• Devi@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, you’d just have the exact same thing but with another nationality. France had like half of Africa so they’d definitely be bigger.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And wouldn’t that completely shift worldwide powerbalanes for centuries to come?

      For example, would WW2 have happened if France had been a global superpower instead of a pushover?

      Would the american revolution have happened with another colonial ruler?

      Without that example, would the french revolution have happened?

      Without both revolutions, would democracy be a thing by now, or would we still have totalitarian monarchies?

      You know the butterfly effect? It’s the same except we aren’t killing a butterfly but instead one of the superpower nations of that time.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        France wasn’t a pushover around WW2. They had enough manpower to fight nazi Germany toe to toe. What they did, however, was underestimate how fast they could advance. France also ignored a warning that the germans were amassing to push through the Ardennes, which allowed the nazis to face little resistance on that front. Apparently, if they took immediate action, they could’ve mobilized an air raid to completely destroy that nazi battalion, which would royally fuck up the rest of Hitler’s plans

      • Devi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        France was never a pushover. The idea that being invaded by a bigger stronger army was their fault is weird and one I’ve only heard in the US.

        Most countries that are colonies eventually seek independence, including most that France had.