Maybe I should have said first "notable" nation because of Haiti, but whatever

The tribes and gangs in Africa that sought to enslave one another came largely from the original Atlantic slave trade, though they did trade slaves before after winning a fight, the British offered a massive source of business during the Triangular Trade, and they grew so dependent upon it that they pillaged other villages and SOMETIMES became what their racist statements declare jn order to make large sums of money. When the British destroyed the slave trade, though it was a good thing, it dashed their economy, leaving the African continent open and vulnerable to attack from a deal the British presented first. This itself was another logistical reason their government would have abolished slavery, though it was more likely a pleasant surprise for them rather than an intended side effect. The abolition was good, but it would’ve been far better if they had never opened that trade in the first place as a method of economic exploitation, because it only truly benefitted one side: the British. The Europeans dismantled slave trade inside their continent in reference to THEIR race, not anyone else’s. They simply translated slaves they were importing to “indentured servants”, which were almost entirely the exact same thing for so long.

The British had a thousand recourses to deal with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and to be truly honest, the brutality of their residents did not excuse their complete annihilation or colonization. They had issues, but no one has the right to beat the crap out of a population for that, their cultural attitudes only became worse as the British colonized them, leading to violent repression and the eventual destruction of a large percentage of the natives. Britain had NO right to do that, regardless of what that culture was like. The British exacerbated rage between ethnic groups as it completely ignored their tensions a large portion of the time, merely holding their fighting groups apart for a bit to keep the status quo. When they left, they just resumed what they were already doing, the British did nothing to actually help those conflicts, they often just made them worse by pitting them against one another to weaken their resolve in any form of resistance against the empire. Hitler’s correspondence and old friends had world ambitions, but they had literally no chance of actually making that happen, since America and the rest of Asia were ironclad in their own defensive armies. They abandoned most every ambition they had once the walls started closing in, their ideology was extremely vague and disputable, but it’s extremely unlikely that he’d follow through on said ambitions even if he truly wanted them enough to commit. Britain was unlawful because some things transcend what the public and the government wants. Murdering and colonizing others is one of those transcendental things. They claimed god was on their side too, so your basis of following god would also be excusing this, proving that things do in fact transcend these types of thought processes. It’s not god, it’s the pillars of morality balancing effect and fairness. The colonization of these peoples was bad for both.