To be fair it was kind of doomed when even the Crown wasn't behind it anymore. They ended up stranded and in situations like that it really just becomes a matter of time before things break down.
Military service put too much sustained strain on the white population. They got sick of it. With Mozambique falling the writing was on the wall. South Africa wasn't particularly supportive either. So they cut a deal that worked quite well for them until Mugabe felt power slipping away.
...there's also something to be said for the fact that black Zimbabweans being much better educated / civilized than elsewhere in Africa ultimately working against the whites. The whites didn't appear so indispensable to the economy as they did and still do in South Africa.
>as soon as the whites were all gone Zimbabwe become one of the poorest nations and chief importers of food in the world
>whites weren't indispensable
Sure they educated the blacks, but Mugabe had the blacks that associated with the whites killed off too.
Just because it was invented by a jew, doesn't mean it is a Jewish ideology. All those Jews who rally under the banner of Communism are just retard who think Marx is their Messiah or something.
I'd say it probably had a lot to do with the fact that jews were one of the minorities that suffered terribly under the old order in Russia (and elsewhere) while also being relatively well educated so it was only natural that an outsize number would favor revolutionary change
I've traveled around Africa (including SA and Zimbabwe) quite a bit. Black Zimbabweans are very visible in the South African economy, since they generally speak good English and are responsible and can manage things, and don't have any expectation of welfare.
Even now in Zimbabwe stuff run by blacks seems mostly competently/professionally run, while in South Africa it's pretty much impossible to find anything managed by blacks (there's *always* a white/indian/asian in charge, or nothing gets done at all). I can understand why Mugabe thought he could do away with the whites since there was a competent black managerial class; the problem of course is that those folks either looted what was handed to them (if they were insiders), or left the country when the economy took a bad turn (if they weren't insiders).
Good point. The Afrikaners weren't going anywhere, so they had no choice but to fight at least for their survival. Anglo-Zimbabweans (and Anglo-South Africans) could always go back to Britain if things went really tits-up.
>The Afrikaners weren't going anywhere, so they had no choice but to fight at least for their survival. Anglo-Zimbabweans (and Anglo-South Africans) could always go back to Britain if things went really tits-up.
Pretty much. Anglo-South Africans (both Jews and non-Jews) were also heavily over-represented in the anti-Apartheid movement.
People disparage the Domino Theory, but southern Africa is a pretty good example of it working (i.e. the collapse of Portuguese rule in Angola/Mozambique increasing support for anti-government rebels in Rhodesia and South Africa)
"Domino theory" of majority rule, sure. But supporting minority-rule white governments actually helped communism (the only southern African countries that got communist governments got them as part of a liberation war)
Loss of allies. Inevitable loss of SA.
On the bright side, Rhodesia and post colonial Africa is all the justification you need to be racist.
T-55s were captured by South Africa in an arms shipment, rebuilt and upgraded then sent to Rhodesia. Would have partaken in Operation Quartz had high staff not pussied out.
Underfolder AKMs were go-to firearms for tank crews. Along with being a well regarded firearm in Rhodesia's fighting forces along with the FAL.
Because America was having its whole spiel with the blacks, along the Uk and thatcher being the keks they are.
i would argue it was more Christians m8. They decided that they needed to educate and help blacks. Jews in Rhodesia and south Africa were largely indifferent to apartheid once they were made equal citizens after world war2. Also without Israel's help south africa would never have been able to weather the sanctions put on them.
They weren't due to krauts sperging out and making nationalism a bad thing.
When I was at Great Zimbabwe I was the only tourist there, and the power was out inside the museum. Not sure if the Zimbabwe Bird they had there was a replica, but if it wasn't it would have been totally easy to simply walk out with it. Probably worth a metric fortune.
>Gerkeks literally too dumb to wait for the USSR to kick off ww2 instead
You're not wrong
7% of the population trying to maintain minority rule over the other 93% is damn near always going to be a losing battle. The Nation's frankly laughable international legitimacy meant they couldn't relay on outside help to prop them up, and the other side DID have plenty of outside help. They were living on borrowed time. On top of that the war had basically ruined the country and 15 years of violent sectarian violence wasn't exactly conducive to a peaceable transition.
There were black leaders who could have handled the transition peacefully, but after 15 years of viscous civil war you don't elect one of those guys, you elect a war hero. And that's how you get a Mugabe instead of a Mandela.
Mugabe did very well by the whites for 20 years. And IMO there was nothing inevitable about his eventually taking up the banner of farm appropriation; he was really just responding to events (spontaneous takeovers) that threatened his legitimacy is the eyes of the mass of black Zimbabweans.
To keep a lid on things, some way needed to be found to employ more blacks in middle class jobs. Not sure what the prospects were for Zimbabwean manufacturing in the best case way: not having a coastline really would have put a damper on that.
>burning people alive
>This is what Rhodesia-boos actually believe
Yes he wasn't Jesus fucking Christ but he was better than Mugabe.
Only Right at the very end of the Bush war did they start conscripting blacks in large numbers. And that really means fuck all, even the fucking CSA had black regiments at the end when shit got desperate enough and the Nazis had Russian troops.
Even today in Zimbabwe, most of the people you'll see driving around in their own cars are white. In South Africa whites continue to utterly dominate the economy.
I'm not saying the government doesn't favour blacks, but the actual affect of their favouritism hasn't prevented whites from remaining at the top of the economy.
Ahahahahaha. No. Not at all. If you're white and have money and sense, you use that money to leave the country. Zimbabwe is an absolute shithole right now, even if you're wealthy.
Source: I am white and was born in Zimbabwe.
OP if you haven't already I strongly suggest you read this book. It does display a bit of bias (as do all sources), but it is very minimal and is mostly limited to the politics in Rhodesia. Other than that so much of what he says is correct. Something that really stand out is how much he loves Great Britain, despite how it continually deceives him politically. He was a man of bygone era, raised with original British attitudes and his Britain died after WW2.
I am South African and so much of this book too close to home. The manner in which we were turned upon, and undermined by people with no stake in either of countries resounds deeply and seeing people even today, calling Rhodesia and all colonialists evil frustrates me to no end.
Im not even /pol/ but the seeing sheltered people thinking they know whats best for millions of Africans (both black and white) is almost enough to bring out tears of frustration.
The case of Rohdesia is even more frustrating as they took every step to help sustainable development of the locals, unlike SA's apartheid. Independent Colonialism was the best thing to ever happen on the African continent and it was destroyed by people so they could feel a fake sense of morality.
>It does display a bit of bias
Hey if you want to read about the Nazis I suggest you read this book, it does display a bit of bias (as do all sources) ....
>The case of Rohdesia is even more frustrating as they took every step to help sustainable development of the locals
> Independent Colonialism was the best thing to ever happen on the African continent
> Independent Colonialism was the best thing to ever happen on the African continent
>t. white South African
>nigga I fucking live here.
>Lives in South Africa, which is in fact a completely different country to Zimbabwe
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy that whites continue to do well in Africa. But to say they're downtrodden (or on the verge of genocide) is ridiculous. Things have carried on pretty much as they always have.
the only reason a black person is even educated enough to condemn colonialism is due to the colonists establishing education in their country.
Also I have been to Zimbabwe multiple times (its an A grade shithole) and I know many people born there and who were forced to flee.
The kind of lifestyle you can live in Africa on a comparably modest income is WILDLY better than if you lived in a developed country. That's the whole reason so many whites immigrated to southern africa in the 20th century and it remains the case. The only difference between pre- and post-majority rule is that now you need to make your way in the private sector (which isn't too onerous when most blacks are still oogabooga tier)
We have to give it some time. Hopefully it'll work out.
Blacks in Rhodesia as in Apartheid South Africa were actively prevented from competing with whites: whites could work in jobs that paid well, blacks only in jobs that paid next to nothing. Colonialism did bring some level of modernity, but to say it wasn't set up to serve the interests of the white elite is plain ignorant.
If colonialism was set up in such a way that all people were equal before the law, and with equal access to education, I'd say it was defensible. But this was far from the case. The whites simply wanted the blacks for cheap labour; they didn't give a fuck about building them up (and in fact when out of their way to prevent it).
>But to say they're downtrodden (or on the verge of genocide) is ridiculous.
No, it's not. They come on to our farms and kill us and never face justice. You have policies that are pushing more and more of us out of jobs to replace us with unqualified blacks. Zuma literally rallies his supporters by saying umshini wami.
The qualifications for the vote were based on education. Education had slowly been spreading to the black population. If the qualified vote had been in place Rhodesia would have had majority rule (though not proportionate to the population) by the 1990s.
>B-B-But why not just give everyone the vote straight away
Exhibit a) what happened to Zimbabwe after majority rule, exhibit b) you have ten seconds to name a single country that transitioned from a dictatorship to majority rule without fucking up
Just explain one simple fact, if apartheid SA was so bad for blacks, why did so many blacks from neighboring black-run states try to illegally immigrate to SA?
>If colonialism was set up in such a way that all people were equal before the law, and with equal access to education
Your bullshit standards are the product of comfort and wealth that can abstract you away from reality. What the Boers did is no different to what any other conquering force did. When you take over a place, or when you rule over another race, you generally do not afford them the same status and "rights" as your own group. The fact you think this is some sort of morally abhorrent, sui generis thing in the case of SA/Rhodesia is telling.
Typical sheltered libtard with no understanding of macrohistory.
It doesn't have to be equal to be mutual beneficial, and if something is equal then that doesn't mean that it's automatically beneficial either.
>some level of moernity
Some?!?! Are you memeing me or just genuinely willingly ignorant?
Whites were gifted almost all the good farm-land in these countries by virtue of their skin colour. I'm not denying they're the better managers of it, but they'd have to be kidding themselves if they didn't think the blacks would want it back and with good cause.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the deal after white rule ended was understood to be that white farmers wouldn't be compelled to give up land, but that the government would buy some land to give to blacks (terrible economic policy, but from a political POV returning land to black ownership was irresistible). But lack of money made that process so slow (Mugabe wanted Britain to pay, which Britain arguably agreed to do at one point before later reneging) that farm occupations started happening spontaneously. Then Mugabe was put in the position of choosing between the poor the black occupiers and white landowners, and again the politics were irresistible (if he'd backed the whites someone would have probably overthrown Mugabe).
>but they'd have to be kidding themselves if they didn't think the blacks would want it back and with good cause.
And why don't Vietnamese give Vietnam back to the Cham? Why don't Taiwanese give Taiwan back to the Austronesians? Why don't Japanese give Japan back to to the Ainu, or Turks Western Asia Minor to the Greeks?
Why does this idea of some sort of cosmic, karmic revenge for conquest and settlement only apply to whites?
I'm not dismissing the white view of things, but nor am I dismissing the black. The blacks were disadvantaged in every way in countries in which they were the majority of the population. Even if in the end blacks were materially better off under white rule, nobody wants to be a second class citizen in their own country. That was simply unsustainable.
>the politics were irresistible
Which is of course a perfect excuse and makes it all reasonable
Reeeeeeeee, homo sapiens out, Europe is for the Cro-Magnon
Bit weird that people forget that the Bantu-speaking current inhabitants of South Africa only got there a few hundred years before the whites did
Not him but
Noun. (countable and uncountable, plural macrohistories). A form of large-scale history dealing with large groups of cultures over very long time periods.
Learn how to use a search engine.
>Even if in the end blacks were materially better off under white rule, nobody wants to be a second class citizen in their own country. That was simply unsustainable.
I agree with you that racial nationalism trumps anything else, that's biology. I disagree with the emotionally charged way apartheid and more broadly colonialism is described. Liberals have old-testament tier binary morality that doesn't allow for any sort of nuance.
>It doesn't have to be equal to be mutual beneficial, and if something is equal then that doesn't mean that it's automatically beneficial either.
Again, I'm not disagreeing. But the maintenance of a system of systematic racial inequality in the 20th (and into the 21st) century just wasn't going to happen. For a long time white Rhodesians and South Africans thought the good times would last forever, so didn't lay the proper groundwork for majority rule. I'd argue, all things considering, they still made out rather well in the end. But it would have been better for everyone if they'd taken a longer view earlier on.
>That was simply unsustainable
You're acting as though Rhodesia was the same in 1979 as it was in 1965, or 1945. My father graduated from Rhodesia's best university and the graduation class was mostly white, though a substantial minority of blacks. And because the vote was based on education it would have led to majority rule. See >>26766 The main obstacle to the vote being self-righted were Zanu and Zapu terrorists intimidating those who did.
Maybe the Cape but I don't know. I had read that it was 13th-17th century that Bantu-speaking people spread in what is now most of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana.
I agree! (some schools still require it depending on your subject matter) I know what macro attached to history means - I was asking what this person was talking about because nobody ever fucking uses that term (although microhistory and metahistory are things)
Because the blacks were numerous and determined enough to take it back, something the Ainu, Native Americans, Taiwanese Natives, etc. aren't. (the Cambodians for their part tried and failed spectacularly).
If white Africans wanted to prevent this from happening they should have genocided the blacks in the 19th century when they could have gotten away with it. But of course that would have meant actually doing the hard, manual, poorly-paid work of building these countries themselves, when they much preferred being the overseers. But how many whites would have immigrated to Rhodesia to do the hard yoemans work of e.g. frontier North American settlers? Probably none at all: they went there for the good live, and lived it while it lasted.
>Because the blacks were numerous and determined enough to take it back, something the Ainu, Native Americans, Taiwanese Natives, etc. aren't. (the Cambodians for their part tried and failed spectacularly).
Right, so the real operative factor here is success or failure in exterminating your enemies. I agree.
Again, the African whites WANTED as many blacks as possible so that they could exploit their labour as cheaply as possible. The whole economic and social system was premised on racial inequality.
To take one of endless examples, Apartheid South Africa welcomed so many black workers from other African countries because it kept wages at rock-bottom, boosting profits for white owners/managers and undermining the bargaining power of South African black workers.
Similarly, instead of encouraging blacks to urbanize and become educated (which would have decreased black birth rates), they wanted exactly the opposite: to keep them stupid and down on the farm.
They could have had their land confiscated straight-away and forced out of the country. Considering they were on the losing side of the civil war, Mugabe treated the whites quite benignly until the farm occupation got going (something he didn't start).
p.s. Mugabe is a really interesting case study in the banality of evil. I've read a few biographies, and it's easy to understand how he went down the road he did, probably even knowing it would be his country's ruin.
Also re: Mugabe, everyone in the west is obsessed with his treatment of a few thousand white farmers, but absolutely nobody gave a fuck when he had the Zimbabwean army pillaging its way across Congo killing untold numbers of Congolese for reasons nobody really understood.
Forgot that one too.
Doesn't excuse how he's treated the white minority, but he's been FAR FAR FAR more vicious with blacks, and yet nobody spoken a word against him until he dared mess with the whites...
Alternatively: nobody mentions it because for some reason people in the West thinks that it is impossible for blacks to be racist against blacks and the only racism is between blacks and whites
Relative to you he has read about the topic, lives in the region, lives in the most similar nation possible, provides opinions that goes against the disingenuously established status quo, provides a source of suggested reading, personal emotional insight, factual insight.
Just agree it is insightful.
Commencing dump of some photographs of Rhodesia from face book pages.
>I'm second-gen Irish, grandfather was in RAF (Rhodesian Air Force) in the 70s. He's in all the old Rhodesian Facebook groups.
Any recs for books on the Rhodesian military?
Pic related, RAR soldiers
>Based Bulawayo National School (1/2)
might post more later if there is still a thread. tired now.
You know most of the niggers in South Africa that are murdering the whites are not actually from anywhere near South Africa they are as much invaders as the original colonists.
The left or the right should not dominate /his/
This should not be another /pol/. but it should not be a /leftypol/ either.
It should be about history. Fuck off to /pol/ and Fuck off to Reddit shit needs to stop.
Nationalism; the majority of black "Rhodesians" didn't feel Rhodesian
Too bad there's no such thing as Zimbabwean either. Of course, nobody would allow for the split of Mashonaland and Matebeleland + a couple dozen smaller tribes, because nation states aren't allowed.
Zimbabwe's gdp was much lower before the land reforms even started. Farm production peaked in 1982. Ndebele were slaughtered by the tens of thousands just a few years after Mugabe came to power. It is not "le /pol/ XDDDDDDDD" to point out the fact that Zimbabwe was taking strides to becoming a shit head long before the land reforms
Excellent answer. For a state to last you need to build a common identity everyone adheres to. That's the most powerful strength of the United States and was the most powerful strength of the Roman empire.
Even if segregation wasn't as strong a factor as it was in South Africa, inequality, both social and economic just isn't going to do you any favors. That plus political pressure, embargoes, and the pressure at home of fighting a prolonged counter insurgency
>That decline from 1980-1990
Yeah I didn't refute the points of the post I quoted. Still resources and/or manufacturing of said resources is a vital key to economical success.
I mean what else does Botswana has to offer except tourism?
Considering it's % of global average GDP, they could be losing ground in that graph simply by standing still.
But again, I'd guess it was rapid population growth in that era among the black population (which has since levelled off).
This and the lack of support from the western world for it being a white dominated government. It was simply a matter of time for Rhodesia. I really think Rhodesia should have been given a chance. It could have easily been a blossoming well educated state in Africa.
Heavy into mining (diamonds and copper), but why wouldn't they be given large area and low population. The fact that agriculture is such a small part of GDP would indicate it's a developed-country (or as developed as it's going to get considering where it is).
Is anyone going to actually post what they feel was the reason for Rhodesia failing with factual support? This could actually be an incredibly interesting discussion and debate if yinz would follow the board rules instead of whatever all this is.
Exactly. I think if we are going to hold white people accountable for their ancestors crimes, why not hold other races accountable?
There's a reason African pygmies practically don't exist anymore.
There's also a reason the polynesian inhabitants of Indonesia are missing.
Or the complete lack of indo-europeans in Western China.
People just give other races free passes because white people happened to be more important the last 800 years.
>pic related is my country's coat of arms embedded in our flag
the similarity is just..
Rhodesia wasn't able to fight against the post-colonial movements that swept Africa post world war 2. There's no reason to think that it would be able to, is there? People have been shitting up the thread with nostalgia for an explicitly white supremacist state, I just don't think you're capable of nuanced discussion on a topic like this on 4Chan.
The fact you say no one should approve of a White supremacist state shows how you really aren't the type of person who belongs here. 4chan has a very large alt-right and far-right community, if you can do nothing but say "wow, just, wow," you need to go somewhere you won't be offended. If you can get over it and contribute meaningfully, then feel free to stay.
Except it wasn't. That's just the justification for why it was betrayed.
Did you not see all the Indians, asians, and even blacks in the Rhodesian's pictures.
Rhodesia was in a slow, orderly transition to a democracy. Going full "african democracy" just fucked it up permanently.
The entire world sided with the commies. Even the United States.
" Ambassador Andrew Young described Robert Mugabe in an interview with the Times of London on May 22, 1978: “Does Mr Mugabe strike you as a violent man?” the Times reporter asked.
“Not at all, he’s a very gentle man,” Young replied.
“In fact, one of the ironies of the whole struggle is that I can’t imagine Joshua Nkomo, or Robert Mugabe, ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone. I doubt that they ever have.
“I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication.
“The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible. . . . The problem is he was educated by the Jesuits, and when you get the combination of a Jesuit and a Marxist kind of philosophy merging in one person, you’ve got a hell of a guy to deal with,” Young was further quoted in the interview."
These were the guys in charge of diplomacy during the period.
Actually, Rhodesia was able to fight post-colonial guerrilla movements, that was the easy part. The hard one is facing the entire world, the UN, the US and the USSR, Great Britain and China, all siding with the commies.
It's the same as Portugal. They won a military defeat against the communists in Angola and Mozambique, but since the world sided with them, a bunch of commies did a revolution in Lisbon and relinquished the colonies to decades of civil war and millions of death. That's because the world see communism as better than "racism", even though it killed even more people. You can see this even here on /his/ where racism is banned but communism is accepted.
The main reason is that no one learns about this shit in history class.
Why can't black history month be good for something? All they ever use this month to talk about is stuff we already learned about.
>You can see this even here on /his/ where racism is banned but communism is accepted.
You've got to be kidding me. In the short amount of time this board has been up, there has been zero indication of any kind of slant, period, let alone the one you described.
This is the correct opinion. I would have zero problem with Israel if they weren't Jews that have to manipulate and spy on all their allies. You're treated better by Israel if you're neutral, rather than an ally.
Yes, indeed. And I don't even really have a MORAL objection to their duplicity, because it's just something all nations do. It'd be hypocritical of me to condemn them from an ethical standpoint, because I understand why it's in the interest of their people and how it'd be beneficial to me if I were in their situation.
I just look at it as "it is not beneficial for me or my nation to waste our resources and exhaust our international good will aiding them."
It was a government by and for a small minority of the population. The aristocracy loved the system, but the peasants hated their guts. Same story that played out all around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, people only get puzzled about this one because the aristocracy was white and the peasants weren't.
Look at it this way; nations only support other nations when it is expressly in their interest to do so. When there's no explicit stake in the strength or prosperity of another nation, then it is implicitly in the interest of other states to allow that nation's strength to erode. We live in a world of limited resources and strong nations are by default in competition. So, if you've got no stake in their survival, if your nation/state sees no benefit from another nation's strength, then it's in your nation's general long term interest that that other nation be weak. You might butt heads against them at some point and you want the advantage.
That's a simplification of this situation, to be sure, but I'd say that's a good general way to look at relations between states.
>paradise in Africa, bread basket of Africa. Unprecedented prosperity
>complete shithole, inflation so out of control that it becomes a joke
How come every time black people take over, all objective metrics of prosperity plummet?
In the United States, the majority wanted George Washington to be a monarch. Very few people wanted a Republic. I would argue that Minority rule is the only thing that works because the majority doesn't want freedom. Everyone only wants a form of tyranny that sounds beneficial to them.
And yet being a racist is less socially acceptable than being a communist.
Everywhere around the world there is empirical evidence that communism is worst than racism, North Korea is hell, while South Korea, while racist, is a livable country. Rhodesia was a racist country which was better than socialist Zimbabwe etc etc
And yet racism is a bannable offense on /his/, while communism is not only allowed but encouraged.
The record rate at which the country went down into the shitter after black majority rule.
Granted they at best had a quarter generation of education at best. In Smiths book, the first few chapters he sadly writes about the difficulties of attempting to educate the majority of rural blacks, they saw education as a whitemans thing and a waste of time for their children.
Communism is linked to egalitarianism which has been falsely linked to Christian morality and this has easy appeal to many. Most people today just haven't thought through what egalitarianism really is, so when they hear a simple explanation of communism "everyone is equal, fair share for all!" they fail to understand what that entails. There's probably something to do with an anti-anti-semitic feeling in there too considering communism was primarily jewish and the modern depiction of the McCarthy era.
>whites preferred being the overseers
So if all the blacks were the ones working the fields, then why did their entire agriculture collapse after their nation-wide genocide of whites? Also, do you think it's easy to go to a foreign country and build something from scratch?
I have some rare images from a /k/ poster a while back.
I lost half of them sadly.
>You will never remove commie niggers from the premises
>Tfw Mugabe won
Literally the most effective fighting force in history
My mother is a Rhodesian, she died a few years ago.
I tried phoning but all I can hear is chimp noises on the other side
>persians couldn't conquer the white man
>except they had the greek polites in anatolia and propped sparta up with money
>held on to spain for hundreds of years and only had 1 major incursion - not even an invasion force into france
>we conquered you all
>by lucrative trade deals, not because of european superiority.
>muh pan european identity