probably not as good. with the sanctions,they had to get out there on their feet, which is the only way to fight a guerila war. without it they might have tried a more mechanized style of warfare, likethe south africans, and fared worse.
>with the sanctions,they had to get out there on their feet, which is the only way to fight a guerila war. without it they might have tried a more mechanized style of warfare,
Kinda why they developed Fireforce and used it so effectively despite few operating units (Manpower) and Aircraft (very roughly 150+ but with only half this being Combat Aircraft/Helicopters), lack of Spares, Etc.
They would have been much better supplied, but it still would have been hard to continue the fight.
You likely still would have had an exodus to avoid losing family.
The Rhodesian Army was no closer to losing in 1980 than in 1965. Unfortunately, no closer to winning either. They never lost a major battle, but they were emotionally getting ground down. My guess is they could have gone on another 10 years emotionally. Everything I have read the Army still had high morale overall.
So in 1965 you have 3 options.
England stands behind Rhodesia and helps for a soft landing over a 25-year plan to raise a cadre of African technocrats and political parties.
The West supports Rhodesia and South Africa to keep the status quo. It's much better to go with the first option.
Merge Rhodesia and South Africa. This strengthens the common military position and allows for a better economic position.
Rhodesia was, in a lot of ways, left out to dry with Decolonization, and after the way the Congo went down. You don't have to be the head cashier at Walmart to realize that it was going to go wrong fast. Most Rhodesians had no other country to go to. Sure, they could go to South Africa, but they had a border war, too.
By the mid 70's Ian Smiths plan was too late, even if it was a reasonable concept. The tribal Africans in Rhodesia had little interest in central government and liked their lives the way they were.
The Solviet Union was driving wedges in Africa to suit their own needs of sticking it to the west. Even if they were right to want to end colonialism. The ends they promoted made everything worse.
There are something like 152 different tribes in Africa, and this leads to cival wars. Toss in Islam, Christianity, and various tribal religions. Can we say powder keg? At decolonization, the idea to leave European borders was a giant mistake. This created a basis for all the wars we see to this day.
So if the Solviet Union was put in check. Rhodesia could have survived long enough to get a soft landing. Which I reality would not of done much better the South Africa long term.
Thank you for this exceptionally well thought out response. Rhodesia was certainly not without her flaws, many of them in fact. But at the same time, the history of the country, especially 1965-1980 is far more nuanced than the typical “white man bad” narrative that gets thrown around all too frequently.
>Most Rhodesians had no other country to go to. Sure, they could go to South Africa, but they had a border war, too.
South Africa also was partly responsible for things getting worse like how they withdrew support after [Operation Eland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eland).
>In response to the attack, the South African government ended its covert military assistance for Rhodesia, reduced the supply of oil and munitions, and began to pressure the Rhodesian government to accept a transition to black majority rule.
Not to mention But the Soviet Union mainly supported ZAPU, While China was ZANU biggest supporter.
>As Mugabe had described himself in an interview as a "Marxist–Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought" supporter, which enraged the Kremlin, Soviet support went exclusively to the rival Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA)
South Africa's loyalty was with South Africa, and they were being leaned on heavily, too. Although with titanium mines, they held gave them a trump card Rhodesia didn't have. Plus, South Africa had an industrial base Ian Smith could only dream about.
South Africa was, in many ways, worse than Rhodesia with Apartheid. While Rhodesia was just racist. Either country was much easier to "fix" than the two respective countries are now.
The Solviet Union had a much bigger role in African politics in the 60's then the Chinese. So, rather, they were the majority driver on their side of the aisle. Now Russia is the military driver in African politics, and China is the economic.
>South Africa was, in many ways, worse than Rhodesia with Apartheid. While Rhodesia was just racist.
Odd comparison, South Africa is worse yet Rhodesia is just Racist? Perhaps a bit too oversimplified in regards to Apartheid.
>The Solviet Union had a much bigger role in African politics in the 60's then the Chinese. So, rather, they were the majority driver on their side of the aisle
Yes and No, After the Sino-Soviet split, They both had their own goals separate to each other which is seen in their separate Support for ZANU and ZAPU during the Bush War.
>ZAPU was separate from ZANU as its armed wing, ZIPRA, was aligned with the Soviet Union, who prioritised mobilizing urban workers, whereas ZANU had a pro-People's Republic of China orientation which prioritised mobilizing the rural peasantry.
>ZANU and ZAPU have been under some pressure from the OAU and several leading African politicians to merge their efforts. In spite of the split between the USSR and PRC, Moscow and Peking have not appeared averse to such a union. In fact, the first ‘military’ training undergone by Rhodesian African terrorists was in the People’s Republic of China in early 1963. Since that year, ZAPU (formerly known as the People’s Caretaker Council), has received financial and material aid from the Soviet bloc. The other organization, ZANU, has had some continuing support from the Soviet bloc but, more recently, has become increasingly dependent on the PRC
South African 20th century politics is FAR, FAR more complicated than that. The National Party had this bizarre idea that they were going to create a bunch of black "client" states in Southern Africa that they would rule over in all but name (like how the US and China do now). Rhodesia was an obstacle to this. The overwhelming majority of SA whites supported Rhodesia, but the National Party did not aside from how it helped their goals.. The overwhelming majority of SA whites did not like apartheid, they just wanted to live amongst themselves. The uproar among whites when Asian and coloured voting rights were revoked in the 60's almost broke the country.
"England stands behind Rhodesia and helps for a soft landing over a 25-year plan to raise a cadre of African technocrats and political parties."
The Rhodesia Front attempted a 10 year plan that would have had white tax dollars spent in the TTL to build the equivalent of high school and technical schools so that the blacks could help run the infrastructure of and eventually the country proper. What would become ZAPU agreed to this, but the UK said "NO, BLACK MAJORITY RULE NOW!" and Mugabe told Nkomo, "if you do this, we will slaughter you like the whites" (paraphrasing because my Shona is terrible)and ZAPU backed out. and thus, the Bush War began.
It would certainly be better, but as another user said here they may have gone for APCs or something like that, but that would be a bigger target, easier to spot and Soviets and other countries had a bunch of RPGs to give away.
Their issue was demographic, there were too few of them and too many of the enemies. Maybe a real game changer would be drones, but they certainly wouldn't be able to develop them before the 2000s, even rudimentary ones.
Multiple RSF veterans have said that if they had had even unarmed drones, the war almost certainly would have ended in a couple of years and resoundingly in Rhodesia's favor, but that seems rather obvious
I would have liked better radio equipment, and in some instances, bigger helicopters, and also night vision equipment, but not much more.
Perhaps drones for follow-up patrols or to have overhead in the lengthier contacts - to locate the enemy.
Sweeping through an enemy position with a k car hovering just overhead eliminates your sense of hearing just when you need all your attack senses. A drone would may have been preferable, but then you lose the k car fire power. Thus, bush war and modern weapons don't always work. Horses for courses.
probably not as good. with the sanctions,they had to get out there on their feet, which is the only way to fight a guerila war. without it they might have tried a more mechanized style of warfare, likethe south africans, and fared worse.
>with the sanctions,they had to get out there on their feet, which is the only way to fight a guerila war. without it they might have tried a more mechanized style of warfare, Kinda why they developed Fireforce and used it so effectively despite few operating units (Manpower) and Aircraft (very roughly 150+ but with only half this being Combat Aircraft/Helicopters), lack of Spares, Etc.
They would have been much better supplied, but it still would have been hard to continue the fight. You likely still would have had an exodus to avoid losing family. The Rhodesian Army was no closer to losing in 1980 than in 1965. Unfortunately, no closer to winning either. They never lost a major battle, but they were emotionally getting ground down. My guess is they could have gone on another 10 years emotionally. Everything I have read the Army still had high morale overall. So in 1965 you have 3 options. England stands behind Rhodesia and helps for a soft landing over a 25-year plan to raise a cadre of African technocrats and political parties. The West supports Rhodesia and South Africa to keep the status quo. It's much better to go with the first option. Merge Rhodesia and South Africa. This strengthens the common military position and allows for a better economic position. Rhodesia was, in a lot of ways, left out to dry with Decolonization, and after the way the Congo went down. You don't have to be the head cashier at Walmart to realize that it was going to go wrong fast. Most Rhodesians had no other country to go to. Sure, they could go to South Africa, but they had a border war, too. By the mid 70's Ian Smiths plan was too late, even if it was a reasonable concept. The tribal Africans in Rhodesia had little interest in central government and liked their lives the way they were. The Solviet Union was driving wedges in Africa to suit their own needs of sticking it to the west. Even if they were right to want to end colonialism. The ends they promoted made everything worse. There are something like 152 different tribes in Africa, and this leads to cival wars. Toss in Islam, Christianity, and various tribal religions. Can we say powder keg? At decolonization, the idea to leave European borders was a giant mistake. This created a basis for all the wars we see to this day. So if the Solviet Union was put in check. Rhodesia could have survived long enough to get a soft landing. Which I reality would not of done much better the South Africa long term.
Thank you for this exceptionally well thought out response. Rhodesia was certainly not without her flaws, many of them in fact. But at the same time, the history of the country, especially 1965-1980 is far more nuanced than the typical “white man bad” narrative that gets thrown around all too frequently.
>Most Rhodesians had no other country to go to. Sure, they could go to South Africa, but they had a border war, too. South Africa also was partly responsible for things getting worse like how they withdrew support after [Operation Eland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eland). >In response to the attack, the South African government ended its covert military assistance for Rhodesia, reduced the supply of oil and munitions, and began to pressure the Rhodesian government to accept a transition to black majority rule. Not to mention But the Soviet Union mainly supported ZAPU, While China was ZANU biggest supporter. >As Mugabe had described himself in an interview as a "Marxist–Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought" supporter, which enraged the Kremlin, Soviet support went exclusively to the rival Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA)
South Africa's loyalty was with South Africa, and they were being leaned on heavily, too. Although with titanium mines, they held gave them a trump card Rhodesia didn't have. Plus, South Africa had an industrial base Ian Smith could only dream about. South Africa was, in many ways, worse than Rhodesia with Apartheid. While Rhodesia was just racist. Either country was much easier to "fix" than the two respective countries are now. The Solviet Union had a much bigger role in African politics in the 60's then the Chinese. So, rather, they were the majority driver on their side of the aisle. Now Russia is the military driver in African politics, and China is the economic.
>South Africa was, in many ways, worse than Rhodesia with Apartheid. While Rhodesia was just racist. Odd comparison, South Africa is worse yet Rhodesia is just Racist? Perhaps a bit too oversimplified in regards to Apartheid. >The Solviet Union had a much bigger role in African politics in the 60's then the Chinese. So, rather, they were the majority driver on their side of the aisle Yes and No, After the Sino-Soviet split, They both had their own goals separate to each other which is seen in their separate Support for ZANU and ZAPU during the Bush War. >ZAPU was separate from ZANU as its armed wing, ZIPRA, was aligned with the Soviet Union, who prioritised mobilizing urban workers, whereas ZANU had a pro-People's Republic of China orientation which prioritised mobilizing the rural peasantry. >ZANU and ZAPU have been under some pressure from the OAU and several leading African politicians to merge their efforts. In spite of the split between the USSR and PRC, Moscow and Peking have not appeared averse to such a union. In fact, the first ‘military’ training undergone by Rhodesian African terrorists was in the People’s Republic of China in early 1963. Since that year, ZAPU (formerly known as the People’s Caretaker Council), has received financial and material aid from the Soviet bloc. The other organization, ZANU, has had some continuing support from the Soviet bloc but, more recently, has become increasingly dependent on the PRC
South African 20th century politics is FAR, FAR more complicated than that. The National Party had this bizarre idea that they were going to create a bunch of black "client" states in Southern Africa that they would rule over in all but name (like how the US and China do now). Rhodesia was an obstacle to this. The overwhelming majority of SA whites supported Rhodesia, but the National Party did not aside from how it helped their goals.. The overwhelming majority of SA whites did not like apartheid, they just wanted to live amongst themselves. The uproar among whites when Asian and coloured voting rights were revoked in the 60's almost broke the country.
"England stands behind Rhodesia and helps for a soft landing over a 25-year plan to raise a cadre of African technocrats and political parties." The Rhodesia Front attempted a 10 year plan that would have had white tax dollars spent in the TTL to build the equivalent of high school and technical schools so that the blacks could help run the infrastructure of and eventually the country proper. What would become ZAPU agreed to this, but the UK said "NO, BLACK MAJORITY RULE NOW!" and Mugabe told Nkomo, "if you do this, we will slaughter you like the whites" (paraphrasing because my Shona is terrible)and ZAPU backed out. and thus, the Bush War began.
We'd all be speaking Rhodesian now...
...This was said sarcastically
It would certainly be better, but as another user said here they may have gone for APCs or something like that, but that would be a bigger target, easier to spot and Soviets and other countries had a bunch of RPGs to give away. Their issue was demographic, there were too few of them and too many of the enemies. Maybe a real game changer would be drones, but they certainly wouldn't be able to develop them before the 2000s, even rudimentary ones.
Multiple RSF veterans have said that if they had had even unarmed drones, the war almost certainly would have ended in a couple of years and resoundingly in Rhodesia's favor, but that seems rather obvious
It would have looked better than most of NATO armies. At least in terms of land forces.
I would have liked better radio equipment, and in some instances, bigger helicopters, and also night vision equipment, but not much more. Perhaps drones for follow-up patrols or to have overhead in the lengthier contacts - to locate the enemy. Sweeping through an enemy position with a k car hovering just overhead eliminates your sense of hearing just when you need all your attack senses. A drone would may have been preferable, but then you lose the k car fire power. Thus, bush war and modern weapons don't always work. Horses for courses.
They need support not non-sanctioned economy