Invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia 1976

Having 12,500~ insurgents within your borders (and outpacing counter-insurgencies by Rhodesia with est. 38,000 in reserve), rounding up your citizens into virtual concentration camps for their safety, using chemical and biowarfare, seeing a population drain as well as economic turmoil and more in just two short years was the end stage of the Bush War. I fail to see how this is Rhodesia 'winning' in any honest case, they win battles but the war was done for them.
I suppose I could have been clearer, but I was talking about battles specifically. I'm well aware that economically and strategically Rhodesia was going down the toilet. And that was really my point, the Guerrilla strategy is what worked, not T-34s.

edit:
South Africa began an exit campaign, and economic assistance dried up
I think it's safe to say that this ceases to be the case if Angola and Mozambique force Rhodesia and South Africa back together. How valuable was South African assistance to Rhodesia?
 
Last edited:

Geon

Donor
I have to wonder about the South African nuclear program. Would it have been speeded up and the first test explosion occurred in 1976 instead of 1977? Also would South Africa consider using the weapon on invading forces across the border?
 
Could the Frontline states and other socialist states in Africa along with Cuba launch an invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976

Would this inspire a black uprising in South Africa and Rhodesia

Would this invasion be successful in overthrowing Rhodesia and/or ending the Apartheid government

As to address the main one; full Cuban support was available in 1979 but was declined by the ZANU-PF. If you can find a reason for earlier support for the Cubans to provide full support for the ZAPU, and in this case it'd might be an interesting divergence if Che Guevara was still alive to lead the expedition, you'd might see a far earlier invasion of Rhodesia that would be a lot more successful. And for an indigenous uprising, if Rhodesia fully fell there'd be a lot more unrest in South Africa with the potential of uprisings, but that'd depend heavily on how it goes and who favours who in that conflict. If anything, there's a risk that the anti-Apartheid movement would be split between Sino-centric and Soviet-centric based on who plays favourites. My guess is a much more brutal response by South Africa would spark sproadic guerilla campaigns and intensify the conflict between the ANC and the Apartheid government.
 
I suppose I could have been clearer, but I was talking about battles specifically. I'm well aware that economically and strategically Rhodesia was going down the toilet.

I think that you do have the right idea on it, by that time the combat was becoming more and more like an proper battle between professional armies and less irregular. I'd mention at the end the last battles of the Bush War were decisively ZANU-PF victories, in particular Placid and Uric come to mind.
 
I think that you do have the right idea on it, by that time the combat was becoming more and more like an proper battle between professional armies and less irregular. I'd mention at the end the last battles of the Bush War were decisively ZANU-PF victories, in particular Placid and Uric come to mind.
Both of those were Rhodesian (well Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at that point) victories.
 
I think it's safe to say that this ceases to be the case if Angola and Mozambique force Rhodesia and South Africa back together. How valuable was South African assistance to Rhodesia?

I'd consider it, if we go by the time sanctions were emplaced, to be vital to Rhodesia's survival without its economic connections abroad being available. It was made a point in their support being a factor in why Rhodesia eventually gave in and signed the accords and formed Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. They helped shore up Rhodesia's borders and provided military and economic support during the conflict, and as before I'd written out, they were increasingly becoming constrained in industrial capacity.

And you'd be right, South African support would've continued in 1976 if the attack happened, and a reversal of policy if the invasion began in 1977.

Both of those were Rhodesian (well Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at that point) victories.

Whoopsie me, I must've jumbled the names there! It gets hazy for me when you have weird contradictions like 'Zimbabwe-Rhodesia' and such.
 
Political implications aside, this is untrue as I've shown above.

Wrong. Rhodesia was not defeated on the battlefield (Rhodesian military had one-tenth casualty rate of insurgents), it was defeated politically when ruling class decided it was pointless to resist transition to majority rule.
An actual invasion would eliminate dilemma whether to fight or not, because it would be decided for them.
In fact, outright war would permit Rhodesia to openly strike their enemies, who were able to operate in Rhodesian territory only because they had safe haven outside of Rhodesia where they could retreat to, where Rhodesians couldn't counterattack because it'd be "act of aggression".

And on top of that, if Rhodesia would be outright invaded, it's hardly guaranteed that South Africa would stand aside.
 
Wrong. Rhodesia was not defeated on the battlefield (Rhodesian military had one-tenth casualty rate of insurgents), it was defeated politically when ruling class decided it was pointless to resist transition to majority rule.
An actual invasion would eliminate dilemma whether to fight or not, because it would be decided for them.

Winning a battle is not winning a war. As I mentioned before in my post, Rhodesia was tracked to lose the entire war despite winning almost every battle. When you have nearly 13,000 insurgents with nearly 40,000 more ready to support, and your borders quickly becoming a blur as the war effort quickly became tiresome for the Rhodesian citizens (economic contractions, forced encampment for their safety, and white emigration) and the military was starting to see resistance to their active duty drafts. 1976 is too late for Rhodesia to turn around what's already becoming an expensive and demoralizing war, as well with the increased insurgent campaigns against civilians, it's quickly demoralizing even when you're supposed to be protected and your army can't even do that right.

In fact, outright war would permit Rhodesia to openly strike their enemies, who were able to operate in Rhodesian territory only because they had safe haven outside of Rhodesia where they could retreat to, where Rhodesians couldn't counterattack because it'd be "act of aggression".

Rhodesia was already engaging in open strikes into Zambia and surrounding areas, this means nothing beyond posturing. And 'only because' is, well, a granted considering those camps were burned down only for more to rise up and now you have possibly 53,000 insurgents ready to get into your rear guard and wreak absolute hell on supplies and morale. And I'd consider it an act of aggression, Rhodesia was a rogue one-party state where only the whites could vote (and very few blacks) and the government was virtually dominated by the Rhodesian Front who engaged in chemical and biological warfare to entrench their racist government. The entire country as one major act of aggression the second they declared UDI and enforced their own brand of apartheid with only token representation to a powerless majority.

And on top of that, if Rhodesia would be outright invaded, it's hardly guaranteed that South Africa would stand aside.

Already covered that a bit ago with SealTheRealDeal actually, but depending if they prepare in '76 and attack in '77 you'd either see South Africa shut its border to Rhodesia and leave it to its fate or reverse course and return to the region after winding down operations in '75-'76. And I'd mention, very very pointedly, Rhodesia was never recognized by South Africa, and it's very possible they'd not care and just abandon Rhodesia as they'd begun earlier. Sympathy doesn't mean much when you're facing international pressure and working with Kissinger to find a settlement (that Rhodesia refused, pursuing a policy that did little to end the war) and the possibility of just ending involvement.
 
war effort quickly became tiresome for the Rhodesian citizens (economic contractions, forced encampment for their safety, and white emigration) and the military was starting to see resistance to their active duty drafts. 1976 is too late for Rhodesia to turn around what's already becoming an expensive and demoralizing war, as well with the increased insurgent campaigns against civilians, it's quickly demoralizing even when you're supposed to be protected and your army can't even do that right.

None of this matter when Rhodesia is invaded. None. USA didn't want to fight before pearl harbor either.

Rhodesians folded because they decided it was pointless to resist. If instead of insurgents occasionally murdering white farmer, soldier, or dozen or so blacks passively accepting Rhodesian government (which left Rhodesians room for doubt that if they'll give up, all of this will end), hostile armies are openly crossing border to ethnic cleanse Rhodesia, well, choice is made for Ian Smith and his people whether they like it or not.
Since it's now fight to the death, they have to fight to the death, especially if South Africa is going to close the borders instead of offering them refugee, as you've suggested.
And I seriously doubt South Africa is gonna close borders, because then Rhodesians would have no reason not to use chemical weapons. And no matter who'd use them, South Africans would be blamed, be because western public opinion barely registered difference between Rhodesia and South Africa.

And I'd consider it an act of aggression

Haha. No. If someone invades you, you're not an aggressor for shooting back. It's a matter of definition, right or wrong does'nt enter into it.

When US decided to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima, it'd might've been act of war crime, but it certainly wasn't an act agression.


Sympathy doesn't mean much when you're facing international pressure and working with Kissinger to find a settlement (that Rhodesia refused, pursuing a policy that did little to end the war) and the possibility of just ending involvement.

The deal was that Rhodesia would be pressured into folding. South African government cannot afford Rhodesia getting crushed militarily, because it'd make them weaker if they tried to keep Apartheid, and made it less likely to have domestic support for end of Apartheid. It was crucial for them for Rhodesia to fold peacefully, because it'd be precedent for peaceful negotiation for end of SA apartheid. I can see them helping Rhodesia beat of invasion in exchange for negotiation of 'orderly' transfer into majority rule, but no sitting it out.
Violent fall of Rhodesia could result in Conservative openly embracing AWB and fight for separate Volkstaat, and winning election on that platform, something that Nationalist Party wanted to desperately avoid.
 
Haha. No. If someone invades you, you're not an aggressor for shooting back. It's a matter of definition, right or wrong does'nt enter into it.

When US decided to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima, it'd might've been act of war crime, but it certainly wasn't an act agression.

You're an aggressor when you're violently attempting to deny the indigenous people their rights, forcing them into apartheid conditions of 'separate development', disenfranchising them, and then UDI'ing when you decide that the governemnt's decolonization was wrong. Why are you so adamant in defending Rhodesia's 'right to defense' when it very well knew what it was getting into? It was a white supremacist state that retained white minority rule over virtually everything and delegated those who didn't fought into second-class status. I'm genuinely confused by adamant defense of the state, really.

If someone were to attack Nazi Germany, is it an act of aggression?

Rhodesians folded because they decided it was pointless to resist. If instead of insurgents occasionally murdering white farmer, soldier, or dozen or so blacks passively accepting Rhodesian government (which left Rhodesians room for doubt that if they'll give up, all of this will end), hostile armies are openly crossing border to ethnic cleanse Rhodesia, well, choice is made for Ian Smith and his people whether they like it or not.

Ignoring every single other factor, like y'know, what I pointed out earlier. And where exactly did any of the rebels say they wanted to ethnically cleanse Rhodesia?

Since it's now fight to the death, they have to fight to the death, especially if South Africa is going to close the borders instead of offering them refugee, as you've suggested.

Which is simply a theoretical, but considering the conditions, it's very well Rhodesia would lose its mind and fully unleash it's CBW's upon rebels and any rebel-held territory that it could.

And I seriously doubt South Africa is gonna close borders, because then Rhodesians would have no reason not to use chemical weapons. And no matter who'd use them, South Africans would be blamed, be because western public opinion barely registered difference between Rhodesia and South Africa.

One hand they support Rhodesia, a virtual pariah state that's most likely (and willingly) use CBW's to engage in its 'defense' of its racist colonialist state. And of course, South Africa bankrolled them practically for most of the Bush War, and their loss of support was a major factor in why Rhodesia fell in the first place. Simply wash their hands of the whole conflict because they see it as a farce, strengthen their borders, and prepare for the inevitable conflict with the now well-organized guerillas and standing armies forming in the wake of the fall of Rhodesia.

I'd imagine the second situation would be something they'd take out of pragmatism, Rhodesia's a lost cause and they've already been weakened by '76.

The deal was that Rhodesia would be pressured into folding. South African government cannot afford Rhodesia getting crushed militarily, because it'd make them weaker if they tried to keep Apartheid, and made it less likely to have domestic support for end of Apartheid. It was crucial for them for Rhodesia to fold peacefully, because it'd be precedent for peaceful negotiation for end of SA apartheid. I can see them helping Rhodesia beat of invasion in exchange for negotiation of 'orderly' transfer into majority rule, but no sitting it out.

The deal was that Rhodesia would end minority rule within two years as agreed with South Africa and Kissinger, not 'fold' in but to seek peace. Rhodesia refused unless it gave them key concessions that allowed whites to retain a great privilege and economic power in whatever government forms afterwards. They refused and tried to negotiate with 'moderate' rebels, something that they could've done a decade ago and didn't and now they have no moderates willing to stop with them because they see victory now that Rhodesia's written off as a dead man.

South Africa supporting a 'peaceful transfer' to majority rule? HAH! They refused when the declared UDI, and then refused again a decade later with Kissinger to find a resolution to majority rule. They rejected South Africa already, what makes them so sure a second time will be more successful now that they saw South Africa betray them overtly? And if, by chance, that were to happen what would that say for the rest of South Africa to see the colonial state north of them fold? Apartheid would've collapsed sooner because now you have a vastly more incentivized people to protest and perform civil disobedience to win... which I doubt very much the white government would want either way. South Africa would've closed its border and prepare for the worst whirlwind they could handle.

Violent fall of Rhodesia could result in Conservative openly embracing AWB and fight for separate Volkstaat, and winning election on that platform, something that Nationalist Party wanted to desperately avoid.

So then say hello to complete sanctions, practically open season warfare as a brand new Nazi regime crops up and begins ethnic cleansing of South Africa for their fabled Volkstaat. Now you'd watch as an emboldened ZANU/ZAPU or more begin large-scale interventions with the pretext of fighting Nazism in South Africa. Now you have a greater pretext of a more violent anti-Apartheid and the ANC becoming more hardened, and South Africa alienates basically the entire world by electing a new generation of fascism into power.

Nothing says 'PR heaven' than having Soviet and Chinese forces becoming more overt and supporting the end of the Nazi regime of South Africa, especially with Nazi Germany remaining a spectre in people's minds.
 
If someone were to attack Nazi Germany, is it an act of aggression?

YES!

If someone is attacking hell, he's committing act of aggression against Satan.

I do not subscribe to view that declaring war for just cause somehow isn't an act of war. Declaring war is literally an act of war, there have been just wars started by side that was in the right, but it doesn't mean they didn't start them. Idea that it somehow isn't comes from mental gymnastics of statesmen who are simultaneously committed to "world peace" while wanting to bomb shit out of other countries. Which is most of them.

Ignoring every single other factor, like y'know, what I pointed out earlier. And where exactly did any of the rebels say they wanted to ethnically cleanse Rhodesia?
Because of how insurgents were acting for last decade, Rhodesians would assume successful invasion would mean murder or expulsion of most whites. Both fall under "ethnic cleansing". Nobody ever went to war admitting to their enemies they want to ethnic-cleanse them.
If insurgents and invading border countries are against "allowing whites to retain a great privilege and economic power", well, taking that power away would be impossible without confiscation, expulsion, and at lest occasional murders, as happened OTL even under peaceful transfer, something that'd be much more violent and happen much faster in event of military takeover.

Simply wash their hands of the whole conflict because they see it as a farce, strengthen their borders, and prepare for the inevitable conflict with the now well-organized guerillas and standing armies forming in the wake of the fall of Rhodesia.

I'd imagine the second situation would be something they'd take out of pragmatism, Rhodesia's a lost cause and they've already been weakened by '76.

Permitting an enemy to do a "defeat in detail" against you or against someone who shares that enemy is not a pragmatic choice. If SA knows conflict is inevitable, pragmatic choice is to support Rhodesia so their common enemies are at least bled-out in process, rather than hand them an easy victory.

The deal was that Rhodesia would end minority rule within two years as agreed with South Africa and Kissinger, not 'fold' in but to seek peace. Rhodesia refused unless it gave them key concessions that allowed whites to retain a great privilege and economic power in whatever government forms afterwards.
How is an unconditional surrender not folding?

They refused and tried to negotiate with 'moderate' rebels, something that they could've done a decade ago and didn't and now they have no moderates willing to stop with them because they see victory now that Rhodesia's written off as a dead man.
Ah, so you concede that Rhodesia sought peace? Well, they did. Moderates did struck deal with Ian Smith, and formed government elected by majority. At this point it was ridiculous to claim that Rhodesians didn't want peace.
Sorry, but peace is just an absence of hostilities, "A state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended". Whether right or wrong side wins, peace is peace.

(...)And if, by chance, that were to happen what would that say for the rest of South Africa to see the colonial state north of them fold? Apartheid would've collapsed sooner(...)
So then say hello (...)
If what you say is true, then all more reason for Nationalist party to not let Rhodesia fall to an invasion.
You keep saying how badly violent overthrow of Rhodesia would suck for SA, and yet you simultaneously insist they'd do nothing about it. If latter is true, why insist on former, that is just bad rhetoric.
Military defeat of Rhodesia would hurt SA government more than OTL mere electoral defeat in Rhodesia, it'd emboldened opposition (both ANC and AWB), SA politics would radicalize, something that status-quo party like NP wouldn't want.
 
Last edited:
Because of how insurgents were acting for last decade, Rhodesians would assume successful invasion would mean murder or expulsion of most whites. Both fall under "ethnic cleansing". Nobody ever went to war admitting to their enemies they want to ethnic-cleanse them.

They were acting in response to Rhodesia deciding to entrench itself as a racist apartheid state that ensured nobody would ever question or threaten white power. They created this fear because they refused to abide by decolonization, where the vast majority of white settlers voluntarily left Africa back to Europe. Those who stayed tried to remain in power in order to defend their power and privilege over the indigenous peoples. If, by simple fact, they accepted decolonization in 1965, they'd have avoided this entire situation in the first placei

If insurgents and invading border countries are against "allowing whites to retain a great privilege and economic power", well, taking that power away would be impossible without confiscation, expulsion, and at lest occasional murders, as happened OTL even under peaceful transfer, something that'd be much more violent and happen much faster in event of military takeover.

Because this does nothing to resolve the issue of decolonization, which was meant to transfer powers back to the majority following colonialism. That issue came with the fact the white minorities had access to the structures of colonial development that benefited them the most. Tell me, if you had your land taken from you entirely, and when you get the chance to forge a new future, you get sidelined because someone who's ancestors stole your land and developed it to fuel the economy of your overlord... how would you feel of that situation? They control the wealth, the production, and virtually the entire economy while you get nothing but scraps like you did before.

How is an unconditional surrender not folding?

Because the Africans wouldn't accept being treated like dogshit and keep the same power structures on their homeland that they had under colonialism?

Ah, so you concede that Rhodesia sought peace? Well, they did. Moderates did struck deal with Ian Smith, and formed government elected by majority. At this point it was ridiculous to claim that Rhodesians didn't want peace.

I never conceded anything, you're really trying to make this a problem pal. I was saying Rhodesia refused any peace that surrendered the power of whites in Rhodesia. And that meant they get to keep all of the power they have even if the majority rule came into place. Their peace was basically status quo, keeping apartheid and reaping all the benefits while everyone else suffered and it failed entirely.

And, to mention, there was an organized coup attempt following the Lancaster Agreement by the Rhodesian military that was aborted because it would've failed inevitably; Operation Quartz it was named, and it still showed that Rhodesians were willing to fight to keep their power even after a generally open democratic election.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth because you failed to read what I said earlier.

If what you say is true, then all more reason for Nationalist party to not let Rhodesia fall to an invasion.
You keep saying how badly violent overthrow of Rhodesia would suck for SA, and yet you simultaneously insist they'd do nothing about it. If latter is true, why insist on former, that is just bad rhetoric.
Military defeat of Rhodesia would hurt SA government more than OTL mere electoral defeat in Rhodesia, it'd emboldened opposition (both ANC and AWB), SA politics would radicalize, something that status-quo party like NP wouldn't want.

I never said they'd do anything about it, I'm simply saying they'd act in what the Apartheid gov't would do out of self-interest. Simply a point of a what if, so stop confusing two different what-if's; the first one was with SealTheRealDeal on possibly South Africa reigniting support, the other is that they'd close border and prepare for the worst out of self interest/preservation.

And please, do enlighten me why you're so intent on defending Rhodesia? Why are you so passionate about it?
 
Last edited:
They created this fear because they refused to abide by decolonization, where the vast majority of white settlers voluntarily left Africa back to Europe.
Not all whites had no dual citizenship, this meant no right of return. If UK was earnest about decolonization, they should've openly offered all whites in former African colonies right of return on condition of establishing majority rule.

Because the Africans wouldn't accept being treated like dogshit and keep the same power structures on their homeland that they had under colonialism?
You didn't answer my question, you're just saying why one side would prefer if other would surrender without conditions. Of course everyone would prefer to win bigly than win modestly.

I was saying Rhodesia refused any peace that surrendered the power of whites in Rhodesia. And that meant they get to keep all of the power they have even if the majority rule came into place. Their peace was basically status quo, keeping apartheid and reaping all the benefits while everyone else suffered and it failed entirely.
White Rhodesians unilaterally surrendered most of their power Internal Settlement. The about only thing left to do was to run them out of their homes.
The mental gymnastic you go though to claim that peace settlement that attempts to satisfy both sides somehow isn't a peace settlement. Sorry, but word "peace" implies two sides coming to an agreement. Just because it's a peace agreement someone doesn't like doesn't mean it's not peace.
It failed only because world refused to recognize democratically elected government, only because it didn't include terrorists who over last decade murdered thousands of black civilians. Murderers and war criminals were never brought to justice, and to this day they benefit while ordinary people suffer.
Accepting Internal Settlement, and working from there would result in less corrupt and more prosperous Zimbabwe.

Hard to keep Apatheid when there wasn't one in the first place, it was specifically Boer invention. System in Rhodesia wasn't Apartheid, it was quite different from one in South Africa. For example, Rhodesia had blacks in her army, including as officers, they served side by side with whites, there was no "apartness". Ordinary people might not realize there was any difference, or even that Rhodesia was separate country from South Africa, but if you're arguing it so passionately you should know.

And, to mention, there was an organized coup attempt following the Lancaster Agreement by the Rhodesian military that was aborted because it would've failed inevitably; Operation Quartz it was named, and it still showed that Rhodesians were willing to fight to keep their power even after a generally open democratic election.
Wrong. And plain lie as well, even Wikipedia acknowledges you're in the wrong here. There was no plan for coup, operation Quartz was planned in advance of expected ZANU-PF refusing to acknowledge they lost election, and launching their coup. ZANU-PF didn't lose, so Quartz wasn't implemented.
Now you're blaming military for planning to defend results of democratic elections, and you don't give them credit for actually accepting results they ended up with.

And please, do enlighten me why you're so intent on defending Rhodesia? Why are you so passionate about it?
:p
You're the one who started writing essay-length posts in this thread, don't be surprised that someone tries to address them point-by-point.

Rhodesians were addressing issues demanded of them by international opinion, and after 1979 "one man, one vote" elections brought in democratic government, criticism of Rhodesia had nothing to stand on. It was no less democratic than any of her northern neighbors.
 
They were acting in response to Rhodesia deciding to entrench itself as a racist apartheid state that ensured nobody would ever question or threaten white power. They created this fear because they refused to abide by decolonization, where the vast majority of white settlers voluntarily left Africa back to Europe. Those who stayed tried to remain in power in order to defend their power and privilege over the indigenous peoples. If, by simple fact, they accepted decolonization in 1965, they'd have avoided this entire situation in the first placei

Most white 'settlers' in SA have no European citizenship so it's a bit hard to leave Africa. Also for many people their families have been there for hundreds of years, SA will be the only place they know.

A bigger proportion of Rhodesians will have British passports but I do think it's problematic to conflate decolonisation with kicking out the whites.
 
Not all whites had no dual citizenship, this meant no right of return. If UK was earnest about decolonization, they should've openly offered all whites in former African colonies right of return on condition of establishing majority rule.

Sure, that would've been a great and valid solution to it, but decolonization was a messy thing that the Europeans dropped and fled from for the large part.

You didn't answer my question, you're just saying why one side would prefer if other would surrender without conditions. Of course everyone would prefer to win bigly than win modestly.

Because the option of surrendering with conditions would've almost completely voided the entire point of the Bush War, really. They wanted majority rule and and end to colonialism, which letting the whites retain the majority control of the economy and special privilege in government would've defeated it entirely, honestly.

White Rhodesians unilaterally surrendered most of their power Internal Settlement. The about only thing left to do was to run them out of their homes.
The mental gymnastic you go though to claim that peace settlement that attempts to satisfy both sides somehow isn't a peace settlement. Sorry, but word "peace" implies two sides coming to an agreement. Just because it's a peace agreement someone doesn't like doesn't mean it's not peace.
It failed only because world refused to recognize democratically elected government, only because it didn't include terrorists who over last decade murdered thousands of black civilians. Murderers and war criminals were never brought to justice, and to this day they benefit while ordinary people suffer.
Accepting Internal Settlement, and working from there would result in less corrupt and more prosperous Zimbabwe.

Rhodesians were addressing issues demanded of them by international opinion, and after 1979 "one man, one vote" elections brought in democratic government, criticism of Rhodesia had nothing to stand on. It was no less democratic than any of her northern neighbors.

I would very very very much like for you to understand that said election was not universal and it was extremely flawed in its execution. It relied on the same electoral system that retained 20 seats based on property, income, and educational barriers, and even then nine seats were not elected but appointed in government. That entire structure there gave 29 uncontestable seats to the RF and rendered, essentially, white-exclusive seats and gave the RF undue power with safe seats. That's completely unacceptable in any democratic election, even in the context of the Internal Settlement.

And I extremely doubt that it'd work, considering how South Africa still has whites controlling the majority of the economy and we can see how well that's been working out for them. And that's not the blame every white in South Africa, many of them like indigenous people get shafted by the control of the economy by small groups. Working from there would've, for the most part, have created an anemic and very tense situation within and would've created similar conditions as to South Africa. And I'd mention again, if you were seeking peace, you'd best try to find an agreement with the people you fight because even if you achieve moderate endings. It wasn't satisfying both sides, it was satisfying the people who weren't fighting in the first place.

This isn't mental gymnastics, this is basic logic. The Int. Settlement was not a solution, it was simply a continuation of a terrible system with a friendly face where the same man who'd triggered this entire conflict through his actions and brutality (I'd recommend reading Prisoners of Rhodesia) now shared power. You have a very biased view of this, considering Ian Smith was a pure and utter malevolent bastard. And this is no defense of the political violence that the ZANU/ZAPU and their predecessors engaged in, but I'd be clear in saying that everything can be laid right at Smith's feet, and no government with him would ever have survived even by Int. Settlement.

Hard to keep Apatheid when there wasn't one in the first place, it was specifically Boer invention. System in Rhodesia wasn't Apartheid, it was quite different from one in South Africa. For example, Rhodesia had blacks in her army, including as officers, they served side by side with whites, there was no "apartness". Ordinary people might not realize there was any difference, or even that Rhodesia was separate country from South Africa, but if you're arguing it so passionately you should know.

What, this is some classical Rhodesian apologism. Yes there was, even if Rhodesia started recruiting blacks, the apartheid within Rhodesia was blatantly clear; it created a white-dominant government through racialized voting rolls and mandating 'separate developments' where the vast majority of the economic, social, and political control was largely in the hands of whites. The entire structure was based on racialist policies, how can you even argue against that. Race integration was banned in the country, so was race mixing. The Rhodesian government had their own bantustans called Native Reserves/Tribal Trust Areas under the Land Apportionment Act (and later Land Tenure Act) and that extended to urban areas under the Native Urban Areas Accommodation Act to redline and segregate the cities between whites and blacks.

There's an extensive process into this on AskHistorians over on Reddit who go further into this. Please, for the love of whatever you believe in, read it.

And to amend a little; Apartheid was an Afrikaner named D. F. Malan, and his ancestry was from French Huguenots

Wrong. And plain lie as well, even Wikipedia acknowledges you're in the wrong here. There was no plan for coup, operation Quartz was planned in advance of expected ZANU-PF refusing to acknowledge they lost election, and launching their coup. ZANU-PF didn't lose, so Quartz wasn't implemented.
Now you're blaming military for planning to defend results of democratic elections, and you don't give them credit for actually accepting results they ended up with.

I will concede on this point, and I'd admit I was tired at the time of writing it and didn't think clearly.

You're the one who started writing essay-length posts in this thread, don't be surprised that someone tries to address them point-by-point.

It's not even that, Mackus, it's the level of defensiveness you've put into defending what is a colonialist settler state that blatantly was an authoritarian white supremacist state from its existence until its very end. Very rarely have I seen anyone defend it like this and not have some very unfortunate opinions and views on certain topics. I love spirited, lengthy conversations.

Most white 'settlers' in SA have no European citizenship so it's a bit hard to leave Africa. Also for many people their families have been there for hundreds of years, SA will be the only place they know.
A bigger proportion of Rhodesians will have British passports but I do think it's problematic to conflate decolonisation with kicking out the whites.

I'd pretext this by explaining that the comment made there was in particular for those who weren't established like white South Africans are, and that I understand fully the difference between Rhodesian settlers (who were a recent group) and established whites (e.g. Afrikaners) who had generations to establish their own identities and become, essentially, White Africans.

My comment was directed towards recent settlers from the 1880's onwards, those who came as part of the Scramble for Africa and later periods of colonial domination. And I agree, it was worded poorly and my comment was based on works I've read that indicated voluntary/involuntary decolonization of Africa by whites who returned to their colonizers metropol or to other parts of Africa that were more amenable to them during decolonization. As Mackus and I agreed on, allowing those who wished to leave to be granted passports and such to should've been given it during decolonization. If whites decided to leave, so be it, but if they decided to stay then... so be it as well.

And it would be problematic, yes, and I'd like to claim I don't believe in ejecting every white out of Africa. As well, if an ex-colonial settler wished to leave then it should've been a prerogative of theirs to be able to by their former colonizing state. I should make that distinction more clear, as well, that I believe fully that if whites remained in Africa that they'd be considered legal citizens and should not be discriminated against, same as any other person of any ethnic or cultural group in any situation.
 
Last edited:
Of course Rhodesia would never be able to win long term but in terms of having a strong negotiating position in the next two years, being able to flatten the insurgents and their allies in a conventional battle would be pretty good for them. Bringing in zanu and zapu to the internal settlement might be easier had they just taken a heavy defeat and lost much of their good equipment/men

South Africa would in no way allow Rhodesia to be dogpilled in 76 it sets an obviously bad precedent for massive invasions to liberate African majorities
 
In SA there has been a better transition to majority rule than in Rhodesia. The average black Rhodesian/Zimbabwean is much worse off overall than if there had been some other settlement - the economy is a mess, food is short (the country used to be an exporter and fed itself). Political freedoms for citizens of all colors are much less than before. This is symptomatic of much of Africa, and many other colonial areas - since there was no plan for decolonialization, when the colonial powers up and left or like in Rhodesia there was a forced immediate transfer of power, you had a huge vacuum of experienced and skills in everything from clerks to doctors to engineers followed by a rush to "nationalize" and "redistribute" overnight that was laced with favoritism and nepotism without any regard for the overall economic impact. Not an apologia to keep white rule, simply saying you can't run a country without qualified folks, and a plan like the US in the PI where from early on there was a plan for transition to local rule would have been better all around - the US/PI situation was not perfect but a whole lot better than what happened in almost all of Africa.
 
Top