The concept of "Colony" is so different as the concept of "Country"! As Portuguese, I am angry for the Portuguese government just invested, or at least, had invested much more in Africa, than in Portugal, where these great, new buildings were not built! The envy,rival, racist countries confused their kind of "Apartheidism" with The Portuguese Globalism!
Why did the Portuguese quit their colonies when they supposedly won the counterinsurgency campaign?
- Thread starter Leftyhunter
- Start date
Last edited:
Haha. I was under the impression that it was the USA not Portugal that was the superpower of the late 20th century, but I am clearly mistake.
Next you are going to tell us that Portugal defeated the Axis powers on its own and sent the first man to the moon.
If South Africa or the UK, let alone the US wanted the immediate demise of the Portuguese colonies they could have done it almost overnight, and probably without firing a single bullet.
See Suez canal crisis for reference and I am sure you are familiar with the British Ultimatum of 1890.
This is a classic example of what I was referring to in my previous post. A lost cause narrative. So is Portugal a strong country or a weak one, which is it?
Congratulations, you have just discovered how wars work. If only every tribe, state, nation and country that has ever been defeated had infinite wealth to wage endless war or a population with indefatigable morale, then no society would have ever lost a war. In the extraordinary rare case in which such nation is defeated it would be after every child, woman and man has been utterly vanquished in furious combat for in such a nation, surrender would be an alien concept. Sadly for us, no such nation has ever existed. The great nations of history whom had been able to exert influence on others, were the ones that made effective use of its finite finances (resources) and get its people to buy into its propaganda. In other words, victorious nations succeed in spite of limitations not in the absence. Losing a conflict because you ran out of resources or low morale amongst your populace are very legitimate reasons for losing a war.
The repeatedly stated objective of Portugal was to stop the secession of its Angola and Mozambique as they are integral provinces of Portugal.
The Objectives of MPLA and FRELIMO was to make Angola and Mozambique independent as both parties believed that their countries should not be part of Portugal.
Neither side could come to a diplomatic solution, so naturally they engage in violent conflict and in 1975 Angola and Mozambique were independent. How exactly can one interpret this as anything but victory for the rebel factions, they achieved their explicitly stated objectives while the Portuguese government not only surrendered power directly to the same rebels (at least in the case of Mozambique, MPLA became government by default of controlling Launda at the time) but was also toppled. To further emphasis how much of a thorough victory the rebels won in Mozambique, when Portugal proposed a federation with the colonies as a form of concession in 1974, Machel outright rejected the idea and insisted on independence instead. This is not the action of a losing side.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means and by that definition the Rebels certainly won as they accomplished all their stated objectives without making any concessions.
Moreover, you talk about Portugal's "enormous financial effort that the country" as a reason for why it lost yet you haven't considered that the rebels had even less. Portugal was an independently recognised country with massive territories on three continents. It possessed the ability to borrow money to buy the latest weapons from the international community which it did. It had a large modern army (200,000 by 1970) and an authoritarian government that was utterly committed to retaining the colonies at all cost, thus Portugal at the start of the wars possessed considerable resources and the will to use it.
What exactly did the rebels have at the start of the wars? They possessed no territories of their own let alone a whole independently recognised country. The only financial support they had was that which they could secure through their own efforts. They had no army but had build one from scratch. They had no experience of administration, logistics or warfare so they often had to learn on the job. They possessed very little heavy or sophisticated equipments crucial to winning a modern war. The only advantage they had over Portugal was the willingness to fight as long as it takes to gain independence; an appetite that Portuguese citizens apparently lacked.
One only has to look to Portuguese Mozambique's neighbour South Africa to see the difference in outcome had FRELIMO not won an outright victory. Unlike the Portuguese colonies, Insurgents never at any point openly controlled parts of the country or its colony of Namibia. While it could not have held out indefinitely, it was able to bring the rebels to the negotiation table and as a result white South Africans still retain significant socio-economic status while in the Portuguese colonies, settlers were compelled to flee in fear of retaliation. While the ANC achieved their desired objective of liberating the country, they had to make significant concessions to White South Africans, something they probably would not have done (to a such an extent) had they won an outright victory.
We are all neglecting the role of Guinea Bissau In Portugal's colonial defeat. In my previous post, I gave a number of reasons why no defeat similar to Diem-Bien-Phu occured in Africa during decolonization phase. The reasons were lack of training, heavy equipment and powerful sympathetic neighbouring countries. Well in Guinea Bissau, Portugal was months away from experiencing such a defeat by PAIGC. The reason being that unlike in Southern Africa where Portugal was supported by South Africa and Rhodesia, in west Africa it was the African rebels who were heavily supported by the newly independent nations, especially Senegal and Guinea (Nigeria with financial support). As a result of close regional support, PAIGC soldiers were better trained, funded and consequently had access to heavy equipment which they put to good use. By 1971, PAIGC already controlled most of the countries interior, pushing Portugal to the coastal towns and by 1973 it was nullifying Portugal's air superiority with anti-aircraft missiles.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD
The significance of Guinea Bissau on the other two theaters was that Portugal could not abandon it to focus on its Southern African colonies as it would set a precedent. Of the three main land colonies, Guinea was by far the least important but defeat there meant defeat everywhere as it would challenge the very notion that all the colonies of Portugal were integral part of the country that could not break away.
I am not sure if I should take you serious or not but I will try. When you have to show very selective videos of developed metropolitan areas as your argument for the Portuguese colonies being good, then you are scraping from the bottom of the barrel. If a small wealthy minority living in developed areas of a country is the standard for a good government, then there are very little if any bad countries in existence today. It is not a great administrative feat to maintain a high standard for a small minority by ignoring or actively exploiting the majority. Just about every country in the world can do this. Nigeria is a country with nearly half a trillion dollars GDP, some 30,000 dollar multi-millionaires and in each city in the country, there is a highly developed area reserved for the wealthy. The development in some parts of Lagos and Abuja will rival that of any first world country yet this does not change the fact that most of country is still heavily underdeveloped. It does not change the fact that about 50% of the country subsize on less than two dollars a day. Most would not flinch from calling Nigeria a bad country and they would not be wrong. Yet with the settler colonies some folks give them a pass despite having the same kind of development model to contemporary African countries. Apart from perhaps observers from the other settler colonies, I have yet to read one contemporary observer who was impressed with the Portuguese colonies. British, American and at least one unbiased Portuguese official (from the metropole) were all unanimous in their condemnation on the state of development and governance in the colonies. Even South African observers in the 1920s were critical of the lack of development in the Portuguese colonies. One cannot really overstate how under developed the Portuguese colonies were.
The second part of your statement is a creative spin on the truth. There were no organisations like the "KKK" because the government more or less fulfilled that role although that did not stop settlers from dispensing mob justice when it suited them. Portugal's supreme claim to moral superiority to other European powers is that of it's non-racist attitude towards africans which of course is completely false. Portugal differed from the likes of South Africa in that it was not as petty in enforcing racial discrimination. There was no signs such as "Only Whites allowed" and interracial relationships (relatively few) was not criminalized. This of course was a mere facade, a state myth. As I hope to have demonstrated in my previous posts, the Portuguese were thoroughly convinced that the African was only useful as a servant to Whites. They believed in their racial supremacy (albeit with a particular Portuguese character) with as much fervor as the Afrikaans in South Africa. In the aftermath of the Baxia revolt in 1961 in which forced African cotton growers revolted against plantation owners in Northern Angola, the government unleashed a brutal and indiscriminate killings of some 30,000 - 50,000 Africans while over 150,000 fled to the DRC. Meanwhile, in the cities like Launda, government and white vigilantes began widespread retaliation against Africans, in response to an attempt by Black nationalists to free members from prison (some policemen were killed). Especially targeted in these attacks were educated natives that the poorer whites taught might pose a threat to their economic aspirations.
Mozambique : from colonialism to revolution, 1900-1982
by Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara
Everyone was certainly not free to go where they pleased! This statement is rather egregious.
How can a country that ran mandatory forced labour of natives for 6 months in a year be said to have unrestricted movement? If they were allowed to go where they please, they certainly won't be working for settlers, private and government companies for next to no pay.
Even the so called "assimilados" had to to carry id cards around them when they travelled. Have you actually read anything on the Portuguese colonies or even my previous posts?
You are trying to paint a utopia that not only did not exist, but verged on a dystopia for millions of Africans.
Very dishonest. Are you trying to imply that massive African poverty did not exist under Portuguese rule?
Self indulgent tripe. I will not dignify with a response.
The lack of self-awareness is astounding. How do you think that Bissau-Guinean, Angolans and Mozambicans feel that their people were exploited for generations and all they received in return was near total illiteracy, poverty and development catered almost exclusively to Portuguese settlers.
Investment on the colonies only exceeded that of the metropole in the late 1960s and this was inflated by the war effort to a degree. Moreover, one must consider that there were 5 colonies, thus individually investment in each colony was still smaller than the Metropole despite collectively having a bigger population.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD
Well, if building a new country, is nothing, why just Portugal made the richest colonies in the world? Macau, Goa, Brasil, Angola? The text you presented is .... propaganda from the Portugal enemies! Tell jus one country better than the Portugal colonizations and we are considering all the colonies, not just one lucky territory like the US full of minerals, which just in 126 years, without minerals, we could measure, how rich they really are? Britains had more than 100 colonies!
Haha. I was under the impression that it was the USA not Portugal that was the superpower of the late 20th century, but I am clearly mistake.
Next you are going to tell us that Portugal defeated the Axis powers on its own and sent the first man to the moon.
If South Africa or the UK, let alone the US wanted the immediate demise of the Portuguese colonies they could have done it almost overnight, and probably without firing a single bullet.
See Suez canal crisis for reference and I am sure you are familiar with the British Ultimatum of 1890.
This is a classic example of what I was referring to in my previous post. A lost cause narrative. So is Portugal a strong country or a weak one, which is it?
Congratulations, you have just discovered how wars work. If only every tribe, state, nation and country that has ever been defeated had infinite wealth to wage endless war or a population with indefatigable morale, then no society would have ever lost a war. In the extraordinary rare case in which such nation is defeated it would be after every child, woman and man has been utterly vanquished in furious combat for in such a nation, surrender would be an alien concept. Sadly for us, no such nation has ever existed. The great nations of history whom had been able to exert influence on others, were the ones that made effective use of its finite finances (resources) and get its people to buy into its propaganda. In other words, victorious nations succeed in spite of limitations not in the absence. Losing a conflict because you ran out of resources or low morale amongst your populace are very legitimate reasons for losing a war.
The repeatedly stated objective of Portugal was to stop the secession of its Angola and Mozambique as they are integral provinces of Portugal.
The Objectives of MPLA and FRELIMO was to make Angola and Mozambique independent as both parties believed that their countries should not be part of Portugal.
Neither side could come to a diplomatic solution, so naturally they engage in violent conflict and in 1975 Angola and Mozambique were independent. How exactly can one interpret this as anything but victory for the rebel factions, they achieved their explicitly stated objectives while the Portuguese government not only surrendered power directly to the same rebels (at least in the case of Mozambique, MPLA became government by default of controlling Launda at the time) but was also toppled. To further emphasis how much of a thorough victory the rebels won in Mozambique, when Portugal proposed a federation with the colonies as a form of concession in 1974, Machel outright rejected the idea and insisted on independence instead. This is not the action of a losing side.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means and by that definition the Rebels certainly won as they accomplished all their stated objectives without making any concessions.
Moreover, you talk about Portugal's "enormous financial effort that the country" as a reason for why it lost yet you haven't considered that the rebels had even less. Portugal was an independently recognised country with massive territories on three continents. It possessed the ability to borrow money to buy the latest weapons from the international community which it did. It had a large modern army (200,000 by 1970) and an authoritarian government that was utterly committed to retaining the colonies at all cost, thus Portugal at the start of the wars possessed considerable resources and the will to use it.
What exactly did the rebels have at the start of the wars? They possessed no territories of their own let alone a whole independently recognised country. The only financial support they had was that which they could secure through their own efforts. They had no army but had build one from scratch. They had no experience of administration, logistics or warfare so they often had to learn on the job. They possessed very little heavy or sophisticated equipments crucial to winning a modern war. The only advantage they had over Portugal was the willingness to fight as long as it takes to gain independence; an appetite that Portuguese citizens apparently lacked.
One only has to look to Portuguese Mozambique's neighbour South Africa to see the difference in outcome had FRELIMO not won an outright victory. Unlike the Portuguese colonies, Insurgents never at any point openly controlled parts of the country or its colony of Namibia. While it could not have held out indefinitely, it was able to bring the rebels to the negotiation table and as a result white South Africans still retain significant socio-economic status while in the Portuguese colonies, settlers were compelled to flee in fear of retaliation. While the ANC achieved their desired objective of liberating the country, they had to make significant concessions to White South Africans, something they probably would not have done (to a such an extent) had they won an outright victory.
We are all neglecting the role of Guinea Bissau In Portugal's colonial defeat. In my previous post, I gave a number of reasons why no defeat similar to Diem-Bien-Phu occured in Africa during decolonization phase. The reasons were lack of training, heavy equipment and powerful sympathetic neighbouring countries. Well in Guinea Bissau, Portugal was months away from experiencing such a defeat by PAIGC. The reason being that unlike in Southern Africa where Portugal was supported by South Africa and Rhodesia, in west Africa it was the African rebels who were heavily supported by the newly independent nations, especially Senegal and Guinea (Nigeria with financial support). As a result of close regional support, PAIGC soldiers were better trained, funded and consequently had access to heavy equipment which they put to good use. By 1971, PAIGC already controlled most of the countries interior, pushing Portugal to the coastal towns and by 1973 it was nullifying Portugal's air superiority with anti-aircraft missiles.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD
The significance of Guinea Bissau on the other two theaters was that Portugal could not abandon it to focus on its Southern African colonies as it would set a precedent. Of the three main land colonies, Guinea was by far the least important but defeat there meant defeat everywhere as it would challenge the very notion that all the colonies of Portugal were integral part of the country that could not break away.
I am not sure if I should take you serious or not but I will try. When you have to show very selective videos of developed metropolitan areas as your argument for the Portuguese colonies being good, then you are scraping from the bottom of the barrel. If a small wealthy minority living in developed areas of a country is the standard for a good government, then there are very little if any bad countries i
You are a typical german who cant attack britain so he fats his ego against Portugal, who just in the last 100 years were passed by Germany, in 3000 years of german barbarians, canibals....sorry to Kill Jew children alive in the furnaces of Auschwitz is it civilized, uberalles, arent germans SO SUPERIOR???? Look about the 13 millions of german slaves in a few days ago (1944) 13 miilions, more than all the entire Afro slaves in America. Ignorants! Guine, Angola and especially Mozambique were not just Portuguese slaves. Just in the 19th century these bacame Portuguese colonies. In the 17th century, the British, Dutch, French, Germans, Scandinavians were getting slaves on those regions, you ignorant, full of hate like a typical SS NAZI! GO KILL JEWS, LIKE YOU LOVE TO DO, YOU BARBARIANS , IGNORANT! The locals are now being exploited, by the german, british, american, dutch, belgium, french, australian and chinese minnig companies, you must know how GERMANY AND BITISH ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PALNET JUST FOR MAKING MORE BMWsMORE bmws bmws bmws bmws.
View attachment 33852
How ignorant can be a person that ignores the true reazon why Europe do not lives in the middle age and who developed the technics and knowledge to cross the entire world and for the first time to make Europe above middle ages and richer than everyone else! That is the price to pay for anglosaxonics and protestants anti Portugal history intempt for destruction, which the Chinese are taking advantadge. Like others took, when the germans claimed to be uberalles and in the end were completly destroyed and they were not exterminated, because the americans fought for them! However arrogance always was the best weapon for losing the game!
Here's one way of looking at the Portuguese in Africa vs Rhodesia and South Africa and that is their military. The South African Army didn't even have armed indigenous African units until the late 1970s when the South African Army rearmed the Cape Colored Corps and established 21 Battalion composed of South African blacks and 32 Battalion formed from former Angolan FNLA guerrllas.Haha. I was under the impression that it was the USA not Portugal that was the superpower of the late 20th century, but I am clearly mistake.
Next you are going to tell us that Portugal defeated the Axis powers on its own and sent the first man to the moon.
If South Africa or the UK, let alone the US wanted the immediate demise of the Portuguese colonies they could have done it almost overnight, and probably without firing a single bullet.
See Suez canal crisis for reference and I am sure you are familiar with the British Ultimatum of 1890.
This is a classic example of what I was referring to in my previous post. A lost cause narrative. So is Portugal a strong country or a weak one, which is it?
Congratulations, you have just discovered how wars work. If only every tribe, state, nation and country that has ever been defeated had infinite wealth to wage endless war or a population with indefatigable morale, then no society would have ever lost a war. In the extraordinary rare case in which such nation is defeated it would be after every child, woman and man has been utterly vanquished in furious combat for in such a nation, surrender would be an alien concept. Sadly for us, no such nation has ever existed. The great nations of history whom had been able to exert influence on others, were the ones that made effective use of its finite finances (resources) and get its people to buy into its propaganda. In other words, victorious nations succeed in spite of limitations not in the absence. Losing a conflict because you ran out of resources or low morale amongst your populace are very legitimate reasons for losing a war.
The repeatedly stated objective of Portugal was to stop the secession of its Angola and Mozambique as they are integral provinces of Portugal.
The Objectives of MPLA and FRELIMO was to make Angola and Mozambique independent as both parties believed that their countries should not be part of Portugal.
Neither side could come to a diplomatic solution, so naturally they engage in violent conflict and in 1975 Angola and Mozambique were independent. How exactly can one interpret this as anything but victory for the rebel factions, they achieved their explicitly stated objectives while the Portuguese government not only surrendered power directly to the same rebels (at least in the case of Mozambique, MPLA became government by default of controlling Launda at the time) but was also toppled. To further emphasis how much of a thorough victory the rebels won in Mozambique, when Portugal proposed a federation with the colonies as a form of concession in 1974, Machel outright rejected the idea and insisted on independence instead. This is not the action of a losing side.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means and by that definition the Rebels certainly won as they accomplished all their stated objectives without making any concessions.
Moreover, you talk about Portugal's "enormous financial effort that the country" as a reason for why it lost yet you haven't considered that the rebels had even less. Portugal was an independently recognised country with massive territories on three continents. It possessed the ability to borrow money to buy the latest weapons from the international community which it did. It had a large modern army (200,000 by 1970) and an authoritarian government that was utterly committed to retaining the colonies at all cost, thus Portugal at the start of the wars possessed considerable resources and the will to use it.
What exactly did the rebels have at the start of the wars? They possessed no territories of their own let alone a whole independently recognised country. The only financial support they had was that which they could secure through their own efforts. They had no army but had build one from scratch. They had no experience of administration, logistics or warfare so they often had to learn on the job. They possessed very little heavy or sophisticated equipments crucial to winning a modern war. The only advantage they had over Portugal was the willingness to fight as long as it takes to gain independence; an appetite that Portuguese citizens apparently lacked.
One only has to look to Portuguese Mozambique's neighbour South Africa to see the difference in outcome had FRELIMO not won an outright victory. Unlike the Portuguese colonies, Insurgents never at any point openly controlled parts of the country or its colony of Namibia. While it could not have held out indefinitely, it was able to bring the rebels to the negotiation table and as a result white South Africans still retain significant socio-economic status while in the Portuguese colonies, settlers were compelled to flee in fear of retaliation. While the ANC achieved their desired objective of liberating the country, they had to make significant concessions to White South Africans, something they probably would not have done (to a such an extent) had they won an outright victory.
We are all neglecting the role of Guinea Bissau In Portugal's colonial defeat. In my previous post, I gave a number of reasons why no defeat similar to Diem-Bien-Phu occured in Africa during decolonization phase. The reasons were lack of training, heavy equipment and powerful sympathetic neighbouring countries. Well in Guinea Bissau, Portugal was months away from experiencing such a defeat by PAIGC. The reason being that unlike in Southern Africa where Portugal was supported by South Africa and Rhodesia, in west Africa it was the African rebels who were heavily supported by the newly independent nations, especially Senegal and Guinea (Nigeria with financial support). As a result of close regional support, PAIGC soldiers were better trained, funded and consequently had access to heavy equipment which they put to good use. By 1971, PAIGC already controlled most of the countries interior, pushing Portugal to the coastal towns and by 1973 it was nullifying Portugal's air superiority with anti-aircraft missiles.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD
The significance of Guinea Bissau on the other two theaters was that Portugal could not abandon it to focus on its Southern African colonies as it would set a precedent. Of the three main land colonies, Guinea was by far the least important but defeat there meant defeat everywhere as it would challenge the very notion that all the colonies of Portugal were integral part of the country that could not break away.
I am not sure if I should take you serious or not but I will try. When you have to show very selective videos of developed metropolitan areas as your argument for the Portuguese colonies being good, then you are scraping from the bottom of the barrel. If a small wealthy minority living in developed areas of a country is the standard for a good government, then there are very little if any bad countries in existence today. It is not a great administrative feat to maintain a high standard for a small minority by ignoring or actively exploiting the majority. Just about every country in the world can do this. Nigeria is a country with nearly half a trillion dollars GDP, some 30,000 dollar multi-millionaires and in each city in the country, there is a highly developed area reserved for the wealthy. The development in some parts of Lagos and Abuja will rival that of any first world country yet this does not change the fact that most of country is still heavily underdeveloped. It does not change the fact that about 50% of the country subsize on less than two dollars a day. Most would not flinch from calling Nigeria a bad country and they would not be wrong. Yet with the settler colonies some folks give them a pass despite having the same kind of development model to contemporary African countries. Apart from perhaps observers from the other settler colonies, I have yet to read one contemporary observer who was impressed with the Portuguese colonies. British, American and at least one unbiased Portuguese official (from the metropole) were all unanimous in their condemnation on the state of development and governance in the colonies. Even South African observers in the 1920s were critical of the lack of development in the Portuguese colonies. One cannot really overstate how under developed the Portuguese colonies were.
The second part of your statement is a creative spin on the truth. There were no organisations like the "KKK" because the government more or less fulfilled that role although that did not stop settlers from dispensing mob justice when it suited them. Portugal's supreme claim to moral superiority to other European powers is that of it's non-racist attitude towards africans which of course is completely false. Portugal differed from the likes of South Africa in that it was not as petty in enforcing racial discrimination. There was no signs such as "Only Whites allowed" and interracial relationships (relatively few) was not criminalized. This of course was a mere facade, a state myth. As I hope to have demonstrated in my previous posts, the Portuguese were thoroughly convinced that the African was only useful as a servant to Whites. They believed in their racial supremacy (albeit with a particular Portuguese character) with as much fervor as the Afrikaans in South Africa. In the aftermath of the Baxia revolt in 1961 in which forced African cotton growers revolted against plantation owners in Northern Angola, the government unleashed a brutal and indiscriminate killings of some 30,000 - 50,000 Africans while over 150,000 fled to the DRC. Meanwhile, in the cities like Launda, government and white vigilantes began widespread retaliation against Africans, in response to an attempt by Black nationalists to free members from prison (some policemen were killed). Especially targeted in these attacks were educated natives that the poorer whites taught might pose a threat to their economic aspirations.
Mozambique : from colonialism to revolution, 1900-1982
by Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara
Everyone was certainly not free to go where they pleased! This statement is rather egregious.
How can a country that ran mandatory forced labour of natives for 6 months in a year be said to have unrestricted movement? If they were allowed to go where they please, they certainly won't be working for settlers, private and government companies for next to no pay.
Even the so called "assimilados" had to to carry id cards around them when they travelled. Have you actually read anything on the Portuguese colonies or even my previous posts?
You are trying to paint a utopia that not only did not exist, but verged on a dystopia for millions of Africans.
Very dishonest. Are you trying to imply that massive African poverty did not exist under Portuguese rule?
Self indulgent tripe. I will not dignify with a response.
The lack of self-awareness is astounding. How do you think that Bissau-Guinean, Angolans and Mozambicans feel that their people were exploited for generations and all they received in return was near total illiteracy, poverty and development catered almost exclusively to Portuguese settlers.
Investment on the colonies only exceeded that of the metropole in the late 1960s and this was inflated by the war effort to a degree. Moreover, one must consider that there were 5 colonies, thus individually investment in each colony was still smaller than the Metropole despite collectively having a bigger population.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD
South Africa also established " Ethnic Battalions" composed of different tribal groups in the South West African Territorial Force. Rhodesia had the segregated Rhodesian African Rifles which was always armed and sometime in the 1970s had the British South Africa Police Support Unit. Rhodesia also had a small integrated unit called the"Selous Scouts" which disguised themselves as guerrllas.
In contrast the Portuguese apparently had indigenous African and mixed race troops for quite some time and they officially intergrated their army in 1968 only twenty years after the Americans.
Does that mean the Portuguese were somewhat less prejudiced then Rhodesia and South Africa?
I know the US military had significant racial tensions during the war in Vietnam which was of course at the same time as much of the Portuguese Colonial War. So far no evidence that the Portuguese had racial tensions in their military or their African troops defecting to the guerrllas. Not saying the above is true just haven't seen any evidence of that.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
Joined Jul 2019
1,936 Posts | 6,397+
Ghana
Last edited:
@OnyeNzuzu ,thanks again for the refreshing quality of your posts... You're more patient than I am.
You're posts are full of excellent content, but I'm afraid it will be lost on Jovision et al., who makes statements like: "Portugal has the most important history in the entire planet!". Without even flinching. These aren't rational or honest people... Yet, I hope your posts will open the eyes of some of our potentially more sincere forum members, who may have still been under the mistaken impression that colonialism wasn't so bad, or even ultimately "good" or "necessary". Or that Portugal was somehow more benign than other colonial powers. Different? yes... Benign? Absolutely not...
Last edited:
Jovision Said
"You are a typical german who cant attack britain so he fats his ego against Portugal, who just in the last 100 years were passed by Germany, in 3000 years of german barbarians, canibals....sorry to Kill Jew children alive in the furnaces of Auschwitz is it civilized, uberalles, arent germans SO SUPERIOR???? Look about the 13 millions of german slaves in a few days ago (1944) 13 miilions, more than all the entire Afro slaves in America. Ignorants! Guine, Angola and especially Mozambique were not just Portuguese slaves. Just in the 19th century these bacame Portuguese colonies. In the 17th century, the British, Dutch, French, Germans, Scandinavians were getting slaves on those regions, you ignorant, full of hate like a typical SS NAZI! GO KILL JEWS, LIKE YOU LOVE TO DO, YOU BARBARIANS , IGNORANT! The locals are now being exploited, by the german, british, american, dutch, belgium, french, australian and chinese minnig companies, you must know how GERMANY AND BITISH ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PALNET JUST FOR MAKING MORE BMWsMORE bmws bmws bmws bmws."
I am not sure if it was intentional or by mistake but please do not edit my quotes, especially if you are going to post irrational and offensive diatribe. I don't know where you get the impression that I am German but even if I was, what relevance does it have to this debate? This is a discussion about Portuguese African colonial wars and by extension, its colonial history in Africa. Thus far I have stuck within this perimeters and I suggest you should as well. Moreover, isn't it extremely hypocritical of you complain about criticism of Portuguese history but you have no problem to utterly degenerate, insult and slander the history of others without cause or provocation? You presume that me being German would make me a Nazi supporter implying that you think modern day Germans are racist because of the actions of some of their ancestors 75 years ago. If one was make the same accusation about present-day Portuguese people because of their colonial history (which is also more recent that Nazi Germany), you will be offended. It is like one standard for you and another for others.
Why would me being German prevent me from criticizing British colonial history? If you havent noticed Britain is the poster child of European imperialism. It has almost become fashionable to criticize British imperialism even by people who have read nothing about it. At no point did I say that Portugal had an exclusive monopoly on slavery in Guinea, Angola and Mozambique as that would be poperstrous although in all three regions, it started the atlantic route of slave trading (domestic slavery already existed in these areas). In fact I focused more on forced labour in the Portuguese colonies as it is more relevant to the cause of the colonial wars than the transatlantic slave trade in which some Africans participated and benefitted from. In regards to Kongo, I said that Portuguese could have acted as a force of good and helped eliminate slavery from the region as their was initially a strong desire by the new Christian monarchs of Kongo to curb and limit slavery in their kingdom.
I also said that when the British began to clamp down on the trade in west Africa, Portuguese and Brazilian Merchants (slavery was still legal in Brazil till 1888) expanded the already existing trade in Mozambique to evade British patrols.
It is one thing to be proud of your country and entirely another to have delusions of its present importance on the world stage (Portuguese glory has faded). I don't want to get too much into who was the best colonist to its natives as the treatment of natives was often dependent on how many settlers moved to the colony (usually the more colonists the worse the Natives are treated). In this regard all European settler colonies are quite similar.
If we are to strictly compare the economic output of the Settler colonies (emphasis on settler) then it is not even a comparison. The British settler colonies completely outclass that of the Iberian empires. Brazil is far from the richest country in the world and only superficially wealthy. Sure in absolute metrics, it is very wealthy but for a country with its size, history and natural endowment it should be even more successful. You reduce the success of the US to just luck which to a very limited extent I agree (luck is important to any human endeavor), but why has Brazil not been so fortunate. Brazil is almost exactly the same size as continental USA and therefore should theoretically have as much resources as the US. The amount and variety of resources a country has usually correlates with the physical landmass of said country, hence why the top 10 largest countries often appear on most rankings of countries with the largest reserves of any specific resource.
I will permit that in the most useful resource in the modern world - crude oil - the US has a much greater abundance of which it utilized for rapid economic growth in the late 19th and early 20th century. Still it was partially the innovations of US citizens that led led to both the demand and the means of extracting crude oil on an industrial scale.
Utilization of slave labour which is often cited as the cause of American economic prosperity, was used in much greater quantity and for a much longer period in Brazil than the US (388 to 246 years). Brazill roughly archived full territorial size more than a century before the US, thus should have had more time to consolidate its administration of the country. Moreover Portugal began the colonization of Brazil a century and nineteen years before the British began the colonization of mainland North America. Being the two largest and successful colonies, they both attracted the most skilled European immigrants to drive its industries. Hence, we can see the US and Brazil were very evenly matched in terms of natural and human resources while Brazil even had a century head start to develop itself (Portugal technically).
So why then does the US have an economy eleven and half times bigger than that of Brazil? Part of this disparity can of course can be attributed the fact that the US has about a hundred million more people than Brazil today but that still does not explain such a wide gap. If Brazil was as productive and economically vibrant as the US, then it's economy should be about $14 trillion as it has roughly two thirds of the population of the US. For reference Japan with roughly 1/3 of the Population of the US has a GDP of 5 trillion which is just 2 trillion short of being equivalent to 1/3 of the US economy.
Even if we discount the success of the US as outlandish and credit its development more to post independence government than the British, Britain still created three other economically successful settler colonies with some of the highest standard of living in the world. Again compare and contrast Brazil to Australia. They are both physically of similar immense proportions therefore, both countries are well endowed with natural resources. This time Brazil has an absolute advantage in human resources (210m to 25m) and 287 years head start yet Australia's economy is only smaller to Brazil's economy by $450 billion dollars despite its population being eight times smaller. Needless to say, per capita, the average Australian far exceeds his Brazilian counterpart by a factor of six ($53,825 to $8,796).
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Even the two small non settler colonies you brought up - Goa and Macau - are outclassed by Britain's own small non settler colonies in Asia. Goa does not belong in the same class as Singapore, while Macau although very rich, is insignificant compared Hong Kong.
At this point, I am utterly exhausted of your irrational rants. Unless you are going to post anything of significance and relating to the reason for Portugal giving up its overseas colony, I will try to ignore you.
"You are a typical german who cant attack britain so he fats his ego against Portugal, who just in the last 100 years were passed by Germany, in 3000 years of german barbarians, canibals....sorry to Kill Jew children alive in the furnaces of Auschwitz is it civilized, uberalles, arent germans SO SUPERIOR???? Look about the 13 millions of german slaves in a few days ago (1944) 13 miilions, more than all the entire Afro slaves in America. Ignorants! Guine, Angola and especially Mozambique were not just Portuguese slaves. Just in the 19th century these bacame Portuguese colonies. In the 17th century, the British, Dutch, French, Germans, Scandinavians were getting slaves on those regions, you ignorant, full of hate like a typical SS NAZI! GO KILL JEWS, LIKE YOU LOVE TO DO, YOU BARBARIANS , IGNORANT! The locals are now being exploited, by the german, british, american, dutch, belgium, french, australian and chinese minnig companies, you must know how GERMANY AND BITISH ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PALNET JUST FOR MAKING MORE BMWsMORE bmws bmws bmws bmws."
I am not sure if it was intentional or by mistake but please do not edit my quotes, especially if you are going to post irrational and offensive diatribe. I don't know where you get the impression that I am German but even if I was, what relevance does it have to this debate? This is a discussion about Portuguese African colonial wars and by extension, its colonial history in Africa. Thus far I have stuck within this perimeters and I suggest you should as well. Moreover, isn't it extremely hypocritical of you complain about criticism of Portuguese history but you have no problem to utterly degenerate, insult and slander the history of others without cause or provocation? You presume that me being German would make me a Nazi supporter implying that you think modern day Germans are racist because of the actions of some of their ancestors 75 years ago. If one was make the same accusation about present-day Portuguese people because of their colonial history (which is also more recent that Nazi Germany), you will be offended. It is like one standard for you and another for others.
Why would me being German prevent me from criticizing British colonial history? If you havent noticed Britain is the poster child of European imperialism. It has almost become fashionable to criticize British imperialism even by people who have read nothing about it. At no point did I say that Portugal had an exclusive monopoly on slavery in Guinea, Angola and Mozambique as that would be poperstrous although in all three regions, it started the atlantic route of slave trading (domestic slavery already existed in these areas). In fact I focused more on forced labour in the Portuguese colonies as it is more relevant to the cause of the colonial wars than the transatlantic slave trade in which some Africans participated and benefitted from. In regards to Kongo, I said that Portuguese could have acted as a force of good and helped eliminate slavery from the region as their was initially a strong desire by the new Christian monarchs of Kongo to curb and limit slavery in their kingdom.
I also said that when the British began to clamp down on the trade in west Africa, Portuguese and Brazilian Merchants (slavery was still legal in Brazil till 1888) expanded the already existing trade in Mozambique to evade British patrols.
It is one thing to be proud of your country and entirely another to have delusions of its present importance on the world stage (Portuguese glory has faded). I don't want to get too much into who was the best colonist to its natives as the treatment of natives was often dependent on how many settlers moved to the colony (usually the more colonists the worse the Natives are treated). In this regard all European settler colonies are quite similar.
If we are to strictly compare the economic output of the Settler colonies (emphasis on settler) then it is not even a comparison. The British settler colonies completely outclass that of the Iberian empires. Brazil is far from the richest country in the world and only superficially wealthy. Sure in absolute metrics, it is very wealthy but for a country with its size, history and natural endowment it should be even more successful. You reduce the success of the US to just luck which to a very limited extent I agree (luck is important to any human endeavor), but why has Brazil not been so fortunate. Brazil is almost exactly the same size as continental USA and therefore should theoretically have as much resources as the US. The amount and variety of resources a country has usually correlates with the physical landmass of said country, hence why the top 10 largest countries often appear on most rankings of countries with the largest reserves of any specific resource.
I will permit that in the most useful resource in the modern world - crude oil - the US has a much greater abundance of which it utilized for rapid economic growth in the late 19th and early 20th century. Still it was partially the innovations of US citizens that led led to both the demand and the means of extracting crude oil on an industrial scale.
Utilization of slave labour which is often cited as the cause of American economic prosperity, was used in much greater quantity and for a much longer period in Brazil than the US (388 to 246 years). Brazill roughly archived full territorial size more than a century before the US, thus should have had more time to consolidate its administration of the country. Moreover Portugal began the colonization of Brazil a century and nineteen years before the British began the colonization of mainland North America. Being the two largest and successful colonies, they both attracted the most skilled European immigrants to drive its industries. Hence, we can see the US and Brazil were very evenly matched in terms of natural and human resources while Brazil even had a century head start to develop itself (Portugal technically).
So why then does the US have an economy eleven and half times bigger than that of Brazil? Part of this disparity can of course can be attributed the fact that the US has about a hundred million more people than Brazil today but that still does not explain such a wide gap. If Brazil was as productive and economically vibrant as the US, then it's economy should be about $14 trillion as it has roughly two thirds of the population of the US. For reference Japan with roughly 1/3 of the Population of the US has a GDP of 5 trillion which is just 2 trillion short of being equivalent to 1/3 of the US economy.
Even if we discount the success of the US as outlandish and credit its development more to post independence government than the British, Britain still created three other economically successful settler colonies with some of the highest standard of living in the world. Again compare and contrast Brazil to Australia. They are both physically of similar immense proportions therefore, both countries are well endowed with natural resources. This time Brazil has an absolute advantage in human resources (210m to 25m) and 287 years head start yet Australia's economy is only smaller to Brazil's economy by $450 billion dollars despite its population being eight times smaller. Needless to say, per capita, the average Australian far exceeds his Brazilian counterpart by a factor of six ($53,825 to $8,796).
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia
List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia
Even the two small non settler colonies you brought up - Goa and Macau - are outclassed by Britain's own small non settler colonies in Asia. Goa does not belong in the same class as Singapore, while Macau although very rich, is insignificant compared Hong Kong.
At this point, I am utterly exhausted of your irrational rants. Unless you are going to post anything of significance and relating to the reason for Portugal giving up its overseas colony, I will try to ignore you.
I can see you have not written here who was member of the Fascist Party in Berlin Conference... I see and it was You an only You who introduced the word "fascist" in Somalia and I proved (and I can prove) Somalia belonged to Italy before Fascism and Somalia continued being Italia after fascism...
OK I can see ...
Sorry but I don´t understand... Are you saying not african indigenous in Portuguese Army before 1968?
Portuguese officers with Native 2nd-lines troops in 1900!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Oficiais do exército português com tropas de segunda linha (moradores), apresentando "caixa e bandeira", após uma campanha punitiva c. 1900. Prisioneiros de guerra são também mostrados (embaixo, à direita) (POW are shows right down side in photo).
Indiginous troops in Portuguese (or Spanish) armies are from... 15th-16th Centuries!!!! Not from 1968!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I don´t know what you want to say.. but if you said Rhodesia had "native" troops sooner than Portugal... NO WAY!
Portugal had Native troops around 400 years before Cecil Rhodes were born!
Joined Jul 2019
1,936 Posts | 6,397+
Ghana
Woooow, I totally missed that part... That guy has gone totally off his rockers... He added his own abusive language to a quote of your own post... How nasty...
I never ever said that the Fascist Party was at the Berlin Conference... It's just strawman after strawman with you...
You described Somalia as "quite and peaceful", between 1930-1960, except you totally ignored WWII (!), and you said that none of the great defenders of colonialism were fascists, except you totally ignored Mussolini's fascist colonial adventure, Italian East Africa, 1936 -1941 (!), which saw the invasion and occupation of Abyssinia, an internationally recognized sovereign nation and member of the League of Nations.
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I missed the bit added to the quote.
Jovision is suspended for 3 days while the mod team decides on his further suspension.
Jovision is suspended for 3 days while the mod team decides on his further suspension.
I already said that nothing was good or bad ... independence was good for some African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Bostwana, Zambia etc etc) and bad for others ... (Bangladesh was better with the British, as Mozambique would have been better with Portugal today) ... the European empires made mistakes and also successes ... the African states made mistakes and successes ... nothing was good or bad ...
For me, Mozambique was better with Portugal or Somalia with Italy or Bangladesh as a British overseas territory ... or Cuba as a Spanish autonomous community ...
Mozambique War was not militarily lost, as France did not lose the war in Algeria or Great Britain in Kenya ...simply the historical evolution (motivated by CCCP and USA anticolonialism) made the European Empires unfeasible in 1960 ... but not in 1920 ...
For me, Mozambique was better with Portugal or Somalia with Italy or Bangladesh as a British overseas territory ... or Cuba as a Spanish autonomous community ...
Mozambique War was not militarily lost, as France did not lose the war in Algeria or Great Britain in Kenya ...simply the historical evolution (motivated by CCCP and USA anticolonialism) made the European Empires unfeasible in 1960 ... but not in 1920 ...
No I specifically stated the Portuguese intergrated their military in 1968 not when they first had soldiers of color.Sorry but I don´t understand... Are you saying not african indigenous in Portuguese Army before 1968?
Portuguese officers with Native 2nd-lines troops in 1900!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Oficiais do exército português com tropas de segunda linha (moradores), apresentando "caixa e bandeira", após uma campanha punitiva c. 1900. Prisioneiros de guerra são também mostrados (embaixo, à direita) (POW are shows right down side in photo).
Indiginous troops in Portuguese (or Spanish) armies are from... 15th-16th Centuries!!!! Not from 1968!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I don´t know what you want to say.. but if you said Rhodesia had "native" troops sooner than Portugal... NO WAY!
Portugal had Native troops around 400 years before Cecil Rhodes were born!
Leftyhunter
Joined Oct 2015
16,680 Posts | 1,342+
Matosinhos Portugal
Overseas War: From Guilege to Gadamael - Death Row (Guinea)
PAIGC had help from Russia U.S.A and European countries. Salazar and Marcelo Caetano knew
Today Guinea Bissáu is better, I don't believe it...
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
I was out for some days and now see that this thread gained it own life. I think that it is positive. I will try to make now some quick comments and answer to a post that was adressed to me.
I don't think so. Cuba felt in that position. Had its own agenda? Sure, but couldn’t maintain it neither in Angola or in Ethiopia or elsewhere without the Soviet Union. And for the Soviet Union it was a way to intervene in Latin America and Africa indirectly.
For the rest of your post I mostly agree.
Good posts, OnyeNzuzu! And good sources.
I just want to make a small comment to the USA support to Portugal. That support was rarelly (if ever) direct to the Colonial War. It was due to the Portuguese presence in NATO and due to the USA base in Azores, so it was already a done deal even before the colonial war. NATO equipment wasn't allowed in Africa and had to be removed due to US request, and Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara are incorrect in some details in the mentioned pages 104-105 (B-52, helicopters... and no sources seem to be provided). Quite diferent was the support from France and Germany.
Isn't it an ideological statement, calling USSR the soviet master of Cuba?
I don't think so. Cuba felt in that position. Had its own agenda? Sure, but couldn’t maintain it neither in Angola or in Ethiopia or elsewhere without the Soviet Union. And for the Soviet Union it was a way to intervene in Latin America and Africa indirectly.
For the rest of your post I mostly agree.
It is completely untrue that Portugal did not receive military and financial assistance from the west. Although western powers somewhat opposed Portugal on an ideological level, they did indeed provide extensive support due to the perceived threat of Communism.
AFRICA: A MODERN HISTORY.
by GUY ARNOLD (Pages 313 - 314)
Mozambique : from colonialism to revolution, 1900-1982
by Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara (Pages 104-105)
Good posts, OnyeNzuzu! And good sources.
I just want to make a small comment to the USA support to Portugal. That support was rarelly (if ever) direct to the Colonial War. It was due to the Portuguese presence in NATO and due to the USA base in Azores, so it was already a done deal even before the colonial war. NATO equipment wasn't allowed in Africa and had to be removed due to US request, and Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara are incorrect in some details in the mentioned pages 104-105 (B-52, helicopters... and no sources seem to be provided). Quite diferent was the support from France and Germany.
Attachments
Joined Apr 2015
7,387 Posts | 2,040+
India
Sorry but I don´t understand... Are you saying not african indigenous in Portuguese Army before 1968?
Portuguese officers with Native 2nd-lines troops in 1900!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Oficiais do exército português com tropas de segunda linha (moradores), apresentando "caixa e bandeira", após uma campanha punitiva c. 1900. Prisioneiros de guerra são também mostrados (embaixo, à direita) (POW are shows right down side in photo).
Indiginous troops in Portuguese (or Spanish) armies are from... 15th-16th Centuries!!!! Not from 1968!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I don´t know what you want to say.. but if you said Rhodesia had "native" troops sooner than Portugal... NO WAY!
Portugal had Native troops around 400 years before Cecil Rhodes were born!
Portuguese also used mainly African troops in Goa against Indian army during 1961 integration of Goa with India.
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Mozambique : from colonialism to revolution, 1900-1982
by Isaacman, Allen F; Isaacman, Barbara
Another good post of yours, but I need to make a comment on this part.
The assimilados were African. So the mentioned laws were not strictly a skin colous issue, theyt were laws against the non-assimilados. And legally all people should have their identity cards, not olny the assimilados. Due to the racial factor (i.e. skin colour) I don’t doubts that they had to show the IDs to the autorities, while they should be rarelly asked to the white Portuguese (that were also in a lower number) – the Portuguese community in Africa was relativelly smaller until the late 60’s.
About the unions, it was not the Africans that were forbiden to organize unions. That sentence is quite missleading, because implies a racial factor. There wasn’t a racial factor against the Africans having unions. There was a ideological factor. Unions were forbiden in Portugal and colonies. We must recall that Portugal (and the colonies) lived under a right wing/concervative dictatorship.
Note with this I am not saying that there was not skin colour discriminaition, because there was and you already gave here good samples, I am just underlining here that some pointed by by Allen F. and Barbara Isaacman may be incorrect.
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Last edited:
1 Infantry Batallion was Indian, 1 was from Angola, 1 from Mozambique, most of the other forces were from the Portuguese mainland.
EDIT: Better than my previous comment, is the OOB (in Portuguese), we can see the African troops in 2) Goa:
1) Quartel-General, com Chefe do Estado-Maior (Major CEM Jaime Silvério Marques), Subchefe do Estado-Maior (Capitão c/CEM, Vieira de Araújo), Repartição-Geral, Secção de Informações e Operações, Secção de Logística (a cargo do Subchefe EM), Serviços de Saúde, Material, Intendência e Contabilidade (chefiados por capitães), Comando de Artilharia (Major de Artilharia), Comando de Engenharia (Capitão de Engenharia), Companhia de Comando e Serviços (naturais do Estado) e Pelotão de Polícia Militar;
2) GOA
- Batalhão de Caçadores Nº 1 (Moçambique),
- Batalhão de Caçadores Nº 2 (Angola),
- Batalhão de Caçadores da Índia,
- Batalhão de Caçadores Vasco da Gama,
- Comp de Caçadores Independente Nº 8,
- BatArt 8,8 cm (Angola),
- BatArt 8,8 cm (D. João de Castro),
- BatArt 8,8 cm (Santarém),
- Bat AAA 4 cm (Bogmaló),
- 4 Esquadrões de Reconhecimento,
- Comp de Engenharia de Moçambique,
- Comp de Sapadores,
- Destac de Engenharia da Índia,
- Pelotão de Transposição de Cursos de Água,
- Destacamento de Transmissões.
3) DAMÃO
- Companhias de Caçadores,
- BatArt 8,8 cm.
4) DIU
- Companhia de Caçadores,
- BatArt 7,5 cm/11,4 cm.
Source: in Estado Português na Índia, Tenente-general José Lopes Alves, Revista Militar, Agosto/Setembro 2007
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-