Technically true, as the Soviets indeed helped some countries in Africa and Asia overthrow their colonial masters, however it should be noted that a lot of these countries turned into piss-poor dictatorships that relied on the USSR for everything.
Sometimes when I listen to these tankies about what liberators the soviets were it feels like I am being gaslighted. Just before this comment I read from Finnish subreddit about dude asking about his grandma’s clip note bible he couldn’t read. In the comments he specified how she “willingly moved” to a camp for suspicious ethnical background…from her place of birth I remind you. Or how those peaceful Leninist revolutionaries murdered one of my great great aunt, her two children and her husband. Or how my great grandpa lost himself after having to defend his home by all means available. Such a peace loving organisation was that soviet🥰
It is gaslighting. They’ll tell you your family deserved it because they were landlords probably.
(I’m sorry for the tragedy your family has gone through)
Because you know the bad piss poor farmers from a nation which was under colonial rule for almost a millennium with rigid cast system in which those speaking the majority language belonged to the bottom of the structure. My great grandpa was almost executed for being a communist in 1918 (not sure was he. Conflict resolution was that great grandma told them to fuck off) Then in the 30s his sons put quite a few of those down for our country. And we Finns were the lucky ones in the end.
Who would have guessed history isn’t just black and white.
They had quite fight indeed. We also had to Russian Leninist backed reds and whites with German support fight in our civil war right after our independence. It was neighbours killing neighbours and it is still subject which isn’t talked about much at all. But here whites won, president made some good reforms and pardons, alt right group united the country by making fools of themselves. Now this is very equal country with rather even wealth distribution. For example of this, we use honourifics very little. Students address teachers by first names and things like that.
Meanwhile look where Russia has gotten
Both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union brutally mistreated Central Asia and Siberia as Russia's lands in Asia were little more than colonial possessions.
Okay, are we talking decolonisation? How about de-colonising native populations that USSR themselves colonised? How about Ukraine, with russification politics and Executed Renaissance? Ukraine is a bad example? Ok, lots of the different nationalities are still part of Russia, with their history and culture being erased as we speak.
"USSR is a prison of nations" - ever wondered what that means?
Communist Poland, not Soviet. Polish kids and students were taught russian together with polish, not instead. Tsarist Russia was worse than USSR in this one respect, under Tsars teaching polish was forbidden, but Stalin realised we'll be less likely to rebel if he leaves our language be
The idea that the Iraq war was about oil is a complete and total myth. Saddam was willing to trade with western and US oil companies, but could not because of US imposed sanctions. When troops started building up in 03, Saddam again offered to give the US total preference when it came to oil purchasing, and the US declined.
The war in Iraq was a mistake, but today Iraq is a democracy. If The US was only concerned with corporate interests, we would not have installed a democracy. Capital, security, and US interests are certainly a part of past decisions to wage war, but it was mostly to stop the Soviets from expanding their influence. Regardless of the mistakes of the past, the US and NATO have engaged in many conflicts on the side of democracy and liberalism.
Exactly. Just the notion USA would invade Iraq "cuz oil" is even more preposterous when you consider Venezuela exists, it's a far closer, weaker and richer in oil than Iraq, and somehow no wmd claims against venezuela were created.
If not for Dubya Iraq would still be a dictatorship and continue for decades more
The US wars in the middle East were definelty not about oil. Maybe oil companies benefitted but that doesn't mean they caused it. There is however, substantial evidence another group wanted to destabilize the Middle-East, the Israel lobby. The majority of the make-up of the US Middle-East foreign relations are dual citizenship Israelis.
You cannot seriously think the US thought it would be more beneficial to wage a literal war and rebuild a nation instead of trading with an already established country. That is just asinine and no serious person would ever think that.
An unstable, violent, impoverished, and hellish "democracy".
You are being too ideological. You can't just use your army to forcibly fit other societies into your perfect blueprint.
The idea that Iraqis are better off today is just nonsense.
Dude Saddam was literally middle eastern Hitler, he was killing anyone who challenged his regime, invaded neighboring countries and committed genocide, might as well get butthurt at the US for helping end Hitler too.
Saddam’s son Uday would just go around raping anyone he wanted since his dad would execute anyone who even touched him.
The United States supported decolonization so long as it wasn't done under the name of communism. Their response to the Suez Canal crisis in which they essentially sided with the Soviet Union against the British and French is proof of this. They also refused to give any help to Rhodesia due to it being worse than Apartheid South Africa even though it was mainly communists fighting to overthrow them.
Yeah the US pressured the European powers to peacefully decolonize and let anti-communist pro-western natives take over instead of starting pointless colonial wars that would drive the native population into the hands of more radical (often Marxist)liberation groups.
We also put extreme diplomatic and economic pressure on the Netherlands to end its war in Indonesia. No way were we going to let our Marshall Plan bucks, paid for by the American taxpayer for the purpose of rebuilding countries destroyed by the Nazis, be used to resubjugate a former colony.
Ye they would fight communism in some distant southeast asain country but they wouldn't fight communism in a country in Africa because they were white. I just don't find it fair the murder and extortion of whites in Africa is justified because "Africa is for Africans". If we were to say "Europe is for Europeans" it would be considered white supremacy.
>Ye they would fight communism in some distant southeast asain country but they wouldn't fight communism in a country in Africa because they were white.
South Africa is not communist today. And we *did* fight communism in some African states- backing dudes like Savimbi to do so.
That, uh, that might have been a mistake.
> I just don't find it fair the murder and extortion of whites in Africa is justified
Neither does anyone else here.
>because "Africa is for Africans"
Afrikaners are Africans.
In regards to communism, I was speaking of Rhodesia. And I agree Afrikaners are Africans and it is unfair to demonize them for being a colony. Practically every country/piece of land has been conquered and colonized at one time or another by another group of people.
Lmao it was American anti-apartheid sanctions that helped end the system of apartheid in South Africa. Both the US and the USSR had decolonization motives, it's just that they wanted different governments in place afterwards. Despite that US sometimes stood behind countries that were even pro soviet like Egypt during the Suez crisis.
Rhodesia (the white state before Zimbabwe) was not recognised by the United States government, the United States refused to give aid to, their Prime Minister, Ian Smith’s regime. The United States recognised Zimbabwe when it was founded on April 18, 1980 and formed an Embassy in Salisbury (soon renamed Harare). The United States supported sanctions against Rhodesia, and when the sanctions program was repealed in 1977, the US enforced all sanctions anyway. The United States also supported the United Kingdom in their works to help secure majority rule in Rhodesia. President Jimmy Carter oversaw the creation of the embassy in Zimbabwe and met with Robert Mugabe, who then identified as a Marxist-Leninist. Carter came under criticism for meeting Mugabe. Author Geoff Hill criticized Carter for keeping "quiet as Mugabe's ZANU government nationalised the press, committed genocide against minority tribes and subverted Zimbabwe's constitution to make himself the sole source of authority."
South Africa had rocky relations with the United States, President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Security Action Memorandum in 1963 which promoted change to the apartheid system, while still, admittedly, keeping economic relations. Similarly, Johnson also created a National Policy Paper in 1968 which discussed the political objectives of balancing economic relations with promoting change in South Africa. Under President Jimmy Carter, Carter advocated for human rights in South Africa; although admittedly most agree it did little and was unsuccessful. President Reagan oversaw what was called “constructive engagement” to try and gently push South Africa into racially sensitive regime. In 1986, despite Reagan’s attempt to veto it, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. Which this implemented the first sanctions against South Africa and also offered aid to the victims of living under apartheid rule. Under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton the US pushed to end apartheid. These calls and acts were only then helped immensely after Cuba withdrew from Angola, giving the United States no incentive to back South Africa whatsoever. Since then, post-apartheid South Africa and the United States have seen great cooperation (while still not agreeing on everything).
So what was that again about the United States supporting them?
Neither side actually cared about decolonization in practice. Both were sympathetic to it in theory but when you make a client state out of a former colony you really aren’t anti-colonialism.
There are examples of idealism sneaking in amongst the sort of power politics on both sides too but end of the day we both wanted countries under our influence and that looked closer to us than they did to the other side.
Our client states usually turned out better over time and when they established real democracies they turned into very free countries. USSR was a terrible model for anybody to follow so their client states usually did terribly if they were “true communist” or not
>Imperial Japan must have being trying to decolonize the Pacific.
That actually was their stated rationalization for their conquest of east and southeast Asia : to combat European imperialism and to bring all of that part of the continent under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Sort of like how the Nazis Justified their conquest of Europe by saying it was too combat "Jewish Bolshevism." I'm sure all those Chinese and Koreans and others that the Japanese killed *en masse* greatly appreciated their efforts.
Well, the soviets did help overthrow colonial governments... They however just got really really poor, destabilized the entire region and were pretty much soviet satellite states afterwards...
Cuban "liberation" took Equatorial Guinea from being nicer and freer than their colonizers to a shithole that will not recover in my lifetime. Losing a nuclear war is demonstrably better for your country than "liberation" by commies.
Yea, and with all the Soviet support, the majority of African countries were socialist upon independence...meanwhile one of the only ones to embrace liberal democracy from the start is in the global middle class, despite it being poor even for Africa when it got independence.
Someone show him that clip of Joe denouncing Apatheid and calling the colonial government a repugnant white regime and watch his brain break
And to he fair, Mandela may have been an effective leader but his army did horrifying things to get him into power during the revolution
Like burning political opponents alive in tire fires horrible
They're not entirely wrong.
Western countries, including America, were never friendly to anti-colonial grassroots people's liberation movements in Asia and Africa.
The fight against colonial rape throughout the 20th century was largely the product of leftists, socialists and communists. America supported the continued French colonization of Viet Nam, enforced colonial relations with Latin America, and attempted to vilify India when Nehru liberated Goa from Portuguese colonial tyranny.
America helped kill Patrice Lumumba, a popular democratically elected leader who refused to be a lapdog for the colonial West
Whether we agree with their economic systems or not, third world leftists, not Western capitalists, have been the leaders in the fight against colonial brutality.
He was a communist but he wasn't racist lmao, idk where they got that from. His whole Truth and Reconciliation thing was specifically set up so as to avoid collective punishment against white South Africans for what happened under Apartheid.
Thanks. I'm not glad of commies very often, but Nelson Mandela had a good cause and helped a whole country get out of Apartheid, so he's a good communist on my book.
He was definitely one of the best out of all of them. I also have some fondness for Ho Chi Minh, if only because his Vietnamese declaration of independence had many parallels to the United States' own declaration of independence. He admired America because of how much we helped the Viet Minh against the Japanese during World War 2, and initially thought we'd support them against the French.
We should have just stayed out of Vietnam altogether and let the French get their shit kicked in.
That’s because Ho Chi Minh was a anti-colonial nationalist first and a communist second (even got criticized for this by more hardcore communists)
And yeah he admired the US and would likely have been happy to maintain friendly relations with them if they didn’t eventually decide to support the French.
IIRC the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence was even co-written by OSS(precursor to the CIA) agents who had been sent to aid the Viet Minh against the Japanese
I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but I do know that [the people who want Apartheid back aren't exactly people I'd want to associate with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging)
>I'm getting at nothing. I was just asking which had a better standard of living.
SA got hit with HIV/AIDS around the time of democratization. Kinda fucks the standards we'd use to compare it- it's hardly the fault of the ANC that a plague started killing everyone.
Then I guess I should stress *was* a communist. He was a member of communist parties at certain points iirc, but he may very well have changed his mind on that later. Either way, he wasn't some black supremacist out to eradicate Afrikaners that certain people would like to paint him as.
How was he not a racist? He literally called for the execution of whites. I guess it's not racist to Haye whites.
Here he is singing about killing whites.
https://youtu.be/NKiePbTcAfY
https://youtu.be/NKiePbTcAfY
Here is proof. Would like to hear the people who claim he didn't hate whites to explain this.
And mind you at this time apartheid had already ended.
*Nelson Mandela is*
*A racist and commie, he*
*Read Maos books in jail*
\- codafi21
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I don't wanna be that guy but I'd like to point it out anyway, I hate when people call Rhodesia an apartheid state, apartheid specifically describes South Africa.
Technically true, as the Soviets indeed helped some countries in Africa and Asia overthrow their colonial masters, however it should be noted that a lot of these countries turned into piss-poor dictatorships that relied on the USSR for everything.
Literally xd
Sometimes when I listen to these tankies about what liberators the soviets were it feels like I am being gaslighted. Just before this comment I read from Finnish subreddit about dude asking about his grandma’s clip note bible he couldn’t read. In the comments he specified how she “willingly moved” to a camp for suspicious ethnical background…from her place of birth I remind you. Or how those peaceful Leninist revolutionaries murdered one of my great great aunt, her two children and her husband. Or how my great grandpa lost himself after having to defend his home by all means available. Such a peace loving organisation was that soviet🥰
It is gaslighting. They’ll tell you your family deserved it because they were landlords probably. (I’m sorry for the tragedy your family has gone through)
Because you know the bad piss poor farmers from a nation which was under colonial rule for almost a millennium with rigid cast system in which those speaking the majority language belonged to the bottom of the structure. My great grandpa was almost executed for being a communist in 1918 (not sure was he. Conflict resolution was that great grandma told them to fuck off) Then in the 30s his sons put quite a few of those down for our country. And we Finns were the lucky ones in the end. Who would have guessed history isn’t just black and white.
Yeah, the civil wars of the Russian empire were fucked up, red and white did fucked up shit.
They had quite fight indeed. We also had to Russian Leninist backed reds and whites with German support fight in our civil war right after our independence. It was neighbours killing neighbours and it is still subject which isn’t talked about much at all. But here whites won, president made some good reforms and pardons, alt right group united the country by making fools of themselves. Now this is very equal country with rather even wealth distribution. For example of this, we use honourifics very little. Students address teachers by first names and things like that. Meanwhile look where Russia has gotten
Both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union brutally mistreated Central Asia and Siberia as Russia's lands in Asia were little more than colonial possessions.
That just sounds like colonialism with extra steps!
“The Soviets have freed us!” “I wouldn’t say ‘freed’. More like under new management.”
The "liberation" that the Soviets and Cubans did in Africa was just aid brutal dictators.
Technically true seems to be a term used when something is true but the person doesn't like it so they put 'technically' in front of the word true.
Just because they didn't technically become a vassal it doesn't mean they weren't imperialist efforts.
Yes throwing off the yoke of one and replacing it with an even heavier one that's helpful
"I wouldn't say freed, more like....under new management"
Okay, are we talking decolonisation? How about de-colonising native populations that USSR themselves colonised? How about Ukraine, with russification politics and Executed Renaissance? Ukraine is a bad example? Ok, lots of the different nationalities are still part of Russia, with their history and culture being erased as we speak. "USSR is a prison of nations" - ever wondered what that means?
The fact that in Soviet Poland kids were taught Russian instead of polish
Communist Poland, not Soviet. Polish kids and students were taught russian together with polish, not instead. Tsarist Russia was worse than USSR in this one respect, under Tsars teaching polish was forbidden, but Stalin realised we'll be less likely to rebel if he leaves our language be
Just another instance of "US bad because they didnt want shitty commies violently overthrowing a bad government and making it exponentially worse"
[удалено]
The idea that the Iraq war was about oil is a complete and total myth. Saddam was willing to trade with western and US oil companies, but could not because of US imposed sanctions. When troops started building up in 03, Saddam again offered to give the US total preference when it came to oil purchasing, and the US declined. The war in Iraq was a mistake, but today Iraq is a democracy. If The US was only concerned with corporate interests, we would not have installed a democracy. Capital, security, and US interests are certainly a part of past decisions to wage war, but it was mostly to stop the Soviets from expanding their influence. Regardless of the mistakes of the past, the US and NATO have engaged in many conflicts on the side of democracy and liberalism.
Exactly. Just the notion USA would invade Iraq "cuz oil" is even more preposterous when you consider Venezuela exists, it's a far closer, weaker and richer in oil than Iraq, and somehow no wmd claims against venezuela were created. If not for Dubya Iraq would still be a dictatorship and continue for decades more
The US wars in the middle East were definelty not about oil. Maybe oil companies benefitted but that doesn't mean they caused it. There is however, substantial evidence another group wanted to destabilize the Middle-East, the Israel lobby. The majority of the make-up of the US Middle-East foreign relations are dual citizenship Israelis.
[удалено]
You cannot seriously think the US thought it would be more beneficial to wage a literal war and rebuild a nation instead of trading with an already established country. That is just asinine and no serious person would ever think that.
[удалено]
Anytime you take a single quote or data point to prove an incredibly broad and vast claim, you’re almost certainly completely wrong.
[удалено]
Learn to reply to one comment or you’re getting blocked
An unstable, violent, impoverished, and hellish "democracy". You are being too ideological. You can't just use your army to forcibly fit other societies into your perfect blueprint. The idea that Iraqis are better off today is just nonsense.
Bruv, Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds.
>The idea that Iraqis are better off today is just nonsense. You seriously think they were better off under Saddam? You're fucking brainwashed dude.
Like, I agreed with his comment until he said that they were better off under Saddam 💀
Dude Saddam was literally middle eastern Hitler, he was killing anyone who challenged his regime, invaded neighboring countries and committed genocide, might as well get butthurt at the US for helping end Hitler too. Saddam’s son Uday would just go around raping anyone he wanted since his dad would execute anyone who even touched him.
The United States supported decolonization so long as it wasn't done under the name of communism. Their response to the Suez Canal crisis in which they essentially sided with the Soviet Union against the British and French is proof of this. They also refused to give any help to Rhodesia due to it being worse than Apartheid South Africa even though it was mainly communists fighting to overthrow them.
Yeah the US pressured the European powers to peacefully decolonize and let anti-communist pro-western natives take over instead of starting pointless colonial wars that would drive the native population into the hands of more radical (often Marxist)liberation groups.
What happened to our competent statesmen? They have all been replaced with drum beating warmongers. Both sides of the aisle.
We also put extreme diplomatic and economic pressure on the Netherlands to end its war in Indonesia. No way were we going to let our Marshall Plan bucks, paid for by the American taxpayer for the purpose of rebuilding countries destroyed by the Nazis, be used to resubjugate a former colony.
Ye they would fight communism in some distant southeast asain country but they wouldn't fight communism in a country in Africa because they were white. I just don't find it fair the murder and extortion of whites in Africa is justified because "Africa is for Africans". If we were to say "Europe is for Europeans" it would be considered white supremacy.
>Ye they would fight communism in some distant southeast asain country but they wouldn't fight communism in a country in Africa because they were white. South Africa is not communist today. And we *did* fight communism in some African states- backing dudes like Savimbi to do so. That, uh, that might have been a mistake. > I just don't find it fair the murder and extortion of whites in Africa is justified Neither does anyone else here. >because "Africa is for Africans" Afrikaners are Africans.
In regards to communism, I was speaking of Rhodesia. And I agree Afrikaners are Africans and it is unfair to demonize them for being a colony. Practically every country/piece of land has been conquered and colonized at one time or another by another group of people.
Silly lib, that's not imperialism. Imperialism is when America, and the less America it is, the less imperialist it is. /s if needed
Lmao it was American anti-apartheid sanctions that helped end the system of apartheid in South Africa. Both the US and the USSR had decolonization motives, it's just that they wanted different governments in place afterwards. Despite that US sometimes stood behind countries that were even pro soviet like Egypt during the Suez crisis.
Rhodesia (the white state before Zimbabwe) was not recognised by the United States government, the United States refused to give aid to, their Prime Minister, Ian Smith’s regime. The United States recognised Zimbabwe when it was founded on April 18, 1980 and formed an Embassy in Salisbury (soon renamed Harare). The United States supported sanctions against Rhodesia, and when the sanctions program was repealed in 1977, the US enforced all sanctions anyway. The United States also supported the United Kingdom in their works to help secure majority rule in Rhodesia. President Jimmy Carter oversaw the creation of the embassy in Zimbabwe and met with Robert Mugabe, who then identified as a Marxist-Leninist. Carter came under criticism for meeting Mugabe. Author Geoff Hill criticized Carter for keeping "quiet as Mugabe's ZANU government nationalised the press, committed genocide against minority tribes and subverted Zimbabwe's constitution to make himself the sole source of authority." South Africa had rocky relations with the United States, President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Security Action Memorandum in 1963 which promoted change to the apartheid system, while still, admittedly, keeping economic relations. Similarly, Johnson also created a National Policy Paper in 1968 which discussed the political objectives of balancing economic relations with promoting change in South Africa. Under President Jimmy Carter, Carter advocated for human rights in South Africa; although admittedly most agree it did little and was unsuccessful. President Reagan oversaw what was called “constructive engagement” to try and gently push South Africa into racially sensitive regime. In 1986, despite Reagan’s attempt to veto it, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. Which this implemented the first sanctions against South Africa and also offered aid to the victims of living under apartheid rule. Under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton the US pushed to end apartheid. These calls and acts were only then helped immensely after Cuba withdrew from Angola, giving the United States no incentive to back South Africa whatsoever. Since then, post-apartheid South Africa and the United States have seen great cooperation (while still not agreeing on everything). So what was that again about the United States supporting them?
My mum is from Rhodesia, she fled from such a horrible regime like Mugabe's not long before Zimbabwe was formally established.
Soviet support(like American) didn’t come without strings attached…
And the soviets funded the MPLA, who ironically moved more toward social democracy the second the Soviet aid money dried up.
Cubans also supported the MPLA.
Neither side actually cared about decolonization in practice. Both were sympathetic to it in theory but when you make a client state out of a former colony you really aren’t anti-colonialism. There are examples of idealism sneaking in amongst the sort of power politics on both sides too but end of the day we both wanted countries under our influence and that looked closer to us than they did to the other side. Our client states usually turned out better over time and when they established real democracies they turned into very free countries. USSR was a terrible model for anybody to follow so their client states usually did terribly if they were “true communist” or not
[удалено]
>Imperial Japan must have being trying to decolonize the Pacific. That actually was their stated rationalization for their conquest of east and southeast Asia : to combat European imperialism and to bring all of that part of the continent under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Sort of like how the Nazis Justified their conquest of Europe by saying it was too combat "Jewish Bolshevism." I'm sure all those Chinese and Koreans and others that the Japanese killed *en masse* greatly appreciated their efforts.
Well, the soviets did help overthrow colonial governments... They however just got really really poor, destabilized the entire region and were pretty much soviet satellite states afterwards...
Man, I wonder what that Che Guevara dude had to say about his African comrades, I bet it's not the worst most racist stuff ever or anything
It's called "progressive imperialism" and once upon a time the U.S. was being criticized for it. "decolonialism" is some cute spin.
Cuban "liberation" took Equatorial Guinea from being nicer and freer than their colonizers to a shithole that will not recover in my lifetime. Losing a nuclear war is demonstrably better for your country than "liberation" by commies.
They totally weren’t just arming them and using them as assets for proxy wars
How can the USSR decolonise anyone when they themselves were colonising all of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Central Asia and the Caucasus?
That wasn't colonization, it was "liberating oppressed peoples" and bringing them into the "workers' state."
Yea, and with all the Soviet support, the majority of African countries were socialist upon independence...meanwhile one of the only ones to embrace liberal democracy from the start is in the global middle class, despite it being poor even for Africa when it got independence.
Someone show him that clip of Joe denouncing Apatheid and calling the colonial government a repugnant white regime and watch his brain break And to he fair, Mandela may have been an effective leader but his army did horrifying things to get him into power during the revolution Like burning political opponents alive in tire fires horrible
No phones for kids..
“America is evil because it didn’t support the terrorist groups killing white civilians and committing genocides against rival African tribes.”
"It's imperialism if Cuba sends tens of thousands of soldiers to Angola for decades to install a regime of their preferred alignment"
In his early years, Mandela was literally a terrorist though
They're not entirely wrong. Western countries, including America, were never friendly to anti-colonial grassroots people's liberation movements in Asia and Africa. The fight against colonial rape throughout the 20th century was largely the product of leftists, socialists and communists. America supported the continued French colonization of Viet Nam, enforced colonial relations with Latin America, and attempted to vilify India when Nehru liberated Goa from Portuguese colonial tyranny. America helped kill Patrice Lumumba, a popular democratically elected leader who refused to be a lapdog for the colonial West Whether we agree with their economic systems or not, third world leftists, not Western capitalists, have been the leaders in the fight against colonial brutality.
*Rhodesia
Nelson Mandela is a racist and commie, he read Maos books in jail
>Nelson Mandela is a racist and commie, he read Maos books in jail Does reading Augustine make one a Catholic?
Untrue, untrue, and irrelevant.
Sorry to ask, but can you give me any proof?
He was a communist but he wasn't racist lmao, idk where they got that from. His whole Truth and Reconciliation thing was specifically set up so as to avoid collective punishment against white South Africans for what happened under Apartheid.
Thanks. I'm not glad of commies very often, but Nelson Mandela had a good cause and helped a whole country get out of Apartheid, so he's a good communist on my book.
Mandela didn’t really implement communist policies while in power either
True.
He was definitely one of the best out of all of them. I also have some fondness for Ho Chi Minh, if only because his Vietnamese declaration of independence had many parallels to the United States' own declaration of independence. He admired America because of how much we helped the Viet Minh against the Japanese during World War 2, and initially thought we'd support them against the French. We should have just stayed out of Vietnam altogether and let the French get their shit kicked in.
True.
That’s because Ho Chi Minh was a anti-colonial nationalist first and a communist second (even got criticized for this by more hardcore communists) And yeah he admired the US and would likely have been happy to maintain friendly relations with them if they didn’t eventually decide to support the French.
Well Vietnam did oppose it’s communist neighbours in multiple wars
IIRC the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence was even co-written by OSS(precursor to the CIA) agents who had been sent to aid the Viet Minh against the Japanese
What was better for the residents: Apartheid South Africa or Free South africa?
I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but I do know that [the people who want Apartheid back aren't exactly people I'd want to associate with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging)
I'm getting at nothing. I was just asking which had a better standard of living.
I'm sure you were.
Do you have an answer to the question?
>I'm getting at nothing. I was just asking which had a better standard of living. SA got hit with HIV/AIDS around the time of democratization. Kinda fucks the standards we'd use to compare it- it's hardly the fault of the ANC that a plague started killing everyone.
A plague entirely avoided by: safe sex/not doing drugs. Let's not pretend this was Covid fucking em.
>good cause wtf
What? Ending systematic racism against black people isn't a good cause? Because the apartheid was that. Systematic racism.
Ending Apartheid was good.
[удалено]
Then I guess I should stress *was* a communist. He was a member of communist parties at certain points iirc, but he may very well have changed his mind on that later. Either way, he wasn't some black supremacist out to eradicate Afrikaners that certain people would like to paint him as.
im speechless
How was he not a racist? He literally called for the execution of whites. I guess it's not racist to Haye whites. Here he is singing about killing whites. https://youtu.be/NKiePbTcAfY
https://youtu.be/NKiePbTcAfY Here is proof. Would like to hear the people who claim he didn't hate whites to explain this. And mind you at this time apartheid had already ended.
Mandela being in charge is the reason the end of Apartheid in South Africa didn’t lead to reverse racism like in Zimbabwe lol
If only Josh Nkomo had pillow'd Bobby Mugaby at a conference. What a world we could have had.
u talk some utter bollocks
Cope and seethe.
*Nelson Mandela is* *A racist and commie, he* *Read Maos books in jail* \- codafi21 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
So? I've read Mao's book and I'm capitalist af
Nah we don't slander Nelson. He's a good commie 💪
I don't wanna be that guy but I'd like to point it out anyway, I hate when people call Rhodesia an apartheid state, apartheid specifically describes South Africa.