Pff..PFFFFFFF

they broke the system and became prosperous (through diferent means), so the brits made them poor by brute force.

All the combined charters' colonial nations were made to fail hard and become very dependant on UK, which would allow the UK to take the benefits of having colonies without having to pay for maintenance or give simbolic rights to those populations.

that may or may not have been due to the fact they would have to unite with nyasaland and north rhodesia. Both of which were absolute shitholes that bled money left and right, since the UK took them from us (portugal) but then refused to do anything of what they did bind themselves to and left that barely inhabitable place to die.

>that may or may not have been due to the fact they would have to unite with nyasaland and north rhodesia. Both of which were absolute shitholes that bled money left and right, since the UK took them from us (portugal) but then refused to do anything of what they did bind themselves to and left that barely inhabitable place to die.

user the federation died 2 years before UDI

Also you never owned either Malawi or Zambia before the brits. The reason they got it but not you was because they actually had claims to it and had presence in those lands compared to portugal where Portuguese presence in the inner parts was flimsy or spotty.

true, I had misplaced the events in my head.
but it doesn't make the circumstances much better

Malawi's budget was small as hell. Hell most colonies were since it's easy as hell to reduce costs since quality loss isn't a concern. Malawi had a budget of Glasgows street cleaning budget as its total.

portuguese had presence in both, and it was far less spotty than british. In fact, the issue was solved only when portugal removed all claims in the region, due to the british ultimatum (which marks the quick change of relations betwen the two countries, by the time of WWI portugal was closer to germany, but forced to support the entente due to alliances).

The british claims were mostly from fairly recent expeditions, and, I think, a couple of religious missions (which were also claimed by portugal). Muh cape to cairo delusion was their unironical main argument in the early conversations.

small, yes. But infrastructure needs maintenance.
malawi was very hard to reach, which means supplies were costly to get there. Little to no permanent roads, terrible geography, dangerous envoriment, and no planes means the supplies had to make a huge way before getting there, as there were no planes around.

>a couple of religious missions

The official British colonial model was religious hawkers, rum, and guns, in that order. That model was used around the world. Win their hearts, then their bellies, then let the army come in to control what was left. They weren't actually trying to spread Christianity like Iberians, it was just a useful tool in the pacification of indigenous peoples.

And that's why they have taxation user. Costs were low as fuck because you can off load it on the natives (taxes) or private/charitable organisation.

>The british claims were mostly from fairly recent expeditions, and, I think, a couple of religious missions (which were also claimed by portugal).

They had treaties, they had companies and british got workers getting the treaties on the ground. They went out and dud the work and portugal was way too passive (since they also had outreach struggles, they didn't even solidly have a grasp over moat of inner Angola until the 1900s)

Portugal claimed the same missions the english did. And no one could go there and ask, because you'd die in the process. The 100% sure brit expeditions were all in the south rhodesia, while malawi had contact with the portuguese due to the lake trade routes.

no, not really. Taxation was borderline non-existant, as people moved around a lot.
Also I was talking about the federation costs, which means malawi/nyasaland would get their share of the money, whether south rhodesia liked or not. I think I had already agreed that the UK pretty much ignored northern rhodesia and nyasaland.

>They had treaties, they had companies and british got workers getting the treaties on the ground. They went out and dud the work and portugal was way too passive (since they also had outreach struggles, they didn't even solidly have a grasp over moat of inner Angola until the 1900s)

very much like portugal (or the other powers), the UK didn't have anything on the ground, but claimed to have diligences on the way. I believe you have no idea how the region is (and this includes most of angola and mozambique too). Asside from the coasts, most of the land was barely inhabitable for the whole year. Rivers were major vectors for disease and even the locals avoided to settle near them, the dense forests/jungle didn't allow for waypoints and mapping was limited by seasons. Most expeditions needed local guides, and even then many failed because the guides would get lost and diseases would kill eveyone in the space of a couple days.
southern rhodesia was discovered to be very rich because of its mineral goods and the existance of large populations made the work easy to build liveable places. The other two were equaly rich in mineral goods, but no one touched them, because there was nothing there, to explore the region you'd have to build from scratch, which not only implied great costs, but also large human losses. Malawi was not that bad as it was connected to niassa region of mozambique, but since the brits took it as well, they kinda got dragged into north rhodesia isolation.

can't believe this shitpost started an interesting discussion