British Intervention To Stop Rhodesian UDI in 1965

backstab

Banned
Similar traditions, structure and training as the British Army, but with mostly conscript reservists (many of whom were considerably older than other soldiers) and very little in the way of heavy stuff or air support and very limited numbers available to non-internal security roles.

Whilst it performed very well given the situation 1965-80, I hardly think one can say it'd perform any better than a regular British infantry battalion fresh from fighting in SE Asia or the ME. Then you throw superior logistic support into the equation.

But as stated, fighting White Rhodesians would've been totally unacceptable to the vast bulk of the UK population just on principle, and this would be reflected in the H of P.


True but they would be supported by the South Africans and the Whites would be fighting for their very existance. Any native government installed in Rohdesia would evetually turn on its white inhabitants, and without them they are just anothe failed state (Like it is now)
 
Some general thoughts:

*Would the local British forces fight? Isn't some kind of mutiny fairly likely, considering their good relations with the Rhodies? Especially if they viewed it as some Socialist crap from back home. At the very least, we'd see something like Israel when they deported the settlers in Gaza.


Agreed I go with the overwhelming opinion on here that such an intervention is unlikely. However, I will take issue with the above point. Although it is likely that many troops would disagree with such an intervention I strongly doubt a mutiny. I can't see any conceivable circumstances under which the British military would en masse turn against orders from a democratically-elected govt. This is why I've always dismissed the theory (of which there are several topics on this site regarding) that believe that a coup against the British Labour govt in the late 1970's was likely (another common POD is a coup against a highly socialist Labour Govt elected in '83). Whilst there is evidence of high profile individuals supporting such an action and indeed I can see support for such actions in elite groups of officers, I can't see such actions gaining support more broadly in the forces.

So no I don't feel mutiny is likely among UK troops in Rhodesia. Loss of parliamentary support for any govt taking such actions is more likely (which is why this POD is admittedly inconceivable.
 
True but they would be supported by the South Africans and the Whites would be fighting for their very existance. Any native government installed in Rohdesia would evetually turn on its white inhabitants, and without them they are just anothe failed state (Like it is now)


Whilst there is quite a lot of hatred toward whites in all African nations, I feel that the period of white minority rule 65-80 probably significantly exacerbated this.

Having a moderate Black govt in power for quite some time, with a policy of toleration (unlikely anything more than toleration) of whites, could significantly stabilise the racial situation compared to OTL, at least comparatively. This doesn't require even a leader who doesn't hate whites, just one who can see the obvious economic benefit of having them there.

For an example take South Africa OTL. Certainly there is a latent hatred of white there and an astronomical violent crime rate, but as far as Africa goes it has a powerhouse economy. Also in terms of political rights it has extremely good standards, not just by African standards but it is definintely level with the West in terms of rights. Its constitution is said by some to be the most progressive in the world (and is about the only African constitution which is adhered to by those in power).
 
I think we can safely ignore Backstab's opinion, anyone who struggles to spell simple English words, probably doesn't have a great deal of insight into African politics and history.
 
I still think Ian Smith's progressive measures would've been the best way to ensure a peaceful transition in Rhodesia (this assuming they were proposed in good faith). By giving blacks an incrementally greater proportion in government and administration as the educated black population segment grew larger would probably have worked, if not without frictions. If the British had not delivered their UN sanctions, that would also have significantly improved Rhodesia's post-colonial situation, with no massive debts etc to deal with.
 
Just been doing a bit more research on this topic today, found an article that is of interest.

On 26 January 1966 after the declaration of independence, Van der Byl was willing to be quoted saying that Rhodesian Army troops would follow a 'scorched earth' policy should the United Kingdom send in troops, comparing their position to that of the Red Army when Nazi forces invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. He was highly critical of Harold Wilson, describing him as a "highly dangerous, uninformed and conceited little man."[27]


The above article was from 'The Times' Janauary 27 January 1966. Whilst I still agree that my ATL is highly unlikely, it certainly shows that senior figures in the UDI govt felt that British intervention was likely enough, in order for them to have to warn against it.
 
We've established from the responses that actual military intervention by the British intervention is highly unlikely and a bit ASB.

So, I propose a different POD that would IMHO by a lot more plausible.

What if the UK govt were to offer both diplomatic, political and financial support to the African nationalists? This wouldn't involve troops being sent but would involve money and other forms of covert support as vocal support of the groups fighitng against UDI.

Before anyone dismisses by POD right out of hand remember that Sweden provided financial support to black Zimbabwean nationalists in the 1970's, under the late Social Democratic Prime Minister and reknowned humanitarian Olof Palme (they also provided financial support to the ANC in Africa). So it wasn't exactly beyond the pale for Western nations to support 'Marxists' in some cases.

Also, perhaps not in 1965 but certainly by the time of the re-election of the UK Labour govt in 1974 I believe that there would have been sufficient support for such a measure. By then the anti-racism New Left had begun their 'long march through the institutions' and would I assume support financial and other non-military support for the black nationalists (not military support owing to their pacifist credentials, etc).
 
Thats of course assuming that Mugabe still becomes Zimbabwean president. With British involvement I would expect that the British would already have someone else in mind prior to actually sending troops. I doubt whether they would tolerate liberating the nation only to have a Marxist installed. Abel Muzorewa springs to mind as someone who would be acceptable to the British and at least tolerable to white Zimbabweans. As for the attitude of the black Zimbabweans, well, Mugabe has been able to crush opposition whilst running a pariah state, so certainly a Muzorewa government generously funded by the West could do the same. Think of US poilcy in most of Latin America since the end of WW2 for examples.

So, a short intervention by the British followed by the establishment of black majority pro-Western puppet state. Regardless of the short term seems like in the long term as far better outcome for the white Zimbabweans and their British supporters, don't you think?

In 1965, Mugabe was already leading ZANU. The lines between him and Nkomo were already drawn. Mugabe is a Shona, which is the majority tribe in Zimbabwe. The only to stop him from power is to kill him. Muzorewa has not got the support to take Mugabe's place. The only who does is Nkomo, and even that's iffy because he's a Shona. Nkomo is a far better choice for leader than Mugabe because he was a socialist who knew business quite well (he was a self-made multimillionaire) and generally was far more reasonable than Mugabe was. The whole reason ZANU came to exist was because Mugabe and his allies (Sithole, Takawira and Malinga) couldn't wrest control of ZAPU from Nkomo and Herbert Chitepo.

Best case scenario: Britain offers a lucrative deal to Rhodesia in return for figuring out a settlement to get the blacks involved in the government and ending the racial laws. Nkomo and Chitepo go for this, knowing it will get them into power without waves of bloodshed. ZANU would inevitably go to war here, but a mildly socialist semi-democratic government against an avowed racist Marxist is gonna see the West back Nkomo, Chitepo and Smith.
 
A little revison here

Mugabe was a junior commisar in 1966.
Knomo, or Nabangdi, Sithole, would have taken charge.
The Ndbele are more tolerant of europeans, then shona in general because they were treated better.
 
Mugabe was a junior commisar in 1966.
Knomo, or Nabangdi, Sithole, would have taken charge.
The Ndbele are more tolerant of europeans, then shona in general because they were treated better.

Nkomo and Mugabe were the co-founders of the Patriotic Front in 1962. Junior commissar? Not a chance. He'd be quite influential no matter what happens.
 
Nkomo and Mugabe were the co-founders of the Patriotic Front in 1962. Junior commissar? Not a chance. He'd be quite influential no matter what happens.[/qThanks for the reminder?
What about Senator Chirau?
He had all of Abel's guts without his mistakes.
 
The above article was from 'The Times' Janauary 27 January 1966. Whilst I still agree that my ATL is highly unlikely, it certainly shows that senior figures in the UDI govt felt that British intervention was likely enough, in order for them to have to warn against it.

Or just sounding off to the Press, with the dual purpose of showing those who were anti-UDI the British might try it (if only in an attempt to villify them); those pro-UDI would welcome the tough response; and it'd show resolve in the face of official British opposition.
 
Intervention

I agree that political reasons would have prevented intervention, also the idea that it could go any other way than a quick (conventional) defeat for the Rhodesians is nonsense.
Other considerations include the UK (and Commonwealth) forces being heavily engaged in the Borneo confrontation (those who think that the 'English' army-wot no Scots and Welsh regiments then?), would be licked should perhaps study that conflict.
Also in the Mid East at the time too.

Wilson did put in a blockade of goods going by sea (then over land in Portuguese Africa) with limited success.
RAF Javelin fighters were deployed to I think, either Zambia or Tanzania, to intercept suspected sanctions busting air traffic and protect against attacks by Rhodesian Hunter and Canberra aircraft.
(Long after this, in the late 70's, the UK gave Zambia Rapier Anti Aircraft missiles to counter attacks by Smith's air force.)

However, Wilson did maybe have one military option.
Rhodesia had just one refinery for processing imported oil.
It was well in range of the RN's Buccaneer strike aircraft then operating off the carriers taking part in the blockade.
Since any oil refined was breaking sanctions, perhaps a legitimate target, to force Smith back to talks.
Not a total military solution, but to provide political pressure.

But how even this limited military action would have gone down is hard to say.
Perhaps, in the style of 'Nixon goes to China', only a conservative UK government could have done it.
After all, Smith and others were warned of UK policy on black majority rule, by a Tory PM Harold MacMillan in his famous 'winds of change' speech to a surprised and soon perturbed South African parliament in 1960.
 
I agree that political reasons would have prevented intervention, also the idea that it could go any other way than a quick (conventional) defeat for the Rhodesians is nonsense.
Other considerations include the UK (and Commonwealth) forces being heavily engaged in the Borneo confrontation (those who think that the 'English' army-wot no Scots and Welsh regiments then?), would be licked should perhaps study that conflict.
Also in the Mid East at the time too.

Wilson did put in a blockade of goods going by sea (then over land in Portuguese Africa) with limited success.
RAF Javelin fighters were deployed to I think, either Zambia or Tanzania, to intercept suspected sanctions busting air traffic and protect against attacks by Rhodesian Hunter and Canberra aircraft.
(Long after this, in the late 70's, the UK gave Zambia Rapier Anti Aircraft missiles to counter attacks by Smith's air force.)

However, Wilson did maybe have one military option.
Rhodesia had just one refinery for processing imported oil.
It was well in range of the RN's Buccaneer strike aircraft then operating off the carriers taking part in the blockade.
Since any oil refined was breaking sanctions, perhaps a legitimate target, to force Smith back to talks.
Not a total military solution, but to provide political pressure.

But how even this limited military action would have gone down is hard to say.
Perhaps, in the style of 'Nixon goes to China', only a conservative UK government could have done it.
After all, Smith and others were warned of UK policy on black majority rule, by a Tory PM Harold MacMillan in his famous 'winds of change' speech to a surprised and soon perturbed South African parliament in 1960.


I find myself agreeing with everything in this post. The bombing of the oil refinery would definitely be the likely extent of any military action. Also it would have achieved a massive blow against the Rhodesian economy. I read somewhere that in the late 1970's the black rebels were able to successfully target Rhodesia's major strategic oil reserve outside Harare via ground-based missiles and that this act alone increased the govt deficit by 20% instantly.

I agree that perhaps even limited forms of military actions against Rhodesia would have only occured under the Tories. If they were able to get the party to agree to it (which would have been difficult due to people like Enoch Powell, etc) it would have been much more accepted by the public.
 
I just had an interesting thought in regardes to this ATL.

What if instead of the USA intervened to stop UDI instead of the UK? This sort of parallels (to some extent at least) the situation regarding the Suez Crisis OTL where the US lined up with the Soviets against the Brits French and the Israelis in support of Egypt.

A useful POD for this ATL would be a lesser involvement in Vietnam (keep it to a minor intervention like Kennedy originally intended). Also this ATL intervention in Rhodesia would presumably also be relatively minor, mainly air support (bombing etc) and minor use of ground forces for many of the reasons stated re British intervention.

You might ask the reason why the US would do this. Presumably to 'curry favour' with the newly indepedent Black African states and to undermine the unity of the Commonwealth. Perhaps for very cynical reasons try to make themselves appear as the champions of the Third World (rather like France has done in many cases OTL).

I'm very interested in the possible implications of any US intervention on the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK. Many British politicians even in the otherwise pro-US Conservatives held somewhat anti-American views OTL due to the Suez Crisis (Enoch Powell for instance saw it as an example that the US would constantly undermine UK interests). It would be interesting to consider the implications on the US/UK relationship of the US taking military action against a 'more British than the British' government.
 
I'm very interested in the possible implications of any US intervention on the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK. Many British politicians even in the otherwise pro-US Conservatives held somewhat anti-American views OTL due to the Suez Crisis (Enoch Powell for instance saw it as an example that the US would constantly undermine UK interests). It would be interesting to consider the implications on the US/UK relationship of the US taking military action against a 'more British than the British' government.

Given that the 'Human Rights' discourse assume promience in mainstream politial much much later, I think the US will not be too interested in intervene a anti- communist White African government. Old habits diess really hard.... The US government might actually aid the Smith government, seeing it as a 'bastion of free white men' in the 'dark communist continuet'.
 
Given that the 'Human Rights' discourse assume promience in mainstream politial much much later, I think the US will not be too interested in intervene a anti- communist White African government. Old habits diess really hard.... The US government might actually aid the Smith government, seeing it as a 'bastion of free white men' in the 'dark communist continuet'.


Correct, but I suppose on that logic you could also say that the US would have support the UK and France in Suez.

However, I do agree that it is more likely that if there would be an intervention later that in the 1960's due to human rights discourse not being such a big issue then. If the Vietnam experience had not made the US public be so reluctant for foreign intervention then I can see US intervention in the mid-late 70's under Carter. By this stage South Africa under Vorster had started to withdraw its covert security and economic support for Rhodesia so they were very isolated and weakened.

Also by the late 1970's there was the rise of the neo-conservatives on the right-wing of US politics. For all their other faults it can at least be said that the neo-cons have a 'idealistic' streak absent in the Kissinger-esque 'realists' of the 60's and early 70's; so I can see it gaining a certain level of bipartisan support. Of course the neo-cons would not be too happy about Marxists gaining power after any election but this wouldn't necessarily stop them supporting intervention (note how some neo-cons have advocated democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that an anti-American govt would be undoutedly elected).
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The Rohdesians would most likely fight.... I would Rate the Rodesian Army as good as if not better than the English

Rubbish, Rhodesia barely has an army at all. They had the Rhodesian African Rifles, Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment (Company) and the nominal Rhodesia Regiment (which only existed as the time as a cadre). Maybe 1,000 officers anbd men, barely a match for the British Spearhead battalion.
 
Correct, but I suppose on that logic you could also say that the US would have support the UK and France in Suez.

Also by the late 1970's there was the rise of the neo-conservatives on the right-wing of US politics. For all their other faults it can at least be said that the neo-cons have a 'idealistic' streak absent in the Kissinger-esque 'realists' of the 60's and early 70's; so I can see it gaining a certain level of bipartisan support. Of course the neo-cons would not be too happy about Marxists gaining power after any election but this wouldn't necessarily stop them supporting intervention (note how some neo-cons have advocated democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that an anti-American govt would be undoutedly elected).

Time, is of the essence, my friend. It really depends on the political climate in CONUS at that time, but the the track record seems to me that US intervention on the side of the African majority is not likely, esp. the neighbouring African states and USSR/ Cuba presumbly was not going to the kind of massive intervention needed.

Besides, how do the US government justify intevention to the US public? If it's the 1990s with a much wider recognition of the human right concept, then perhaps the public will go with it. But in ths 60s- 80s when 'red scare' is very much in vogue? Don't forget the US actually supported the white South Africa government for a long time before changing their attitude.

Furthermore, the US did a lot of dirty work around the world during cold war, but direct intervention is another thing. Most US operations before 1990s, except Vietnam, were small scale affairs. I don't think any US administration cherish the need to intevene messy African states when the Watsaw Pact got ~80 divisions in Central Eeurope.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The British intervention force would have been drawn 5th Infantry Division, consisting of 3rd and 8th Infantry Bdes and 16th Parachute Bde. OTL 5th ID becomes HQNI a couple of years later (minus 16th Para Bde, but plus 39th (Irish) Inf Bde), possibly with 41 Indep RM Cdo and elms 17th Gurkha Inf Div depending of the insertion route.
 
Top