> (Cf. The French Revolution happened _after, or
> rather because_ France lost many of its colonies in North America --
> remember that in 1755 France held most of North America -- and India
> during the Seven Years' War, the New World aspect of which is known
> as the French and Indian War here).
French possesions in India were never all that significant. They held few pockets. Ultimately French lost to British imperialism in 18th century, not to the Indian anti-imperialism. Thus, the loss of Indian possesions by France is not pertinent to the point about the role of anti-colonial movement in radicalising the heart of the empire.
Sartre attributed May 68 to the Vietnam War, i.e. the war against the US. and not to the the loss of colonies by France. (Sartre's interview, The Itinerary of a Thought, NLR 58) Sartre could be wrong, but Fanon died long before May, 68 to have known the origins of May, 68.
> In short, leftists at the heart of an empire get a fighting chance
> when it _loses_ its colonies.
Yes, if there are many colonies left to lose.
Ulhas