According to this video, Esperanto would have become a widely spoken language but 3 things stopped it, namely:

1- The French wanted to have linguistic dominance
2- WWI
3- WWII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_IqPwZcqzg

Any thoughts? Are his points accurate?

The video correctly mentions those as things that have hindered Esperanto's chances of success, but I don't think it claims that Esperanto would have become widely spoken had they not happened. But if in fact that is the claim, I don't agree with it. Esperanto failed because the world has never felt the need for an IAL. The tyrants and traitors obviously didn't help, but I don't think they were the cause.

tommjames:... the world has never felt the need for an IAL...

You mean the anglophones. But what if that will change, and English will be replaced with some other language (Spanish, Arabic, Chinese...). Then perhaps you will feel the need of a simple, friendly language, as the rest of the world does now.

bryku:You mean the anglophones

Nope, I meant the world. You have evidence that the world outside the anglosphere wants an IAL (besides English)? If so I'd love to see it.

bryku:But what if that will change, and English will be replaced with some other language (Spanish, Arabic, Chinese...). Then perhaps you will feel the need of a simple, friendly language

Actually my opinion on IALs has nothing to do with my status as a 'privileged' anglophone, so you might as well dispense with that mis-assumption.

People faced with the complexities of English (or whatever language it might be) may well wish there were simpler alternatives available, but that's not the same thing as wanting an artificial international auxiliary language. Most people don't even have any concept of IALs, so I struggle to see how they could be yearning for one.

bryku:

tommjames:... the world has never felt the need for an IAL...

You mean the anglophones. But what if that will change, and English will be replaced with some other language (Spanish, Arabic, Chinese...). Then perhaps you will feel the need of a simple, friendly language, as the rest of the world does now.

I really don't think so. Throughout history, various languages have risen in dominance for political or commercial reasons. Latin, Greek, French...other languages have taken center stage as far as importance to speakers of minority langauges goes. When this happens, speakers of minority languages often encourage (and facilitate) education in whatever language has dominance at the time so their own people will have greater opportunities. Anglo-phones don't make those arrangments.

Many schools in Europe involve their students in English classes in grade school, and students in India are often able to receive their core education in English--is it any wonder that so many of them become bilingual? England didn't do that. Neither did the United States, Canada, or Australia--it was simply a result of the accessibility that English provides. Should we ever reach a time when Esperanto (or any other language) affords those same benefits, it will rise in importance as well.

The sad thing (for me) is that I see the need every day. I work for a charity that uses translators for the majority of its phone calls. All that money and effort ......

Polaris:... and students in India are often able to receive their core education in English--is it any wonder that so many of them become bilingual? England didn't do that ...

English coming to India had nothing to do with the expansion of the British Empire? oO

Those are factors, but not the cut-and-dried reason. Probably the single biggest factor that makes or breaks a cultural, political or historical phenomenon is momentum. So much of history (and I say this as someone whose degree is in history) is about an idea that gained (or didn't gain) sufficient momentum. You have to have a combination of right time, right circumstances, and finally, the right momentum.

Let's say the League of Nations had adopted Esperanto, and that the French had not lobbied against it. That wouldn't, I think, have been sufficient by itself. But there was a lot of momentum around Esperanto at the time, and had Esperanto been adopted into schools, had those schools continued to teach it throughout the first half of the century, until Esperanto became as ubiquitous as high school Spanish, and had the UN accepted Esperanto as an official language from Day 1, the outcome would have been very different. Don't get me wrong- English would still be very much as it is now, but Esperanto would truly be a widely spoken IAL.

I often think that this could still happen, if the Chinese adopted Esperanto into their educational system. Chinese is hugely difficult to learn (been there, done that), and English is also difficult to master. If a generation of Chinese school kids learned Esperanto, even if only for 2 years, I think the rest of the world would flock to Esperanto, simply for the chance to do business with those Esperanto-speaking Chinese.

As a member of UEA, more than anything else, what I would like to see done is a program to develop a top-quality Esperanto curriculum comprised of textbooks, workbooks, audio and video media, with an instructional component that teachers can use to teach themselves the basics of Esperanto, in the languages of the BRIC nations, and a lobbying effort to get the education ministries to at least try out the curriculum in some schools- essentially say: Here is the material. It's free. All you need to do is print some books, have the teachers work through the instructional component, and then try it out in some schools. If the teachers and students find value in it, then let it spread.

tommjames:Esperanto failed because the world has never felt the need for an IAL.

tommjames:You have evidence that the world outside the anglosphere wants an IAL (besides English)?

(The emphasis is mine.)

There is a contradiction in what you say. First, you say the world doesn't need an IAL. Then, you say the world doesn't need an IAL besides English.

tommjames:People faced with the complexities of English (or whatever language it might be) may well wish there were simpler alternatives available, but that's not the same thing as wanting an artificial international auxiliary language.

What is the difference? How is it possible that someone wished there were a simpler, more neutral way to speak to people from other linguistic backgrounds without seriously considering an IAL? (There are alternatives, such as technlogy-mediated translation, but an IAL is also a serious contender here.)

Polaris:... and students in India are often able to receive their core education in English--is it any wonder that so many of them become bilingual? England didn't do that ...

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- Winston Churchill

Your may find this or this helpful.

Polaris:Many schools in Europe involve their students in English classes in grade school, and students in India are often able to receive their core education in English--is it any wonder that so many of them become bilingual?

Bilingual? Haha! Less than four percent of Indians are bilingual in English and their mother tongue. I have spent more than 20 years of my life with English and I still make mistakes that mark me as an "outsider." And I don't consider myself a bilingual and I won't until I have spent sometime with native speakers. All I know is that I know enough English to understand it reasonably well. And most Indians I know have a poorer grasp of English than me.

I wish for a day when regional languages replace English in India in education and administration. It will help millions to get a higher education. I have seen many people who cannot continue their education because the instruction is in English, only in English. No matter how smart I am, if I don't know English, my career is doomed. Sheer stupidity it is.

Fenris_kcf:

Polaris:... and students in India are often able to receive their core education in English--is it any wonder that so many of them become bilingual? England didn't do that ...

English coming to India had nothing to do with the expansion of the British Empire? oO

What expansion?