Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

@ayodejiolowokere1076 Can you name a place on earth where Africans have settled in large numbers and have become successful, prosperous and peaceful? Not very many places if at all. A horde indeed.
77
@ayodejiolowokere1076 and so you have admitted also race is the sole preoccupation of Rhodesia apologists. Its difficult to avoid the subject of race when Rhodesia was on an upward trend when Europeans were in charge and then it collapsed into another African failed state when it became Zimbabwe and Africans took over power and couldn't figure out how to maintain let alone improve their nation. The same thing is happening in South Africa right now. Every single time this is the case because Africans always want to take back control of a country before they're capable of running and maintaining a nation. Perhaps if they accepted that they weren't ready and learned from people that were smarter and more skilled than them and became properly educated, they could over time take over running their country and not have it turn into a disaster over and over again.
53
@ayodejiolowokere1076 Please name me these countries that you say are great places to live and have high standards of living that are predominately black and are run by black governments? I'm genuinely curious as to which of these nations are very low in crime, violence and murder and are high in education, development and economic success??
36
@conayinka There's been many states past and present with a homogeneous black African makeup that gave been successful. Nubia had advanced civilization before Egypt, and is likely where Egyptian society sprouted from. When you say some African nations were 'advanced' you really mean they were advanced relative to their neighbors in their region and NOT relative to other nations around the world. Its why when they did eventually come into contact with the rest of the world that Africans quickly found out that weren't very advanced at all compared to other parts of the world. European civilization comes from the Romans who got it from the Greeks who got it from the near East. Europeans greatest strength has nothing to do with mental capacity, it's simply the limitless cultural diffusion that the Mediterranean sea provides to their societies, and then the relative ease it can be spread past that because of how easily accessible the rest of Europe is. Disagree. It has EVERYTHING to do with mental capacity. When you come into contact with other people and nations, yes there can be trade and an exchange of ideas, inventions, knowledge etc., but here's the thing. You have to have the brains and the desire to learn and get educated and soak up all that knowledge and then take it and make use of it. That requires mental capacity and it requires hard work. For example several centuries ago lets say a foreigner just showed up in your village by the ocean one day on a great sailing ship and gave you the complete plans on how to build a ship exactly like theirs so that you too could sail the seas like them. Well that's great isn't it? You don't even have to draw up your own plans on how to build such a ship when the plans have been given to you and all you have to do is follow those plans and that's it. But that's the thing, you have to be INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to figure out what those plans mean and then how to put them to use properly every step of the way so that eventually you end up with a ship that's similar to what that foreigner who gave you the plans had. The point is if you don't have the mental capacity and desire to learn, then those plans are completely meaningless to you where they would be gold to other more intelligent people who could decipher what those plans mean, follow the design and directions and build a ship from those plans. So far as we've seen, we've rarely if ever seen Africans being able to learn and become educated to a high degree on a large scale the way much of the rest of the world has been able to do so. Sure there are a number of Africans who do become educated and go on to have great careers and such, but relatively speaking those are few and far in between. Now compare it to Africa where there's a big fucking desert stopping cultural diffusion from occurring until camels began to be widely used. Here's the thing. Aren't there a number of African communities who live by the oceans surrounding the African continent? Instead of going through the desert, why didn't they build ships and sail AROUND the desert and trade and exchange information with other civilizations like many other people did at the time? This is what many communities and nations did that eventually led to trade with others that increased prosperity so why didn't Africans do more of this when they often already lived by the ocean? Even if they weren't capable of building larger ships that could sail entire oceans to other continents, they could've still build smaller ships and boats that could traverse coastal waters all around them to explore and make contact with other people and trade and gain knowledge that they could then bring back home and analyze and learn and eventually become more advanced. So yes a desert was an obstacle, but it was an obstacle that could be overcome if you had the desire to overcome it. So why didn't Africans do this on a large scale and become more advanced?
20
This war was similar to Ukraine vs Russia except this time the Rhodesians were far superior to their enemy, but on the otherhand they didn't receive the help from the west that would've won them this conflict. Sad that western nations didn't think of the long term consequences of their decisions.
11
@maximipe An equitable solution would have been for Smith to allow black majority rule from the start and save the country the whole mess Why would you allow people who have little to no knowledge of how to run a farm let alone to run an entire nation to have power? You need educated, knowledgeable people to manage a country and to help it grow and black Zimbabweans were and still are very VERY far from that. If these people had any common sense and humility they would acknowledge their shortcomings and get themselves educated and learn from those that were smarter and skilled than they were so that one day they could take part in giving their input in how to run their nation and actually contribute positively. Instead they wanted power right away and as we've seen for the past several decades it went all to hell soon after.
10
I don't think anyone is really defending apartheid. Most sane, rational people understand that simply handing over power to a group of people who are wholly incapable of building and maintaining a nation before they were ready was a really, really bad idea. Imagine handing over the keys to your car to your 10 year old child who has never taken a driving lesson. Do you think that's a good, rational decision to make? Would it not make more sense to allow your child to grow and mature and take some driving lessons before letting them drive your car? The former is what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe where you gave power to a group of people much before they were ready to handle it and it ruined their nation. The same is going on in South Africa now just at a slower pace.
4
Dude the US ALONE outproduced the USSR to the point that they could supply all their armies AROUND THE GLOBE ACROSS OCEANS and still have plenty of supplies to give to all their allies as well. The Soviet armies had to use tens of thousands of US Studebakers to help keep their armies supplied. Without those trucks the Soviet armies would have a much tougher time moving their troops and supplies around the battlefield. The US industrial complex in WWII was so large that it could build hundreds of cargo and warships, countless amounts of trucks, armored vehicles and other vehicles and then build the largest airforce in the war as well. USSR really wouldn't have a chance against the western allies if they fought post-WWII.
4
@XandateOfHeaven Rhodesia was not "extremely successful" if it existed today it would be the third poorest country on earth. It was behind modern Zimbabwe in almost every metric including per capita GDP (inflation adjusted), life expectancy and literacy. What you completely left out was that Rhodesia back then was much more advanced and prosperous than pretty much every other African nation save for South Africa. Name one predominately African run nation on that continent that was more successful than Rhodesia at the time? You can't. Another thing you left out is that 'modern day' Zimbabwe is being propped up by the world who has given almost EVERYTHING on a silver platter to that country and every other African nation. Namely everything modern was created and built by someone outside of Africa and then that knowledge and know how was transported to Zimbabwe and other African nations to use because they would never in a million years be able to develop any of that knowledge, technology and skills on their own. You say that life expectancy and literacy is higher than when Rhodesia existed, well you can thank the outside world for that because Zimbabweans had NOTHING to do with that. If all nations suddenly decided that they wanted to leave Africa and leave them to their own devices, all of black Africa would fall back into the stone ages in no time because even what's been given to them now, they would simply plunder and strip it bare rather than learn how to maintain what they have and build upon it.
2
@XandateOfHeaven False. Nigeria and Botswana both had the same GDP per capita as Rhodesia 1978 and 1979. You didn't even bother to look up your claim to verify it did you? Nigeria and Botswana having a similar GDP to Rhodesia in the late 1970s when Rhodesia was fighting a civil war and being massively sanctioned by the rest of the world! Wow what an accomplishment! The same Nigeria THAT IN 2024 isn't capable of providing all its citizens with a steady 24/7 electricity supply the same as Zimbabwe where barely 50% of its population has access to electricity IN 2024. Well you certainly showed me how advanced these nations are! LOL The Germanic people of Europe would have never had civilization without the Romans given they were nomadic barbarians who didn't have a proper written language or any knowledge of engineering. Eastern Europe is the same, so is Japan which were all locked in a medieval state until importing industrial technology from western Europe. Here's the important fact that you leave out. There are many places and peoples around the world that were primitive and required other people/nations to bring more modern, organized society to them. The thing is when the Romans began civilizing Germanic and other people in Europe and elsewhere, many of those people USED THAT KNOWLEDGE to improve themselves and to progress and advance themselves. The knowledge and skills that the Romans spread around Europe and elsewhere, many people took that knowledge and skills and learned to use it themselves and began improving and modernizing themselves to rise from being primitive tribes and communities to become modern, civilized nations. The Japanese as you stated were decades behind western nations in development in the late 19th-early 20th century and guess what? Their government understood this and they sent many people around the world to LEARN from those that were superior to them at the time and bring back western knowledge and skills to their nation so that they could adopt those practices and rapidly improve themselves by skipping all the time needed to discover and invent everything themselves and simply copy what western nations were doing. And that's exactly what happened and its what allowed the Japanese make such a rapid transition from a feudal nation to becoming a modern industrialized country in just a few short decades. The thing is why haven't ANY African nations done the same? They have the EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITY as the Japanese did to take all the knowledge and skills that the modern nations of the world have and bring it to their own countries to implement and yet few if any have done that. Modern Zimbabwe spends 8% of its much higher inflation adjusted GDP on education, which has yielded positive results. What positive results? That they're no longer stuck in the stone ages? Because they still are completely reliant on the rest of the world providing help to them to prevent them from completely collapsing as a country. This is yet another reason Rhodesia almost certainly would have been worse today than modern Zimbabwe. Imagine a version of Zimbabwe that couldn't trade with its neighbors and spent 75% less on education. You just listed exactly why Rhodesia fell. Because it was sanctioned to hell and could no longer continue to fight their enemies. Imagine if the opposite happened and they received the same kind of military and economic support that Israel has received for decades from the US and other nations? They would've been able to defeat ZAPU and ZANU and continued their progression towards building a better nation and yes even improve the lives of most black Rhodesians over time. People make it sound like the mostly white Rhodesian government was purposely oppressing and keeping their black population poor and uneducated, but ask yourself honestly how many of these people ACTUALLY WANTED TO LEARN and improve themselves? It doesn't matter if you build the best, most modern schools for people if they don't want to take advantage of those facilities and to work hard to get themselves educated. You can see this phenomena happening in practically every western country were Africans even when they're given the opportunity to learn in modern schools like everyone else, a vast number of them choose not to do so and as a result they do poorly everywhere they go.
2
I don't think there's anything 'racist' about not wanting to hand over power to those that are completely incapable of welding it properly and have little desire to learn to do so. That's what happened to so many other African nations and they all turned into disasters to varying degrees. Rhodesians were forced to give up control and now Zimbabwe is not that much better off than their neighbors other than they're not currently involved in fighting themselves or someone else.
2
@TheStarshipGarage The plight of African nations mostly lies in ethnic conflict and the colonial borders that were drawn straight through them, causing many civil wars. Alongside that, you have resource exploitation and mismanagement that turn what can be a rich country into a hellhole Have you seen a map of Africa BEFORE colonization? Its literally HUNDREDS of different tribes occupying varying pieces of land of different sizes. Do you really want people to believe that if Europeans or anyone from the outside world for that matter had left Africa alone that Africans would all live in peace and harmony?? Or would the more likely outcome be that all these tribes would be fighting amongst themselves for land and resources? Namely doing what humans have been doing since the dawn of time. African countries like Botswana have shown that even a landlocked desert country can become a stable and democratic country if handled correctly. Can we be honest and just say that Botswana is doing better than its neighbors, but its still very far from being a huge success story like so many people want to say they are in an effort to try and prove that Africans can successfully run a nation? Its great that they seem to have a stable government that looks to be managing their nation half decently, but a quick Google search shows that they currently have an almost 30% nationwide unemployment rate. I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever seen any successful country have a near 30% unemployment rate among its population. Have you? Botswana has been lucky to be blessed with diamonds and other natural resources that help support their country, but it doesn't look like they're transforming that wealth to build other industries or to educate their people to a high level so that they don't have to rely on their resources so much for money. Rhodesia was a case of too little, too late. If they had transitioned to majority rule easier (or if Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had succeeded) Zimbabwe wouldn’t be in the hands of a dictator. Again why would you ever think its a good idea to hand over power to a population that is almost completely incapable of running and maintaining a country properly? You've seen it happen in many other African nations where its turned into massive disasters and yet somehow in Rhodesia its going to magically workout fine? If Africans had any humility and common sense, they would've asked Europeans to continue to run their nations while putting more effort into getting themselves educated so that one day when they've gained enough skills and knowledge to run a country, then they could have a gradual transition of power. That would've turned out so much better for so many African countries.
2
@tomascernak6112 They had also more than twice as many CIS and tactical aircraft, which are important to battle operations. In fact, Western allies had superiority only in strategic aircraft, so heavy and strategic bombers, which were no use, because mainland of USSR was out of their reach and soviet production facilities were out of reach till mid 50s. The western Allied airforce was VASTLY SUPERIOR to the Soviet airforce. Better high altitude fighters with a massive strategic bomber force that the Soviets never had the technology to develop. Do you remember the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? In 1946 the Americans were putting into production the B-36 Peacemaker which was ALMOST TWICE THE SIZE OF THE B-29 and could carry 4 TIMES the bombload of the B-29 and had a range of 20,000 KM. That's a heck of a bomber range that could reach a ton of places in Russia. If those "softies" would face battle hardened soviets, it will be slaugther, where would be no air superiority or fuel shortage to save them. Battle hardened soldiers means less when you're facing better trained, better organized and better led troops who are also better supplied and have vastly superior technology on their side.
2
It wouldn't have worked mainly because of lack of public and political support and NOT because western allied armies couldn't relatively easily defeat the Soviet army. Western armies were vastly more advanced and better supplied than the Soviet forces and there's no way the USSR could defeat the west on the battlefield when they had such a massive logistical advantage on their side.
2
@jonathanviera1589 1. Kanem Bornu, Kingdom of Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, the Somalian Sultanates, kingdom of Kanem, Kingdom of Kush, Swahili Coast, Ethiopian Empire, Wolo Empire, Kingdom of Luba, Mutapa, Hausaland, Ghana Empire, Mali Empire and Songhai Empire. Pretty much everyone you mentioned here were at best regional powers that were the biggest players in their own backyard. None of these African civilizations were very significant on the world stage and none of them accomplished anything that was hugely significant to the world that is still talked about to this day. The Romans created roads, aqueducts and many other structures that still exist to this day. They created one of the world's greatest civilizations and had an eternal impact on the course of human history. I'm looking at any of the African empires you listed and none of them had any kind of impact that's anywhere near what the Romans had on humanity. I think the best way to put it would be like an athlete being the best at an event in their own country and then going to the Olympics and competing against the best athletes in the world in that same event and then finding out that there's a huge difference between being the best in your nation and being the best in the world.
2
@duthegee How was Blackburn 'too inexperienced' to rappel down from a helicopter when he was a trained Ranger? By all accounts it seemed like the fall was an accident that could've happened to anyone.
2
Allies didn't even need nukes to defeat the Soviets in a conventional war. The allies were vastly more technologically advanced, had way better intelligence services and had bed trained and better led troops. There's no scenario where in a head to head fight the Soviets could ever defeat the allied armies post-WWII.
1
It would've been massively unpopular to continue a war against someone that you fought alongside of a short time ago. However knowing what we know now with the Cold War, perhaps many if not most people would be more inclined to fight that war against the Soviets so that at least Eastern Europe could be liberated from the USSR instead of suffering so much for so many decades under Russian rule.
1
@ngari117 What's your uneducated criticism on Vietnam and Algeria wiping out the French from their territories through bloodier wars?? Where they being ungrateful? I'd say yes they were ungrateful AND DUMB. Look at where their nations are now versus where they could be had they LEARNED from those that were smarter and more advanced than they were rather than kicking them all out. They could've taken the Japanese approach where they could've said to themselves 'Western people are so much more advanced and developed than we are. Lets take advantage of this opportunity to learn from them and improve ourselves much faster than we otherwise could do on our own.' That's called HAVING HUMILITY and the ability to acknowledge your own weaknesses and having the desire to improve yourself rather than getting angry that others are richer and more advanced than you currently are. If the Japanese didn't have that mindset where they learned from superior nations to industrialize themselves in the late 19th-early 20th century and then DO IT AGAIN post-WWII in rebuilding their shattered nation, they would have NEVER become the modern, super advanced society that they've become today. The same goes for South Korea. Imagine if both Vietnam, Algeria and many other nations adopted this mindset instead of saying 'GET OUT' even before they were educated and capable enough to run and maintain a nation? Most would be VASTLY better off than they are now. Haiti is another sad example of what kicking out all the smart and skilled people without having suitable replacements ready to take their place. They've never been the same since and are now just a complete wreck. Yeah people will point to the debt that France forced the Haitians to pay, but I'm pretty sure they didn't envision that it would take them 122 years to repay back 560 million dollars in today's money. And lets be real, Haiti would've done nothing different even without that debt and they'd still be the same as they are today.
1
@XandateOfHeaven You're just further exposing how poorly researched you are on this. 1978 and 1979 was the HIGHEST it ever was. Their per capita GDP actually increased during the civil war because of their massive military spending. Their GDP per capita in 1970 was only $350. So actually by comparing to 1978-79 I'm giving you the most favourable years. The biggest problem with your comparison is that you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a nation that's had 40+ more years to try and develop vs a nation that ceased to exist. In that case why not just compare 2024 Zimbabwe to Britain from 200 years ago and say Zimbabwe is so much better than the Britain of that era where living and working conditions were horrible so therefore Zimbabwe is better? Why not consider that maybe, JUST MAYBE that if Rhodesia had won the civil war and had the sanctions lifted and was allowed to develop its economy like other countries that in the same 40 year time frame it would've done much, MUCH better than Zimbabwe has in that same time frame? That everyone in Rhodesia in 2024 would have electricity in their homes rather than 50%? The other thing that you didn't mention was that the Europeans who founded and created Rhodesia built it into the nation it was from nothing. That country started off as a frontier fort and grew to become a modern city eventually becoming its capital. What part of all that nation building did any Africans take part in? Nothing. Even after Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and all that advancement and progress was handed on a silver platter to Mugabe and a black government, what did they do with it? Very little. The best they could do was barely keep their nation afloat with massive international help and funding. Here is where your argument is self-contradictory. You're saying that the Germans using the technology of others to improve itself is evidence of their greatness. But when I give you concrete examples of Africa improving itself, you say that it doesn't count because they're using the technology of others. I'm saying that the Germans, Japanese and many other people were able to take the knowledge of those that were more advanced than them and apply it to their own nations and improve themselves greatly. Tell me which African nation was able to do the same? The vast majority of African nations HAVE NOT learned to become more advanced and be self-sufficient for the majority of modern systems that are required to build and maintain a modern, civilized society. Practically every single African nation would collapse the moment the world decided to leave Africa because none of them have advanced enough to maintain all the complex systems that the world built for them. Name me a single major infrastructure project that has been built by Zimbabweans for their own country? ZERO. The Rhodesians built the country from scratch and then handed everything over to Zimbabwe on a silver platter who needed and still requires the world's help to maintain almost everything for them. That isn't learning. That isn't adapting knowledge and skills. That isn't the advancement of a people in a country. That's just a people who are barely surviving with massive external help. I don't even know how you can even remotely compare Japan or Germany learning compared to any people in African nations who are at the mercy of the world helping them for nearly every single thing.
1
@adinarapratama5607 Call it what you like, but everytime Africans have been given power, they WITHOUT FAIL turn everything into crap. Modern day Zimbabwe is still a third world nation that without the world propping them up would quickly descend back into the stone ages like every other African run nation would.
1
@XandateOfHeaven Then why is every country in Africa, without exception, better by every metric than when they were under colonial rule? Except THEY'RE NOT. All those African nations that were previously under rule by others were more organized, orderly and well run than any nation that's been taken over by the native population. South Africa is a perfect example where its in turmoil compared to what it was 30-40 years ago thanks to corrupt and incompetent leadership that isn't capable of running a supermarket let alone an entire nation. Also the ONLY REASON why any African nation is advancing even a little bit at all is because of all the outside help being given to them. If all the nations in the world collectively decided to leave Africa because it was too much trouble for them, practically every single nation would collapse into disarray and chaos.
1
@XandateOfHeaven This narrative that Rhodesia was a modern state and economy is a lie based on Rhodesian propaganda which only showed the lives of wealthy English landowners, which ignoring the 90% of the population which was poor. It is possible for a nation to be considered civilized, modern and advanced and still have regions and groups of people living in it that are poor and are struggling. Just look at the US where its the most economically powerful nation on earth and yet there's still tens of millions of people who are still living in poverty or at least below middle class standards. The thing is that in the US much like in most every other western nation, its almost always the same demographics of people that are struggling financially and socially. The reality is that Rhodesia in 1979 was poorer than Zimbabwe is today, and it's people were less literate and lived shorter lives. Calling Rhodesia civilized is like saying Brazil is civilized because a few wealthy people in Rio have comfortable lives, while ignoring the vast slums. Rhodesia in 1979 might be 'poorer' overall than present day Zimbabwe, but you don't mention the fact that its extremely likely that if white Rhodesians were still in charge today, Rhodesia would likely be far more prosperous overall and much more wealthy and better off than present day Zimbabwe. Why? Because white Rhodesians would be continually working towards bettering and improving their nation unlike the leaders of Zimbabwe that stole from its people and squandered its money and managed the country poorly to what it is present day. So the people living in present day Rhodesia would likely be far more better off than those living in present day Zimbabwe, even including the black population. I live in Canada and its the same thing here. The country and its people are generally doing OK and for some very well, HOWEVER despite living in a modern, civilized nation its ALWAYS been native and black people who are doing the absolute worst overall in this country. If Canada wasn't still run and maintained mostly by people of European heritage, it wouldn't be the nation it is today, it would be a wreck. Africans and native people despite being given the same opportunities to prosper and succeed as every other demographic of people living here, STILL consistently fail in lifting themselves up even after decades of help. Its like they want everything handed to them on a silver platter forever. I think that would be the case of a present day Rhodesia where its not the white Rhodesians who are preventing African Rhodesians from improving and bettering themselves, but rather many of them having little to no desire to put in the work to do so much like black and native people in Canada. The opportunity is there for them, they just choose not to take it and instead make more destructive life choices than everyone else.
1
@SOULAANI_ you cannot be a civilized and modern country with over 90 percent of the population in poverty, that’s not how that works keep coping tho So what's the excuse for Africans who moved to Sweden where all the modern infrastructure and systems are already built for them to use and take advantage of? How come even living in a peaceful, safe society that they didn't have to lift a finger to build, they STILL choose violence and crime over education and hard work? What about the tens of thousands of Somalis who moved to Canada and have lived there for 40+ YEARS? Again everything is already there for them to take advantage of to create their own success like so many other minorities have done and guess what? Still the poorest and most violent and criminal people here even after decades of living in a safe, peaceful country that they've made LESS safe and peaceful.
1
@ayodejiolowokere1076 what of reservations that limited Africans to 16 out of 66 seats in parliament on the basis of race? I'd say its necessary until Africans can prove that they're intelligent and educated enough to make proper decisions on how to maintain and run a nation. This is why everytime Africans take power and are in charge of a nation eventually goes down the drain through corruption and incompetent management. Things would be so much better if Africans would acknowledge that they're not prepared to run a country and ask for help while they become more educated and knowledgeable and learn from those who have experience before taking over themselves.
1
@hashteraksgage3281 Everytime someone tries to minimize lend-lease, they forget that the most important parts of lend lease was the logistics they sent. The Studebaker truck was vastly superior to anything the Soviets could produce and the US sent 150,000 to them that helped massively to motorize their forces so that they could move around the battlefield quickly while keeping them supplied. They also sent 2,000 locomotives and countless box cars to the Soviets as well for them to transport men, equipment and supplies to the front. As well they sent tons of high quality aviation fuel that the Soviets were incapable of producing themselves that kept their airforce fighting and they also sent tons of food and other supplies to keep Soviet armies fed during the war. Imagine if all that lend lease went to the Germans instead? Especially with the fuel, trains and trucks that would massively motorize the German army? There would be no way for the Soviets to defeat the Germans in WWII.
1
@Andrei-zn3sg But here's a question from recent events. Why did the Afghan army surrender the country to the Taliban almost without a fight, even though the United States provided it with excellent weapons? This was not the problem of the US, but the problem of the Afghans being of low IQ and incapable of learning what the Americans were teaching them. Also none of the Afghan army had any loyalty to the government they were suppose to be fighting for and they didn't have any desire to defend their country. And the Red Army defeated the prime forces of the Axis Countries, despite the enormous losses. The Soviets defeated the best German forces by taking huge losses in the majority of battles they fought against them. I bet you a billion dollars that if you put the western Allied armies on the Eastern Front and had them fight against the bulk of the German forces that they wouldn't have taken 9+ million soldiers killed to defeat them. Why? Because the western Allies were far better organized, had far better leadership, was far more technologically advanced, had better intelligence and had the best logistical support in the world that no one else could match. I think you really underestimate just how well organized and advanced the western Allies were when they could supply their armies ACROSS ENTIRE OCEANS both in the Atlantic and Pacific. Their production capacity was far superior to both German and Soviet war production, so the quantity advantage that the Soviets enjoyed against the Germans wouldn't be there against the west. The Germans could produce very good weapons, but never enough of them. The Soviets could produce good enough weapons in large quantities. The western Allies could produce great weapons in huge quantities. That's the difference that would win the war for the western Allies.
1
@fenrir7878 I'll never understand why many Africans want their independence and then as soon as they gain it they usually turn on each other in a fight for power that leads to the destruction of most everything that was built for them. Many people die, their nations are in tatters, but hey at least they have their 'freedom' from the evil colonizers who were the only intelligent people capable of building and managing a nation.
1
@ayodejiolowokere1076 Lets be honest and admit that if the world left sub-Saharan Africans alone and didn't interfere or interact with them at all that most Africans would still be living in mudhuts and hunting with spears in 2024. Africans wouldn't suddenly be creating a Wakanda like nation on their own and they'd still be living like they have thousands of years ago in the 21st century. If that's what you want then sure the world should leave you alone so that you can live however you want to live instead of trying to force you to civilize and live in a modern society.
1
@ayodejiolowokere1076 Progress has always been spurred by contact with others. A yoke though? No. I agree that progress and growth happens when you come into contact with others, but the part you left out is that you have to WANT TO LEARN from those that are more educated and advanced than you are. If you don't then you get left behind. Sure its much more difficult when you're oppressed, enslaved or subjugated by others, but that doesn't mean its impossible if you really want to. Just look around the world and see how many women and poor people with few resources still struggle to learn and become educated BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. Compare that to millions of Africans living around the world in civilized nations who are GIVEN the opportunity for a proper education and yet they fail to take advantage of it and instead turn to crime, violence and causing disorder everywhere they go. I live in Canada and its interesting to see how whether you're a minority or not every child is given the same opportunity to go to school and learn and become educated and you see many minorities take advantage of this system to improve themselves because they know its important to do so and then you see some groups like Africans who DO NOT take advantage of the same system and put in the same hard work to improve themselves. Instead far too many Africans here turn to crime and violence even when they have the freedom to choose a better path for their life. So what's the explanation for this where they have the same choice as everyone else and yet they choose the path of crime and violence over hard work and learning?
1
The difference is that Israel is MASSIVELY supported by the US and other nations so that it can continue to fight if it wants to compared to the Rhodesians where all the major powers turned their backs on them while the rebel groups received support from major nations. Give the Rhodesians the same constant unwavering support from the US that Israel has been getting from them for decades and its likely that Rhodesia probably still exists to this day similar to South Africa.
1
@hashteraksgage3281 On land the allies have no chance. They relied on numbers to win, but now they are the ones outnumbered. I would disagree on this. The western allies certainly had the numbers against the Germans by the time D-Day rolled around, but a big reason why the allies took far fewer casualties than the Soviets did was because they had better organization, better leadership and better trained troops who all created better fighting units backed up by massively better logistics and firepower. The same would happen against the Soviets if they fought the western allies. They would get defeated by superior firepower and better organized and trained armies. The air war would be a decisive allied win when their aircraft were far better and were being built in huge quantities. The Soviets had decent aircraft, but zero heavy bomber force. The allies could bomb the Soviet logistics into shambles and they wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it. To put things into perspective, the US had the biggest bomber with the B-29 during the war. If 1946 had come around with WWII still going, the Americans could've put into service the Convair B-36 Peacemaker which was a bomber that was NEARLY TWICE THE SIZE of the B-29 and could carry 4 TIMES THE BOMBLOAD. What exactly could the Soviet airforce do against such massive bombers protected by huge amounts of escort fighters? Pretty much nothing the same as the Germans lost the air war the moment allied aircraft could fly all the way to and from the enemy target. Bottom line is the Soviets still had a huge army at the end of WWII, but almost every advantage would be in the allies' favor especially when it came to logistics and airpower.
1
US is going down the drain right now too when they're letting the Mad King to run their nation.
1
@ayodejiolowokere1076 Zimbabwe is more developed in every metric. In literacy rates, in urbanization, in infant mortality, in middle class size. Yes Zimbabwe was so great and so advanced and educated that your citizens couldn't run the farms that you stole from white farmers and gave to black Zimbabweans and when they failed you had to BEG these white farmers to come back to help you run them again. That TOTALLY PROVES how educated African Zimbabweans are!! Also how can Zimbabwe not be super successful when the government was able to make every Zimbabwean a TRILLIONAIRE and hence the richest people on the planet!! Nothing shows success more than carrying around trillion dollar bills in your pocket!!! 🤣😂😅😆😅🤣
1
@arthas640 This war was a guerrilla war with the guerrillas trying to overthrow colonists who already held the entire country. Ukraine is a defensive war, not a revolution, and its a conventional war more like WW2 then it is like this war or Vietnam. The guerrillas wanted to overthrow the Rhodesian government not because it wanted to 'liberate' the people from their colonizing rulers, but because they wanted power and control of the country for themselves and that's exactly what happened. Once Mugabe gained power, he and his cronies became wealthy while much of the rest of the people remained poor. How did he improve the standard of living for his people and improve his nation when he was in power? Zimbabwe turned into a craphole under his rule. So please stop trying to frame the guerilla uprising as some noble cause of 'freeing' Zimbabweans from the tyranny and oppression of white colonizers when all it was about was power and money.
1
@joninator7858 White Rhodesians fought to keep minority rule because they knew what would happen if African Rhodesians took over power and they were 100% right.
1
@hjusn America, South Africa and Rhodesia are legend in their racism. As we speak, America is still struggling with it. The US IS NOT 'struggling with racism'. Its struggling with crime, violence and everyday bad behaviors from a demographic of people who mostly cannot be civilized despite the best efforts of those in charge. Then when people criticise these horrible behaviors and want them held accountable, these people cry 'racism' rather than acknowledge that its THEIR ACTIONS that are turning people against them and NOT their skin color. Also this doesn't even mention how this supposed 'oppressed and marginalized' group of people are themselves massively racist and are huge bullies who have no problems oppressing others around them. Just look at all the attacks against Asian people in the US and then see who's responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence and crime committed against them and I'm sure you'll find that it ain't white people behind most of it.
1
@lonelychameleon3595 Just goes to show that military victories aren’t enough. In this case the Rhodesians lost because they ran out of weapons, equipment and ammunition to fight with. When you're fighting with a manpower deficit you need more firepower to compensate and when they lost their external support then this conflict was lost. If the Rhodesian forces received the same support that Ukraine is receiving now to fight the Russians with, they would win easily on the battlefield and might only have to deal with guerilla attacks here and there that might popup.
1
@XMysticHerox Purely merit. It just so happened that on one hand you had people that already owned all the industry, were very wealthy and had great access to education. And on the other side they had absolutely nothing. Very fair and meritocratic You have to start somewhere and most people start at the bottom whereas Africans want everything handed to them on a silver platter whether they deserve it or not, whether they're capable of managing things or not. Maybe they should get their population educated up to at least highschool levels before they start thinking about running a country? Perhaps that's the main reason why almost everytime they take power in a country it goes to hell instead of becoming prosperous, peaceful and safe.
1
@jonathanviera1589 * Africans had cities, kingdoms, empires and a mastery of iron, weaving and other elements so that Stone Age concept makes no sense.* Please tell me all these great African empires that were so modern and advanced for their time? I'm not sure you'll find one that reached even the Roman level of advancement and had the same impact on the world as the Romans did let alone several.
1
The thing is many Germans probably would've been signing up to fight it if it meant they could push the Communists out of their country.
1
More like prison guards. They tried their best to keep the inmates contained, but they eventually broke out and destroyed everything they touched like they always do.
1
@SMellmYfEet1999 Its the sad truth though whether we like it or not. Look all around the world and ask yourself where do you find any large populations of Africans being prosperous, peaceful and not causing damage? Very few places if any if you want to be honest with yourself. The thing is it doesn't have to be this way and Africans can be just as successful and peaceful as anyone else if they ever bothered to acknowledge their problems, work hard at fixing them and getting themselves educated so that they can live in a modern world. The problem is most Africans have little to no desire to do any of this EVER.
1
@Real_Yod African students have higher passing rates than white british students because they work harder and when given the same oppurtunities they do better You're kidding yourself if you believe this to be true for the majority of Africans. If what you say is true then Africans in the UK and every other western country wouldn't be committing so much crime and violence compared to anyone else. I have no doubt that some Africans are very educated and hard working, but these are in the minority otherwise African nations wouldn't be the crapholes that they are today.
1
It wouldn't work because of lack of public and political support. It would've worked because of the massive logistical and technological advantages that the western allies had.
1