Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
It'd be hard to argue that any of the African countries given full independence in the 60s-80s were ready for independence. Lots of them only had handful of educated people capable of running departments previously run by colonial officals. Then there are the violent tribal dynamics and infighting that came out once there was real political power to struggle for.

Just look at the independence of the Belgian Congo and the 30 years of warfare there that spread into all of the neighboring countries and colonies. Places like Angola which were actually well off economically under the Portuguese turned into warzones. The tribal dynamics for all their ups and downs were upset by communist insurgents that were happy to kill off any 'feudal' lords or collaborators.
While I don't agree with apartheid or minority rule in South Africa or Rhodesia it's no wonder that Ian Smith or the Afrikaners were not willing to welcome majority rule after seeing the chaos and bloodletting to the North of them.

It would have helped if the newly independent countries had had some sort of transition period so they could have security forces in place, functioning government service and offer at least some stability instead of the free for all that ended up happening.

I honestly think that the short sighted and selfish washing of hands independence by the European powers of their colonies was a greater crime than establishing them in the first place.
The US actively undermined the colonial powers at the end of WW2. Keynes was upset at the terms set out for renewal of lend lease, declaring it was tantamount to giving up the empire. There are numerous accounts from American officials stating that they weren't going to let the British gain from the war like the last time round. India in particular had to be made independent ASAP, rather than when the British deemed it suitable.