Well it's you who looks foolish considering this black man has totally destroyed a country which, when he took it over, had the best infastructure in Africa and actually exported food.
Suryavajra,do you think South Afica is heading the same way as Rhodesia? Or do you think it is all hype? Bear in mind we predicted thirty odd years ago what the out come of Zimbabwe would be and not only are whites leaving S.A but vast amount of blacks have left too and many that I have spoken too are not too keen to return,
Most of the Zimbabweans I talk to, say they are Zimbabweans and they are one despite any political disagreements.
Among South Africans I have observed a certain tribal factor. Not just among the Blacks, mind you, but among the Whites as well ie The Boers vs. The English. It's fair to say that with the escalating crime, the economic downturn, vigilante justice, and attacks on immigrants can lead to the upsurge not of nationalism but tribalism.
GodwinCarpenter, there was and is a certain tribal element in Zims as well. But this factor, to me seem a lot more complex in SA where you have 11 different tribes....
Suryavajra,you say S.A farmers have recently been invited to farm in Mozambique;this started back in 1991.Zim farmers since 2000 have gone to Mozambique,Zambia,Angola,Tanzania,Kenya,Nigeria and others.Once again they will be used as pawns and their lives will be turned upsidedown should they be told to leave as they are given 50 year leases as condition of stay.Kenya is already trying to take the land back for their indigenous selves;red flag right there!
Suryavajra;it's not despair ;it's reality;the damage has been done in Southern Africa and Africa as a whole due to dealings of Perfidious Albion and the U.S and the communist Chinese will be saying thank you very much for decades to come.I have already lost 29 years of my life away from"the love of my life",why would I want to waste another 35 years hoping like hell that things will return to the former glory.The Powers at large have the calling cards;and we are just pawns in their game.
Suryavajra;my destiny is to live out my life being as happy as I possibly can be all things considered,and to lament through expression and song about injustices done to a once beautiful country. As for Rhodesia's destiny;well it is dead and buried as the natives in the country and neighbouring nations are very sceptical to whites returning and the communist Chinese rule the show for some time to come.
garyloeoux, please do not give in to that kind of despair. The evil that has befallen your country itself is not sustainable. It too shall pass.
By the way, regarding the Whites in Africa, have you heard that Mozambique actually accepted a small number of Boer farmers to come in to farm some of the land at the invitation of their government??
And communist Chinese rule atleast to many of my friends from that area is universally reviled by both the Blacks and Whites.
Suryavajra;no,not when it means bulldozing and bullying small nations like Rhodesia into extinction,slapping sanctions on her and not able to buy the arms neccessary to defend herself.
Survajra;"oh I'm okay Jack";the U.S keeps expanding regardless of what happens to other nations.Remember every superpower in history has fallen due to abuse of power.Many Rhodesians black and white have to live illegally in various countries worldwide or stay in their motherland and put up with a grotesque lifestyle.You call that being constructive? Once again I say that's IMMORAL!
Garylerouex, I didn't realize that many Rhodesians had to live illegally in other countries. I truly am sorry to hear about that. I heard about many going over the border into SA. Still live in SA couldn't have been easy either for either Black or White, from what little I've heard.
When I say arrogance being constructive, I mean that can-do attitude that nothing is impossible, and that there is a special destiny waiting for men and for nations.
Suryavajra,yeah arrogance that has landed the US a hot bed of enemies worldwide with their expansion over the past hundred and sixty odd years.Even with Ian Smith's tenacity,the US still let us die-that's immoral!
garyleroux, you may be right. That kind of arrogance did earn us a fair share critics let alone, enemies. But that same kind of arrogance catapulted the US to being a superpower in the first place!!
In the 1700s we had the arrogance to think we could take on the world's most powerful military.
In the 1800s we had the arrogance to think that our destiny was to keep expanding until the US covered sea to shining sea. So arrogance can be destructive, yes. But it can also be constructive?
Suryavajra,how were times different back then,you had intelligent and visionary forefathers as compared to the politicians you have in this modern time.I think you are being extremely harsh on our founding settlers,giving them just twenty years to claim dominion status-come on give us a some love;after all you seem to havea strong love for Rhodesia at the end of the day!
Hi garyleroux, sorry for responding so late. How are you doing? I think you're partly right. Our founding fathers were way better than the politicans of today, both in being visionaries, and belive it or not, as being tough political infighters. The politicians today are more like bitchy little girls..LOL!
But also remember that back in the 1600s-1700s going to North America was something like going to the moon. So it obviously took longer to develop America's unique identity.
the 13 colonies also faced grave threats. Hostile Native American tribes on the frontier, and from French colony in Quebec. These dangers made the colonists cling to their English identities.
I apologize if I came off as harsh on your founders, and ofcourse I give Rhodesia love and plenty of props. But from my perspective on politics, you have to be confident almost to the point of arrogance, and pursue your strategic and political interests with courage and tenacity.
That is why I respect Ian Smith. On the HMS Tiger, he refused to be talked down to by PM Harold Wilson. He refused to be intimidated by London. Rather, he stood toe to toe as a leader in hisown right and made his demands well known, whether you agreed with his agenda or not. For all of the bluster of the so-called Asian and African nationalists, they never had the guts to personally confront a British PM. Ian Smith did. That is tenacity. That is being supremely confident.
Suryavajra;what do you know about braai and chibuli?LOL.....Anyway the crux of the matter is we requested independence a few years shy of 1965 and I think reuesting this just 70 years after starting a country from scratch is a fine achievement in itself.The US took a lot longer than that to claim their independence..
garyoleroux, I know that when I am on a lekker glide with the yellow bird high in the sky and not a drifter to be seen...we need to have some nice chibuli with the graze, otherwise it would be maningi indaba, my china!!!!! LOL!
Your point on America is well taken, but remember this: America was first settled in the 1600s and declared its independence in 1776. Those were way different times. Rhodesia on the other hand was settled at the dawn of the 20th Century.
suryavajra,regarding checking SA,you answered your own question-now I really don't want what you are smoking!By the way;earlier deliberate spelling mistake;LEKKER BOEREWORS-LEKKER BRAAI!The wonderful Rhodesian lifesyle-Are you comprehendo on this?
Comprehendo on what?? My China, what are you smokin'?? LOL!!By the way, I could really go for some braii and some chibuli right about now...
But yes, the British wanted to find a balance between the Black Nationalist states and South Africa. And probably to keep both from expanding their influence. Hence the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation....The supposed middlway.
Suryavajra,whatever you are smoking,I don't want any of it.You can't honestly expect us to be desiring dominion status after just 15 years of settlement;we were very loyal to the crown and we needed time.Just because we decided not to join the Union with SA does not mean we were ready for independence.Like I mentioned earlier we needed time to prove ourselves with our "self government" starting in1923.
What are you talking about gary?? I ain't smokin' anything, my man...LOL!
Desiring Domion status has nothing to do with being loyal or not. Only the desire to have self-rule within the greater context of the British Empire.
My whole point about SA and the referendum of 1925, was that it showed that obviously the Rhodesia hasd grown large enough to make those kind of political decisions. So wanting Dominion status couldnot be altogether impossible, could it??
Suryavajra,you mention that we were not a colony and not yet a dominion.Are you talking 1910 as you mentioned SA was a functioning dominion ten years after the Anglo Boer War?Firstly;SA had been in "operation" for hundreds of years;Rhodesia was still in it's infancy at that time.Also you mention the second Anglo Boerewors,which war are you referring to besides1899-1902?
Hi garyleroux. Sorry for getting back to you so late. I'm talking about that period of time, yes. It may well be that SA was functioning hundreds of years in its constituent parts such as Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal etc. And that the Xhosas and Zulus were strong tribes and ruling themelves. But Union itself was a recent development imposed by British colonial planners. Within 15 years of that Rhodesia seems to have matured politically as they were eligible to vote for an Act of Union with SA
Remember the 1925 Referendum?? The Rhodesians voted against joining SA. This had angered SA Prime Minister Jan Smuts. But nevertheless it showed that Rhodesians were political actors on the scene. They might have been able to demand a Dominion arrangement in their own right. Though i doubt that the British would have accepted seeing as this might be a slap in the face to Smuts.
I think the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was another device imposed by colonial planners. I understand the British wanted to use it after WW2 to contain the forces of Black Nationalism. But what I find really, really interesting is that they wanted the Federation to check South Africa. This aspect fascinates me. The first question that comes to my mind is why would they want to check SA?? Afterall weren't you all one big happy family in the Commonwealth??
I'm sorry if all this is disjointed. But the thrust of my argument is this. I think that you guys were used as pawns in this big game of political chess. Hence my saying not a Colony, not yet a Dominion. Sure you had some kind of self rule in Southern Rhodesia. But this didnot apply to the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In essence my friend, you all were in political limbo for decades. Atleast that's the way I see it as an outsider. What do you think?
Suryavajra,regarding Nixon;it just to show that the US and UK had their own agenda and did not care about what could have been the powerhouse of Africa(Rhodesia) and the US could have benefitted with their free enterprise in our country;instead they put their interests eleswhere.
garyleoux, you hit it right on the money. Africa was back then and still is now, completely outside if the American radar when it comes to strategic assessments...
Rhodesia would ahve been an excellent candidate for military AND economic investment and aid opportunities. It was far stronger than a country like South Vietnam. We spent a fortune in terms of treasure and American blood shed to prop that country up, and instead it couldn't last two years after we offically withdrew!!
gary: as we Americans say in Baseball you have thrown a heater right down the center of the plate...
That is the question that really bothers me. And this is the one question of the major questions I want ot find an answer to. I have a couple of theories. But they'd have to be substantiated....
Suryavajra,in hind sight,yes Rhodesia should have sent troops in ww2 on condition that Britain grant us our independence in 1945 under our constitution at that time and ultimately working towards majority rule according to the constitution requirements.I think it would have been too soon in 1925 as a test of self government from 1923 would prove our worthiness of being independent
Well it seems to me that poor Rhodesia was kept in limbo by the Brits. Not a colony but not yet a Dominion...Yet negihboring SA was fully functioning Dominion within a decade after the Second Anglo-Boer War.
Suryavara,Nixon didn't have the balls to be nicknamed "Trickey Dick" He had six years to reverse the sanctions on Rhodesia which they should never have backed Britain to the hilt in '68 in the first place;as he did not have the balls to act,nor did Ford and these were the crucial years when zanu got into full swing against us from '72.
He wasn't called Tricky Dick because he had balls....He was called that because he was a shady politician!! Other than lip service Rhodesia could never expect any help from Nixon.
Suryavajra,what I mean by the US divorcing the UK in '69 is that they needed to quite their romance by sticking together and making deals that benefitted each other and thus compromising Rhodesia and consequently our demise.You mentioned that there was a delicously intriging thought right there in the US/UK divorce in '69;keep your pants on and tell me more!
Hello Garyleroux, I'm keeping my pants on!! LOL! Sorry for replying so late!!
Well I was thinking about this divorce more generally than specifically to that year. But yes, I can see where we had to subordinate our own interests to make sure that the UK was happy.
Exhibit A: Rhodesia. You were anti-communists and as far as I can tell, pro-Americans or atleast logical allies in Africa. Our own Truman Doctrine, later backed by Kennedy's speeches was that it should be US policy (cont.)
To assist any country facing a communist take over...As far as I can tell ZANU and ZAPU seems to fit that bill, as both were backed by China and the USSR respectively.
Exhibit B would be Argentina. As you well know the Americans chose to stay out of the Falklands. The Americans stayed neutral while providing some intel to the Brits. The Argentines and the rest of the South Americans took this as more evidence not to trust the Americans. Granted, Galtieri and the junta (cont)
were pretty mean folks, but they were helping the Americans in South America against the marxist-inspired rebel groups. Thus the actions of the British put us in a delicate position, shall we say?? In between two allies that hate each other isnot a fun place to be. LOL!
Suryavajra,I am so glad you would never call us racists contrary to twisted world opinion,you are one point into my camp.What do I want you to say about the US:that Nixon should have reversed sanctions against Rhodesia the very first thing he should have done in Jan' '69 and thus calling for a divorce with the UK.
Do you mean for the US to have divorced with the UK in 1969?? Because that is a deliciously intriguing thought right there.
But i don't think Nixon was the man to do that, and neither was 1969 the year. For the following reasons:
First, the US was trying to get out of Vietnam. The policies were already being laid in place that the US would indirectly support allies who were hegemons in their respective region and let them have a final say.
As a result Nixon and Kissinger would more likely defer to Vorster and the South African government.
Now with regards to the British, Nixon was not the man to go against a NATO ally for the sake an African power. I'm sorry but that was Nixon for you. He wasn't the crusading knight who wouls save Rhodesia. Rather he was a cold blooded Realist. In fact, Nixon could out-British the British. Do you know what his nickname in the US was??? It was "Tricky Dick".
Here was the man who made peace with Mao for Pete's sake, in order to achieve detente with the Soviets. And Mao was one of the big mass murderers of the 20th Century! This is probably where Vorster got inspired for his idea about detente with African nationalist states. So what does that say??
It says that Nixon was not the kind of man who would recognize Rhodesia, no matter how anti-communist and pro-American you were. And 1969 was not the year if you read American history.
So "should" is not the operative word here. The question is could he or would he recognize Rhodesia given the state of world affairs in 1969?? The answer is no. Nixon would not.
Let me turn around and ask you something, garyleroux....
Should Rhodesa have sent troops in WW2 on condition that it would gain indpendence in 1945?? Should Rhodesia have pushed for independence or atleast dominion status in 1945?? Or better yet could this have been achieved in 1925 during the Referendum??
Before he does go. He most likely knows that neighbor states have been inviting Zimbabwe's displaced white farmers to build their agricultural sectors,
Suryavajra,you mentioned culprits number 3 and 1,SA and Britain but clearly missed out number 2,yes your favourite US or are you still in denial.Asking questions is fine;it's the angle you take.With all the research you've done I would think you would be you be more in my camp.What next are going to say we were racist?
garyoleroux, I would never call you guys racist. What is this angle that I'm taking??
If you read Great Betrayal, Kissinger wept in front of Smith saying that he never asked a leader to commit political suicide before. Our Rhodesia policy changed radically because by 1976, Carter came to power, and he was anti-Rhodesian. Plus, Americans always dealt with Rhodesa through SA and the Vorster government, another big problem with our poicy...
Hate to dissapoint you. But I'm not part of the American machine unless being a citzen counts!!! LOL!
I understand why you would be distrustful of outsiders interested in Rhodesia. Especially after how the South African and the British government treated you guys....They clearly two-timed Rhodesia. But I am not been two-timing in my owqn views. I'm just trying to find out what really happened. Thus the asking of questions and sometimes playing devil's advocate...
Suryavajra,read between the lines;come on you are smarter than that.Reading you comments on the sites I think you are part of the US machine;one minute you are romancing Rhodesia then you drop her like a hot potatoe.
garyleroux, "part of the US machine", I don't understand what you you're implying about me. Bsrcr once said that he thought the same thing about me as well...
What makes you think I dropped Rhodesia like a hot potato?? What comment of mine, makes you think that??
Brandon you are right they did not pay you-it was a wasted war-America got what they wanted,Britain got what they wanted and the Chinenese are the winners-keep Rhodesia in your hearts!!!
I apologize. I wasn't trying to play a game. Just confused as to why you think it was wasted war. Will you please elaborate on your reasons?? I fail to see what the US got out of it...
Suryavajra,it was a wasted war because innocent Rhodesian lives were lost as Britain reneged on giving us our independence as they had promised prior to '65 and the U.S got Rhodesia to be "fully democratic" in'80,so their1968 sanctions on us paid off-I hope they are proud of themselves while they sit at their dinner tables and lavish our people are either starving, dead or displaced like orphans throughout the world.I don't call that being paid-DO YOU?
Its A Long Way To Mukumbura, the the way back is a hell of a lot longer.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
who is ian smith i am 14 and i thought we where colonised by white people and we where fighting against them please tell me what happened
INEEDIPODHELP100 1 year ago
Well it's you who looks foolish considering this black man has totally destroyed a country which, when he took it over, had the best infastructure in Africa and actually exported food.
GodwinCarpenter 2 years ago
Golly gosh;Suryavajra,you are more of a doomsdayist than me!That would be interesting to see South Africa turn out worse than Zimbabwe.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Suryavajra,do you think South Afica is heading the same way as Rhodesia? Or do you think it is all hype? Bear in mind we predicted thirty odd years ago what the out come of Zimbabwe would be and not only are whites leaving S.A but vast amount of blacks have left too and many that I have spoken too are not too keen to return,
garylerouex 2 years ago
garylerouex, it could be worse. A lot worse.
Most of the Zimbabweans I talk to, say they are Zimbabweans and they are one despite any political disagreements.
Among South Africans I have observed a certain tribal factor. Not just among the Blacks, mind you, but among the Whites as well ie The Boers vs. The English. It's fair to say that with the escalating crime, the economic downturn, vigilante justice, and attacks on immigrants can lead to the upsurge not of nationalism but tribalism.
suryavajra 2 years ago
suryavajra, how can you say Zimbabwe wasn't anything but a tribal war? Far more so that SA
GodwinCarpenter 2 years ago
GodwinCarpenter, there was and is a certain tribal element in Zims as well. But this factor, to me seem a lot more complex in SA where you have 11 different tribes....
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,you say S.A farmers have recently been invited to farm in Mozambique;this started back in 1991.Zim farmers since 2000 have gone to Mozambique,Zambia,Angola,Tanzania,Kenya,Nigeria and others.Once again they will be used as pawns and their lives will be turned upsidedown should they be told to leave as they are given 50 year leases as condition of stay.Kenya is already trying to take the land back for their indigenous selves;red flag right there!
garylerouex 2 years ago
Suryavajra;it's not despair ;it's reality;the damage has been done in Southern Africa and Africa as a whole due to dealings of Perfidious Albion and the U.S and the communist Chinese will be saying thank you very much for decades to come.I have already lost 29 years of my life away from"the love of my life",why would I want to waste another 35 years hoping like hell that things will return to the former glory.The Powers at large have the calling cards;and we are just pawns in their game.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Suryavajra;my destiny is to live out my life being as happy as I possibly can be all things considered,and to lament through expression and song about injustices done to a once beautiful country. As for Rhodesia's destiny;well it is dead and buried as the natives in the country and neighbouring nations are very sceptical to whites returning and the communist Chinese rule the show for some time to come.
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyloeoux, please do not give in to that kind of despair. The evil that has befallen your country itself is not sustainable. It too shall pass.
By the way, regarding the Whites in Africa, have you heard that Mozambique actually accepted a small number of Boer farmers to come in to farm some of the land at the invitation of their government??
And communist Chinese rule atleast to many of my friends from that area is universally reviled by both the Blacks and Whites.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra;no,not when it means bulldozing and bullying small nations like Rhodesia into extinction,slapping sanctions on her and not able to buy the arms neccessary to defend herself.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Survajra;"oh I'm okay Jack";the U.S keeps expanding regardless of what happens to other nations.Remember every superpower in history has fallen due to abuse of power.Many Rhodesians black and white have to live illegally in various countries worldwide or stay in their motherland and put up with a grotesque lifestyle.You call that being constructive? Once again I say that's IMMORAL!
garylerouex 2 years ago
Comment removed
suryavajra 2 years ago
Comment removed
suryavajra 2 years ago
"the US keeps expanding regardless of what happens to other nations"
Why Gary, isn't that the principle strategic aim for every country?? To increase their power relative to others?
suryavajra 2 years ago
Garylerouex, I didn't realize that many Rhodesians had to live illegally in other countries. I truly am sorry to hear about that. I heard about many going over the border into SA. Still live in SA couldn't have been easy either for either Black or White, from what little I've heard.
When I say arrogance being constructive, I mean that can-do attitude that nothing is impossible, and that there is a special destiny waiting for men and for nations.
suryavajra 2 years ago
So my question to you is, what will be your destiny and that of Rhodesia's??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,yeah arrogance that has landed the US a hot bed of enemies worldwide with their expansion over the past hundred and sixty odd years.Even with Ian Smith's tenacity,the US still let us die-that's immoral!
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyleroux, as long as that arrogance doesnot consume you than you will be fine. Arrogance should only be a facade.
suryavajra 2 years ago
garyleroux, you may be right. That kind of arrogance did earn us a fair share critics let alone, enemies. But that same kind of arrogance catapulted the US to being a superpower in the first place!!
In the 1700s we had the arrogance to think we could take on the world's most powerful military.
In the 1800s we had the arrogance to think that our destiny was to keep expanding until the US covered sea to shining sea. So arrogance can be destructive, yes. But it can also be constructive?
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,how were times different back then,you had intelligent and visionary forefathers as compared to the politicians you have in this modern time.I think you are being extremely harsh on our founding settlers,giving them just twenty years to claim dominion status-come on give us a some love;after all you seem to havea strong love for Rhodesia at the end of the day!
garylerouex 2 years ago
part 1
Hi garyleroux, sorry for responding so late. How are you doing? I think you're partly right. Our founding fathers were way better than the politicans of today, both in being visionaries, and belive it or not, as being tough political infighters. The politicians today are more like bitchy little girls..LOL!
But also remember that back in the 1600s-1700s going to North America was something like going to the moon. So it obviously took longer to develop America's unique identity.
suryavajra 2 years ago
part 2
the 13 colonies also faced grave threats. Hostile Native American tribes on the frontier, and from French colony in Quebec. These dangers made the colonists cling to their English identities.
I apologize if I came off as harsh on your founders, and ofcourse I give Rhodesia love and plenty of props. But from my perspective on politics, you have to be confident almost to the point of arrogance, and pursue your strategic and political interests with courage and tenacity.
suryavajra 2 years ago
part 3
That is why I respect Ian Smith. On the HMS Tiger, he refused to be talked down to by PM Harold Wilson. He refused to be intimidated by London. Rather, he stood toe to toe as a leader in hisown right and made his demands well known, whether you agreed with his agenda or not. For all of the bluster of the so-called Asian and African nationalists, they never had the guts to personally confront a British PM. Ian Smith did. That is tenacity. That is being supremely confident.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra;what do you know about braai and chibuli?LOL.....Anyway the crux of the matter is we requested independence a few years shy of 1965 and I think reuesting this just 70 years after starting a country from scratch is a fine achievement in itself.The US took a lot longer than that to claim their independence..
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyoleroux, I know that when I am on a lekker glide with the yellow bird high in the sky and not a drifter to be seen...we need to have some nice chibuli with the graze, otherwise it would be maningi indaba, my china!!!!! LOL!
Your point on America is well taken, but remember this: America was first settled in the 1600s and declared its independence in 1776. Those were way different times. Rhodesia on the other hand was settled at the dawn of the 20th Century.
suryavajra 2 years ago
suryavajra,regarding checking SA,you answered your own question-now I really don't want what you are smoking!By the way;earlier deliberate spelling mistake;LEKKER BOEREWORS-LEKKER BRAAI!The wonderful Rhodesian lifesyle-Are you comprehendo on this?
garylerouex 2 years ago
Comprehendo on what?? My China, what are you smokin'?? LOL!!By the way, I could really go for some braii and some chibuli right about now...
But yes, the British wanted to find a balance between the Black Nationalist states and South Africa. And probably to keep both from expanding their influence. Hence the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation....The supposed middlway.
suryavajra 2 years ago
gary, first you accuse me of being part of the US machine, than you insinutate that I'm a stoner....LOLOL!! So which am I?? I'm confused...hahaha!
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,whatever you are smoking,I don't want any of it.You can't honestly expect us to be desiring dominion status after just 15 years of settlement;we were very loyal to the crown and we needed time.Just because we decided not to join the Union with SA does not mean we were ready for independence.Like I mentioned earlier we needed time to prove ourselves with our "self government" starting in1923.
garylerouex 2 years ago
What are you talking about gary?? I ain't smokin' anything, my man...LOL!
Desiring Domion status has nothing to do with being loyal or not. Only the desire to have self-rule within the greater context of the British Empire.
My whole point about SA and the referendum of 1925, was that it showed that obviously the Rhodesia hasd grown large enough to make those kind of political decisions. So wanting Dominion status couldnot be altogether impossible, could it??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,you mention that we were not a colony and not yet a dominion.Are you talking 1910 as you mentioned SA was a functioning dominion ten years after the Anglo Boer War?Firstly;SA had been in "operation" for hundreds of years;Rhodesia was still in it's infancy at that time.Also you mention the second Anglo Boerewors,which war are you referring to besides1899-1902?
garylerouex 2 years ago
Hi garyleroux. Sorry for getting back to you so late. I'm talking about that period of time, yes. It may well be that SA was functioning hundreds of years in its constituent parts such as Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal etc. And that the Xhosas and Zulus were strong tribes and ruling themelves. But Union itself was a recent development imposed by British colonial planners. Within 15 years of that Rhodesia seems to have matured politically as they were eligible to vote for an Act of Union with SA
suryavajra 2 years ago
Remember the 1925 Referendum?? The Rhodesians voted against joining SA. This had angered SA Prime Minister Jan Smuts. But nevertheless it showed that Rhodesians were political actors on the scene. They might have been able to demand a Dominion arrangement in their own right. Though i doubt that the British would have accepted seeing as this might be a slap in the face to Smuts.
suryavajra 2 years ago
I think the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was another device imposed by colonial planners. I understand the British wanted to use it after WW2 to contain the forces of Black Nationalism. But what I find really, really interesting is that they wanted the Federation to check South Africa. This aspect fascinates me. The first question that comes to my mind is why would they want to check SA?? Afterall weren't you all one big happy family in the Commonwealth??
suryavajra 2 years ago
I'm sorry if all this is disjointed. But the thrust of my argument is this. I think that you guys were used as pawns in this big game of political chess. Hence my saying not a Colony, not yet a Dominion. Sure you had some kind of self rule in Southern Rhodesia. But this didnot apply to the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In essence my friend, you all were in political limbo for decades. Atleast that's the way I see it as an outsider. What do you think?
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,regarding Nixon;it just to show that the US and UK had their own agenda and did not care about what could have been the powerhouse of Africa(Rhodesia) and the US could have benefitted with their free enterprise in our country;instead they put their interests eleswhere.
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyleoux, you hit it right on the money. Africa was back then and still is now, completely outside if the American radar when it comes to strategic assessments...
Rhodesia would ahve been an excellent candidate for military AND economic investment and aid opportunities. It was far stronger than a country like South Vietnam. We spent a fortune in terms of treasure and American blood shed to prop that country up, and instead it couldn't last two years after we offically withdrew!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,glad you have a sense of humour.Let me through the question back at you- Why do you think we were singled out?
garylerouex 2 years ago
gary: as we Americans say in Baseball you have thrown a heater right down the center of the plate...
That is the question that really bothers me. And this is the one question of the major questions I want ot find an answer to. I have a couple of theories. But they'd have to be substantiated....
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,in hind sight,yes Rhodesia should have sent troops in ww2 on condition that Britain grant us our independence in 1945 under our constitution at that time and ultimately working towards majority rule according to the constitution requirements.I think it would have been too soon in 1925 as a test of self government from 1923 would prove our worthiness of being independent
garylerouex 2 years ago
Well it seems to me that poor Rhodesia was kept in limbo by the Brits. Not a colony but not yet a Dominion...Yet negihboring SA was fully functioning Dominion within a decade after the Second Anglo-Boer War.
So why were you guys singled out??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavara,Nixon didn't have the balls to be nicknamed "Trickey Dick" He had six years to reverse the sanctions on Rhodesia which they should never have backed Britain to the hilt in '68 in the first place;as he did not have the balls to act,nor did Ford and these were the crucial years when zanu got into full swing against us from '72.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Regarding Nixon,
He wasn't called Tricky Dick because he had balls....He was called that because he was a shady politician!! Other than lip service Rhodesia could never expect any help from Nixon.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,what I mean by the US divorcing the UK in '69 is that they needed to quite their romance by sticking together and making deals that benefitted each other and thus compromising Rhodesia and consequently our demise.You mentioned that there was a delicously intriging thought right there in the US/UK divorce in '69;keep your pants on and tell me more!
garylerouex 2 years ago
Hello Garyleroux, I'm keeping my pants on!! LOL! Sorry for replying so late!!
Well I was thinking about this divorce more generally than specifically to that year. But yes, I can see where we had to subordinate our own interests to make sure that the UK was happy.
Exhibit A: Rhodesia. You were anti-communists and as far as I can tell, pro-Americans or atleast logical allies in Africa. Our own Truman Doctrine, later backed by Kennedy's speeches was that it should be US policy (cont.)
suryavajra 2 years ago
(cont)
To assist any country facing a communist take over...As far as I can tell ZANU and ZAPU seems to fit that bill, as both were backed by China and the USSR respectively.
Exhibit B would be Argentina. As you well know the Americans chose to stay out of the Falklands. The Americans stayed neutral while providing some intel to the Brits. The Argentines and the rest of the South Americans took this as more evidence not to trust the Americans. Granted, Galtieri and the junta (cont)
suryavajra 2 years ago
were pretty mean folks, but they were helping the Americans in South America against the marxist-inspired rebel groups. Thus the actions of the British put us in a delicate position, shall we say?? In between two allies that hate each other isnot a fun place to be. LOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,I am so glad you would never call us racists contrary to twisted world opinion,you are one point into my camp.What do I want you to say about the US:that Nixon should have reversed sanctions against Rhodesia the very first thing he should have done in Jan' '69 and thus calling for a divorce with the UK.
garylerouex 2 years ago
@ garyleroux
Part 1:
Do you mean for the US to have divorced with the UK in 1969?? Because that is a deliciously intriguing thought right there.
But i don't think Nixon was the man to do that, and neither was 1969 the year. For the following reasons:
First, the US was trying to get out of Vietnam. The policies were already being laid in place that the US would indirectly support allies who were hegemons in their respective region and let them have a final say.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Part 2:
As a result Nixon and Kissinger would more likely defer to Vorster and the South African government.
Now with regards to the British, Nixon was not the man to go against a NATO ally for the sake an African power. I'm sorry but that was Nixon for you. He wasn't the crusading knight who wouls save Rhodesia. Rather he was a cold blooded Realist. In fact, Nixon could out-British the British. Do you know what his nickname in the US was??? It was "Tricky Dick".
suryavajra 2 years ago
Here was the man who made peace with Mao for Pete's sake, in order to achieve detente with the Soviets. And Mao was one of the big mass murderers of the 20th Century! This is probably where Vorster got inspired for his idea about detente with African nationalist states. So what does that say??
It says that Nixon was not the kind of man who would recognize Rhodesia, no matter how anti-communist and pro-American you were. And 1969 was not the year if you read American history.
suryavajra 2 years ago
So "should" is not the operative word here. The question is could he or would he recognize Rhodesia given the state of world affairs in 1969?? The answer is no. Nixon would not.
Let me turn around and ask you something, garyleroux....
Should Rhodesa have sent troops in WW2 on condition that it would gain indpendence in 1945?? Should Rhodesia have pushed for independence or atleast dominion status in 1945?? Or better yet could this have been achieved in 1925 during the Referendum??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Rhodesia could come back sooner than what people think once someone dies or is killed off.lol
idrobinhood 2 years ago
who might that somebody be?? LOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
Death to Robert Mugabe
Before he does go. He most likely knows that neighbor states have been inviting Zimbabwe's displaced white farmers to build their agricultural sectors,
idrobinhood 2 years ago
Suryavajra,you mentioned culprits number 3 and 1,SA and Britain but clearly missed out number 2,yes your favourite US or are you still in denial.Asking questions is fine;it's the angle you take.With all the research you've done I would think you would be you be more in my camp.What next are going to say we were racist?
garylerouex 2 years ago
Comment removed
suryavajra 2 years ago
garyoleroux, I would never call you guys racist. What is this angle that I'm taking??
If you read Great Betrayal, Kissinger wept in front of Smith saying that he never asked a leader to commit political suicide before. Our Rhodesia policy changed radically because by 1976, Carter came to power, and he was anti-Rhodesian. Plus, Americans always dealt with Rhodesa through SA and the Vorster government, another big problem with our poicy...
What exactly do you want me to say about the US??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Brandon,by the way great video and song;very apt.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Suryavajra, your comments in general.
garylerouex 2 years ago
Hate to dissapoint you. But I'm not part of the American machine unless being a citzen counts!!! LOL!
I understand why you would be distrustful of outsiders interested in Rhodesia. Especially after how the South African and the British government treated you guys....They clearly two-timed Rhodesia. But I am not been two-timing in my owqn views. I'm just trying to find out what really happened. Thus the asking of questions and sometimes playing devil's advocate...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,read between the lines;come on you are smarter than that.Reading you comments on the sites I think you are part of the US machine;one minute you are romancing Rhodesia then you drop her like a hot potatoe.
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyleroux, "part of the US machine", I don't understand what you you're implying about me. Bsrcr once said that he thought the same thing about me as well...
What makes you think I dropped Rhodesia like a hot potato?? What comment of mine, makes you think that??
suryavajra 2 years ago
ahhh I see now.
But what are the reasons that make you draw that conclusion??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Brandon you are right they did not pay you-it was a wasted war-America got what they wanted,Britain got what they wanted and the Chinenese are the winners-keep Rhodesia in your hearts!!!
garylerouex 2 years ago
garyterouex, what was this wasted war that you are referring to??
suryavajra 2 years ago
I am referring to the Rhodesian war
brandonaudin 2 years ago
suryavajra,what game are you playing;you know egactly which war I am referring to-The Rhodesian Bush War.
garylerouex 2 years ago
I apologize. I wasn't trying to play a game. Just confused as to why you think it was wasted war. Will you please elaborate on your reasons?? I fail to see what the US got out of it...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Suryavajra,it was a wasted war because innocent Rhodesian lives were lost as Britain reneged on giving us our independence as they had promised prior to '65 and the U.S got Rhodesia to be "fully democratic" in'80,so their1968 sanctions on us paid off-I hope they are proud of themselves while they sit at their dinner tables and lavish our people are either starving, dead or displaced like orphans throughout the world.I don't call that being paid-DO YOU?
garylerouex 2 years ago
What do you mean by, "They didnot pay you." ??
suryavajra 2 years ago