4 ms·

They left, because they didn't want to risk a colonial war. See for example France and Algeria just a decade earlier, which cost between 350k and 1.5m lives de

They left, because they didn't want to risk a colonial war. See for example France and Algeria just a decade earlier, which cost between 350k and 1.5m lives depending on the estimate. Around the 1970s essentially it was clear that everything would be decolonized before the end of the 20th century, except places where you actually had 'your' people live a long time, like in Ceuta which is effectively Spanish. The Western Sahara wasn't like that, Spaniards didn't live there, it was just a military occupation for the resources there, so they knew eventually they'd have to give it up. No reason to risk a bloodshed then. In the 1950s or 1960s there was still a lot of resistance to various independence movements, by mid 1970s there was no real question of if colonial powers would have to withdraw, only when. It was a sensible Spanish decision, only very poorly executed.

BurningFrog 10y ago
You wrote "The Green March was a peaceful march of 350k unarmed Moroccans into the region, that pushed out the Spaniards who had colonised it" That sounds like they were pushed out by the marching Moroccans during a few day, not that they calmly decided it was time to move to Spain.
- IkmoIkmo 10y ago
  They were pushed out because if they didn't leave there'd be bloodshed. How hard is that to imagine? At the same time, they calmly left. These two things are not mutually exclusive. i.e. if a squatter goes to my house while I'm on vacation and lives there, for personal safety reasons he has a gun as do I, and I come home and make it clear it's not going to end well for either of us if he's going to stay, and the squatter makes the sensible choice to leave behind what is not his peacefully and go back to where he came from, you can say that he was pushed out by my presence on the scene. After all, if I hadn't been there he'd likely have stayed. That's the best analogy I can think of to explain it to you. Decolonisation was rarely peaceful, in this case it was. But even if it was peaceful, it doesn't mean Spain left for no reason. They were pressured to leave my hundreds of thousands of civilians descending on a piece of land that wasn't theirs with the support of the country. That showed them, if they wanted to keep the land, there'd be a colonial war. And if the 50s and 60s taught the world anything, it's that colonial powers always lose their stake in the end, but not before hundreds of thousands of unnecessary lives get ruined. Further, it creates animosity that lasts for many decades. Algerians and French for example still have deep wounds that need to heal, this was a post WWII war that saw massive death, destruction, torture, assassinations etc, it was quite brutal. Spain made a more sensible choice in this particular territory.

BurningFrog 10y ago

You wrote "The Green March was a peaceful march of 350k unarmed Moroccans into the region, that pushed out the Spaniards who had colonised it" That sounds like they were pushed out by the marching Moroccans during a few day, not that they calmly decided it was time to move to Spain.

IkmoIkmo 10y ago
They were pushed out because if they didn't leave there'd be bloodshed. How hard is that to imagine? At the same time, they calmly left. These two things are not mutually exclusive. i.e. if a squatter goes to my house while I'm on vacation and lives there, for personal safety reasons he has a gun as do I, and I come home and make it clear it's not going to end well for either of us if he's going to stay, and the squatter makes the sensible choice to leave behind what is not his peacefully and go back to where he came from, you can say that he was pushed out by my presence on the scene. After all, if I hadn't been there he'd likely have stayed. That's the best analogy I can think of to explain it to you. Decolonisation was rarely peaceful, in this case it was. But even if it was peaceful, it doesn't mean Spain left for no reason. They were pressured to leave my hundreds of thousands of civilians descending on a piece of land that wasn't theirs with the support of the country. That showed them, if they wanted to keep the land, there'd be a colonial war. And if the 50s and 60s taught the world anything, it's that colonial powers always lose their stake in the end, but not before hundreds of thousands of unnecessary lives get ruined. Further, it creates animosity that lasts for many decades. Algerians and French for example still have deep wounds that need to heal, this was a post WWII war that saw massive death, destruction, torture, assassinations etc, it was quite brutal. Spain made a more sensible choice in this particular territory.