Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2023/Op-ed


 * By 

Over the last couple of years I've worked on a range of articles on the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Rhodesian Bush War. This has included developing the Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces article to FA standard, creating or improving articles on some prominent Rhodesian units such as the Selous Scouts, Grey's Scouts and the Combined Operations headquarters as well as working on a range of other articles including some biographies. This is all very much a work in progress, but it's involved some interesting editing challenges that I'd like to reflect on.

Rhodesia was a British colony in southern Africa that was dominated by its very small white minority until 1980, when it transitioned to majority rule as Zimbabwe. The process of decolonisation was quite different to the other British colonies in Africa, as the white minority government led by Ian Smith issued a unilateral declaration of independence (an event usually referred to as UDI) in November 1965 in an attempt to sustain white minority rule. This act was considered illegal by all other countries, and sparked the Rhodesian Bush War that was fought between the Rhodesian Security Forces and several nationalist guerrilla forces.

The nature of white rule in UDI-era Rhodesia had strong similarities to the better known Apartheid system in neighbouring South Africa, but was somewhat less formalised. Until the late 1970s the African majority of the population faced major barriers to participation in the Rhodesian government and a range of measures limited their economic opportunities. The white minority enjoyed a standard of living similar to that in advanced economies while the African majority generally lived in poverty.

The Rhodesian Security Forces included the Rhodesian Army and Rhodesian Air Force, as well as the British South Africa Police and various paramilitary forces. The Army and Air Force were modern forces structured and equipped along contemporary British lines. The security forces had little difficulty defeating the nationalists until the early 1970s, but from that point began to gradually lose control of the country. This led to a massive expansion of the security forces and the adoption of increasingly brutal tactics, including the use of chemical and biological weapons. By late 1979 the white politicians who continued to dominate the by now nominally African-led Rhodesian government recognised that their cause was lost. This led to free elections and a transition to Zimbabwe under the leadership of Robert Mugabe.

Rhodesia and the Bush War are little remembered today, outside of people with an interest in African decolonisation processes or Cold War-era conflicts and various types of racists who celebrate Rhodesia. As a result, the literature on the war is limited and at times of very bad quality. There are a few decent popular histories of the war, most of which are now dated, and some good specialised histories (largely in the form of journal articles and other academic works). The most prominent English language works are written from the perspective of ex-Rhodesian military personnel and are often authored by Rhodesian veterans, and tend to glamorise the Rhodesian Security Forces and exaggerate their performance - many of these works are essentially 'boy's own adventure' type books published by firms with low standards for editing and accuracy. As a possible over-simplification, this has led to a literature comprising lots of works that provide an overly positive portrayal of the security forces (typically arguing that they were a small but elite force that was overwhelmed by numbers or even somehow won the war) and a smaller number of less prominent works noting the problems with the security forces that contributed to Rhodesia's defeat.

In line with this literature, Wikipedia's articles on the war and the Rhodesian Security Forces were a mixed bag when I first started looking into the topic. Some were pretty good, and provided a balanced view, but many reflected pro-Rhodesian views. For instance, the article on the Selous Scouts (a paramilitary-style unit of the Rhodesian Army whose main role was to infiltrate the nationalists) was focused on the unit's achievements and ignored its notoriety for war crimes and the counter-productive results of its operations. Articles on the white-dominated units of the Army had, and in some cases still retain, a similar bias.

Working to improve some of these articles has been an interesting challenge, including due to the uneven coverage of the literature. For instance, when working on the Selous Scouts article I was able to draw on many good-quality works. I think that the article now reflects this literature, and adequately discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the Scouts' tactics and the many allegations of war crimes made against the unit. The article on foreign volunteers was more challenging, as the literature is extremely fragmented with some significant gaps (for instance, no-one knows how many volunteers there were or their casualties).

I found the Combined Operations article particularly interesting to work on. This is often portrayed as a successful Rhodesian military innovation in the high level literature on the war, perhaps due to the good reputation of its leader Lieutenant General Peter Walls. However, the professional military historians and analysts who have written on the topic are united in concluding that the Combined Operations headquarters was ineffective and at times clearly incompetent.

Another important aspect of writing about this topic is the need to be alert to the morally and legally problematic status of Rhodesia, and the political debates this caused at the time: this should not be surprising given the country was established illegally to continue white supremacy and the war was fought to sustain this system. For instance, the article on foreign volunteers needed to discuss the legality of people volunteering to fight for Rhodesia and how this was seen by opponents of the Rhodesian regime as well as its supporters. Even biography articles on office holders who could be expected to be utterly uncontroversial in other countries need to consider these issues. As an example, the article on the relatively centrist Rhodesian Air Force commander and de-facto Ambassador to South Africa Harold Hawkins needed to note that he rose to command the air force when his predecessor was forced out early for not supporting independence, and as part of his diplomatic career Hawkins obtained an Australian passport on false pretences and took part in illegal activities to violate the UN sanctions imposed against Rhodesia.

Some of my edits, and particularly those to the Selous Scouts and Grey's Scouts articles, are often reverted by IP accounts for no clear reason. I suspect that this is being done by people who've read only the popular literature that glamorises these units. As a result, there's a need to keep an eye on these articles, and periodically check that referenced material hasn't been removed or changed without a good reason.

Another challenge of writing articles on the Rhodesian Bush War is the very few images available on Commons to illustrate them with. As the copyright status of images from this period created in Rhodesia is somewhat unclear due to the complexities of Zimbabwean copyright law (and the few Wikimedia participants from this part of the world who are available to help clarify things), this may not change anytime soon.

Finally, due to the obscurity of Rhodesia and its war, there can be a need to provide more background on these topics in articles than is necessary in articles on better-known aspects of military history. This is one of the reasons that the FA candidacy for the article on foreign volunteers was the most difficult I've gone through (the article was, in all fairness, also somewhat under-developed when I submitted it for FAC).

There is still lots of work to be done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Rhodesian Bush War, and this can be a very interesting topic to work on. Some articles, such as those on the Rhodesian Light Infantry and on the war's main battles, still need a proper review to ensure that they're well balanced. We also have large gaps in our coverage of the war - for instance, the articles on the African-manned elements of the Rhodesian Security Forces and the nationalist forces need to be expanded and improved, and there's lots of scope to write about the process through which the Rhodesian and nationalist forces were merged to form the military of Zimbabwe (a topic that's attracted lots of attention from military historians and experts in security force structures). It may also be possible to broaden the scope of our coverage over time as new sources become available.