Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article discusses the role of the almost exclusively white volunteers who fought for the Rhodesian cause in the country's Bush War during the 1970s. They were generally motivated by a mix of racism, anti-communism and a desire for adventure, with few having a deep commitment to Rhodesia. While the Rhodesian government actively recruited volunteers, it didn't trust them and they often received a hostile reception from their Rhodesian comrades. The opponents of the Rhodesian regime regarded them as mercenaries, and were sceptical about western governments' lacklustre efforts to block their recruitment.

I started this article earlier this year as part of a burst of editing on the Rhodesian Security Forces. It's slightly patchy in parts, but this reflects the limited sources (as noted by the most recent works on the topic, the literature is thin and at times unreliable, and no-one even knows how many volunteers there were). Given the limited sourcing, the article may be one of the most comprehensive works on this topic. The article was assessed as a good article in February, and has since been expanded and copy edited. As a result, I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

The Rhodesia area is long overdue for some improvements. My comments:

  • A little more explanation in the background about why the Rhodesian government issued the UDI (to avoid majority rule, also an intro to Rhodesian Front ideology here would be suitable) and why guerillas fought the government (to overthrow the minority government) would be nice.
    • That's a really good suggestion, and I've added a couple of paras on this topic noting also the appeal of the RF's ideology in the UK and US. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Rhodesian government had a strong preference for whites If the reasons for this are known, this should be made explicit.
    • The source doesn't say, but I think that it should now be obvious in light of the summary of the RF's ideology. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • White people and black people should be linked up here closer to the background, not further down in the article.
  • I'm sure the anti-communism motivations of some of the foreign volunteers had to do with opposing the ideologies of the Zimbabwe African National Union and Zimbabwe African People's Union. I'm sure the Rhodesians played up the possible communist sympathies of their opponents for their own political advantage, but if these volunteers were offered the opportunity to fight communists it should be mentioned to what extent such opponents were actually communist, or what communist backing they received.
    • Added. They exposed Marxist beliefs and were supported by Communist countries, but were mainly motivated by nationalism. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why the black ex-Flechas joined? Were they seeking a career future after political fortunes turned against them in Mozambique? Were they actively recruited by Rhodesia or simply accepted into its ranks after fleeing Mozambique?
    • The source doesn't say. The reason almost certainly will have been that their lives were in extreme danger had they stayed in Mozambique. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Numbers of volunteers", there is inconsistent punctuation with regards to the bulleted list.
    • Fixed, I think? Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also clarifying whether these writers offering these estimates were academics, Rhodesian officers, journalists, etc. would be nice.
  • More potential force estimates seem to be found here.
  • Foreign volunteers who openly expressed extreme racial views were deported. Is it known why? Were they viewed as liabilities?
    • The source doesn't explicitly say, but this would have been due to the Rhodesian government's attempts to portray itself as not being racially extreme, which the background section now notes. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The security forces rarely discussed the foreign volunteers. I'm not exactly sure what this means. Top brass didn't like bringing it up in internal meetings?
    • With journalists - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nationalists argued in their propaganda Since the distinction is not made earlier, it might be best to qualify this as "black nationalists" or something else to clarify who these people were aka the Zimbabwean nationalists opposed to Rhodesia. Disregard if the distinction is explained earlier on in the article.
    • Should be OK with the expansion of the lead Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Portuguese government banned Rhodesian recruitment in the late 1970s, but was unable to enforce the legislation. I presume an an aftereffect of the Carnation Revolution? This unexplained seems at odds with In 1976 Portuguese officials offered 2,000 white soldiers who had served with UNITA in Angola unless those officials were being rogue.
    • Fixed - the source says they were former officials. I imagine that this lines up with the Portuguese government being unable to enforce its laws against citizens serving in other countries. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known what happened to these people at the end of the war? Were they sent home? What did the new Zimbabwean government (both transitional and Mugabe's government) think of them?
    • The British agreed to leave them in place during the interim period as part of the negotiations for the Lancaster House agreement. Mugabe ordered that any that still remained when he took power be dismissed - added. I was struggling to find information on this, but Newspapers.com and some creative Googling returned useful stories. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does White mention any memoirs published by foreign volunteers themselves?

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Indy beetle: thanks for these excellent comments, and your edits to the article. I think that I may have now addressed the comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR by Buidhe[edit]

  • Image: the one image meets some of the NFCC criteria but not all of them. I think it's potentially replaceable with free content as an ad placed in a US newspaper in the 1970s would be public domain in the US unless there was a copyright notice, which was rare.
    • I haven't seem any sources which say that the Rhodesians advertised in American newspapers, only magazines. The image here is particularly interesting, as it's the subject of a newspaper story and an example of the ads targeting British people (who made up the majority of volunteers). Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Magazines and newspapers published in US are the same for copyright—the ad would need to incorporate a copyright notice to be eligible for copyright protection. It's hard to make a case for this specific ad meeting NFCC if public domain ads are available because this ad (and British ads in general) doesn't seem to be discussed in the article text. (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with you, to be frank, as I think that the fair use claim is fine given this illustrates how the Rhodesians targeted their main source of recruits and the article notes this campaign. It turns the National Library of Australia has a full set of Soldier of Fortune editions, so I'll check them out next weekend to see what I can find. This should get me yet another funny look from the librarians! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: The NLA has the 1978-79 editions onwards, none of which had ads for service in Rhodesia unfortunately. The closest was an ad for a T-shirt glamorising mercenary work in the country. There were also lots of ads for Nazi memorabilia, conspiracy theories and other fringe movements: weird magazine! I've added some more material to the article on the leaflet that's depicted, which I think helps establish its significance. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: most of the sources look fine but I would not cite parliament records for anything but what was said in Parliament. Also, I'm not sure I can verify "As part of the negotiations that led to this agreement, the British government made a commitment to not remove foreigners from the Rhodesian military prior to the election".
    • Reworked this to attribute it to the politician responsible. I think that the verification is clear - the minister was asked about "foreign troops or mercenaries" in Rhodesia and replied stating that "There are persons of various nationalities serving with the Rhodesian forces, as there are with the Patrotic Front forces. The Government made clear during the constitutional conference that there would be no purge of the forces of either side during the interim period". Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the estimates of the numbers of volunteers both in the body and the lead, it could be made more clear which estimates are of those serving in the Rhodesian army at one time versus the cumulative number of foreign volunteers that had participated in the conflict.
    • Unfortunately the sources aren't clear on this: I've described what they've said, which notes that most sources refer to this as a point in time figure. I suspect the underlying problem is that historians haven't been able to access the relevant Rhodesian archives, as noted in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ellert 1999, p. 130. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: How are we looking for this review? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should be ok (t · c) buidhe 15:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Infobox: the instructions for Template:Infobox militant organization state that "Country" is for the "name of the country in which the organization was founded and active."
    • Yeah, but that doesn't seem to work in this context. The volunteers were citizens of other countries who gave their allegiance to Rhodesia. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That will be the case for many "militant organisations". You are using the infobox inapropriately by trying to work in information it was not designed to convey and probably confusing readers. the "name of the country in which the organization was founded and active" is Rhodesia, possibly adding (now Zimbabwe).
I don't think it's that bad, but have taken this out Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size: the article consistently uses 2,000 while the infobox has 2000. Is there a reason?
  • This is very thinly illustrated. Nothing else which could be used?
    • Unfortunately not. This era and the obscurity of the topic mean that I haven't been able to find any PD images. Rhodesian works from the 1970s are still under copyright in Zimbabwe and the US, and the various images on Commons are either irrelevant or have dubious copyright claims. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 69, pp. error.
  • On a first skim I can find almost nothing in the article on military operations which the volunteers engaed in, which seems a little odd. I may come back to this.
    • This reflects the sources, unfortunately, which don't discuss this. The war is tricky for historians to describe, as it was years and years of escalating numbers of generally very small unit actions. As the foreigners seem to have topped out at 10% of the Rhodesian Light Infantry, I suspect that it's hard to identify battles where they played a prominent role. The French company might have been an exception, but it turned out to be a gang of criminals rather than a fighting force. I've added a bit more on the role of the Rhodesian Light Infantry which might help. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: first sentence, could "military" be specified?
  • "It is not known how many foreign volunteers served in the Rhodesian Security Forces". This seems the wrong way round. Should a reader not first be told that Rhodesian Security Forces contained foreign volunteers?
    • Yes, that reads better - done Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volunteers frequently received a hostile response from Rhodesians in the units they were posted to". One gathers from this that they were integrated rather than separate units. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the lead?
  • Suggest "It was illegal to serve with the Rhodesian Security Forces in many countries" → 'In many countries it was illegal to serve with the Rhodesian Security Forces '.
  • "regarding Rhodesia". You have already stated that only Rhodesia is being considered earlier in the sentence.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Please note that I'm going to be out of town for the next week, but will follow up on the further comments when I return. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an illegal Unilateral Declaration of Independence". Why the upper case initial letters?
The fact that UDI is in caps doesn't - according to the MoS - mean that what it is short for should necessarily also have. Eg because ASAP exists I would not consistently capitalise every use. You are not talking of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (for which a case for initial caps can be made) but a unilateral declaration of independence (for which it can't).
I am referring to the specific UDI here, so I think this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to clarify things here after checking the constructions some sources use when writing about this. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white minority government of the British colony of Rhodesia". Perhaps locate Rhodesia in the text? Maybe even add a location map?
  • Background: The first sentence of the first paragraph concerns events in 1965. The first sentence of the second paragraph events from the 1950s and 1960s. A reader may find them easier to follow if they were in chronological order.
  • "the development of African nationalism over the 1950s and 1960s". Perhaps "over" → 'during'?
  • "a policy of appeasement". Who was purportedly being appeased? International communists?
    • African nationalists, supposedly - added. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a complete aside, I cannot help but think of Tom Sharpe's ironic dedication of (from memory) "Dedicated to the fine men of the South African Police Force and their struggle to uphold western civilisation in southern Africa". He was deported.
  • There seems to be a lot on the Rhodesian Front, and little on the more general African de-colonisation - peaceful or otherwise. Possibly flag up how odd Rhodesia's race-based government was - one of only two in the world.
    • This largely reflects the sources noting that the key factor that drove foreigners to fight for Rhodesia was the kind of ideology the RF had adopted - as a result, there's a need to explain what it was. There were a bunch of other white minority governments other than South Africa worldwide at this time - the Portuguese in various parts of Africa, the British in Hong Kong, etc. Rhodesia's key difference was the RF's rather odd political ideology. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However" is used six times - not necessarily excessive, but you may wish to review.
  • "The guerrillas began to gain the upper hand from the mid-1970s". 1. Perhaps mention explicitly that they engaged in military operations. 2. When did these commence?
    • Done - I've expanded the summary of the war to couple of short paras. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortages of white manpower were a persistent problem for the Rhodesian Security Forces. While most of the security forces' personnel were black, the Rhodesian government had a strong preference for whites." Perhaps swap the order of these sentences.
  • "The expansion of the military, increasing battle casualties and a decline in the white population caused the shortages of white personnel to worsen over the 1970s." This leaves a reader, this one anyway, wondering why the white population declined. Maybe a quick mention in line. or else a longer footnote?
    • Due to emigration - added. One of the many interesting things about the Rhodesian Bush War is that a sizable proportion of the white Rhodesians left the country as a result of it. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of its response to the shortage of white manpower, which also included increasing the numbers of conscripts and the periods they were obliged to serve for, the Rhodesian government began seeking white volunteers from outside the country in 1973." This sentence seems a little complicated. Perhaps 'In response to the shortage of white manpower the Rhodesian government increased the number of men liable for conscription and the periods they were obliged to serve. In addition, from 1973 it began seeking white volunteers from outside the country'?
  • "offered a rank in the Security Forces." Why the upper case S and F?
  • "they were paid at lower rates than white Rhodesian soldiers." This may read better if "Rhodesian" were deleted.
  • "An exception was a group of almost 200 French military personnel who enlisted together in 1976." Is anything known of their pre-Rhodesian background? One is curious as to how 200 men came to join up together.
    • Added - they were recruited by the Rhodesian intelligence service with the assistance of French intelligence agents, with the remainder of the Rhodesian government regarding it as having been a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "white soldiers who had served with UNITA in Angola." Perhaps give a reader some idea of what UNITA was? And why 2,000 of its soldiers were suddenly looking for new jobs.
    • Added a bit, but the source is vague on this topic and its source (a Rhodesian government file) isn't accessible. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most foreign volunteers for the Rhodesian Security Forces did so as a result" is not grammatical.
  • Would it be possible to give an idea of the total size of the Rhodesian Army?
    • Done, by expanding this to a short section. It's a tricky question to answer as the size of the Army increased considerably during the 1970s and it had lots of reservists so the total numbers of active personnel fluctuated by quite a bit. It seems that the army was pretty huge for much of 1978 and 1979, and I've given a point in time figure that illustrates this. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South African journalist Paul Smurthwaite separately reported". I am not sure that "separately" adds anything.
    • Not having this makes it read like they collaborated, when they didn't Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but estimates range as high as 2,000". Is this their estimate? If not, whose?
    • They don't say unfortunately - they're surveying the literature in a non-scholarly book. Tweaked to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last bullet point seems to contain three separate estimates, which may benefit from being split.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "British citizens were banned from joining the Rhodesian Security Forces". Banned how. Was it made illegal? Reading on, apparently not. I get the impression that the British government made vague noises that they would rather this not happen, rather than "banned" it.
    • Added a bit, but that's exactly right. It was unclear whether the grab bag of measures the British brought in would stand up in court so it seems to have never been tried. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were immune from prosecution." This has a technical legal meaning, which I don't think applies here. Perhaps rephrase?
    • The source uses that word, but I agree it seems not quite right - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carter Administration". Should that not be a lower case initial a?
  • "He also wrote a novel". Does it have a title?
  • "During the play the former volunteer slept with the niece of one of the main characters and threatened the other, an ex-soldier who was recruiting mercenaries to serve in southern Africa, with a gun." I don't see the relevance of this fictional event to the article.
    • I was trying to get out how the volunteer is portrayed (pretty negatively), but yeah this is excessive detail Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow response here: My one week trip unexpectedly became a two week trip. I'm grateful for these comments, and will respond over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again: I've been unwell for most of the last week (confirmed not to be COVID, but it knocked me off my feet). Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have gone through your comments to date and commented on one, the rest seem fine. Note that I will be away from the internet from c. 21-31 May. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again: I think that I've now addressed them all. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiking in the Scottish Highlands. Very limited internet. Back next week. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA[edit]

Will do this at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southern Rhodesia was a self governing British colony" --> "Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing British colony"?
  • "all other countries and the United Nations" Unlink the UN. Too common to link.
  • There are four "However"s maybe remove one or two?
  • "In April 1979 60,000 members of the military" --> "In April 1979 sixty thousend members of the military"?
    • I've left this as is to avoid changing between different styles of expressing thousands in the same para - this seems OK per MOS:NUMERAL Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could merge one or two paragraphs of "Rhodesian Security Forces" section?
    • The second and third paras here are short, but I think they're on distinct topics. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "personnel who enlisted together in late 1976.[37][36][38]" Switch the citations here.
  • "Rhodesian military in 1972, with 90 percent of recruits being" American percent here.
  • "written that there were 1,500 in 1977–78.[50][38]" Switch the citations here.
  • "in the United States Army and between 50 and 60 percent" American percent again.
  • "of the Australian Army's pay scale.[59][32]" Switch the citations here.
  • "Rhodesian Light Infantry, and over 10 percent" American percent again.
  • "allowed no more than $1,500 to be converted" Which dollar?
  • "The Rhodesian Army only learned of Lamb's history" American learned.
  • Another question here is it Rhodesian government or is it Rhodesian Government? Same with British government.
    • Lower case gs. As I understand it, capitalising the g is a recent adoption by some governments, such as the Australian Government. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States' Neutrality Act prohibits" Maybe add here the year 1794.
  • "The Carter administration considered" Isn't it "The Carter Administration considered"?
    • Googling suggests that some excellent sources capitalise this and others dont! I've left this as is. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I think I've replied to these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Foreign_volunteers_in_the_Rhodesian_Security_Forces&oldid=1091240348"