innonimatu said:How is that relevant to his point? I think he's right in that the french did got the sucky portion of Africa, and a somewhat more desirable piece (but harder to subdue) in Indochina. Even the germans grabbed some better land, in Tanzania.
Africa was as a whole worthless as an economic enterprise. The choice was always going to be between a serious drain the finances and a serious drain on the finances. In the longer run some colonies paid (limited) dividends but balanced against the cumulative losses up until that point I doubt a single one broken even. The exception might have been something like the Cape.
Also, 'Indochina' was a bad acquisition, the sole piece worth holding was Cochinchina and that became profitable only after the Mekong Delta was opened to agriculture. The remainder - Annam, Tongking, the Khmer and Lao - were conquered to secure Cochinachina against other Europeans. What economic rationale that were suggested were really just fables to justify conquests in a manner that was palatable to the metropole.
(This isn't to say that it wasn't profitable; it was, just that it would have been more profitable had not the costs of conquering, administering and defending the worthless parts not been involved).
For that matter no Asian colonial venture taken as a whole makes economic sense. The VOC for instance wasted inordinate amounts of blood and treasure defeating Mataram for no economic gains whatsoever. The actual cost of the war sent the VOC all but bankrupt. The net result of which was Dutch commitments withered - profitably - on the vine for a quarter of a century.
The Brits did the same when they consolidated their position in Malaya. Really, all that was needed to hold the Peninsula in fetters was (1) Malacca, (2) Penang and (3) Singapore, the rest was expensive window-dressing that did nothing to add to revenue and everything to do with adding to costs.
Eh? Australia cost more to defend than it was worth until like 1952 when the British gave up.Pangur Bán said:Australia was also much more worthwhile than France's desert-dominated regions because Australia did not have large populations of agriculturists who, had they existed in Australia would have required management and subjugation, and would have made the region prohibitively unattractive. This was also the reason Russia benefitted from Siberia significantly more than France benefitted from North-West Africa.
Yeah, no. Gold wasn't discovered until way into the future; and the convict issue increased costs, acted as a disincentive to more productive settlers settling and gave little back for the effort. Moreover, the majority weren't hardened criminals but either first or second time offenders for minor crimes. There were some hardened criminals but those spent were sent to Tasmania or Norfolk Island.west india man said:Plus Australia happens to have gold, and could be conveniently used as a vast penal colony, where it was very difficult for prisoners to return to Britain.