Thread 17973911

So I read up on the Rhodesian Bush War thanks to a post here claiming they were on the verge of winning, and I learned there were a lot of misconceptions. It feels like the opposite.
>By the early 1970s, Rhodesia went from tightly controlling all its frontiers from most infiltrations to having successful infiltrations everywhere
>Infiltrations would only get worse and never stop
>Most of the "splendid operations" they were responsible for mostly killed civilians and the top infamous one had to use other blacks. None had any effect on guerrilla operations
>Search and destroy was a failure
>Hearts and minds was a failure
>Chem and biological weapon deployment, one of the most desperate things a country can do in war was a failure and did not hamper guerrilla manpower
>Rhodesia's army was becoming more incompetent, inept and useless against African guerrillas over time
>Cracks in Rhodesia's deterrence strategy split when Botswana, formerly neutral, begun to openly aid rebels materially without fear of retaliation
>Rhodesia's failure to halt infiltration had gotten so bad that by the late 70s nearly its entire white population fled and all rural areas had the presence or direct control of guerrillas.
>Rhodesia lost its main petrol production plant thanks to a ZANLA strike near the end of the war, severely damaging its logistics. Commandos were infiltrating without issue, which would've been inconceivable in 1975
>Infiltrations and operations by guerrillas had eventually gotten so successful inside Rhodesia that a shift to a conventional war was being actively discussed and planned by insurgent high command. One could only imagine how this would go, but this even being discussed shows just how well things were going for the African fronts.
>Eventually, Rhodesia was forced to the diplomatic table thanks to the developments against them and surrendered to majority rule.
This makes it very difficult to believe Rhodesia won

>>17973911 (OP)
he bush war was a case of ground troops winning every battle
politicians failing to secure a win condition
it didn’t matter how many zambian invaders they killed
there wasn’t a way to win the war

>>17973911 (OP)
Who has ever claimed Rhodesia won?

>>17973992
Rhodeboos

>>17973994
they don’t claim rhodesia won the war, they highlight the effectiveness of the selous scouts, lament the failure of the politicians to secure a win condition and cream themselves over short shorts and the admittedly excellent Rhodesian camouflage pattern

Africa during the cold war.

>political commissar who has attended the international proletariat school in Moscow comes to your village and tell you that you have go kill everyone in village on the other side of the river.


>political commissar who has attended the international proletariat school in Beijing comes to your village and tell you that you have go kill everyone in village on the other side of the river.

>>17973911 (OP)
Nazis(the only people who support Rhodesia) measure conflicts in terms of KDR. Even if you failed every strategic goal you had as long as you killed more people they count that as a win

>>17974203
what the hell are you talking about? the bush war was in the 1960s the nazis were long gone by then

>>17973911 (OP)
>>Most of the "splendid operations" they were responsible for mostly killed civilians
This is propaganda, some guerilla generals have even admitted that much.
>>Cracks in Rhodesia's deterrence strategy split when Botswana, formerly neutral, begun to openly aid rebels materially without fear of retaliation
I know there was some action along the Botswana border, but it was never much and I don't believe their government ever gave the guerillas open support, especially not to the same extent as Zambia and Mozambique did.
Mozambique flipping from a Portuguese colony to a hostile state is much more relevant, infact it was the most major turning point of the entire conflict.

>>17974205
To that anon, everyone who isn’t a cock sucking faggot commie is a nazi. There’s no nuance.

>>17973911 (OP)
Rhodesia only had 7 million people and of that only 6.5% were white so that's only 455,000 whites, 227,500 white men and of course not all men would be military age and fit for fighting.
There were just way more communists who were actively being supplied by russa, china and cuba vs the rhodesians who could only get supplies from south africa and even then they were in super low numbers because south africa couldn't openly aid them.
There were only like 2 major cities that contained most of the white population and most whites were leaving even in the 1960s and 1970s the they basically lost as many whites as they gained. even the guy in the fireforce book talks about how a lot of the white guys would try to draft dodge and leave for south africa

>>17973994
no one ever says they won. they talk about battles where the rhodesians btfo'd the communist but they were so outnumbered and the value of a single commie life was so low it was basically irrelevant

>>17974269
You're forgetting to mention that the 227k white men were being actively sanctioned by every major power on the planet except Apartheid SA (also being sanctioned by both west and east)

>>17974205
Werent there still nazis govts in south america?

>>17974306
I did say only south africa was supplying them and it wasn't even openly

>>17974205
He's saying the people who idolize rhodesia now are nazis, and think war is just about kdr.

>>17974321
Some of Latin Americas various right-wing dictators were arguably fascists, but I don't think you could accurately call any of them a nazi.

>>17973911 (OP)
They were under siege on all sides. They sallied out and they wont the battle, but the enemy renewed the siege with reinforcements, armed by the US, Soviets, and UK, and Rhodesia was evacuated.

They didn't bet on the black majority who supported the government.

They were the only sub-saharian nation with a majority christian population, native skilled worker and clerk, with a pro-government middle class.

If they have builded a majority with the educated black people since the start of the Bush War, they would have won. But they only relinquish power after the white peoples started to flee after the Air Rhodesia Flight 825 terrorist attack.

I love Rhodesia and what the country could have been, but Ian Smith was fucking retarded and too much whites where stupid enough to believe they could halt the socialists with 250.000 person when you have more than 2000km of border to defend after the fall of the Portuguese colonies.

>>17973911 (OP)
whites can't fight

Yes, Southern Rhodesia lost, mainly because of ZIPRA cutting directly through Botswana, and the Rhodesians being to incompetent to do anything about it.

>>17974506
>They were the only sub-saharian nation with a majority christian population
Dumbass lol.

>native skilled worker and clerk
Amounts to jackshit. Africans got paid worse wages when compared to whites in the same job and had artificially capped career options due to the racism and labour poltics in Rhodesia. The number of educated Africans who had high school education was tiny, the number of Africans in job that actually afforded a middle class status even tinier.

>If they have builded a majority with the educated black people since the start of the Bush War, they would have won They'd rather burn the state down the country than let an African have remotely any sort of actual power over any sub demographic of Whites. You really underestimate the racism and entitlement of the settler class. It was IMAGE before everything else.

>I love Rhodesia and what the country could have been
It was a subpar state filled with colonial era larpers that cut off any sort of real hope for economic relevancy to maintain a couple decades of the gentry larp. Not enough people regardless of race to impact anything, no real way to counter the global agriculture powers who control commodity markets or states with regulatory dominance of the WTO (or can flaunt it), let alone the super fluctuating mineral markets. Hinged off exploitive labor dynamics to make profit margins look prettier but you can't run a state where most of the pop are effectively serfs or work with gimped salaries. How are they supposed to actually be a consumer market?

>>17973975
>he bush war was a case of ground troops winning every battle
The guerillas were still able to hit key infrastructure (and civvies), and basically pressured areas outside the cities. Also the state forcefully detaining people in villages that often times had actual rebel spies or sympathizers which was a total GG.

>>17974512
oh yeah, the nazis were defeated by this one fat guy

>>17974203
Wtf, Israel are based now?

>>17973911 (OP)
You're on an internet history board, the only thing that matters is exploitable Wikipedia battle boxes devoid of any context

>>17974512
when have africans ever won vs white people? the only ones I can think of are the rhodesian bush war where they were outnumbed, egypt btfoing france and bongland and ethiopia btfoing italy, and italy isn't really white anyway

>>17978353
>where they were outnumbed
That doesn't really matter though. Plenty of wars and battles have been lost despite a numbers advantage.

>>17978372
again there was a max of like 250,000 white men in rhodesia at any given time and the only country that would give them aid was south africa.

>>17974203
Israel supported Rhodesia

>>17973911 (OP)
Everytime I stare at a map of Zimbabwe I gawk at lake Kariba like a fucking retard because it's the largest artifical lake in the world and this somehow impresses me.
God I wish lake Congo was real.

>>17978353
The independence wars against Portugal come to mind (especially given Mozambique's relevance to Rhodesia's situation)

>>17978420
>portugal
>white

>>17978353
Come tell us how you slew, them old Arabs two by two
Like the Zulu they had spears and bow and arrows. How bravely you faced one, with your sixteen-pounder gun, and you frightened them damn natives to the marrow

>>17978420
>The independence wars against Portugal
Just Guinea Bissau, Angolan and Mozambican guerrillas were being absolutely wrecked by the Portuguese, the leadership of MPLA was even discussing laying down their arms when the 25 of April coup happened.
Guinea Bissau was a hell hole for the Portuguese troopers, the PAIGC was unified, organised, well trained and equipped, they even had their own air force. Portugal considered granting independence to Guinea Bissau, but this option was discarded because it would give newfound motivation to the Angolan and Mozambican guerrillas, where a military victory was still a realistic outcome.
The 25 of April coup happened precisely because of Guinea Bissau, the Army was willing to fight in Angola and Mozambique, but nobody wanted to go to Guinea Bissau, the "Portuguese Vietnam". The PAIGC was gaining ground every year, they had massive popular support and no internal enemies. Meanwhile in Angola and Mozambique was free for all between Portugal, Soviet allined, Chinese allined and American allined groups.

>>17978466
>Angolan and Mozambican guerrillas were being absolutely wrecked by the Portuguese
It was pretty bad on both sides. That and the rebelling groups+population had "all or nothing" reality since the alternative was basically permanent subjugation under the Estado Novo which would mean constant flare ups of rebellions andnoutbreaks in a colonial system with no ability to reform on the social, political and economic level.

>>17974250
>This is propaganda, some guerilla generals have even admitted that much.
Nope its facts those high numbers are mostly the result of killing women and children villagers than calling them soldiers

>>17978540
Villagers? The claim is that they were refugees and that the camps were refugee camps, but the truth is they were military camps with a negligible civilian population.

>>17978570
>camps were refugee camps
detention camps. The Rhodesian state was forcefully detaining civvie Africans in these camps to control their movements and monitor them better. Which led tk the issue of also concentrating known sympathizers, actual rebels and further pushing the villagers to protest and aid action against the government.

>>17978695
I was refering to the camps in Mozambique and Zambia which the Rhodesian Security Forces repeatedly attacked in cross-border raids, the forced relocation and concentration of villagers in fenced off settlements is a completely different topic and one that did not involve alot of casualties, if anything it prevented civilian casualties.

>>17978713
Ohhh thanks for clarifying

>>17973997
>lament the failure of the politicians to secure a win condition
The government was never going to secure a lasting peace due to it's fundamental structure. The military regularly torturing people, committing random killings, poisoning water and medicine, and conducting transparently obvious false-flag terror attacks made it so no progress could ever be made. The Rhodesian War was just as much of a retarded military failure as a political one.

>>17974506
>after the white peoples started to flee after the Air Rhodesia Flight 825 terrorist attack
The white population of Rhodesia was in decline from the moment of independence. Even with extensive white immigration efforts, the new comers weren't enough to replace the people fleeing the obviously collapsing shithole. The white professional class in particular left early. Without the economic links to the wider British Empire, there was no future for them in Rhodesia. The urban working class whites were also hammered by the economic isolation while rural whites were between insurgents who hated them and peasant blacks who hated them.

>>17974306
>Being so obviously unjust that even apartheid South Africa sanctions you for being too racist
Sounds like it was their own fault.

>>17978765
>committing random killings, poisoning water and medicine, and conducting transparently obvious false-flag terror attacks made it so no progress could ever be made.
Do you have a source for any of this nonsense?
>>Being so obviously unjust that even apartheid South Africa sanctions you for being too racist
South Africa never sanctioned them, they only started cutting off support towards the end. And the "unjustness" of Rhodesia had nothing to do with it, anyone who wasn't an ignorant retard could see that South Africa was alot more oppressive and racist than Rhodesia.

>>17978785
>Do you have a source for any of this nonsense?
The Rhodesian military was known for being allowed to do anything on top of the many coverups like friendly fire deaths.