Why did Britain oppose minority British rule over native Africans,

>>2713282
Because the eternal leaf decided to push for NIBMAR.

>>2713282
The eternal anglo got their fuulings hurt with the declaration of independence of Rhodesia.So they tried to sabotage the country and their Brittish citizens due muh pride

File: FB_IMG_1493000140405.jpg (20KB, 445x445px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 445x445px

>>2713282
>Why did Britain oppose minority British rule over native Africans, whilst supporting Israeli Jewish rule over Arabs?

Because the Palestinians wouldn't have helped to invade Nasser

>>2713282
>why does the labour party which hates british people stab british people in the back

>>2713282
Jews owned all the papers in Britain at the time and told us what the truth was.

>>2713282
>Why did Britain oppose minority British rule over native Africans, whilst supporting Israeli Jewish rule over Arabs?
Because by 1965 Britain had nothing to do with Israel? Never mind that Israel fought an independence war in 1948 precisely because Britain *didn't* support Jewish majority rule?
Also, it wasn't Britain (at least under Wilson) that was hardline about majority rule, it was the Americans, especially Kissinger

Firstly Rhodesia and South Africa had incredibly close relations with Israel.

Secondly supporting white minority led governments got you kicked out power back home and so the British refused to grant independence unless an African majority government was met as a requirement. The Rhodesians refused and so they unilaterally declared independence and pissed the British off.

Also "muh race" and "muh skin" colour means nothing in the world of geopolitics.

>>2714089
>Also "muh race" and "muh skin" colour means nothing in the world of geopolitics.
Because the wrong side lost the war

>>2714099
Which war?

And no. It never has in the history of the world and you would benefit greatly from heeding this advice.

>>2714103
>It never has in the history of the world
>This delusion

>>2714109
>this lack of arguments

Do you have evidence at least to back your claims? Do you even know what "geopolitics" means?

>>2714113
>Do you have evidence at least to back your claims?
Yes. In multiple cases. You being illiterate means very little. Having a place inhabited by a people with ties with you usually boost relationships,increases trade a lot and grants you more influence over the country. That is why Canada and Australia are way closer to the UK than Nigeria or Chad

>>2714131
>multiple cases
>provides none

Australia is much closer to the USA than it is to th UK. It also forges these alliances because these alliances have worth in terms of trade and military defense.

Go on. What do you have? Give me an alliance or war that was fought on racial or cultural lines and I will give you the real reasons.

>>2714142
>Give me an alliance or war that was fought on racial or cultural lines and I will give you the real reasons.
Not him but you've already decided a priori that wars fought on cultural/ethnic/racial grounds don't exist so whatever examples he's going to provide to you they can't possibly be valid.

>>2714089
>Also "muh race" and "muh skin" colour means nothing in the world of geopolitics.

How can you say that when Britain refused to grant independence to Rhodesia because they wouldn't elevate their native class of citizen to the vote? That was the entire cause of the conflict to begin with.

It's more accurate to say the west doesn't WANT "muh race" and "muh skin" to have things to do with geopolitics and when reality hits that you have a class of people not ready for democracy, things get ignored due to an agenda.

>>2713395
If you'd read anything about Rhodesia you would know that the Conservatives openly undermined Rhodesia as well