Imperialism. y/n?

So 2 crazy tribes are at war constantly, then one empire bashes their armies, unites the lands and brings them better technology. The efforts of the empire to unite everything results in the basis of a strong future nation state when they finally leave.

Compare India to Africa, India's only major political troubles were border disputes with China, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

All of these countries maintained a semblance of democracy despite being as poor as Africa for many years, while China went through Totalitarianism and Africa suffered from a patchwork of military dictatorships (except in South Africa).

Empires have problems though when they have to compete with other empires, as we have seen in Africa, or when they cannot maintain security.

I'm going with "yes". Where empires failed, if the empire never interfered I do not believe countries would always end up like Thailand or Japan, I believe the same factors that led to the fail of empire would also lead to their failure as traditional societies trying to advance to modernity. They would end up like Ethiopia during the 70s and 80s or China after ww2.

>>6
The cost of waiting will always be less than that of intervening because any conquered nation cannot be a free society. Every single time an empire has conquered a country they have had to maintain their grip on power through decades long subjugation of the populace who naturally turn on their invaders. Such a society is not only morally repugnant but is a breeding ground for militarized resistance groups who will cause the invader trouble long after they have given up and left.

You simply cannot walk into two countries, bang some heads together and say "You're free now!" Reform must come from popular consensus if any real, long term change is to occur.