The church should play a major part. Wether you a boer or a Zulu you are all one of God’s creatures. It can create a real community spirit in a country

🤔

But multiculturalism failed in Rome and the Ottoman Empire.

You do know that right?

Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia seceded from the Ottoman Empire.

Then there was the Arab revolt in WW1.

Rome was destroyed by Hunnic and Germanic invasions and the Roman Army being composed of foreign mercenaries who welcomes the invaders due to a common ethnic background.

Also it has been documented that when a country industrialises and develops Birth rates drop. I do know that. But it worked for a while. All countries will fall sooner or later we will all die. But in the case of the Ottoman Empire through the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and parts of the 19th century it was working

A 500 year run is pretty good

And Rome collapsed from a lot of internal struggles. Moral decay and debt didn’t help

And if I could build any stable country to last for 500 years I’d consider that s success

Also it has been documented that when a country industrialises and develops Birth rates drop.