What caused the post-WWII decolonization of Africa?

All the sources I check cite bullshit like "so-and-so Western leader campaigned for it" and "Africans decided they wanted to be independent", but if that were really all it took why didn't it happen earlier?

communism

Because it was found to be impossible to have a functioning country with blacks as fellow peers. The moment you treat them as equals, they swarm and destroy you.

Colonies cost a bunch of money and there's no point.

Also it became morally and therefore politically unsupportable.

WW1 and WW2 broke european political power and confidence in its moral superiority. It's kind of difficult to lecture eg an indian about the virtues and superiority of the white race after trying to explain what the hell the reason for WW1 was and how it could be that an archduke being shot in the Balkans leads to canadian soldiers fighting germans in Belgium and australians dying on the shores of Gallipoli.

And if that was not bad enough, WW2 comes along:

Brit: Alright, Indian subject, you need to come help us fight the germans
Indian: Sorry sir, why the hell should I care about this war again?
Brit: Well you see, the germans are a bunch of evil cunts who want to build an empire and either subjugate or exterminate all people they consider part of an inferior race
Indian: Fair enough...and when me and my people are finished bleeding and dying to stop this, what happens then?
Brit: Well, then everything reverts back to normal where your country is a colony of the British empire and your poeple are considered inferior to white people

The United States demanded the decolonisation of the European empires as the price for assistance during the Second World War. Conveniently enough for us, African countries had long since stopped being worth running.

...

But even without that, chances are good that the colonies would have ended up independent at some point anyway. If the africans and asians did not get their act together, the local whites would have eventually started asking why the hell they are taking orders from wankers in europe to begin with, pretty much how most of the countries in the Americas became independent on their own. And once the "meme" has established itself that everyone wants to be independent then it becomes exceedingly expensive and difficult to maintain control over a colony, and then it just becomes a money game and you see how much profit you will still be making sending soldiers overseas to beat colonists and natives into submission vs. granting them independence and establishing good trade relations.

It's the same game which rendered slavery largely obsolete where it turns out hiring people to do something for you tends to be more productive than beating them into doing it against their will.

USA and USSR imperialism. They needed to have an "independent" africa in order to finance the warlords and have a chance to get them under their own influence, for cheap resources.

>Europeans are nationalist
>European intellectuals set up schools in Africa to educate Africans
>Africans become nationalist
>Africans kick out Europeans

it was to prevent colonized countries to become comunist countries. it was better to make them free in good terms and even by imposing them token leaders that would favour their former masters than waiting for them to rebel. Once "free" the communists in those colonised countries had no real argument against their oppressors and no way to take over.

ww2 left us bankrupt we may of technically won but pretty much lost everything in the process. Britain pretty much sold its soul to win

this

A combination of all of these.
After WW2 europe was broke, so they turned their attentions back to home. This was jsut nice for USA and USSR to take over their proxy wars there.
Meanwhile, fighting communist guerrillas is literally civil war. It requires a strong government with a free political hand to win the war, but ex colonies were european liberal states and couldnt make it.

word

JewSA forced their vassal to release their colonies

>France and Britain were now dependent on America financially, and America did not want colonial rebellions backed by the Soviets to cause wars
>Americans did not want Europeans to have exclusive access to colonial markets
>Colonies were becoming too expensive to garrison and administer, especially due to the British loss of India in 1947 cutting off Britain's access to a vast pool of Indian manpower. As a result, the UK continued conscription after the war, which upset many voters
>It was feared that violent rebellions would have a tendency to produce Communist dictatorships rather than free democratic nations that were on good terms with the west
>The EFTA failed, and Britain joined the EEC instead, meaning they had to turn their backs on the Empire

Stupid burger muricans (FNLA/UNITA) and ruskies (MPLA) backing up the liberation movements .

Funny thing: The civil wars after the independence have killed way more than all casualties on the previous fight for the actual independence. Not to mention the level of corruption (Isabel dos Santos)

>Africans then go to Europe
>European """intellectuals""" set up programmes in Europe to educate Africans...

>>Europeans are nationalist
>>European intellectuals set up schools in Africa to educate Africans
>>Africans become nationalist
>>Africans kick out Europeans

> Africans wage war among themselves
> Africans genocides another africans
> Countries who could survive on their own and had food are a plague of famine (Angola , Moçambique, Zimbabwe)
> Africans beg for European help

FPBP. The chinks, USSR, and Cuba had training forces and supplies sent to Africa to rouse the rabble.

>Colonies cost a bunch of money
This is some jewish city of london bullshit. Colonies make money. To show you its bullshit if colonies cost money why did they let them flood the UK?

Murcan supplied also the money: "The armed branch of FNLA was the National Liberation Army of Angola (ELNA). It was mainly supported by Congo/Zaire - where its troops were based and trained - and by Algeria. They were financed by the USA and - despite considering themselves anti-communists - received weapons from the Eastern European countries."

If you really want to get redpilled a lot about this see a documentary called COLD WAR: "Good Guys, Bad Guys" - Ep 17. Also see ""Backyard"" - Ep 18

Series was produced by Pat Mitchell and Jeremy Isaacs from BBC's World at War and it has a similar tone.

Good thread, have a bump

Jews, communists, a bankrupt Europe.

Western companies still own all the mineral wealth

Western countries just decided it was no longer profitable to actually try and maintain colonies and govern the niggers it would just be cheaper to have companies go to the newly independent places and extract any valuable resources and just let the niggers run around on the rest of the land

US and USSR did it, the first to rob europeans, the second to damage capitalists.