🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive videos via UA-cam: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patreon: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
The continuing tragedy is that after independence, Mugabe would launch a horrific ethnic and tribal genocide with the help of North Korean soldiers. He would then proceed to destroy the Zimbabwe economy while he and his wife became fabulously wealthy.
Will there be a follow-up video on the Mugabe regime and the ethnic cleansing, land thefts, and the other facets of his reign? Would be interesting to see how that is covered.
Mugabe was shitty but so were the Rhodesians Despite what you may hear Africa is not a complete an utter hellhole even if zimbadwe is one Heck Rwanda despite suffering one of the most brutal genocides in recent memory has become the Singapore of Asia Zimbadwe will eventually recover (or rather it’s people at the very least) despite the rants of racists
@@byronritchie5449 No it will not recover because the people who live there have no idea how to run a country. Instead of running the power plants and the train stations the whites left, they instead stripped them for parts. Nothing to do with being racist. It's just how it is.
Doubt it, this channel seems to have a skew of not wanting to portray certain people in a bad light. Mugabe and "free" Zimbabwe were objectively worse in every way, but because Rhodesia didn't allow blacks quite the same rights, they are automatically considered worse no matter what
You mean governments brought to power by coups that were backed by the US and European nations to bolster their access to resources through unequal exchange? You know, the same governments that are in power today, hence the support for popular coups in the Sahel? Where they have to fight terrorist forces backed by France and the US just to name a few?
Cecil rhodes got mining rights in 1860 but was born in 1853 as your graphic suggests so he negotiated mining rights at the age of 7 well played to him!
@@Ad-Lo what? the point of the joke is that Zimbabwe has regressed to third world living conditions, when they used to have first world. How has that happened anywhere in Europe?
Over a hundred years of a greedy Colonial regime that transitioned into a brutal Apartheid racial oligarchy, but the only damn thing anyone is gonna say will be "WhAt aBoUt MuGaBE". Very sus
A friend of mine was a daughter of a White-Rhodesian woman and one of Robert Mugabe's native African soldiers. Her parents initially supported Mugabe but after he came to power they fled to the US due to his racial policies. Another white-Rhodesian I knew was my little brother's tennis coach who was a really nice and outgoing guy. All the ladies were drawn to his accent. He could talk your ear off about anything but was always hesitant to talk about where he came from. Whenever asked about Rhodesia he would often reply, "I no longer have opinions on Rhodesia, I'm American now."
It should be noted that militarily the Rhodesian armed forces absolutely dominated both ZIPRA and ZANLA. Rhodesia lost the war politically. No western power was willing to support them and the loss of their South African and Portuguese allies as well as the continued sanctions made future fighting untenable. Not even the compromise of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was accepted by the international community due to excluding ZAPU and ZANU from the election (albeit the reason was due to them refusing to renounce political violence). Overall a pretty good summary of the Bush War, though I feel the video was too biased in favor of the insurgents; as there was much information that was omitted that would paint them in a negative light as well as omissions and misattributions that make the Rhodesians look like a clear antagonist. The Bush War is very much a conflict of different shades of grey; it's possible to sympathize with one side over another for many valid reasons, but no one who is fully informed and honest about the conflict can call it black and white.
To be fair they had multiple chances of preventing the situation from erupting to a war. They had to know that they were a minority group. They should have just found a way of giving them full rights and integrating them into the system.
Us folks from the future have the power of hindsight as well. Seeing Zimbabwe today makes you wonder what it'd be like if things went differently, or if Rhodesia could have realistically lasted much longer with its ideologies regardless of the war.
The Rhodesians had a better army, but they were Hella outnumbered, and not supported by anyone, it's like playing monopoly with 5k starting cash and everyone else has only 500, but they also hate you and the way they win is if you lose
@@AbdurrahmanAlSherif yeah I got talk with a Rhodesian who was in the war. He said it was the terror the nationalist inflicted on the local farmers and land owning population. With threats of torture and murder on them, their wives and children was made most of the white population move to South Africa or Britain
If the Rhodesians got the kind of military support that Israel has gotten for so many decades, Rhodesia might've lasted much longer than it did or even potentially still be a nation in existence today.
You are taking Ian Smith's words way out of context. When he stated he was opposed to black majority rule, he also said he was against white majority rule. He stated, "I don't believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia...not in a thousand years. I believe in blacks and whites working together. If one day it is a white majority and the next a black one, we would have failed and it will be a disaster for Rhodesia."
Ian certainly did not have as hardline a stance on race as some other members of his party, the Rhodesian Front. For instance, Ian successfully opposed some fellow RF politicians who wanted to removed blacks and other non-whites from the University of Rhodesia. On the other hand, Ian was not the sort of person who would vote Democrat if he had lived in the US or Liberal Democrat if he were in the UK, because one of the key principles of his party, of which he was a founder member in 1962, was a commitment to the maintenance of segregated suburbs and government schools etc. In the 1962 General Election, Edgar Whitehead, the country's prime minister said that if he were re-elected he would abolish the segregatory Land Apportionment Act of 1930. Ian, and most other members of the white population, strongly disagreed with him and Whitehead thus lost the election. Hence in 1976 (the time of Ian's famous speech you cite) most aspects of life in Rhodesia were still segregated. (I am not criticising Ian or Rhodesia). Finally, some people who love Rhodesia are biased against white South Africa. If they see footage of a whites-only regiment marching through the centre of a South African city they rightly conclude that race mattered in South Africa, but when they see footage of whites-only Rhodesian regiments they ignore the absence of blacks, Asians and people of mixed race and say that it was simply "a matter of standards."'
Smith beloved in slowly franchising blacks as they were educated. Rhodesia had laws like America had at our founding. Only educated land owners could vote. This principal lead many Africans to seek education and learn the Western style of government and society. Then, and only then, could they participate in it. You can’t just walk up to an African tribesmen and say “Here’s Democracy.” That is the dumbest idea the west ever had and it was tried dozens of times across African and literally ended worked once. It’s not about race it’s about education. You can’t expect people who don’t understand democracy to be able to run a stable one. It’s not possible. So Rhodesia wanted to slowly franchise the majority blacks of the country as they were educated and as they understood democracy and western society. That was what Ian Smith wanted and fought for.
@@gandhithegreat328all in all nothing but misery & exploitation came from colonial rule in Africa.. as someone who is neutral in this topic,, it wasn't for outsider Europeans & their descendants to tell the natives what to do and not do.. I think if it had stayed as it is in Africa, some cities around the coasts and tribal areas in the interior the blood shed would've been much less. and I'm talking millions of lives saved just look at the Belgian Congo and that whole catastrophe..
@@kalmon6745 fair point but their mindset should not have been “Those who came before us did bad let’s leave” it should have been “Let’s stay and fix things.” Abandoning tens of millions to dictatorship got millions killed for no reason
The story of how the Rozvi Empire fended off the Portuguese is pretty fascinating as well. They won with a well oiled system of spies embedded at every Portuguese-controlled trading post running information back and forth to Shona rulers for years, even decades. By the time the Portuguese got around to venturing inland, the Rozvi let the terrain do half of the fighting and the exhausted & sick Portuguese advancing front was light work for basic battle tactics some of which would later be seen used by Shaka Zulu in South Africa.
Loved that as a child, hated what became of the world as I had to watch as I grew up to what it was on it's way to becoming as others argued against all reason against me and my beliefs.
I assume you have the governmental member proportions vs population ratios for different races? If not, you are just parroting debunked, right-wing bullshit talking points.
My father in law fought in the war. Many black Rhodesians also fought to keep the country in “”white control. If you visit Zimbabwe now, you see many of former political party infrastructure being used and barely maintained. Many people I talked to, said “we had food, money, and able to go to school” under Rhodesian rule.
@@alexanderm8741 they fought for pay. Most Shona in the army voted for Mugabe, and most Ndebele Nkomo. They themselves freely admitted they were only there for the compensation.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 oh yes, but at least they got paid. I remember my father in law cousin was part of special forces and they would capture the opposite side and they would give all the info for a meal and some money. My black coworker was from Zambia and she said we never called it Zimbabwe, they worried their country.
There is no such think as a black Rhodesian they were second class native citizens living in poverty under a white minority rule who only cared about their own comfort that’s all.
I actually like this long format style. It lets me either watch it or have it playing in the background listening to it. I think it works especially well for these lesser known conflicts and events that aren’t quiet long enough or detailed enough for a multi part series
I really like the video, hope you guy’s are going to cover other African conflicts too, from this period, such as independence movements/wars, civil wars and foreign interventions.
@@admirekashiri9879i completely agree with you on that and don’t forget stuff like the Anglo Zulu war, Italo Ethiopian wars, The Boer Wars and the Mahdist war among others.
I was in the Rhodesian army at the time with 3 Brigade in Umtali and I saw what the terrorist had done, besides the horrific acts carried out by the terrorists, all but one of the women had been rapped, even the four children had been killed with clubs as well as two of them also being stabbed. They also shot down a civilian Viscount aircraft of Air Rhodesia flying from Fort Victoria, Kariba and Salisbury in September 1978 with an infrared missile, killing 38 in the crash and massacring ten of the survivors, eight surviving the crash and massacre. I still have the record that was made of the memorial service at Salisbury Anglican Cathedral called 'The Deafening Silence' and the Rhodesian Herald and Umtali Post, where I was with 3 Brigade at the time, that covered the story in depth.
In a more interesting note, if Wikipedia is right, Edgar Whitehead is in fact the grandson of Robert Whitehead, better known among naval enthusiasts as the inventor of the Whitehead Torpedo, the first effective self-propelled torpedo.
I'd recommend Apostolic Majesty's 4-hour long discussion on the history of Rhodesia as a doomed nation, alongside Britannica's hour-long first-hand documentary on modern day Zimbabwe as a good, nuanced dive onto this topic. It should help cut through the... passionate ... back and forth in the comment section, and actually give you an informed view on the matter. Both of them spend much, much more time outside the war and military side of things, so it'll be a nice little triumvirate on the matter.
I honestly don't know how someone could watch the Britannica video on Zimbabwe and not come to the same conclusion as one of the "passionate" parts in these comments .
Callum on @Britannica does great work, I miss watching him on the Lotus eaters podcast, but seeing him go to Goodsprings and Rhodesia with Lord Miles you can see he's much happier doing that than taking about how England is doomed every day
@@hug4229 Only the ignorant praise Rhodesia and are still hanging on the past of what could have been. The reason why Rhodesia was the way was because it was heavily funded by the British Empire. When the plug was pulled things started to decline albeit gradually.
My roommates dad was born in Rhodesia. His parents were Greek Jews from Rhodes who fled the German invasion. The family moved to Cape Town and USA at the start of the Bush War. My roommate grew up visiting Zimbabwe as a kid.
What this video doesn't elaborate clearly on is the Black soldiers who fought and served for Rhodesia. You mentioned units like but not stated how the Rhodesian African Rifles, an all black soldiers which had white commanding officers and the Selous scouts that had both white and black soldiers.
In fact the largest contingent in terms of 'black servicemen' was the Rhodesian Guard Force...almost 7 000 strong. I am not sure of BSAP and Intaff but in regards to all other units GF was large and 90% African.
Slavic soldiers fought for the Nazis. The Nazis were still viciously racist to Slavs. Natives fought for both the US army during its conquest of the West, and for the Spanish conquistadors. Chinese fought for the Japanese in World War 2. Hell the British controlled India almost entirely with Indian troops. Individual people having a personal or economic interest in fighting for an oppressive government is not evidence that the oppression does not exist. A lot of people join the army to escape poverty, and some buy in to the idea that their lives will be better if the oppressor wins. The war was still racial in nature even if the whites used black soldiers.
it was called "Rhodesia" north south east didn't matter, and if your gonna nit pick at every detail just to be offended just leave unsub and don't comment people like you start bullshit with a pointless motive to be a grammar Nazi, or because you think your correct.
@@jakekilley9037 Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, so your argument about it not mattering is false. Further, the actual name of the country was Southern Rhodesia, not South Rhodesia - hardly a nit-pick for anyone who actually lived there, given the repeated use of it (incorrectly) in the video. If you are going to rip into comments for correcting a factual error it's a good idea to have your own facts straight, poes.
@@tonycrook9454 plus the rebel Rhodesians as they were called didn't identify as southern either, they literally fought a war and won to claim there country back in 1965 before Zimbabwe's emergence in 1980
@@jakekilley9037 I doubt the guerillas identified as Rhodesians in any context. The country was officially Southern Rhodesia until the mid 60s - that's not an opinion, vibe, or question of faith - it's what it was. Thanks for the history lesson, but I witnessed the war and independence first hand. That's how I know ZANU won in the polls and not the battlefield - another false claim. Perhaps the third time's the charm?
@@cupidsfavouritecherub9327 While being an absolute minority in their country with little support of their neighbours and condenation of the international community while their enemies were supported and trained by a superpower and nobody batted an eye when they killed innocent civilians from various countries lol.
So my question is when were the average civilian better off in this country? When the country had a high standard of living which must have meant jobs and good schools with low crime, or after the new government took over? How is the standard of living now, how are the schools and how is the crime rate?
Average citizen is better off now. The country had higher standards in the 60s but mostly for the whites. Now it has lower standards overall, but median citizen is living better.
I know you don’t care and just hate black people, but for those who do, Rhodesia was wealthy ‘cause it was a British colony. It’s easy to be prosperous when you’re literally a branch of a world power. The moment they split from Britain, they lost their first war and collapsed.
@@MrAlexkyra Go ahead and watch Tourism in Zimbabwe: Ruins of Rhodesia Posted by Britannica . And when you're done you don't need to say anything, you will have been educated on "modern Zimbabwe", and know all that you need to know.
@@danieldelewis2448 that video only showed him eating chocolates and commenting how clean the place was and how well the food was prepared. You see what you want to see.
@@andrewdickerson849 The Ndebele, (who are black), arrived in and colonised the country only 20 years before Enkeldoorn (now called Chivhu) was settled by some Afrikaners. For thousands of years the land had been occupied by various Khoi San groups prior to the Bantu expansion (who included the forebears of the Shona). The government/head of state during the most kinetic part of the war was Abel Muzorewa and his UANC party. So yes, it isn't as simple as white vs black, and the "colonisers" included black Africans. Hope this helps!
It's the modern map, parts relevant and countries that did exist which are relevant are highlighted, like USSR. Yugoslavia existed during this time as did Czechoslovakia, Germany was united some 20 years later, it was still separated.
@@ghost.3409 It's still very anachronistic map and doesn't make sense nor for the time period, nor for today. It shows the USSR, but Tibet is outside of China? It has South Sudan, but not separate Kosovo? So, what alternative reality is the map showing?
@@inSainTedIt highlights powers od the day (China without Tibet) against a backdrop of present day countries (USSR behind the red highlight has borders of Belarus etc)
Thanks for this one guys! I just started learning about this topic yesterday and I've mostly been looking at books and interviews of people from the war.
Whats always bothered me about this conflict, and something that is perpetuated in this video, is the comparisons to other black vs white conflict in the world. I would like to draw comparisons to Ethiopia. Other than a very short stint under Italy, they were independent and remained free of European colonization. In Ethiopia, there are dozens of different ethnic groups. There isn't really a clear majority by the metrics I have seen. Yet, they're almost all black. These ethnic groups have a cycle of one minority group gaining power, oppressing the other groups horribly, being overthrown, then having retribution oppression. This happens over and over again. I think this comparison is that one that should be made, not one from a perspective of black vs white. At this point, in the 1960s white settlers had lived there for generations. They had been integrated into the systems. They were simply a different ethnic group oppressing the other groups. This distinction is important because when we make it into a black people vs white people thing, it makes everything 1000x more charged. When it's the Rhodesians vs Cape Coloureds vs Ndau vs ... etc etc etc, its much easier to objectively analyze it, especially as Americans who do have a distinct black vs white conflict rather than ethnic group conflict. So, a good description of events is: Group A had a minority population but majority control over the government and natural resources. Groups B-J organized various ways of trying to push back and gain political power and access to resources This led to a civil war Group G ended up being able to gain enough power to strong arm everyone into submission Group A, feeling like they were about to be persecuted because usually thats how these things go (see Ethiopia), mostly decided to become refugees and flee. Those who didn't do so immediately ended up, one way or another, being forced out. Groups C, D, G, and J were able to forcfully seize natural resource access from group A, but also, kept groups B, E, F, G, H, and I from accessing them. Through political machinations, group B was able to have a person gain enough control that they were able to divest natural resources and political power as they pleased This led to large scale corruption This led to people who weren't farmers and didn't know how to farm owning most of the farmland, causing massive starvation across the population This story holds true for Ethiopia too for the most part, where it wasn't black vs white. That is why I don't think its a good idea to make it out as black vs white.
@@ssg9offical When you literally have to beg the colonizers to come back and run the farms because you're incapable of feeding your own country, then no, that's not better.
I love how everyone looks at the end result of this: 3 decades of genocide, corruption, dictatorship, and suffering, and still conclude that the Rhodesians as the bad guys who were just being racist, and not fully aware of exactly who they were fighting and what they wanted.
The "history began after WW2 understander" has logged on and is spitting straight facts!!! It is very interesting how African countries are exploited after gaining independence post colonialism! Very interesting!
See the problem with your narrative is you refuse to evaluate Rhodesia objectively. Objectively, Rhodesia was worse in basically every way compared to Zimbabwe now. Lower GDP per capita, lower life expectancy, lower literacy, lower access to electricity, lower HDI. Now Robert Mugabe and ZANU are bad people. They're a corrupt economic elite who enrich themselves at the expense of the majority, committed brutal atrocities, and run a de facto one party state. The problem is Ian Smith and the RF were also a corrupt one party state that exploited their people for self-enrichment. But because they're white, white nationalists will excuse this behavior, pretend it was all in the name of civilizing or other such nonsense. The Rhodesians were only different from the other economic elite of other third world countries, they had a homeland to go back to, Mugabe and the Shona didn't. Mugabe is a bad person who did terrible things, but the Rhodesians were still the bad guys. They were an economic elite who was given the option to share power with the majority, and give the universal franchise. Instead they decided to become international pariahs and fight a brutal civil war because they didn't want everyone to be able to vote. They were the bad guys.
@@tulkiscruffybottem2823 Does it? His actions never showed that it does lmfao. Compared to the positions that the white minority had vs the Black majority had, I think it's quite clear he had the same mentality of all the segregationists, the separate but equal, but it was never equal. It's quite obvious that Ian Smith wasn't a fan of Africans/the natives and it's disingenuous to give him any benefit of the doubt/the illusion that he did care about them the same way he cared about the White minority.
@@KingsandGenerals99.9999% of the time I agree with you, but simply leaving out part of a context which is vague changes the overall temperature and connotation of the statement. Is it vague? Yes, does it become a misrepresentation on your side when leaving out the end of the quote? Yes. Do I think you did it intentionally? Likely not, do I think you replied the way that you did to save yourself from having to go make an edit in an already published video? God knows I would. However that doesn’t change the implication that is drawn from a misrepresentation of a quote.
Worth noting that Rhodesia did allow black citizens to vote and hold office, albeit with restrictions based on literacy and property ownership. The idea was that over time the black population would become more developed and their representation would naturally increase. Totally different from the South African system of basically two different countries within a country. It's crazy that Britain refused to see the obvious consequences of their policies while Smith was predicting it with total accuracy. It's almost like they were happy to see Rhodesia destroyed out of spite, or just anti-colonial fervor. Whatever you think of Ian Smith and Rhodesia, the outcome that Britain and the US forced was pretty much the worst possible.
@@colinm5545 Fifty out of sixty-six seats in parliament were reserved for Europeans in the 1969 constitution. Before then, arbitrary income requirements designed to exclude Africans were put in place. Ian Smith also repeatedly stated he did not believe in majority rule.
@@colinm5545 and Zimbabwe has a lower child mortality rate, a higher literacy rate, a higher per capacity income and a higher urbanization rate. Learn something.
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into making this video! It’s deeply appreciated and enjoyed it so much! I really hope we see more videos about little known wars in Africa.
You forgot to mention the atrocities Zipra and Zanla carried out on the local rural populations of Rhodisia and that Zimbabwe has gone from Breadbasket to basket case
As a black Zimbabwean by ethnicity who had family fight on both sides, thank you for making this video. As time has told it wasn't a civil war for the people but a ruthless gang war by evil people looking to attain political power.
I've now lived in and visited quite a lot of countries. I truly believe peace, prosperity and racial unity is more attainable within the Zimbabwean populace than it is in many other places I have visited. There were issues in the past which must be learnt from but we also have things worth celebrating and building on and would be able to do so if not for the manipulation and division sown by power hungry elites and people that benefit from a weakened nation. I hope you are well and wish you success wherever you may be!
Black Rhodesians were enfrichesed to vote with the same standards of Whites. They had to be over 21 years old, be literate, and own property. While not many Blacks owned property, many could vote and had representation in the senate and assembly. Many Blacks did not want to participate in the national government, and preferred their autonomous tribal governments and laws. Also, when the British began settlement in the region, it was mostly depopulated and agriculture had largely been destroyed. This was a result of the Bantu migrations committing genocide against the natives, just as they had in South Africa, Mozambique, and elsewhere they raided. After the fall of Rhodesia, the new government of Zimbabwe granted the voting franchise to all over the age of 18 with no restrictions. They ended up with an authoritarian dictatorship that ruined the economy, livelihoods, and currency. A billion dollars could buy you some eggs. They're a joke now.
The US sanctions are a huge reason why the country is struggling. You honestly think the black natives were better off being 2nd class citizens while whites controlled everything?
Land based voting laws are evil medieval nonsense. Black voters were not held to the same standard, because historical land ownership was almost exclusively determined by race.
They did mention South Africa because they literally sent people (police units) to be involved in the conflict? Maybe they didn't mention the ones you're thinking of because the support was token and not relevant to the actual fighting part of the conflict...you know, the thing this channel covers?
@@bmoney2011 I dunno, training them in tactics, selling helicopters, and allowing manufacture license on the uzi all feel like key contributions. Especially compared to Portugal, who mostly just patrolled for terrorists while they owned Mozambique. Again this isn't like a "Well why does no one mention Brazil in WW2?" when there's dozens of smaller belligerents. But, if you don't count Rhodesia's active recruitment of segregationist Americans (as that's a non-state thing and mostly soft-power), that means only one country got spared a mention that it officially supported the white regime. Which just feels conspicuous.
lol are you pro-nationalists? Cause you'd be just as bad as the pro-rhodesians. All the parties of this conflict were bad news for the people of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, no matter what you call it.
Colonization takes time to recover from. Ireland took a lot of support and several generations to recover. Africa is modernizing in its own way. Europe was pretty tribal in the 20th century. Remind me again how many people died in European wars? Racism never makes any kind of sense.
Complete misinformation. And besides, this is a bad argument for imperialism and brutality in the first place. Zimbabwe carries the burden of being a post colonial state born out of a decade long war. States born from conflict have a nearly impossible time building institutions of peace. Check out Why Nations Fail.
Sofala was an important trading hub for Maphungubgwe (later to become Great Zimbabwe) long before the Portuguese arrived Slaves, gold and ivory were exported north from the port of Sofala by Maphungubgwe- Zimbabwe to the Sultanate of Mogadishu and Arab traders
Now that you've done this outstanding piece of work, perhaps continuing into the 80's in that region, would be fair to provide context. Objectivity is quite important here, and in other nations in this region. Mere mention of Mugabe evokes images of war crimes and horrors that are widely documented and undeniable. Same with the truth about Mandela and his obsession with "necklacing". It's often glossed over, for the sake of social correctness. We're shortchanging our own future to not recall the past accurately or hide behind cries of "racism" or "dog whistle". The truth cares naught for our opinions. Well done.
@@chris_bianchi13 Mugabe is mostly viewed as a hero. You've confused Nelson Mandela for his wife. And what does that have to do with war, except to subtly communicate your sympathy for apartheid states?
This video is about the Bush War, not Zimbabwe in general. When a yter makes a video on WWII we don't start expecting them to continue past 1945 into the 1950s to "better provide context". If you want a specific video on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's state in the modern day, ask for that. Don't hide behind "objectiveness" when you should obviously comprehend that a video about the Bush War ends when the war does.
We definitely need a video documenting the Sri Lankan Civil war! One of the longest and bloodiest civil wars of the 20th century, yet so often overlooked in its importance for the South Asia region.
These lesser known wars are super interesting to me and I hope you do many more of them. Are you going to follow this one up with the independence wars in Angola, Botswana and Mozambique?
@@collinward1241 Botswana really hit the jackpot with Seretse Khama. Negotiated a peaceful transfer of power and set the country up for success and stability for generations to come. Best possible post-colonial leader
Great video as always. If anyone is interested in learning more about Rhodesia, Apostolic Majesty did a very indepth and informative video on it recently on his channel.
Always Rhodesia over Zimbabwe! This whole story is eerie, like a glimpse of what the west is and will continue to experience. It took foreign terrorists to come to Rhodesia to fight. A significant number of black Rhodesians not only supported the government but took up arms and fought for them!
@@admirekashiri9879 The vast majority of black Rhodesians supported the government. Literally 3/4th of the rebels were from out of the country. Plenty of testimonials to say/prove otherwise.
@@admirekashiri9879 They were appreciative, straight from their own mouth. Prior to the arrival of the English, Rhodesia had no farms, cities or infrastructure. The English turned Rhodesia into the bread basket of Africa. The indigenous population was literally in the stone age. You don't know what you are talking about obviously.
@@melissawilkinson2636 It was called Mutapa not Rhodesia. And if they didn’t have cities and all that other stuff what are the hundreds of historical precolonial ruins scattered across the region? 🤔 😂 They had farms long before Europeans even knew this region existed. People at least do some basic research now. And no they had metallurgy using iron, copper and gold so what on Earth are you talking about? I’m Zimbabwean I’m certain I know more about my motherland and history than you. You’re the one demonstrating your lack of knowledge here.
Considering the decades that followed under Mugabe and his successor so far, Rhodesia, while definitely not without faults, was better governed and didn't stoop to the draconian measures instituted by Mugabe (i.e. dispossessing and killing white farmers for their lands, which then resulted in much less crop growth for the much less-experienced black farmers), not to mention his cleansing of his rivals so that he maintained sole rule until his overthrow and death. From "The Breadbasket of Africa" to one known for its hyperinflation and for being a net-importer of food stocks from external countries.
@@BensonCaisip they already have been, unfortunately. After Mandela left power, the stability of South Africa's been coming into question. With the exception of perhaps Botswana, no country in southern Africa has really prospered under black-majority rule post-decolonization.
This point has been debated to death and honestly at this point I feel like if you still want to hold it despite the nuance and all the precedent arguing this was inevitable, I'm just going to assume it's for an agenda's sake. Most of the white farmers were not killed and many fled to Zambia - which while not as f'ed up as Zimbabwe became, still has not managed to become the Land of Milk & Honey people seem to picture Rhodesia as. On that note, the economy of Rhodesia was a house of cards that was untenable, with most of the black population living in abject poverty and many working in near-slavery conditions. We've had plenty of historical precedent for what happens to those kinds of societies. To top it all off, Mugabe was only able to consolidate power through racial tension and mistrust of the white minority, and through exploiting backlash and goodwill from what the Rhodesian military did via units like the infamous Selous Scouts.
Just like their neighbours Mozambique and Angola; while rebel groups had common goal, but had different ways of "what next?". But at least unlike their fellow fighters in those two countries, there weren't any civil war in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe after
8:57 they were definitely not the second strongest airforce in Africa, not even close. Egypt, Lybia, Angola the list goes on. It was a small airforce using old outdated equipment, but with some good (to a point) anti-insurgancy tactics, that even in that endeavour hampered by the aircraft they had. But obviously some aircraft are much better than no aircraft, in terms of this war.
Thank you K&G for yet another good documentary on a part of history that was not covered in my schooling. I love history and it’s a shame how much can be left out.
Rome sums it up best: "We won't reveal our ailments, and what haunts our sleep nightly In this tiny little world, we've locked ourselves in so tightly And the dead stand between us like wreaths and the people we've abandoned The life, we've surrendered to the streams O Rhodesia, I've given you my all And now, I'm nothing I'm nothing, I'm nothing, I'm nothing, I'm nothing"
I firmly believe the biggest problem Rhodesia has is, aside from its small population - is how inherently alienating their cause is to the wider world. To any country whose population is majority not of a paler complexion, they don't understand the struggle; to any country that used to be a colony of another country, their cause is abhorrent. Rhodesia is borm with a handicap that no matter what it does nobody would legitimately support them regardless if the ones they are fighting are supported by Commies. For example, my country (Philippines) is as anti-Commienist as a pro-US country can get but we never recognized Rhodesia specifically because of their racist rhetoric...
Why didn’t Mugabe and the African nationalists follow Mandela’s example and usher in a democratic-republic system instead of a one party totalitarian state? Also they could’ve tried accommodating the white people, include them in politics, and not taken revenge against them, so why didn’t they try doing what Mandela and his people did in South Africa in the 1990s?
So one thing to understand is Mugabe's policies changed over time. But firstly, Mugabe came first, he took over Zimbabwe 15 years before Mandela was elected. Second, for the first half of his rule Mugabe worked with a lot of the white landowning elite, and had a sort of patronage relationship with them. Problems between them mostly came up in the late 90s and early 2000s. Mugabe got Zimbabwe involved in the Congo Wars, which lead to a budget crisis due to equipment losses, and the fact their involvement in the war made international lenders pull their funds, plus sanctions. All of this lead Mugabe to see expropriation of farm land as a way to make quick cash, but more importantly maintain political support through economic difficulties. In that sense it worked. Mugabe wasn't dumb, he was just a ruthless man who was willing to harm the country to pay for his bad decision to get involved in the Congo.
@@tefky7964well well well, if it isn’t a supporter of the Rhodesian colonizers…color me shocked. Go back to 8chan or whatever the fuck nazi bullshit it is today
It does excuse excluding that quote because there’s literally no reason to take Ian Smith’s claims about his hypothetical opposition to an impossible scenario of a white majority that he’d never have to back up in his life time. The important context is that he was still making a justification for specifically *white* minority rule that was established for white supremacist reasons. The fact that he was lying about it being for other reasons once pressure demanded it is not incredibly relevant. The context here is the concrete political reality he & the Rhodesian politicians were trying to preserve.
Never heard of Chimurenga Day here in Zim😮 Note to self: Mzilikazi Day is celebrated by the Ndebeles in Bulawayo and Matabeleland Provinces. And not on a national scale
One of the biggest blind spots in my knowledge of history is the stories of African and South American countries, especially non English speaking countries. I’m super glad you guys are doing more stuff like this
🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive videos via UA-cam: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patreon: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
Stick with more modern wars please. Ukraine for instance. It simply has more relevance to your viewer base.
Ur way to bias king, funny how the indigenous are always peaceful, and it's across so many of your videos, be straight both sides
@@amb446 any proof or just vibes?
@@KingsandGenerals some of us are from there, got nothing to prove to you, take it as you pls
@@amb446 if you don't tell me where I am wrong, how can I improve? How can the world get better?
The continuing tragedy is that after independence, Mugabe would launch a horrific ethnic and tribal genocide with the help of North Korean soldiers. He would then proceed to destroy the Zimbabwe economy while he and his wife became fabulously wealthy.
Fairly normal for an African head of state
@@GloboCorp2 I would correct this as fairly normal for a minority to influence people in positions of power to get revenge for their loss of power.
@@GloboCorp2lol except that fact does not involve the neighbouring nation mentioned some times in this video, Botswana.
@@adambrandeAgain, an exception not really the norm.
@@adambrande”fairly normal” is a phrase that accounts for exceptions. Are you not aware of this?
seeing guys jumping out of helicopters in short shorts and huge machine guns is crazy
God bless you and everyone you know Jesus forgives just repent and have faith in him and you shall be forgiven Amen Alleluia✝️🙏🙌
@@capt_uncoolguy3285 im christian, but this isnt the way to spread the Gospel
@@garp9269 he's brought it to people's attention, it is. Don't discourage him.
Yeah, those guys rock. Shorts are the only way to go!
What did Zimbabwe use for light before candles?
Electricity.
lmao
No electricity for indigenous people during colonization
@@ambessaseway5594 Rubbish,our gardener had his own accom including water,a kitchen and Electricity.
@@donaldgoodinson7550 did he live on property you owned?
@ayodejiolowokere1076 yes it's like 1of the slave houses in Mississippi
Will there be a follow-up video on the Mugabe regime and the ethnic cleansing, land thefts, and the other facets of his reign? Would be interesting to see how that is covered.
Mugabe was shitty but so were the Rhodesians
Despite what you may hear Africa is not a complete an utter hellhole even if zimbadwe is one
Heck Rwanda despite suffering one of the most brutal genocides in recent memory has become the Singapore of Asia
Zimbadwe will eventually recover (or rather it’s people at the very least) despite the rants of racists
@@byronritchie5449 yikes bud that's a lot of baggage considering the OP didn't mention any of that
@@byronritchie5449 No it will not recover because the people who live there have no idea how to run a country. Instead of running the power plants and the train stations the whites left, they instead stripped them for parts. Nothing to do with being racist. It's just how it is.
Describe in detail how Rhodesia was worse in literally any way?
Doubt it, this channel seems to have a skew of not wanting to portray certain people in a bad light. Mugabe and "free" Zimbabwe were objectively worse in every way, but because Rhodesia didn't allow blacks quite the same rights, they are automatically considered worse no matter what
It's a tragedy that the one-party, one-man, President-for-life, Kleptocracy became the standard model for African postcolonial governance.
You mean governments brought to power by coups that were backed by the US and European nations to bolster their access to resources through unequal exchange? You know, the same governments that are in power today, hence the support for popular coups in the Sahel? Where they have to fight terrorist forces backed by France and the US just to name a few?
It's what happens when you give power to people out of past glory rather than proposed policies and economic shrewdness.
Revolutionaries often make for bad administrators. If you force a movement towards violence, you make things worse for everyone in the long term.
@@kingtiger5040 Yeah, especially if they're black, right?
@@penultimateh766 Elaborate on that
Cecil rhodes got mining rights in 1860 but was born in 1853 as your graphic suggests so he negotiated mining rights at the age of 7 well played to him!
Average 19th century capitalist 🗿
What is your excuse? ;)
The children yearn for the mines
Minors rights
@@darthveatay lmao
What did Zimbabweans use as a light source before fire?
*Electricity*
Fevv knovv thvs
Cringe.
Zimbabwens never had electricity during Rhodesia rule, black Africans will always fight foreign nazi rule
The same thing Europeans used before fire.
@@Ad-Lo what? the point of the joke is that Zimbabwe has regressed to third world living conditions, when they used to have first world. How has that happened anywhere in Europe?
Result: Victory
Reward: Famine
The economic upheaval was hardly the result of freedom.
@@noahbladen5451 there were droughts in Southern Rhodesia. And Zimbabwe is more developed and populous.
Revolutionary war and massive changes in governance cause hardship, shocker. How do you think the US was doing right after its war of independence?
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 Don't lie to us.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 Bro lives in opposite land.
The comment section of this video is going to be interesting
@@Skyrdr its the bush wars all over again xD
Over a hundred years of a greedy Colonial regime that transitioned into a brutal Apartheid racial oligarchy, but the only damn thing anyone is gonna say will be "WhAt aBoUt MuGaBE". Very sus
It always is
Just here for the short-shorts
A friend of mine was a daughter of a White-Rhodesian woman and one of Robert Mugabe's native African soldiers. Her parents initially supported Mugabe but after he came to power they fled to the US due to his racial policies.
Another white-Rhodesian I knew was my little brother's tennis coach who was a really nice and outgoing guy. All the ladies were drawn to his accent. He could talk your ear off about anything but was always hesitant to talk about where he came from. Whenever asked about Rhodesia he would often reply, "I no longer have opinions on Rhodesia, I'm American now."
*White or White Zimbabwean.
*Black or Black Zimbanwean.
people won't have much empathy for settlers.
Harley Quin **chews bubblegum
"Of course Amerrican girls love accents... **pops bubble ... cuz we ain't got nun."
@@Ad-Lo*occupied Rhodesia
@@Ad-Lo *Rhodesian and corrupt failures.
It should be noted that militarily the Rhodesian armed forces absolutely dominated both ZIPRA and ZANLA. Rhodesia lost the war politically. No western power was willing to support them and the loss of their South African and Portuguese allies as well as the continued sanctions made future fighting untenable. Not even the compromise of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was accepted by the international community due to excluding ZAPU and ZANU from the election (albeit the reason was due to them refusing to renounce political violence). Overall a pretty good summary of the Bush War, though I feel the video was too biased in favor of the insurgents; as there was much information that was omitted that would paint them in a negative light as well as omissions and misattributions that make the Rhodesians look like a clear antagonist. The Bush War is very much a conflict of different shades of grey; it's possible to sympathize with one side over another for many valid reasons, but no one who is fully informed and honest about the conflict can call it black and white.
To be fair they had multiple chances of preventing the situation from erupting to a war. They had to know that they were a minority group. They should have just found a way of giving them full rights and integrating them into the system.
No, the racist white supremacist were clearly evil, that much is clear.
this comment should be pinned
The video was pretty neutral IMO, but it should have mentioned things like the Honde, Musami, and Vumba massacres.
Us folks from the future have the power of hindsight as well. Seeing Zimbabwe today makes you wonder what it'd be like if things went differently, or if Rhodesia could have realistically lasted much longer with its ideologies regardless of the war.
"I'm from Rhodesia” We call it Zimbabwe now don't we? “Do we?”
Blood Diamond is a great movie.
Good movie
"you alright my brew. Trouble you for a smoke"
Mr acher
Here in America we do
Won all the battles but lost the war
The Rhodesians had a better army, but they were Hella outnumbered, and not supported by anyone, it's like playing monopoly with 5k starting cash and everyone else has only 500, but they also hate you and the way they win is if you lose
@@AbdurrahmanAlSherif yeah I got talk with a Rhodesian who was in the war. He said it was the terror the nationalist inflicted on the local farmers and land owning population. With threats of torture and murder on them, their wives and children was made most of the white population move to South Africa or Britain
Tactics Vs strategy.
@@gozartenks3587 Numbers. Millions versus a few thousand.
If the Rhodesians got the kind of military support that Israel has gotten for so many decades, Rhodesia might've lasted much longer than it did or even potentially still be a nation in existence today.
Sure the comment section gonna be chill
White supremacists are having a gigantic meltdown lol
Well...there's only so many people who can be invested in this war right
Its is, surprisingly. Sign of a good healthy community!
You know white people gotta play the victim
Nah@@isaaclepan
You are taking Ian Smith's words way out of context. When he stated he was opposed to black majority rule, he also said he was against white majority rule. He stated, "I don't believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia...not in a thousand years. I believe in blacks and whites working together. If one day it is a white majority and the next a black one, we would have failed and it will be a disaster for Rhodesia."
Ian certainly did not have as hardline a stance on race as some other members of his party, the Rhodesian Front. For instance, Ian successfully opposed some fellow RF politicians who wanted to removed blacks and other non-whites from the University of Rhodesia.
On the other hand, Ian was not the sort of person who would vote Democrat if he had lived in the US or Liberal Democrat if he were in the UK, because one of the key principles of his party, of which he was a founder member in 1962, was a commitment to the maintenance of segregated suburbs and government schools etc. In the 1962 General Election, Edgar Whitehead, the country's prime minister said that if he were re-elected he would abolish the segregatory Land Apportionment Act of 1930. Ian, and most other members of the white population, strongly disagreed with him and Whitehead thus lost the election. Hence in 1976 (the time of Ian's famous speech you cite) most aspects of life in Rhodesia were still segregated. (I am not criticising Ian or Rhodesia).
Finally, some people who love Rhodesia are biased against white South Africa. If they see footage of a whites-only regiment marching through the centre of a South African city they rightly conclude that race mattered in South Africa, but when they see footage of whites-only Rhodesian regiments they ignore the absence of blacks, Asians and people of mixed race and say that it was simply "a matter of standards."'
Smith beloved in slowly franchising blacks as they were educated. Rhodesia had laws like America had at our founding. Only educated land owners could vote.
This principal lead many Africans to seek education and learn the Western style of government and society. Then, and only then, could they participate in it. You can’t just walk up to an African tribesmen and say “Here’s Democracy.” That is the dumbest idea the west ever had and it was tried dozens of times across African and literally ended worked once.
It’s not about race it’s about education. You can’t expect people who don’t understand democracy to be able to run a stable one. It’s not possible.
So Rhodesia wanted to slowly franchise the majority blacks of the country as they were educated and as they understood democracy and western society.
That was what Ian Smith wanted and fought for.
@@gandhithegreat328all in all nothing but misery & exploitation came from colonial rule in Africa.. as someone who is neutral in this topic,, it wasn't for outsider Europeans & their descendants to tell the natives what to do and not do.. I think if it had stayed as it is in Africa, some cities around the coasts and tribal areas in the interior the blood shed would've been much less. and I'm talking millions of lives saved just look at the Belgian Congo and that whole catastrophe..
so true, but our current world will not allow the real truth to come out.
@@kalmon6745 fair point but their mindset should not have been “Those who came before us did bad let’s leave” it should have been “Let’s stay and fix things.”
Abandoning tens of millions to dictatorship got millions killed for no reason
The story of how the Rozvi Empire fended off the Portuguese is pretty fascinating as well. They won with a well oiled system of spies embedded at every Portuguese-controlled trading post running information back and forth to Shona rulers for years, even decades. By the time the Portuguese got around to venturing inland, the Rozvi let the terrain do half of the fighting and the exhausted & sick Portuguese advancing front was light work for basic battle tactics some of which would later be seen used by Shaka Zulu in South Africa.
It's difficult to find any books that discuss the Shona Empire or Mutapa or Great Zimbabwe.
@@Komnenos1234 where are you looking for them?
@@thembanitheone The only book I've been able to find is "The Shona and Zimbabwe 900-1850" by D.N. Beach.
@@Komnenos1234 try the National Archives (Harare)
Zimbabwe is great example of the meme picture, where guy pushes rod trough the front-wheel of the bike and blames others.
@@kaamoshaamu Zimbabwe is more developed than Southern Rhodesia.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 yea, sure
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 I guess their black market recycling would be way more developed now
@@GloboCorp2 and the quality of life of the average native.
@@bryangore3733 even as much as you don't want it to be.
“Rhodesians never die”.
Well, that is not true
@@KingsandGenerals From a song 😁
Clearly not the case lad 😂
Scoreboard
Not only did they die they lost!
Why you gotta drop this right as I am going to bed, I can't skip this
In the mid 1970s I remember seeing a advertisement to join the war as a foreign fighter. It was in the magazine S.O.F.
Me Too
Loved that as a child, hated what became of the world as I had to watch as I grew up to what it was on it's way to becoming as others argued against all reason against me and my beliefs.
Lmao its funny how Brits wanted native majority rule for Rhodesia but makes it a crime to advocate for the same in Britain
its not coming home
*anglostan
Churchill destroyed our Nation and we have been a hypocritical embarrassment ever since.
I assume you have the governmental member proportions vs population ratios for different races? If not, you are just parroting debunked, right-wing bullshit talking points.
Hi, native Brit here. It’s actually not a crime to support democracy, it’s just a crime to incite racial hatred.
My father in law fought in the war. Many black Rhodesians also fought to keep the country in “”white control. If you visit Zimbabwe now, you see many of former political party infrastructure being used and barely maintained. Many people I talked to, said “we had food, money, and able to go to school” under Rhodesian rule.
@@alexanderm8741 they fought for pay. Most Shona in the army voted for Mugabe, and most Ndebele Nkomo. They themselves freely admitted they were only there for the compensation.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 oh yes, but at least they got paid. I remember my father in law cousin was part of special forces and they would capture the opposite side and they would give all the info for a meal and some money. My black coworker was from Zambia and she said we never called it Zimbabwe, they worried their country.
There is no such think as a black Rhodesian they were second class native citizens living in poverty under a white minority rule who only cared about their own comfort that’s all.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 again talking not the truth
@@fionasmith6868 was Rhodesia segregated?
I actually like this long format style. It lets me either watch it or have it playing in the background listening to it. I think it works especially well for these lesser known conflicts and events that aren’t quiet long enough or detailed enough for a multi part series
I agree completely! Nice and comprehensive, and it explains up to the present day situation
I really like the video, hope you guy’s are going to cover other African conflicts too, from this period, such as independence movements/wars, civil wars and foreign interventions.
Nigerian Civil War, everyone in the world vs everyone else.
African conflicts are always extremely messy but also extremely interesting
Not just modern conflicts also historical pre-colonial ones. The Anglo Ashanti wars for example or the Adam Abysinnian war.
@Apollosdomain I completely agree with you on that because I would love to see them cover an event known as the Congo Crisis.
@@admirekashiri9879i completely agree with you on that and don’t forget stuff like the Anglo Zulu war, Italo Ethiopian wars, The Boer Wars and the Mahdist war among others.
And then, Mugabe.
He learned well from Ian Smith😂
@nyashasamuriwo-bp2mv if by "learned" you mean "did the opposite" then sure.
He did what Ian Smith wanted to do, Genocide.
@@AmonAnon-vw3hr in what way are their rule opposite?
@@pablopablo3834prove that to me, keyboard warrior
It's a long way to Mukumbura.
To not mention the Vumba massacre is fucking insane.
I was in the Rhodesian army at the time with 3 Brigade in Umtali and I saw what the terrorist had done, besides the horrific acts carried out by the terrorists, all but one of the women had been rapped, even the four children had been killed with clubs as well as two of them also being stabbed.
They also shot down a civilian Viscount aircraft of Air Rhodesia flying from Fort Victoria, Kariba and Salisbury in September 1978 with an infrared missile, killing 38 in the crash and massacring ten of the survivors, eight surviving the crash and massacre.
I still have the record that was made of the memorial service at Salisbury Anglican Cathedral called 'The Deafening Silence' and the Rhodesian Herald and Umtali Post, where I was with 3 Brigade at the time, that covered the story in depth.
@@seandobson499was that the massacre the British government ignored to not disturb the peace talks?
@@seandobson499 where do you live now? Since rhodesia basically threw out whites it is always very intresting to know where rhodesians went.
In a more interesting note, if Wikipedia is right, Edgar Whitehead is in fact the grandson of Robert Whitehead, better known among naval enthusiasts as the inventor of the Whitehead Torpedo, the first effective self-propelled torpedo.
I'd recommend Apostolic Majesty's 4-hour long discussion on the history of Rhodesia as a doomed nation, alongside Britannica's hour-long first-hand documentary on modern day Zimbabwe as a good, nuanced dive onto this topic.
It should help cut through the... passionate ... back and forth in the comment section, and actually give you an informed view on the matter.
Both of them spend much, much more time outside the war and military side of things, so it'll be a nice little triumvirate on the matter.
AM is excellent
I honestly don't know how someone could watch the Britannica video on Zimbabwe and not come to the same conclusion as one of the "passionate" parts in these comments .
@@GloboCorp2 easy. They're not racist.
Callum on @Britannica does great work, I miss watching him on the Lotus eaters podcast, but seeing him go to Goodsprings and Rhodesia with Lord Miles you can see he's much happier doing that than taking about how England is doomed every day
@@GloboCorp2 because they're not mindlessly tribalistic.
Bread basket of Africa similar GDP at the time to New Zealand reduced to ruins.
And how goes it in Zimbabwe these days?
Just because Mugabe sucked doesn't mean that Rhodesia was any good.
Way better since they don't have people like you as neibourgs.
@@ethanpappas2502wrong
@@hug4229 Only the ignorant praise Rhodesia and are still hanging on the past of what could have been. The reason why Rhodesia was the way was because it was heavily funded by the British Empire. When the plug was pulled things started to decline albeit gradually.
Very good, everyone is a trillionaire!
My roommates dad was born in Rhodesia. His parents were Greek Jews from Rhodes who fled the German invasion. The family moved to Cape Town and USA at the start of the Bush War. My roommate grew up visiting Zimbabwe as a kid.
What this video doesn't elaborate clearly on is the Black soldiers who fought and served for Rhodesia. You mentioned units like but not stated how the Rhodesian African Rifles, an all black soldiers which had white commanding officers and the Selous scouts that had both white and black soldiers.
What are you even trying to say? Not having a go, your point just isn't very clear. Care to elaborate?
@@connorsmith1005seemed pretty clear to me.
@@connorsmith1005 75% of the permanent Army was Black.
In fact the largest contingent in terms of 'black servicemen' was the Rhodesian Guard Force...almost 7 000 strong. I am not sure of BSAP and Intaff but in regards to all other units GF was large and 90% African.
Slavic soldiers fought for the Nazis. The Nazis were still viciously racist to Slavs. Natives fought for both the US army during its conquest of the West, and for the Spanish conquistadors. Chinese fought for the Japanese in World War 2. Hell the British controlled India almost entirely with Indian troops.
Individual people having a personal or economic interest in fighting for an oppressive government is not evidence that the oppression does not exist. A lot of people join the army to escape poverty, and some buy in to the idea that their lives will be better if the oppressor wins.
The war was still racial in nature even if the whites used black soldiers.
It was called Southern Rhodesia, not "South Rhodesia"
it was called "Rhodesia" north south east didn't matter, and if your gonna nit pick at every detail just to be offended just leave unsub and don't comment people like you start bullshit with a pointless motive to be a grammar Nazi, or because you think your correct.
From 1923 until 1965, the country that is now Zimbabwe was officially called Southern Rhodesia.
@@jakekilley9037 Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, so your argument about it not mattering is false. Further, the actual name of the country was Southern Rhodesia, not South Rhodesia - hardly a nit-pick for anyone who actually lived there, given the repeated use of it (incorrectly) in the video. If you are going to rip into comments for correcting a factual error it's a good idea to have your own facts straight, poes.
@@tonycrook9454 plus the rebel Rhodesians as they were called didn't identify as southern either, they literally fought a war and won to claim there country back in 1965 before Zimbabwe's emergence in 1980
@@jakekilley9037 I doubt the guerillas identified as Rhodesians in any context. The country was officially Southern Rhodesia until the mid 60s - that's not an opinion, vibe, or question of faith - it's what it was. Thanks for the history lesson, but I witnessed the war and independence first hand. That's how I know ZANU won in the polls and not the battlefield - another false claim. Perhaps the third time's the charm?
In the end, Ian Smith would be proven right.
real shi
Except he wasn't, because his Rhodesia was worse by every metric than Zimbabwe is now.
@@XandateOfHeaven 💀
@@XandateOfHeaven Kaffir
@@normalplayer7377 why adjust it? You used a racial slur before.
I was born in Rhodesia 1959, I fought in the bush in 1977.
@@bishopofsahs what do you make of Rhodesia's race laws, if I may ask?
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 I was 18 years old. You wanna know what an 18-year-old thinks about ? girls.
@@bishopofsahs fair enough. Thank you.
@@bishopofsahsDidn't answer the guy's question.
@@rob9726 I mean he basically did
Imagine portraying yourself as some super badass warrior state and than go on to lose the only war you fight lol
Every fascist state ever
Contributing the highest proportion of the population out of any British dominion to both World Wars is certainly something to be proud of.
crazy how long rhodesia lasted
Never mess with a bunch of white males in shorts if they aren't afraid of a scrap!
@@cupidsfavouritecherub9327 While being an absolute minority in their country with little support of their neighbours and condenation of the international community while their enemies were supported and trained by a superpower and nobody batted an eye when they killed innocent civilians from various countries lol.
It’s like saying crazy how long Israel lasted
@@TicketMaster117 Israel is still lasting, and will continue to last.
Hegan tank kings and general member?
Rhodesians never die. But Zimbabweans starve.
😂😂 you British think you’re immortals?
Says the Rhodesian loser.😆
@@admirekashiri9879theyre infinitely better than sub-saharans
That’s funny, because Rhodesia did, in fact, die. Take your racist bs elsewhere
How great is a colonial ethnic state based on semi slavery
I'd rather live in Rhodesia than Zimbabwe
You are also more than welcome to go back were your ancestors came from.
Are you white or black?
Cry and fantasize about it
Same blacks can’t run anything
The blacks cannot run a country. It's as simple as that.
So sad how Rhodesia ended
Based
They should have changed their backward outlook who knows maybe they’d have their own region in modern Zimbabwe still 🤷🏾♂️
Rhodesia should never have existed in the first place. Period.
Ok racist
@@admirekashiri9879they would have but the commis couldn't accept anything else but taking all the power as history showed 😂
So my question is when were the average civilian better off in this country? When the country had a high standard of living which must have meant jobs and good schools with low crime, or after the new government took over? How is the standard of living now, how are the schools and how is the crime rate?
Average citizen is better off now. The country had higher standards in the 60s but mostly for the whites. Now it has lower standards overall, but median citizen is living better.
@@KingsandGenerals I’m very happy to hear that!!
There is nothing to steal =crime 0
@@YETISpaghetto that’s more of what I thought was going on.
@@YETISpaghetto that’s what I figured
Note: You can not say "modern Zimbabwe", as Zimbabwe is essentially Rhodesia blown all the way back to the Stone Age.
@@danieldelewis2448 yet Southern Rhodesia was poorer.
I know you don’t care and just hate black people, but for those who do, Rhodesia was wealthy ‘cause it was a British colony. It’s easy to be prosperous when you’re literally a branch of a world power. The moment they split from Britain, they lost their first war and collapsed.
@danieldelewis2448 no they're not living in the stone age
@@MrAlexkyra Go ahead and watch
Tourism in Zimbabwe: Ruins of Rhodesia
Posted by Britannica .
And when you're done you don't need to say anything, you will have been educated on "modern Zimbabwe", and know all that you need to know.
@@danieldelewis2448 that video only showed him eating chocolates and commenting how clean the place was and how well the food was prepared.
You see what you want to see.
Its a long way to mukumbura
its a long way to jawl...
The intro here hurts my soul. A very american recap of african history.
It isn't as simple as white vs black. Especially in Rhodesia.
Its colonizers vs colonized. And the colonizers were white europeans. And the colonized were black Africans. hope this helps!
It SUPER is about black and white.
@@andrewdickerson849 The Ndebele, (who are black), arrived in and colonised the country only 20 years before Enkeldoorn (now called Chivhu) was settled by some Afrikaners. For thousands of years the land had been occupied by various Khoi San groups prior to the Bantu expansion (who included the forebears of the Shona). The government/head of state during the most kinetic part of the war was Abel Muzorewa and his UANC party. So yes, it isn't as simple as white vs black, and the "colonisers" included black Africans. Hope this helps!
Thank you for covering this, a very well done video talking about a tough topic that's not easy to find good, comprehensive coverage of.
7:42 - The map is incorrect. Germany is united, Yugoslavia doesn't exist, Czechoslovakia doesn't exist.
It's the modern map, parts relevant and countries that did exist which are relevant are highlighted, like USSR.
Yugoslavia existed during this time as did Czechoslovakia, Germany was united some 20 years later, it was still separated.
@@ghost.3409 It's still very anachronistic map and doesn't make sense nor for the time period, nor for today.
It shows the USSR, but Tibet is outside of China?
It has South Sudan, but not separate Kosovo?
So, what alternative reality is the map showing?
@@inSainTedIt highlights powers od the day (China without Tibet) against a backdrop of present day countries (USSR behind the red highlight has borders of Belarus etc)
Thanks for this one guys! I just started learning about this topic yesterday and I've mostly been looking at books and interviews of people from the war.
Whats always bothered me about this conflict, and something that is perpetuated in this video, is the comparisons to other black vs white conflict in the world.
I would like to draw comparisons to Ethiopia. Other than a very short stint under Italy, they were independent and remained free of European colonization. In Ethiopia, there are dozens of different ethnic groups. There isn't really a clear majority by the metrics I have seen. Yet, they're almost all black. These ethnic groups have a cycle of one minority group gaining power, oppressing the other groups horribly, being overthrown, then having retribution oppression. This happens over and over again. I think this comparison is that one that should be made, not one from a perspective of black vs white.
At this point, in the 1960s white settlers had lived there for generations. They had been integrated into the systems. They were simply a different ethnic group oppressing the other groups.
This distinction is important because when we make it into a black people vs white people thing, it makes everything 1000x more charged. When it's the Rhodesians vs Cape Coloureds vs Ndau vs ... etc etc etc, its much easier to objectively analyze it, especially as Americans who do have a distinct black vs white conflict rather than ethnic group conflict.
So, a good description of events is:
Group A had a minority population but majority control over the government and natural resources.
Groups B-J organized various ways of trying to push back and gain political power and access to resources
This led to a civil war
Group G ended up being able to gain enough power to strong arm everyone into submission
Group A, feeling like they were about to be persecuted because usually thats how these things go (see Ethiopia), mostly decided to become refugees and flee. Those who didn't do so immediately ended up, one way or another, being forced out.
Groups C, D, G, and J were able to forcfully seize natural resource access from group A, but also, kept groups B, E, F, G, H, and I from accessing them.
Through political machinations, group B was able to have a person gain enough control that they were able to divest natural resources and political power as they pleased
This led to large scale corruption
This led to people who weren't farmers and didn't know how to farm owning most of the farmland, causing massive starvation across the population
This story holds true for Ethiopia too for the most part, where it wasn't black vs white. That is why I don't think its a good idea to make it out as black vs white.
And how are they now, better or worse?
Now they have a right to decide their own future. At some point they will find a way.
@@Wastelander33better than being colonized.
@@ssg9offical When you literally have to beg the colonizers to come back and run the farms because you're incapable of feeding your own country, then no, that's not better.
@@ssg9offical is that true tho? blacks fought in the rhodesian army
Zimbabwe is actually a pretty nice country.
I love how everyone looks at the end result of this: 3 decades of genocide, corruption, dictatorship, and suffering, and still conclude that the Rhodesians as the bad guys who were just being racist, and not fully aware of exactly who they were fighting and what they wanted.
The "history began after WW2 understander" has logged on and is spitting straight facts!!! It is very interesting how African countries are exploited after gaining independence post colonialism! Very interesting!
See the problem with your narrative is you refuse to evaluate Rhodesia objectively. Objectively, Rhodesia was worse in basically every way compared to Zimbabwe now. Lower GDP per capita, lower life expectancy, lower literacy, lower access to electricity, lower HDI.
Now Robert Mugabe and ZANU are bad people. They're a corrupt economic elite who enrich themselves at the expense of the majority, committed brutal atrocities, and run a de facto one party state. The problem is Ian Smith and the RF were also a corrupt one party state that exploited their people for self-enrichment. But because they're white, white nationalists will excuse this behavior, pretend it was all in the name of civilizing or other such nonsense. The Rhodesians were only different from the other economic elite of other third world countries, they had a homeland to go back to, Mugabe and the Shona didn't.
Mugabe is a bad person who did terrible things, but the Rhodesians were still the bad guys. They were an economic elite who was given the option to share power with the majority, and give the universal franchise. Instead they decided to become international pariahs and fight a brutal civil war because they didn't want everyone to be able to vote. They were the bad guys.
this is why i love this channel you get to kow wars you never heard of love this channel
32:36
Here is the second part of that quote which is always conveniently missed out "I repeat, I believe in blacks and whites working together.'
That really changes the quote, now dosent it! Come on @KingsandGenerals, you should be better than this
Maybe because "work together" is the vaguest term ever?
@@tulkiscruffybottem2823 Does it? His actions never showed that it does lmfao. Compared to the positions that the white minority had vs the Black majority had, I think it's quite clear he had the same mentality of all the segregationists, the separate but equal, but it was never equal. It's quite obvious that Ian Smith wasn't a fan of Africans/the natives and it's disingenuous to give him any benefit of the doubt/the illusion that he did care about them the same way he cared about the White minority.
@@CelticMexican Look at all the rights and equality black people of Rhodesia enjoy now... Mugabe made everyone into billionaires!
@@KingsandGenerals99.9999% of the time I agree with you, but simply leaving out part of a context which is vague changes the overall temperature and connotation of the statement. Is it vague? Yes, does it become a misrepresentation on your side when leaving out the end of the quote? Yes. Do I think you did it intentionally? Likely not, do I think you replied the way that you did to save yourself from having to go make an edit in an already published video? God knows I would. However that doesn’t change the implication that is drawn from a misrepresentation of a quote.
Worth noting that Rhodesia did allow black citizens to vote and hold office, albeit with restrictions based on literacy and property ownership. The idea was that over time the black population would become more developed and their representation would naturally increase. Totally different from the South African system of basically two different countries within a country.
It's crazy that Britain refused to see the obvious consequences of their policies while Smith was predicting it with total accuracy. It's almost like they were happy to see Rhodesia destroyed out of spite, or just anti-colonial fervor. Whatever you think of Ian Smith and Rhodesia, the outcome that Britain and the US forced was pretty much the worst possible.
And 80% of the Rhodie military was- black.
@@colinm5545 Fifty out of sixty-six seats in parliament were reserved for Europeans in the 1969 constitution. Before then, arbitrary income requirements designed to exclude Africans were put in place.
Ian Smith also repeatedly stated he did not believe in majority rule.
@@colinm5545 and Zimbabwe has a lower child mortality rate, a higher literacy rate, a higher per capacity income and a higher urbanization rate.
Learn something.
That was not the idea, the idea was to stop africans from voting without saying that out loud to the rest of the world
@@ayodejiolowokere1076and it looks like he was right to fear that at the time.
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into making this video! It’s deeply appreciated and enjoyed it so much! I really hope we see more videos about little known wars in Africa.
Thanks for watching!
You forgot to mention the atrocities Zipra and Zanla carried out on the local rural populations of Rhodisia and that Zimbabwe has gone from Breadbasket to basket case
As a black Zimbabwean by ethnicity who had family fight on both sides, thank you for making this video. As time has told it wasn't a civil war for the people but a ruthless gang war by evil people looking to attain political power.
It was definitely a "pick your poison" for the black majority.
Didn't seek majority rule. Just wanted a place at the table
I've now lived in and visited quite a lot of countries. I truly believe peace, prosperity and racial unity is more attainable within the Zimbabwean populace than it is in many other places I have visited. There were issues in the past which must be learnt from but we also have things worth celebrating and building on and would be able to do so if not for the manipulation and division sown by power hungry elites and people that benefit from a weakened nation. I hope you are well and wish you success wherever you may be!
My grandfather served in this war so I am so glad you are coverinv it
was he a good guy or a communist ? lol
@@bigboi_qyou’re not seriously calling the Rhodesians “good guys” are you? They were quite explicitly fighting to uphold an apartheid state…
@lukesullivan9344 bro ik this comment section would be filled with Rhodesian racist
@@lukesullivan9344 Mugabe great guy man, number one!
@lukesullivan9344 1. they murked commies so yeah. 2. You're a 90iq midwit so I don't rlly care what you think
Black Rhodesians were enfrichesed to vote with the same standards of Whites. They had to be over 21 years old, be literate, and own property. While not many Blacks owned property, many could vote and had representation in the senate and assembly. Many Blacks did not want to participate in the national government, and preferred their autonomous tribal governments and laws.
Also, when the British began settlement in the region, it was mostly depopulated and agriculture had largely been destroyed. This was a result of the Bantu migrations committing genocide against the natives, just as they had in South Africa, Mozambique, and elsewhere they raided.
After the fall of Rhodesia, the new government of Zimbabwe granted the voting franchise to all over the age of 18 with no restrictions. They ended up with an authoritarian dictatorship that ruined the economy, livelihoods, and currency. A billion dollars could buy you some eggs. They're a joke now.
The US sanctions are a huge reason why the country is struggling. You honestly think the black natives were better off being 2nd class citizens while whites controlled everything?
Land based voting laws are evil medieval nonsense. Black voters were not held to the same standard, because historical land ownership was almost exclusively determined by race.
Seems conspicuous to leave out countries from the very small list that backed the Rhodesian government. Especially as you can count them on one hand.
They did mention South Africa because they literally sent people (police units) to be involved in the conflict?
Maybe they didn't mention the ones you're thinking of because the support was token and not relevant to the actual fighting part of the conflict...you know, the thing this channel covers?
@@bmoney2011 I dunno, training them in tactics, selling helicopters, and allowing manufacture license on the uzi all feel like key contributions.
Especially compared to Portugal, who mostly just patrolled for terrorists while they owned Mozambique. Again this isn't like a "Well why does no one mention Brazil in WW2?" when there's dozens of smaller belligerents. But, if you don't count Rhodesia's active recruitment of segregationist Americans (as that's a non-state thing and mostly soft-power), that means only one country got spared a mention that it officially supported the white regime. Which just feels conspicuous.
@@dataportdollisrahell, right? Of course it was them 🤦♂️
@@AegonTheUnlikely yea of course it was xD i was just being vague to be polite if there was some AI-keyword-SEO related reason they kept it out
Ian Smith must have been a real legend to talk politics with
I know these comments will be respectful and non cringe
very respectful and totally not ignoring apartheid
@@NegaRenGenX2gay2liftrhodesia wasn't apartheid, they were better than the commies in every way
Rhodesia was an apartheid state. Im south african it was segregated, heavily. @leonrussell9607
@@leonrussell9607 Never tell bro why they weren't allowed to compete in the 1972 Olympics
It is heartening to see how pro Rhodesian the comments are.
If you look at zimbabwe today it makes you think maybe rhodeshia might have been fine even though it was ruled by a white minority
lol are you pro-nationalists? Cause you'd be just as bad as the pro-rhodesians. All the parties of this conflict were bad news for the people of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, no matter what you call it.
Because Africa is so sophisticated now without European colonists they are the same as they were prior to colonialism tribals and behind
That is a lie.
Colonization takes time to recover from. Ireland took a lot of support and several generations to recover. Africa is modernizing in its own way. Europe was pretty tribal in the 20th century. Remind me again how many people died in European wars? Racism never makes any kind of sense.
@@KingsandGeneralsThank you :-)
@@iano239in many ways Ireland still hasn't fully recovered from colonization and still bears scars.
Complete misinformation. And besides, this is a bad argument for imperialism and brutality in the first place. Zimbabwe carries the burden of being a post colonial state born out of a decade long war. States born from conflict have a nearly impossible time building institutions of peace.
Check out Why Nations Fail.
Sub-Saharan Africa is wonderful now. I am considering moving there for a much better life.
We can't wait to have you!
🤣🤣🤣
Sofala was an important trading hub for Maphungubgwe (later to become Great Zimbabwe) long before the Portuguese arrived
Slaves, gold and ivory were exported north from the port of Sofala by Maphungubgwe- Zimbabwe to the Sultanate of Mogadishu and Arab traders
Again slavery was forbidden they only traded gold and ivory. Plus the port used by Mapungubwe was Chibuene.
Now that you've done this outstanding piece of work, perhaps continuing into the 80's in that region, would be fair to provide context. Objectivity is quite important here, and in other nations in this region. Mere mention of Mugabe evokes images of war crimes and horrors that are widely documented and undeniable. Same with the truth about Mandela and his obsession with "necklacing". It's often glossed over, for the sake of social correctness. We're shortchanging our own future to not recall the past accurately or hide behind cries of "racism" or "dog whistle". The truth cares naught for our opinions.
Well done.
You are racist, yes.
@@chris_bianchi13 Mugabe is mostly viewed as a hero. You've confused Nelson Mandela for his wife.
And what does that have to do with war, except to subtly communicate your sympathy for apartheid states?
No you see Black == good , White == bad. It's easy really.
This video is about the Bush War, not Zimbabwe in general. When a yter makes a video on WWII we don't start expecting them to continue past 1945 into the 1950s to "better provide context". If you want a specific video on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's state in the modern day, ask for that. Don't hide behind "objectiveness" when you should obviously comprehend that a video about the Bush War ends when the war does.
@@lolactus8908 this channel covers military issues not social. You know this.
We definitely need a video documenting the Sri Lankan Civil war! One of the longest and bloodiest civil wars of the 20th century, yet so often overlooked in its importance for the South Asia region.
It was a very interesting video. Please keep posting videos on the history of Africa. This is very much appreciated.
Will do!
Please do a video of the NIGERIAN civil war
🇳🇬🇳🇬
Bisi did a pretty good series on it
casual historian has a good one and he oes a lot of african conflicts too
These lesser known wars are super interesting to me and I hope you do many more of them. Are you going to follow this one up with the independence wars in Angola, Botswana and Mozambique?
Thinking about it
Botswana didn’t need a war for it independence
@@collinward1241 Botswana really hit the jackpot with Seretse Khama. Negotiated a peaceful transfer of power and set the country up for success and stability for generations to come. Best possible post-colonial leader
How do you turn on the light in Zimbabwe? You travel back in time to when it was rhodesia.
That is false. Zimbabwe is more electrified now than it was in the 60s.
@KingsandGenerals yeah I guess there doing great there
@@patrickpenton3429 no one said that. But they surely do not live in a pre-electrity age.
I laughed, but sadly not everyone understands jokes....
@paul_308 exactly, it's a joke, I've prayed for Zimbabwe many times. That's about all I can do, if you don't laugh you'll cry I guess.
Great video as always. If anyone is interested in learning more about Rhodesia, Apostolic Majesty did a very indepth and informative video on it recently on his channel.
This is really well researched. My former Economics teacher was a Selous Scout.
Thanks!
Always Rhodesia over Zimbabwe! This whole story is eerie, like a glimpse of what the west is and will continue to experience. It took foreign terrorists to come to Rhodesia to fight. A significant number of black Rhodesians not only supported the government but took up arms and fought for them!
There is no such thing as a black Rhodesian. Those people were being used and seen as less than by this colonial government.
@@admirekashiri9879 The vast majority of black Rhodesians supported the government. Literally 3/4th of the rebels were from out of the country. Plenty of testimonials to say/prove otherwise.
@@melissawilkinson2636 😂 They were uneducated and didn’t know they were being used. It’s called stockholm syndrome.
@@admirekashiri9879 They were appreciative, straight from their own mouth. Prior to the arrival of the English, Rhodesia had no farms, cities or infrastructure. The English turned Rhodesia into the bread basket of Africa. The indigenous population was literally in the stone age. You don't know what you are talking about obviously.
@@melissawilkinson2636 It was called Mutapa not Rhodesia. And if they didn’t have cities and all that other stuff what are the hundreds of historical precolonial ruins scattered across the region? 🤔
😂 They had farms long before Europeans even knew this region existed. People at least do some basic research now. And no they had metallurgy using iron, copper and gold so what on Earth are you talking about?
I’m Zimbabwean I’m certain I know more about my motherland and history than you. You’re the one demonstrating your lack of knowledge here.
Considering the decades that followed under Mugabe and his successor so far, Rhodesia, while definitely not without faults, was better governed and didn't stoop to the draconian measures instituted by Mugabe (i.e. dispossessing and killing white farmers for their lands, which then resulted in much less crop growth for the much less-experienced black farmers), not to mention his cleansing of his rivals so that he maintained sole rule until his overthrow and death. From "The Breadbasket of Africa" to one known for its hyperinflation and for being a net-importer of food stocks from external countries.
"Breadbasket of Africa" not Europe
@@Christckdestroyer you are correct. I misremembered the term.
I fear South Africa will soon be headed in the same direction.
@@BensonCaisip they already have been, unfortunately. After Mandela left power, the stability of South Africa's been coming into question. With the exception of perhaps Botswana, no country in southern Africa has really prospered under black-majority rule post-decolonization.
This point has been debated to death and honestly at this point I feel like if you still want to hold it despite the nuance and all the precedent arguing this was inevitable, I'm just going to assume it's for an agenda's sake. Most of the white farmers were not killed and many fled to Zambia - which while not as f'ed up as Zimbabwe became, still has not managed to become the Land of Milk & Honey people seem to picture Rhodesia as. On that note, the economy of Rhodesia was a house of cards that was untenable, with most of the black population living in abject poverty and many working in near-slavery conditions. We've had plenty of historical precedent for what happens to those kinds of societies. To top it all off, Mugabe was only able to consolidate power through racial tension and mistrust of the white minority, and through exploiting backlash and goodwill from what the Rhodesian military did via units like the infamous Selous Scouts.
Just like their neighbours Mozambique and Angola; while rebel groups had common goal, but had different ways of "what next?". But at least unlike their fellow fighters in those two countries, there weren't any civil war in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe after
Au contraire! Go look up Gukurahundi. Estimated death toll of up to 30,000.
8:57 they were definitely not the second strongest airforce in Africa, not even close. Egypt, Lybia, Angola the list goes on. It was a small airforce using old outdated equipment, but with some good (to a point) anti-insurgancy tactics, that even in that endeavour hampered by the aircraft they had. But obviously some aircraft are much better than no aircraft, in terms of this war.
Thank you K&G for yet another good documentary on a part of history that was not covered in my schooling. I love history and it’s a shame how much can be left out.
They sure did a lot of good with all of that “freedom” they won themselves.
Why are you so concerned.
Rhodesian never dies.
This war had a lot of good songs 🎵
Rome sums it up best:
"We won't reveal our ailments, and what haunts our sleep nightly
In this tiny little world, we've locked ourselves in so tightly
And the dead stand between us like wreaths and the people we've abandoned
The life, we've surrendered to the streams
O Rhodesia, I've given you my all
And now, I'm nothing
I'm nothing, I'm nothing, I'm nothing, I'm nothing"
First 58 secs will tell you how much historically unbiased is the historian
I firmly believe the biggest problem Rhodesia has is, aside from its small population - is how inherently alienating their cause is to the wider world. To any country whose population is majority not of a paler complexion, they don't understand the struggle; to any country that used to be a colony of another country, their cause is abhorrent. Rhodesia is borm with a handicap that no matter what it does nobody would legitimately support them regardless if the ones they are fighting are supported by Commies. For example, my country (Philippines) is as anti-Commienist as a pro-US country can get but we never recognized Rhodesia specifically because of their racist rhetoric...
What was a liberation movement turned to a dumpster fire at the end.
Well, when your revolutionary orgs are communist and financed/directed/supported by the USSR and China...
Why didn’t Mugabe and the African nationalists follow Mandela’s example and usher in a democratic-republic system instead of a one party totalitarian state? Also they could’ve tried accommodating the white people, include them in politics, and not taken revenge against them, so why didn’t they try doing what Mandela and his people did in South Africa in the 1990s?
How did that work out for them? Look at South Africa.
I think Mandela was still in jail by the time they won. Remember apartheid existed til the early 90s.
Maybe if time traveling was possible
So one thing to understand is Mugabe's policies changed over time. But firstly, Mugabe came first, he took over Zimbabwe 15 years before Mandela was elected.
Second, for the first half of his rule Mugabe worked with a lot of the white landowning elite, and had a sort of patronage relationship with them. Problems between them mostly came up in the late 90s and early 2000s. Mugabe got Zimbabwe involved in the Congo Wars, which lead to a budget crisis due to equipment losses, and the fact their involvement in the war made international lenders pull their funds, plus sanctions. All of this lead Mugabe to see expropriation of farm land as a way to make quick cash, but more importantly maintain political support through economic difficulties. In that sense it worked.
Mugabe wasn't dumb, he was just a ruthless man who was willing to harm the country to pay for his bad decision to get involved in the Congo.
@@jmwilliamsart because there was no war in South Africa. The minority handed power peacefully.
The state of modern-day Zimbabwe vindicates my actions in fighting in this war and the decision to declare UDI in Rhodesia.
Always learn something new, thank you!
Another great video KnG! as always.
Rhodesia > Zimbabwe
😂 move on its gone lad.
Ken Flower is still enjoying that succulent Chinese meal. Doppelgänger for that guy. 30:54
Kings and Generals featuring my country. VIVA ZIMBABWE
Great book on the Rhodesian Light Infantry is called “The Saints”. Highly recommended.
On Abe books:
3 Used from US$ 380.00
1 New from US$ 1,534.49
Can I borrow your copy? :)
@@PubliusRutiliusLupus Like trying to find an original copy of Ron Reid Daly's Pamwe Chete- similar prices..
@@Mike193Inf Or an English copy of The Camp of the Saints.
@@kondor99999 Yes, agreed. Fought with a couple of ‘The Saints’ in Iraq. Great soldiers. Pity their country was betrayed.
Among the best. And yes, terrible pity.
South African Border War video when??
Ps - i got a mini library of books on the subject. If anyone wants recommendations
K&G will probably report that the terrorists, AKA the ANC won.
u used the misquote from ian smith , he said he didnt believe in a black rhodesia or a white rhodesia
Last-ditch and see-through effort to garner international support to save his colonial ethnostate.
@@feiliormia That doesn´t excuse purposeful using only part of a quote.
@@marcel-ifc17 Ok... that doesn´t change that using only part of a quote is obviously manipulative.
@@tefky7964well well well, if it isn’t a supporter of the Rhodesian colonizers…color me shocked. Go back to 8chan or whatever the fuck nazi bullshit it is today
It does excuse excluding that quote because there’s literally no reason to take Ian Smith’s claims about his hypothetical opposition to an impossible scenario of a white majority that he’d never have to back up in his life time.
The important context is that he was still making a justification for specifically *white* minority rule that was established for white supremacist reasons.
The fact that he was lying about it being for other reasons once pressure demanded it is not incredibly relevant. The context here is the concrete political reality he & the Rhodesian politicians were trying to preserve.
Showing the contrast between pre Zimbabwe and post Rhodesia should tell you all you need to know...
Never heard of Chimurenga Day here in Zim😮
Note to self: Mzilikazi Day is celebrated by the Ndebeles in Bulawayo and Matabeleland Provinces. And not on a national scale
One of the biggest blind spots in my knowledge of history is the stories of African and South American countries, especially non English speaking countries. I’m super glad you guys are doing more stuff like this
They all follow the same story. Went back to the stone age after the "settlers" left.
@@JeevaDotNet and the settlers were so loathsome that even those that think this agree the countries are better off.