User Panel
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/73254/139818005196-181169.jpgOK, I'll join in with a fun pic... View Quote Enfield Jungle Para Carbine |
|
Quoted:
What is the story with franken enfield there. View Quote I've got one of the original stock and grip sets, once I move I plan on converting a bubba'd Enfield into a clone. Then it's on to building the semi Rhuzi. Original 'smith is still alive and kicking too, has had some other interesting projects. |
|
Ok, I will take a break from posting pictures for now. Rhodesia during the Bush War was always a fascinating topic to me. But some may have read it but here is some interesting portions of a good paper written for the Marine Corps Staff and Command College by two USMC Majors in the early 80's: Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat
Some information about some of the various units: In the face of these realities, and provided with only a relatively small force and equipment, sometimes both obsolete and elderly, General Walls, first as Army Commander, and then as Commander Combined Operations, waged a campaign of extreme professional competence that will deserve a place in the world's military Staff Colleges for many years to come. Under Walls, the Rhodesian forces accepted their inability to control the terrain, and directed their operational planning toward limiting and reducing the growth of the insurgent forces within Rhodesia. Something that has been a demonstrated priority with the Rhodesians, small forces, maximizing what they had and emphasizing competence and skill as a core requirement. The Rhodesian Air Force: The air service unit was composed of approximately 1300 personnel. Pilot training was unique by American standards, but it followed British traditions. The pilots and crew members were trained to become individually proficient in the maintenance of particular parts of the aircraft. If the aircraft experienced a malfunction, the entire crew was able to perform fairly sophisticated levels of maintenance. This system included the incorporation of maintenance technicians as members of helicopter and transport carrier crews. In 1978 the serviceability of the Rhodesian Air Force was 85%. This is exceptional when 60% is considered as "good" throughout the western world. This is a greater accomplishment considering the international sanctions levelled against Rhodesia in 1965 and 1970. The majority of its military resupply was built upon a system of improvisation and invention. Interesting. There is also reference to later in the war the Hunters left in the inventory were reserved to be used only under the most dire conditions as they had so few spare parts and ammo available. But they were operational partly due to understanding their value and everyone helping saving them for when they were needed. The Rhodesian Army: The Army's lack of sophisticated weaponry and equipment was an important element in its success. It was a force which dealt with the terrorist on his own level. The Security Forces lacked extensive lines of logistic support, yet they were adept at small scale operations throughout a broken and ragged countryside. In order to compensate for their small numbers, the government forces had to rely upon the basic ingredients of victory - professionalism and an intimate knowledge of the terrain. The combat forces operated in small units, and depended upon mobility, surprise, flexibility and tactical dispersion for success. The army tended to meet the guerrilla on his own ground in a man-to-man fashion of combat. The Armed Forces reflected the spirit of the Rhodesian culture. It was a highly efficient organization. The tight bonds within the Rhodesian society reduced the elements of traditional friction between soldiers, civil servants and politicians. The combat and police forces were not plagued by a sense of social isolation. The majority of the white population was willing to endure the necessary taxation and the required conscription of its children in order to ensure the Prime Minister Ian Smith's final objective, which was a gradual and moderate transition of political power to the black majority. The Rhodesian armed forces were the instrument of these policies. Sub/Specialized Units. The Rhodesian Light Infantry: The mission of the unit became purely counterinsurgency. The emphasis of organizational training was centred upon search and destroy operations. In addition, the Rhodesians spent a great deal of time developing their non-commissioned officer corps. As a result, their operational commitments were at the "stick", or squad, level. The RLI was also unique because of the large number of foreign nationals who served in its ranks. It has been estimated that this participation went as high as 30%. They were primarily British, South African and American. The majority of these men acquitted themselves well. The tendency was for the foreigners to approach Rhodesia with mercenary mentality, but this was a misperception. All foreigners enlisting in the Rhodesian Armed Forces received some degree of basic training, with an emphasis on discipline. The Rhodesian Security Forces had a higher standard of military discipline than most western armies, and Americans were generally surprised by the intensity and severity of this system. The basic training for RLI volunteers was provided within the regiment. This consisted of 16 weeks of recruit training. The instruction consisted of basic military skills: drill, weapons, leadership, small unit tactics, and an emphasis on focusing these skills toward the destruction of the insurgents. Upon assignment to a commando, the soldier could expect to spend 4-6 weeks in the bush, and 10 days to 3 weeks in the RLI Base Camp at Llewellyn Barracks, near Bulawayo. These periods were dedicated to retraining and refitting the commando prior to another assignment. The Selous Scouts: The purpose of the unit was the clandestine elimination of the Nationalists without regard to international borders. The foundation of the unit’s effectiveness was its members’ ability to live off the land, combined with the tracking skills of the individual soldier. All members were volunteers and combat veterans. They were initiated into the Scouts via a very severe indoctrination programme which eliminated approximately 85% of the respondents. The training course was six weeks in length and incorporated an excess of physical and psychological stress. The unit was entirely integrated and all soldiers had to pass the same course of instruction in order to win access to the unit. The final test included a 90 mile forced march with a 70 pound pack. This may not seem excessive to American Marines, but the hike was divided into four “courses”. At the completion of each course, the volunteer was given a difficult combat task to accomplish prior to continuing onto the next phase. The emphasis throughout the entire training cycle was the development of “Bush and Tracking” techniques. The Scout had to become absolutely self-reliant. The unit incorporated the same tactics that the British had initiated in Malaya and Kenya. It was defined as a Pseudo-Gang concept. A team of 4-7 men was deployed into an operational area. All other friendly forces in that region were withdrawn. The team was dressed in insurgent uniforms, carried communist weapons, and gave the appearance of being a guerrilla force. The key was that they were better trained and more disciplined than the nationalists. Once they ascertained the presence of an insurgent force, they began to stalk them. They were proficient at remaining undetected throughout this phase. This gave them the advantage of initiating contact with the insurgents at their discretion. The Selous Scouts achieved remarkable results by carrying the war directly to the guerrillas. Their success carries the key to an effective counterinsurgency campaign. They were simply much better at guerrilla warfare than their opponents. The paper also states this in regards to the Selous Scouts "During the war the Scouts were credited with the deaths of 68% of the insurgents killed within the borders of Rhodesia" and gives a little background on Mugabe's issues with them when he came to power. It really is an interesting read with a lot of the historical information on the military/security forces and what led to the conflict and the forces on each side. Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat |
|
Quoted:
I think what your thinking is due to availability, not the government limiting what they can have. Although someone previously mentioned that FA was not allowed to civies, yet at the same time issued to others. I'm sure that individual arms ownership in Rhodesia was a good bit higher than in the US, but it would not have been top notch stuff, even for the time. Think, Switzerland on Steroids. I do remember reading years ago, that reloading equipment needed to be permitted because they were afraid of the terrs getting it. Be happy you live in a time when you can order cases of ammo, top notch guns and force multiplying devices like NODs over the internet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That's kind of jacked up. You would think in a conflict like this one that allowing your citizens to arm themselves with the best options available would be prudent. Looks like no matter what the situation some politicians just don't trust their citizens. I do remember reading years ago, that reloading equipment needed to be permitted because they were afraid of the terrs getting it. Be happy you live in a time when you can order cases of ammo, top notch guns and force multiplying devices like NODs over the internet. Rhodesia wasn't to the same level of restrictions as Israel since they allowed private ownership of guns and it was a lot of guns by the way. But it is what it was. In the end, Full Auto in the hands of folks not trained in them is a waste of ammo. I'm for MG ownershipand think they have a place for self defense. But a FAL in fu auto is a waste. Now a small PDW SMG.... useful. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, I will take a break from posting pictures for now. Rhodesia during the Bush War was always a fascinating topic to me. But some may have read it but here is some interesting portions of a good paper written for the Marine Corps Staff and Command College by two USMC Majors in the early 80's: Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat Some information about some of the various units: In the face of these realities, and provided with only a relatively small force and equipment, sometimes both obsolete and elderly, General Walls, first as Army Commander, and then as Commander Combined Operations, waged a campaign of extreme professional competence that will deserve a place in the world's military Staff Colleges for many years to come. Under Walls, the Rhodesian forces accepted their inability to control the terrain, and directed their operational planning toward limiting and reducing the growth of the insurgent forces within Rhodesia. Something that has been a demonstrated priority with the Rhodesians, small forces, maximizing what they had and emphasizing competence and skill as a core requirement. The Rhodesian Air Force: The air service unit was composed of approximately 1300 personnel. Pilot training was unique by American standards, but it followed British traditions. The pilots and crew members were trained to become individually proficient in the maintenance of particular parts of the aircraft. If the aircraft experienced a malfunction, the entire crew was able to perform fairly sophisticated levels of maintenance. This system included the incorporation of maintenance technicians as members of helicopter and transport carrier crews. In 1978 the serviceability of the Rhodesian Air Force was 85%. This is exceptional when 60% is considered as "good" throughout the western world. This is a greater accomplishment considering the international sanctions levelled against Rhodesia in 1965 and 1970. The majority of its military resupply was built upon a system of improvisation and invention. Interesting. There is also reference to later in the war the Hunters left in the inventory were reserved to be used only under the most dire conditions as they had so few spare parts and ammo available. But they were operational partly due to understanding their value and everyone helping saving them for when they were needed. The Rhodesian Army: The Army's lack of sophisticated weaponry and equipment was an important element in its success. It was a force which dealt with the terrorist on his own level. The Security Forces lacked extensive lines of logistic support, yet they were adept at small scale operations throughout a broken and ragged countryside. In order to compensate for their small numbers, the government forces had to rely upon the basic ingredients of victory - professionalism and an intimate knowledge of the terrain. The combat forces operated in small units, and depended upon mobility, surprise, flexibility and tactical dispersion for success. The army tended to meet the guerrilla on his own ground in a man-to-man fashion of combat. The Armed Forces reflected the spirit of the Rhodesian culture. It was a highly efficient organization. The tight bonds within the Rhodesian society reduced the elements of traditional friction between soldiers, civil servants and politicians. The combat and police forces were not plagued by a sense of social isolation. The majority of the white population was willing to endure the necessary taxation and the required conscription of its children in order to ensure the Prime Minister Ian Smith's final objective, which was a gradual and moderate transition of political power to the black majority. The Rhodesian armed forces were the instrument of these policies. Sub/Specialized Units. The Rhodesian Light Infantry: The mission of the unit became purely counterinsurgency. The emphasis of organizational training was centred upon search and destroy operations. In addition, the Rhodesians spent a great deal of time developing their non-commissioned officer corps. As a result, their operational commitments were at the "stick", or squad, level. The RLI was also unique because of the large number of foreign nationals who served in its ranks. It has been estimated that this participation went as high as 30%. They were primarily British, South African and American. The majority of these men acquitted themselves well. The tendency was for the foreigners to approach Rhodesia with mercenary mentality, but this was a misperception. All foreigners enlisting in the Rhodesian Armed Forces received some degree of basic training, with an emphasis on discipline. The Rhodesian Security Forces had a higher standard of military discipline than most western armies, and Americans were generally surprised by the intensity and severity of this system. The basic training for RLI volunteers was provided within the regiment. This consisted of 16 weeks of recruit training. The instruction consisted of basic military skills: drill, weapons, leadership, small unit tactics, and an emphasis on focusing these skills toward the destruction of the insurgents. Upon assignment to a commando, the soldier could expect to spend 4-6 weeks in the bush, and 10 days to 3 weeks in the RLI Base Camp at Llewellyn Barracks, near Bulawayo. These periods were dedicated to retraining and refitting the commando prior to another assignment. The Selous Scouts: The purpose of the unit was the clandestine elimination of the Nationalists without regard to international borders. The foundation of the unit’s effectiveness was its members’ ability to live off the land, combined with the tracking skills of the individual soldier. All members were volunteers and combat veterans. They were initiated into the Scouts via a very severe indoctrination programme which eliminated approximately 85% of the respondents. The training course was six weeks in length and incorporated an excess of physical and psychological stress. The unit was entirely integrated and all soldiers had to pass the same course of instruction in order to win access to the unit. The final test included a 90 mile forced march with a 70 pound pack. This may not seem excessive to American Marines, but the hike was divided into four “courses”. At the completion of each course, the volunteer was given a difficult combat task to accomplish prior to continuing onto the next phase. The emphasis throughout the entire training cycle was the development of “Bush and Tracking” techniques. The Scout had to become absolutely self-reliant. The unit incorporated the same tactics that the British had initiated in Malaya and Kenya. It was defined as a Pseudo-Gang concept. A team of 4-7 men was deployed into an operational area. All other friendly forces in that region were withdrawn. The team was dressed in insurgent uniforms, carried communist weapons, and gave the appearance of being a guerrilla force. The key was that they were better trained and more disciplined than the nationalists. Once they ascertained the presence of an insurgent force, they began to stalk them. They were proficient at remaining undetected throughout this phase. This gave them the advantage of initiating contact with the insurgents at their discretion. The Selous Scouts achieved remarkable results by carrying the war directly to the guerrillas. Their success carries the key to an effective counterinsurgency campaign. They were simply much better at guerrilla warfare than their opponents. The paper also states this in regards to the Selous Scouts "During the war the Scouts were credited with the deaths of 68% of the insurgents killed within the borders of Rhodesia" and gives a little background on Mugabe's issues with them when he came to power. It really is an interesting read with a lot of the historical information on the military/security forces and what led to the conflict and the forces on each side. Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
It's a bit of a story, but basically it's an Enfield in 7.62x39, modded to look a bit like an AK from a distance. The contract was to supply wildlife rangers during the bush war period. I've got one of the original stock and grip sets, once I move I plan on converting a bubba'd Enfield into a clone. Then it's on to building the semi Rhuzi. Original 'smith is still alive and kicking too, has had some other interesting projects. View Quote |
|
Ok, for the anglophiles out there, women, BHP's and Sterlings.
Attached File Female with her FAL. Attached File Another BREN. Attached File Soldiers with US style helmets. Soldier with holstered BHP, soldier with FAL and extended mag, what is the weapon with the stock cut down and taped up? Attached File |
|
Quoted:
That's kind of jacked up. You would think in a conflict like this one that allowing your citizens to arm themselves with the best options available would be prudent. Looks like no matter what the situation some politicians just don't trust their citizens. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The .303 British never really disappeared from service. They were relegated to support units, convoy duty, and training. https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=d457221b7c785791032db7ccfc661371&attachmentid=7040&d=1253423805 https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=d457221b7c785791032db7ccfc661371&attachmentid=7041&d=1253423805 https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=d457221b7c785791032db7ccfc661371&attachmentid=7042&d=1253423805 https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=d457221b7c785791032db7ccfc661371&attachmentid=7043&d=1253423805 They especially loved the old RAF Browning .303 MGs. https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/09/rur2ns-1.jpg From everything I've read, the BSAP, Air Force, and Reserve Forces kept the Enfields in service. SMGs were about useless due to no penetration in the brush. The majority were issued to Rural Families and private purchase was restricted to semi-automatic. |
|
|
Quoted:
Soldiers with US style helmets. Soldier with holstered BHP, soldier with FAL and extended mag, what is the weapon with the stock cut down and taped up? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/161929/rhod30-181360.JPG View Quote |
|
Another scoped FAL.
Attached File Firearms training. Attached File More Sterling. Attached File Female Dog Handler. Attached File |
|
Quoted:
I think what your thinking is due to availability, not the government limiting what they can have. Although someone previously mentioned that FA was not allowed to civies, yet at the same time issued to others. I'm sure that individual arms ownership in Rhodesia was a good bit higher than in the US, but it would not have been top notch stuff, even for the time. Think, Switzerland on Steroids. I do remember reading years ago, that reloading equipment needed to be permitted because they were afraid of the terrs getting it. Be happy you live in a time when you can order cases of ammo, top notch guns and force multiplying devices like NODs over the internet. View Quote |
|
Rhodesian FAL |
|
Quoted:
Except the left now thinks segregation is a good thing. As for voting, well, I'm a monarchist at times anyway. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The blacks in Rhodesia were not oppressed. They were simple tribesman, they had no business whatsoever participating in Rhodesian society, as evident by the results of the last 30 years. They had their own tribal systems. Furthermore, they didn't really even exist in large numbers until the Rhodesians hooked them up with agriculture and medicine. The Rhodesians and SAfricans did nothing wrong, and I wish they'd have won. We are next... -The Colour Bar Law: the single overarching policy of white Rhodesia that ensured the division of the Rhodesian society into white and black. -The 1947 Native Urban Areas Accommodation Act: split the urban areas into African and European sections. Africans could only reside in the European areas as 'houseboys' or 'garden boys', provided they remained in the service of a white household. Those Africans permitted to live in the clean, green, spacious white enclaves, lived in Kias, little outhouses, usually at the bottom of the lawned and swimming-pooled gardens of their white employers. These Africans could also enter some shops in the European areas but purchases were made through a hatch in the side wall so that they would not disturb the European shoppers. -The centres of the major towns were all open to Africans from 9am to 9pm, but outside of those times only those with a pass from an employer or guarantor could enter. -Cinemas had separate entrances for whites and Africans, restaurants had separate rooms, hotels often did not permit Africans to rent a room whatsoever. -Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and its successor in the Land Tenure Act of 1969: both of which ensured spatial division on the basis of race. Divided Southern Rhodesia into 5 sections, with racial separation being the intended goal. -Voting rights were denied to blacks except in the rarest of circumstances. I would say most of that counts as oppression. As for voting, well, I'm a monarchist at times anyway. To treat Rhodesia like it was massively different from other Western countries with major black populations at the time or like it had South Africa's petty apartheid is absurd. Ultimately, Rhodesia was fighting for a cause that included far more freedom than ZANU or ZAPU ever intended to allow. It was, as Ian Smith (a great man, IMO) put it, the striking of a "blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity." Rhodesia was modern Western civilization transplanted, with some holdovers from the days of racism against blacks (although some laws of this type continued in part due to the civilizational gap between the blacks and others, which presented issues of some consequence). Rhodesia's cause was just and should have been supported, not condemned. Ultimately, the results speak for themselves. Zimbabwe is racist, just in a different way and much more openly and oppressively so (and has also slaughtered blacks based on tribal affiliation), and is a grossly unjust, uncivilized, and unfree place. Economically, it has sent itself into the shitter. And the land and wildlife are on a sharp decline. But apparently that's better than what Rhodesia had to offer if you ask some. I recall reading years ago about a poll in a Salisbury newspaper (or Harare, I guess) from the late 1990s done by a firm for the paper that asked people in the city if they'd prefer to stay under Mugabe and his regime or return to having Ian Smith in charge, with his regime, and a large majority favoured Smith (who I don't believe had yet had to flee Rhodesia for South Africa for his safety). It is also interesting to see interviews of black Rhodesian soldiers, who talk about how they volunteered to protect their families, to oppose communism, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Ridiculous takes designed to demonize people? Sir, I provided you with laws passed by the Rhodesian government designed to alienate and disenfranchise people (that you may look up if you wish). But we are talking about a very small population of European settlers who claimed the arable land and displaced the native population. That is a recipe for disaster, and it is surprising that Rhodesia lasted as long as it did. It was in fact their country, but the rules were not democratically chosen by the population with universal suffrage (but rather the White elite and maybe tens of natives). The tribesmen were born there on that land. They didn't choose to live there anymore than the natives of any land. But yes, I agree that Zimbabwe is a failed state (as I have said clearly in this thread, going so far as to call for a bullet to find its way into Mugabe), but to say that Rhodesians did not oppress blacks is incorrect. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, most of these "oppression" stories are just ridiculous tales designed to demonize people. As a Southerner, my people are heavily demonized, so I know how to spot a bunch of leftist slander when I see it. Second, the examples you provided are not oppression. It was their country, their rules. Kind of like how if I were to choose to live in Saudi Arabia, and then complain about the lack of accommodations for Christians. The tribesmen chose to live there. They were nomadic before. As you yourself noted, they had their own tracts of land under Rhodesian rule. The Rhodesians had good reason for wanting separation. History has vindicated their world view. The policies of seizing productive land from productive people, and extending the franchise to millions of people with extremely low IQs have worked out about as well as you would predict. Good thing they have Mugabe and the terrible days of oppression are over! Not trying to be a jerk, but it's just what I see as clear as day. I welcome your explanation as to why I'm wrong, but I'm not sure what you are going to say that is more convincing than the realities of living in Zimbabwe versus living in Rhodesia. But we are talking about a very small population of European settlers who claimed the arable land and displaced the native population. That is a recipe for disaster, and it is surprising that Rhodesia lasted as long as it did. It was in fact their country, but the rules were not democratically chosen by the population with universal suffrage (but rather the White elite and maybe tens of natives). The tribesmen were born there on that land. They didn't choose to live there anymore than the natives of any land. But yes, I agree that Zimbabwe is a failed state (as I have said clearly in this thread, going so far as to call for a bullet to find its way into Mugabe), but to say that Rhodesians did not oppress blacks is incorrect. And democracy and universal suffrage are generally bad things and any Western country that refrained from adopting either was choosing the right thing at the time. Adopting Rhodesia's voting qualifications at the time of UDI here would be a step up. |
|
Quoted:
Obviously Mugabe was worse, but how likely is it that Mugabe would have risen to dictatorial power if the Rhodesians had accepted the inevitable and worked towards a universal franchise instead of outlawing black political parties and UDI? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Was era of the post white oppression any improvement? A dictator that brought in North Korean advisors, created the Fifth Brigade.... From January 1983, a campaign of terror was waged against the Ndebele people in Matabeleland in western Zimbabwe. The so-called Gukurahundi massacres remain the darkest period in the country’s post-independence history, when more than 20,000 civilians were killed by Robert Mugabe’s feared Fifth Brigade. No one has accepted the blame for the violence, but the recent release of historical documents has shed new light on those responsible. The wide-ranging reports include diplomatic correspondence, intelligence assessments and raw intelligence garnered by spies recruited from within the Zimbabwean government. These papers – augmented by my investigations and the testimony of Zimbabwean witnesses – appear to substantiate what survivors and scholars have always suspected: Mugabe, then prime minister, was the prime architect of well-planned and systematically executed mass killings. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/19/mugabe-zimbabwe-gukurahundi-massacre-matabeleland Makes the Rhodesian forces and government look like choir boys. |
|
Quoted:
By the time Smith made that agreement it was too little, too late. Outlawing the black nationalist parties had already forced them underground and into arms, and UDI had convinced the black population at large that the whites would never share power. Picture instead a Rhodesia where Smith never rises to power , a Rhodesia where an agreement for a gradual transfer of power starts in the late 50s or early 60s. Robert Mugabe might never have been radicalised, and even if he was there would have been no Bush war to facilitate his rise to power. Of course such a Rhodesia wasn't acceptable to a large majority of white Rhodesians, so conflict became inevitable. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obviously Mugabe was worse, but how likely is it that Mugabe would have risen to dictatorial power if the Rhodesians had accepted the inevitable and worked towards a universal franchise instead of outlawing black political parties and UDI? If you think that everything would have turned out great if only Rhodesia had complied with the British government's demands in the 1960s, you are completely and utterly fooling yourself. You are simply not basing things on reality. Rhodesia was part of a Federation. The other members went the same path as every other African country granted independence and majority rule by the British, and this was before UDI or Smith's becoming PM. People like Mugabe and Nkomo were already radicalized, BTW. Again, you are looking at this with no respect to the reality of things. It's like the people who claim that Ho Chi Minh would not have been a communist in the 1940s and 1950s had we turned against our ally and helped him out, when in reality he was a founding member of the French Communist Party in the early 1920s. Same shit, different place. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know if you're trying to be obtuse or if your math sucks that bad. From 1927-1960 there was a 206% increase in population, mind you this is pre-modern medicine Africa. And from 1980 to 2010 there was a 79% increase. I wish there were numbers before 1927, because that is when the real migration would have happened. As for your second paragraph, yes the BSAP subjugated some people that had recently subjugated some other people. It's called history, and if you live in the US you need to learn to live with it or plow your house and let some Sioux move in. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's true. The black population of what we call Rhodesia (Southern Rhodesia in the chart below) about tripled from the time they started keeping records to 1960. These were migrant workers. The tribes that were there before, at least the Matabele, were driven there by Shaka not long before (Early 1800s) so the whole ancestral homeland shit is pretty weak. Coincidentally the Matebele are being genocided by (Shona) Mugabe. These numbers are really hard to find http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32535.0;attach=55557;image But hey, the ruling tribe had only conquered the area 80 years before, so that makes the area fair game. As for your second paragraph, yes the BSAP subjugated some people that had recently subjugated some other people. It's called history, and if you live in the US you need to learn to live with it or plow your house and let some Sioux move in. Rhodesia went through the population boom but not so much the immigration, legal or illegal. The Ndebele speaking people were new arrivals, albeit socially dominant despite being a minority, having invaded the land in the 1830s. The Shona had been there for over a millennia, but had never experienced large population growth for various reasons (a lot having to do with their low level of civilization, which did not advance; when the whites first entered Rhodesia, the blacks there had neither invented nor encountered the wheel and were not far removed from the stone age). Rhodesia in 1890 (Southern Rhodesia only) had a population of around 600,000 blacks. By the time the Federation was faltering due to the British push for decolonization and "no independence before majority rule" policy, around 1962, the black population had grown to 3,860,000. The white population had grown from 712 to 220,000 during the same period, and Asians from zero to 7,400. Not sure what the coloured population was. So, in 72 years, the black population grew by over 400% whereas before it had grown at far slower rates, when it grew. This growth was largely fueled by reproduction and not immigration. Advances in medicine and other sciences and technology brought by Europeans (infant deaths declined massively), more plentiful food supply due to better use of the land and more advanced agriculture, a higher standard of living overall, and the ending of tribal warfare were among the reasons for such a massive expansion in population growth. The white growth, naturally, owed a lot to immigration, although by UDI it had gotten hard to immigrate legally to Rhodesia, even as a white person, due to the high standards (high standards compared to most other Western countries at the time were also required for whites to vote, not-coincidentally. During UDI the white population managed to surpass 400,000, IIRC, but declined due to the strain the sanctions and war were having on the white population (whites, as well as Asians and coloureds, were subject to the draft; blacks were not and were drawn from a larger population, anyways). I think by the end of UDI it was not much higher than it was pre-UDI. That was also due to immigration, albeit negative/outgoing immigration. |
|
Quoted:
It's frustrating reading these arguments based mostly on feelings and only someone's own narrow cultural perspective. You first have to realize that these blacks are different from "African Americans" today. In fact there were multiple categories of what we would call blacks. Once you start to understand that, try to look at it from that perspective to understand that some of these groups, or tribes, wanted to do things their way, and were given tribal lands to carry on their culture and ways (these tribes were also massacred by the terrs if they were seen playing nice with the Rhodesian govt, something often ignored as people assumed they all supported the terrs). Other blacks, who wanted to be part of society could work hard to do so. Voting was not limited strictly by color, as I understand it, but by property ownership. The point I'm trying to make is you have to understand the nuances of the different cultures and times before you can start to understand the whole situation. You also have to be willing to look at it with an open mind. If you come into it seeing it as black vs white, which is the narrative pushed by the communists since the beginning (which they continue to repeat) then you will continue to understand nothing. Russia has pushed disinformation long before these last few years. The difference was that our dems and leftists worked more closely with them in the past. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That could only have happened if the whites were interested in allowing the Africans to integrate. Instead they elected Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front. I'm not sure where you guys are getting this idea that the blacks all moved into Rhodesia after the whites built a country in the wasteland. Matabeleland and Mashonaland weren't named for terrain features. You first have to realize that these blacks are different from "African Americans" today. In fact there were multiple categories of what we would call blacks. Once you start to understand that, try to look at it from that perspective to understand that some of these groups, or tribes, wanted to do things their way, and were given tribal lands to carry on their culture and ways (these tribes were also massacred by the terrs if they were seen playing nice with the Rhodesian govt, something often ignored as people assumed they all supported the terrs). Other blacks, who wanted to be part of society could work hard to do so. Voting was not limited strictly by color, as I understand it, but by property ownership. The point I'm trying to make is you have to understand the nuances of the different cultures and times before you can start to understand the whole situation. You also have to be willing to look at it with an open mind. If you come into it seeing it as black vs white, which is the narrative pushed by the communists since the beginning (which they continue to repeat) then you will continue to understand nothing. Russia has pushed disinformation long before these last few years. The difference was that our dems and leftists worked more closely with them in the past. |
|
No Rhodie thread is complete without Clem Tholet. He eventually married the daughter of PM Ian Smith. Voetsek!
Rhodesians Never Die |
|
|
Quoted:
The migration thing happened in South Africa, not Rhodesia. When the whites first got there, the blacks were barely starting to find their way into the northernmost parts of the country. The exception were some scattered bushmen and some other similar tribe. It was largely unpopulated. The white population grew and pushed north while the blacks started to more seriously push in from the north, heading south, which ultimately led to clashes. Later on, Western modernity allowed for a population boom among the blacks and once decolonization began, you started to see massive immigration, legal and illegal (mostly the latter, IIRC) from other parts of Africa, mostly blacks. In four centuries the black population in what is now South Africa went from negligible to tens of millions, with a ton of that growth in only a few decades (post-WWII). Rhodesia went through the population boom but not so much the immigration, legal or illegal. The Ndebele speaking people were new arrivals, albeit socially dominant despite being a minority, having invaded the land in the 1830s. The Shona had been there for over a millennia, but had never experienced large population growth for various reasons (a lot having to do with their low level of civilization, which did not advance; when the whites first entered Rhodesia, the blacks there had neither invented nor encountered the wheel and were not far removed from the stone age). Rhodesia in 1890 (Southern Rhodesia only) had a population of around 600,000 blacks. By the time the Federation was faltering due to the British push for decolonization and "no independence before majority rule" policy, around 1962, the black population had grown to 3,860,000. The white population had grown from 712 to 220,000 during the same period, and Asians from zero to 7,400. Not sure what the coloured population was. So, in 72 years, the black population grew by over 400% whereas before it had grown at far slower rates, when it grew. This growth was largely fueled by reproduction and not immigration. Advances in medicine and other sciences and technology brought by Europeans (infant deaths declined massively), more plentiful food supply due to better use of the land and more advanced agriculture, a higher standard of living overall, and the ending of tribal warfare were among the reasons for such a massive expansion in population growth. The white growth, naturally, owed a lot to immigration, although by UDI it had gotten hard to immigrate legally to Rhodesia, even as a white person, due to the high standards (high standards compared to most other Western countries at the time were also required for whites to vote, not-coincidentally. During UDI the white population managed to surpass 400,000, IIRC, but declined due to the strain the sanctions and war were having on the white population (whites, as well as Asians and coloureds, were subject to the draft; blacks were not and were drawn from a larger population, anyways). I think by the end of UDI it was not much higher than it was pre-UDI. That was also due to immigration, albeit negative/outgoing immigration. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I really think the west should have pushed for some colonial reform; letting the native populations gradually get a much larger say in affairs, while maintaining Western living standards. Instead, the USSR helped push the west out of Africa as quickly as possible, for the purpose of sticking it to NATO member countries (not because the USSR actually gave a damn about black Africans). The Internal settlement deal (with Muzorewa) might have worked for Zimbabwe Rhodesia, but the UN crapped on it (I despise the UN so much). Serious question: what would have happened if the Rhodies held out a couple more years (say, until '82 or '83) when the Reagan administration got rolling? Would the Reagan administration done anything differently? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Mugabe had influential friends. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. |
|
Quoted:
The SAS fought against the Rhodesians? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. ETA whoops... Reading is fundamental... That was not your question.... |
|
Quoted:
Were there some issues? Sure. But that's also true of the U.S. at the time. Some of this stuff started to go away later on. The one thing that went in the wrong direction for a time was voting. For several years, starting a few years after UDI, they separated voting into A and B rolls which affected what you could vote on, and most blacks only qualified for the B rolls. Previously, there was only one voter roll and the qualifications were the same regardless of race. Eventually, they returned to that and also relaxed the qualifications. Rhodesia still had a qualified franchise at the time of UDI; you had to own fixed property, have a certain income, own a mining concession, or something like that on top of education requirements to vote. There were quite a few whites that could not vote under the qualifications. These qualifications did have a much greater impact on blacks, but there were many who were eligible to vote. The problem was that most eligible blacks chose not to register to vote. To treat Rhodesia like it was massively different from other Western countries with major black populations at the time or like it had South Africa's petty apartheid is absurd. Ultimately, Rhodesia was fighting for a cause that included far more freedom than ZANU or ZAPU ever intended to allow. It was, as Ian Smith (a great man, IMO) put it, the striking of a "blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity." Rhodesia was modern Western civilization transplanted, with some holdovers from the days of racism against blacks (although some laws of this type continued in part due to the civilizational gap between the blacks and others, which presented issues of some consequence). Rhodesia's cause was just and should have been supported, not condemned. Ultimately, the results speak for themselves. Zimbabwe is racist, just in a different way and much more openly and oppressively so (and has also slaughtered blacks based on tribal affiliation), and is a grossly unjust, uncivilized, and unfree place. Economically, it has sent itself into the shitter. And the land and wildlife are on a sharp decline. But apparently that's better than what Rhodesia had to offer if you ask some. I recall reading years ago about a poll in a Salisbury newspaper (or Harare, I guess) from the late 1990s done by a firm for the paper that asked people in the city if they'd prefer to stay under Mugabe and his regime or return to having Ian Smith in charge, with his regime, and a large majority favoured Smith (who I don't believe had yet had to flee Rhodesia for South Africa for his safety). It is also interesting to see interviews of black Rhodesian soldiers, who talk about how they volunteered to protect their families, to oppose communism, etc. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
The black nationalist parties were outlawed because they had already begun resorting to terrorism. Had Rhodesia been able to hold on a bit longer they would have been defeated. If you think that everything would have turned out great if only Rhodesia had complied with the British government's demands in the 1960s, you are completely and utterly fooling yourself. You are simply not basing things on reality. Rhodesia was part of a Federation. The other members went the same path as every other African country granted independence and majority rule by the British, and this was before UDI or Smith's becoming PM. People like Mugabe and Nkomo were already radicalized, BTW. Again, you are looking at this with no respect to the reality of things. It's like the people who claim that Ho Chi Minh would not have been a communist in the 1940s and 1950s had we turned against our ally and helped him out, when in reality he was a founding member of the French Communist Party in the early 1920s. Same shit, different place. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I think the question is, did thatcher send British SAS to help Mugabe. I would like to know the answer to that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
Really you are surprised that a revolutionary party sprang up shortly after 4% of the population told the rest of the country that they would have no say in how it was governed? Seems like a reasonable assumption. View Quote The ultimate consequences of black majority rule where terrorists and Marxists have free play is tyranny. One has the right to do what one must to prevent that, even if it means not having pure democratic government or a universal franchise, or majority rule. One of my favourite political quotes from John Milton is relevant here: "Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that the greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it." -John Milton, "The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth,” Areopagitica and Other Prose Works (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Everyman’s Edition, 1927), p. 181. What the blacks ultimately supported was not liberty, and today under "majority rule" they do not possess it, and the situation is even worse for whites and Asians. The whites had the right to win or retain their liberty, even if most voices opposed that. There was plenty of precedent by that point to show what was going to happen to them and the country as a whole if they surrendered to British demands. |
|
|
Quoted:
Zambia tried doing shit without Whitey and learned that they failed economically. So they shoved the Dialectic up their ass and said give me money. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carter wanted the communists at the table there. Reagan wouldn't have. That is itself is a huge difference. Reagan's central goal was the defeat of the USSR. His policy in Rhodesia would have likely been similar to his policy in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Angola. Zambia was put in a interesting position. They hosted camps for ZANLA and ZIPRA. But that was about it. Also when Zimbabwe kicked the white farmers out Zambia was one of the nation's to welcome them in. |
|
Quoted:
The SAS fought against the Rhodesians? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, they went Marxist right after independence. It would have been no better had Rhodesia gone the same route back then as a condition of independence. They didn't go quite as far as Mugabe, but it was bad and still took decades (late-90s/early-2000s) before they started to change their tune. Over the last few years they started calling whites from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa to come there and settle and I think they even offered confiscated white lands back to the families that had owned them previously. The white population there no is substantially larger than it was at its peak pre-independence, and it is already improving their situation. They also liberalized the economy in general somewhat. Decades of anti-white policies and Marxism were not working. They still have a long ways to go before one can say they have a reasonably decent government, though. View Quote But I hate Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Maoism, etc.... with a passion. The fuck destroyed my Cuba. If anyone in Africa can get past the bullshit and just start being productive and stable I'd be happy. |
|
Quoted:
Thatcher deployed UK Forces and possibly elements of the SAS when the UK took over Rhodesia-Zimbabwe in 1980. The Commonwealth deployed troops. New Zealand especially. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, but the UK forces didn't "Fight" against the Rhodesians or for Mugabe. Ironically enough the UK forces were generally very impressed with the Rhodesian forces, from a training and equipment standpoint (Rhodesians had better and more modern radio systems compared to the UK as one example) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. |
|
Quoted:
No, they just stood by and politically supported Mugabe and didn't lift a finger during the terror campaign to twist the elections. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Wikipedia article about Muzorewa: The parliamentary elections took place at the end of February 1980, after a campaign filled with much intimidation by Mugabe's ZANU. The British government briefly considered disqualifying ZANU from participating in the elections for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement, but in the end did nothing. https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1364538/1980-thatcher.jpg Carington hated Smith, wanted to punish Rhodesians and didn't particularly care about the long term outcome. He essentially felt like Mugabe would win a prolonged war anyway so might as well help him out,the quicker he took power the better. Thatcher knew he was a Marxist and the road he was going down,sent the SAS to help Mugabe mop up opposition anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Yep. The way the remote farmhouses coordinated/hardened to defend themselves and each other when they got attacked is really interesting stuff. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
Looks like they may have had them or a similar conversion: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/161929/Rhod4-180067.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The curve of the mag is the tell to me. I thought SLR30s only existed because they were made for BRENs. L4 BRENs are high on my cool list, a ingenious move of small unit logistics, everyone's mags interchangeable. Though I think L4s were converted .303s https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/161929/Rhod4-180067.JPG |
|
Female carrying Uzi
Attached File Army Reservists undergoing weapons training. More Uzis Attached File Rhodesian gun store salesman showing off an FN with scope ("telescopic sight"). Wondering if more of these scopes seen on soldiers rifles weren't private purchase? Attached File |
|
Quoted:
Zambia flirted with Socialism after Independence and then realized that was a mistake. This cartoon says it best. http://nehandaradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/zimbabwe-white-farmers-in-zambia.jpg View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Neither was my argument, but at least you tried. It's been a universal part of western civilization for almost 150 years that those who legally reside within a nation are permitted to participate in society equally1923 is when our indigenous peoples got the vote and full citizenship (not for distribution of wealth, but for voting, free-travel, etc.). Excluding the indigenous population from participation in society not only violates this concept, it exacerbates resentment between the two groups. Inclusion and integration would have led to the indigenous populations being more familiar with and better at participating in a capitalist democracy/republic. People in here laughing about how backwards Africa is sound like they would go to Saudi Arabia and make fun of the women because they can't drive well. View Quote If an indigenous people are undeveloped it takes time to bring them up to speed. |
|
So I have a story for you. My mom will never tell the long version but. Her family friends owned a amethyst mine near the Zambezi. Her friend was white and part Jewish and was married to a colored woman.
They were warned all the time don't go down there you will run into Terrs. Well one day sadly the people that warned them were right and they were killed. As far as Zambia goes she echoes exactly what you guys said . She left in 79 and yes it did get worse for a time. She did say when she was there black white relations never had much strain. |
|
A lot of Rhodesians I've spoken too think while it would not have been perfect if nkomo had won not Mugabe it wouldn't have been as bloody . Nkomo was still Commie but he was educated. Mugabe was a thug and I hate to say it but him and Jacob Zuma are very similar.
|
|
Quoted:
Neither was my argument, but at least you tried. It's been a universal part of western civilization for almost 150 years that those who legally reside within a nation are permitted to participate in society equally (not for distribution of wealth, but for voting, free-travel, etc.). Excluding the indigenous population from participation in society not only violates this concept, it exacerbates resentment between the two groups. Inclusion and integration would have led to the indigenous populations being more familiar with and better at participating in a capitalist democracy/republic. People in here laughing about how backwards Africa is sound like they would go to Saudi Arabia and make fun of the women because they can't drive well. View Quote Puerto Ricans were partially granted citizenship in 1917 simply so they can be drafted for WWI. The rest of the island didn't get citizenship until 1952. Those born in Guam weren't granted citizenship until 1952. Hell, right now anyone born in American Samoa is still not a US Citizen. They're just US Nationals. They have the right abode in the US but must apply for citizenship just like an immigrant. Oh, American Samoa has more enlistees into the US Armed Forces per capita than any other place in the country. Don't give me this bullshit about exclusion. |
|
So were Nkomo and his outfit better trained and less barbaric than Mugabe and company? I'm kinda getting that impression from reading all this.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.