How will history remember Rhodesia? If at all?
For what it's worth, I don't think that Rhodesia will be remembered much at all. Instead, it will be twisted by white nationalist /pol/ types like Dylann Roof (pretending that Rhodesia was an all white country so they can masturbate to the idea of a race war) and communists (who will wrap it up as part of the broader narrative of anti-colonialism, which is a bit ironic seeing as Mugabe was funded by the Chinese, so it's sort of colonialism in the first place).
Most people don't give a shit or don't even know that it existed. The only people who really discuss it are permavirgin neckbeards on internet forums, sort of like this one.
I do enjoy reading about Rhodesian SAS putting the beatdown on a bunch of retarded Africans, though.
It is a bit cringeworthy when the /pol/ types play out rave war fantasies. All the photos that get posted on here of the soldiers are all white. I'm not sure whether the SAS were all white, but the Rhodesian army as a whole varied from 60-80% black depending on the year. The vast majority of firefights weren't between whites on one side and black's on the other, they were black's fighting blacks, with one siding fighting for what they saw as stability and the other fighting for communism.
Some of the finest men to ever walk this earth and a precursor to what will happen in Europe and North America
Most of their best units were all-white, like the Rhodesian SAS and Light Infantry. I know there's a famous unit (could also be light infantry/recon) that had both white and black soldiers, but their name escapes me right now.
Its a shame the country has been taken up as an icon by white supremacist types, because their affinity for Rhodesia makes everyone else with an interest look bad. The country is a fascinating example of the Cold War's bizarre international politics and of counterinsurgency warfare in general, but if you express any interest in it you risk looking like a closeted bigot.
I was going to say it'll be remembered as Apartheid South Africa junior, but then I realised most people don't know or care about it, not even those that know and care what a shithole Zimbabwe is. Most documentaries done on Zimbabwe these days always talk about independence from Britain in 1980, which, while technically true, is hogwash and glosses over a huge chunk of very interesting history, whether you love or hate the country.
RLI was mixed, but the Rhodesian African Rifles mostly black and one of the more 'elite' units.
>tfw grandpa was a rhodesian and doesn't afraid of anything
It was because of their push for decolonization. Because Mugabe was a native, they thought they were giving the land back to its "rightful owners." compelete bullshit and a huge waste of time desu senpai
Coldwar realpolitik, really. The Brits knew minority rule was unsustainable and would eventually be overthrown, most likely by soviet aligned forces. They would have preferred a pro-western native-run government that didn't complain much.
Unfortunately, this. Western leaders are easily fooled by African radicals who pretend to be "social reformers".
>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.
Mugabe is actually an extremely intelligent guy with multiple university degrees and that impressed people who talked to him, so much so they thought it would be a good idea to give a guy who had spent a year living in the bush fighting a war a country
/pol/ will never admit it but Smith's refusal to compromise until the very last minute, and his repressive behaviour towards rural communities, meant that Mugabe replacing him seemed reasonable
The issue was that they refused to make any effort to really transition to majority rule - their one hope for an end to the war - until it was too late.
Their secession from Britain on the grounds that the black population arguably was a good one, given what was happening all over Africa with abrupt changes to majority rule. But instead of working on a slower transition to open elections, they just tried to hold out without changing. Just like South Africa, the politicians somehow thought they could win the war by handing the entire problem over to the military all while refusing to address the underlying problems that caused it in the first place.
And the longer they waited, the worse things got. Attacks on whites (particularly the downing of the two Air Rhodesia airliners) caused ever-increasing racial tensions, so the longer the war went on, the worse the country's chances got.
Had the UDI been followed up by a progressive plan to educate the majority population and phase in universal suffrage, then Rhodesia may have survived. But shooting at the terrorists isn't going to solve anything if you can't address the thing that's attracting the terrorists in the first place.
Actually, Rhodesia was far better than South Africa in terms of race relations.
Problem is, that's about as meaningful as saying
>Well he's better than Hitler!
>At least it's not Detroit!
There was a significant amount of black soldiers in the Rhodesian Army, but that doesn't mean the government had fair racial policies. They doubled down on the white minority rule after the UDI, and the constitution was set up in such a way that nonwhites - about 90% of the population - were effectively disenfranchised.
I was born in 1997 and didn't know Rhodesia existed until 2 years ago where I saw it on an old globe at my grandparents' house where I thought Zimbabwe should have been. I've been pretty interested in this lost chapter of history ever since.
That still ignores the fact that the black population would still only get 50% control at best under the post-UDI constitution. Even ignoring the whole ethical issue of denying the right to vote based on wealth, the system was never going to be fair, as the best it was going to get was fewer than 300,000 whites controlling half the government while the 8 million blacks had the other half. Considering that they had only 8 seats (compared to the 50 of the whites) when the constitution was made, it's amazing that anyone thought this could be fair at all.
I can imagine a situation where increased educated black participation in government and 'high society' starts to have an effect on white voters and parliamentarians, which would lead to an easing of the franchise for more blacks. Keep it out of the hands of the tribals though, they're represented by their chiefs in parliament anyway.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to convince a privileged group to give up their benefits. Starting off without being able to reach electoral equality (short of a revision of the constitution) made it pretty hard for the black population to support the regime.