Clarkson: "Ruck off you nancy Aussies!"

[Maccaweeny]

The brits were a long-shot from supporting old ties and playing the empire. I mean they'd placed an arms embargo on the Rhodesian govt. (who had to import from France and Israel) and facilitated what they later thought would be the establishment of a democratic administration. They did what they could to facilitate majority-rule and actively supported anti-colonial movements.

This is a touchy area, so take all of this with a grain of salt; but personally, I think it was wrong to not intervene in the Bush War, then again if the U.K had actively participated, the repercussions on the home front would have been immense. Supporting a minority govt. immediately after the Vietnam war would have been political suicide for any administration willing to take such a course. Yet i believe it would have been a better option to actively promote change from within the Rhodesian government rather than quickly handing over the reigns to an unknown entity (Mugabe).

Instead, Rhodesia was left out to dry, and following majority rule the usual thing happened. Property was taken from whites so as to engender even economic distribution- and while that may sound altruistic, the result was reduced productivity and foreign investment.

EDIT: On a side note, the many Australians who died in the Rhodesian Light Infantry should start getting at least some recognition by the Aussie War Memorial. One of the only guys to publish anything about the Bush War works as a fireman just down from where I live, incidentally the government has done its best to suppress any notion that aussies fought for the Rhodesian government, and his book is subsequently pretty hard to get your hands on.

 

[Steve-o]

Spot on there Maccaweeny, you seem to know quite alot on the Zim issue. Do you have any ties in Zim or do you just like to keep up to date on what's going on in the world?

 

[Prestwick]

The brits were a long-shot from supporting old ties and playing the empire. I mean they'd placed an arms embargo on the Rhodesian govt. (who had to import from France and Israel) and facilitated what they later thought would be the establishment of a democratic administration. They did what they could to facilitate majority-rule and actively supported anti-colonial movements.[/b]

The main trouble started with Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s and the disscussion with implementing majority rule as a condition of granting Rhodesia independence. Ian Smith rejected this out of hand and wanted to remain under the then system of dominion-like self-rule with a white-minority twist. At that time, the divide between the HM government and Rhodesia could not have been starker as you had radical labour members like Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in cabinet pushing for this and Harold Wilson (a working class Yorkshireman) did not at all like being talked down to by Ian Smith. Smith and co on the other hand objected to the rhetoric coming out of London which they felt did not reflect reality on the ground in Africa at the time and almost sounded a bit too far left for their liking (which was one of the reasons why US policy baffled Rhodesia throughout UDI). In effect, they saw most of the British as high minded idealists and intellectuals more intent on lecturing and hectoring than actually helping.

In any case, when Ian Smith imposed UDI, this privately enraged Wilson and most of the ruling labour party at the time and at that point there was going to be no turning back and the embargo was imposed. Not only that, but he also pressed his allies both in Europe and the rest of the Commonwealth/World to do the same. This policy was continued on by both Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher throughout the 1970s until 1979 and Lancaster House.

This is a touchy area, so take all of this with a grain of salt; but personally, I think it was wrong to not intervene in the Bush War, then again if the U.K had actively participated, the repercussions on the home front would have been immense. Supporting a minority govt. immediately after the Vietnam war would have been political suicide for any administration willing to take such a course. Yet i believe it would have been a better option to actively promote change from within the Rhodesian government rather than quickly handing over the reigns to an unknown entity (Mugabe).[/b]

Ironically, the UK did seriously consider action in Rhodesia. However, its not in the way that you think. My Dad was in 3 Battalion, the Parachute Regiment at the time and when the crisis blew up and UDI was imposed, they were already assembled being briefed to drop on vital infrastructure and command & control points across Rhodesia like hydro dams, radio stations, regional government buildings, etc. The political view in Britain was that majority rule was going to be imposed either by force or by starving Rhodesia out. I don't know if the files of the cabinet conversations have been released yet but I don't think anyone in Southern Africa quite knows how close Britain was to invading Rhodesia to impose majority rule.

Instead, Rhodesia was left out to dry, and following majority rule the usual thing happened. Property was taken from whites so as to engender even economic distribution- and while that may sound altruistic, the result was reduced productivity and foreign investment.[/b]

And here is the main result of Britain's policy. Although Ian Smith was a hardliner and was backed by hardliners (his defense minister, for example, liked to shoot people from a helicopter for fun according to journalist Max Hastings who reported from Rhodesia undercover in the 1970s) the opportunity for a compromise deal to phase in majority rule could still have been reached. Instead, the embargo and UDI only forced the hardliners on the white and black sides to the fore, pushing aside any moderate voices. It was because there was no credible, moderate alternative that enabled guys like Robert Mugabe to strike when they did to take power.

EDIT: On a side note, the many Australians who died in the Rhodesian Light Infantry should start getting at least some recognition by the Aussie War Memorial. One of the only guys to publish anything about the Bush War works as a fireman just down from where I live, incidentally the government has done its best to suppress any notion that aussies fought for the Rhodesian government, and his book is subsequently pretty hard to get your hands on. [/b]

Quite a few British did as well. At the time, there was less and less action for British soldiers while abroad there was Vietnam and various bush wars in Africa so many Paras and Royal Marines quit the services to enlist with the US Army, the Australian Army, the Rhodesians or hired themselves out as mercenaries simply to get action.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotemain'> Legend - who I wouldn't recognise if he passed me in the street. The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

Never stopped the All Blacks from touring. Even risked getting booted out of the Commonwealth and ruining the Olympics, now that's what you call a dedicated rival.
[/b][/quote]
Yup, fair dues.

But is getting kicked out of the commonwealth a risk? And I'm thumbs up for boycotting the pantomime called the China Olympics.

 

[Maccaweeny]

You obviously like your sub African history Prestwick, didn't realise the U.K was actually considering armed intervention on such a scale. I'm gonna hit my uni library and get some books on the Portuguese Colonial Wars and on the Rhodesian insurgency. It's stuff like this which gives me the shits that I go to such a liberal university, where all history will be some bullshit critique of 'women in the work force' etc.

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> Legend - who I wouldn't recognise if he passed me in the street. The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

Never stopped the All Blacks from touring. Even risked getting booted out of the Commonwealth and ruining the Olympics, now that's what you call a dedicated rival.
[/b][/quote]
Yup, fair dues.
And I'm thumbs up for boycotting the pantomime called the China Olympics.
[/b][/quote]

No its not a pantomine sure its for prestige but pray tell what f**king olympics hasnt being about that!. I'm sick of this its an olympics keep it that way dont turn it into a f**king political circus. :ranting: