Rhodesian COIN (consolidated thread, inc original RLI)

[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.