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)

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".

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)

Name

No, I'm not restarting the debate on which name the article should go by (today).

I'm asking where the name Rhodesian civil war comes from? Not a term I'm used to reading in the literature - or hearing at all for that matter. I mean, its descriptive, not wholly inaccurate as a term, but who actually calls it that? Babakathy (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)