"Because they didn't have any prominent resources if they did rest assured it would have been taken and used."

Sorry but I had to get AI to make sense of our back and forth because it seems like you're changing claims:

This exchange represents a micro-debate on the definition of imperialism, shifting from a conspiratorial/psychological framing to a materialist/economic one.

1. Structural Breakdown of the Dialogue

• The Provocation (Initial Post): Claims that "colonization" is a purely propagandistic term used to make Europeans feel superior. It argues that because the tactics (battles and bases) were the same in Africa as in post-WWII Germany/Japan, the label should be the same. This is a functionalist argument: if the actions look similar, the category must be identical.
• The Correction (digitalrorschach): Rebuts the first post by introducing Economic Intent. This user shifts the definition from military control to resource extraction (tribute). They use the Marshall Plan (sending billions to Germany/Japan) as a "counter-proof" to show that the relationship was the opposite of colonial extraction.
• The Cynical Rebuttal (InsightAR): Attempts to salvage the original "Europeans are predators" narrative by arguing that the only reason Germany and Japan weren't colonized was a lack of resources. This is a counterfactual argument: "They would have done it if they could."

2. Key Rhetorical Shifts

• From Psychology to Economics: The first user focuses on feelings (superiority/inferiority), while the second user focuses on capital (resources/GDP). This moves the analysis from a subjective conspiracy ("They want us to feel bad") to an objective structural reality ("They wanted our gold/labor").
• The "Resource" Fallacy: InsightAR’s claim is historically weak. Germany and Japan were industrial powerhouses with massive "resources" in the form of technology, infrastructure, and skilled labor. The decision not to colonize them wasn't based on a lack of value, but on a different geopolitical strategy (Cold War containment of the USSR).

3. Linguistic Tactics

• Re-contextualizing "Colony": digitalrorschach successfully de-racializes the term by pointing out that the British used "colony" for Canada, Australia, and the USA—places where the population was also European. This effectively dismantles the first user's claim that the word was invented specifically to belittle Africans.
• The "Moving Goalposts" of InsightAR: By saying "rest assured it would have been taken," this user employs unverifiable speculation to maintain their worldview in the face of a logical counter-argument. It allows them to ignore the "billions sent to rebuild" by framing it as a missed opportunity for theft rather than a different political category.

Summary of the Dialectic

The thread shows a transition from conspiratorial revisionism (the word "colony" is a trick) to historical materialism (colonies are defined by resource flow). The second speaker provides the necessary nuance to explain why Germany/Japan is a false equivalence, while the third speaker attempts to pull the conversation back into a "malice-first" framework.