Who was behind decolonisation? Inb4 da joos

>inb4 the right answer

Okay frenchie

you talking about post ww2? that wasn't really colonizing they liberated them and provided aid in exchange for them becoming people's republics. they did the same in cuba, korea, china, etc.

Yeah lol "liberated" millions of people endured death and hardship

Mostly it was the Jews.

Prove it

lol when?

All the post Soviet countries are poor as fuck

Because they went to capitalism

Chinks, kikes, traitors and slavniggers.

US and their democracy jewish bullshit ruined portuguese colonies.

Slavs were victims

my guess would be politicians trying to get reelected by virtue-signalling to shitlibs

Cucks

it was a combination of multiple things:
>europe being destroyed after WW2 and having to rebuild everything
>for asia, japanese troops who knew that they were gonna surrender gave up their weapons by giving it to the local rebels
>soviets being behind any insurgency that popped up so they can drag western european countries into forever wars
>US wanted european countries to let go of colonies so they can focus on themselves instead of colonization

Da joos unironically.
Plus a complete lack of funds to maintain the colonies.
And America backstabbing us in Suez so we British and you French were subservient to them rather than being equals.

i can never understand the suez crisis because france and britain allied with israel to carry out the plan.

We allied with an anti-Egyptian state that we held close (((ties))) with.
How is this confusing?

jesus christ some of you guys are dumb, colonies were no longer economically viable. the cost of running and maintaining them was too high compared to the positives.
growing nationalist movements
cold war concerns
ww2 ended gb/france

the soldiers of the colonies who made the 2 nd world wars realized how much the French and other whites were cowards in times of war...
They were 10 km ahead, literally at the front while the whites were too cowards and hid during the assault. .
it's the only explanation.

Attached: 1561153936651.png (601x695, 5K)

im gay btw

Attached: 1498256694715.jpg (1080x1080, 311K)

>But still people are gonna say
>DAAAAAA JOOOOOOOZ

>backed by eastern bloc countries

These two are the same thing

Communists. They wanted to weaken their enemies.

Dérape ta dégénérescence de mon pays en vitesse

Non

Attached: DgS7TBWW0AAT4ek.jpg (1200x753, 122K)

ulitmately this, maintaining was getting more expensive as people under colonial rule were starting to modernize more and more while an educated middle class started to form that no longer needed an overlord. i know that was the case for indonesia

I saw that on a Spanish forum and find that quite interesting:

It is usually stated that the European powers gave up their colonies after World War II due to pressures from the US, who wished to penetrate into the territories that made up the old European Colonial Empires, although there is undoubtedly a sizable amount of truth in this statement, another factor is usually ignored and forgotten, and this is that the surrender of the European colonial Empires was also the result of a voluntary cedings from the part of these European powers:
Seen from the XXI century, the decolonization process -always lubricated with false ornamental idealisms and humanitarianisms- actually turned out to be the cover of a silent struggle between two forms of private property:

1- That of the white colonials, who were on the road to becoming autonomous and constituting the United States of South Africa, the United States of Central Africa, Indochina, Hindustan, the Maghreb, the Nile, the Congo, etc.: the ripe fruit that falls from the tree engendering a new tree. Ultimately, these communities of ethnic Europeans had established powerful networks of influence and, due to their small size in relation to the territory and population they governed would have concentrated great amounts of power and wealth in few hands, forming rival elites, potentially capable of supplanting the globalist ones. In general, European colonials (for example, English farmers in Rhodesia) were taller, healthier, were better constituted, were richer, had greater living space (the fact they dominated dozens of hectares with their own means of production gave them authentic power and sovereignty, not merely bureaucratic or nominal), practiced more sports, spent more time outdoors, eat more meat, had higher birth rates, and their IQ was higher than that of the Europeans from the metropolis. Their religiosity was stronger and, amongst them, drug addiction, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, urban gangs and other symptoms of decline were rare. They produced excellent soldiers. More importantly, they were beginning to develop the qualities of a dominant caste outside the decision-making circles of the metropolis; De Gaulle outlined this last thing when he said, in regard to the pied-noirs (European settlers in Algeria) that they were no longer French because they did not think like Frenchmen, having abandoned the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment. Globalization had to prevent the white colonials from constituting countries comparable to Rhodesia, South Africa or Israel at all cost.

J'oubliais notre glorieux président désolé

2- That of great Western multinationals, led by men, also of high IQ, who had never set foot on the colonies in their lives and who had never had to build a farm from scratch, but simply set out to parasitically seize the conquests of the white colonial settlers. Multinationals destabilized the entire Third World in order to buy its wealth and labour at a bargain price, and also to impede the emergence of rival social elites and independent States (as happened in South Africa and Rhodesia) that would have enclosed within their borders the riches of the territories they controlled, taxing their products in such a way that High Finance would have had to spend significant amounts of capital (capital that would have been used to strengthen the position of those States) to acquire them. Rhodesia, turned into Zimbabwe, applied ethnic cleansing policies to destroy the power of the white farmers, but Nicky Oppenheimer, the patriarch of multinational mining companies such as De Beers and Anglo American Corporation, owns in Zimbabwe an extension of land similar in size to the surface of Belgium, something which would not be possible if the farmers remained on the ground.

There is no need to point out who won. In order to maximize profits, the intermediaries had to be removed, so as to turn the old colonial Empires into a growing heap of brainless starving thirdworlders, with indigenous "elites" that were easily bribable with pay-checks, official cars and small doses of power, it was necessary to remove the white pioneers and entrepreneurs from the equation, instigating authentic anti-white ethnic cleansings. The United Nations, primary responsible, covered up this criminal process with false humanitarian and anti-racist arguments. In reality, no decolonization process was the result of the military success of an anticolonial insurgency (usually of Marxist sign and supported by the USSR and China, if not directly by the UN, London, Washington or already decolonized states, such as Morocco and India). Rather, all decolonizations were the result of voluntary diplomatic cedings -incomprehensible at first- by the part of the metropolis, pressured by business and financial emporiums, foreign powers and sectarian conciliabules.

europasoberana.blogspot.com/2014/11/globalistan-construyendo-el.html

Breddy gud quick rundown

C'est un exemple pour nous tous!
youtube.com/watch?v=9IrEe7ERcOw

Training and arming your local subjects to fight for the motherland. Those solders are not gonna lose those skills when they get demobbed.

>american education

les mecs avec la moitié d'une cervelle qui voulaient pas payer pour des infrastructures chez les nègres et les bougnoules

bonsoir cousin

Ww1 and 2 ended colonialism. We wasted our men, weapons, and treasure shooting each other.

Europe did not do it in a deliberate manner like Russia and the US did with their frontier.

Pussy whites that were tired of winning

the natives were no longer armed with spears and now had AKs. colonization was only possible because of the vast gap in armaments. ww2 brought leaps in warfare technology and now militia uprisings in the colonies were a possibility.

Bonsoir mon ami

Jews

So the Jews

World War 2 bankrupting the empires making the colonies to expensive to keep, however they didn't give up all control on their colonies. Just look up Françafrique

>soviet shitholes weren't poor befor le the 90s
They are only now getting rich for the first time

Like how European countries liberated Africa and the Middle East in exchange for becoming vassal states?

Sסy

This is mostly true. Rhodesia couldn't fight off that many niggers backed by the soviets.

They wern't there to colonize, more to expiriment with eastern expansion. Euro colonization had racial and financial motivations while the soviets had more ideological motivations. Afganistan ultimatly killed the ussr, so they got their answer.

Something about this post stinks of bullshit

Or how america gave you a bunch of loans after ww2 in exchange for becoming puppet states yeah. Exact same shit.

poor and rich did not exist in the soviet union. they are worse off now than they were in say the 60's or 70's in comparison to the rest of the developed world. that is undeniable.

that's how indonesia gained it's independence ultimately from the dutch, the US stepped in because Soekarno was anti-communist at the time and wanted a democracy (ironically the government ended up being the exact same as it was under the dutch east indies but with indonesians instead of dutch)

>Something about this post stinks of bullshit
go more into details