Difference between revisions of "Talk:Superpower"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Please ALWAYS sign your posts with four ~) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Rcgallup, didn't the U.K. keep preferential trade agreements with most of its former colonies? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 01:34, 2 June 2010 (EDT) | Rcgallup, didn't the U.K. keep preferential trade agreements with most of its former colonies? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 01:34, 2 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
| − | I'm sure they did, but I figured calling it preferential trade was better than calling it siphoning money from their colonial outposts. I just wanted to capture the idea that Europe's losing of overseas holdings to independence also bolstered their decline. {{Unsigned|Rcgallup}} -- 23:03, 1 June 2010 | + | :I'm sure they did, but I figured calling it preferential trade was better than calling it siphoning money from their colonial outposts. I just wanted to capture the idea that Europe's losing of overseas holdings to independence also bolstered their decline. {{Unsigned|Rcgallup}} -- 23:03, 1 June 2010 |
Latest revision as of 08:54, June 2, 2010
British Empire
Rcgallup, didn't the U.K. keep preferential trade agreements with most of its former colonies? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:34, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
- I'm sure they did, but I figured calling it preferential trade was better than calling it siphoning money from their colonial outposts. I just wanted to capture the idea that Europe's losing of overseas holdings to independence also bolstered their decline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcgallup (talk) -- 23:03, 1 June 2010