Talk:Operation Dingo

Untitled
I have to say that this article raises the same issues of neutrality, name, bias and POV as the main article on this period "Rhodesian Bush War". The material is presented from a Rhodesian POV with no sources or voices from the ZANLA side. Major Zimbabwean historians (not just the current government) contest that the people killed were all soldiers, arguing many refugees were also killed.Babakathy 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)



Alternative Point of View: The book by Petter-Bowyer (which is a principal source for this entry), acknowledges that both women and teenagers were killed during Operation Dingo. The principal issue in dispute is whether the camps at Chimoio and Tembue in Mozambique were legitimate military targets or not, and whether or not the large majority of the inhabitants of these camps were ZANLA fighters or not.

Evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely that these facilities were "refugee camps" as was claimed at the time by the ZANLA. Had they been refugee camps it seems most unlikely that Air Marshal Norman Walsh (who was Director of Air Operations for Operation Dingo) would then have been permitted to serve as the commander of the Zimbabwean Air Force under Robert Mugabe - which he did from 1981 to 1983. Indeed, no former Rhodesian officer seems to have ever been prosecuted by the Zimbabwean Government (or any other authority) for the war crimes which were alleged at the time to have been committed.

More broadly, in relation to a similarly destructive raid by Rhodesian forces on the Nyadzonya camp in Mozambique in August 1976, years later the senior ZANLA commander Edgar Tekere did not question that this camp was a legitimate military target (see attached link at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs7V_IBQcDg). While this documentary is certainly excerpted in a biased fashion - ie. from a strongly pro-Rhodesian perspective - the comments made by Mr. Tekere are still pertinent. The same reality likely applies to the camps at Chimoio and Tembue. Nevertheless, a complete viewing of the documentary would be required to determine whether this is fully accurate. If anyone can provide a link to the full documentary, that would certainly be helpful.

In the absence of other evidence, the most logical conclusion seems to be that these camps were guerrilla training/staging bases for the ZANLA. While young guerrilla trainees were certainly at these camps (and tragically some non-combatants may also have been present at the time of the raids), their pimary military character is not in serious doubt. The attached article by Major Charles Lohman and Major Robert MacPherson ("Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat" WAR SINCE 1945 SEMINAR AND SYMPOSIUM, US Marine Corps Command and Staff College, June 1983) reaches the same general conclusion - See Chapter 4 http://www.scribd.com/doc/2546386/Rhodesia-Tactical-Victory-Srategic-Defeat

Comments made February 17, 2010.


 * No-one was prosecuted for war crimes by agreement: there was a general amnesty as part of the Lancaster House Agreement, so that shows nothing. Babakathy (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be very useful to examine any evidence Zimbabwean historians might have amassed that suggests that these operations were primarily directed against non-military targets. Certainly the written evidence to date (along with comments such as those by Edgar Tekere) suggests that these camps were ZANLA training and staging areas. (February 19, 2010)


 * Yes. Try Martin, D. and Johnson, P. 1981. The struggle for Zimbabwe. Boston, Faber and Faber for a start.Babakathy (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will try to find it. I have seen references that these sources are used as sources for Zimbabwean school texts, etc.


 * In the modern terminology these were 'terror training camps'. If the line that these were 'refugee' camps is to be believed, then the Rhodesian Security force bizarrely never bothered to attack external guerrilla bases but instead always chose refugee camps which is patent nonsense. The bases were attacked to try and 'turn off the tap' and reduce the number of guerrilla fighters heading west from Mozambique. Tigershoot (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue of insurgent vs. civilian casualties is always blurry in guerrilla warfare. There were clearly women and minors in the camps - all sources acknowledge that. It is the numbers that are one of the facts in dispute. But camps such as these were certainly ZANLA run and they primarily existed to train guerrillas (male and female) for the war and support ongoing operations across the border. The attached excerpt from Edgar Tekere's memoirs clearly confirms the primary military nature of the camps. http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/tekere13.16058.html

Some of the facts are a little confusing. For instance, Tekere notes in his memoirs that Mugabe told him after Chimoio that perhaps the armed struggle "was not worth the cost". Yet, in the documentary (link above), it is implied that Mugabe said this after the Nyadzonya raid. The sequence of some of the events are a little unclear and perhaps also some of the details. But the military character of these facilities is fairly clear.

I am not sure that once Robert Mugabe consolidated his power, that the provisions of the Lancaster House deal would have made the slightest difference to him had there been any evidence of war crimes. Particularly around the so-called "third Chimurenga", show trials that tapped into global sympathy would have been highly useful politically. Yet this never happened. (Comment Feb 26, 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.1.33 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There were no trials after the amnesty at the end of the independence war. There were no trials after the amnesty at the end of the civil war in Matabeleland and Gukurahundi period. There were no trials after the amnesty after electoral violence in 2000-1. The trend is quite clear: trials of Mugabe's opponents have never been in breach of amnesties. Absence of a trial scarcely means there were no crimes! Consider Stalin's purges: denounced but no trials. Babakathy (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?
"Much later a doctor provided testimony explaining that infectious disease had been a major cause of death after the attacks". What does this mean? What exactly is death "after the attacks"? Most likely the vast majority either died outright or from infection shortly afterwards. Infectious diseases is hardly likely to suddenly strike down thousands immediately after an attack - unless biological weapons are used - which I presume is not the allegation. So what exactly was the doctor saying, and why is it controversial (rather than implausible)?

The following sentence "but that nonetheless many civilians had been killed at close range by the soldiers" is neither supported by the evidence nor connected with the doctors testimony. I suggest deletion.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

POV
This article is told almost exclusively from the Rhodesian military point of view: in terms of voice, perspective, sources, and names. It needs to be in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, where facts are presented, but not from only one angle. Babakathy (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Unreliable source tag was inserted by Hunter9502 at the top four years ago, with the following comment regarding Petter-Bowyer's work: ''The source is an autobiography written entirely from a pro-Rhodesian point of view. It should not be used to cite statistics as its not a sourced historical account. The article overall problematically cites this as the primary source without any input from the ZANLA side or any neutral sources''. I agree that this is problematic, especially as regards matters of fact that were later established by historians - the author is but one of many sources historians (could have) consulted. There are some matters, such as Rhodesian tactics and deployment, where one can only rely on eyewitness accounts (of which the author is one), since military records on the Rhodesian side are unavailable, quite possibly destroyed just before independence like many others. Babakathy (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fatalities
The Rhodesian fatalities are described as either one or two, because the second death occurred on the way back. The ZANLA and civilian casualties are generally given as either 1,200 or 3,000, and there's multiple sources for both. While the lower number is given in history works, and the higher generally in more popular works or recent news, it is probably best to keep both as both are widely cited. Babakathy (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)