![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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
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)
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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
A lot of time has been devoted to debating the name of this article, hopefully this is now resolved although I'm sure the debate will be reoppened at another time. In reality what this article really needs is some neutral editors willing to track down and include citations from respectable sources. Unfortunately I only have a few sources, which I'm attempting to add at the moment. If you can help please dive in. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
Furthermore, forced labour in white-owned mines and brutal repression against blacks led to widespread motivation for resistance against the minority government.
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.
The Communist Party of Great Britain actively supported ZAPU.
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)
Search term | Google web (English only) | Google Scholar | Google books (English only) | Google news |
---|---|---|---|---|
Exact phrase | ||||
"Rhodesian Bush War" | 571,000 | 53 | 192 | 40 |
"Second Chimurenga" | 18,100 | 342 | 616 | 158 |
"Zimbabwe Liberation War" | 317,000 | 245 | 209 | 283 |
"Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle" | 55,300 | 100 | 234 | 188 |
Not exact phrase | ||||
Rhodesia + "bush war" | 21,500 | 363 | 627 | 527 |
second + chimurenga | 20,700 | 1,220 | 677 | 606 |
Zimbabwe + "liberation war" | 39,500 | 2,640 | 767 | 3000 |
Zimbabwe + "liberation struggle" | 51,500 | 4,860 | 1,021 | 3320 |
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)
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)
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)
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'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:
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 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)
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)
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)
Why is FROLIZI in the Rhodesian column but not in an opposition column? ` Metalello talk 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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… ☎ 09:01, 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)
The belligerents section is starting to go wild again:
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)
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)
Does anyone know any figure on South African casualties in the war? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
This was even acknowledged by Mugabe. 207.225.131.141 ( talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Havsjö: 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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
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)
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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
A lot of time has been devoted to debating the name of this article, hopefully this is now resolved although I'm sure the debate will be reoppened at another time. In reality what this article really needs is some neutral editors willing to track down and include citations from respectable sources. Unfortunately I only have a few sources, which I'm attempting to add at the moment. If you can help please dive in. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
Furthermore, forced labour in white-owned mines and brutal repression against blacks led to widespread motivation for resistance against the minority government.
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.
The Communist Party of Great Britain actively supported ZAPU.
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)
Search term | Google web (English only) | Google Scholar | Google books (English only) | Google news |
---|---|---|---|---|
Exact phrase | ||||
"Rhodesian Bush War" | 571,000 | 53 | 192 | 40 |
"Second Chimurenga" | 18,100 | 342 | 616 | 158 |
"Zimbabwe Liberation War" | 317,000 | 245 | 209 | 283 |
"Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle" | 55,300 | 100 | 234 | 188 |
Not exact phrase | ||||
Rhodesia + "bush war" | 21,500 | 363 | 627 | 527 |
second + chimurenga | 20,700 | 1,220 | 677 | 606 |
Zimbabwe + "liberation war" | 39,500 | 2,640 | 767 | 3000 |
Zimbabwe + "liberation struggle" | 51,500 | 4,860 | 1,021 | 3320 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rhodesian Bush War a.k.a. Zimbabwe War of Liberation Second Chimurenga | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
![]() ![]() FROLIZI (1978–1979) |
Military Diplomatic and economic ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Ndabaningi Sithole (1978–1979) James Chikerema (1978–1979) |
![]() Joshua Nkomo ![]() Ndabaningi Sithole (1964–1978) Herbert Chitepo Josiah Tongogara Edgar Tekere Solomon Mujuru ![]() | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
Around 30,000 fatalities [3] of which 7-8 percent (c. 2,000+) from the Rhodesian security forces [4]; the remainder, insurgents and civilians. |
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
Why is FROLIZI in the Rhodesian column but not in an opposition column? ` Metalello talk 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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… ☎ 09:01, 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)
The belligerents section is starting to go wild again:
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)
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)
Does anyone know any figure on South African casualties in the war? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
This was even acknowledged by Mugabe. 207.225.131.141 ( talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Havsjö: 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)
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)
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)