Factually Incorrect. Development Has Nothing To Do With Whether They Were Robbed. Many Rich Countries

factually incorrect. development has nothing to do with whether they were robbed. many rich countries were robbed. russia wasn't robbed and it's under developed. mongolia wasn't robbed (to my knowledge, please correct me if im wrong), but i dont see them being an economic powerhouse. same with greece. poland was robbed, and while held back it still developed. nigeria was robbed and is currently richest in africa. india, robbed, pretty rich, yet in many places not developed due to mismanagement and the fact they just can't handle 1.4 billion people. North Korea is undeveloped because they're corrupt and horribly mismanaged, having basically shot themself in the economic foot.

the problem isn't just lack of resources, it's corruption and mismanagement of said resources for building super stadium number 243 instead of actually helping the people. A country cannot develop if they aren't trying to. If Chad decided it wanted to develop, it could take funds and help those that need it before eventually making places they can make a living and contribute to the economy.

i get it's not this simple, but the point is being robbed doesn't change everything. a lot of the undeveloped countries are also 80% forest or desert, are very rural, or are corrupt. While it's true that rich countries mostly have historically stolen, stealing doesn't make a rich country either. Russia, for example, is falling apart economically despite having been the thieves and it's because they're mismanaged and corrupt.

Final point: Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Finland especially is the 11th most developed in the world despite Russia historically having attacked it plenty.

you want a country to prosper? unless you have oil, maybe consider not having it in the middle of the sahara. just a thought.

anyways yeah we still suck and we definitely robbed but like we weren't even the nail in the coffin. i doubt kenya would have become an economic powerhouse if it was left alone. Even in the 1600s before the UK was the massive kingdom it was still a powerful country that had not been successfully invaded for over 500 years.

Edit: I do not mean to say robbing has nothing to do with development. Obviously the robbed are at a disadvantage and the robbers are at an advantage, but it's not a total gamechanger. almost no empires sucked any land dry of everything it had and if they did it was in rare cases. Only one I can think of right now is maybe when spain and portugal were ruling over south america and even then im not sure.