Thread 17976253

Why are Anglos still butthurt over losing their African colonies? Is it because they don't want to admit they were defeated by the Soviet Union

>>17976253 (OP)
>they were defeated by the Soviet Union
But it was America who cucked them during the suez crisis though. Also who gives a shit about anything in Africa outside of Egypt?

>>17976253 (OP)
Anglos have an inferiority complex toward Russians and Slavs in general

>>17976281
Die

>>17976253 (OP)
>Why are Anglos still butthurt over losing their African colonies?
I don't think they care. May of them miss the Dominions and little islands, to some extent India as well, but no one cares about Africa. When was the last time you saw an Anglo complaining about losing India?

>>17976354
If you look for them you cand find many Anglos complaining about Rhodesia.

The British voted for socialists who wanted decolonization. It is disturbing how the left is retconning history like this. Even though it was fellow leftists that pushed for decolonization, they want to rub out their efforts from history just because they are white.

The left today is highly racialized, at best they will say "oh, white people are labor aristocracy", while celebrating Indian CEOs and George Soros, you'd think some redneck coal miner would be more important than literal plutocrats but I guess not. It's about race race race first and foremost, maybe a few meme side issues like "feminism" and "trans rights", but if a bunch of immigrants start with the ooga booga rape or killing transwomen both these "allies" have to side with race. They say "stop blaming heckin' immigrantarinos, all our problems will go away if we just tax the rich" and in the same breath state that white people must be racially discriminated against for "diversity" and government spending shouldn't go to "privileged" white people. Logically speaking, aren't the plutocracy and hostile immigrants both a problem? Who said it is mutually exclusive?

It has always been like this, and it makes sense. Communism is about the "workers of the world" after all, and there is a practical advantage when they gain the support of these people. Stalinism perhaps was about socialism in one country, but after destalinization Trotsky's brand of global communism returned with the Soviet Union zealously trying to make manifest this globalist imperialist vision and set up Soviet colonies around the world.

>>17976253 (OP)
>decolonization
Are you retarded? The US literally invented that word. They were the ones who forced Europeans to let their colonies go in order to avoid communist infiltration of independence movements.

>>17976560
Europeans would've lost it and been forced to give it up either way.
This is what you wignats really don't understand. The United States wanted to bring about further decolonization and stabbed European power in the back out of necessity, so that stubborn Europeans didn't put themselves into a jeopardizing situation that would in turn damage the United States strategic position in the Cold War very badly. The United States didn't magically "make" Europe lose, they read the room and realized the age of direct colonialism was over. Trying to preserve it was impossible and would've ended with every colonial power being overwhelmed by millions of Soviet-funded Africans and thrown out.

>>17976442
Reminder, any and all contradictions within leftist thought can be explained by realizing that anti white agitation is their core animating factor

>>17976253 (OP)
> Why are Anglos still butthurt over losing their African colonies?
We’re not, nobody thinks about it.
> Is it because they don't want to admit they were defeated by the Soviet Union
Cope. Remind me which country collapsed at the end of the Cold War?

>>17976281
Other way around. Russian state media is always seething about how they could nuke us at any time. Anglos live rent free in their minds

>>17976253 (OP)
they dont want to admit they were defeated by the frogs and their intact colonial holdings and fancy modern system of using the CFA franc

>>17976253 (OP)
I'm pretty sure they don't even think about the African colonies. They were just a big money sink anyway.

>>17976638
It can't be confirmation bias, we have "feminists" defending rapists, race always takes precedent.

>>17976975
The suez was super profitable, economically and strategically.

The idea that the Soviets pushed Anglos to give up their colonies is a stupid fucking myth for idiots.