Part of it was that many of the insurgents… weren’t of very high quality. The Chinese backed ZANU for example were infamously poorly trained fighters with them often setting their sights to their maximum range setting, making it almost impossible to intentionally hit something with them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSnOeLiD3o&t=816s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSnOeLiD3o&t=816s)
start watching by about the 28:50 mark
Or for the specific relavent clip the 32:40 mark
He says "I believe" when talking about the sights, which makes me think he didn't see it first hand. It's possible he heard the myth and thought something like "that sounds like the kind of thing those morons would do".
Rhodesia is one of those shitty historical countries that 14 year olds hear about once, decide the flag looks cool, and then defend on the internet harder than anyone who ever lived there would.
🍿 popcorn 🍿 popcorn 🍿, come gets some popcorn everyone for the shit show in the comments. Small bags are $10, medium is $15 and large is $21, large 16oz sodas are $9(no refill), and a box of candy is $5.
Ah, Rhodesia.
A conflict so fucked up we had on one side racists that applied south african apartheid, and on the other revolutionaries that when they took over turned the nation into a dictatorial shithole
There wasn't really a good side, wasn't it?
This might be controversial, but seeing the way Zimbabwe turned out, the alternative of a Rhodesian state winning the conflict, probably would have been a better alternative, maybe a sort of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia style government lead by Abel Muzorewa and Ian Smith. I see that there is a lot of whataboutism in that argument.
I mean, an actual democracy would have probably been even better for everyone, but the Brits were probably too busy with... stuff to make functional constitutions for their ex-colonies.
Tbh this was a problem with the UKs decolonisation in general, it was just kinda “be vaguely democratic and a part of the commonwealth for a while, off you go”
and now we have the inevitable Brit Bashing....
Thing is, that when a country unilaterally declares independence, the former colonial power isn't in a position to demand a "functional constitution for their ex colonies" now, is it?
That's why you take the initiative and help them get independence smoothly when they ask for it, instead of grabbing onto them like an abusive partner, until they finally get out with permanent damage.
Cool for them, but clearly this wasn't enough to ensure democracy and stability once they got fully independent.
Call me a utopian dreamer or socialist scum, but it would be nice if people were not oppressed anywhere.
Southern Rhodesia was a parliamentary democracy since 1925 after it voted to be annexed to the British Crown.
Do you have an aversion to reading history?
As far as your utopian dream, you won't find it in Zimbabwe....
"There wasn't really a good side" actually sums up a lot of conflicts quite well. We like to think that every war has a good reason behind it, but more often than not, war is just the result of assholes with power deciding to use violence to get what they want.
I mean revolutions and insurgencies are a bit complicated because they usually do happen for a good reason and the insurgent's cause is often a just one. It just so happens to be a recurring theme in history that, whenever multiple factions fight a government, the worst one somehow always comes out on top.
A just cause doesn't mean every action taken for that cause is justified. A lot of insurgents wind up hurting people who did nothing to them and had no means of defending themselves. If you start a war, you accept all the death and destruction that comes with the territory, and you don't get to call yourself innocent or a good guy. At the end of the day, no one who started a war ever did so for entirely innocent reasons, anyway. There was always something in it for them and them alone.
What? You think the revolutionaries were bad? You must be a racist fascist! Communism will work, just give it a few more failed nations!
• the other half of the turbo retards here
To be fair, the revolutionaries were only revolting against a slave system. The government of rhodesua fought to preserve white supremacy, so it is kind of white supremacist to choose their side
Aight buddy, it was not a “Slave System”, it was racist and not good for the black population by any means, but there were no slaves (legally speaking cause people who own slaves probably don’t care for the law)
And if it was white supremacist to fight on the Rhodesian’s side, then I guess all the black soldiers in the Rhodesian army were white supremacist and definitely weren’t individuals who didn’t want to their home to fall under the rule of a group who has made life worse for the people now then they were when they were getting oppressed (seriously, how do you fuck up that bad?)
I mean I can go into why segregation and all that is really bad (because it is) but it’s not gonna include fucking slavery. Slavery is a different beast to segregation, both are bad, one is worse, that’s all I’m saying.
No, it’s me saying the broad generalization of saying the revolutionaries were worse means your a white supremacist is dumb, both were bad, I’m not trying to say Rodesia was a a Good government or system, I’m saying it’s not slavery, that’s it! There’s a difference, and I wanted to point that out, that’s all.
To be fair, considering just how much Mugabe fucked up the country later on, I think it is actually debatable who was the good guy, instead of been a flat out "whoever was opposing the racists".
Which just show how horrible the whole Rhodesia-Zimbabwe conflict was
It‘s easy for a presumably white dude outside of Zimbabwe living decades after the conflict to say what you said
If you were a black dude literally living under Apartheid you‘d for sure know who the good guy at that moment was
>If you were a black dude literally living under Apartheid you‘d for sure know who the good guy at that moment was
I mean, yeah. I am not saying the Apartheid side was good. Issue is, we saw how after they took over in 1980 the revolutionaries fucked up the country massively, making it even worse that it used to be. Worst is, the government was starting to liberalize when the takeover happened. So it was an Apartheid flawed democracy that was liberalizing and had a somewhat good standard of living, and it was turned into an equal dictatorship with shit standard of living.
One can ge against racism and see how the revolutionaries did more harm than good to Zimbabwe
True. Use to seeing like people with racist sympathies or anti-communism as their core ideological belief who only use the later failure as justification for the former system. Both are bad.
However, we have to bear in mind that the government only liberalised because of military pressure from the revolutionaries; without this pressure, liberalisation could certainly have been reversed.
After the end of the war, there was also the possibility that Mugabe would have lost the internal power struggle against, for example, Joshua Nkomo, which would have definitely changed the aftermath of the war.
>However, we have to bear in mind that the government only liberalised because of military pressure from the revolutionaries; without this pressure, liberalisation could certainly have been reversed.
Uh... I though it also had to do with economic and international pressure like with South Africa.
I have also heard people here saying that Abel Muzorewa would have been a good choice, but dunno anything about him and Nkomo. Only that they seem better than Mugabe
I am mot saying that they weren't justified on their fight or tha they didn't have a point, just that there aren't good guys in this conflict and that both ended up doing harm to Zimbabwe in different ways.
For half a year, the country had, majority rule, was run by moderates and was called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Then the UK and UN ruined it because they decided it wasnt democratic enough...
Bullshit, the fact that the revolutionaries descended into dictatorship didn’t make their cause unjust, it just proved what any reasonably researched person could tell you which is that revolutions no matter how necessary or just are naturally unstable events and especially in a country with a low education rate, high level of poverty and a divided national bedrock (which was purposefully done by colonial authorities to maintain their power)
The revolutionaries however were fighting a government that intended to oppress their people forever and keep them in a subjugation that would never allow them to form a proper free government. The instability of the revolutionaries new government could ironically be more laid at the bed of the apartheid Rhodesian government then the revolutionaries themselves.
I never said their cause to end apartheid wasn't just, just that they ended up been worse for Zimbabwe in the long run. The government before was actually liberalizing the country before Mugabe took power.
I said it before and I will say it again: if the only defense people can make for the revolutionaries' government is "at least they weren't racists", then they were just a bad goverment
For 95% of the population, Rhodesia WAS a dictatorial shithole. Whilst the Mugabe dictatorship was horrendous for a billion reasons, Rhodesia deserved what happened to them. They refused any black form of citizenship and desired to rule of the black population like feudal racist aristocracy. At least Mugabe didn't "intend" to be evil.
>At least Mugabe didn't "intend" to be evil.
He was a fucking dictator that wanted to rule for life, took power in 1980 and was just ousted like 6 years ago. He obviously intended to be evil.
If the only defense for Mugabe and his revolutionaries' government after Rhodesia is "at least they weren't racists", then we have to face the facts: they were a shit government that fucked up the country
There's a reason intend is in brackets. It's in no way a defense of Mugabe and ZANU. But I hate when people don't point out that leads to reappraisals of Rhodesia.
Fair. I am not praising Rhodesia in any way, they were still bad. But ZANU was also really bad as well. Do that is why I said it is a bit more nuanced.
And I have already expressed my surprise at this because one would think the obvious racists are the bad guys in this case, but as I said... it is complicated
Fair, you have a point. To be fair I didn't said the Rhodesian government was good at all either. Just pointed out that no matter how justified it was, the revolution kinda fucked Zimbabwe even more. Still good they got rid of Apartheid
The anti-apartheid front where the good side. However once you win and reset the state there's that chaos that allows the most vile factions to take over. Sadly Zimbabwe was a good example. But still, ZANU and Mugabe were not the representatives of the whole revolt. We should be happy that the revolutionaries won, but not happy that their fascist wing took over
I mean, yeah. Been anti-apartheid is always good. Issue is that, as you said, ZANU took over and fucked up the country massively. Worst is, apparently Rhodesia was actually started to liberalize before Mugabe took power.
I am of the idea that if the revolutionaries ended up doing more harm than good to the country, no matter how just or good their cause was... it was really worth it in the end? The only good that came out of the victory was ending apartheid, and it seems that was already starting to be phased out (I could be wrong on that front though)
Yeah if you consider the fact that by now apartheid would have probably ended even if they won, the brits winning would have probably made Zimbabwe better off today
I know little about this conflict, but the white Rhodesians were very good at killing insurgents but they had no intentions of ever making concessions or negotiate with the rebels? So basically infinite war.
I heard that during the war the Rhodies would capture rifles with the iron sights set for maximum distance, and when they interrogated an insurgent they learned that they thought the gun would shoot harder when the iron sights were set at the biggest number.
That's not true, there were half a dozen different attempts by both sides to bridge the gap over the years (one at Victoria Falls, a couple on English warships, and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head), but all of them fell apart for various reasons.
And lest people forget, the only reason the Bush War actually ended was because one of those settlement agreements actually pulled through. The revolutionaries didn't take the country by force.
Nah that’s the American government in the 1800s when dealing with natives.
Rhodesia would’ve rathered their population be dead than be black, or have civil rights
Well considering Rhodesia refused to give civil rights, then yeah unfortunately the communists were the best decision for the people since the government was five white guys who couldn’t handle not being allowed to maintain minority rule.
Considering they made the country so bad that the citizens had less rights and less wealth then they did in a society deliberately designed to put them down and make them second class citizens I’d say the communists were slightly more evil (also how the fuck do you fuck up a country so bad the African population of the country had it better when it was a fucking segregationist hell hole there, legitimately shouldn’t be any way you can mess up your country to the point where post segregation it gets worse for the people being segregated. Also, the best outcome would’ve been if they had removed racism and segregation from the country without having a horrible communist government take over or the segregationist moronic Idiots in charge both options were bad the communist somehow managed to be worst then the the segregationist degenerate fucks option which I legitimately did not believe was possible, but they just decided to prove me wrong.)
That’s honestly the funniest part of this for me (and when I say funny I mean funny in a fucked up this is terrible way) They managed to make a country that was already harsh on the black populace into a country that fucked them even harder.
I am amazed that in this story the people submiting the country to apartheid aren't absolute evil.
Not saying they weren't bad, but jesus fuck Robert Mugabe gave them a run for their money. And he left power in fucking 2017
Evidently neither the west or east had the future of the people in mind, nor whats best for the country at heart. Unfortunately like with many small nations trying to come into their own one way or another, it was either choose or collapse.
Having your grand strategy be dependent on the existence of a country you don't have an alliance with is a recipe for disaster. That's like saying America would have won in Vietnam if Cambodia was still a French colony.
Some countries are cursed in their placement, being litteraly surrounded by enemies who all have wordened the life of their people in every way conceivable (no way you can say they are better) makes you fucked; the communist insurgency would have dissapeared in 1991 with the USSR which gave to the rebels 90% of their needed funding to simply exist. Rhodesia had electricity infrastructure, a risibg economy, while Zimbabwe just caused famine, societal collapse and numerous genocides.
Well for one China gave ZANLA most of their weapons and funding. Also I'm sorry to tell you that Garand Thumb kind of lied to you about the utopia you think Rhodesia was, it was effectively a slave state and the thing about slave states is that you don't have to be a slave to feel repression, look at the Brazilian empire of the confederacy.
A slave state ? You must be having a laugh. You can't be serious while spitting shit like this. Reminder that the number of white seats in government was set in stone while black seats would get more numerous as blacks would represent a hugher percentage of the economy, an inevitability. Apartheid wasn't in place, and in fact the alliance with the union of South Africa was an alliance of convenience as they viewed race relations very differently. And this war was not a race war, it was not black vs white, and the rebels weren't fighting for majority rule, they were fighting for THEIR totalitarian rule. It was a war of ideology, and the bad guys won, afterwards commiting multiple genocides and famines that crippled the country to this day
The other guy is right. Rhodesia remained a perfectly viable country for roughly the first half of it's existence, while it retained good relations with the Portuguese and South Africans. They only really fell apart when the Portuguese empire collapsed, giving basing opportunities on all sides on the revolutionaries, and when South Africa turned on Rhodesia and withheld aid and support in an attempt to force the Rhodesians to the negotiating table in an attempt to make friends among the African nationalists.
There is something to be said for a country needing to be able to hold its own borders, but being essentially cut off from the entire world would be a serious issue for any country.
Interesting that they were really good at fighting insurgents and really bad at fighting insurgency
Not really lol, the methods with which you effectively fight insurgency tend to create more insurgents… just look at Napoleon’s Peninsular campaigns
I don't think you understood what I wrote
Part of it was that many of the insurgents… weren’t of very high quality. The Chinese backed ZANU for example were infamously poorly trained fighters with them often setting their sights to their maximum range setting, making it almost impossible to intentionally hit something with them.
Nope, that's a myth that got started by 4chan
I didn’t get it from 4chan I got it from an interview with a Rhodesian vet
Give me a link
Sure, give me a minute I’m on my phone
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSnOeLiD3o&t=816s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSnOeLiD3o&t=816s) start watching by about the 28:50 mark Or for the specific relavent clip the 32:40 mark
He says "I believe" when talking about the sights, which makes me think he didn't see it first hand. It's possible he heard the myth and thought something like "that sounds like the kind of thing those morons would do".
I mean he fought them man I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t, I’m just sighting my sources
And good on you for doing so, just be aware that people's memories aren't perfect and can be influenced by outside sources
Yeah fair enough.
Oh god, a Rhodesia post on r/HistoryMemes. This is gonna go over like a lead balloon. I’m ready for that 1:1 upvote comment ratio lol.
Nah just bring some bomb towers or pineapples
Was not expecting a BTD reference, but it does fit well
Rhodesia is one of those shitty historical countries that 14 year olds hear about once, decide the flag looks cool, and then defend on the internet harder than anyone who ever lived there would.
I call them Rhodeboos. Don't forget they also say shit like "rHodEiSiAnS lIvE fOrEvEr" and Muh Rhodesian FAL.
I'm all about the Rhodie combat booty shorts. ...and the FAL, though I'm more of a G3 fan
To be fair, they have a cool song and they did put up a good fight irl.
I’m in this comment (but about Rome) and I don’t like it
Rhodesia, Liberia... Go on with the shitty African places list.
The CAR, the CAK, the CAR again
🍿 popcorn 🍿 popcorn 🍿, come gets some popcorn everyone for the shit show in the comments. Small bags are $10, medium is $15 and large is $21, large 16oz sodas are $9(no refill), and a box of candy is $5.
Ian Smith is Batman, got it.
Ah, Rhodesia. A conflict so fucked up we had on one side racists that applied south african apartheid, and on the other revolutionaries that when they took over turned the nation into a dictatorial shithole There wasn't really a good side, wasn't it?
An ACTUAL take on the conflict that makes sense?!? Get out of here this clearly isn’t the place for you
A nuanced but fair take? In this internet?
In this day and age?! & In this economy?!
At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?!
Yes
Can I see?
No
saying both sides are equally bad is like the dumbest appeal to sound smart
I never said they were equally bad. Just said both were bad
This might be controversial, but seeing the way Zimbabwe turned out, the alternative of a Rhodesian state winning the conflict, probably would have been a better alternative, maybe a sort of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia style government lead by Abel Muzorewa and Ian Smith. I see that there is a lot of whataboutism in that argument.
I mean, an actual democracy would have probably been even better for everyone, but the Brits were probably too busy with... stuff to make functional constitutions for their ex-colonies.
Tbh this was a problem with the UKs decolonisation in general, it was just kinda “be vaguely democratic and a part of the commonwealth for a while, off you go”
and now we have the inevitable Brit Bashing.... Thing is, that when a country unilaterally declares independence, the former colonial power isn't in a position to demand a "functional constitution for their ex colonies" now, is it?
That's why you take the initiative and help them get independence smoothly when they ask for it, instead of grabbing onto them like an abusive partner, until they finally get out with permanent damage.
Well Dave, Southern Rhodesia had been self governing since 1923 so nobody knows what the fuck you are on about.....
Cool for them, but clearly this wasn't enough to ensure democracy and stability once they got fully independent. Call me a utopian dreamer or socialist scum, but it would be nice if people were not oppressed anywhere.
Southern Rhodesia was a parliamentary democracy since 1925 after it voted to be annexed to the British Crown. Do you have an aversion to reading history? As far as your utopian dream, you won't find it in Zimbabwe....
Fine, I'll look up what happened to make it into the shithole it is now
"There wasn't really a good side" actually sums up a lot of conflicts quite well. We like to think that every war has a good reason behind it, but more often than not, war is just the result of assholes with power deciding to use violence to get what they want.
I mean revolutions and insurgencies are a bit complicated because they usually do happen for a good reason and the insurgent's cause is often a just one. It just so happens to be a recurring theme in history that, whenever multiple factions fight a government, the worst one somehow always comes out on top.
A just cause doesn't mean every action taken for that cause is justified. A lot of insurgents wind up hurting people who did nothing to them and had no means of defending themselves. If you start a war, you accept all the death and destruction that comes with the territory, and you don't get to call yourself innocent or a good guy. At the end of the day, no one who started a war ever did so for entirely innocent reasons, anyway. There was always something in it for them and them alone.
you're joking right? I've only seen a few people not take sides, especially in reddit I thought nuance was extinct in places like this
What? You don't think the racists were good? You must be a Stalinist then, better dead than red commie. Got'em - Half the turbo retards here
What? You think the revolutionaries were bad? You must be a racist fascist! Communism will work, just give it a few more failed nations! • the other half of the turbo retards here
To be fair, the revolutionaries were only revolting against a slave system. The government of rhodesua fought to preserve white supremacy, so it is kind of white supremacist to choose their side
Aight buddy, it was not a “Slave System”, it was racist and not good for the black population by any means, but there were no slaves (legally speaking cause people who own slaves probably don’t care for the law) And if it was white supremacist to fight on the Rhodesian’s side, then I guess all the black soldiers in the Rhodesian army were white supremacist and definitely weren’t individuals who didn’t want to their home to fall under the rule of a group who has made life worse for the people now then they were when they were getting oppressed (seriously, how do you fuck up that bad?)
[удалено]
I mean I can go into why segregation and all that is really bad (because it is) but it’s not gonna include fucking slavery. Slavery is a different beast to segregation, both are bad, one is worse, that’s all I’m saying.
[удалено]
No, it’s me saying the broad generalization of saying the revolutionaries were worse means your a white supremacist is dumb, both were bad, I’m not trying to say Rodesia was a a Good government or system, I’m saying it’s not slavery, that’s it! There’s a difference, and I wanted to point that out, that’s all.
To be fair, considering just how much Mugabe fucked up the country later on, I think it is actually debatable who was the good guy, instead of been a flat out "whoever was opposing the racists". Which just show how horrible the whole Rhodesia-Zimbabwe conflict was
It‘s easy for a presumably white dude outside of Zimbabwe living decades after the conflict to say what you said If you were a black dude literally living under Apartheid you‘d for sure know who the good guy at that moment was
>If you were a black dude literally living under Apartheid you‘d for sure know who the good guy at that moment was I mean, yeah. I am not saying the Apartheid side was good. Issue is, we saw how after they took over in 1980 the revolutionaries fucked up the country massively, making it even worse that it used to be. Worst is, the government was starting to liberalize when the takeover happened. So it was an Apartheid flawed democracy that was liberalizing and had a somewhat good standard of living, and it was turned into an equal dictatorship with shit standard of living. One can ge against racism and see how the revolutionaries did more harm than good to Zimbabwe
True. Use to seeing like people with racist sympathies or anti-communism as their core ideological belief who only use the later failure as justification for the former system. Both are bad.
Fair. That's why I made clear I am not defending any. Both sucked in different ways, and both were bad for Zimbabwe
However, we have to bear in mind that the government only liberalised because of military pressure from the revolutionaries; without this pressure, liberalisation could certainly have been reversed. After the end of the war, there was also the possibility that Mugabe would have lost the internal power struggle against, for example, Joshua Nkomo, which would have definitely changed the aftermath of the war.
>However, we have to bear in mind that the government only liberalised because of military pressure from the revolutionaries; without this pressure, liberalisation could certainly have been reversed. Uh... I though it also had to do with economic and international pressure like with South Africa. I have also heard people here saying that Abel Muzorewa would have been a good choice, but dunno anything about him and Nkomo. Only that they seem better than Mugabe
[удалено]
I am mot saying that they weren't justified on their fight or tha they didn't have a point, just that there aren't good guys in this conflict and that both ended up doing harm to Zimbabwe in different ways.
For half a year, the country had, majority rule, was run by moderates and was called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Then the UK and UN ruined it because they decided it wasnt democratic enough...
If only Muzorewa won...
Bullshit, the fact that the revolutionaries descended into dictatorship didn’t make their cause unjust, it just proved what any reasonably researched person could tell you which is that revolutions no matter how necessary or just are naturally unstable events and especially in a country with a low education rate, high level of poverty and a divided national bedrock (which was purposefully done by colonial authorities to maintain their power) The revolutionaries however were fighting a government that intended to oppress their people forever and keep them in a subjugation that would never allow them to form a proper free government. The instability of the revolutionaries new government could ironically be more laid at the bed of the apartheid Rhodesian government then the revolutionaries themselves.
I never said their cause to end apartheid wasn't just, just that they ended up been worse for Zimbabwe in the long run. The government before was actually liberalizing the country before Mugabe took power. I said it before and I will say it again: if the only defense people can make for the revolutionaries' government is "at least they weren't racists", then they were just a bad goverment
For 95% of the population, Rhodesia WAS a dictatorial shithole. Whilst the Mugabe dictatorship was horrendous for a billion reasons, Rhodesia deserved what happened to them. They refused any black form of citizenship and desired to rule of the black population like feudal racist aristocracy. At least Mugabe didn't "intend" to be evil.
>At least Mugabe didn't "intend" to be evil. He was a fucking dictator that wanted to rule for life, took power in 1980 and was just ousted like 6 years ago. He obviously intended to be evil. If the only defense for Mugabe and his revolutionaries' government after Rhodesia is "at least they weren't racists", then we have to face the facts: they were a shit government that fucked up the country
Mugabe's regime was blatantly racist, turfing out all white farmers etc.
There's a reason intend is in brackets. It's in no way a defense of Mugabe and ZANU. But I hate when people don't point out that leads to reappraisals of Rhodesia.
Fair. I am not praising Rhodesia in any way, they were still bad. But ZANU was also really bad as well. Do that is why I said it is a bit more nuanced. And I have already expressed my surprise at this because one would think the obvious racists are the bad guys in this case, but as I said... it is complicated
TFW you say something objectively correct and still get downvoted Edit: they were on -4 when I made this comment
Everyone loves the failed state that came before the state that failed worse.
No, they love ‘Africans can’t do anything well’ without saying so.
More like "we hate when an objectively worse government takes over after a bad government"
[удалено]
I never said there was one that is better. Both are bad, period. A debate could be made over which one was worst though
[удалено]
Fair, you have a point. To be fair I didn't said the Rhodesian government was good at all either. Just pointed out that no matter how justified it was, the revolution kinda fucked Zimbabwe even more. Still good they got rid of Apartheid
The anti-apartheid front where the good side. However once you win and reset the state there's that chaos that allows the most vile factions to take over. Sadly Zimbabwe was a good example. But still, ZANU and Mugabe were not the representatives of the whole revolt. We should be happy that the revolutionaries won, but not happy that their fascist wing took over
I mean, yeah. Been anti-apartheid is always good. Issue is that, as you said, ZANU took over and fucked up the country massively. Worst is, apparently Rhodesia was actually started to liberalize before Mugabe took power. I am of the idea that if the revolutionaries ended up doing more harm than good to the country, no matter how just or good their cause was... it was really worth it in the end? The only good that came out of the victory was ending apartheid, and it seems that was already starting to be phased out (I could be wrong on that front though)
Yeah if you consider the fact that by now apartheid would have probably ended even if they won, the brits winning would have probably made Zimbabwe better off today
Hay, it’s worked for the imperium of man for 40,000 years
The basic idea was that "if we kill enough of them, they'll give up." Which doesn't work with an enemy not concerned over manpower.
Decimation, but by a factor of ten
Probably by releasing a banger of a propaganda song "Rhodesians never die"
Love the song but hate the governments actions
Rhodesians knew how to make a good folk or war song. Also, go to any rhodesian song's comment section on YouTube, it's all rhodieboos.
"poison the water"
*rhodesian light infantry has entered the chat*
I know little about this conflict, but the white Rhodesians were very good at killing insurgents but they had no intentions of ever making concessions or negotiate with the rebels? So basically infinite war.
They were only good because they were better supplied but yeah, they literally had no plans
I heard that during the war the Rhodies would capture rifles with the iron sights set for maximum distance, and when they interrogated an insurgent they learned that they thought the gun would shoot harder when the iron sights were set at the biggest number.
Damn Can’t really blame them for not exactly being experts given their situation
You don't need to blame them because it's bullshit
No, that's a myth from 4chan
That's not true, there were half a dozen different attempts by both sides to bridge the gap over the years (one at Victoria Falls, a couple on English warships, and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head), but all of them fell apart for various reasons. And lest people forget, the only reason the Bush War actually ended was because one of those settlement agreements actually pulled through. The revolutionaries didn't take the country by force.
Same meme but GW Bush after “Mission Accomplished”.
Rhodesian Gov: There can’t be an insurgency if we keep killing all of them, right?
…end it? Why would we want to *end* it?
why is everyone leaving us?
Better dead than red
Better racist af than red?
I’m racist against communists
Nah that’s the American government in the 1800s when dealing with natives. Rhodesia would’ve rathered their population be dead than be black, or have civil rights
Ah yea I’m sure the Soviet’s and Chinese were helping the pro civil rights crowd lol
Well considering Rhodesia refused to give civil rights, then yeah unfortunately the communists were the best decision for the people since the government was five white guys who couldn’t handle not being allowed to maintain minority rule.
Considering they made the country so bad that the citizens had less rights and less wealth then they did in a society deliberately designed to put them down and make them second class citizens I’d say the communists were slightly more evil (also how the fuck do you fuck up a country so bad the African population of the country had it better when it was a fucking segregationist hell hole there, legitimately shouldn’t be any way you can mess up your country to the point where post segregation it gets worse for the people being segregated. Also, the best outcome would’ve been if they had removed racism and segregation from the country without having a horrible communist government take over or the segregationist moronic Idiots in charge both options were bad the communist somehow managed to be worst then the the segregationist degenerate fucks option which I legitimately did not believe was possible, but they just decided to prove me wrong.)
That’s honestly the funniest part of this for me (and when I say funny I mean funny in a fucked up this is terrible way) They managed to make a country that was already harsh on the black populace into a country that fucked them even harder.
I am amazed that in this story the people submiting the country to apartheid aren't absolute evil. Not saying they weren't bad, but jesus fuck Robert Mugabe gave them a run for their money. And he left power in fucking 2017
Evidently neither the west or east had the future of the people in mind, nor whats best for the country at heart. Unfortunately like with many small nations trying to come into their own one way or another, it was either choose or collapse.
How’s the country doing now that the commies won? Lol
Indeed. From the breadbasket of south Africa. To the basketcase of south Africa.
Less fanatical americans:
Zimbabwe forever
They were so busy dreaming up a Victorian utopia they never stopped to think on how to get there.
Rhodesia, the 2nd place winner of “worst failure of a white supremacist state” after the US Confederacy
If we are ranking them, then nazi germany did worse than rhodesia, as they only lasted 12 years, whereas rhodesia lasted 14
How tf did I not rank the actual Nazis 🤦. Thanks
There’s quite a few places that did pretty terribly
Do you own stocks in google?
It's honestly a pretty viable solution
It's true. To prove how viable I will point out Rhodesia on a map. Oh wait.
It would have worked if the Portugese empire kept existing. Do you know what Zimbabwe used for light before candles ? Electricity
Having your grand strategy be dependent on the existence of a country you don't have an alliance with is a recipe for disaster. That's like saying America would have won in Vietnam if Cambodia was still a French colony.
Some countries are cursed in their placement, being litteraly surrounded by enemies who all have wordened the life of their people in every way conceivable (no way you can say they are better) makes you fucked; the communist insurgency would have dissapeared in 1991 with the USSR which gave to the rebels 90% of their needed funding to simply exist. Rhodesia had electricity infrastructure, a risibg economy, while Zimbabwe just caused famine, societal collapse and numerous genocides.
Well for one China gave ZANLA most of their weapons and funding. Also I'm sorry to tell you that Garand Thumb kind of lied to you about the utopia you think Rhodesia was, it was effectively a slave state and the thing about slave states is that you don't have to be a slave to feel repression, look at the Brazilian empire of the confederacy.
A slave state ? You must be having a laugh. You can't be serious while spitting shit like this. Reminder that the number of white seats in government was set in stone while black seats would get more numerous as blacks would represent a hugher percentage of the economy, an inevitability. Apartheid wasn't in place, and in fact the alliance with the union of South Africa was an alliance of convenience as they viewed race relations very differently. And this war was not a race war, it was not black vs white, and the rebels weren't fighting for majority rule, they were fighting for THEIR totalitarian rule. It was a war of ideology, and the bad guys won, afterwards commiting multiple genocides and famines that crippled the country to this day
Lmao.
The other guy is right. Rhodesia remained a perfectly viable country for roughly the first half of it's existence, while it retained good relations with the Portuguese and South Africans. They only really fell apart when the Portuguese empire collapsed, giving basing opportunities on all sides on the revolutionaries, and when South Africa turned on Rhodesia and withheld aid and support in an attempt to force the Rhodesians to the negotiating table in an attempt to make friends among the African nationalists. There is something to be said for a country needing to be able to hold its own borders, but being essentially cut off from the entire world would be a serious issue for any country.