michaelgraaf

@Chipthemonk What you say about being advanced is true if defined militarily. So they "needed to be colonised" because they were unable to repel colonisers (as Japan did, and as Ethiopia did until the 1930s)?

@Chipthemonk @boyi Point is, before being colonised, India was at a similar level of tech to Japan; some would say India's textiles were ahead. So if left to themselves, what makes you think they wouldn't have built railways etc. as Japan did? Likewise, Ethiopia already had roads, courts etc. when briefly occupied by Italy. The Italians' advantage was an air force & poison gas.

@Chipthemonk To assist your imagination, consider Japan. It wasn't colonised (in fact it eventually became a coloniser) but found its own path to development.

@Chipthemonk @BrikoX Is there something that makes you think positive changes & advancements wouldn't have happened without colonialism?

@SpaceCowboy @yogthos What some call cold war spheres of influence bullshit, others call pre-emptive missile strike range. An empirically measurable radius derived from the time-to-target of the specific weapons under consideration.