Rhodesia

[Scott CWO]

I’m not an expert on Rhodesia, the Bush War, pre-colonial Africa or post colonial Africa and I don’t have the education in it that some of you on this site hold. I can only base my thoughts on my experiences and the conversations I’ve had with people during my several trips to Africa, ranging from the CAR and Cameroon in Central Africa to Tanzania and Mozambique in Eastern Africa as well as Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa in Southern Africa.

My layman’s thoughts lead me to think that many of the early European visitors to Africa saw a land of great opportunity for their countrymen, as well as the native peoples who inhabited the continent, to prosper and thrive once the technological advances of European civilization were brought to Africa. In many places and cases, it is probably fair to say that these Europeans could have made a better effort to educate the native peoples along the way instead of running roughshod over them. However, I am quite sure that many Europeans did try to educate and get the native peoples onboard, only to give up due to the cultural and tribal differences that are hard to overcome. Change is hard. I certainly know that it is for me. Many of the native people and tribes were likely resistant to change, especially when forced upon them. Then there’s the lack of formal education and lack of literacy, as well as resistance to these things, as well, in a tribal culture. Different religious beliefs also make for a struggle. The goal and notion of nation building is very difficult to achieve when people don’t want it or tribal leaders don’t want to give up their power over their small territories.

We can see a more recent example of these struggles in Afghanistan, especially. The literacy rate there is about 6%. Outside of the cities, warlords and their families (basically a tribe) control areas of landscape. The US tried nation building in these rural areas and to form an organized central government and democracy, ran out of Kabul. The problem is that the warlords and tribes don’t want it. They don’t want to answer to a centralized federal government or give up control. Religion is also a major factor. I am told by my friends and employees that served in Afghanistan, that the military leadership knew it would not work but that the Administration wanted nation building. We all saw the eventual outcome.

It is probably fair to say that in Rhodesia’s case, the European’s could have done more to bring the native people along more but as I said above, this is difficult and probably nearly impossible unless the native population wants the same things.

I certainly understand the importance of self governance and that the native Africans want to govern themselves. The problem then becomes how to transition after colonialism? The lack of formal education and training to operate government agencies and departments takes time to develop. However, perhaps the native Africans were understandably impatient. Some type of an organized, slower transition would have been better but how to achieve this is unclear, or maybe impossible. Surely, the answer was not to kick the Europeans off their farms with only one suitcase per person and one vehicle per family being allowed to be retained, as my Zimbabwe PHs told me happened to their families.

 

[steve white]

Why would anyone invest in an Africa where you never actually own anything, as it can be taken away from you without meaningful compensation for purely racist motives? Yes, it is possible for people of color to be racist. Who wants to invest, if the minute you make a dollar, your business gets confiscated? Would anyone even move there, if renting is the highest option?
Africa will have to decide if it can participate in a modern world that includes property safeguards. I think donor fatigue has justifiably set in.
I completely support president Trumps attempts to protect the interests of Boer farmers who have been in Africa since the 1600s.

 

[sgt_zim]

I’m not an expert on Rhodesia, the Bush War, pre-colonial Africa or post colonial Africa and I don’t have the education in it that some of you on this site hold. I can only base my thoughts on my experiences and the conversations I’ve had with people during my several trips to Africa, ranging from the CAR and Cameroon in Central Africa to Tanzania and Mozambique in Eastern Africa as well as Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa in Southern Africa.

My layman’s thoughts lead me to think that many of the early European visitors to Africa saw a land of great opportunity for their countrymen, as well as the native peoples who inhabited the continent, to prosper and thrive once the technological advances of European civilization were brought to Africa. In many places and cases, it is probably fair to say that these Europeans could have made a better effort to educate the native peoples along the way instead of running roughshod over them. However, I am quite sure that many Europeans did try to educate and get the native peoples onboard, only to give up due to the cultural and tribal differences that are hard to overcome. Change is hard. I certainly know that it is for me. Many of the native people and tribes were likely resistant to change, especially when forced upon them. Then there’s the lack of formal education and lack of literacy, as well as resistance to these things, as well, in a tribal culture. Different religious beliefs also make for a struggle. The goal and notion of nation building is very difficult to achieve when people don’t want it or tribal leaders don’t want to give up their power over their small territories.

We can see a more recent example of these struggles in Afghanistan, especially. The literacy rate there is about 6%. Outside of the cities, warlords and their families (basically a tribe) control areas of landscape. The US tried nation building in these rural areas and to form an organized central government and democracy, ran out of Kabul. The problem is that the warlords and tribes don’t want it. They don’t want to answer to a centralized federal government or give up control. Religion is also a major factor. I am told by my friends and employees that served in Afghanistan, that the military leadership knew it would not work but that the Administration wanted nation building. We all saw the eventual outcome.

It is probably fair to say that in Rhodesia’s case, the European’s could have done more to bring the native people along more but as I said above, this is difficult and probably nearly impossible unless the native population wants the same things.

I certainly understand the importance of self governance and that the native Africans want to govern themselves. The problem then becomes how to transition after colonialism? The lack of formal education and training to operate government agencies and departments takes time to develop. However, perhaps the native Africans were understandably impatient. Some type of an organized, slower transition would have been better but how to achieve this is unclear, or maybe impossible. Surely, the answer was not to kick the Europeans off their farms with only one suitcase per person and one vehicle per family being allowed to be retained, as my Zimbabwe PHs told me happened to their families.

I think the idea of governance is an alien concept to people who do not think in the abstract, who often really just don't think much further than tomorrow, or at most, until the next harvest.

Imagine an army run by nothing but PFCs, with no thought on logistics or strategy. I think that's where most of them are, and just never get beyond that. Self governance just isn't in the cards for them. My heart aches for the ones who could do it, but I think they're overwhelmingly outnumbered.

 

[RedTag]

To paint the conflict as “black versus white” is precisely what the communists wanted. The truth is more nuanced than that. Yes the Rhodesian government was led by the white minority. This is because they established this government in a region that was already populated but otherwise pre-literate and lacking anything else the modern world would consider civilized infrastructure. It would have been immensely impractical to establish a flourishing modern civilization and immediately relinquish control of it to people who had no experience in anything of the sort. The Rhodesian government made a lot of investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, much of it to the direct benefit of the black majority population. To my understanding, as much as 30% of the black majority were actually migrants from neighboring African countries, drawn to Rhodesia by the peace, prosperity, and opportunity. The Rhodesian army had many black soldiers during the war, fighting alongside the whites to keep what they too considered to be an acceptable political, social, and economic system. I believe that Rhodesian society would have become more integrated and inclusive as time wore on, had they only had the support of the free world on their side. But the free world ignored the call while the communists carved out yet another foothold for themselves. The promises of racial equality are among the most insidious and seductive of the communist lies; communism doesn’t give a shit about people, only power.

 

[jpr9954]

To paint the conflict as “black versus white” is precisely what the communists wanted. The truth is more nuanced than that. Yes the Rhodesian government was led by the white minority. This is because they established this government in a region that was already populated but otherwise pre-literate and lacking anything else the modern world would consider civilized infrastructure. It would have been immensely impractical to establish a flourishing modern civilization and immediately relinquish control of it to people who had no experience in anything of the sort. The Rhodesian government made a lot of investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, much of it to the direct benefit of the black majority population. To my understanding, as much as 30% of the black majority were actually migrants from neighboring African countries, drawn to Rhodesia by the peace, prosperity, and opportunity. The Rhodesian army had many black soldiers during the war, fighting alongside the whites to keep what they too considered to be an acceptable political, social, and economic system. I believe that Rhodesian society would have become more integrated and inclusive as time wore on, had they only had the support of the free world on their side. But the free world ignored the call while the communists carved out yet another foothold for themselves. The promises of racial equality are among the most insidious and seductive of the communist lies; communism doesn’t give a shit about people, only power.

I was watching a YouTube video yesterday of the Rhodesian army, the Fire Force, etc. They were using Alouette helicopters and C-47s among other equipment.

It got me to wondering what the outcome might have been if we, the US, had supported the Rhodesians in their fight against Communist insurgents with more modern weapons and equipment. I wouldn't have sent troops but equipment should have been another story. Unlike the South Vietnam government, I have never read that the Rhodesians were a bunch of corrupt kleptocrats.

Of course, this is all speculation.

 

[Hunt anything]

I’ve seen some video of the Rhodesians using some Hueys, not sure the model.
I would think that they received them from either the Nixon or Ford administrations.
Also what appears to be OV-10 Broncos and C-47’s.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

Rhodesia never had more than a dozen or so operational helicopters and ground attack aircraft were also in very short supply. Spare parts almost non-existent added to their woes. They had outstanding soldiers with the RSAS, RLI and Selous Scouts (similar to our Rangers), but were always out numbered and often outgunned. Their military won dozens of engagements with the ZIPRA and ZANU factions but were continually behind the 8-Ball.

The centuries of tribal history in Africa have conditioned the native populace to accept governments where a single strong leader more or less dictates to the rest of the tribe how things will be and killing of political opposition is accepted and even expected. As a tribal chief one ruled until dead or challenged and killed then replaced. Fair elections were anathema. So, when the Mugabe regime took power they quickly devolved into a more or less dictatorship. Zulus wiped out some tribes that were smaller and weaker and would have wiped out others had the Rhodesian Gov't not stopped them.

This is not unique only to Africa. Look at Venezuela today. Similar path and similar results.

 

[Sideshow]

Two books to read that give some really interesting history and insight into the war. First up

Then

Great history in in-depth history of the build up to the conflict and then the fighting in the 2nd book. The first is interesting too for the author is by no means a lover of Rhodes but still gives a (in my opinion) great analyst of the history.
The 2nd goes through the war as well as what was happening with the negotiations.
First pages are a true eye opener into how they were sold down the road and some shameful back stabbing by those in power at the time in England. Judging it by today’s standards is wasting your time.
Different times different standards.
For me personally comparing Rhodesia with South Africa is like comparing apples to oranges. Two very different countries and different cultures.

 

[Rare Breed]

I’m not an expert on Rhodesia, the Bush War, pre-colonial Africa or post colonial Africa and I don’t have the education in it that some of you on this site hold. I can only base my thoughts on my experiences and the conversations I’ve had with people during my several trips to Africa, ranging from the CAR and Cameroon in Central Africa to Tanzania and Mozambique in Eastern Africa as well as Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa in Southern Africa.

My layman’s thoughts lead me to think that many of the early European visitors to Africa saw a land of great opportunity for their countrymen, as well as the native peoples who inhabited the continent, to prosper and thrive once the technological advances of European civilization were brought to Africa. In many places and cases, it is probably fair to say that these Europeans could have made a better effort to educate the native peoples along the way instead of running roughshod over them. However, I am quite sure that many Europeans did try to educate and get the native peoples onboard, only to give up due to the cultural and tribal differences that are hard to overcome. Change is hard. I certainly know that it is for me. Many of the native people and tribes were likely resistant to change, especially when forced upon them. Then there’s the lack of formal education and lack of literacy, as well as resistance to these things, as well, in a tribal culture. Different religious beliefs also make for a struggle. The goal and notion of nation building is very difficult to achieve when people don’t want it or tribal leaders don’t want to give up their power over their small territories.

We can see a more recent example of these struggles in Afghanistan, especially. The literacy rate there is about 6%. Outside of the cities, warlords and their families (basically a tribe) control areas of landscape. The US tried nation building in these rural areas and to form an organized central government and democracy, ran out of Kabul. The problem is that the warlords and tribes don’t want it. They don’t want to answer to a centralized federal government or give up control. Religion is also a major factor. I am told by my friends and employees that served in Afghanistan, that the military leadership knew it would not work but that the Administration wanted nation building. We all saw the eventual outcome.

It is probably fair to say that in Rhodesia’s case, the European’s could have done more to bring the native people along more but as I said above, this is difficult and probably nearly impossible unless the native population wants the same things.

I certainly understand the importance of self governance and that the native Africans want to govern themselves. The problem then becomes how to transition after colonialism? The lack of formal education and training to operate government agencies and departments takes time to develop. However, perhaps the native Africans were understandably impatient. Some type of an organized, slower transition would have been better but how to achieve this is unclear, or maybe impossible. Surely, the answer was not to kick the Europeans off their farms with only one suitcase per person and one vehicle per family being allowed to be retained, as my Zimbabwe PHs told me happened to their families.

If you could only buy one book on this to get the most accurate view which book would you buy

 

[JoeSoap]

I would suggest reading Peter Godwin’s books.

There is too much to unpack in many of these comments. Having lived there at the end of the war through the transition to the beginnings of Zim, I would just say there were many good things about Rhodesia, but many bad things too. Some people only focus on the bad ignoring the good, others idolize it cherry picking just the good like the bad did not exist. Neither is reality unto itself to take away truth.

In the end, one might ask was there more good or bad, least we forget that this often depends on whether you are receiving the good or the bad. I would just say I think it is a good exercise in all cases to try and honestly put ourselves in the other persons shoes and understand their view point when making any assessment.

 

[steve white]

If you could only buy one book on this to get the most accurate view which book would you buy

When A Crocodile Eats The Sun, IMO

 

[PerH]

I told a former Bsap and Grey Scouts trooper ( his family was founding member of G.S ) that he should self publish his books like others in here have done . And so he will do he told me .

 

[RLD]

I think the idea of governance is an alien concept to people who do not think in the abstract, who often really just don't think much further than tomorrow, or at most, until the next harvest.

Imagine an army run by nothing but PFCs, with no thought on logistics or strategy. I think that's where most of them are, and just never get beyond that. Self governance just isn't in the cards for them. My heart aches for the ones who could do it, but I think they're overwhelmingly outnumbered.

You are clearly not familiar with the empires that existed in that area before the whites arrived or the city of great Zimbabwe.

 

[Flbt]

You are clearly not familiar with the empires that existed in that area before the whites arrived or the city of great Zimbabwe.

Then how was Africa colonized?
Africa is supposed to be the cradle of life.
It’s where mankind came from.
There was plenty of natural resources.
It’s where humans started. They had the time and resources. If there empires where so grate. Why was it not Africans that colonized the world instead of the other way around?

 

[RLD]

Then how was Africa colonized?
Africa is supposed to be the cradle of life.
It’s where mankind came from.
There was plenty of natural resources.
It’s where humans started. They had the time and resources. If there empires where so grate. Why was it not Africans that colonized the world instead of the other way around?

Why do you think it is? I have a pretty good idea of the anthropology and history of Africa.

But if you think that those empires were not forward thinking or did not exist when the Dutch/British arrived you would be mistaken. The perception of all african people living a primitive hand to mouth lifestyle when the europeans arrived is not accurate. That is not to say that those people didn't exist, but they didn't make up the totality of Africa. And in this case, the area that became Rhodesia was occupied by both Zulu offshoot and Shona empires when the Brits arrived.

You know about the ruins of Great Zimbabwe right?

Tell you what. You put out your theory on why the Europeans defeated the African empires in Rhodesia and then I will lay out mine. I have one. Do you?

 

[dlmac]

Lou Hallamore was a big part of this. I thoroughly enjoyed our discussions on my last two safaris. My take away were similar to our Vietnam, they won all the battles but lost the war. Also it was embarrassing to see England and the US completely abandon them…shameful to me

We had them beat in Vietnam, they would have fallen in 12-18 months. We were beat at home and by politicians who wanted to be reelected. 56000+ American Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen died for nothing.

 

[dlmac]

Why do you think it is? I have a pretty good idea of the anthropology and history of Africa.

But if you think that those empires were not forward thinking or did not exist when the Dutch/British arrived you would be mistaken. The perception of all african people living a primitive hand to mouth lifestyle when the europeans arrived is not accurate. That is not to say that those people didn't exist, but they didn't make up the totality of Africa. And in this case, the area that became Rhodesia was occupied by both Zulu offshoot and Shona empires when the Brits arrived.

You know about the ruins of Great Zimbabwe right?

Tell you what. You put out your theory on why the Europeans defeated the African empires in Rhodesia and then I will lay out mine. I have one. Do you?

What has Africa given to the world.....maybe the cradle of life (not civilization)???? The Middle east gave more to the world than Africa every did and look at the Middle east now. North Africa at least had a chance.

 

[Flbt]

Why do you think it is? I have a pretty good idea of the anthropology and history of Africa.

But if you think that those empires were not forward thinking or did not exist when the Dutch/British arrived you would be mistaken. The perception of all african people living a primitive hand to mouth lifestyle when the europeans arrived is not accurate. That is not to say that those people didn't exist, but they didn't make up the totality of Africa. And in this case, the area that became Rhodesia was occupied by both Zulu offshoot and Shona empires when the Brits arrived.

You know about the ruins of Great Zimbabwe right?

Tell you what. You put out your theory on why the Europeans defeated the African empires in Rhodesia and then I will lay out mine. I have one. Do you?

Not really.
Except they were not a advanced people.
True they had empires.
But they had the time and and resources they should have been the rules of the world right?
They had more time. Since human life started.
They should have had been more industrialized than any other place.
Why then we’re a lot not all but enough primitive just a step or so above stone age?

When younger civilizations were able to colonize them?

You know Africa way better than me.
So why were they colonized vs colonizer?
They had the earliest civilization they had plenty of natural resources.
So what keep them there and not advance enough to if not colonize the rest of the world at least fight off way younger civilizations?

 

[Sideshow]

If you could only buy one book on this to get the most accurate view which book would you buy

Tough one this. Its very subjective and all depends on which part of the history you want to focus on. If it’s just the war. Then I’d recommend this as it covers both political and most of the major engagements .

 

[Red Leg]

But, indeed those "empires were not forward thinking or did not exist when the Dutch/British" arrived. Perhaps with your understanding of anthropology and history of Africa you could explain how Dutch settlers arriving on the South African coast at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 and the British in 1820 managed to cause the abandonment of Great Zimbabwe and collapse of the Shona empire in the mid fifteenth century.

No one will argue that communities with cultural identities did not exist in Africa during the time of Arab (which preceded the Europeans by hundreds of years) and European colonial intervention was taking place. But south of the Sahara, there was no culture remotely as sophisticated as the Pre-Columbian empires of Central and South America. Nor was Africa south of the Sahara something of a natural paradise where humans enjoyed some sort of Eden like existence. The Zulu, and its militaristic culture, were as brutal a conqueror as the Huns. Shaka kaSenzangakhona could have shown Genghis Khan a few things about punishment and the treatment of conquered peoples that whole impaling. Most actual historians of the Zulu credit Shaka's reign and wars of conquest alone with the deaths of at least two-million indigenous people.

It would take a finer appreciation of cultural destruction than mine to determine whether the bare foot of Shaka or the bootheel of a German or British soldier would feel better to the neck of a Ndwandwe or Xhosa. It would also take a far more sympathetic appreciation of comparative cultures to believe being in one where disobedience meant being left on a sharpened stake in my anus to slowly die or being marched up a pyramid to have my heart cut out was somehow superior to life as a businessman or even laborer in Johannesburg or Mexico City.

Like even the truly sophisticated Central and South American cultures, none survive the arrival of more militarily powerful, socially organized, or technologically advanced cultures. That happened within those geographic regions such as the conquests by the Aztec or Zulu or Celts - and when those cultures encountered more powerful exterior powers such as Spain, Britain, Saxons, or Rome. Every human on this planet, and the advances human civilization have made, are products of such waves of conquest and migration.

Such historical norms are neither good nor bad. They simply are.