Was Rhodesia the greatest nation ever to arise in subsaharan Africa?

Was Rhodesia the greatest nation ever to arise in subsaharan Africa?

You don't really need to answer, the answer is obvious.

youtube.com/watch?v=tBVDdr3wqm4

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eyJFRTJgPbU
youtube.com/watch?v=DZLP8Ie5e2g
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Settlement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, Lesotho is

No, Ethiopia was

Absolutely.

>inb4 Veeky Forums sjws

youtube.com/watch?v=eyJFRTJgPbU

>Ethiopia

Name a major Ethiopian accomplishment

This
One of the greatest moments in /sp/ history

No.

Extremely bullheaded, stubborn lot that could've saved everyone a ton of bloodshed and prevented the current disaster if they'd voluntarily adopted something like the Lancaster House Agreement from the get-go.

Instead, Ian Smith & co doubled down on an unsustainable system and made some really stupid moves like criminalizing most black African political parties that favored an end to minority rule, then arresting their leadership. They then decided it would be a great idea to imprison all said leaders in a remote camp where they freely mingled, had to cooperate in order to survive, and were basically unsupervised so they could spend their days debating and brainstorming new strategies.

The Rhodesian government then capped this colossal fuckup by releasing said prisoners without putting a bullet in their head first, after they'd had ages to make plans together. Look at the leadership of ZANU, ZAPU, and the other anti-government forces of the Bush War; tons of them met by being locked up together.

yes

youtube.com/watch?v=DZLP8Ie5e2g

No but it was one of the better ones.

They literally were so primitive with little idea on how to build up, that they build huge churches by digging them into the ground. Also they were one of the first empires and hold biblical significance.

Axum can get the ax
RHODESIA FTW

Do we have to have a communist/christ/marx/pol/why do arabs suck so much thread every day?

No we don't but my question was about Rhodesia

The answer is yes you goober.

The answer is no. There's no reason we need to obsessively discuss this country other than memes.

wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo

hue

Rwanda is.
>fought basically everyone south of them at once
>blew the fuck out of the DRC in a crazy 250-man airborne raid to the other side of the DRC only stopped by Angola rolling tanks over the border and some of the motherfuckers even made it back alive
>blew the fuck out of Fireforce, ruining what remained of the Rhodesian military in Zimbabwe
>got concessions in the DRC out of the whole thing

Wiki page pls

>instead of responding to user posts a macro, which itself does not respond to anything user said
another mouthbreathing tripfag to filter

If you want good info you'll have to look for stuff focusing on the conflict, nobody big cares about wars between African countries where white people aren't involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
>In a bold move, Rwandan soldiers under the command of James Kabarebe hijacked three planes and flew them to the government base of Kitona on the Atlantic coast.[17] The planes landed in the middle of the Kitona base, but the motley collection of troops there (ex-FAZ, but also Angolan UNITA elements and former Lissouba militiamen from Brazzaville) were in poor condition and in no condition to fight unless given food and weapons.[18] They were quickly won over to the Rwandan side. More towns in the east and around Kitona fell in rapid succession as the combined RCD, Rwandan and rebel soldiers overwhelmed government forces amid a flurry of ineffectual diplomatic efforts by various African nations. By 13 August, less than two weeks after the revolt began, rebels held the Inga hydroelectric station that provided power to Kinshasa as well as the port of Matadi through which most of Kinshasa's food passed. The diamond center of Kisangani fell into rebel hands on 23 August and forces advancing from the east had begun to threaten Kinshasa by late August.
>several paragraphs about unrelated bits
>A multisided war thus began. In September 1998 Zimbabwean forces flown into Kinshasa held off a rebel advance that reached the outskirts of the capital, while Angolan units attacked northward from its borders and eastward from the Angolan territory of Cabinda, against the besieging rebel forces. This intervention by various nations saved the Kabila government and pushed the rebel front lines away from the capital. However, it was unable to defeat the rebel forces, and the advance threatened to escalate into direct conflict with the national armies of Uganda and Rwanda that formed part of the rebel movement.

cont'd:

>They're also the only African country that defeated 19th c. European colonization efforts

no many African states and nations did resits colonization efforts for respectable periods only succumbing while. Ethiopia just lasted long enough that it survived the scramble but lost just after it (Somali' states lost just before the Scramble ended).

>Mugabe's initial buildup in Kinshasha comprised special forces along with some paratroops, reportedly numbering between 600 and 1,000. By August 1998, two more battalions had been dispatched. They were accompanied by some Soviet-manufactured T-54/55 tanks, Crocodile armoured personnel carriers, and EE-9 Cascavel scout cars flown into the capital on Angolan Air Force planes. The contingent grew to 3,800 around November, and peaked at 12,000 in January 2001. The Zimbabweans began departing in 2002 and had completely withdrawn by the end of the year. Prior to this deployment, Zimbabwe had built up an apparently potent brigade-sized, combined arms, reaction force with efficient air support and professional competence; however the prolonged operations in the Congo are said to have damaged its credibility.[21]

>The Air Force of Zimbabwe made particularly effective use of its air power, blunting rebel and Rwandan offensives on Mbuji-Mayi with repeated strikes by BAE Hawks and Hawker Hunters. It also sustained heavy losses during the conflict, including three of its six Mil Mi-24 Hind helicopters, a transport aircraft, and an unidentified interceptor, probably a Chinese Chengdu J-7.[22] Despite the effectiveness of its highly mobile, big-gunned Eland-90 and Cascavel armoured cars, Zimbabwean ground forces also lost a significant number either captured or destroyed by the rebel coalition.[23]

>however the prolonged operations in the Congo are said to have damaged its credibility.
>It also sustained heavy losses during the conflict, including three of its six Mil Mi-24 Hind helicopters, a transport aircraft, and an unidentified interceptor, probably a Chinese Chengdu J-7.
>Zimbabwean ground forces also lost a significant number either captured or destroyed by the rebel coalition.

Read: Zimbabwe got their heavy gear and aircraft (>bringing an interceptor to a CAS fight) wrecked by a mainly light infantry force in the Rwandans and their allied rebels.

Even though the interference by certain parties was wrong because the voting system was still rigged though.

>Even though the interference by certain parties was wrong because the voting system was still rigged though.
you want to write that again?
in english please.

Why is a rigged voting system a bad thing if most of the population is incapable of running a country?

I dunno, ask pre-election Trump supporters and post-election Hillary supporters.

obviously the people it's being rigged against don't like it

But Africans don't have the ability to run a modern country. Obviously they couldn't be allowed a say.

FPBP

>but lost just after it
1936 is hardly "just after" the Scramble for Africa.

Aren't you edgy faggots who masturbate to shitty meme countries like Rhodesia because they're so "obscure" and "reviled" just a time bit embarrassed at your complete lack of historical knowledge outside of your autistically narrow niche?

>autistically narrow niche?
lol

Rhodesia was dogshit and the way they set the country up was practically begging the African majority to tear them down.

Rwanda is by far the most impressive African nation. No contest.

See

That stale /pol/ tripe doesn't refute what I said.

Rhodesians don't have the capacity to run a modern county either.

not an argument

And they still fucking lost.

you have yet to pose one single argument

Saying that doesn't make it true.

Then debate.

I frankly wouldn't count it as a loss if you don't lose on the battlefield.

By all means feel free to make a counterargument, and I'll debate you on it.

South Africa was much better than shitty Anglodesia by every single standard.

>Objective: maintain power of Rhodesia
>Result: no longer has power of Rhodesia

That's a loss, user.

Well they lost the country eventually but they didn't lose the war is what I'm saying.

What was the goal of the war again?

To BTFO the terrorists, which happened. I mean it's like saying you won a football game but on your way back home you got stabbed to death so you didn't really win it. Those two things are not connected.

But the goal of a soccer game isn't to survive a stab attack, it's to win.

The goal of the war was to maintain power of Rhodeisa and they didn't achieve this.

So yes, they are connected.

The goal of the military was to win on the battlefield and they did - everything else is politics and beyond their control. What really ended Rhodesia were western sanctions, all in all Mugabe and the other terrorists haven't really accomplished anything

I bet you think the USA lost vietnam too

And the military belong to whom? Where they a separate entity from the government? Of course not. Everything is politics. Military victories mean diddly squat ultimately. If anything they worked against Rhodesia.

>all in all Mugabe and the other terrorists haven't really accomplished anything

Apart from their main goal of owning Zimbabwe.

Face it. No matter how much mental gymnastics you entertain yourself with, Rhodesia and Ian Smith was defeated.

They did. They failed to achieve their objective.

this is how I know you're trolling

>Can't refute me
>"you're just trolling lol!"

>Apart from their main goal of owning Zimbabwe.
But they didn't do shit, it was literally given to them. It's like counting welfare as salary lol.

The objective was to stop the Northern invasion, sign a peace treaty and fuck off actually. And that was accomplished. Once the North re-engaged, there was no objective for the US anymore.

>they didn't win it fair and square!!!!!

Do you really think this matters?

Also you comparisons are utter nonsense.

You're spooked beyond rational argument. I'm not going to waste my time.

That's a good dose of denial you have there. The US objective was to uphold their Containment Policy towards Communism and to protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam.

They ultimately failed at this. Thus, it is a defeat of American grand strategy.

>didn't win it fair and square
They didn't win it period. It was given to them.

You sound like an SJW who refuses to debate because of "like omg literally i can't deal right now!"

>The US objective was to uphold their Containment Policy towards Communism and to protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam.
Then why didn't they re-engage in '75 if it was their objective?

And yet who sits in Harare?

Because that was no longer a viable option.

And you're mad as well. Stay that way.

Because they were defeated and could not carry on the war. Everything is politics. Fighting the war and public relations included. The US lost the war at home and the US Government could no longer justify spending enormous amounts of money and losing tens of thousands of lives to its people.

>I'm mad because someone has no argument

So it wasn't their objective anymore, thanks for confirming what I'm saying.

>they were defeated
How exactly? Almost every NVA and Vietcong operation ended up being a failure.

Why do you care? It's a shithole now.

No, I said involvement was no longer a viable option. Do you think the Iraqis didn't lose the gulf war, or the japanese didn't lose WW2?

Your objective can change. In '75 Americans no longer considered Vietnam to be important enough to go to a war over, so they didn't. If the objective remained the same, they would've re-engaged.

>Iraqis
>Japanese
Those got beaten to hell and back in a war.

>not an argument

No, they're objective merely changed. The emperor himself stated that Japan hadn't lost but had "Developed in a way not necessarily to their advantage." Threy reassed their objectives and decided they no longer wanted to fight the Americans.

Same with the Iraqis. If their objectives remained the same, they would have reengaged, but they never entered kuwait again.

I'm not talking about the Japanese. They were in no position to physically wage the war anymore, they were conquered. America was not and they opted not to re-engage.

>they were in no position to wage war anymore
So it wasn't their objective anymore. Thanks for confirming what I said.

I'm saying you're comparing apples and oranges.

>country that got conquered and isn't able to fight anymore
vs
>country that is fully able to fight but decides not to help their allies

Why can't apples and oranges be compared?

>we won vietnam, we just chose to leave on a flimsy peace deal with our objectives unfulfilled and chose not do anything when the south got rolled by the north
why do americans do this?

>wanting to degrade the debate into intellectual masturbation
Fuck off retard.

If you mean me, I'm not American, but at least I'm fucking educated on the matter.

>why do americans do this?
I've met maybe one person who said we won the Vietnam war in my 21 years of living in America.

Neither country was conquered though. Iraq maintained it's sovereignty and Japan peacefully renogotiated it's position. Ending the war was a political decision.

The Japanese Home Army was undefeated on the battlefield, so you can't say that they lost.

>French booted out of Vietnam
>ARVN and South Vietnamese government defeated and overthrown
>all of Vietnam united under one banner
>Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City
>defeated PRC annexation attempt
>avoided being made a Soviet puppet

Sounds like victory for the North Vietnamese to me.

Honestly, the fact that the US even went to war in Vietnam was a massive clusterfuck and strategic defeat on their part; the Vietnamese were natural US allies in the region. Spent years fighting the Japanese alongside US troops, hated China's guts, Ho Chi Minh's personal hero was Thomas Jefferson, and they even originally planned to model their post-independence constitution on that of the US.

Literally all the US had to do was sit back while the Vietnamese overthrew their doomed frog colonial overlords, and they would've gained a friendly power acting as a check on PRC ambitions in SE Asia.

Just because you can't answer the question doesn't mean you have to have an autistic meltdown. Also,

>implying the debate could be degraded any more

Ho Chi Minh was an unironic commie though.
There was simply no realistic way for the US to support someone like him publically.

Rwanda was actually one of the few African nations to have a decent military
Until it got btfo by the Tutsis and they all fled to the Congo

>fight someone to a draw
>leave
>they then take over anyway
>somehow not a loss
delusion isn't just a river in Egypt

The Rwandan Army is even MORE powerful under the Tutsi. Their operations doing the Congo Wars and even their insurgency against the Hutu is by far the greatest seen by a native African army.

>Wars are solely won by military operations

You are naive.

>seen by a native African army
it's because of Rhodesia that you have to say "native" in front of that

And yet people still deny Rhodesia's greatness