Jan’s WTA – White Tribes of Africa Series: Comparing Dr Verwoerd with Salazar and Ian Smith

The American wrote:
I’m really enjoying these historical programs. One thing I’d note is I think Verwoerd’s negative view of Salazar and Portugal was actually correct.

For me, Salazar and even Ian Smith seem like proto Nick Fuentes Christian nationalists who may acknowledge race but subconsciously the liberal doctrine of the Gospels always causes them to second guess themselves and be soft. Had the Portugese kept Angola they’d reach Mexico levels of race mixing by now anyway. Verwoerd was genetics/Race first and understood that just like Christian-Fascist Spain, Italy or Japan were useless in WW2 Portugal would be the same. Its also worth nothing both Salazar and Franco weren’t smart enough to prepare a successors. They didn’t have the courage to make themselves monarchs.

I replied:
It’s nice to have 20/20 hindsight and to criticise all these people endlessly, but I am very wary when it comes to having 20/20 hindsight like that regarding *ALL* historical characters. It seems simple, but you don’t appraciate the problems they had to overcome to even get off the ground. Salazaar is a case in point. If there was no Salazaar, then Portugal would have folded and not even put up a fight. And yes, you can say these people were weak and those people were weak, but criticising is very easy. I assure you, when you LIVE in such a situation and you feel the pain, you will struggle. Yes, Verwoerd DOES come out with flying colours – he was a RACIST, he was a NAZI – he was awesome. But, your criticisms of Salazar and Ian Smith are simply too flippant. I was in Rhodesia, and I can tell you, that without Ian Smith, Rhodesia would NEVER have even taken that step. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE ARE HITLERS – except for Verwoerd. So you can’t compare them with Hitler. But, to pull the rug out from under their feet and to just tear them apart like that is not balanced. You do not realize how tricky it is, for someone like Salazar or Smith to even have been able to get the whole nation on their side to begin with. I am extremely careful when criticizing historical figures. I have seen endless amounts of criticism of Hitler and others, but you need to see it within the context of their limitations. Franco drove Hitler crazy. Hitler was right. And Franco’s lack of co-operate possibly played a big role in undermining Germany in North Africa. Plus there’s Mussolini. You need to realise that what these people achieved in their own right, e.g. Mussolini, Franco, etc – was very difficult anyway. But they just weren’t on the same level as Hitler. I like to look at things in context. You’ll see this right throughout history. For example, Ian Smith’s rebellion was basically high treason against the UK, and I did do a video about why Britain did not actually invade Rhodesia. Smith risked a lot. Please do not compare these actual leaders with people on the Internet who are just sitting behind a computer screen just mouthing off. These people took real risks.

I am happy you are enjoying those videos. There’s a lot of information packed in there. I will return to certain other aspects. Take note the South Africans who were the most racist and purist of the Whites took endless beatings right up to the present time for the fake crime of Apartheid (segregation).

jlamprecht