Rhodesia destroyed

[Mick in England]

In 1965 Prime Minister Ian Smith of Rhodesia declared his country was breaking away from British rule to become independent.
5 minutes later the place became 'Zimbabwe' and began quickly going up the spout and has ended up as a joke of a country being ruled by the psychotic white-murdering tyrant Mugabe.
Anybody here have any thoughts on how things might have gone differently in a parallel universe if Smith hadn't broken away from Britain?

PS Just to edit the following into this post -
Suppose Australia were to break away from Britain and become a Republic (like many Aussies want), would that be a wise move bearing in mind the Rhodesia example?
I mean, suppose Oz broke away and then some kind of southeast Asian "Pacific Rim Dictator" were to arise in years to come, bent on 'unifying' the whole of the Far East and the Indonesian and Phillipine Islands etc, and after having done that, his greedy eyes should turn towards Australia and New Zealand?
Poor old Oz would then realise all too clearly that she's one of the most isolated places on the planet, far from any US or British military help.
Anyway, we Brits could then say - "Oz broke away from Britain (like Rhodesia did) so we're therefore under no obligation to send a single warship, plane, troop or nuclear submarine to help her are we?"

[Kipruss]

I'm not that familiar with Rhodesia's transition to Zimbabwe but the British do not rule Australia or New Zealand - and i'm positive they do not want to rule our countries.

We both have a system where the locals make the laws based on the democratic votes of citizens. Both have the Queen as Head of State, which I disagree with, but who has only figurehead status. In NZ, and i'm sure in Australia, the Queen's representative, the Governor General, is picked by our democratically elected politicians.

As for defence arrangements, NZ has the Five Power Defence Agreement with Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Britain. Australia has that and its AnzUS (you can guess why the NZ is in lower case:) ) alliance.

What would happen if either country was threatened with invasion is an unknown, but the US does have an impressive fleet and long range aircraft so Australia should be OK. Oh and they have a decent military as well!

[RadioM]

English people secretly want Australia to break away so that England won't look completly naff at the Commonwealth games.

If Rhodesia/Zimbabwe hadn't broken away in the 60's I'm sure it would have by now. The African colonies had a bad run under colonial rule, vs Australia/NZ which were pretty much left alone.

Unless you were Aboriginal/Maori.

[Officer of Engineers]

Canada, Australia, New Zealand were Dominions; essentially independent countries within the British Empire. Rhodesia was never a Dominion.

[pdf27]

Thankfully the tool who started this thread has since left. Note that he describes Mugabe as "white-murdering" despite the fact that only a literal handful of white people have been killed compared to many thousands of black people. But hey, black people aren't human, right? (see his BNP thread if you're in any doubt).

[Kipruss]

English people secretly want Australia to break away so that England won't look completly naff at the Commonwealth games.

If Rhodesia/Zimbabwe hadn't broken away in the 60's I'm sure it would have by now. The African colonies had a bad run under colonial rule, vs Australia/NZ which were pretty much left alone.

Unless you were Aboriginal/Maori.

I understand there are a number of Republics paticipating in the Commonwealth Games so that wont stop Australia from winning most of the medals again (and again and again...).

Australian Republican Movement - Q & A - What is the Commonwealth of Nations? (the last three paragraphs talk about the Games).

[pdf27]

Meh. We've got a secret plan B in case Australia becoming a republic isn't enough to save our backside at the Commonwealth games. Should help us a bit with the Cricket/Rugby too...

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Obese Aussies get big ambulances

[soutie]

okay this my theory UDI was declared on the 11 NOV 1966 the terrs only really stared infiltrating rhodesia in the early 70,s i am talking about en masse,
i think that britain and the rest of the worlld was putting extreme preesure on south africa for sanctions as rhodesia relied heavily on south african trade ,the south africans where reluctant to do this but what they did was to hold the imports and exports at beit bridge for longer than normal,this was more of an irritant than having a major effect on the rhodesian economy.Its rumoured that when smith declared udi the south african president at the time made an offer to the rhodesian to let pretoria become their protectorat like become a colony of south africa as SWA was this has been denied on both sides that this meeting ever took place but the sources who leaked who very credible we will never know for sure south africa saw then the writing was on the wall for the rhodesians it was just a matter of time the southa fricans needed a buffer zone and rhodesia was it , towards the end of 79 when muzerewa became priminister both sides where tired of war ,the rhodesian intelligence had found out that Inkomo and Mugabe where running out of time ,they had amassed over 30 thousand fighters to invade rHODESIA
they where also getting tired of war ,Mugabe was putting pressure on britain to say the first election was not fair as he did not have enough time to prepare as we all know to intimidate.Every soldier from the age of 17 to 40 years was immoblised ,i can still remember the news report of a major indefinite call up ,the south africans pulled out their troops and the south afican commander saying that he was ashamed to be a south african ,there was amajor blood bath impending what ol bob was afraid of iis that if they lost what now ,the rhodesians showed no sighns of backinf down he had to move quickly on the diplomatic side ,Smith on the other was afraid of the lost of life that might occur that the country would never recover econmically if there was a large scale invasion of rhodesia he agreed to talk and have another election ,much to the generals disgust ,alot of the generals today say if there was a full invasion they would have one ,the enemy had no affective command structure and echelon ,it would have been bloody and a lot of people who have lost their lives,but who knows maybe today there would have been a proper goverment ,who do i blame Thatcher for one The british politicians who lied thru their teeth Smiths famous last words at lancaster house ONE MAN VOTE ONCE he makes hitler look like a nice guy,this what i am telling is what rumoured to have happened the infighting with the generals generals and the government i do not know if this was true ,but it would not surprise me if it was.

[soutie]

sorry UDI was delared 11NOV1965 ,MY MISTAKE

[glyn]

The British Prime Minister at the time was Harold Wilson, not Margaret Thatcher.

[Amled]

Thankfully the tool who started this thread has since left. Note that he describes Mugabe as "white-murdering" despite the fact that only a literal handful of white people have been killed compared to many thousands of black people. But hey, black people aren't human, right? (see his BNP thread if you're in any doubt).

The white-murdering was a gross exaggeration, but the rest of the description of Mugabe is if anything an understatement.

[soutie]

i stand corrected .however i am sure that at the time of indepedance in 1980 margret thatcher was in power maybe harold wilson was in power during the UDI years but at the time of Lancaster House Agreement i am sure Margret Thatcher was in power ,however i will go back and check and if i am wrong i apologize.

[soutie]

i was also a bit surprised by that statment ,yes a handfull of farmers lost thier lives at the hands of mugabe ,but what he has done to the Matabele and the rest of his people is unbelievable,in my eyes whether u r black or a white zimbabwean you are still a zimbabwean who has suffered at the hands of this despot

[Ray]

Society
Why Mbeki is the true heir to Thatcher

Rageh Omaar

Published 26 March 2007


Margaret Thatcher opposed sanctions in South Africa now Thabo Mbeki is doing the same for today's tyranny in Zimbabwe

In the late 1980s, as the international campaign for sanctions against South Africa was gaining ground, Peter Hain and Robert Mugabe found themselves on the same side of the barricades. Politically and morally, they were as one on seeking to bring down the apartheid state in South Africa.

These were the years of the "township wars", where, almost every night, television news images of the police shooting and beating ANC protesters were seen around the world. It was Margaret Thatcher who made the most consistent case against the imposition of sanctions. She argued that the ANC was a terrorist organisation and that sanctions would mainly end up hurting black South Africans and South Africa's neighbouring frontline states.

It seems almost impossible to believe it now, but one of the most dignified voices providing the counter-argument was Mugabe's. He offered ANC exiles not only a place of refuge, but also military and political aid. He said Zimbabweans and other black Africans would be prepared to eat just one meal of maize porridge a day if that helped liberate South Africans from tyranny.

Twenty years on, South Africa is free and prosperous, Peter Hain is a member of the British cabinet, and Zimbabwe is a desperate and brutal tyranny. As a Foreign Office minister, Hain led Britain's ill-advised attempts to bring pressure to bear on Mugabe's government at the height of the seizure of white-owned land in 2001-2002, only for new Labour to give up and leave the fight against Mugabe to others. This was a sensible decision. Others, notably the African Union and South Africa, the continent's superpower, had much greater leverage.

Mugabe's introduction of the race card was cynical, but effective. White farmers had certainly had it too good and they owned a disproportionate share of land. But this wasn't why they were singled out for attack. The reason was that many white farmers supported the new opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Destroying the farmers was intended not only to destroy a source of support and funding for the MDC; it would teach a lesson to any other group thinking of opposing the ruling Zanu-PF party. The strategy was clever because it suggested that the British, American and European condemnation of Zimbabwe was intrinsically white and neocolonial. The insinuation that "they're only making a fuss because whites are involved" was corrosive. Yet it was also not without foundation if you looked at other crises on the continent.

Its effect on South Africa was the most shocking and debilitating. No other figure in the world wields as much influence over the Mugabe reg ime as President Thabo Mbeki. Loans for fuel, electricity and food, and the ability to hurt the private business interests of leading Zanu-PF officials, are just some of the trump cards Mbeki holds. Yet the ever increasing horrors facing ordinary Zimbabweans, and the now blatant violence shown by Mugabe's government, are still not enough to prompt Mbeki into action.

The real reason, which again stems from Mugabe's political acumen, is that land is even more of an explosive issue in South Africa, where more white farmers have been killed over the past four years than in Zimbabwe. It is one of the most viscerally potent legacies of the apartheid era, when thousands of black families were thrown off their land. The ANC leadership has changed in the years since it came to power. It is no longer based in the townships or the provincial cities. As ministers, ambassadors and captains of industry, the people at the heart of the ANC leadership inhabit a more privileged place. This is partly why they are so sensitive to Mugabe's demagogic rages about pushing the whites off the land by force, and kicking foreign (meaning white) meddlers out of the country.

None of this should prevent Mbeki from taking action. Zimbabwe is an open wound for Africa. The rates of HIV infection are one of the highest in the world. The country is now perilously short of food. The effects of malnutrition on hundreds of thousands of already sick people can be seen in the mortuaries in rural parts of the country. But, of course, we don't seen this because there are no television cameras.

There is also a growing sense of shame and embarrassment at the creation of another buffoon-like caricature of an African dictator, a successor to Idi Amin. That, in itself, is terrible for African diplomacy and pride. Zimbabwe is a disgraceful stain on President Mbeki and the South African government. Who would have thought they would now find themselves parroting the kind of excuses which Thatcher made about South Africa 20 years ago: that to impose sanctions would hurt only black Africans.

Many Zimbabweans ate one meal a day to help end oppression in South Africa. It seems that there are those in South Africa's government who aren't interested in reciprocating.

New Statesman - Why Mbeki is the true heir to Thatcher

While I detest Mugabwe and hope he is overthrown, this article does throw an interesting view.

I wonder what Mick in England (and now in Australia) would have commented on this article!

I think Rageh Omar is the BBC correspondent who covered the US invasion on Iraq from Baghdad.

[Jan]

i was also a bit surprised by that statment ,yes a handfull of farmers lost thier lives at the hands of mugabe ,but what he has done to the Matabele and the rest of his people is unbelievable,in my eyes whether u r black or a white zimbabwean you are still a zimbabwean who has suffered at the hands of this despot

Almost enough to give some black zimbabweans fond memories of the "good ol' days" of the Special Branch boys in their nutcracker shorts.