[mfanikiwa]

Originally Posted by Sankara

Umm, i think someone needs to go back and re-read their GHC textbooks. The maumau was a definite catalyst for independence. It wasn't just the murders of the wazungus (it was 32 btw), it was the fact that insecurity due to the insurgency made the country unstable and therefore ungovernable. Remember the lancashire regiment was brought to kenya, which means that they knew it was a real threat. Plus the european countries were broke after the 2nd world war

By the way, giving up the colonies wasn't a pre-condition for the Marshall plan. Remember, the US has had its own colonies in the caribbean and the pacific (panama, puerto rico, samoa, hawaii etc) - they just prefer to call it 'overseas territories'.

That will be £500 please. And no cheques. (knowledge aint free no more)

What GHC? Some fable tales
Even the Zulus fought more bloody wars than the Maumau.
Lets be realistic The Maumau were just hiding @ Karura forest and then attacking few settlers that leaved aroung the area.

This stories of fighting for Uhuru by Maumau is crap, Maumau were just merely 'House niggers' that revolted for better pay . Jomo Kenyata infact was making babies with the enemy, So Uhuru kitugani.

As for the Marshal plan, the Us was dictating the conditons not the other way round. Europe badly needed the finance and So were forced to comply ..this was the US strategy to ensure that the finance Europeans especialy Brits got from the offshore colonies does not make them rapidly to rrecover from the econimic conditions they were in after the bloody war.

Just like Slavery, its not Africans that abolished it not the Slaves but it was by the British this was to prevent other European countries from becomming wealthier from the lucrative trade.

[Sankara]

Originally Posted by mfanikiwa

What GHC? Some fable tales
Even the Zulus fought more bloody wars than the Maumau.
Lets be realistic The Maumau were just hiding @ Karura forest and then attacking few settlers that leaved aroung the area.

This stories of fighting for Uhuru by Maumau is crap, Maumau were just merely 'House niggers' that revolted for better pay . Jomo Kenyata infact was making babies with the enemy, So Uhuru kitugani.

As for the Marshal plan, the Us was dictating the conditons not the other way round. Europe badly needed the finance and So were forced to comply ..this was the US strategy to ensure that the finance Europeans especialy Brits got from the offshore colonies does not make them rapidly to rrecover from the econimic conditions they were in after the bloody war.

Just like Slavery, its not Africans that abolished it not the Slaves but it was by the British this was to prevent other European countries from becomming wealthier from the lucrative trade.

First of all the zulu wars were 'open plan'. That means they fought with british over open ground. They fought a couple of battles but in the end they were crushed. It was simply a case of spears versus guns - with the mau mau, they fought guerrila style. As for mau mau being 'house niggers'....now i just think you have an issue with them. Am i right?

The US never cared about who got what colonies by the way. If it was the case, they would have interjected to the scramble for africa. Google the 1823 State of the union address and you'll see that James Monroe who was the then american president actually pledged to indirectly support British colonialism as long as they didn't colonize them. Infact many regard Liberia as America's first colony in America because it was formed at the same time as Europe partook in the scramble for Africa. France used the money it received to continue running its west african colonies and Netherlands used the money it received to conquer indonesia. America never even blinked an eye!!

Remember Europe was the US's biggest trading partner. The 2 key reasons for the marshall plan was to get europe back to its feet (necessary for the american economy) and to prevent the spread of communism. I did post-war european history for 2 years and read alot about the marshall plan but i've never come across a claim like yours

[mfanikiwa]

Originally Posted by Sankara

First of all the zulu wars were 'open plan'. That means they fought with british over open ground. They fought a couple of battles but in the end they were crushed. It was simply a case of spears versus guns - with the mau mau, they fought guerrila style. As for mau mau being 'house niggers'....now i just think you have an issue with them. Am i right?

The US never cared about who got what colonies by the way. If it was the case, they would have interjected to the scramble for africa. Google the 1823 State of the union address and you'll see that James Monroe who was the then american president actually pledged to indirectly support British colonialism as long as they didn't colonize them. Infact many regard Liberia as America's first colony in America because it was formed at the same time as Europe partook in the scramble for Africa. France used the money it received to continue running its west african colonies and Netherlands used the money it received to conquer indonesia. America never even blinked an eye!!

Remember Europe was the US's biggest trading partner. The 2 key reasons for the marshall plan was to get europe back to its feet (necessary for the american economy) and to prevent the spread of communism. I did post-war european history for 2 years and read alot about the marshall plan but i've never come across a claim like yours

It all depends upon how history is intepreted and written and from which source you use as a reference.

hence from an American point of view.
The Second world war they depict themselves as saviours of Euorpe they saved Europe from Hitler and helped rebuild mordern day Europe.

From the European perspective especialy the Brits.
The Second world war the US were in fact financiers of The Nazi regime.
Then when they saw that most of the great powers were brought down to its knee they swithced sides after the USSR had defeated Nazis in the Great stand of Stalingrad.

[Sankara]

Originally Posted by mfanikiwa

It all depends upon how history is intepreted and written and from which source you use as a reference.

hence from an American point of view.
The Second world war they depict themselves as saviours of Euorpe they saved Europe from Hitler and helped rebuild mordern day Europe.

From the European perspective especialy the Brits.
The Second world war the US were in fact financiers of The Nazi regime.
Then when they saw that most of the great powers were brought down to its knee they swithced sides after the USSR had defeated Nazis in the Great stand of Stalingrad.

True. History can be subjective. But you still haven't given me any source as to where you saw that America made a pre-condition that the UK had to give up its colonies in exchange for aid.

As to the European perspective, i find that highly doubtful. Reason being is that if you read on what is called the Versailles treaty that was signed after the 1st world war, the US was FULLY committed towards the interests of the UK and France. Infact the US was actually for the disarmament of Germany. There was also what is known as the 'Neutrality acts' which means that the US proposed that it wouldn't take sides in a european war. However, it amended it in the 1930s and took sides with western europe only after it saw the potential problem of Nazi Germany unifying with italy and japan.

The theory that the US supported Nazi Germany has never been proven btw. There is evidence that they traded in commodities during hitler's first years but the germans made their own bombs, cars, aircrafts and weapons under hitler's 'self-sufficiency' ideal.