Was Lancaster House Agreement 37 years ago... on a scale of 1 to "duh", how right was Ian Smith?

Was Lancaster House Agreement 37 years ago... on a scale of 1 to "duh", how right was Ian Smith?

ref: youtube.com/watch?v=UJ_y8Y_BmGA

Kissinger flew to Salisbury and told smith that the game was up and he had to give up

South Africa, Rhodesia's last (only) ally in the region was pressured by the US, Britain to allow black majority rule... it was a great country that wanted an educated populous
> cannot vote without a high school equivalent education

er, SA pressured to not help out Rhodesia
> had a few whiskeys

South Africa gave up Rhodesia because they also though that the Black African states would regard Rhodesia as a big enough sacrifice that they would leave SA alone.
>source "Bitter Harvest" Ian Smith's Autobiography

>ignoring how rhodesia was getting btfo'd by the nationalists in the war after 1972

Ian smith might have been one of the most misunderstand men in history by both the left and the right.

His book is really interesting, if a bit dry sadly.

I sympathise greatly with the Rhodesians. What happened to southern Africa is one of the chief reasons I will never trust the American government.

In June 1977, Time magazine reported that "man for man, the Rhodesian army ranks among the world's finest fighting units."

It had a plethora of cash crops in corn, cotton and tobacco

It had mining

it had tourism for western europe.

given another 20 years, Smith and Rhodesian Front would've worked a solution for modern times... it would've been great

>man for man
Too bad there wasn't many men and most pussied out of call ups

Smith said in his book that because the afrikaners did not want to give up control to the english speakers they banned most immigration from europe so they would not vote for the Anglo Parties. this effectively killed SA chances because they could have stayed at 20% white which would have made their grip on the country more firm

>I will never trust the American government.

America did very little to fuck Rhodesia over compared to Britain. Who, under labor rule, spearheaded the international campaign against Rhodesia.

True, but you can't expect a Boere to trust the eternal Anglo even a bit

the whole commonwealth would collapse if they let rhodesia go on its on. so while labour wanted to end white rule the torys wanted to just let go of the colony because it was to controversial while most of them quietly wanting the whites to stay on

Now the Rhodesian problem IS something you can blame the Russians for.

>inb4 HURRR DURRR BRIT GUBMINT EBIL
yeah it is evil but so was the gommunists that armed, supported and funded the communist nigger ZANU.

Do not argue against me, I am correct and you are wrong.

Not South Africa, southERN Africa. I'm not so well-versed on Rhodesia and SA but the Americans fucked the Portuguese by funding and arming UNITA/FNLA/PAIGC/etc. along with the Soviets. Not content to destroy Portuguese presence in Africa, they then fomented a coup in Portugal proper, dismantled Salazar's legacy. This is unforgivable for me.

the concentration camp was the only way to bring the war to a end

The Portuguese were particular buggered because they were a european nation not local whites which de-legitimized their claim to africa

Britain could have done a lot more to fuck over Rhodesia but didn't i.e invading after UDI but decided against it due to their concern about killing "kith and kin" British-Rhodesians
Also Britain was pretty lenient with sanctions in mostly turning a blind eye to those who ignored them

even labour ruled out invading. but the torys when smith visited london said they would want him to lead a white rhodesia but it was politically impossible for them to let him do it

>concentration camps are okay when we do it

iirc, the British ("western") sanctions didn't matters as much as South Africa and other Asian nations getting pushed out...
> could be 100% wrong, own it if I am

We weren't even against German concentration camps, remember.. Britain kept the Jews in Germany and put travel embargo's against them leaving. Hence Aliyah Bet and the Jewish insurgency in Palestine you stupid cunt.

No you're correct goods coming in from South Africa and Mozambique were much more important than other sanctions.
Real problems came with Rhodesian exports so they usually just got disguised as Zambian or South African copper or tobacco to get around them

Just clutching pearls, the commonwealth would have been fine, old vanguard (Canada, assuie land etc) wouldn't have left, they had no reason too. Conservatives, as typical didn't have the balls to persue the issue. Despite many in the Uk, and commonwealth sympathazing with Rhodesia.

Labor party's active policy of no independence before majority rule led Rhodesia saying fuck it, yolo we're doing it now.

>Now the Rhodesian problem IS something you can blame the Russians for.

And? The Chinese and Russians armed, trained, fined and backed anyone who would roll out a red banner. Rhodesia's death is still, by far the fault of the UK.

I don't accept that idea. The Portuguese had a longer presence in Africa than the Rhodesians and South Africans combined. They had a longer presence in Africa than any other people on the planet apart from the Africans themselves. Not to mention there were colonials who were born and raised there. Not an insignificant number, either.

No, the Portuguese were buggered because the Americans (a) wanted a malleable liberal-democratic government rather than a Catholic, authoritarian corporatist regime in Portugal, and (b) wanted the same in Africa. They solved the first issue by setting the CIA asset Mário Soares loose in Portugal and they solved the second by funding and arming the aforementioned separatist partisans. The legitimacy of Portugal's place in Africa was really never in question except by i.e. those elements of the Portuguese public, many of which were openly socialist, which had bought into the propaganda behind decolonisation. The issue was mostly about control.

low energy bait, gold grabbing shithead

all the niggers and india would have left and this was before the EEC so all the trade was still there

>Also Britain was pretty lenient with sanctions in mostly turning a blind eye to those who ignored them


How are you going to enforce sanctions on a continent thousands of kilometers away? Most of the trading done was with neighboring African countries.

Even the labor party, for all its retardation knew it was political suicide becoming more actively involved with Rhodesia, as a large portion of brits in the Uk sympathized with the country.

The only real disappointment was Thatcher being a useless conservative cuck, for all the talk of "iron lady".

India buggering off =/= death of the commonwealth.

But hey, if Britain was willing to fuck over kith and kin so bad, maybe the commonwealth wasn't so good after all?

stolen from /his/

>if Britain was willing to fuck over kith and kin so bad
they didn't though even labour refused to invade while the conservatives wanted let smith rule but not destory their own international position and destory the commonwealth which was the only place to trade before europe let them in

What could have been...

By 1974, the majority of White Angolans and Mozambicans were second generation plus

t. member of the Portuguese diaspora who had a parent born in Portuguese Africa

This would be perfect if the Congo was still Belgian

The Belgians didn't have the numbers to hold onto the Congo, but Katanga in this map still has a significant European minority (and is essentially run by mining companies).

In 1960, about half of Europeans living in the Belgian Congo lived in Katanga. The remainder were split between Léopoldville and the other major provincial centers.

Yup

>The Belgians didn't have the numbers to hold onto the Congo
A few years more and they would have exterminated enough niggers to hold it, they were even more cruel than we were

Look mate, Im all against white guilt but the Belgians and the Congo were a different kind of evil. Seriously, Congo nigs alone are bad but Belgians were atrocious.

If only the coup against Salazar didn't occur. The coup in Portugal is what doomed Rhodesia, which in turn wore down South Africa to where the Nationalists had to compromise.

Assuming the Portuguese coup failed, and Portugal managed to hold on just another 5-7 years, that probably delays the Rhodesian collapse another 5-7 years. By that time, South Africa might have been able to benefit from an influx of Eastern Europeans after the collapse of the USSR and Communism in Eastern Europe (I imagine poor Europeans might be willing to go anywhere they could get a leg up for being White). Russia during the 1990s might have been willing to sell South Africa military equipment to prop up their flagging economy.

I don't know if Apartheid could have lasted until today, but maybe the nationalists could have been in a position to carve off part of the nation for the Europeans.

Only if they kept it as a fiefdom of Leopold. Otherwise, the Belgian government would not treat the place badly enough to cause a population decline.

On that point, the Portuguese in Angola were some nasty fuckers until the 1960s. Angola in 1951 had the highest infant mortality rate in the world, and there were a number of years during the 1950-1970 period where the native population of Angola decreased.

LEOPOLD DID NOTHING WRONG

i bet you think there is something wrong with dehorning cattle too

pfft fuckin vegans

I was educated at a school in johannesburg by a bunch of ex-Rhodisians. Gentlemen, all of them. Fucking top tier bunch. It feels sad to know they would have lost everything when they were tough, Ernest and forthright people. All to Mugabe and his bullshit.