What happened to the colonial territories of the European powers after World War II?
Wow, that's a pretty broad question, but I'll take a stab at it. For the most part, most of those formal colonies were either freed, like Iceland from Denmark, or the later fought for independence (most African nations, India). I think an interesting example of what happened to those colonies after WWII was what happened in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were under French colonial rule. Of course, during WWII the French themselves chafed under Nazi German rule. Yet after the war, the first thing the French government did was try to reassert it's dominance in was was call "Indochina." This war effort was funded in no small part by the U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Vietnamese people eventually beat the French. Ho Chi Minh actually sought American help intially b/c the Vietnamese were always more "pro-Vietnamese" than they were for any particular political ideology. Eventually the Vietnamese turned to the Russians for aid to secure their independence, and embraced communist ideology as the price. The American government saw this as a threat to global capitalism (the "Domino Theory" that if Vietnam "fell" to the communists, so would all of southeast Asia; this of course never happened.) and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam began. Another interesting aspect of what happened to many former European colonies after WWII was a raft of civil wars and instability which was the direct result of colonialism. Colonies were often formed without any consideration to the cultural, ethinic, racial, etc. composition of the local people, which meant that many different tribes, languages, etc.often existed in the same colony. Once these colonies were freed, or won their independence, nations resulted that resembled the former colonial masters' interests. People were stuck together in nations that they themselves would not have formed. What immediately comes to mind are places like Nigeria and Iraq, countries which resulted from British colonialism and whose inhabitants at constantly at each other's throats. This leads to perpetual internal instability and warfare/conflict. If you want to know more about this topic, I'd suggest reading books about the history of the Biafran conflict in Nigeria or pick up a newspaper and read about anything related to the Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish conflicts in Iraq. Both situations are the direct result of British colonial policies.
Who would win in a war between Australia and Indonesia?
I must assume Brian Greenhow is joking, but if he is not I must point out that wars aren't won by population numbers or imaginary 'allies', but by real Alliances, either historical or by treaty, and by technology, military hardware, political maneuvers, industry and money, lots and lots of money.That said lets talk about Indonesia, a big ass country with lots of Islands, some diverse cultures, at least a dozen known independent movements, and now the best part, a weaker military in terms of technology in relation to Australia, less political maneuver, less allies, and the only real power comes from its oil.In a war scenario Australia can call upon at least the inner core of the Commonwealth countries to assist it, that means New Zealand, UK, Canada, pretty much almost every frikkin country in the Pacific and a few more around the world, and if that's not enough they have an alliance with the USA.Indonesia might have friends, but no real alliances, in the best case scenario the ASEAN countries might come to its aid, but I doubt it.And no, I really, really, REALLY doubt Japan would come to its aid, even China is a better candidate to come to its assistance then Japan.But the truth is, Australia is a big ass island with a big ass desert in the middle, hard to conquer, and very good for armed resistance, and Indonesia is a big bunch of islands, that Australia can isolate one by one with its superior navy and air force, make the manpower of Indonesia obsolete, by using a strategy similar to the one used in WW2 by the allies to defeat Japan, and in the long run Australia can finance Indonesia internal independence movements and cause arm unrest, which may cause an Indonesian defeat catastrophic in the long term with the emergence of new nations and becoming target for predatory movements from neighbors.And for last point, it has oil, and we all know how America loves oil, and how they LOVE to bring democracy and safety to countries that produce oil... if you catch my drift.Sorry for the long text.
American foreign policy?
American neutrality was sparked for a number of reasons: 1. America was geographically separated from Europe and the rest of the world by two large oceans, and Americans wanted to stay out of European struggles which they believed they had no business in; and from which they could gain no advantage. 2. America was a developing nation and did not want to invest the large sums of money necessary to maintain large standing armies and navies. Thus, for most of American history, America had virtually no military force with which to become involved. Under these circumstances, neutrality makes perfect sense. 3. The American War of Independence was fought partially over the idea of the British housing a large standing army on American shores, and making the Americans pay for it. The Americans were very apprehensive of the expense. furthermore, large militaries were viewed by Americans as a means of imposing tyranny, and the Americans didn't want them. So, to sum up, isolation grew from geographic isolation, expense, and fear of tyranny. Why did it change? 1. Commerce. In the 20th century, America was far more dependent on foreign trade than in the 19th. This meant that other nation's problems would have dramatic ramifications on domestic markets. 2. Technology. By the start of WW I, military technology (German U-Boats) could have more impact on American interests. Later developments like Aircraft (think of Pearl Harbor), and still later, ICBM's made the idea of safety behind ocean walls an illusion. 3. Philosophy. In the 20th century, starting with Wilson, the US began to develop a political mentality that intervention in the world for the advancement of democracy was America's destiny. This was reinforced by the atrocities of WW II. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were convinced that American engagement in the world was indespensible for maintaining world peace. The growth of the Soviet Union after the war only increased that committment, as there was no other nation strong enough to provide leadership against the threats of international communism. Hope this answer helps. Cheers.