Ian Smith was Prime Minister the only President Rhodesia ever had was Dupont from 1970 to 1979

@DuleVideos

3 жыл бұрын

Jurnalists....

@stephenchappell7512

2 жыл бұрын

John Wrathall was President too

@abbush2921

Жыл бұрын

@@DuleVideos Good one .

The George Washington of Southern Africa.

@ayodejiolowokere1076

2 жыл бұрын

Washington fought for the rights of the majority of the colonies. More a role playing exercise gone dangerously out of hand than a serious attempt at nationhood.

@isaackalu2132

Ай бұрын

Lol

The fight goes on!

Nice piece of footage!

Prime minister*

Smith didn't have the benefit of hindsight, but if blacks had been included in the political process early on, the disaster of Mugabe may well have been avoided.

@elrjames7799

3 жыл бұрын

@Katherine Sparkes Possible, but not very probable.

@Priapus212

3 жыл бұрын

Men like Herbert Chitepo, Josiah Tongogara, Leopold Takawira and Joshua Nkomo didn't care about being in power. They wanted political, social and economic equality for every Rhodesian, unlike Smith. Mugabe wasn't as powerful in 1969 and he'd have been extinguished but Smith had other apartheid ideas. Now Mugabe got rid of most of these men I mentioned and went on to destroy the country that Smith helped build 🤷🏾‍♂️

@elrjames7799

3 жыл бұрын

@@Priapus212 Nothing to disagree with there.

@jimmycricket5366

3 жыл бұрын

@@Priapus212 Yes, I think you are right. Fault on all sides... Arrogance and stubbornness from many of the whites and greed for power and money on the side of Mugabe and many of his men. The masses of people were exploited by both sides. Harmony and working together for the good of the nation with a serious respect of sound laws and property rights is the only way forward for people to invest in the future with a heartfelt confidence to make it work for fellow man irrespective of colour or creed.

@shanesampson9730

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmycricket5366 Do you honestly think so? Not taking into consideration that certain groups or races of people are far more capable at certain things than others. Therefor would it not be totally naive to assume that once equality is portioned off, the exact same scenario or circumstance would resurface, even in this day and age in almost every country pass rates and standards are being lowered to enable Africans to pass, may the best man win does not apply anymore, because special consideration has to be given if applicants are of African origin, and certain quotas have to be met, affirmative action, indiginisation, BEE. Are all to aid and assist a certain race, and to be totally blunt, people venture into and open businesses to make money, therefor will employ the best person for the job in order to get the best returns, so why the condituons?

Sounds like the crowd were supporting him.

@theoldcavalier7451

3 жыл бұрын

Because they knew he was competent

@Priapus212

3 жыл бұрын

Because they were white

@shanesampson9730

2 жыл бұрын

@@Priapus212 because why should the whites give up all that are, to a race that wants to take to look after themselves at the white man's expense. If people wanted equality and freedom, they would never ask for democracy based on majority, it would be based on an equal proportion of representative for each group, then equality reigns, especially considering the narrative claiming that we are all humans therefor equal, if that is true then what has race colour or belief got to do with it. One representative for each group makes it equal and fair.

@AnotidaChikumbuBOOKSERIES1

Жыл бұрын

Because they were a bunch of unreasonable racists

The British offered Smith the opportunity of a 20 year shift so that black people could have equal representation in Rhodesia. But instead of accepting that offer, he believed the promise of support from South Africa. Then South Africa stabbed Rhodesia in the back.

@Exodus-ww9bm

2 ай бұрын

Complete lies. Britain wanted an almost immediate shift to black majority rule within the timescale of 5-10 years in 1965. And of course to any reasonable minded human such a proposal should be considered with about as much weight as a grain of dust.

Then there was a protracted armed struggle to unwhined that nonsense

This decision in hindsight was the wrong one. However despite that it is also necessary to judge this according to the real politics at the the time. Under that criteria it was also a disastrous decision which revealed political innocence and arrogance for the following reasons : Britain had been dismantling empire since the end of WWII and as an example of this intent India became independent more than 20 years earlier. The USA was now the major superpower in the west and during the 1960's,not withstanding the new Republican government commencing, 11 months earlier, had significantly improved more equal treatment of its own Afro-American population All British possessions in Africa had achieved independence including colonies which had larger than usual white populations Southern Rhodesia had the largest white population among Britains African populations, however, notwithstanding Ian Smiths (and other white leaders) English back ground many white immigrants over the past two decades came from other former European colonies as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Their connection with Britain and the English speaking west was not deep. A 20 year plan to integrate the entire population of Rhodesia ,if analysed, over the previous 20 years, would have indicated the possibility of reaching a white population of 1 million among a population of 7 million. Rhodesian whites were offered a deal which would have been the exact same period of transition as South West Africa to independent Namibia which unlike Rhodesia was a UN Trust Territory administeted by South Africa. The objective for Namibia was to enable it become independent. In South Africa at that time most realistic White people expected that complete Democracy would occur within 30 years. Sourh Africa knew transition was eventually inevitable and the White population included significant numbers of Afrikaners who had a very long history in Southern Africa plus a European population with history as long as Rhodesia. Apart from the skin colour of the leaders Rhodesia and South Africa wete not really similar with Kenya (independent with indigenous rule for years for ten years) being more comparable . During the 1950,s Rhodesia had already had a Prime Minister (Todd) who had openly expressed the need to achieve equality. This political philosophy was known (if not currently accepted) among the white population. Mozambique and Angola were still Portuguese Colonies but Portugal was one of the last remaining dictatorships in the Western World. Mugabe and othet independence leaders was in jail and he was not very influential so ,othet than being useful as anti marxist arguments, was not really much of a prospective leader. White Rhodesians had hitherto claimed a move to complete equality was a definite intention. The unwillingness to accept this long transition by white leaders meant that indigenous people would increasingly consider other political possibilities. Ian Smiths government seemed to only consider white politics and obviously were reluctant to realise realities. It took them 6 or so to realise that transition was attractive but by that time Mugabe was out of Jail and leading a more poular freedom battle. Therefore on balance of this was a fatal decision for Rhodesia as a political entity as the next 10 years demonstrated. As with all negotions ot was stil possible to go back to the table but that possibility only remained open for less than a year. Instead Rhodesia became more entrenched in the stated position. So circumstances such as Democracy in Portugal with independence for Mozambique and Angola, South Africa " not standing by" Rhodesia, international opinion changing , and UK running out of patience cannot be blamed. Therefore on balance this decision, in hindsight, was a very irresponsible and amateurish one. The Rhodesian Cabinet included competent farmers but at the expense of capable politicians.

Nonsense