Rhodesian COIN (consolidated thread, inc original RLI)

[JMA]

Masters Thesis: Rhodesian African Rifles: the growth and adaptation of a multicultural regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980.

Major Michael P Stewart

Under 'Acknowledgements' the author states:

I am eternally grateful to the veterans of the Rhodesian Army and Rhodesian African Rifles, many of whom I had the privilege of meeting during the course of this study. These are remarkable men whose hospitality, openness and honesty were tremendous. I only hope this work is adequate representation of a worthy and noble regiment.

In reply and on behalf of my brother officers and men who the author sought out in the UK and in South Africa (where they now reside) in order to conduct the research necessary to do the subject justice a debt of gratitude is owed to this young professional officer in his search for the truth about our little war and through his objective presentation of the facts.

[JMA]

Masters Thesis: Rhodesian African Rifles: the growth and adaptation of a multicultural regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980.

Major Michael P Stewart

As an additional comment it is hoped that the Editor and editorial staff of the MR (Military Review) have taken note of this thesis and request the author to submit a summary for publication therein.

This may go someway to repair the damage caused to their collective professional reputations (not to mention the indefensible slight against those who served in the Rhodesian forces during the Bush War) especially if accompanied by an official apology for publishing that garbage thesis written by the Dutch kid.

[davidbfpo]

In 1985 I was in Zimbabwe on a holiday, conducting historical research and met a number of Rhodesian Army officers, one of them had been a career RAR officer and retired as a brigadier.

He related the story of the crisis in 1980 when former ZIPRA soldiers mutinied at a barracks near Bulawayo and other ZIPRA soldiers, with armour, in a remote camp tried to join their comrades. The RAR battalion, with white officers in command still, were the only reliable unit available and they violently ended the mutiny. The armour was ambushed by AML90 armoured cars and the British instructors for this new unit played their part too.

One African NCO who had played a key role in 1965, when some RAR soldiers loyalty was uncertain, was still serving as a senior NCO in 1985.

I look forward to reading JMA's discovery.

The crisis is usually referred to as the First Etumbane Uprising and has numerous hits on Google, although I only followed a few.

I did find this paperback published in Australia, by a white Rhodesian soldier 'A Hole in Our Lives', which has passages on the crisis:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hole-In-Our-...1985570&sr=1-1

There is a large tome on the history of the RAR, which IIRC has featured here before; although I've not read it.

[JMA]

In 1985 I was in Zimbabwe on a holiday, conducting historical research and met a number of Rhodesian Army officers, one of them had been a career RAR officer and retired as a brigadier.

He related the story of the crisis in 1980 when former ZIPRA soldiers mutinied at a barracks near Bulawayo and other ZIPRA soldiers, with armour, in a remote camp tried to join their comrades. The RAR battalion, with white officers in command still, were the only reliable unit available and they violently ended the mutiny. The armour was ambushed by AML90 armoured cars and the British instructors for this new unit played their part too.

One African NCO who had played a key role in 1965, when some RAR soldiers loyalty was uncertain, was still serving as a senior NCO in 1985.

I look forward to reading JMA's discovery.

The crisis is usually referred to as the First Etumbane Uprising and has numerous hits on Google, although I only followed a few.

I did find this paperback published in Australia, by a white Rhodesian soldier 'A Hole in Our Lives', which has passages on the crisis:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hole-In-Our-...1985570&sr=1-1

There is a large tome on the history of the RAR, which IIRC has featured here before; although I've not read it.

Entumbane II was the sweetheart of the two where the RAR killed so many from the two factions (ZANLA & ZIPRA) that brigade had to arrange for refrigerated railway trucks to be shunted into the nearby rail siding to accommodate the bodies of the gooks the RAR had piled up. The Bn CO believes that 1RAR (1st Bn) killed more gooks during Entumbane II than during the whole of the earlier war.(He lives around the corner from me and we meet often)

Interesting was how an armoured car troop (4-car) armed with South African Eland-90s did the business with whatever ZIPRA could offer T-34s and assorted BTRs - they were commanded by an Aussie Sgt 'Skippy' Devine (ex-RLI) who was turning the ZIPRA sardines packed into the BTRs into 'crispy critters' faster than the BTRs could come down the highway.

The book is Masodja being the chiShona word for 'soldier' as opposed to insurgent/guerrilla/gook/or what have you. (Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk )

The 'A Hole in Our Lives' book relates to conscript (National Service) intake 147 and their experiences during the war.

[JMA]

Dingo Firestorm
The Greatest Battle of the Rhodesian Bush War
By Ian Pringle

This book tells the story of the biggest conflict of the Rhodesian Bush War, fought in neighboring Mozambique. Code-named Operation Dingo, the battle was a huge gamble. It took place when Rhodesia was running out of money, ammunition and friends. Prime Minister Ian Smith authorized a risky two-pronged attack on ZANLA bases in Mozambique to buy time and weaken Robert Mugabe’s negotiating position. He committed virtually the entire Rhodesian Air Force to support 184 paratroops and helicopter troops in a surprise attack on an enemy force of thousands. The attack was planned to coincide with a meeting of Mugabe and his War Council at their Chimoio HQ.

Pringle describes the political and military backdrop leading up to the raid, and he tells the story of the battle through the eyes of key personalities who planned, led and participated in it. Using his own experience as a jet and helicopter pilot, he recreates the battle in detail, explaining the performance of men and machines in the unfolding drama of events.

The author obtained exclusive interviews with three top Rhodesian commanders weeks before their (coincidental) deaths in 2010, including valuable insights by Lieutenant General Peter Walls, the supreme Rhodesian commander. Dingo Firestorm is a fresh, gripping recreation of a key battle in southern African military history.

Pre-order here

[Fuchs]

I recently had an e-mail exchange with someone and the topic extended to some Rhodesian and South African stuff.

Let me state one possible view:

Both Rhodesians and South Africans proved highly technically proficient with their indigenous production of AT mine-proofed vehicles (famous V-hull, stretched Land Rovers etc).

Both countries, but more so South Africa, demonstrated how to rip marginal quality troops a new one in bush mobile warfare.

Rhodesian exiles are especially proud about their heliborne QRF including light infantry.


Now what Rhodesian exiles do NOT mention often at all is their countries' border AP mine belt that did very likely contribute a lot to the explosives that made up the anti-colonialist freedom fighter's road mining campaign. Instead, there's almost exclusively talk about regular Soviet-origin AT mines.

Yes, I wrote anti-colonialist freedom fighters, for the regime defended by Rhodesians and South Africans was one of extreme exploitation of the human rights-deprived black huge majority. I don't care what kind of outside assistance they got. It's a shame on us Westerners that the Soviets had to step in to help the oppressed. We should have fixed that mess. Rhodesia and South Africa effectively were huge slave camps with Whites running the them as self-enriching wardens. Both countries had fully deserved a declaration of war and invasion by the Western world, but the threat would probably have sufficed.
I know the freedom fighters were also called terrorists, but that's a largely pointless term during times of guerilla war. During war, the party with inferior practical repertoire makes use of what it got, even if this means to simply lay mines and burn down some houses of civilians. Heck, even the Allies did it on a scale never seen before or after - despite material and numerical superiority.

No matter what RLI or other units did militarily; for today it's entirely useless because

(1) they fought against marginal quality opposition.
It's like Italians mopping up Abbessinians, then getting bagged by numerically inferior Commonwealth forces on first contact who then in turn got torn a new one once a few Germans had arrived on the scene. Who thinks we should learn from the Italians '37???
Seriously, who thinks the RLI/fire force would have been of ANY use in face of a motorised East German rifle battalion guarded by two Shilkas??

(2) there's absolutely no use for the skills of how to oppress a majority of the indigenous population or how to keep all neighbouring countries in a state of permanent chaos and extreme economic peril. In fact, anyone who strives for such knowledge should be highly suspect to us*.



It's a shame that I felt it was appropriate in this place to change this line from "is highly suspect".

[JMA]

I recently had an e-mail exchange with someone and the topic extended to some Rhodesian and South African stuff.

Let me state one possible view:

Both Rhodesians and South Africans proved highly technically proficient with their indigenous production of AT mine-proofed vehicles (famous V-hull, stretched Land Rovers etc).

Now what Rhodesian exiles do NOT mention often at all is their countries' border AP mine belt that did very likely contribute a lot to the explosives that made up the anti-colonialist freedom fighter's road mining campaign. Instead, there's almost exclusively talk about regular Soviet-origin AT mines.

Not worth mentioning because the amount of explosives lifted from the ‘cordon sanitaire’ (border minefield) was miniscule.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Is it mere supposition?

It is not just me and my personal recollections but I phoned two Engineer officers who worked on the ‘cordon sanitaire’ to confirm my memories... so you can take it to the bank.

But please tell me how the anti-personnel mines would have been disarmed so they could be carried/transported to the roads that they wanted to mine?

[JMA]

Yes, I wrote anti-colonialist freedom fighters, for the regime defended by Rhodesians and South Africans was one of extreme exploitation of the human rights-deprived black huge majority. I don't care what kind of outside assistance they got. It's a shame on us Westerners that the Soviets had to step in to help the oppressed. We should have fixed that mess. Rhodesia and South Africa effectively were huge slave camps with Whites running the them as self-enriching wardens. Both countries had fully deserved a declaration of war and invasion by the Western world, but the threat would probably have sufficed.

I know the freedom fighters were also called terrorists, but that's a largely pointless term during times of guerilla war. During war, the party with inferior practical repertoire makes use of what it got, even if this means to simply lay mines and burn down some houses of civilians. Heck, even the Allies did it on a scale never seen before or after - despite material and numerical superiority.

I'm sorry that the Rhodesian war experience is so painful for one with a German origin. I appreciate that the military skills of the German forces in WW2 are under valued and under acknowledged because of the Nazi connotations. I believe and have been on record here that despite the scale of human rights abuses perpetrated as both national policy and as carried out in the field being both shocking and horrific there is a lot to learn from the German methods of warfighting etc.

I wonder why you single out little Rhodesia and slightly bigger South Africa for this belated attention and the belief that an armed invasion by the West was justified when dealing with real or imagined human rights abuses even in today's 'enlightened' world never happens even if there is some wringing of hands. Some time ago I posted a recent scale of freedom levels worldwide and failed to detect any demand from you for the West to invade any country in order to set "the people free". So the deduction is simple you have a reason to focus only on the two countries you mentioned while ignoring every other where real or alleged abuse has or is taking place.

Maybe the problem lies within you given your background?

There is a definition of terrorism... go look it up. That the cause may in your opinion justify the means does not make the method anything other than terrorism.

[Fuchs]

Where do you get this nonsense from? Is it mere supposition?

No hard sources on this one.

I'm sorry that the Rhodesian war experience is so painful for one with a German origin. I appreciate that the military skills of the German forces in WW2 are under valued and under acknowledged because of the Nazi connotations.

The nature of warfare of WW2 was mostly of inter-state nature, encompassed almost all forms of warfare and all great powers of the period were far from having a white vest.

I don't think that German or generally WW2 experiences in terror bombing or in occupation warfare are of real value to us today. The only theoretical interest that I have in German WW2 occupation warfare or generally German warfare against opposition of clearly inferior nature co0ncerns the origin of Jagdkampf, which lays at least concerning the word itself in anti-guerilla patrols.

I wonder why you single out little Rhodesia and slightly bigger South Africa for this belated attention and the belief that an armed invasion by the West was justified when dealing with real or imagined human rights abuses ...

Because this is practically a South Africa and Rhodesia bush war appreciation and idol thread by now.
We could discuss North Korea in a North Korea thread.

Some time ago I posted a recent scale of freedom levels worldwide and failed to detect any demand from you for the West to invade any country in order to set "the people free".

Save for North Korea and some poorly definable issues at the Sahel zone there's no oppression that comes close to the one of a Spartan model with a tiny caste of oppressors, a class of semi-free and a vast majority caste of unfree labourers anywhere in the world.
Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia did fit such a description, though. They were practically what the Nazis wanted East Europe to turn into: Nazi states that persisted until long after WW2.

There is a definition of terrorism... go look it up. That the cause may in your opinion justify the means does not make the method anything other than terrorism.

There are thousands of definitions of terrorism, it is one of the most ill-defined words in the world and commonly mis-used to portray armed opposition other than on the battlefield as despicable.


It's pointless to point fingers at terrorist tactics after leaving little else to the enemy as practically available repertoire and then label the entire violent opposition as terrorists. The South Africans and Rhodesians regularly designated their opponents as terrorists and communists in an attempt to mobilize domestic and foreign support, but the most telling nature of those enemies was that they were fighting against most of the people being enslaved by their own government.

One side's freedom fighters are the other side's terrorists, and in my opinion the side that has the moral high ground deserves to win the narrative. Those who fought against de facto slavery had overall the moral high ground, while the government forces of Rhodesia and South Africa ranged morally on Waffen-SS level, driven by an ideology and racism that was a perfect equal.

________________

Your reply exposes that you're under the wrong impression that I would somehow associate specially with WW2-era Germany or have somehow a psychological problem with German history.
I suppose that's not the case. Whatever focus on German military history I have is a result of my easy access to German language sources and the major German involvement in both World Wars. Indeed, I don't think there's any good reason for a special attachment to one's own country's military history. My studies include hundreds to thousands of years of warfare from five continents. There are lessons to be drawn from everywhere and all time periods.
The lessons from Rhodesia on the other hand appear to be supremely useless for any reasonable military endeavour.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

This is a long running thread and IIRC the political aspects have appeared before. I have not gone back to see what posts said though.

Yes Rhodesia was a white minority regime for nearly all it's history, first as a self-governing colony, in 1965 it declared itself independent (UDI), then declaring itself a republic, agreed to an 'Internal Settlement' with power-sharing, before The Lancaster House Agreement - from which Zimbabwe emerged.

Rhodesia's mistake was to refuse to consider any realistic settlement before the 'men of violence', the external nationalists, started their war. Ian Smith argued with some of his advisers "Why talk, when we are so strong?"; an approach that was to be seen in South Africa, before political change.

I am not sure if an internal, realistic settlement was possible.

By time the 'Internal Settlement' was agreed the war - fought overwhelmingly in the rural areas, with a huge African population and very few whites - had entrenched both sides. Between both sides were the rural Africans terrorised by the 'men of violence'. I recall vividly white Rhodesians who I meet in 1985 saying any African loyalty depended on a rural African calculus over who had the power over their future, it was that calculus that changed.

Nor should the steady increase in emigration of the Rhodesian white population be overlooked as the war intensified.

The cross-border operations some contend failed to address the internal political situation and the 'Fire Force' approach gained time by killing some of the incoming flood of guerillas. Plus unlucky civilians.

Finally after 1980 two academics wrote on the failure of the Rhodesia's war-fighting strategy, Jackie Cilliers and Michael Evans - they are both worth reading. I am not aware of any updates in the last thirty years, as Fuchs has noted much of the commentary on SWC reviews the military tactics used.

[Fuchs]

David, Rhodesia doesn't really bother me.
You probably noticed already that I step in from time to time when things here get too politically uncritical, too tolerant of what should not be tolerated in civilised countries.

The conversion of a thread into a RLI appreciation thread with photos of badges, lots of sentimentality about good old times etc was as bothering to me as would have been a SS fanboi theme or a scalp-hunting theme in a SWC thread.

Accordingly, I'm not too happy about seeing my reply moved from the intended location. It could just as well be deleted in this one.

[JMA]

No hard sources on this one.

Yet you state it as if it was a major oversight that the Rhodesians would prefer remains untold? That does not reflect well upon you.

The nature of warfare of WW2 was mostly of inter-state nature, encompassed almost all forms of warfare and all great powers of the period were far from having a white vest.

Not quite. (I am wondering whether is a deliberate attempt to hide the horrible truth) The record shows that the Nazis deliberately targeted religions (Jews) and ethnicities (Slavs).

I don't think that German or generally WW2 experiences in terror bombing or in occupation warfare are of real value to us today. The only theoretical interest that I have in German WW2 occupation warfare or generally German warfare against opposition of clearly inferior nature co0ncerns the origin of Jagdkampf, which lays at least concerning the word itself in anti-guerilla patrols.

Ok, what you believe is of historical value or not is certainly not the definitive opinion but merely your personal opinion. There are lessons to be learned - both positive and negative - from just about all wars and all armies/forces which would have some value today.

Because this is practically a South Africa and Rhodesia bush war appreciation and idol thread by now.

Not sure why that would worry or concern you if it were true. As with other wars/insurgencies there are both positives and negatives that come out of the Rhodesian bush war.

Who is forcing you to read that thread? Or are you deciding what people should be allowed to read or not?

(There is nothing in this thread about the South African border war or Angola other than a photo of a American who served in both Rhodesia and SWA/Angola... so do try to be more accurate.)

We could discuss North Korea in a North Korea thread.

There is a thread on North Korea... nothing stopping you from posting there.

Save for North Korea and some poorly definable issues at the Sahel zone there's no oppression that comes close to the one of a Spartan model with a tiny caste of oppressors, a class of semi-free and a vast majority caste of unfree labourers anywhere in the world.

Nonsense. Go do your research. You are viewing the world with one eye closed.

Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia did fit such a description, though. They were practically what the Nazis wanted East Europe to turn into: Nazi states that persisted until long after WW2.

That is merely a statement without substantiation. An intelligent commentator would never group Rhodesia together with South Africa on that basis.

Go on try to exercise your intellect a little... try to draft a list of countries where a minority exercised hegemony over a subjugated majority (say since WW2). When you get to five you can stop... and I don't expect you to be man enough to print an apology in the public domain.

There are thousands of definitions of terrorism, it is one of the most ill-defined words in the world and commonly mis-used to portray armed opposition other than on the battlefield as despicable.

Caught out again so you duck and dive about definitions.

Keep it simple... use this one: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"

Whatever the cause may be - noble or otherwise - if such methods are used then it is terrorism... simple as that.

Now here's a thing... I didn't meet one democrat or human rights activist among the ZANU/ZAPU military or political wings during the war... nor have any been evident in the post 1980 Zimbabwe. Now how come you supposed smart guys missed that?

It's pointless to point fingers at terrorist tactics after leaving little else to the enemy as practically available repertoire and then label the entire violent opposition as terrorists.

Terrorism is terrorism... and your political or ideological support of those using terrorism changes nothing. As I said... show me the democrats and human rights activists who were fighting to liberate the subjugated masses... surely after 30 years of liberation you would be able to identify at least one Zimbabwean? The leftists in Europe and North America were little more than useful idiots to be exploited at the time. That - 30 years on - there are still people who believe that Rhodesia fought a war of liberation defies belief.

The South Africans and Rhodesians regularly designated their opponents as terrorists and communists in an attempt to mobilize domestic and foreign support, but the most telling nature of those enemies was that they were fighting against most of the people being enslaved by their own government.

Again it is not intelligent to group South Africa with Rhodesia together nor to believe that the struggles in those countries were to liberate the masses. Events in post 1980 Zimbabwe prove that it was merely a transfer of power to another minority... and as you will have noticed in South Africa it is much the same (time will no doubt prove it true as well). So you and the liberals in the West don't come out of this very well intellectually do you?

One side's freedom fighters are the other side's terrorists, and in my opinion the side that has the moral high ground deserves to win the narrative. Those who fought against de facto slavery had overall the moral high ground, while the government forces of Rhodesia and South Africa ranged morally on Waffen-SS level, driven by an ideology and racism that was a perfect equal.

Use of the word slavery is a lunatic assertion and brings your grasp of the circumstances (and your intelligence it must be said) into question.

Your recall of history is selective.

Your Waffen-SS analogy is childishly provocative. The vast majority of Rhodesians and subsequent post war immigrants fought against Nazi Germany in WW2. Nothing you say will change that nor redefine the reality of the Rhodesian history.

By all means start your own thread to discuss South Africa... this thread is about Rhodesia.

Your reply exposes that you're under the wrong impression that I would somehow associate specially with WW2-era Germany or have somehow a psychological problem with German history.
I suppose that's not the case. Whatever focus on German military history I have is a result of my easy access to German language sources and the major German involvement in both World Wars. Indeed, I don't think there's any good reason for a special attachment to one's own country's military history. My studies include hundreds to thousands of years of warfare from five continents. There are lessons to be drawn from everywhere and all time periods.
The lessons from Rhodesia on the other hand appear to be supremely useless for any reasonable military endeavour.

It is standard among Germans that there remains a raw nerve about their past politically, racially and militarily. Hence the almost guaranteed response - such as yours - where it is felt a politically correct - bending over backwards response is needed on any or all of these three factors.

This raw emotion is evident in your response... and for that I pity you.

[JMA]

No matter what RLI or other units did militarily; for today it's entirely useless because

(1) they fought against marginal quality opposition.
It's like Italians mopping up Abbessinians, then getting bagged by numerically inferior Commonwealth forces on first contact who then in turn got torn a new one once a few Germans had arrived on the scene. Who thinks we should learn from the Italians '37???
Seriously, who thinks the RLI/fire force would have been of ANY use in face of a motorised East German rifle battalion guarded by two Shilkas??

The old style German arrogance is coming out again.

In war first you need to know your enemy. Not sure that after 70 years you can still lay claim with any certainty of how the German military of today would perform. But by all means dream on.

Whether you like it or not the Rhodesians knew their enemy and demonstrated it through a number of audacious surprise attacks against targets which resulted in almost unbelievable results at very low KIA/WIA cost.

Yes the enemy was low quality but the Rhodesians knew how and with what force levels to take the war to the enemy.

As to the Fire Force it remains a classic example of find, fix and finish.

Doing this with the basic building block of 4-man sticks placed interesting demands on command, leadership and structural issues not faced by most other militaries.

And to your ridiculous comment about the much vaunted but untested East Germans with Shilkas. If they had been the enemy a different method and means would have had to be developed. Simple.

However, I do understand your confusion with war in general and minor tactics specifically and that rises from your lack of combat experience. If you had such experience you would understand that the spiritual and mental attributes such as tenacity, morale, team work, dedication and the will to fight and training standard are far more important than numbers or equipment.

As Napoleon said: "Morale makes up three-quarters of the game; the relative balance of manpower accounts for only the remaining quarter."

How would you understand this if you have not been there? This is why I suggest that you need to be careful of making uneducated comments about circumstances you have no basis for understanding.

[Fuchs]

Come on, your view on Rhodesia is excessively uncritical. I did not expect any other view and that's why I jumped in in the first place.

My remarks about the analogies stand and I do not feel that your attempts at refuting them have any weight. Rhodesia fought against Nazis? So what? So did the Stalin. This doesn't exclude the possibility of having a horrible regime.

Hitler's plan for East Europe was one with Germans settling there as the exploiting, warlike masters with the exploited Slavs working in the agricultural sector and mines.
The Spartan model was similar, with an intermediate caste.

Rhodesia may not have had such a strong intermediate caste ("coloured people", Asians) as did South Africa, but the Blacks could easily be understood as Slaves to the state, to be employed at far below fair wage by the Whites and they clearly didn't get the same quality or quantity of services from the state.



Maybe you should do some research yourself, since your idea of what Rhodesia was like is obviously tainted by being a White and by having developed a lot of sentimentality.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/000...1/016163eo.pdf

Now guess what level of discrimination was Hitler planning for the separation of Slavs and Germans.

He would basically have copied this link.
Well, maybe he would have preferred less involvement of Germans in agriculture, for he really, really disliked rural environments and agriculture personally.

So yes, since "Nazis" is nowadays a rather wide description that does not necessitate them being Germans, I can easily and correctly describe the Rhodesia as a historical Nazi state. You were effectively fighting for a Nazi regime.
The excuse that said regime did fight against original Nazis a generation earlier does help ####, for the same did not keep Stalin from being among mankind's top three mass murderers and leading one of mankind's worst-ever regimes either.



Last but not least; the idea that Rhodesians could have coped well with quality opposition is almost entirely without base. They sucked in WW2.
The ability to mop up marginal quality opposition does not mean anything about one's ability to cope with quality opposition, and little to nothing is to be learned from the former for the latter. That's what my Abbessinians-Italians-British-Germans story was meant to show.

P.S.: The East German military was in many regards better (more serious and disciplined) than the West German one.

[JMA]

Come on, your view on Rhodesia is excessively uncritical. I did not expect any other view and that's why I jumped in in the first place.

My remarks about the analogies stand and I do not feel that your attempts at refuting them have any weight. Rhodesia fought against Nazis? So what? So did the Stalin. This doesn't exclude the possibility of having a horrible regime.

Hitler's plan for East Europe was one with Germans settling there as the exploiting, warlike masters with the exploited Slavs working in the agricultural sector and mines.
The Spartan model was similar, with an intermediate caste.

Rhodesia may not have had such a strong intermediate caste ("coloured people", Asians) as did South Africa, but the Blacks could easily be understood as Slaves to the state, to be employed at far below fair wage by the Whites and they clearly didn't get the same quality or quantity of services from the state.

Maybe you should do some research yourself, since your idea of what Rhodesia was like is obviously tainted by being a White and by having developed a lot of sentimentality.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/000...1/016163eo.pdf

Now guess what level of discrimination was Hitler planning for the separation of Slavs and Germans.

He would basically have copied this link.
Well, maybe he would have preferred less involvement of Germans in agriculture, for he really, really disliked rural environments and agriculture personally.

So yes, since "Nazis" is nowadays a rather wide description that does not necessitate them being Germans, I can easily and correctly describe the Rhodesia as a historical Nazi state. You were effectively fighting for a Nazi regime.
The excuse that said regime did fight against original Nazis a generation earlier does help ####, for the same did not keep Stalin from being among mankind's top three mass murderers and leading one of mankind's worst-ever regimes either.

Last but not least; the idea that Rhodesians could have coped well with quality opposition is almost entirely without base. They sucked in WW2.
The ability to mop up marginal quality opposition does not mean anything about one's ability to cope with quality opposition, and little to nothing is to be learned from the former for the latter. That's what my Abbessinians-Italians-British-Germans story was meant to show.

P.S.: The East German military was in many regards better (more serious and disciplined) than the West German one.

I understand your German preoccupation with race... there seems to be little Germans can do about it.

None better evidenced than the continued innuendo of superior qualities of German soldiers. This is clearly not supported by the facts of history. What is supported by history is that the German military has been better organised and structured and in many cases better led than most other nations but the man for man comparison of the fighting men with the racially superior outcome for Germans is not only nonsense but the dangerous perpetuation of the myth of German racial superiority.

There is no shortcoming in the individual fighting ability or the levels of courage and bravery of the British or American soldiers just (as at last count 70 years ago) the individual German soldier acquitted himself well. You cling to some fantasy of the East German military as you know that both the Brits and Americans know from the Cold War experience that the (West) German army was a pathetic shadow of its former stature. Hence the need to place the East Germans on a pedestal. Doesn't work.

I would offer another more balanced source for a history of the Rhodesian war from the following book:

Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare - Daniel Marston & Carter Malkasian

... with the applicable chapter being:

COUNTERING THE CHIMURENGA: The Rhodesian Counterinsurgency Campaign 1962–80

It remains laughable that where the settlers and colonizers were of European origin their conquer and domination is somehow worse than the inter tribal wars/massacres/genocides that preceded the arrival of settlers in any given country.

In the case of the area called Rhodesia the Matebele (Ndebele) arrived a mere 60years before the Europeans and were in the process dealing with the Shona people through a continuing series of raids against them. European and North-American - so-called human rights activists, academics and assorted other useful idiots - completely ignore the obvious hypocrisy of their racially biased position.

Such politics are complicated and one appreciates that some will seek a simple explanation to a complex situation - like Rhodesians Bad, 'Nationalists' Good.

Simple people seek simple answers.

I still wait for someone to draw a comparison between the fate of the Africans (blacks) under European domination in Rhodesia and the fate of Tibetans under Chinese domination in Tibet.

Then the question you will not and can not answer... which is to provide proof that the people you placed on a pedestal - on the supposed moral high ground - the so-called 'Nationalists' were indeed the human rights activists and democrats they presented themselves as and not the thugs/mass murderers/thieves they to a man turned out to be once they were given the country.

Yes I know the admission of having been used as a 'useful idiot' by thugs and killers masquerading as human rights activists and democrats would be too painful. More black Zimbabweans have been killed after the bush war by the regime than were killed during the war. To Rhodesians this outcome was obvious... to the useful idiots this was met with (embarrassed) silence (and lamely blamed on the legacy of colonialism).

I am amazed that 32 years after the current regime was handed the country on a plate there are still those - you included - that believe the bush war was fought to suppress African people as opposed to an attempt to secure an orderly and controlled transition to majority rule.

[Fuchs]

I understand your German preoccupation with race... there seems to be little Germans can do about it.

None better evidenced than the continued innuendo of superior qualities of German soldiers.

Serious question: What do you smoke?
(Yes moderator, I am honestly interested in what he smokes. Gotta be something exotic.)

I am amazed that 32 years after the current regime was handed the country on a plate there are still those - you included - that believe the bush war was fought to suppress African people as opposed to an attempt to secure an orderly and controlled transition to majority rule.

I am always amazed anew at the naivet and gullibility of people in face of blatant propaganda.

[JMA]

The Bleed

John R Cronin has published a book on Kindle about his service in the USMC and Rhodesia. I served with John in the RLI and enjoyed his coverage of his service in the RLI and the Selous Scouts immensely. At $5.15 it is certainly a must read for those with an interest in the Rhodesian bush war.



"These memoirs are a 35-year window into the life of someone who walked silently on patrol with Marine Recon in the jungles of Vietnam, jumped into action with the Rhodesian Light Infantry's Fire Force, infiltrated guerrilla groups on counterinsurgency operations with the Selous Scouts, navigated the teeming streets of Cairo, was kidnapped by Hizbollah in Beirut, and then left this life behind for a completely different, though no less highly competitive atmosphere of a doctoral program at the University of London.

It's not just a war story - though there are stories of two wars embedded in this narrative - but rather it's an account of what it was like as an American, as a total stranger, living across several continents and what people had to endure just to make it from one day to the next. It's a story of survival."

.

[JMA]

The Bleed

John R Cronin has published a book on Kindle about his service in the USMC and Rhodesia. I served with John in the RLI and enjoyed his coverage of his service in the RLI and the Selous Scouts immensely. At $5.15 it is certainly a must read for those with an interest in the Rhodesian bush war.



"These memoirs are a 35-year window into the life of someone who walked silently on patrol with Marine Recon in the jungles of Vietnam, jumped into action with the Rhodesian Light Infantry's Fire Force, infiltrated guerrilla groups on counterinsurgency operations with the Selous Scouts, navigated the teeming streets of Cairo, was kidnapped by Hizbollah in Beirut, and then left this life behind for a completely different, though no less highly competitive atmosphere of a doctoral program at the University of London.

It's not just a war story - though there are stories of two wars embedded in this narrative - but rather it's an account of what it was like as an American, as a total stranger, living across several continents and what people had to endure just to make it from one day to the next. It's a story of survival."

.

Extract from the ebook:

... Enter moi in the middle of August of 1976. I reported in to the RLI the same day 3 Commando, my assigned unit, had returned from its 10 day R&R in preparation to be deployed the following day. I walked over from the BOQ across the parade deck to meet the rest of the officers and senior NCOs as they arrived to pre-pack up some equipment and I could see them studying me as I made my way to the offices.

It was the same look I had received the day I walking into Third Force Recon that day and I could feel the eyes on my back as I went down the corridor. Everyone had heard that a new officer was due in, and a Yank officer at that, and they were keen to see what kind of impression the new face would leave with them. They all had a ton of combat experience behind them, and as I grew to know them and the men of the other commands, I would be struck by how closely they resembled in temperament and bearing the Marines I had just left. Funny. profane. tough, violent, tactically and strategically savvy, innovative and not afraid to take some of the most awful risks you can imagine, they were solid in the bush and could be relied on to take care of one another out there without one doubt of hesitation, which is what made them so aggressive and ideally suited for Fire Force.

...

[JMA]

Who Dares Loses?
Assessing Rhodesia’s Counter-Insurgency Experience
Greg Mills & Grahame Wilson

Pound for pound, the Rhodesian security forces may have been the most effective fighting force of the last century. Numbering at their peak 15,000 troops, pitted against an opposition likely at least three times as strong within and without the country by the war’s end, and employing increasingly aggressive tactics taking them into the neighbouring countries, they were able to keep in check their numerically superior guerrilla opponents, despite having to operate across a country larger than Germany, and over terrain practically impassable in many locations. But still, the war was lost with the advent to power of Robert Mugabe’s regime in 1980 – or was it? This article revisits the Rhodesian strategy, assesses what mistakes were made and the conduct of the war, and identifies lessons for contemporary counter-insurgency campaigns.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

Good catch the RUSI Journal 2007 article, via your link and the final paragraph says it all:

Rarely do insurgents, in Rhodesia as elsewhere, lose the political aspect of their struggle in spite of their performance in the field, the latter often a function of superior equipment, training, technology, mobility and operational coherence of those countering the insurgency. Thus the
Rhodesian experience should teach us, above all else, that what is required to counter insurgency are superior political tactics and strategy, from the local to the global level