Talk:Rhodesian Bush War/Archive 2

Neutrality
i began to change the article to balance out the bias but its hopeless. the whole article reads like a propaganda campaign of ex-rhodesians...the whole article must be adapted. currently, there is absolutely no neutrality. --Severino 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur -- in what way for instance, does the following situation differ from what American blacks faced pre-Civil Rights Act (i.e. significant, institutionalized racism)?
 * "A common misconception is that blacks were subjected to extreme racism and this was the factor that led to the war; however, while some social services were segregated, voting was colourblind (with qualifications), and the white-run government provided health, education and housing services to blacks."--68.50.54.169 (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It differs so: Basicaly, the whole context was different; blacks in the USA had been part of the country from its founding and artificialy kept apart from its civilization. Rhodesian blacks were pre-modern people who had a civilized country founded in their midst; Rhodes' (non-racial) dictum for dealing with this situation was "equal rights for all civilized men". The relevant parallel in the USA would be not the black population, but the American Indian.
 * The Rhodesians had their faults, such as dragging their feet in lifting the native out of the state of life he had always lived in, but they deserve some credit for not letting their country turn into a racist loony bin like apartheid South Africa. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one change the title of this article? Rhodesian Bush War? What's that? It's called the Zimbabwe War of Independence. No matter what ZANU(PF) has done to this great country of Zimbabwe, we should at least acknowledge that the Smith regime was brutal to the black populace in the pre-Independence era. Ever heard anyone call the American War of Independence by any other name? Wikipedia has an obligation to periodically check the truthfulness of its articles. 217.15.122.109 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the American War of Independence is often referred to as the American Revolutionary War by non-Americans. Its' Wikipedia article is also titled "American Revolutionary War", reflecting Wikipedia's neutral standpoint. Your usage of the phrase "this great country of Zimbabwe" is a very obvious sign that you are not neutral, and hence are in an ill position to demand a change of the article's name. 17:01, 13 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.70.211 (talk)

What to Call this War
This article is certainly the worst that can ever be found in an encyclopedia that is worthy its salt. The article rightly belongs to a homepage of one of the Rhodesian racist white supremacist rifleman in the so called Rhodesian Bush War. Such an article certainly has no place in Wikipedia. Here I want to address only the issue of what to call this war and leaving the treatment of its content to some other day. So far I've tried as best as I can to edit the introductory paragraph in a fair manner. I will try to be objective and to treat everyone, even those who are racist and make racist statements about this war and about us, Zimbabweans, with respect. This is what my Shona culture has taught me to do - even in the face of extreme provocation from all the racist connotations contained in this article.

The proper name of this war is Zimbabwe's Second Chimurenga. Calling the Zimbabwean War, the "2nd Chimurenga" is NOT a ZANU or Mugabe idea - this is in fact what we, the majority of the people of Zimbabwe, call it. White Zimbabweans, especially those of the Rhodesian dispensation, are in the minority and they call this war "the Bush War". Zimbabweans view it as the 2nd war of liberation from racist foreign domination - this process of liberation was, and is still, evolutionary. The 1st war was in 1890-4 which culminated in the execution of Nehanda and Kaguvi who were the war's inspirational leaders.

Now we are faced with another form of liberation struggle - that of liberating ourselves from our war heroes with a focus on issues of good governance, rule of law, corruption, and a host of other post-war ills that face our nation today. These issues concern all Zimbabweans, black or white, and must not be addressed from a racist and white-supremacist perspective although I admit that some of the issues are legacies of the Rhodesian racist and white-supremacist era. For instance, Mugabe himself, born 1924, is, in fact, a legacy of that era. ZANU-PF was formed in 1964 and hence it is also a legacy of the Rhodesian era. ZANU-PF is in fact a military organisation whose modus operandi was necessitated by the very nature of Rhodesian racism, white-supremacism and the Rhodesian government's systems and policies of brutality, cruelty and injustice. The Rhodesian era required an equally ruthless and cruel military organisation on the side of the suffering masses if the Rhodesian structures were to be successfully dismantled. The need for such a military organisation was what the suffering majority of the people wanted in order to free themselves from Rhodesian racist brutality. If only the Rhodesians could reason normally like civilised human beings, we would not have had ZANU-PF today. ZANU-PF is a military monster created by the people and necessitated by Rhodesian conditions. Both the Rhodesian dispensation and the ZANU-PF monster are not necessary in modern-day Zimbabwe.

Mugabe and all fighters in the 2nd Chimurenga, were our heroes and they will remain so to us Zimbabweans within the context of the 2nd Chimurenga even if we are now fighting to liberate ourselves from them today. In the post-war Zimbabwe, Mugabe and the fighters like him may not be our heroes but this does not mean that, from a historical perspective, they cease to be our heroes for the 2nd Chimurenga period.

For purposes of this encyclopedia, I find nothing wrong in laying bare the views of everyone in this war in a neutral manner. Even if you are a Rhodesian at heart and a racist through and through - to the bone marrow, there should be no conflict in your mind in seeing true and bare facts about each perspective to this war being portrayed in a neutral way in wikipedia.

Is there no theory or methods of historical analysis and rules of encyclopedic writing that guides writers/contributors on how to name a physical or conceptual "thing"? The question is if we the majority of Zimbabweans call a "thing" in our country X, why should the English or anybody on earth call it Y when referring to this particular Zimbabwean "thing"? Rhodesians call this war, a "bush war" because their racist perspective allow them to see only "bushes" instead of people with genuine grievances arising from one of the world's most unjust, verulent and brutal form racism and apartheid.

I view this war as one chapter of Zimbabwe's history and in that chapter Mugabe and other freedom fighters are heroes to Zimbabweans. Today, we have a different chapter dealing with issues of rule of law, governance and democracy, and in this chapter, Mugabe and these others are NOT heroes to Zimbabweans. I have no problem, no conflict in my mind in accommodating Mugabe, the 2nd Chimurenga hero, on one hand, and Mugabe the neo-despot of post-war Zimbabwe, on the other. I submit that only irrational minds would have a problem with this.

This Zimbabwean war must be properly called "Zimbabwe's 2nd Chimurenga". This title has no connotations of a racial nature. The word Chimurenga is inward looking on the Shona people of Zimbabwe and does not include any notion of an external factor. Murenga is an ancient Shona King who is well known for military prowess and for leading his people successfully in armed conflicts and struggles. We, the Shona use the name "Chimurenga" as an inspiration and the word is a de-personification of the freedom and liberation struggle virtues that were embodied in the person of King Murenga. "Chi-murenga" is broken down into "chi-" for depersonification and nounification to a "thing" and "-murenga" becomes "the virtues and characteristics of Ishe/Lord/King Murenga". Thus, there is no racism in the notion of Chimurenga - and both black and white Zimbabweans can comfortably subscribe to the values of Chimurenga without feeling dehumanised as we find in calling the war "the bush war". Theirs (the white Rhodesians of racially and white-supremacist oriented minds) was a "bush war", but ours (the predominantly black dehumanised and suffering but inspired victims of Rhodesian institutionalised racism and systems of injustice) was the 2nd Chimurenga War of liberation. There is nothing wrong in portraying these two perspectives in a neutral and sober manner within the body of the article. - Shiku


 * What you realy need to liberate yourself from is ZANU thinking which claims that the guerillas represented the majority of the people, or even a significant minority of them. Else why the need to terrorize them into submission, during the war, and every election since the war?(But I don't take you for a ZANU party liner, or you would not want to get rid of Mugabe).
 * Your long farrago deserves a more detailed response, but for now, I will just say: 'Chimurenga' is a Shona-oriented way of looking at things that leaves out the Matabele/N'dbele, Zimbabwe's other big tribe. There were two uprisings against the introduction of civilized rule involved in creating Rhodesia, and only the second one (the Second Matabele War) counts in this view, being called the 'First Chimurenga' because of Shona participation in it (to a limited extent). The first uprising (the First Matabele War) does not count in this view, as only the Matabele took part in it. You say, "no racism in the notion of Chimurenga" but I say there is tribalism aplenty.
 * And it is called the 'Bush War' not because of "white-supremacist oriented minds", but because the war took place out in the bush. If you follow me. 'Rhodesian Bush War' just helps pin it down to which bush war we are talking about; the one in Rhodesia. Since the land only bore that name from c.1964 to 1978, that pins down the time frame as well.
 * Blaming ZANU's principles and practices on Ian Smith deserves another reply all to itself. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as for that stuff about 'one of the world's most unjust, verulent[sic] and brutal form racism and apartheid'... the world's most, really? How would you then describe the invasion of what is now Zimbabwe by the Zulu branch known as the Matabele/N'dbele? These people swept into the area c.the middle of the 19th century and proceeded to systematicaly massacre and enslave the local Shona speakers and seize their women and cattle. This warrior tribe contemptuously referred to the people they were wiping out as 'dogs'(they themselves were 'the people of the stars', very grand). The arrival of the anti-slavery British interrupted this process; if they had come ten years later the place would not now be known as 'Zimbabwe'( after an old Shona ruin), but 'Gwen'dbele'(Matabeleland).

The information about Chief Murenga is interesting though. Not many references to the 'Chimurenga' explain its etymology. Since 'Second Chimurenga' is accepted as an alternate title and used as a redirect to this article. I suggest the information be put in. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Attrocity1.jpg
The image File:Attrocity1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sf46 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Article quality
If only as much effort went into fixing this article as goes into the renaming debate. It's a shocker. You can help by adding more references.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, seriously, this article is messed up. It seems biased to me and derogatory.

-Anonymous commie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.200.45 (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesian Guards,
Hi. can anyone tell me about the Rhodesian Guards? Over 400 men and woman volunteered for this(17 woman),and only 34 succeeded. Col. R.R.Daly was C.O. It was a 3 year training programme where all of us succesful candidates would at the end of training be classified as Presidential BodyGuards.

This was on direct instruction from Ian Smith.

The reason for my request is that i am looking for a Marissa Bennet. one of 3 woman to sic 'survive' this training.

Countries involved;

USA-CIA. FRANCE-FRNCH FOREIGN LEGION. ISRAEL-MOSSAD. SOUTH AFRICA-BOSS.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE SUCH TRAINING PROGRAMME THAT I CAN REMEMBER. TRAINING WAS INTENSIVE AND RIVELLED THE SELOUS SCOUTS. THERE WAS MUCH DISCUSSION ON WHO WAS THE BEST.

ALL INFORMATION CAN BE SENT TO MY E-MAIL; www.largokweliov@gmail.com

MUCH APPRECIATED

CHARLES VERMAAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.47.187 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Sentence?
I find the following sentence contradictory: "In 1976, Rhodesian Selous Scout soldiers destroyed a United Nations refugee camp, containing many hundreds of terrorist trainees, called cadres." Surely it was either a refugee camp or it was a terrorist training camp, but not both -- or was/is the UN in the business of housing refugees and training terrorists in the same location? Anyone have any comments? --Craig 18:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I received no response, I went ahead and edited that sentence at the same time as cleaning up the article significantly. --Craig 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Craig on this. As this is meant to be an encyclopedia how can something as glaring as this be put in? As for the camp being a UN refugee camp is hard to say. More likely it was a camp for training terrorist (my own veiw). It has become the fashion today to call every guerrilla group "terrorists". If that is the case then all anti-nazi partisan groups in WWII were terrorists. Actually this is a combined sentance of the two views. The Rhodesian army said and knew they were terrorist training camps. However Propaganda by ZANLA and ZIPRA said they were UN refugee camps. The former view was the correct one. (confirmed by a S.A.S trooper who fought in this war) Theman2211 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Theman2211 4:23, 3 August 2008
 * The truth is somewhere in between: most of these camps were occupied by both guerrilla recruits and refugees, the latter including children. (confirmed by ZANU education officer who was in Mozambique at the time - no more or less biased than previous source). I have editted the sentence to reflect both claims. Babakathy (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not insist on calling them 'terrorists' but as for the raid - both views can not be valid. The guerillas had a base wiped out in a raid and lied about the base being a refugee camp; that seems clear. The truth does not lie half way between the truth and a lie.
 * Even if the guerillas were to be believed, on their own account they would have been using civilians in a United Nations camp as shields behind which to carry out military operations. It's a good thing the Rhodesians never tried anything like that, they would have been universaly denounced. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedure is we need a reliable source to reference the claims. Both claims can be supported by published books, and some academic papers as well. Babakathy (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's worth noting that while there were undeniable elements of racial discrimination in white-ruled Rhodesia, that the degree of that discrimination was less pronounced than in South Africa, that many blacks served in the Rhodesian military, that some blacks with property holdings and education could vote, and that the overall tone and tenor of the country's white-rule was less severe than in South Africa. I should also add that any aspirations to "neutrality" in a still-contested and still-raw recent event in which the two sides viewed the matter entirely differently is highly unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.97.110.220 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how relevant that is here. Maybe for an article on apartheid, or on racial discrimination in Africa? Babakathy (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article has improved, going by the descriptions that people have been posting. I've been cleaning up some NPOV language (mostly replacing "murdered" with "killed"), and I've tagged a weasel word, but I think it's actually going places. It dooes feel to me as if it's written from the perspective of the Rhodesian forces, so there's still room for improvement. ManicParroT (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Improving Article, Starting with the First Section
I'm going to begin improving this article and I'm starting with the first section on the causes of the war. Since this article seems to have a high level of interest amongst editors, I'm going to post my proposed changes here before changing the article itself. This provides the opportunity for anyone who wishes to provide citations relating to the the details below, or to propose other changes as you see fit.

To begin --

''In Rhodesia, Europeans owned most of the fertile land whilst Africans were crowded on barren land. ''
 * Doesn't seem correct. Europeans never "owned" more than half land, and Africans were not "crowded" onto barren land -  Zimbabwe/Rhodesia had and has a low population density relative to other countries.

Furthermore, forced labour in white-owned mines and brutal repression against blacks led to widespread motivation for resistance against the minority government.
 * This from a paragraph referring to the post world war II era. I can find no references to forced labor in white owned mines in Rhodesian post-1945 and very few to the era before that.  Does anyone have any references to forced labor in Rhodesia post-1945?

After the Sino-Soviet Split these two powers were often in competition with each other and hence there were two liberation armies in the Rhodesian Bush War; ZANLA supported by China and ZIPRA supported by the Soviet Union.
 * This implies that the ZANLA/ZIPRA split was along ideological lines or was a result of outside Russian and Chinese influence. Actually, the split was based on tribal lines from within the country

The Communist Party of Great Britain actively supported ZAPU.
 * Was this a cause of the war? I don't think so. This is more a piece of trivia, or could be in a section on outside nation's reactions to the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rewritten and some items restoed:
 * Land: Original text is factual, has now been expanded and referenced.
 * Forced labour: post above factual
 * ZAPU-ZANU split had many causes, as discussed in detail in Sibanda's book. It was definitely not only tribal: neither ZAPU nor ZANU were uni-tribal organisations.
 * CPGB: agreed.
 * On the issue of "tribal representation"chiefly representation was only part of the parliamentary system: 8 of the 16 black seats in the 66 seat parliament and I have rewritten this too.
 * Babakathy (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Still needs improvement. On the topic of of forced labor, the source you are referencing is an article about a book on the "Chibaro" system, which according to the article lasted from 1903 to 1923.  Too early to be a direct cause of the war.  On the ZAPU-ZANU split, tribal affiliations indeed may not have been the "only" cause of the split, it would be foolish to suggest that the groups were not split largely along tribal lines. SONORAMA (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rhodesian_Bush_War
Is this section really needed? It covers the next twenty years of Zimbabwean history in summary form which is better dealt with in those articles. I mean, is the emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change really an "aftermath" of a war that ended twenty years earlier? Babakathy (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Valid point. The events that occurred under Mugabe after 1980 are probably best discussed on the Zimbabwe page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.44 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated name statistics
The general web search shows Rhodesian Bush War to be more widely used, but the more reliable sources of scholarly articles and books show greater usage for Second Chimurenga. News articles favour Zimbabwe Liberation War or variants on that. Babakathy (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I again advocate leaving as it currently is, with all names referenced. Sf46 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By which argument, a situation where the title said Zimbabwe Liberation War and the other two names were redirects would be equally valid. Babakathy (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem to be getting changed, when it certainly should be. Though it may be an emotive subject, on both sides, the term 'Rhodesian Bush War' should be changed to Zimbabwe Liberation War for reasons of fairness, clarity, and academic rigour, as well as general usage. Predominantly white ex-Rhodesians & others may still refer to it as the Bush War - here in South Africa we seem to switch easily between RBW and ZLW - but to use RBW as lead title for this article seems to deny that the war resulted in the creation of Zimbabwe and the culmination of a successful 'liberation struggle', though that term can be hard to define. To continue calling it the Rhodesian Bush War is partisan, has political-ideological overtones, and doesn't reflect the historic reality. It's a name to be acknowledged as a redirect, not given as the lead title. 81.132.101.95 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the term 'Zimbabwe Liberation War' has political-ideological overtones as well to a layperson. 'Rhodesian Bush War' describes what it was; a war fought in the bush in Rhodesia. --Panzer71 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to the conflict as 'Rhodesian' has political-ideological overtones, and is a historical anachronism. 'Zimbabwe Liberation War' is widely used and is essentially official. Babakathy (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While to some people "Zimbabwe Liberation War" is an ideological term, it does at least recognise that the struggle lead, 30 years ago, to the founding of Zimbabwe. People under 30 will not remember Rhodesia, and so heading the article with the name of the successor state will assist people in discovering it. Nigellegg (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By the logic of the last statement in support of "Rhodesian Bush War" as the title, the American War of Independence should be called the "Great British East Coast War" - it took place in what was officially Great Britain and it was on the East Coast. I believe this should be put a vote - the point made by Nigelleg is valid. Even disregarding the ideological underpinnings of using Rhodesian Bush War as the title (which are themselves significant), ease of use for those who are not familiar with Rhodesia means that the title should be changed to Zimbabwe Liberation War, or if not that then something similar with Zimbabwe in the title. It should be said that changing the title is in no way an implied criticism of any veterans of the struggle; but Wikipedia may be best served by changing it. Get.thee.down.babylon (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No such place as the "Great British East Coast" ever existed. As a colony it was referred to as "America", or, at a stretch, "British America", so it is neutral to call it the "American War of Independence". I dispute that there are ideological underpinnings of calling the war "Rhodesian" – after all, that is what it was called at the time by most people, and that is where the war was fought: Wikipedia does not exist to change history – but all this is just my opinion. There is some precedent on this subject on the Israeli and Palestinian history articles, where they zealously uphold references to "Palestine" on just about everything before 1948 – and rightly so. Put your personal feelings on the subject aside and let's look at the 1948 Arab–Israeli War or the 1948 Palestine war articles just for starters. The former is titled with a neutral name, but refers very prominently to an Israeli "War of Independence" in the first line, then a "War of Liberation" in the second. We have the very same thing on this article. Is this not good enough? It is neutral as it is and there is no need to change it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the analogy isn't perfect, but I take it you understood my point to some degree? The colony (in fact there were a number of British colonies, none of which had the word 'America' in their name) was part of Great Britain, and took place along the eastern seaboard. It resulted in the creation of a new state which for the first time included the name America (and I'd argue that it was used to indicate the political region which had emerged, rather than the continental landmass which then included the various colonies of Canada). The war is named to reflect this new state, as opposed to the British-given names it succeeded, and as such recognises the historical process (in this case a war) as giving rise to the changed situation. I agree, my personal feelings shouldn't come into it, and nor should yours. Nor is anyone saying that some kind of retrospective renaming should take place back through the ages, entirely effacing the fact that the state was called Rhodesia. The truth is that Rhodesian Bush War is a term which is not well recognised outside Southern Africa, and even then it is only in use among an ever-decreasing contingent of white folks. I say that as a white South African who is familiar with the events. To say "that is what it was called at the time by most people" is to ignore an entire one-half of the forces engaged in the conflict - those who won, by most metrics - who used a range of other terms. The state was called Rhodesia, yes, but the war was not.

The Arab-Israeli war is an inappropriate comparison, given that the article itself describes it is as part of a still-ongoing conflict; it is also a truly neutral term which finds a middle ground between two different partisan names for the conflict (both given in the opening of the article). The conflict in Zimbabwe, however, is over. I don't believe that many states or individuals would claim that the transition to black rule from white minority government in Zimbabwe remains a contentious issue, or that the war continues to this day. Whatever horrors are played out in Zimbabwe these days, and there have been many, they are not part of a lineage which stretches back to 1964 or '79.

I do not believe that history should be the propaganda of the victors, and hopefully all those who love historical accuracy will do what they can to see that it isn't. But to continue calling it the Rhodesian Bush War is an anachronism which pleases only those who a) were personally involved on the Rhodesian side or b) grew up using that name and have no wish to change. The naming of this article implies 'ownership' of the war. Given that there are arguments on both sides, should the war be Rhodesian or Zimbabwean? It resulted in the end of Rhodesia and creation of Zimbabwe, so which takes precedence? And what will all those who use Wikipedia find easiest to use, or most appropriate from their knowledge of historical process more generally? Perhaps there is another name which might stir up old feelings less? I do think it should be changed. Get.thee.down.babylon (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot think of a more neutral term that does not sound contrived and false. So far as I can see, calling something a "War of Liberation" or "revolutionary struggle" (which, as I am sure you are aware, is the English translation for chimurenga – I include this for other readers) is more contentious and implies far stronger "ownership", as you put it, than simply calling it a Bush War, a war fought out in the bush, which is where both sides fought it. As for Rhodesia, it is only a name, and it was the name of the country during the conflict, even if you are going by British constitutional theory (in which case it would be Southern Rhodesia, but I digress). To label something as Zimbabwean before Zimbabwe existed to me seems rather strange, more so than any perceived anachronism that may exist by referring to it as Rhodesian. Moreover, the country was called Zimbabwe neither at its beginning nor at its end, when the Lancaster House Agreement was signed. "Zimbabwe" was not the name for another five months after that.


 * You say that "Rhodesian Bush War" is a term not well known outside Southern Africa. I would say by the same token that very little is known about Zimbabwe outside Southern Africa, full stop. Most people cannot pinpoint Zimbabwe on a map, let alone tell you that this war happened there. This has nothing to do with the name of the country. You can easily reach this article from the articles on Zimbabwe or the History of Zimbabwe, to name just two, both of which make it clear that the name "Rhodesia" refers the same place. And if we are going to judge based on the ease of finding this article easily in a search for a "Zimbabwe war", the title "Second Chimurenga" would produce yet more confusion for the casual reader. "Zimbabwe Liberation War" is highly contentious, which leaves only "Rhodesian Bush War" from the three title options we have. I admit it is not perfect, but I really do think it is the most historically accurate and shows the least point of view.


 * One last thing: the First Indochina War is, I think, quite a similar case. To paraphrase your last post, it resulted in the end of Indochina and creation of Vietnam. Again, the "Vietnamese" name, the "Anti-French Resistance War", is given in bold in the second line. As I said before, both "Zimbabawean" names, each more partisan than "Rhodesian Bush War", whether or not you agree that "Rhodesian" is or isn't an anachronism, get the same treatment. I think it is as neutral as it can get as it is without applying some frivolous, contrived name – which would be original research in any case. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 01:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Cliftonian, you make some very good points. Sf46 (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents
I've been looking at the info-box and it seems to misrepresent much of the article when it mentions belligerents. The info-box currently shows: ZANLA (ZANU) ZIPRA (ZAPU) Mozambique FRELIMO FROLIZI (October 1971–1978) Umkhonto we Sizwe

However the article states that, though these were the only groups that actually fought physically, there were many other organisations and countries that gave them diplomatic and material support.

I think it would be appropriate to have a few subheadings in the belligerents box, one for those actually fighting (ZANLA, ZIPRA etc), another for material support (USSR, China, I think that was all), and maybe one for diplomatic support, i.e the countries that instituted sanctions (USA, UK).

Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.55.124 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a sort of infobox I mean some of my criticisms that I either don't know how or do not know tha answers to are:
 * The only section I have edited is the Belligerents box, I haven't edited the commanders box, that may need doing.
 * I was also not sure whether or not Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique should go in the materials section as they did allow the nationalists to have bases in their country. Anyone think they belong somewhere else?
 * I have put Cuba in the diplomatic box as they offered material support but were declined,so they shouldn't go in the material box but that still means they supported them diplomatically. Do you agree?
 * I put some countries in bold under material support to denote they formed the bulk of the material support. Should all of the countries under material support that are not in bold simply be summed up as the Eastern Bloc, or Warsaw Pact?
 * Are we sure there aren't any other belligerents to go in the Rhodesian side? I don't know much about that.
 * The infobox is massive! Does anyone know how to put a dammed hide/show tab?

This article receives a few edits a month, usually more. If there are no criticisms after, say, a month or two, I shall just insert the box in the article.

Feel free to criticise!!

It has been over a month, am I to conclude there is no criticism? I doubt it somehow, this article has been edited many times since I suggested this, whether you agree or disagree with this expansion of the infobox please write here. 86.179.109.115 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(moved to end)Babakathy (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this makes the infobox too complex - I mean, they should summarise at a glance the "summary or overview information about the subject". Certainly putting countries that exerted diplomatic and economic pressure on the Rhodesian government as beligerents is misrepresenting their role - and in the case of the US (given their position on Rhodesian chrome) plain wrong. Babakathy (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the infoxbox does a great disservice to the casual reader who reads this page, Belligerent has has a specific meaning as does Non-belligerent, Neutral. Most of the those countries listed as belligerent were non-belligerent. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Ian Smith a military commander? If not then he should not be listed as a [military] commander in the infbox. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ Ian Smith certainly issued military orders - which were carried out.--DLMcN (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that they were military orders? Or where they requests? It is unusual for the military in the commonwealth tradition not to be subservient to a civilian government. -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem was some idiot made ridiculous edits to the infobox. I'll try to fix it. B-Machine (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Over a year on and the list of belligerents has not changed. As I said before Belligerent has has a specific meaning as does Non-belligerent, Neutral. -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What is with Malawi and Comoros in the beligerent list? Cannot find them in the main text and seems bizarre. Babakathy (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone added them to the infobox about a week ago. I've taken them off again. The reasoning for Malawi is that although Malawi did not actually recognise Rhodesia, it did make unofficial dealings with it (for example, the Malawian and Rhodesian police forces worked together). This is not the same as Malawi actually helping the Rhodesian government against the guerrillas, however. In the case of the Comoros, the Comoros were couped in 1978 (by a group of Frenchmen led by Bob Denard, supported by France, Rhodesia and South Africa) and thereafter, as an effective puppet of the aforementioned countries, served as a key location for Rhodesian sanction-busting operations. Again, however, this is not the same as the Comoros actually actively supporting Rhodesia. As an aside, the Comoros remained a key way-point for clandestine arms shipments bound for South Africa right up until the 1990s. So, in a nutshell, I can understand Malawi and the Comoros being in the infobox, but that doesn't make it correct. Moreover, it isn't mentioned in the main text, as you say, which makes it look quite odd. —Cliftonian <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is FROLIZI in the Rhodesian column but not in an opposition column? ` <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#0000CD>Metalello    <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#FFE303>talk 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal of South African Support
I'm not sure how relevant this is - but the relentless withdrawal (from late 1976 onwards) of South African support for Ian Smith's government - was probably the 'heaviest blow' it received during the Bush War (more serious, even, than Mozambique's transition to independence). Under pressure from Vorster to surrender, it became impossible for Smith to continue. Should more emphasis be given to that point? The best reference confirming that point is probably Smith's 'memoirs' entitled: "The Great Betrayal"; (Blake Publishing Ltd. London, 1997). --DLMcN (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perspective of the UDI Government forces
"Just how well equipped the nationalists had become only became evident from Rhodesian raids on guerrilla base areas which even revealed mortars".

Really? So the guerillas had no idea what weaponry they had! Instead presumably they sat around saying "We need the Rhodesian to raid on our base so they can tell us what our weapon stocks are".

I presume that the author means "The Rhodesian security forces had no idea...". But this is just one example of many in the article of a point of view based on that of the UDI Government forces. -- PBS (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is probably because the vast majority of the sources you find for this kind of thing are written from the government point of view. The terrorists guerrillas weren't so keen on keeping records. Nonetheless NPOV is our policy. I'll have a run-through at some point and look at these issues. —<i style="text-shadow:#bbbbbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em;"><b style="color:#ff3300">Cliftonian</b><b style="color:#ff3300">the orangey bit</b></i> 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think now? —<i style="text-shadow:#bbbbbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em;"><b style="color:#ff3300">Cliftonian</b><b style="color:#ff3300">the orangey bit</b></i> 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The "UFP" in 1962
I have serious doubts as to whether we can really describe the The United Federal Party as: campaigning on majority rule (in 1962) - which is what the text presently says (see "Pre-War events").--DLMcN (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)--DLMcN (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not such an expert on the UFP, but I'm fairly sure that wording is rather misleading. I'll have a look at this at some point over the next couple days. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've fixed this. Thoughts? <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Cliftonian, for your good work.


 * I was living in Rhodesia during the 1960s, and was well aware of - and following - the political developments of that era. Admittedly, at the time of the 1962 election I was (temporarily) away, studying in England, but I'm 99.9% sure that the White electorate would have reacted in horror at any suggestion that "... Black rule [would be ensured] within 15 years". If that had been categorically stated as part of the UFP manifesto, then they would have been defeated even more decisively; they would have won few (if any) A-Roll seats. There would have been no "surprise" whatsoever when the RF was elected; as you know, even many members of the RF were not expecting to win.


 * Maybe the UFP was indeed of the opinion that "the indefinite retention of minority rule was politically untenable" - [certainly true if we use the key word "indefinite"] - but most Rhodesian Whites at that time were probably expecting [perhaps irrationally] that Mozambique would remain in Portuguese hands for a good many more decades, and thought that South Africa would continue to support them.


 * I do of course realize that my personal memories cannot be regarded as a "reliable source" in a Wikipedia context. I confess to not having read Elaine Windrich's book, which seems to contradict what I've said above. The only description which I do have, here in the house, is Ian Smith's autobiography "The Great Betrayal", which surely would have mentioned the "Black rule in 15 years" clause if that really had been part of the UFP manifesto. Making this point could perhaps be construed as "original research" on my part, so I am not sure how exactly to play this. Tentatively, I have truncated a few items, and added a couple of references to relevant pages in Smith's book. Let's see what other editors have to say ... maybe they can supply better references.--DLMcN (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)DLMcN (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good as it is now. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 10:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo
I would like to suggest removing the photo 'File:Attrocity1.jpg' from this article. I think it could be insensitive to the families of the people who are shown dead in this photograph, especially as the page for the photo describes their deaths in some detail. What do people think?

Gecko177 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the photo should stay. The Bush War had some horrific aspects, and trying to tone that down smacks of historical revisionism. I'd venture a guess that the family of those killed would prefer to see that photo posted, as a reminder of the brutality of those who inflicted it. GOODtoWyoming (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 21:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the photo should be preserved.OnlySwissMiss (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, leave it in. --DLMcN (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't mean to be revisionist; actually writing in itself can often convey how brutal a war can be. My main concern is whether the photo is hurtful as, personally, I would not be comfortable if my family were involved. Do you know if it would be possible to contact the family to ask their views? Gecko177 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

edits by 70.97.58.178
These additions are hopelessly POV - substituting extremist for nationalist, and Rhodesian for white, and as much mention of black as possible. It obviously has had a bit of effort put in though, which is why I don't immediately revert. Is it salvageable ? Wizzy… &#9742; 09:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wizzy is right - the edits by 70.97.58.178 should really be revised or at least 'toned down' - even if a lot of what 70.97.58.178 says or implies is true. Unfortunately, I have other projects and commitments on my plate, right now, so I cannot attend to it myself. --DLMcN (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd revert it all for now; perhaps some of the less POV stuff can be brought back later, but even as something of a Rhodesian sympathiser I found quite a bit of the wording introduced by 70.97.58.178 rather extreme to say the least. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 09:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to try to salvage. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 10:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Have to run, guys .. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 10:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article took a huge step backwards with the edits by the anonymous editor. Uncited claims attributed to existing citations, constant use of weasel words, etc. I agree with Cliftonian and have reverted - if there is something worth salvaging, I suggest adding it to the existing article from the diff, rather than the reverse, as the state of the article when I reverted, even after Wizzy's improvements, was still inferior to the original. Greenman (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this article is listed in the 'List of modern conflicts in North Africa'? Whatever happened during the war I doubt that anyone thinks it happened up there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliderman (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox fun
The belligerents section is starting to go wild again:
 * Although MK participated in some zoint activities with ZIPRA, I do not think it's appropriate to identify all of its leadership as part of the "commanders and leaders" of the war - especially including intelligence(Zuma) and political (Tambo, Sisulu) leadership amongst the military. And Zuma was not even heading up DIS by the end of the war, that followe din the 1980s.
 * Joice Mujuru was not at the same level of seniority in ZANLA as her husband, Tongogara, or others not mentioned such as Tungamirai. Babakathy (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree on all this <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 16:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Now works for 1964-1980: ZANU political (Sithole, Chitepo, Mugabe), ZANLA military (Tongogara, Mujuru), removed Tekere otherwise why not other Dare members (Gumbo, Kangai, Muzenda, Nkala). ZIPRA added JZ who preceded Masuku. Tambo as ANC head and Slovo as MK (Madiba's role in MK predate the war). Babakathy (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also not sure geopolitical pic has come out as intended - cannot see which are "other nations, friendly to the nationalist guerrillas", not knowing what "camel" is as a colour. or is it meant to be everyone except SA? Babakathy (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I made that map, and yes, it's supposed to be everyone except SA (including SWA) <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 16:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure countries such as Malawi, Zaire really played a comparable role to Mozambique or Zambia. Babakathy (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true. The map is oversimplified. I'll have a look at tweaking it over the next few days, hopefully I'll have time <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Any idea why the casualties and losses section vanished. Figure of 30k given in this BBC story. Babakathy (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Prof JRT Wood gives 40k (can't remember page number, will look up) <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 11:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

SADF casualties?
Does anyone know any figure on South African casualties in the war? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Formatting error in the infobox
I reckon there's a serious issue with the formatting in the infobox. Wiki identified it as a bracket error, but I checked all the brackets in the affected section and they seem to have been closed properly. It's most likely a problem with the template rather than the article but seeing as how I've been wrong before could somebody follow up on this? --Katangais (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem has been fixed at its source. The template glitched out. --Katangais (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Retitle me?
I'm thinking we should move this page to "Rhodesian Forces during the Rhodesian Bush War", since it goes into great detail about the weapons used by Rhodesian Forces, a lengthy list of arms carried by soldiers, what vehicles they used, what airplanes they used, how they made MRAP APC's. It even goes as far as listing the makeup of units, the numbers of reservists, how often they were called, even mentions how it was "not unusual to see housewives carrying submachine guns" (I'd like to see the evidence THAT claim is based on...I'd bet $20 it because there us a photograph taken somewhere of a housewife toting an SMG, and that gets translated into "not unusual for housewives to carry SMG's). Then you get to the African forces: I see they must have had at least one sort of Soviet mine, because they drop the name while describing how they sneakily set booby traps with them. They mention SA-7 SAM's in the context of shooting down civilian airliners. I think they mentioned "numerous small aircraft". And I think that was about it. Didn't notice any details about recruitment, unit histories, what a typical recruit was like (were they REALLY all "radicals and communists", as it says the white government believed, or was that just a way of winning popular support by painting the enemy as a homogenous mob of "communists"? What guns were the Nationalists using? Seems a glaring fact that they don't mention a single one after listing the entire Rhodesian army's inventory. Where did the Nationalists GET guns? If Rhodesia was under embargo, they must have got them somewhere. I'm assuming from Russia, Cuba, China or North Korea, but it neglects to mention where, or even what KINDS of guns they had. Were they armed with brand-spanking new AK47's? SKS rifles? Or were they using rusty old bolt-actions? I don't see a hint. What percentage of the population served in one of these nationalist armies? Did they reenlist? Were they coerced? Did THEY ever feel like they were in a "Siege mentality"? Was it unusual for BLACK housewives to be seen carrying SMG's? All questions that pop into my mind after reading the section about the Rhodesian Forces, and then reading the two paragraphs covering the Nationalist forces. If it's worth putting all these technical and human details in about the white guys, then why isn't it worth doing the same for the other side? (And don't tell me I should do it myself, I came to this page because I wanted to learn something about this war, which doesn't really recommend me as the one to teach other people about it.).45Colt 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello there .45Colt. I'll answer your queries one by one:
 * It wasn't unusual see to white Rhodesian housewives carrying weapons. Quote from Newsweek, 1978 (link): "Virtually all white Rhodesian men, and many white women, now carry firearms; a local arms maker has even begun manufacturing a local version of the Israeli-designed Uzi submachine gun for home use."
 * One of the nationalist armies, ZIPRA, shot down Air Rhodesia Flight 825 and Air Rhodesia Flight 827 in 1978 and 1979 respectively with Strela-2 missiles as you say. All aboard Flight 827 died in the crash; some survived the Flight 825 wreck, and guerrillas went in and shot them.
 * The ZANLA and ZIPRA recruits were not all necessarily communists, but the professed political ideology of each group certainly was. ZANLA, the military wing of ZANU, was Maoist and backed up by China, North Korea, Mozambique and others; ZIPRA's parent body ZAPU was Marxist-Leninist and supported by the USSR, Cuba and other Warsaw Pact nations. They were trained abroad, variously in other African countries (Libya, for example) or in China, the USSR, North Korea, etc. They had typical communist-made weapons, generally brand-new AK-47s or variants thereof. ZANU and ZAPU leaders attending conferences always did so as "Comrade Nkomo", "Comrade Mugabe" et al—a usage that continues in Zimbabwean politics to this day, incidentally.
 * In 1979, ZANLA claimed to have about 25,000 guerrillas while ZIPRA said it had 20,000. The population was then about 7 million, of whom roughly 6.7 million were black Africans. Presuming both of the claimed guerrilla figures are accurate, then they included less than 1% of the black African population. It should be remembered that the majority of Rhodesian Army personnel were black soldiers, though officers were all white until the late 1970s, and certain crack units such as the Rhodesian Light Infantry and the Rhodesian Special Air Service were all white. The most formidable Rhodesian Army unit, the Selous Scouts, was integrated and actually made up mostly of black troops.
 * Were nationalist guerrillas coerced into joining? Not necessarily always, but at least a proportion of them were. Black men who joined the Rhodesian Army or the police were occasionally killed when they returned home on leave. By the same token, intimidation played a part in ZANU's victory in the 1980 election.
 * I don't understand what you mean here about ZANLA or ZIPRA feeling like they might be in a siege situation. They were based outside the country's borders and sending expeditions in. Or do you mean the black population in general? A lot of them did, yes—they just wanted to get on with their lives.
 * Was it unusual for black housewives to be seen carrying SMGs? I have never seen sources touch on this so I would say yes, it would have been unusual.
 * Thanks for the note. You make a good point that all of this kind of stuff should be included in the article, but I think the solution to this problem is to actually work towards putting the appropriate information in—not to simply rename the article so its scope only covers one side. All the very best and I hope you're well. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It Was In Fact A Political Settlement
This was even acknowledged by Mugabe.207.225.131.141 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A political settlement that lead to the withdrawal of Rhodesian military forces, that is per definition a military retreat. Thus the war ended with a Rhodesian military retreat and not a military stalemate. Hongon (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited source says "military statemate", verbatim. If you disagree, please add other sources. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Edited info box per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Question About The Map
Seeing that Malawi provided the Rhodesian Government with support, shouldn't they be shown in purple, the color for "Government Allies"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Stalemate?
Why is this referred to as a stalemate on the side box? Why wouldn't it be a ZANU victory,as that party has governed Zimbabwe ever sinze this war and Rhodesia hasn't existed since? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.13.185 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would guess this is because the war wasn't actually won by force of arms by either side. The country was turned over to the British government and the British government then formed a new country with elections.  After these elections were concluded, the country was granted full independence. Sf46 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody 'gave' anything to anyone. It doesn't matter if there is never a military victory during a guerilla war. (Although the Cubans did beat the Southafricans in Angola.) All guerillas have to do is make the there side run out of new recruits, money, or political will. Or frustrate their strategy. Thinking that in 1979, the British government 'miraculously' thought to give away independence is typical rhodesian thinking. Also, your statement that "the country was granted full independence" is naive at best. The Imperial Crown/Rothschild Baron funded De Beers still owns the mines, just like in South Africa, Namibia, etc. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Casualties
In the infobox are mentioned "1,120 Rhodesian security forces members killed", while in the "Aftermath"-section again it is stated that "from December 1972 to December 1979, 4,160 members of the Rhodesian security forces were killed". This conflict requires clarification. Particularly as the dated and patchwork look for the source of the first number, "GlobalSecurity.org", does not (on a passing and uneducated look) earn much trust, while the other is completely unavailable. --88.113.198.23 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bradburyc. Peer reviewers: Srenman, Andrew32198.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cause?
What was the cause of the Rhodesian Bush War? I already know slavery was the cause of the Portuguese Colonial War and apartheid was the cause of the South African Border War. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @ColorfulSmoke Both things you "already know" are factually incorrect. Slavery was abolished more than a century before the Portuguese colonial wars. The Portuguese conflicts were basically independence insurgencies which were accelerated by an abrupt change of colonial policy following a change of government in Portugal.
 * The "Border War" was a mixture of an insurgency for Namibian independence and the Angolan civil war, and at the same time also a proxy conflict of the Cold War, apartheid per se had very little to do with it.
 * To address your question, the Rhodesian War was an independence insurgency, but it also blended into the Mozambique civil war at times.
 * All these answers are of course very brief simplifications, reading the articles, as well as some of the more comprehensive cited sources, should be useful to add some nuance if you wish to study it further. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All these answers are of course very brief simplifications, reading the articles, as well as some of the more comprehensive cited sources, should be useful to add some nuance if you wish to study it further. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Claims regarding "occupation" etc.
To the IP editor: We do not in Wikivoice try to ascertain who has rightful claims to a country in a moral sense. It is clear you are trying to inject your moral views on what constitutes a rightful claim to land into the article text. I disagree with trying to debate the complex issues of "who can say a country is theirs" by changing vocabulary in the article text. One side had a view and another had their own, it would be mighty unusual for Wikipedia to declare one side was simply "correct" in any war, though many of us might personally feel that way. See WP:NPOV. What is factually inaccurate about saying "The Nationalists considered their country occupied and dominated by a foreign power, namely Britain, since 1890."? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Dubious source for Yugoslavia support
The source for Yugoslavian support to the rebels is an article from a tabloid. The article cites a Croatian diplomat regarding this, no other sources exist that would indicate Yugoslavia did really provide military, financial or diplomatical. I would advise modders of this page to review this statement and it's source. 31.223.131.16 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)