Rhodesian Army - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rhodesian Army (Page 3 of 10)

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:02:31 AM EST

[#1]

Quoted:

I am far from an expert on small unit tactics but just because they were wrong in the macro (apartheid) doesn't mean we can't learn anything from them in the micro (military tactics).

I don't know that they were even wrong in the macro, sure the Rhodesian blacks who got fucked out of their good farming land when the country was founded got screwed, but in the 20th century allowing the country to fall into chaos and be run by corrupt tin pot strongmen didn't really work out either. But it was all rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titantic anyway with the political situation at the time.

I know they are praised as great anti guerrilla fighters, I don't know how much of that is romanticism (and there's plenty of that) and how much is legit.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:04:41 AM EST

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The US military STILL hasn't digested the Rhodesian military's lessons for dealing with insurgents. They are frankly light-years ahead of us.

You should reread the part where their war ends in defeat.

Yeah I don't get GD's fascination with the mighty short short warriors of apartheid. I guess the FALs and that poster.

I knew a guy when I was a kid who swore he worked as a mercenary in South Africa fighting SWAPO, which I guess was in Nambia. I have never figured out whether he was full of shit or not. Had great stories about doing various shitty mercenary and body guard type work in Africa after Vietnam.

This is lot's o' historical fail, here.

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

True, but the "fascination" part comes from them fighting the good fight against commies. White or black they were indigenous personnel by that stage, they were born there, it was their farms and their country.

The west left them hanging against the commies, left them out to dry. Probably because we were sick of fighting wars (vietnam) and our people probably wouldn't have stood for it.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:09:24 AM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

You mean, below sea level, like the Netherlands. Your reasoning is so full of FAIL its nearly impossible to tease apart.

This is, at best, a tautology. The Rhodesians were going to fall, because we weren't going to support them, but since they fell, its good we didn't support them.

That that same level, we might as well come to an accommodation with all Communists governments globally in 1975.

The simple fact was the above mentality was a strategy for defeat when Carter followed in 1978, and its historical fruit as measured in human suffering, ironically borne by non-white people, is frankly immeasurable.

Its always funny to see people to be just plum-dandy with totalitarianism, when its for other people.

Come on, be serious, those white governments were political kryptonite by then, no western government was going to support them, what were going to do, send in Marines so there would be night after night we'd see Walter Cronkite narrating videos of US troops running around wailing on black guys in the streets with billy clubs like we saw every night from South Africa? Or just funnel helicopters and flame throwers to they could try to prevent majority rule through military force?

If you were in charge of Rhodesia in 1970 whatever what would you do? You're basically stuck with either using military force to prevent blacks from voting or be voted out of power, commies or no commies. [shrug]

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:11:47 AM EST

[#4]

Quoted:

I am far from an expert on small unit tactics but just because they were wrong in the macro (apartheid) doesn't mean we can't learn anything from them in the micro (military tactics).

I don't know that they were even wrong in the macro, sure the Rhodesian blacks who got fucked out of their good farming land when the country was founded got screwed, but in the 20th century allowing the country to fall into chaos and be run by corrupt tin pot strongmen didn't really work out either. But it was all rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titantic anyway with the political situation at the time.

I know they are praised as great anti guerrilla fighters, I don't know how much of that is romanticism (and there's plenty of that) and how much is legit.

To the part in red, I was obviously simplifying the problem just to make the point that even if you think the whole country was bound to fail (as you said, building a house below sea level) we can still attempt to learn from the way they handled their military affairs.

To the part in blue, there surely is a lot of romanticism involved with anything that happened in the past (ever seen a GD thread on 1950's and 1960's America?) but romanticism aside, I think the Rhodesian military was a very legit fighting force. Heck just looking at what they did with so little personnel and equipment is something to admire.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:20:40 AM EST

[#5]

These threads are always interesting.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:23:02 AM EST

[#6]

Quoted:
Two pretty powerful videos, both kind of graphic in parts... Might need your BP meds!

Part 1

Part 2

The 70's music in the background is awesome.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:24:29 AM EST

[#7]

Quoted:

Come on, be serious, those white governments were political kryptonite by then, no western government was going to support them, what were going to do, send in Marines so there would be night after night we'd see Walter Cronkite narrating videos of US troops running around wailing on black guys in the streets with billy clubs like we saw every night from South Africa? Or just funnel helicopters and flame throwers to they could try to prevent majority rule through military force?

OK, what is your argument then...that Mugabe and company were just misunderstood democrats that just went astray? Seriously, I think your "facts" are flawed. There was no question at the time that the insurgents were Communists, and as such were no more interested in "majority rule" than the Soviet Politburo was.

The only people who believed that the ZANU/ZAPU WEREN'T communists, or more likely didn't care, were dupes like Carter and Young. Now, you trot the same lines that Carter used to run his frankly completely disastrous foreign policy as some kind of wise introspection. The only other person I've seen or heard do this with a straight face was Robert McNamara.

The Rhodesians probably could have held on for a better settlement (especially as the Soviet appetite for expensive foreign excursions was dwindling in the early 1980s) had we be willing not to stand in their way via the blockade, and used whatever leverage we had to get them to accept a more democratic framework of governance versus the Aimless/Carter plan of believing Mugabe was some form of Jeffersonian democrat.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:25:56 AM EST

[#8]

Contrary to some prevalent propaganda, there was no apartheid in Rhodesia. Far from having racial segregation, Rhodesian society was integrated on many levels. There were no separate cinemas, restaurants or municipal swimming pools, etc

Many people are surprised to hear that there was also no colour bar to the ballot. Rhodesia had a qualified franchise whereby those with the required educational, or property ownership qualifications could register to vote....While the Rhodesian authorities were encouraging greater participation in the electoral process for Black Rhodesians, the Marxist terrorists were murdering Black candidates and those who took part in the electoral process.

Black Rhodesian Zimbabweans had it a lot better back then then they do now...

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:28:18 AM EST

[#9]

I met a fellow (a friend of my BIL) named Tim that fought in Rhodesia. He spent a couple of tours in SEA as an MP. Came home, missed combat, and went back to SEA as a rifleman. Came back and enlisted in the Rhodesian Army. Met another friend of his in Las Lunas, NM that was missing both legs below the knee. Nice fellow. He was the medic in the squad he was patrolling with and stepped on an AP mine. Not a good day.

Tim said the terrorists were just brutal-fucking animals the way they tortured and killed for the sake of nothing but entertainment. In comparison, he thought the VC at least did the same for political purposes. Not the average black communist. No sir.

The Brits and South Africans sold Rhodesia out. Both Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa have experienced a diminished standard of living since the end of white rule. It is what it is.

SA took on the brunt of communism in the African continent during the Cold War. Instead of supporting them, influential communist sympathizers from the left (academia and media) convinced the government here in the U.S. to abandon the only prosperous, pro-western nation in that part of the world.

A sad chapter in U.S. history.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:28:36 AM EST

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

You mean, below sea level, like the Netherlands. Your reasoning is so full of FAIL its nearly impossible to tease apart.

This is, at best, a tautology. The Rhodesians were going to fall, because we weren't going to support them, but since they fell, its good we didn't support them.

That that same level, we might as well come to an accommodation with all Communists governments globally in 1975.

The simple fact was the above mentality was a strategy for defeat when Carter followed in 1978, and its historical fruit as measured in human suffering, ironically borne by non-white people, is frankly immeasurable.

Its always funny to see people to be just plum-dandy with totalitarianism, when its for other people.

First time in arfcom, sir?

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:32:36 AM EST

[#11]

Quoted:

If you were in charge of Rhodesia in 1970 whatever what would you do? You're basically stuck with either using military force to prevent blacks from voting or be voted out of power, commies or no commies. [shrug]

Again, were there no commies, there would have been no push for communism. The premise of your question is fundamentally flawed.

I would have created a mechanism to balance a level of autonomy in tribal lands with continued dominance of the white majority until such time as I could start to co-opt a significant portion of the black population, starting with those in the security services and skilled laborers. Once they saw benefit from participation in the government (autonomy/economic support/security for many, political participation for a growing minority) the ability to grow stably without terrorist violence might have occurred.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:33:40 AM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Come on, be serious, those white governments were political kryptonite by then, no western government was going to support them, what were going to do, send in Marines so there would be night after night we'd see Walter Cronkite narrating videos of US troops running around wailing on black guys in the streets with billy clubs like we saw every night from South Africa? Or just funnel helicopters and flame throwers to they could try to prevent majority rule through military force?

OK, what is your argument then...that Mugabe and company were just misunderstood democrats that just went astray? Seriously, I think your "facts" are flawed. There was no question at the time that the insurgents were Communists, and as such were no more interested in "majority rule" than the Soviet Politburo was.

The only people who believed that the ZANU/ZAPU WEREN'T communists, or more likely didn't care, were dupes like Carter and Young. Now, you trot the same lines that Carter used to run his frankly completely disastrous foreign policy as some kind of wise introspection. The only other person I've seen or heard do this with a straight face was Robert McNamara.

The Rhodesians probably could have held on for a better settlement (especially as the Soviet appetite for expensive foreign excursions was dwindling in the early 1980s) had we be willing not to stand in their way via the blockade, and used whatever leverage we had to get them to accept a more democratic framework of governance versus the Aimless/Carter plan of believing Mugabe was some form of Jeffersonian democrat.

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:34:39 AM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

You mean, below sea level, like the Netherlands. Your reasoning is so full of FAIL its nearly impossible to tease apart.

This is, at best, a tautology. The Rhodesians were going to fall, because we weren't going to support them, but since they fell, its good we didn't support them.

That that same level, we might as well come to an accommodation with all Communists governments globally in 1975.

The simple fact was the above mentality was a strategy for defeat when Carter followed in 1978, and its historical fruit as measured in human suffering, ironically borne by non-white people, is frankly immeasurable.

Its always funny to see people to be just plum-dandy with totalitarianism, when its for other people.

First time in arfcom, sir?

True, but I'll always make the difference between the value of Kemalist style autocracy versus Communist totalitarianism, that is lost on 95% of Americans. This is especially true in the Cold War context.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:36:31 AM EST

[#14]

My dad fought in the RLI, Support Commando. He saw a VA therapist for PTSD a few years back. When the therapist suggested his issues were from fighting in Rhodesia instead of the USAF, he said "Hell no, I loved killing those motherfuckers!"

I love my dad

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:38:16 AM EST

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Come on, be serious, those white governments were political kryptonite by then, no western government was going to support them, what were going to do, send in Marines so there would be night after night we'd see Walter Cronkite narrating videos of US troops running around wailing on black guys in the streets with billy clubs like we saw every night from South Africa? Or just funnel helicopters and flame throwers to they could try to prevent majority rule through military force?

OK, what is your argument then...that Mugabe and company were just misunderstood democrats that just went astray? Seriously, I think your "facts" are flawed. There was no question at the time that the insurgents were Communists, and as such were no more interested in "majority rule" than the Soviet Politburo was.

The only people who believed that the ZANU/ZAPU WEREN'T communists, or more likely didn't care, were dupes like Carter and Young. Now, you trot the same lines that Carter used to run his frankly completely disastrous foreign policy as some kind of wise introspection. The only other person I've seen or heard do this with a straight face was Robert McNamara.

The Rhodesians probably could have held on for a better settlement (especially as the Soviet appetite for expensive foreign excursions was dwindling in the early 1980s) had we be willing not to stand in their way via the blockade, and used whatever leverage we had to get them to accept a more democratic framework of governance versus the Aimless/Carter plan of believing Mugabe was some form of Jeffersonian democrat.

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

Given the amount of introspection over SA at the time (which was more of a political struggle, as opposed to an armed conflict as was the case in Rhodesia), yes.

We have supported far worse governments than that of Ian Smith's Rhodesia.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:38:26 AM EST

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

You mean, below sea level, like the Netherlands. Your reasoning is so full of FAIL its nearly impossible to tease apart.

This is, at best, a tautology. The Rhodesians were going to fall, because we weren't going to support them, but since they fell, its good we didn't support them.

That that same level, we might as well come to an accommodation with all Communists governments globally in 1975.

The simple fact was the above mentality was a strategy for defeat when Carter followed in 1978, and its historical fruit as measured in human suffering, ironically borne by non-white people, is frankly immeasurable.

Its always funny to see people to be just plum-dandy with totalitarianism, when its for other people.

First time in arfcom, sir?

True, but I'll always make the difference between the value of Kemalist style autocracy versus Communist totalitarianism, that is lost on 95% of Americans. This is especially true in the Cold War context.

Kemalist style autocracy was a direct extension of the late-Ottoman form of governance which ended in the Armenian genocide.

Autocracy, oligarchy, totalitarianism... There's absolutely no justification for supporting anything other than democracy, anywhere, in my humble opinion.

You had an excellent point back in the thread, you said that the Soviet's appetite for dominance in Africa and other far-away regions diminished after the 80s. Had the US and the Rhodesians known it would be so, everything could have taken a different turn. But in the 70s the Soviets did NOT seem to be failing in any way.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:39:57 AM EST

[#17]

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:42:09 AM EST

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

Touche

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:44:27 AM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

OMFG, the left lost their fucking minds over that one. Of course, when SF advisers started carrying M16A1 rifles with them in El Salvador, the press did everything they could to derail our foreign policy in the region (which was tied to Honduras and Nicaragua and others).

We still prevailed.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:45:32 AM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

White totalitarian government in majority black country at/after the black civil rights movement in the US. If it had been one tribe/family/group of Turks fending off a larger group of of a different tribe/family/group of Turks I don't doubt that all kinds of guys looking suspiciously like either Harvard grads or former Marines would have been all over with briefcases full of money or rifles. Nobody would have cared.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:45:39 AM EST

[#21]

Quoted:
Contrary to some prevalent propaganda, there was no apartheid in Rhodesia. Far from having racial segregation, Rhodesian society was integrated on many levels. There were no separate cinemas, restaurants or municipal swimming pools, etc

Many people are surprised to hear that there was also no colour bar to the ballot. Rhodesia had a qualified franchise whereby those with the required educational, or property ownership qualifications could register to vote....While the Rhodesian authorities were encouraging greater participation in the electoral process for Black Rhodesians, the Marxist terrorists were murdering Black candidates and those who took part in the electoral process.

Black Rhodesian Zimbabweans had it a lot better back then then they do now...

Yes but to the west Rhodesia was to successful under white rule, so they hoped in forcing a transition to black rule it would remain a prosperous state to be used as a future example of how blacks can/could rule thier own country, do well and show it was possible to totally reject colonialism.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:46:37 AM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Kemalist style autocracy was a direct extension of the late-Ottoman form of governance which ended in the Armenian genocide. [
Autocracy, oligarchy, totalitarianism... There's absolutely no justification for supporting anything other than democracy, anywhere, in my humble opinion.
You had an excellent point back in the thread, you said that the Soviet's appetite for dominance in Africa and other far-away regions diminished after the 80s. Had the US and the Rhodesians known it would be so, everything could have taken a different turn. But in the 70s the Soviets did NOT seem to be failing in any way.

Yours is the recipe for "One man, one vote, one time." Kemal's genius (and I believe him to be one of the most effective statesmen of the 20th century) was his recognition that democracy was not rolling down to the polls every four years to pick one of two empty suits, but rather the function of a society acting as a cohesive whole. I think that Kemal recognized early on, in a way that the US only did starting in the 1960s, that authoritarianism focused on creating a viable democracy (and ETA: linked to the West through trade and military ties) was much more likely to create an enduring institution than simply turning political factions prone to complete zero-sum thinking, and violent zero sum thinking at that, lose in a society.

Regarding the Soviet question, ultimately it is nearly impossible to read the mind of an adversary. You can attempt to anticipate his actions, but the best think you can do is be true to your own principles and put your courage in the sticking place. This is Reagan's ultimate positive legacy.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:47:15 AM EST

[#23]

Quoted:

I never knew they had Huey's, any idea where they came from? I bet those were a bitch to get spare parts for.

Came through south africa IIRC, bought internationally on the sly.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:50:20 AM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

Touche

Don't feel bad. My point wasn't showing the Turks to be evil authoritarians. The Turks DID democratize. The foreign policy of the US, that trade and military links, along with prods towards democracy, created a more durable civil society, was eventually vindicated.

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:51:50 AM EST

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

OMFG, the left lost their fucking minds over that one. Of course, when SF advisers started carrying M16A1 rifles with them in El Salvador, the press did everything they could to derail our foreign policy in the region (which was tied to Honduras and Nicaragua and others).

We still prevailed.

What was different about Rhodesia the cold hard fact is it's Africa and no United States politician is going to risk offending the African American voter! They would rather treat them as stupid and unable to see the greater risk to African people that is communism!
Rhodesia would have become integrated and hundreds of thousands of Africans wouldn't have been murdered by comrade Roberts thugs

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:52:12 AM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

OMFG, the left lost their fucking minds over that one. Of course, when SF advisers started carrying M16A1 rifles with them in El Salvador, the press did everything they could to derail our foreign policy in the region (which was tied to Honduras and Nicaragua and others).

We still prevailed.

Not just the press. Look at the Boland Amendment, which was likely unconstitutional. Fucking Democratic party is to blame, and pushed Iran-Contra as a means to score political points. Treasonous fucktards. Now its fucking crickets with Fast and Furious, which is likely everything the 1980s Dems thought Iran-Contra was...

Posted: 10/4/2011 10:55:47 AM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

I never knew they had Huey's, any idea where they came from? I bet those were a bitch to get spare parts for.

Came through south africa IIRC, bought internationally on the sly.

SA had very close ties to Israel (the origin of said aircraft). So close in fact, they cooperated in developing nuclear weapons together.

The Rhodesian Army was poor. For example, every effort was made to police up MG links-even on the battlefield-where permissible from what I was told. The Huey's must have been a bargain.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:05:43 AM EST

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

OMFG, the left lost their fucking minds over that one. Of course, when SF advisers started carrying M16A1 rifles with them in El Salvador, the press did everything they could to derail our foreign policy in the region (which was tied to Honduras and Nicaragua and others).

We still prevailed.

Not just the press. Look at the Boland Amendment, which was likely unconstitutional. Fucking Democratic party is to blame, and pushed Iran-Contra as a means to score political points. Treasonous fucktards. Now its fucking crickets with Fast and Furious, which is likely everything the 1980s Dems thought Iran-Contra was...

"Leadership" under the likes of Tip O'Neil.

You know what's encouraging though? I don't think the vast majority of Americans outside of college campuses really cared about the U.S. running ops out of Tegucigalpa, or training the El Salvadorian Army, or letting the Contras fight a proxy war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The left screamed loudly like they always do when their comrades are threatened, but Reagan was proven to have been correct in his decision to fight communism in Latin America. Fuck the left.

Fast and Furious is something Americans can identify with as a conspiracy to limit their freedoms, and it came at the cost of lives-to include at least one patriotic border agent in the prime of his life. Unlike Rhodesia, SA, or any number of two-bit dictatorships in Latin America, this one hits home.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:06:38 AM EST

[#29]

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:34:46 AM EST

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

White totalitarian government in majority black country at/after the black civil rights movement in the US. If it had been one tribe/family/group of Turks fending off a larger group of of a different tribe/family/group of Turks I don't doubt that all kinds of guys looking suspiciously like either Harvard grads or former Marines would have been all over with briefcases full of money or rifles. Nobody would have cared.

I think you missed something

Quoted:
Contrary to some prevalent propaganda, there was no apartheid in Rhodesia. Far from having racial segregation, Rhodesian society was integrated on many levels. There were no separate cinemas, restaurants or municipal swimming pools, etc

Many people are surprised to hear that there was also no colour bar to the ballot. Rhodesia had a qualified franchise whereby those with the required educational, or property ownership qualifications could register to vote....While the Rhodesian authorities were encouraging greater participation in the electoral process for Black Rhodesians, the Marxist terrorists were murdering Black candidates and those who took part in the electoral process.

Black Rhodesian Zimbabweans had it a lot better back then then they do now...

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:40:07 AM EST

[#31]

We could have.........if not for assholes like Jimmy Carter

Quoted:
Good thread. I wish we could have helped them out back during their war years.

Rog.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:47:33 AM EST

[#32]

One million Zimbabwean dollars to whomever knows who this man is.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:48:50 AM EST

[#33]

Quoted:
threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Threads like these are why I want a FAL

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:50:52 AM EST

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Threads like these are why I want a FAL

Threads like this reinforce that I was born in the wrong decade!

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:51:24 AM EST

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

White totalitarian government in majority black country at/after the black civil rights movement in the US. If it had been one tribe/family/group of Turks fending off a larger group of of a different tribe/family/group of Turks I don't doubt that all kinds of guys looking suspiciously like either Harvard grads or former Marines would have been all over with briefcases full of money or rifles. Nobody would have cared.

I think you missed something

Quoted:

Contrary to some prevalent propaganda, there was no apartheid in Rhodesia. Far from having racial segregation, Rhodesian society was integrated on many levels. There were no separate cinemas, restaurants or municipal swimming pools, etc

Many people are surprised to hear that there was also no colour bar to the ballot. Rhodesia had a qualified franchise whereby those with the required educational, or property ownership qualifications could register to vote....While the Rhodesian authorities were encouraging greater participation in the electoral process for Black Rhodesians, the Marxist terrorists were murdering Black candidates and those who took part in the electoral process.

Black Rhodesian Zimbabweans had it a lot better back then then they do now...

Rhodesia's income, education and property ownership requirements to vote in various classes were about as race blind as an Alabama Poll Tax.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:52:02 AM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Threads like these are why I want a FAL

Threads like this reinforce that I was born in the wrong decade!

We had fucking awesome hair in the 70s.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:53:39 AM EST

[#37]

Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Muzorewa-UANC-1979.jpg

One million Zimbabwean dollars to whomever knows who this man is.

Bishop Abel Muzorewa............ 1st prime minister of rhodesia-zimbabwe.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:53:47 AM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

One million Zimbabwean dollars to whomever knows who this man is.

Abel Muzorewa

ETA beat by 8 seconds

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:54:52 AM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Threads like these are why I want a FAL

Threads like this reinforce that I was born in the wrong decade!

We had fucking awesome hair in the 70s.

Hippy!

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:55:30 AM EST

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Muzorewa-UANC-1979.jpg

One million Zimbabwean dollars to whomever knows who this man is.

Abel Muzorewa

ETA beat by 8 seconds

I'll give you half!

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:56:00 AM EST

[#41]

From a demographic standpoint Rhodesia was going to be screwed but if you read Bitterharvest, which admittedly was full of Ian thumping his own chest, you get the impressions they were bringing the black population into the government as fast as possible. The whites knew it would take time to educate and develop a black middle class, black bureaucrats, black judiciary etc. Just handing the keys to government to people that lived in mud huts was not a recipe for success.

Rhodesia could have been a model for success and prosperity for how to integrate blacks into modern society, unfortunately they weren't given the chance. We're talking about a decades long solution. If you go back and read some of the data for mortality from things like malaria, lack of inoculations food production etc and then compare that data with what's happening now, it's pretty clear things didn't turn out the way Carter and company thought they would. The US and UK did a great disservice to Rhodesia by at least not staying out of the way.

I don't remember apartheid being a real issue until the mid 80's but I was a kid back then, so to me this was mainly Carter and company pandering to a few racist pricks in this country.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:57:55 AM EST

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

However super duper the Rhodesian Army was at duking it out with guerrillas the whole thing was still the equivalent of building a house in New Orleans, they were "below sea level" and the white only governments were going away in south Africa one way or the other, even if the Soviets hadn't really been the puppet master/arms supplier to their opponents. No western government was going to support them anymore [shrug]

You mean, below sea level, like the Netherlands. Your reasoning is so full of FAIL its nearly impossible to tease apart.

This is, at best, a tautology. The Rhodesians were going to fall, because we weren't going to support them, but since they fell, its good we didn't support them.

That that same level, we might as well come to an accommodation with all Communists governments globally in 1975.

The simple fact was the above mentality was a strategy for defeat when Carter followed in 1978, and its historical fruit as measured in human suffering, ironically borne by non-white people, is frankly immeasurable.

Its always funny to see people to be just plum-dandy with totalitarianism, when its for other people.

I think if they were going to stay a minority government they were destined to fail.

A slower transition with power sharing might have saved the country IF it was combined with military aid from us and our allies.

Posted: 10/4/2011 11:58:53 AM EST

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

White totalitarian government in majority black country at/after the black civil rights movement in the US. If it had been one tribe/family/group of Turks fending off a larger group of of a different tribe/family/group of Turks I don't doubt that all kinds of guys looking suspiciously like either Harvard grads or former Marines would have been all over with briefcases full of money or rifles. Nobody would have cared.

I think you missed something

Quoted:
Contrary to some prevalent propaganda, there was no apartheid in Rhodesia. Far from having racial segregation, Rhodesian society was integrated on many levels. There were no separate cinemas, restaurants or municipal swimming pools, etc

Many people are surprised to hear that there was also no colour bar to the ballot. Rhodesia had a qualified franchise whereby those with the required educational, or property ownership qualifications could register to vote....While the Rhodesian authorities were encouraging greater participation in the electoral process for Black Rhodesians, the Marxist terrorists were murdering Black candidates and those who took part in the electoral process.

Black Rhodesian Zimbabweans had it a lot better back then then they do now...

Rhodesia's income, education and property ownership requirements to vote in various classes were about as race blind as an Alabama Poll Tax.

Which makes them about 500% more democratic than anything instituted in the name of communism in Africa or Europe.

Posted: 10/4/2011 12:00:14 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Muzorewa-UANC-1979.jpg

One million Zimbabwean dollars to whomever knows who this man is.

Abel Muzorewa

ETA beat by 8 seconds

I'll give you half!

Great I could use a Jolly Rancher!

Posted: 10/4/2011 12:02:04 PM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Same here. I ended up buying a SARCO Argy FAL, but I don't have the heart to make it a Rhodie clone. I need to find a cheap Rhodie kit or an Imbel.

Posted: 10/4/2011 12:06:20 PM EST

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

threads like these are partially why I went out and bought a FAL

Same here. I ended up buying a SARCO Argy FAL, but I don't have the heart to make it a Rhodie clone. I need to find a cheap Rhodie kit or an Imbel.

Unfortunately most of the cool and dirt cheap FAL stuff has dried up.

Posted: 10/4/2011 12:13:31 PM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Pointing out that the Rhodesian government was doomed means I like Mugabe.

You think Reagan could have gotten the US behind "We are going to help the brave communist fighting white government of Rhodesia fight the african Soviet dupes so be prepared for lots of film footage of black people holding signs about wanting to vote being beat, bit by dogs and blasted with tear gas, and while we are going ensure they don't get to vote, with airborne troops if necessary, rest assured we are only doing so to fight Communism" ? It would have been political suicide.

You referred to Mugabe as seeking "majority rule," not I. I can't read your mind, only your argument.

As I've noted, direct support WASN'T required, but the end to interference that was supporting communism was needed. I remember the political flack that Reagan took for his stand against communism in Central America, and it would have been the same.

Again, the hypothetical you're positing has no small number of issues with it, so lets circle back to facts...

The US supported no small number of non-democratic authoritarian governments from 1945-1990. What makes the Rhodies different than the Turks, Greeks, South Koreans, Taiwanese, et. al?

Well, their unilateral (and internationally non-recognized) declaration of independence from our biggest ally for starters.

THAT was a major problem.

Posted: 10/4/2011 12:14:13 PM EST

[#48]

I love these threads, keep thinking I'm going to see my dad in one of the pics, still trying to get is pics from my grandmother who still lives in South Africa but is now in a nursing home and I think in her 90's now, I don't think I'll ever see them.

My dad has some stories about his trime in the Rhodesian Army, being in an Alouette when it took rounds through the perspex, spending two weeks on his on in an op (Observation Post) watching a school house which was suspected of being used as a meeting house by the terrs, they came to the meeting house and were suprised when the Alouettes with 20mm (Known as K cars) showed up along whole bunch of Rhodie soldiers, those terrs were certain they had not been tracked to that old school house, but my dad had been in possition for so long that the local wild life were so used to him living on his hill over looking the school that they gave no clue that he was there.

I'll post his pics as soon as / if I get my hands on them, as far as I know none have ever been published although he says he was in a group being photographed by a reporter from somewhere, he had no interest in that at the time so never payed much attention.