• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death toll rises in South Africa as violence and pogroms, looting spreads

The “tribesmen” didn’t need to roll tanks into Pretoria. All they needed was for the decent people of South Africa to get tired of being under the thumb of a tyrannical regime which oppressed its own people....which is what happened.
the South Africans weren’t oppressed, the Bantus were

It was a moronic idea by any definition of the term. It would have given the Soviets literally thousands upon thousands of tons of propaganda to deploy and cost us the support of pretty much the entire Third World.
well that’s 1) not established, many elements of these colonies supported their colonizers 2) that points to a second problem that western governments didn’t actively censor leftists or arrest communist sympathizers. It should have been considered foreign espionage to read or spread communist propaganda
The British and French decolonized because they couldn’t afford to continue brutally oppressing half the globe, and the people of those countries had no desire to remain under the thumb of European regimes.
I don’t believe that to be true. Portugal only ever lost Goa in military action. The rest of the colonies were held until the end of Estado Novo, and it took decades to break down Rhodesia and South Africa.

Trying to prop up the European colonial empires would have been downright disastrous. Even ignoring the brutality of colonial rule, it simply wasn’t possible.
history shows otherwise. It’s likely Rhodesia could’ve lasted until the present day or longer if it wasn’t locked out of international trade. At the very least the non communist power sharing government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia could have if America and Britain recognized it
 
the South Africans weren’t oppressed, the Bantus were

well that’s 1) not established, many elements of these colonies supported their colonizers 2) that points to a second problem that western governments didn’t actively censor leftists or arrest communist sympathizers. It should have been considered foreign espionage to read or spread communist propaganda
I don’t believe that to be true. Portugal only ever lost Goa in military action. The rest of the colonies were held until the end of Estado Novo, and it took decades to break down Rhodesia and South Africa.

history shows otherwise. It’s likely Rhodesia could’ve lasted until the present day or longer if it wasn’t locked out of international trade. At the very least the non communist power sharing government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia could have if America and Britain recognized it

The apartheid regime was brutally oppressive to its own people. That is a historical fact.

Except no, they didn’t. By the 1950s and 1960s people were pretty universally fed up with colonial oppression, which is why the colonial regimes collapsed like a house of cards. Said regimes routinely brutally went after anyone who they saw as being “troublemakers”, but it didn’t save them because the people of the colonies, again, were pretty universally fed up with being controlled by far off regimes who were casually abusive at the best of times.

Ah yes, the EMN patented solution— more brutality. Unfortunately for you, by the 1950s and 1960s there were thousands upon thousands of combat hardened former colonial troops— millions if one includes the entirety of the European empires who knew precisely how to hit the colonists where it hurt most. In places like Malaya and Indonesia they’d been fighting, and winning, a guerrilla war against a far more brutal occupier for years. The idea that all it would have taken is more bayonets shoved in the locals’ faces is flat out ignorant.

Portugal lost Goa because India felt like taking it and sauntered right in. No amount of funding would have kept that from happening, because the people of Goa had no real interest in remaining under the Portuguese thumb. Which is why the Portuguese defense collapsed so quickly. Angola was more or less “under control”, nit the same couldn’t be said for Mozambique or the other colonies with serious insurgent activity.

History shows that the Rhodesian regime was so desperate and brutal it threw around WMDs like confetti. Both ZANLA and ZIPRA were only seeing more success in their attacks as the years went on. That’s not a regime capable of being sustained, nor should it have been. By the time apartheid finally fell they’d already, quite literally, poisoned the well too throughly.
 
The apartheid regime was brutally oppressive to its own people. That is a historical fact.

Except no, they didn’t. By the 1950s and 1960s people were pretty universally fed up with colonial oppression, which is why the colonial regimes collapsed like a house of cards. Said regimes routinely brutally went after anyone who they saw as being “troublemakers”, but it didn’t save them because the people of the colonies, again, were pretty universally fed up with being controlled by far off regimes who were casually abusive at the best of times.
not supported by history. There was no mass popular revolutionary movements, all were movements supported by communist regimes, normally the USSR or China.

Ah yes, the EMN patented solution— more brutality. Unfortunately for you, by the 1950s and 1960s there were thousands upon thousands of combat hardened former colonial troops— millions if one includes the entirety of the European empires who knew precisely how to hit the colonists where it hurt most.
and yet they had little ability to actually win anywhere except Indochina.
In places like Malaya and Indonesia they’d been fighting, and winning, a guerrilla war against a far more brutal occupier for years. The idea that all it would have taken is more bayonets shoved in the locals’ faces is flat out ignorant.
Britain didnt rule like Japan and so that level of force was not necessary.

Portugal lost Goa because India felt like taking it and sauntered right in. No amount of funding would have kept that from happening,
yeah, Goa was lost because a major country launched a military invasion. Not a popular uprising
because the people of Goa had no real interest in remaining under the Portuguese thumb. Which is why the Portuguese defense collapsed so quickly. Angola was more or less “under control”, nit the same couldn’t be said for Mozambique or the other colonies with serious insurgent activity.
and yet Mozambique was held until after the end of Estado Novo
History shows that the Rhodesian regime was so desperate and brutal it threw around WMDs like confetti. Both ZANLA and ZIPRA were only seeing more success in their attacks as the years went on. That’s not a regime capable of being sustained, nor should it have been. By the time apartheid finally fell they’d already, quite literally, poisoned the well too throughly.
Largely the communists were a failure whenever fighting Rhodesian troops. The only reason they succeeded was the tough international sanctions combined with full support from communist backers
 
not supported by history. There was no mass popular revolutionary movements, all were movements supported by communist regimes, normally the USSR or China.

and yet they had little ability to actually win anywhere except Indochina. Britain didnt rule like Japan and so that level of force was not necessary.

yeah, Goa was lost because a major country launched a military invasion. Not a popular uprising and yet Mozambique was held until after the end of Estado Novo

Largely the communists were a failure whenever fighting Rhodesian troops. The only reason they succeeded was the tough international sanctions combined with full support from communist backers

Guerrilla movements, particularly Maoist ones, rely on popular support to succeed. The guerrillas never could have been so successful unless the common people supported them.

The British routinely conducted absolutely horrific atrocities during their colonial campaigns. But by the 1950s and 1960s they were no longer willing to pay the butcher’s bill to “control” people who wanted them out.

Goa was lost from the start, because, again, the locals weren’t interested in remaining under Portugal’s thumb. Which is yet another reason why the Indian attack went so smoothly.

Certainly a popular uprising. The only reason the Portuguese more or less had Angola “under control” was that the insurgency was divided into multiple squabbling groups. FRELIMO, meanwhile, was well organized and equipped, and therefore the Portuguese had effectively lost in Mozambique by the time they gave up.

The insurgents were blowing airplanes out of the sky on several occasions by the time the regime collapsed. Not even being able to control the safety of their own airlines is a massive sign of weakness in a regime. The reason they succeeded was that the “Rhodesian” populace voted with its feet. The lack of support for a continued war effort, failure to defeat ZANLA and ZIPRA in the field, and need to keep conscripts constantly on a war footing, which made it even harder for the civilian economy to function, collapsed the regime.
 
Guerrilla movements, particularly Maoist ones, rely on popular support to succeed. The guerrillas never could have been so successful unless the common people supported them.
it only takes a minority to sustain effective insurgency. It is impossible to know the true level of support for such movements, versus how many are apathetic.

The British routinely conducted absolutely horrific atrocities during their colonial campaigns. But by the 1950s and 1960s they were no longer willing to pay the butcher’s bill to “control” people who wanted them out.
yeah Stalin supporter with tank avatar says non Soviets bad once again. What a shock

Goa was lost from the start, because, again, the locals weren’t interested in remaining under Portugal’s thumb. Which is yet another reason why the Indian attack went so smoothly.
I mean the 10:1 number advantage on day one didnt hurt either. I’m not arguing for the Portuguese side, I supported the Russian invasion of Crimea and the annexation, merely pointing out it was an organized military power with a great advantage that took the territory

Certainly a popular uprising. The only reason the Portuguese more or less had Angola “under control” was that the insurgency was divided into multiple squabbling groups. FRELIMO, meanwhile, was well organized and equipped, and therefore the Portuguese had effectively lost in Mozambique by the time they gave up.
because of the massive domestic arms and rural banking industry of Mozambique? I’m thinking actually that was the agitation of communist powers.

The insurgents were blowing airplanes out of the sky on several occasions by the time the regime collapsed. Not even being able to control the safety of their own airlines is a massive sign of weakness in a regime. The reason they succeeded was that the “Rhodesian” populace voted with its feet. The lack of support for a continued war effort, failure to defeat ZANLA and ZIPRA in the field, and need to keep conscripts constantly on a war footing, which made it even harder for the civilian economy to function, collapsed the regime.
Yeah, and if Britain and The US supported the Rhodesian government, or even the internal settlement government in 1979 then Mugabee never comes to power. He was never successful in the field. He won, I don’t deny that. But that was hardly an inevitable result
 
it only takes a minority to sustain effective insurgency. It is impossible to know the true level of support for such movements, versus how many are apathetic.

yeah Stalin supporter with tank avatar says non Soviets bad once again. What a shock

I mean the 10:1 number advantage on day one didnt hurt either

because of the massive domestic arms and rural banking industry of Mozambique? I’m thinking actually that was the agitation of communist powers.


Yeah, and if Britain and The US supported the Rhodesian government, or even the internal settlement government in 1979 then Mugabee never comes to power. He was never successful in the field. He won, I don’t deny that. But that was hardly an inevitable result

It still takes sizable support from the common people of the country to sustain and enable an insurgency to grow, particularly as it takes over more and more of a country. And apathy is, in itself, another condemnation of the regime.

You throwing a tantrum because I pointed out the fact that the British were incredibly brutal in their colonies.....doesn’t change it.

That’s what happens when you carve out a chunk of someone else’s country; the locals aren’t likely to side with you when push comes to shove.

FRELIMO operated out of non communist countries such as Zambia and Tanzania. They were able to win, again, because they were unified, well organized, and won the trust of the people of Mozambique—-while the Portuguese government continued fumbling at shadows

If the apartheid regime had fallen years earlier Mugabe certainly wouldn’t have done to power. By clinging to its tyrannical practices for as long as it did the apartheid regime discredited moderates and doomed itself.
 
why you didn´t start that Bantu stolen 90% (?) of land from KhoeKhoe and San peoples? and today they have very very difficult relations with Bantu majority ?


Since the arrival of the Bantu expansion .... The advancing Bantu encroached on the Khoikhoi territory, forcing survivors of the indigenous populations to move to more arid areas of the Kalahari.....


Since the 2010s, there has been a "Khoisan activist" movement demanding recognition and land rights from the Bantu majority.[8]

I'm not arguing that the Bantu took the land of the KhoeKhoe, they also intermarried and interbred with them. I like that your link shows the arrival of the Bantu some 700 years before the OP will admit...

~ If the United States had fully supported the South African government it would never have fallen.

The US fully supporting apartheid would have been a colossally moronic idea ~

The support wasn't out in the open but it was there from the days of Verwoerd on to the last days with Botha. It started with the fact South Africa's apartheid system had an echo in Jim Crow and US segregation but became more political as South Africa positioned herself as a bastion against the Cubans in Angola.
 
every country has that issues
no, Muscovites are too primitive, too backward you bring to your colonial subjects only the sufferings , Muscovite like only to kill , rape , loot
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
(Протоколы сионских мудрецов) or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The hoax was shown to be plagiarized from several earlier sources, some not antisemitic in nature.[1] It was first published in Russia in 1903,
 
no, Muscovites are too primitive, too backward you bring to your colonial subjects only the sufferings , Muscovite like only to kill , rape , loot
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
(Протоколы сионских мудрецов) or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The hoax was shown to be plagiarized from several earlier sources, some not antisemitic in nature.[1] It was first published in Russia in 1903,

Oh look, more delusional blather from you.

Particularly hypocritical blather given how enthusiastic Lithuanians were in slaughtering their Jewish populace.
 
Oh look, more delusional blather from you.

Particularly hypocritical blather given how enthusiastic Lithuanians were in slaughtering their Jewish populace.
one for sure you do "care" only Jews, and never mention millions of Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Belarusians, Poles, Tatars, etc, not enough human for you ? or you are ok with Marxist terror?

The Kazakh famine of 1931–1933, also known as the Kazakh catastrophe, Asharshylyk and Zulmat[9] was a famine where 1.5 million (other sources state as many as 2.0–2.3 million[10]) people died in Soviet Kazakhstan, then part of the Russian Federal Republic in the Soviet Union, of whom 1.3 million were ethnic Kazakhs; 38% of all Kazakhs died, the highest percentage of any ethnic group killed in the Soviet famine of 1932–33.[3][7] Some historians assume that 42% of the entire Kazakh population died in the famine.[11]

The famine began in winter 1930, a full year before the great famine in Ukraine, with the height in the years 1931-1933.[12][7][13][14]

The famine made Kazakhs a minority in the Kazakh ASSR, caused by the massive amount of people who died or migrated, and not until the 1990s did Kazakhs become the largest group in Kazakhstan again. Before the famine, around 60% of the republic's population were Kazakhs, but only around 38% of the population were Kazakhs after the famine.[4][5][6][7]

The famine is seen by some scholars to belong to the wider history of collectivization in the Soviet Union and part of the Soviet famine of 1932–33.[13] Two thirds of the Kazakh survivors of the famine were successfully sedentarized due to the 80% reduction of their herds, the impossibility of resuming pastoral activity in the immediate post-famine environment, and the repatriation and resettlement program undertaken by Soviet authorities.[15] Kazakhstan's livestock and grain were largely acquired between 1929 and 1932, with one-third of the republic's cereals being requisitioned and more than 1 million tons confiscated in 1930 to provide food for the cities.
 
no, Muscovites are too primitive, too backward you bring to your colonial subjects only the sufferings , Muscovite like only to kill , rape , loot
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
(Протоколы сионских мудрецов) or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The hoax was shown to be plagiarized from several earlier sources, some not antisemitic in nature.[1] It was first published in Russia in 1903,

Muscovites ceased to exist hundreds of years ago.

Are you talking about RUSSIANS?

There are no RUSSIAN colonies.
 
one for sure you do "care" only Jews, and never mention millions of Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Belarusians, Poles, Tatars, etc, not enough human for you ? or you are ok with Marxist terror?

Nazis with their Lithuanian and Finnish lapdogs were part of the greatest industrialized genocide in history.

Only the RUSSIANS and the Allies stopped their genocidal march.

The Kazakh famine of 1931–1933, also known as the Kazakh catastrophe, Asharshylyk and Zulmat[9] was a famine where 1.5 million (other sources state as many as 2.0–2.3 million[10]) people died in Soviet Kazakhstan, then part of the Russian Federal Republic in the Soviet Union, of whom 1.3 million were ethnic Kazakhs; 38% of all Kazakhs died, the highest percentage of any ethnic group killed in the Soviet famine of 1932–33.[3][7] Some historians assume that 42% of the entire Kazakh population died in the famine.[11]

The famine began in winter 1930, a full year before the great famine in Ukraine, with the height in the years 1931-1933.[12][7][13][14]

The famine made Kazakhs a minority in the Kazakh ASSR, caused by the massive amount of people who died or migrated, and not until the 1990s did Kazakhs become the largest group in Kazakhstan again. Before the famine, around 60% of the republic's population were Kazakhs, but only around 38% of the population were Kazakhs after the famine.[4][5][6][7]

The famine is seen by some scholars to belong to the wider history of collectivization in the Soviet Union and part of the Soviet famine of 1932–33.[13] Two thirds of the Kazakh survivors of the famine were successfully sedentarized due to the 80% reduction of their herds, the impossibility of resuming pastoral activity in the immediate post-famine environment, and the repatriation and resettlement program undertaken by Soviet authorities.[15] Kazakhstan's livestock and grain were largely acquired between 1929 and 1932, with one-third of the republic's cereals being requisitioned and more than 1 million tons confiscated in 1930 to provide food for the cities.

Famine knows no political party.

 
Muscovites ceased to exist hundreds of years ago.
The father of communism Karl Marx's conclusion on Moscow history: "The bloody mire of Mongolian slavery, not the rude glory of the Norman epoch, forms the cradle of Muscovy, and modern "russia" is but a metamorphosis of Muscovy. .
 
The father of communism Karl Marx's conclusion on Moscow history: "The bloody mire of Mongolian slavery, not the rude glory of the Norman epoch, forms the cradle of Muscovy, and modern "russia" is but a metamorphosis of Muscovy. .

So what?

Muscovites ceased to exist hundreds of years ago.

Are you talking about RUSSIANS?

There are no RUSSIAN colonies.

Fact.

The RUSSIAN Tsardom began.

FACT.

The RUSSIAN Empire followed.

FACT.

The USSR overthrew the RUSSIAN Empire.

FACT.

The RUSSIAN Federation rose out of the USSR.

FACT.

The UN, USA, UK, NATO and every other organization recognizes the RUSSIAN Federation.

FACT.

Litwin.

Stop the stupid.
 
And yet all are still far more “advanced” that the Europeans longing for the days of colonialism and apartheid

Er, who longs for those things? Nobody I know.

Both are long gone.

Is this all you can come up with to be derogatory about whites?

What have you to say about the disgusting behaviour currently taking place in South Africa with blacks looting and pillaging?
 
It must be traumatic to be forced to leave one's country.

IMHO, sometime in the coming decades or at least in the next century, some Americans will be leaving the United States because of a certain reason.

I hear Red China is sending people to South Africa for various purposes. I hope that they can be kept safe there.

Wish you the best in your new, safe environment.

We are very happy here in Australia.

I just feel so sad for all my friends back in SA who are suffering now.

Regarding China, I am thankful that the UK, and now Australia, are helping people from Hong Kong to there. The persecution by China of those in favour of democracy in Hong Kong is shocking...and needs more publicity.
 
Here it is again: "what democratic principles and structures existed among the Khoisan and Bantu peoples before colonialism?"

In other words, the principle of "Democracy" is new to much of Africa. That much is pretty undisputable. You are implying that it's not and that somehow, the system of "democracy can be implanted onto a culture that never had it and suddenly make it work? There are actually few places in the world where it actually has worked so again - any examples would be great.

African history is full of instances where chiefs would listen to their people before making decisions. They didn't vote but the people did often have a say.

It's quite pathetic how you feel Africans are a victim. Even when it comes to democracy. A system they have chosen.

What nonsense to say that democracy was "implanted" in African culture. There was no democracy for blacks under colonialism or apartheid.

They fought to have democratic rights....."one man, one vote?.

You have no idea, All you want to do is blame whites for the poor behaviour and criminality of black people.
 
White nationalist groups get themselves involved in talking about how bad things are

Wow!

Have you seen the videos?

Things ARE going badly.

Again, do you see one single white in those videos looting and pillaging?
 
Mapungubwe - you feel that was the furthest south the Bantu ever travelled or settled?

I haven't said that. Why make things up? You keep inventing your own nonsense.

It depends what period you are talking about.

There are Bantu living in Cape Town today. The SA Parliament is there.

But when whites arrived at the Cape in 1652 there were none. That's why they imported their own servants...mostly indentured Malay people from Dutch colonised Batavia (Indonesia). The Bantu didn't attempt to cross the Kalahari desert to reach Cape Town. They preferred to live further north.

Do some reading up before posting utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Yeah and the new regime without such wars cannot even keep the lights on.

Yes. Unfortunately, that is so despite the huge amount of taxes it receives from the SA mining companies and other white owned companies.

Despite introducing racist legislation that discriminates whites, Indian and coloured people in favour of black people.
 
It certainly wasn’t, as shown by the fact that it LOST every one of those forever wars.

South Africa didn't lose any war.

Whites voted in a referendum to introduce democracy after being under both local and overseas pressure to introduce democracy.

South Africa had by far the biggest military in Africa and was never under threat.

Get your facts straight.
 
Which has literally nothing to do with South Africa.

Except that the Russian word pogrom meaning "to destroy, to wreak havoc, to demolish violently".

Which is exactly what blacks are doing in South Africa right now.
 
We are very happy here in Australia.

I just feel so sad for all my friends back in SA who are suffering now.

Regarding China, I am thankful that the UK, and now Australia, are helping people from Hong Kong to there. The persecution by China of those in favour of democracy in Hong Kong is shocking...and needs more publicity.
good post , but out Marxists dont care about SA about Europe, Australia , Hong Kong...long like Liberal order, down to despotism !!!
 
Back
Top Bottom