This is one of those interesting lessons you learn when you dig...
Will Tanner@Will_Tanner_1
26 views
Jan 18, 2025
~5 min read
Advertisement
1
This is one of those interesting lessons you learn when you dig into what happened in the second half of the 20th century
The Cold War wasn’t really about fighting “for freedom” or “against communism”
Rather, it was about two anti-European powers destroying the old world🧵👇
The Cold War wasn’t really about fighting “for freedom” or “against communism”
Rather, it was about two anti-European powers destroying the old world🧵👇
2
This is evident in both Africa and Europe.
First, Europe: had America and the USSR wanted to preserve Western Civilization in the aftermath of WW2, they would have engaged in a Concert of Vienna style of cooperation to place stable, old world-style monarchs in charge
Obviously they didn’t do that. The USSR despised civilization and wanted to burn it down, so it focused on subversion
America also hated the Old World, and so did everything possible to keep it dead. The King of Italy was eschewed rather than put in power; socialists rose to power instead, supported by America in doing so. Franco was damned and smeared as a “fascist” when really he just kept to commies at bay and sidelined the actually fascist Falange. Portugal’s Salazar was similarly damned, with even less cause. In Germany, the Hohenzollerns weren’t brought back despise having been hated by the NSDAP. Instead, like Italy, liberal democracy was put in power, meaning tradition was killed for good
Then, when Britain and France tried asserting their power and sphere of influence control in Suez, Eisenhower broke them with financial threats and turned them into satraps. Their empires were gone and leftism imbued society in both in the aftermath
In short, Europe could have been restored along post-Napoleonic lines, with stable dynasties restored for the purpose of tradition and stability. Instead the commies subverted as America openly destroyed traditional Europe, and where Europeans stood up for Western civilization, as with Franco or with Churchill in Greece (he kept the commies from coming into power) they were damned for it
First, Europe: had America and the USSR wanted to preserve Western Civilization in the aftermath of WW2, they would have engaged in a Concert of Vienna style of cooperation to place stable, old world-style monarchs in charge
Obviously they didn’t do that. The USSR despised civilization and wanted to burn it down, so it focused on subversion
America also hated the Old World, and so did everything possible to keep it dead. The King of Italy was eschewed rather than put in power; socialists rose to power instead, supported by America in doing so. Franco was damned and smeared as a “fascist” when really he just kept to commies at bay and sidelined the actually fascist Falange. Portugal’s Salazar was similarly damned, with even less cause. In Germany, the Hohenzollerns weren’t brought back despise having been hated by the NSDAP. Instead, like Italy, liberal democracy was put in power, meaning tradition was killed for good
Then, when Britain and France tried asserting their power and sphere of influence control in Suez, Eisenhower broke them with financial threats and turned them into satraps. Their empires were gone and leftism imbued society in both in the aftermath
In short, Europe could have been restored along post-Napoleonic lines, with stable dynasties restored for the purpose of tradition and stability. Instead the commies subverted as America openly destroyed traditional Europe, and where Europeans stood up for Western civilization, as with Franco or with Churchill in Greece (he kept the commies from coming into power) they were damned for it
3
Much the same is true of Africa, for the same reasons
Portuguese Mozambique and Angola might not have been perfect…but they were a hell of a lot better and more free than commie rule
The Belgian Congo might not have been perfect…but it was a hell of a lot better than the decades of anarchy and slaughter that have followed since
Rhodesia might not have been perfect…but being “more British than the British” it was a hell of a lot freer and more prosperous than communist Zimbabwe
South Africa had serious flaws…but was still a lot better than the economically anemic, Mad Max-like SA of today
In every case, the “colonial” option was far better by every metric for all involved, but it was destroyed by USSR and USA alike
Portuguese Mozambique and Angola might not have been perfect…but they were a hell of a lot better and more free than commie rule
The Belgian Congo might not have been perfect…but it was a hell of a lot better than the decades of anarchy and slaughter that have followed since
Rhodesia might not have been perfect…but being “more British than the British” it was a hell of a lot freer and more prosperous than communist Zimbabwe
South Africa had serious flaws…but was still a lot better than the economically anemic, Mad Max-like SA of today
In every case, the “colonial” option was far better by every metric for all involved, but it was destroyed by USSR and USA alike
4
So, why destroy them?
The communists did so for obvious reasons…expanding the communist bloc and destroying the Western portions of the world by riling colonial populations against colonizers
The West, particularly America? For one, the government was full of communists, hence why “we”rammed decolonization down the throats of the old empires, such as France in Algeria and Britain in Suez and elsewhere. But more importantly, it was egalitarianism. The old colonial states that survived, and those European states that resisted becoming “liberal democracies” and so fought to hold onto their empires into the 60s, namely Portugal and Spain, carried an air of not being of the democratic century. They were ruled by competent men for the purpose of being stable and prosperous, not by ideologues for the purpose of creating society afresh. That was far different than America or the USSR, both of which were ideological states in the Cold War period.
Most importantly, none of them treated humans as blank slates and GDP as the most important metric. Franco worked tirelessly to make Spains peasants and aristocrats prosperous again by making the economy one that could work for traditional agriculture. Ian Smith held out against majority rule because he knew it would be a disaster. Salazar fought hard in Angola and Mozambique to preserve the empire at a time when everyone else had given up
All that reeked of the old, anti-egalitarian world, a world of hierarchy rather than blank slatism, and so America and the USSR hated it
The communists did so for obvious reasons…expanding the communist bloc and destroying the Western portions of the world by riling colonial populations against colonizers
The West, particularly America? For one, the government was full of communists, hence why “we”rammed decolonization down the throats of the old empires, such as France in Algeria and Britain in Suez and elsewhere. But more importantly, it was egalitarianism. The old colonial states that survived, and those European states that resisted becoming “liberal democracies” and so fought to hold onto their empires into the 60s, namely Portugal and Spain, carried an air of not being of the democratic century. They were ruled by competent men for the purpose of being stable and prosperous, not by ideologues for the purpose of creating society afresh. That was far different than America or the USSR, both of which were ideological states in the Cold War period.
Most importantly, none of them treated humans as blank slates and GDP as the most important metric. Franco worked tirelessly to make Spains peasants and aristocrats prosperous again by making the economy one that could work for traditional agriculture. Ian Smith held out against majority rule because he knew it would be a disaster. Salazar fought hard in Angola and Mozambique to preserve the empire at a time when everyone else had given up
All that reeked of the old, anti-egalitarian world, a world of hierarchy rather than blank slatism, and so America and the USSR hated it
5
Hence why America and the Soviets were very frequently on the same side against the old imperial powers
In Suez against France and England. In the Congo against the Belgians and white mercenaries. In Rhodesia against the responsible government. In South Africa against the Boers.
Reagan was a welcome exception to the last one but, generally, America was working with the Soviets when it meant a colonial power could be destroyed. Even when we did side against the Soviets in such cases, such as French Indochina, we were the ones who pulled the plug and defeated the imperial effort. The French won Algeria and the British Kenya and Malaysia, but gave them up anyway because of American ideology.
It was only when no Western colonial power had long been involved or one had been defeated - Central America, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam- that America really fought the Soviets
Otherwise it was helping their cause
In Suez against France and England. In the Congo against the Belgians and white mercenaries. In Rhodesia against the responsible government. In South Africa against the Boers.
Reagan was a welcome exception to the last one but, generally, America was working with the Soviets when it meant a colonial power could be destroyed. Even when we did side against the Soviets in such cases, such as French Indochina, we were the ones who pulled the plug and defeated the imperial effort. The French won Algeria and the British Kenya and Malaysia, but gave them up anyway because of American ideology.
It was only when no Western colonial power had long been involved or one had been defeated - Central America, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam- that America really fought the Soviets
Otherwise it was helping their cause
6
That history shows that the Cold War wasn’t really about what they claim it was
If America was fighting for “freedom,” why not let the French and English liberate Suez and Egypt? Why not help France defeat communism in Indochina? Why not side with Rhodesia against race communism? Why not shoo the socialists out of Italy?
If America was fighting for “freedom,” why not let the French and English liberate Suez and Egypt? Why not help France defeat communism in Indochina? Why not side with Rhodesia against race communism? Why not shoo the socialists out of Italy?
7
Because that’s not what the Cold War was about
It was about destroying Western civilization by rotting it from within where it existed domestically and demolishing it completely where it had put down roots abroad
Hence why America had the hippies and sided against Rhodesia in the mid sixties, and saw utter decay in the 70s as the last dominoes in Africa toppled
It was about destroying Western civilization by rotting it from within where it existed domestically and demolishing it completely where it had put down roots abroad
Hence why America had the hippies and sided against Rhodesia in the mid sixties, and saw utter decay in the 70s as the last dominoes in Africa toppled
8
Unfortunately, the bad guys, the communists and egalitarians, won the Cold War; Africa has reverted to despotic anarcho-tyranny, Europe is a decaying museum full of Muslim invaders, and America is considering electing a retarded Jamaican communist president
Western civilization, sadly, was destroyed
Western civilization, sadly, was destroyed
9
Make Zimbabwe Rhodesia Again!
We finally found a new supplier and got the store back up, so we can sell these again and have avoided the censorship!
theamericantribunestore.com/products/make-…
We finally found a new supplier and got the store back up, so we can sell these again and have avoided the censorship!
theamericantribunestore.com/products/make-…
