What do you think?
Rate this book
Rhodesian War
- The vicious conflict (1964-79) that brought Robert Mugabe to power in Zimbabwe - Expert coverage of the war, its historical context, and its aftermath - Descriptions of guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency operations, and actions by units like Grey's Scouts Amid the colonial upheaval of the 1960s, Britain urged its colony in Southern Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe) to grant its black residents a greater role in governing the territory. The white-minority government refused and soon declared its independence, a move bitterly opposed by the black majority. The result was the Rhodesian Bush War, which pitted the government against black nationalist groups, one of which was led by Robert Mugabe. Marked by unspeakable atrocities, the war ended in favor of the nationalists.
228 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1982
55 people are currently reading
218 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
March 22, 2013
As a young man, back in the 1970s, I became very interested in the history and current affairs of all things southern African. I felt, as I still do, that I became somewhat of an "expert" about Rhodesia, South Africa, and SWA (Namibia). I read as many of the books as I could that were available in my university library as well as books that I purchased myself. For full disclosure regarding this review, I feel compelled to state that I was sympathetic to the political aims of both South Africa and Rhodesia of the time period being discussed. I remember this book being initially published in the early 1980s under the title of Chimurenga, a reference to the African uprisings in Rhodesia during the 1890s. That had me wondering if the authors' point of view was sympathetic to the terrorist organizations that had fought the Rhodesian Army in the 1970s. If so, I had no interest in reading a book that clearly expressed such a bias. Although my interest over the decades waned, I never completely lost my curiosity for southern African history and affairs. With a plethora of new books, many of which were personal accounts, of the wars and events in southern African being published over the past ten years, my interest renewed. The book, Chimurenga was republished as the Rhodesian War, and viewing the background of the two authors, I took a chance and purchased it, with the hope that it would be a neutral, objective account of the military component of the Rhodesian War. Because of its military and technical content, I assumed it would be a good book to read before I started on many of the personal war accounts of Rhodesian soldiers. It was a mistake. The name of the book may have changed, but the original bias, that I suspected, in my opinion, did not. The content is totally slanted in favor of the Rhodesian guerrillas/terrorists. Innuendo, such as using inflammatory words to describe the actions of the Rhodesian security forces ("The soldiers mowed down the guerrillas....") abound. Yet for some reason, the authors felt compelled to present a detailed explanation/exposition of a guerrilla/terrorist attack, to somehow soften the reasons as to why the terrorists were using certain tactics against white Rhodesians. When the Rhodesian Army attacked, it was an atrocity, but somehow the guerrillas, in all their terrorism, and killing of totally innocent men, women, and children, never warranted the term atrocity. I should have realized the bias was going to be ongoing when, from the very beginning of the book, I continually kept seeing the term "settlers", to describe Rhodesian whites. But I kept holding out for more objectivity. The coup de grace of biases of the authors is their use of the single most damaging ploy by comparing some Rhodesian military tactics to Nazi tactics. Yet the shooting down of two civilian Rhodesian airliners, one of which ended with the survivors being massacred by the terrorists, never seemed to get a comparable description. I wondered about the bias of the authors, since both had lived in Rhodesia and served in the Rhodesian forces. I use to think that they were perhaps just anti - Ian Smith and Rhodesian Front Party. I am still wondering about it. Regarding the technical aspects of weaponry and Rhodesian Army field tactics, the book reads much like a textbook. The use of acronyms to describe the guerrilla/terrorist organizations of ZANLA, ZIPRA, and ZAPU, with the later addition of the suffix PF, will have most uninformed readers wearing out the pages going back and forth to the glossary. Perhaps that was unavoidable. Read this book with caution, if at all. If there exists, a single balanced objective book about the military aspect of the Rhodesian Bush War, I am not aware of its availability.
June 4, 2024
A decent introduction to the conflict and preceding political issues that precipitated the bush war that led to Rhodesia’s ruin.
Authors certainly have a pro-rebel tilt but it is not overwhelming to the point where the book is not informative. The barbaric terror tactics employed by the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces, which became emblematic of this war, are given cursory treatment. Their horrifying butchery of farmers and civilians is glossed over and reduced to “paranoia” spreading amongst the white population. The terror threat was real, it was viable, it was a living and breathing horror that the civilian population, white and black had to contend with. The authors offered only a few sentences for the many massacres and airplanes being shot down that were perpetrated by the terrorist guerrillas.
Murder, rape, theft, intimidation, and torture were commonplace amongst the rebels. It was their only option. They could never beat the Rhodesians in the field. Outgunned, poorly trained, inferior communication, fractured leadership, the list goes on. The Rhodesians were superior in every way. Their forces operated with ease and the Rhodesian victories in the field stacked up quickly. The authors could have gone into more detail about Operations Dingo and Eland where the Rhodesian Security Forces inflicted severe casualties at an incredibly low cost.
And yet the Rhodesians lost the war. For a whole host of reasons. No allies outside of Pretoria. Sanctions. The tide of the world turned against them. An enemy with an ideology. A prime minster, Ian Smith, who listened too much to the men at Internal Affairs and not his commanders in the Security Forces who were on the ground. Emigration of many citizens out of Rhodesia. A multi-front conflict. All of those reasons and more.
The irony is that even during that time, Rhodesia endured. It was Mugabe’s Zimbabwe that failed and continues to fail. Rhodesia fed itself when the world isolated it. Zimbabwe is wracked with famine despite the millions in foreign aid. The economy did well in Rhodesia. Zimbabwe’s inflation rate reached 5,000% at one point. Mugabe terrorized and murdered more black civilians than the Rhodesians. The fertile bread basket of Southern Africa has turned into a desolate wasteland. Life expectancy has plummeted. Infancy mortality rates have skyrocketed. The economy has collapsed.
It makes you wonder why so many people had to die? What was the point of this violence? The Rhodesians failed politically but excelled militarily. The ZANU rebels underwhelmed militarily but won politically. That is how it goes.
I need to read more about this war.
TIA.
Authors certainly have a pro-rebel tilt but it is not overwhelming to the point where the book is not informative. The barbaric terror tactics employed by the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces, which became emblematic of this war, are given cursory treatment. Their horrifying butchery of farmers and civilians is glossed over and reduced to “paranoia” spreading amongst the white population. The terror threat was real, it was viable, it was a living and breathing horror that the civilian population, white and black had to contend with. The authors offered only a few sentences for the many massacres and airplanes being shot down that were perpetrated by the terrorist guerrillas.
Murder, rape, theft, intimidation, and torture were commonplace amongst the rebels. It was their only option. They could never beat the Rhodesians in the field. Outgunned, poorly trained, inferior communication, fractured leadership, the list goes on. The Rhodesians were superior in every way. Their forces operated with ease and the Rhodesian victories in the field stacked up quickly. The authors could have gone into more detail about Operations Dingo and Eland where the Rhodesian Security Forces inflicted severe casualties at an incredibly low cost.
And yet the Rhodesians lost the war. For a whole host of reasons. No allies outside of Pretoria. Sanctions. The tide of the world turned against them. An enemy with an ideology. A prime minster, Ian Smith, who listened too much to the men at Internal Affairs and not his commanders in the Security Forces who were on the ground. Emigration of many citizens out of Rhodesia. A multi-front conflict. All of those reasons and more.
The irony is that even during that time, Rhodesia endured. It was Mugabe’s Zimbabwe that failed and continues to fail. Rhodesia fed itself when the world isolated it. Zimbabwe is wracked with famine despite the millions in foreign aid. The economy did well in Rhodesia. Zimbabwe’s inflation rate reached 5,000% at one point. Mugabe terrorized and murdered more black civilians than the Rhodesians. The fertile bread basket of Southern Africa has turned into a desolate wasteland. Life expectancy has plummeted. Infancy mortality rates have skyrocketed. The economy has collapsed.
It makes you wonder why so many people had to die? What was the point of this violence? The Rhodesians failed politically but excelled militarily. The ZANU rebels underwhelmed militarily but won politically. That is how it goes.
I need to read more about this war.
TIA.
November 1, 2022
In desperate need of an editor. Tons of knowledge yet it is all over the place. After discussing the ceasefire in 1980, there is a section on how the Rhodesians beat a Guerilla incursion into an urban area, despite the chapter on weapons and tactics being way earlier
January 16, 2018
I chose this book because I wanted to find out more background on this little known episode in history. I was also interested in some 'what if' questions to see what different routes could have been taken. This book though was more a detailed history of the fighting with more than a fair share of information on military equipment. It is thoroughly researched and tries to treat both sides of the conflict with a neutral stance. It does assume a lot of background knowledge so can be hard to follow in places. The politics was discussed but not to the depth I was hoping,
I did come away with a better understanding and realisation that the course chosen by the Ian Smith at the time was a mistake. He claimed that he ensured an extra 15 years of good living by the minority whites, but in reality he let loose the evils of war and caused great suffering and misfortune at the time and for which the consequences still ring through today. Whilst the guerillas committed terrorist attacks such as the shooting down of passenger planes, retribution killings, bombs in supermarkets etc the counter terrorist measures where equally horrifying. Examples of surprise attacks on guerilla settlements killing thousands in a few hours, use of chemical weapons, forced evacuations of villages to prison encampments, indiscriminate killing of villagers when ambushed etc are detailed in full. This was not a noble war by any description.
For me the mistakes made at the beginning, even before the declaration of UDI, set the controls for the resulting 50 years of downward spiral for this poor country. If the white minority had accepted power sharing at the start and a gradual move to democracy then the guerilla marxist armies may never have had a chance. The Unilateral Decalaration of Independence was not in any way an attempt to remove the shackles of colonialism, but rather a desire to maintain and enforce the status quo, and once enacted opened the gates for the resulting war.
So for helping in my understanding the book did a very good job in terms of content- but overall the poor structure and lack of a political narrative undermined the work as a whole.
I did come away with a better understanding and realisation that the course chosen by the Ian Smith at the time was a mistake. He claimed that he ensured an extra 15 years of good living by the minority whites, but in reality he let loose the evils of war and caused great suffering and misfortune at the time and for which the consequences still ring through today. Whilst the guerillas committed terrorist attacks such as the shooting down of passenger planes, retribution killings, bombs in supermarkets etc the counter terrorist measures where equally horrifying. Examples of surprise attacks on guerilla settlements killing thousands in a few hours, use of chemical weapons, forced evacuations of villages to prison encampments, indiscriminate killing of villagers when ambushed etc are detailed in full. This was not a noble war by any description.
For me the mistakes made at the beginning, even before the declaration of UDI, set the controls for the resulting 50 years of downward spiral for this poor country. If the white minority had accepted power sharing at the start and a gradual move to democracy then the guerilla marxist armies may never have had a chance. The Unilateral Decalaration of Independence was not in any way an attempt to remove the shackles of colonialism, but rather a desire to maintain and enforce the status quo, and once enacted opened the gates for the resulting war.
So for helping in my understanding the book did a very good job in terms of content- but overall the poor structure and lack of a political narrative undermined the work as a whole.
December 22, 2011
I've become very interested in Rhodesia lately and found this book in my search for more info. It was a hard read to start off with because I knew almost nothing about the former country. After struggling through the first half, the people and places started becoming more familiar and I started to feel fairly knowledgeable about what happened.
It also led to several other side stories that I'll have to investigate such as the Selous Scouts. A very interesting group. In fact, the whole episode was very interesting. Most of what I was interested in was over by the early 80's, so I only have a dim memory of the events though it's illustrative of how much has changed in such a short time.
It also led to several other side stories that I'll have to investigate such as the Selous Scouts. A very interesting group. In fact, the whole episode was very interesting. Most of what I was interested in was over by the early 80's, so I only have a dim memory of the events though it's illustrative of how much has changed in such a short time.
May 25, 2013
This for me, ended up being a great history of the Rhodesian War. It started out somewhat disjointed but gained its footing about a third of the way in. After that things made muchmore sense. A rather tragic tale that ended up with Mugabe in power. Could have been much more sensibly resolved than it was. But als, stubborness and unwillingness to change led things to the path they took. Great introduction to the war, I look forward to reading some of the other books I have picked up on the era.
January 24, 2011
Best overview of the war I've read so far. Lots of interesting info on the political/diplomatic infighting. Both from the government and guerrilla perspectives.
July 17, 2024
This was not what I was expecting nor wanted.
Background, I recently read Fireforce: One Man's War in The Rhodesian Light Infantry about one bloke's war in a rapid reaction force during the Rhodesian war in the 1970s. Because this was a one man's view, I wanted a book on the broader context and narrative. Something that a Max Hastings might have written were he interested in the subject.
I ended getting Moorcraft's book in the Stackpole Military History Series.
So, here were my issues:
- Rather than tell a narrative chronologically, the authors prefer to do a thematic book with the topics jumping around from equipment, political situation, origins, armies, special forces, and then finally a semi-coherent narrative of the final two years of the war.
- The authors presupposed the reader knew a bunch of details already like the Lancaster House talks (this might have been prominent in 1979 but so many years later - nope.)
- The maps are horrible with details that you might care about presented in maps 100 pages on while the early maps offered little in the way of exposition
- Personalities were dominant back then - Ian Smith, Robert Mugabe, Kaunda, Vorster, etc. Yet no life is breathed into these politicos. One felt like you were reading a Ph.D dissertation.
- You are introduced to a bunch of acronyms for the various "liberator" factions - ZIRPA, ZANU, etc. These were important, yet again, no life was breathed into these factions to give them a personality that you could hang your comprehension around. It reminded me of reading about 17th Century English religious factions -- a bunch of labels (e.g. Covenenters) but hard to pin down what they meant.
So, did I learn anything from this book?
Sort of.
It gave me a better appreciation of how much independent Rhodesia relied on a bulwark of friendly states (Angola and Mozambique) through which trade flowed and rebels (to the Rhodesians) could be suppressed by Portuguese forces. Whoops - in 1975, Portugal withdrew.
It introduced me to the many raids conducted by Rhodesian forces inside the territories of Zambia and Mozambique to strike at ZANU/ZIRPA bases (shades of Cambodia/Laos).
There was a pretty interesting transcript of the Rhodesian air force conducting a strike inside Zambia where they verbally engaged the Lusaka control tower and told them to stand down for a few hours ("we have no beef with Zambia"). Lots of colorful cockpit language. Why was this included in an otherwise dry book? Who knows? Maybe the authors were proud to have unearthed the full transcript and wanted the world to know.
There was endless skullduggery conducted by the intelligence and special operations services of both Rhodesia and South Africa including assassination plots, bio-warfare, disinformation, and playing one side against the other. Plenty of John le Carre material here. The African forces were no angels either - plenty of atrocities.
The authors tried not to take sides in their history while acknowledging that white supremist rule in Rhodesia was "bad" and also acknowledging that the ultimate victor, Mugabe, destroyed Zimbabwe's economy in the ensuing years after peace.
Rhodesia was a pariah state back in the 1970s. I remember it was never mentioned positively in US media at the time. Boycotting / disinvestment in South Africa were becoming a thing back then too.
I think my interest in this period sparked by Fireforce has now waned. That said, there was the whole conflict in Angola that I may explore if I can find the right book.
Many photos; disappointing maps (or maps placed in the wrong sequence). Look harder if you want an engaging general narrative of the Rhodesian / Zimbabwean war of independence/liberation
Background, I recently read Fireforce: One Man's War in The Rhodesian Light Infantry about one bloke's war in a rapid reaction force during the Rhodesian war in the 1970s. Because this was a one man's view, I wanted a book on the broader context and narrative. Something that a Max Hastings might have written were he interested in the subject.
I ended getting Moorcraft's book in the Stackpole Military History Series.
So, here were my issues:
- Rather than tell a narrative chronologically, the authors prefer to do a thematic book with the topics jumping around from equipment, political situation, origins, armies, special forces, and then finally a semi-coherent narrative of the final two years of the war.
- The authors presupposed the reader knew a bunch of details already like the Lancaster House talks (this might have been prominent in 1979 but so many years later - nope.)
- The maps are horrible with details that you might care about presented in maps 100 pages on while the early maps offered little in the way of exposition
- Personalities were dominant back then - Ian Smith, Robert Mugabe, Kaunda, Vorster, etc. Yet no life is breathed into these politicos. One felt like you were reading a Ph.D dissertation.
- You are introduced to a bunch of acronyms for the various "liberator" factions - ZIRPA, ZANU, etc. These were important, yet again, no life was breathed into these factions to give them a personality that you could hang your comprehension around. It reminded me of reading about 17th Century English religious factions -- a bunch of labels (e.g. Covenenters) but hard to pin down what they meant.
So, did I learn anything from this book?
Sort of.
It gave me a better appreciation of how much independent Rhodesia relied on a bulwark of friendly states (Angola and Mozambique) through which trade flowed and rebels (to the Rhodesians) could be suppressed by Portuguese forces. Whoops - in 1975, Portugal withdrew.
It introduced me to the many raids conducted by Rhodesian forces inside the territories of Zambia and Mozambique to strike at ZANU/ZIRPA bases (shades of Cambodia/Laos).
There was a pretty interesting transcript of the Rhodesian air force conducting a strike inside Zambia where they verbally engaged the Lusaka control tower and told them to stand down for a few hours ("we have no beef with Zambia"). Lots of colorful cockpit language. Why was this included in an otherwise dry book? Who knows? Maybe the authors were proud to have unearthed the full transcript and wanted the world to know.
There was endless skullduggery conducted by the intelligence and special operations services of both Rhodesia and South Africa including assassination plots, bio-warfare, disinformation, and playing one side against the other. Plenty of John le Carre material here. The African forces were no angels either - plenty of atrocities.
The authors tried not to take sides in their history while acknowledging that white supremist rule in Rhodesia was "bad" and also acknowledging that the ultimate victor, Mugabe, destroyed Zimbabwe's economy in the ensuing years after peace.
Rhodesia was a pariah state back in the 1970s. I remember it was never mentioned positively in US media at the time. Boycotting / disinvestment in South Africa were becoming a thing back then too.
I think my interest in this period sparked by Fireforce has now waned. That said, there was the whole conflict in Angola that I may explore if I can find the right book.
Many photos; disappointing maps (or maps placed in the wrong sequence). Look harder if you want an engaging general narrative of the Rhodesian / Zimbabwean war of independence/liberation
September 17, 2024
The Rhodesian War: A Military History is an excellently written history of the Rhodesian War, its causes, its phases, and the actions of both sides during its course.
The book begins with an overview of Rhodesian history as a whole, giving the reader an understanding of the causes for the war, mainly the relationship between the white minority and the native Africans, fears of a black uprising, and the stout opposition to majority rule in the white populace. Afterwards, it gives an account of the war, divided into phases based on the changing dynamics between the gov. and the rebels due to various factors such as foreign intervention on behalf (or in opposition) to both sides, initial Rhodesian miscalculation of the severity of the guerrilla threat, the UDI, and poor ideological warfare from the government.
In general, I found the book very informative and enjoyable to read. It manages to stay admirably objective while dealing with a topic that is not generally covered in that manner. It is hard to find an adjective or verb that has a significant connotation in this book, either positive or negative. In addition, while the book does not cover specific combat tactics and military operations as much as I would have liked, it strikes a balance between giving the big picture and supplementing it with details to give the reader a deeper, and more concrete, understanding of the situation being discussed. Reading a shot-for-shot account of a guerrilla ambush on a Rhodesian government convoy allowed me to appreciate the resources available to, and the strategies employed, on each side better than a purely abstract discussion of that phase of the war could have. This also gave me a well-rounded understanding of each aspect of the war, providing me with a framework which I will be able to build additional knowledge on this topic on top of.
While I found this book extremely satisfactory to my ends, I do think that the author should have added more details about the Rhodesian government’s counter-insurgency civilian policies. The only widely implemented and effectual policy mentioned was the Protected Villages. I would have loved to learn more about how the Rhodesian gov. fought the soft power war, and to compare it with South Vietnam’s efforts in the same direction. Something else I would’ve liked to know more about was how the daily life of the average white Rhodesian in Salisbury, the more minor cities, and the countryside changed over the course of the war. What effects did the slowly degrading infrastructure, the sanctions from major first-world powers, and an increasingly hostile black population on white life in these places?
In the end, while I feel Mr. Moorcraft could’ve covered some topics more deeply, I think this is a fantastic book which has given me a comprehensive knowledge of the war, and a solid foundation on which to learn further about the Rhodesian war. I am very grateful to Mr. Moorcraft for writing this book, and highly recommend it as a starting point for anyone who would like to learn about this subject.
The book begins with an overview of Rhodesian history as a whole, giving the reader an understanding of the causes for the war, mainly the relationship between the white minority and the native Africans, fears of a black uprising, and the stout opposition to majority rule in the white populace. Afterwards, it gives an account of the war, divided into phases based on the changing dynamics between the gov. and the rebels due to various factors such as foreign intervention on behalf (or in opposition) to both sides, initial Rhodesian miscalculation of the severity of the guerrilla threat, the UDI, and poor ideological warfare from the government.
In general, I found the book very informative and enjoyable to read. It manages to stay admirably objective while dealing with a topic that is not generally covered in that manner. It is hard to find an adjective or verb that has a significant connotation in this book, either positive or negative. In addition, while the book does not cover specific combat tactics and military operations as much as I would have liked, it strikes a balance between giving the big picture and supplementing it with details to give the reader a deeper, and more concrete, understanding of the situation being discussed. Reading a shot-for-shot account of a guerrilla ambush on a Rhodesian government convoy allowed me to appreciate the resources available to, and the strategies employed, on each side better than a purely abstract discussion of that phase of the war could have. This also gave me a well-rounded understanding of each aspect of the war, providing me with a framework which I will be able to build additional knowledge on this topic on top of.
While I found this book extremely satisfactory to my ends, I do think that the author should have added more details about the Rhodesian government’s counter-insurgency civilian policies. The only widely implemented and effectual policy mentioned was the Protected Villages. I would have loved to learn more about how the Rhodesian gov. fought the soft power war, and to compare it with South Vietnam’s efforts in the same direction. Something else I would’ve liked to know more about was how the daily life of the average white Rhodesian in Salisbury, the more minor cities, and the countryside changed over the course of the war. What effects did the slowly degrading infrastructure, the sanctions from major first-world powers, and an increasingly hostile black population on white life in these places?
In the end, while I feel Mr. Moorcraft could’ve covered some topics more deeply, I think this is a fantastic book which has given me a comprehensive knowledge of the war, and a solid foundation on which to learn further about the Rhodesian war. I am very grateful to Mr. Moorcraft for writing this book, and highly recommend it as a starting point for anyone who would like to learn about this subject.
February 28, 2021
This book is a long trip through dry country, and it took me a long time to make my way through it. But the topic it covers is of tremendous importance and it’s a conflict about which I wanted to learn more. I am increasingly troubled when I see younger people, some with large numbers of YouTube followers, celebrating apartheid, white supremacist Rhodesia, and forces like the Selous Scouts (purveyors of actual biological warfare agents like anthrax), talking about ‘slotting floppies’ (killing black rebels) and ‘make Zimbabwe Rhodesia again’ - all code for white supremacism, from all I can see. Let it also be noted that this book is unsparing of the atrocities committed by the guerillas as well as the complete implosion of Zimbabwe’s economy after the establishment of majority rule. In the end, anti-communism and efficiency doesn’t justify apartheid and white supremacy any more than the establishment of majority rule wipes out the rights of those in the minority.
October 9, 2024
A comprehensive study of the war in Rhodesia.
I found that "The Rhodesia n War: A Military History" to be an authoritative well researched and comprehensive study of this conflict in Southern Africa from beginning to its conclusion. This book the reader can see parallels to other conflicts involving revolution, revolutionaries, and those fighting them throughout history . I highly recommend this book to those interested in further knowledge of this period of conflict.
I found that "The Rhodesia n War: A Military History" to be an authoritative well researched and comprehensive study of this conflict in Southern Africa from beginning to its conclusion. This book the reader can see parallels to other conflicts involving revolution, revolutionaries, and those fighting them throughout history . I highly recommend this book to those interested in further knowledge of this period of conflict.
January 17, 2018
An impressive overview of the war that clocks in at around 200 pages. Filled out a lot of areas that weren't covered at all in any of the military histories of the war I've read. Brought to light the dire straights Rhodesia was in by 1979.
February 8, 2021
The Rhodesian War is a great book for gaining a framework for more detailed (read battles) during the conflict. Although a hard read with no prior knowledge of COIN or the African sub-continent, it provides an understanding on how it all fits
June 21, 2024
Very insightful book
In my mind this ranks high as a must read to understand the overall prosecution of the Bush War both the military and political. Very eye opening. Read this with an open mind.
In my mind this ranks high as a must read to understand the overall prosecution of the Bush War both the military and political. Very eye opening. Read this with an open mind.
April 14, 2018
brought back quite some memories. a bit biased
June 10, 2018
I can't judge on the historical accuracy, knowing about Rhodesia only from Wikipedia articles and few Youtube videos. But it was a really good read.
October 2, 2019
Well written and informative book by P. Moorcraft. Covers the Military history of Rhodesia, but doesn't really give too much information on SADF special forces, or the Blackwatch Units.
February 7, 2017
A great book on the conflict and something that I was able to get through being largely ignorant of military history on the African continent in any great detail with the help of Google Search and Google Maps from my phone. The writer didn't do the best job going into detail about individual acronyms for organizations on either side of conflict or the histories of those groups. I suppose he assumes that since this isn't something likely to be on someone "light reading" list that you either don't mind doing some simultaneous research or you're already moderately familiar with it.
Worth the read for anyone who is interested in how that part of Africa ended up the way it is today as well as history fans.
Also touches on enough smaller subjects that you'll finish the book wanting to do some more reading on things like the Selous Scouts and Grey's Scouts.
Worth the read for anyone who is interested in how that part of Africa ended up the way it is today as well as history fans.
Also touches on enough smaller subjects that you'll finish the book wanting to do some more reading on things like the Selous Scouts and Grey's Scouts.
November 23, 2025
A book about the Zimbabwean War of Independence that isn't racist and full of bad history? Say it isn't so!
Moorcraft has achieved something rare in the field of studies of the conflict often known as the "Rhodesian Bush War" by creating an accessible study of the conflict that highlights the abuses and atrocities perpetrated by both sides in an even-handed fashion. The author covers all aspects of the conflict, including reconstructions of typical firefights during the conflict, the impacts on the Rhodesian economy and society, Rhodesian intelligence's use of poison and chemical weapons, South African involvement, and the negotiations and implementation of the Lancaster House peace agreement. Organization was rather odd at times. All in all very interesting and even-handed.
Moorcraft has achieved something rare in the field of studies of the conflict often known as the "Rhodesian Bush War" by creating an accessible study of the conflict that highlights the abuses and atrocities perpetrated by both sides in an even-handed fashion. The author covers all aspects of the conflict, including reconstructions of typical firefights during the conflict, the impacts on the Rhodesian economy and society, Rhodesian intelligence's use of poison and chemical weapons, South African involvement, and the negotiations and implementation of the Lancaster House peace agreement. Organization was rather odd at times. All in all very interesting and even-handed.
February 18, 2016
Great insight into a little-known war. Gives an overview of the causes and the major personalities, then delves into strategy and tactics. Good for anyone who always heard about this forgotten scrap, and wanted to know more.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews