Talk:Rhodesian Bush War

Left and Right Side of belligerents table

Editor user:UncleBourbon has proposed to flip the belligerents table, stating that the victors belong on the left hand side of the table. I googled "Who won the Rhodesian Bush War" and the first result was a U.S. Department of Defense report which stated, The racially integrated Rhodesian Army was considered one of the best in Africa at the time of the conflict, and it performed with professionalism throughout the war, essentially winning the military conflict while the international isolation of the white minority Rhodesian government brought about its political defeat. So military victory, followed by political defeat. I propose the belligerents table should remain with the Rhodesian side on the left. SONORAMA (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned by SONORAMA, I endorse changing the Rhodesian side to the right, given the Rhodesian Army never achieved a true military "victory," because ZANLA and ZIPRA continued to exist as military combatants to the point of the Lancaster House Agreement, the agreement itself being a clear victory for ZANU and ZAPU. The Rhodesian objective of the war was to maintain unfree elections so as to maintain the existence of the Rhodesian state; the Lancaster House Agreement mandated free elections, and directly resulted in the dissolution of the Rhodesian state. It's ridiculous to claim "victory" in any capacity when your state ceases to exist and it's territory is governed by the same people you had been warring against, whose objectives had been to govern said territory all along. In an example of similar articles, the Vietnam War lists the North Vietnamese as victors, despite the United States holding military superiority to the point of the Paris Peace Accords, because even if the U.S. abandoned the conflict for political reasons, it still resulted in the South Vietnamese state ceasing to exist. You do not 'lose' by achieving all of your objectives just because your K/D ratio is lower than the enemy who 'won' by failing all of their objectives and ultimately ceasing to exist. The recent article title change to the "Zimbabwean War of Independence" even further establishes this objectively as a Rhodesian defeat; I fail to see how any nation could lose it's 'War of Independence,' when it successfully attains independence.UncleBourbon (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The conflict did not end with a military victory or loss. It ended with the Lancaster House Agreement and international recognition of the election results that said agreement brought. You state, "It's ridiculous to claim "victory" in any capacity when your state ceases to exist and it's territory is governed by the same people you had been warring against, whose objectives had been to govern said territory all along." But this wasn't the outcome of the Lancaster House Agreement at all. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as a country did not "cease to exist," as Yugoslavia did. It merely changed its name and largely continued on. The Lancaster House agreement in guaranteed Whites 1/3 representation in parliament, far disproportionate to their population, and in contrast to the non-racial franchise which Rhodesia had upon UDI. Moreover, Whites retained civil service jobs, were active in the military and police forces, and in civic life in general well into the 1990s. That the elected leader of Zimbabwe would eventually forsake the terms of the Lancaster agreement and oppress his alleged enemies of both African and European descent and effectively end the Patriotic Front was a result of Mugabe's gradual efforts to consolidate power and punish supposed enemies. Mugabe's actions were not a result of the agreement itself, and certain did not stem from any military victory during the 1970's conflict. SONORAMA (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

1/3 representation is still not minority rule. Claiming ZANU-PF didn't win the war because the war ended with the Lancaster House Agreement, which effectively handed ZANU-PF victory and Zimbabwe it's independence only 4 months later, is frankly pedantic, particularly when this is a visual change; I'm not proposing a change to the Results themselves, but to move ZANU/ZAPU/Mozambique to the left of the infobox where victors go. Even if we were to entertain the idea that nobody decisively won or lost the war (an idea I reject), then there still isn't any particular reason to object to moving ZANU/ZAPU/Mozambique to the left of the infobox. It's also worth noting the Territorial changes section already mentions Rhodesia's disestablishment and Zimbabwe's independence regardless.UncleBourbon (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems similar to South African Border War and Korean War in the fact that it ended in a military stalemate, so it doesn't matter which side of the infobox either party is listed on. The Lancaster House Agreement was a trilateral political settlement involving all parties that ushered an end to hostilities without conclusively naming one side as the victor. Due to the fact that ZIPRA and ZANLA were not on the same side for most of the war (and arguably never were, despite brief and nominal alliances) we could also split the box three ways, similar to Yemeni civil war (2014–present). Rhodesian government forces in one list, ZIPRA and Zambia on another list, and ZANLA and Mozambique on yet another list. That would be a much more accurate depiction of how the sides stacked up in this conflict. --Katangais (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Would definitely agree with this statement. 81.103.231.80 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

The origin of the Second Chimurenga is in Ian Smith's refusal to go along with the Wind Of Change that saw indirect rule replace direct colonial rule among the former British colonies in Africa and Asia. The result was 15 years of war and 50,000 dead, which ended in April 1980. The problem with this article is that it only relies on Rhodesian and white South African sources. Add to this the use of the term 'Rhodesian Bush War', which only rhodesians use. It is very much like renaming the American Civil War the 'War Of Rights', or the 'War Of Northern Aggression'. Or calling WWII the 'War Of The Reich'. This article is highly biased, and should be rewritten in a way that includes the views of the actual Zimbabwean people who fought for their freedom, not the rhodesian British minority, who were never more than 5% of the population. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@83.84.100.133 I agree. Violence against white civillians from the nationalists is discussed on the page quite a bit, while the vastly larger number of black civillians killed is only mentioned in passing around the end of the article. I understand that some black civillian casualties were perpetrated by nationalist groups, as is mentioned in the article, but no Rhodesian atrocities aside from the biological/chemical warfare program are discussed.

It seems like there is a lot of uncritical regurgitation of Rhodesian sources. If one were to read this article uncritically, they'd leave believing that a noble, albeit problematic, Rhodesia fought murderous savages until they were stabbed in the back by their allies.

The vibe I get from the pages relating to Rhodesoa and the war in general is that there are people trying to disseminate a version of events that are sympathetic to the Rhodesian government. Tubbydoorway (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

More serious scholarship has also called the reality of the chemical program into question, so that is also unsatisfactory. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War: Obviously biased, explicitly partisan.

Second Chimurenga: Not very widely-recognized, potentially also partisan in the other direction?

Zimbabwean War of Independence: Exactly what happened, regardless of narratives or motivations or framing. It was the war that was fought in Zimbabwe over the issue of Zimbabwe's independence. Also appears to be the accepted academic terminology.

I have changed the title of the page accordingly. LesbianTiamat (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not how that works. You need to make a proper move request for this article. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to the anonymous author of this paragraph, who is clearing Zimbabwean and also clearly took no part in the war, a couple of points:

(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader.

(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias.

(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin. The fact is that there are virtually no reliable sources of information from ZIPRA or ZANLA combatants, and even the published materiel from those sources of the time, even their internal documents, were what can charitably be called "light" on hard facts. This makes them unreliable for use as sources for factual articles.

(4) Show us any good sources with verified information from authors of any other group than European, ex-Rhodesian or South African ethnicities and nationalities, and we will happily include the information from those sources. Or better yet, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account here on Wikipedia to become an editor, and make the changes yourself, but and here's the thing: cite your sources always, with verifiable references.

Cadar (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

":(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader." Nobody except rhodesians call the Zimbabwean War of Independence the Rhodesian Bush War.

"(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias." The bias of 'modern thinking' has been replaced with what, regressive thinking?

"(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin." That is exactly the same as saying that the article is one-sided. You just explained why you think it is one-sided. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@83.84.100.133: If you cannot be civil and cannot accept the edits or input of other editors here on Wikipedia in good faith - as amply demonstrated by the numerous complaints on your talk page - then you have no business wasting the time of editors who are working to improve Wikipedia. I will not dignify your unfounded accusations with a discussion. If you want to make changes to the page in question, as previously requested, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account and take responsibility. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

Cadar (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to use the name that is most common in Zimbabwe, especially if it is impartial? The Rhodesian Bush War name implies partiality towards Rhodesians, and since Zimbabwe is an English-speaking country it makes sense to use the most common impartial term (Second Chimurenga War).Rivere123 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely second this... among modern academic sources on the subject, the term 'Rhodesian Bush War' is openly associated with the perspective of the Rhodesian Front. It is by no means a neutral naming, and I wholeheartedly support changing the title. I had a bit of an embarrassing moment when I used this term in a paper and my professor, a historian of South Africa, was incredibly confused and said that this term is an openly political one. I will quote a bit from a book by the scholar of the conflict Luise White from 2021:

"The war about which I write was an enormous part of that history, and what an author calls that war literally stakes out a political position. Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle is enshrined in nationalist historiography. However nuanced and critical an analysis is, this was the story of guerrilla armies defeating minority rule in Southern Africa years after the era of decolonization. What Rhodesians—even after there was no country of Rhodesia— called the bush war has another meaning. At its best it is the story of brave white men defending their land, and at worst it removes the struggle from a political context: it describes where white men patrolled and fought; it reveals nothing about what they fought for."

This was from "Fighting and Writing: The Rhodesian Army at War and Postwar" published by Duke University Press. Surely this is a clear demonstration that the title of the article is overtly biased towards one side of the conflict at the expense of the other and violates neutrality rules. A frank discussion on renaming should be had immediately. 129.2.181.227 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Having read most of White's book and done what I can to make the article as a whole more neutral, I think it's worth pointing out that as White suggests unfortunately, neither "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Second Chimurenga"/Zimbabwean Liberation War" are entirely neutral titles. Having written the "Historiography" section of this article, I can attest to the fact that the writing on this subject is fractious and politicized. Anecdotally, I am willing to say that the more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of "Zimbabwean War". A source that primarily calls the conflict Second Chiruenga is probably going to be uncritical black nationalist discourse (Hellicker et al. is an exception because it is an analysis of that discourse), and if you search Rhodesian Bush War you can see that mostly returns results for white veteran pulp literature of dubious quality. Nothing is really ideal here, I think it's just good that we have all three names in the lede. If this article were to be moved, I would offer my mild support to "Zimbabwean Liberation War" or similar, since in my experience that's what the most professional works gravitate too. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  In doing extensive history research on this topic, I agree that most academic historiography refers to the war as either Zimbabwean Liberation War or Second Chimurenga. The Rhodesian Bush War, in my view, is an outdated and colonial expression 145.90.74.112 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Page move is contested

This page should absolutely be moved. The only internationally comprehensible term is the 'Zimbabwe War of Liberation'. The '(Rhodesian) Bush War' will not be understod by anyone except a small (white) minority in South Africa and the UK"--LRO 05:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

LesbianTiamat moved this page from Rhodesian Bush War here with the edit summary: NPOV. "Rhodesian Bush War" is explicitly a partisan name. This was discussed on the talk page and is now being carried out. They then posted to the above discussion here, which can be seen as a justification for their actions.

The move was reverted by SuperSkaterDude45 here with the edit summary: No actual vote or discussion made to change the title. LesbianTiamat, actually request a move the next time you want to change the title. The move has been contested. The appropriate action is then to start an RM. I do not see that there is a consensus to move, let alone a consensus to move to Zimbabwean War of Independence. As Indy beetle observes: ... unfortunately, neither "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Second Chimurenga"/Zimbabwean Liberation War" are entirely neutral titles ... the more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of "Zimbabwean War". Zimbabwean War of Independence is arguably less neutral than the former name. I too was of a mind to contest the move because of the target selected.

LesbianTiamat reinstated their move here with the edit summary: This change was discussed on the talk page, so it's going through. If you think there is a reason it should be called Rhodesian Bush War, please discuss that on the talk page, which you seem to have missed. The appropriate action was to open an RM. Simply reinstating the move is disruptive. I will not revert since this will only further the disruption but this move is clearly contested.

Eyeluvbraixen has reinstated the original title here with the edit summary: No, this needs to have a proper discussion. Is Zimbabwean War of Independence even a common title for this war? They also made this post to the TP that an RM is required.

The appropriate course is to submit the proposal to an RM. I will be initiating the RM directly. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Majority Rule?

The side box references the "outcome" of the conflict as the Lancaster House Agreement. That is accurate insofar as it goes. However, the result of that agreement was not really "majority rule" since a form of majority rule had already been established through the internal settlement. What Lancaster House resulted in was elections in which ZANU and ZAPU also participated. A more accurate description would be: "End of armed hostilities" and "Elections involving all parties".

Portugal and Zambia

Could someone verify that the cited sources actually state that Portuguese and Zambian forces were involved in combat in this war? The latter is behind a paywall. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Zambia was used a stageing-point for Guerilla forces to move into Rhodesia territory, But Zambian Forces themselves were not, While Portugal was. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Kinda Mad your questioning Belligerents in this case, When you obviously are not fully sure who was even fighting in the War. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're free to be Kinda Mad, but did you verify what the sources said? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents

Why Can't support from the Soviet Union and China be listed on the Page just because they're not belligerents, But Yet for say the South Africa Border War they're allowed to be listed for the same thing (Material support) even though they weren't Belligerents either, Doesn't really seem to be a real reason why it's not allowed? 86.7.30.90 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is for belligerents. "Supported by" was deprecated by the community. See Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that on South African Border War (as well as on Angolan Civil War), the Soviet Union and East Germany are listed as belligerents with the caveat that they provided military advisers and pilots, not ground troops. They appear among the belligerents because military personnel from both countries participated directly in the hostilities and suffered casualties. Neither did this in Rhodesia. --Katangais (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, Cubans yes were in involved and suffered casualties, But not the Soviet Union or East Germany as neither had troops there, So just Military advisors for them, Just like with Rhodesia ZANLA and ZAPU had Communist advisors from the Soviets, Cubans, East Germany, China, Many parts of the page itself show and say this, So they should be shown as Belligerents under these same reasons bith wars share, As well along with the large Material support, and Communist Ideology they provided towards them throughout the conflict. 81.103.231.80 (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Phases of War according pro-revolutionary sources.

I found some interesting article while browsing sources a day ago. according pro-revolutionary sources, there are three Phases of War. Not two.

one source by Saliwe M. Kawewe states those phases are:

1. 1966-1971
2. 1971-1973
3. 1974-1979

https://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/39661-zimbabwe-second-chimurenga-1966-1979.html Kindlydude (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)