Ex-Rhodesia leader Ian Smith dies

Source: BBC News

Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 November 2007, 19:54 GMT

Ex-Rhodesia leader Ian Smith dies

The former prime minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith,
has died aged 88.

The cause of his death is unknown but he had been
ill for some time at a residential home in South
Africa.

He illegally declared independence from Britain
in 1965 and his white minority government led the
country for 14 years amid international scorn and
sanctions.

Following a bitter bush war with black nationalists,
his government was overthrown by Robert Mugabe
in 1979, leading to the creation of Zimbabwe.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7104552.stm

I wish to be the first to spit on his grave.

Burn in hell, Smith.

it was obvious that he was an arrogant SOB who looked down on Blacks.

... during the war.


They'd send food laced with thallium to the villages.


He was a war criminal.

Two sides of the same evil coin of racism.

If they do kick every last colonial out of Zimbabwe, it certainly won't be the worst thing to happen in that country. Not by a long shot.

What normal people exploited and abused by this scum would NOT hate his filthy guts?

In recent years he has actually become a popular figure in Zimbabwe for his defiance against Robert Mugabe. Even he thought it was strange.

Years of civil war followed the declaration of independence. Ian Smith denied this was caused by the actions of his regime and insisted there was nothing wrong with five million blacks being ruled by 200,000 whites.

He was actually given a charmed life, considering the hideous harm he did to others.

look at Russia

some people are wanting the old soviet dictatorship back in power rather than the current Putin dictatorship

better the devil you know rather than the one you don't or something to that effect

n/t.

This guy based his actions as a leader on assumptions that make the neo-cons Iraq predictions look reasonable. While he was more a paternalist than a racist, his massive ego and political reactionary tendencies were constantly launching him and UDI into stupid actions.

Assumption One: The South Africans will support us unconditionally.

Reality: Afrikaners don’t really differentiate between Rhodesians and Britons and harbor a deep resentment of them for the British attempts to anglicize South Africa and other than diplomatic recognition did nothing to support Smith. And when the South Africans decided to play Apocalypse Now all over the place... there were no gunships for Rhodesia when the Bush War began. Some suspected that Rhodesia would be in danger of a South African invasion or a Hawaii style annexation.

Assumption Two: The blacks were loyal to the British, they will be loyal to me!

Reality: The British were going to give them self-rule, your not.

Assumption: Colonialism in Africa will last another thousand years.

Reality: does this one even need one?

Assumption: The breaking up of the British Empire is temporary and when Britain gets over the sixties they will be back with a vengence. We are "More British than the British" and we will be rewarded for that!

Reality: In the eyes of the British for most of the 20th Century their empire was a bunch of worthless deadweight and they were wasting billions on showing the flag in regions that were economically worthless.

The man was so caught up in his desire to be a "great man" and was in a political order that was so reactionary that extreme but usually stupid actions ruled the day.

Hopefully Mugabe follows suit in the near future.

I think that almost all of us DU'ers of a certain vintage opposed Ian Smith's white supremacist regime in Rhodesia and were delighted to see it go. Most of us had high hopes for the post-Independence Zimbabwe and a lot of us are bitterly disappointed at what Zimbabwe's leaders did to their country.

Some disturbing questions I think that many of us should ask ourselves:

(1) Are Zimbabweans better off than they were under Ian Smith?

(2) Are they freer to express their opinions or speak or vote the way they want to?

(3) Are Zimbabweans free to change their elected leaders when their leaders displease them or fail to serve their constituents' interests?

(4) What is the percentage of Zimbabweans who go to bed hungry every night?

(5) Are the standards of living in present-day Zimbabwe better or worse than they were under Ian Smith?

(6) Is Zimbabwe capable of feeding itself?

(7) Did ethnic persecution cease after Zimbabwe's independence or does it continue?

(8) Are the policies of the current Zimbabwean leadership promoting the prosperity and general welfare of the people of Zimbabwe?

Rhodesia was the first state in Africa to pass to black rule 100% intact as a functioning society at independence. No country had greater potential, especially as Zimbabwe lacked so many of the social problems that plague South Africa and had an abundance of resources and no country in Africa was better equipped to deal with the AIDS epidemic that would come.

Although what has always amazed me the most about Zimbabwe is that while Mugabe was terrorizing inconsequencial family farms, he was also warming up to the most powerful Rhodesian families. Up to and including those who had been war criminals during the bush war. The funniest thing you can ever see is the private lands of the wealthiest Rhodesians being patrolled by the "war veterans" while some white slob who doesn't even have running water was run off the land at gun point.

Look: I've heard certain people cobble together similarly lame arguments about how the fate of post-war Eastern Europe "indicates" that everyone would have been better off if the Germans had won. Of course, it indicates nothing of the kind, and doesn't even raise the prospect of a better life under fascist rule as a legitimate "disturbing question".

Same for Zimbabwe. Getting rid of an alien white regime that made blacks essentially slaves in their own land was a necessary -- but not sufficient -- step toward founding a decent future for Africans. Just as defeating the Nazis was a necessary, but not sufficient step in creating a decent future for Europe.


Just considering the 20th Century, it took Europeans DECADES of dictatorship, starvation, and merciless total war to get their own goddamn act together. I imagine that development process won't be easy going for post-independence Africa, either. Why should it, considering the mess Africans were left with?

I think that almost all of us DU'ers of a certain vintage opposed Ian Smith's white supremacist regime in Rhodesia and were delighted to see it go. Most of us had high hopes for the post-Independence Zimbabwe and a lot of us are bitterly disappointed at what Zimbabwe's leaders did to their country.

As if!

You're fooling no one.

Zimbabwe was passed from white to black rule 100% intact and continued to prosper for most of the 1980's. Even Rhodesians who had fled the country in fear began returning home, their worst fears having not materialized.

Mugabe didn't go fucking crazy until after the 1990 "election" and the civil unrest that would follow as pretty much the entire professional class black and white lashed out at his early radical reforms and his attempt to establish a single party state. Even his own party ZANU-PF rejected creating a single party state.

What ultimately put Mugabe over the edge was the faltering of his personal land reform plan that was just plain unconstitutional and was being struck down by the courts at every turn. He was also trying to use land reform for retribution against blacks who were not loyal to ZANU-PF. With it clear the courts were going to kill land reform Mugabe decided to unleash the "war veterans" to run the Rhodesians and black ZANU-PF opponents off the land.

Now the farmers black and white who made Zimbabwe the "Bread Basket of Africa" are either dead or in exile in South Africa or Zambia. Zambia offered land in the south to any Zimbabean or Rhodesian farmer who wished to seek asylum there.

South Africa is in the midst of a refugee crisis and Zimbabwe is effectively a failed state.

Viva La Mugabe!

Additionally,

Zimbabwe was passed from white to black rule 100% intact and continued to prosper for most of the 1980's. Even Rhodesians who had fled the country in fear began returning home, their worst fears having not materialized.

I think it's absurd to call the situation in Zimbabwe in 1980 "100% intact". There had just been a brutal war; a handful of foreigners continued to exercise ill-gotten "ownership" over nearly all the best land; the majority of Zimbabweans continued to suffer; and the old regime was apparently destined to skate free after everything it had done.

That's not a tenable situation. The gross inequity of these circumstances coupled with the newly won self-determination of a majority who adamantly wanted their land back probably would have doomed the whole scheme to failure eventually, even if Mugabe had governed the country well.

How many other colonies transfered to black rule with a fully functioning modern economy and civil state?

When it comes to the old regime I agree with you, it is alarming that the most powerful families of Rhodesia retained their power and influence - however that is the fault of nobody but Mugabe. While the Lancaster House agreement protected the Rhodesians from expulsion - most of the rich and powerful held an alternate citizenship which was illegal - they could (and did) throw out South Africans and could have thrown out the rhodesian elite who held a foreign passport - but they didn't. And even some of those who did leave like John Bredenkamp, who was a war criminal, were personally invited back by ZANU-PF. These assholes and some new arrivals like Hoogstraten are the ones who bankroll the ZANU-PF regime in exchange for being left alone. The Davy Family and Hoogstraten are the largest land owners in Zimbabwe today, the only "war veterans" you will find on their land are guarding it from other Africans.

The British land reform policy that came was working as it was intended and black commercial farms were booming. Before Mugabe went on his rampage black commercial farms outnumbered white commercial farms 4:1, the policy was working and it would still be working if Mugabe didn't wreck it. However it worked too well for the purposes of ZANU as they feared the emergence of powerful African capitalists who would challenge him politically. The problem was the radical land reform policy Mugabe wanted was just plain illegal and was struck down by every judge it crossed and ultimately the supreme court. The radical policy was also unacceptable to the British who withdrew funding for multiple reasons, mostly because the bulk of the money had gone to buying land for the ZANU elite and not farm land for the landless. When it was obvious to Mugage that his policy was dead he turned the "war veterans" loose who went on a cross-country rampage that brought us to where we are today.

Had Mugabe not gone crazy in 1990 Zimbabwe would be the leading economy in Africa and the African bourgeoisie would have continued its rapid ascent. Instead Mugabe went waving his dick at the supreme court by turning criminal gangs loose to take the farms the courts wouldn't let him. The problem was further compounded by the fact the "war veterans" and misc. ZANU thugs were not interested in farming themselves or turning the farms over to African farmers. The scheme they had in mind was the lease them back to the white farmers and collect rent. This was not allowed to continue and instead they took to just stripping the farms bare.

The commercial agricultural infrastructure of Zimbabwe has been completely destroyed, and farmers were granted land and asylum in Zambia and have setup new lives there never to return.

This will never go back together.

I think that the land redistribution question ought to be re-examined with a colder, more impartial eye. Was Mugabe's land redistribution REALLY done to benefit individual black Zimbabweans or to benefit his party? Was the expropriated white land given to the black workers who actually worked that land or was it handed out to ZANU-PF party hacks and hangers-on? Was that redistributed land even handed out to competent farmers? These seen to be the sorts of questions that many starry-eyed "social justice" fans DON'T want to ask or find answers for, lest their pretty illusions suffer from contact with unpleasant realities.

Don't like my attitude? Gee, too bad! I happen to think that one of the duties of any political leader is to provide a suitable environment for the benefit and economic welfare of his or her citizens. Further, I believe that providing for such should supersede winning elections, wowing neighboring countries, complying with the arcana of political ideologies, or pleasing the IMF.

Mugabe's land reform was done less to benefit poor, landless Zimbabwean farmers than to benefit his political party. Mugabe's actions failed to provide for the economic betterment of his people and led to the widespread hunger, unemployment, and raging inflation that torments Zimbabwe today.

It is a sorry truth to say that most Zimbabweans were economically better-off under Ian Smith.

The early land reform didn't go too badly - however Mugabe soon discovered that he didn't like the black commercial farmers any better than he liked the white ones and they too became targets.

I called you on your lame apologetics, and in response you've decided to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that I was arguing that Mugabe is a good leader. Surely, it would have been very convenient for you had I done that. But I myself said that Mugabe has harmed blacks.


"Starry eyes" have nothing to do with it. The 2nd Chimurenga -- whereby Africans freed themselves from rule by a pack of foreigners and established self-determination -- was the first precondition to creating a decent future for Zimbabweans. Freeing themselves from Mugabe and his henchmen will be a second precondition.


Then Africans can redistribute their land amongst themselves as they see fit. The point is, Zimbabwe is their country, and Zimbabwe's future is their future, and only they have the right to decide what to do and how to proceed. It won't be pretty; the same process certainly wasn't pretty when it happened in Europe (as colonialism's many apologists always seem to forget). But that's what self-determination is.

While post-colonial philosophizing about self-determination might be interesting without rapid international intervention there won’t be a Zimbabwe for them to determine the future of. On the crash course Zimbabwe is on now the only people left standing will be Charles Davy and his bimbo daughter.

let the Devil finally get his swipes at him.

Maybe our global outreach efforts would help more if we actually cared about sustainable, stable, open democracies in Africa (or anywhere in the world for that matter).

I would like to imagine Smith and Mugabe having to spend eternity together. Satan wouldn't have to do anything further - they'd do a far better job of creating hell for themselves.

I have similar thoughts about Bush and Saddam; and going back even further, Hitler and Stalin - and all sorts of evil dictators who could effectively create hell for themselves and each other.