1. List four facts showing what British-Rhodesian relations were like from 1966 to 1969.
In 1966 Ian Smith and Harold Wilson met on HMS Tiger in the Mediterranean after Wilson had enforced the oil embargo on Rhodesia for a few months. Britain still said one man one vote must be enforced. The Rhodesians refused to accept this and the talks broke down.
They then met in 1968 on HMS Fearless off Gibraltar, for similar reasons, and the talks again broke down.
By 1969 the Rhodesians decided they could never work with the British again. At this point they still had some minor trading ties – even the British enforced sanctions- and the British queen was officially the head of their constitution as they hoped to reach an agreement with the British government on voting. They held a referendum on whether to cut all these remaining ties. It passed with a large majority and all remaining ties were cut.

2. What were British-Rhodesian relations like?
In 1971 the British foreign secretary Douglas-Home arrived in the Rhodesian capital after leaders of neighbouring countries felt threatened with the amount of Chinese and Soviet weapons coming through their countries. Smith agreed to give greater rights to Black Africans in return for Britain accepting the new Rhodesian constitution without the queen as the head of government and with a multiracial voting system, which the neighbouring countries were also happy with. However, when the British questioned the black Rhodesians they found, unsurprisingly that none of them believed this new agreement. The National front (white settler political party in Rhodesia) refused to put it to a universal referendum. Instead a committee was appointed to investigate the public’s opinion of it. Because none of the black Rhodesians believed it this was noted as a negative perception of the agreement. Based on this white minority rule stayed.
What were British-Rhodesian relations like?

3. Write a statement the British foreign minister would have made about Rhodesia in Include information about the events in 1966, 1968 and 1969.

4. Why did white minority rule last for so long in Rhodesia?

5. The Rhodesian Bush War What do you know about this war so far?
When was the war?
Write down key points from this video.

6. What caused the Rhodesian Bush War?

7. Who fought the war? National Front
Zimbabwe African People’s Union – ZAPU
Zimbabwe African National Union – ZANU – more inward looking, leftist, pan-Africanist, included Mugabe.
These sides later unite to become ZANLA.

8. Events
Attacks began on white settlers in 1961 and black Africans who identified with them.
Civil disobedience – – attacks, boycotts, organising political groups which were then banned
First Phase – nationalists getting stronger, in two groups, National Front hit by sanctions, black nationalists hid in Mozambique
Second Phase – about even
Final Phase – ZANLA winning

9. Stage two
ZAPU and ZANU united into ZANLA to defeat the National Front. Mozambique shut its borders to the white Rhodesians as they had now got their independence with a black majority. The white Rhodesians kept crossing the border to raid ZANLA camps. Britain and the US kept trying to get both sides to agree to a peace settlement, but the Rhodesian government were unwilling to relinquish political and economic control, and the black nationalists were bitterly divided by feudal, tribal, and political differences.

10. Stage three

11. Tactics Guerrilla warfare, attacks, anthrax
A white soldier interrogates Rhodesian villagers about terrorist activity in late This photograph would become one of the most enduring images of the bush war.

12. Homework – due Tuesday 10th March
Read sheets and answer questions
Answer PLC questions
Britain – you need to be going over knowledge and practicing cross references

13. Why did the Rhodesian Bush War last so long?
National Front were quite strong as they experienced incomplete sanctions, had the reluctant support of South Africa (as wanted to help the white settlers but also didn’t want them to treat the black Africans so badly that they would overthrow the white settlers and establish a Marxist regime), had very committed white Rhodesian soldiers, but had a generalistic aim of maintaining the status quo
ZANU and ZAPU were quite strong because they had more men, support of Marxists from Mozambique from 1976, clear aim of overthrowing white minority rule, sanctions radicalised black Rhodesians to support ZANU and ZAPU but they were divided until 1976, in 1976 the Patriotic Front was formed (unification of ZANU and ZAPU), got weapons through sympathetic Mozambique and other powers

14. What was South Africa’s involvement with the Rhodesian Bush War?
Refused to observe UN sanctions – some say Rhodesia would only have lasted months without it.
Before 1976 Rhodesia got most of their oil from Mozambique. Then Mozambique became independent and closed its borders and refused to let any goods get through to Rhodesia. Then South Africa quickly built a railway to provide the oil.
It was more expensive to reroute trade through South Africa – the ports were much more congested.
South Africa pressured Rhodesia to end the war from 1976 as they believed Rhodesia had gone too far by going into Mozambique to kill ZAPU insurgents and they felt they were a destabilising nation. America had also told South Africa that they would face serious sanctions next if they kept trading with Rhodesia. Rhodesia started to experience ‘unexplained’ snarl-ups in the South African transport system – oil and arms were particularly affected. Rhodesian exports piled up in South African ports and South African loans came to a halt. If the Mozambique border was still open Rhodesia may have been able to withstand this.
South Africa financed the first black Rhodesian PM Bishop Muzorewa as they felt he would be more stabilising. South Africa had never recognised Ian Smith’s government.

15. What was the Lancaster House Agreement?
After two failed conferences convened by the United Kingdom in 1976 and 1977 in Geneva and Malta, increasing international pressure finally led to the 1979 “constitutional conference” at Lancaster House in London. By this time the white minority government had conceded nominal power to Bishop Abel Muzorewa, leading a black civilian government elected in a non-racial election in which the liberation movements did not participate as a result of a combination of self-denial and exclusion. This failed to end the war as the patriotic front felt that Muzorewa was a puppet, but for the UK and the West it created a “recognizable” Rhodesia–Zimbabwe. In these circumstances a constitution was reluctantly accepted and a ceasefire concluded between the liberation movements and the Muzorewa regime on 28 December (Ironically the UK, under whose ultimate colonial legal authority most of the land had been alienated, was able to cast itself in the role of arbitrator and mediator at Lancaster House. Lord Carrington and his team earned much praise for their use of “dominant third-party mediation”. This enabled Britain to avoid any further formal responsibility for reconciliation in Zimbabwe.) The Lancaster House Agreement created a constitution for an independent Zimbabwe, based on majority rule. However, it granted the white Zimbabweans significant minority rights: 20 seats out of 100 in the first parliament and, even more important, a strict and detailed protection of commercial farmland. Rhodesian perpetrators of human rights violations were allowed to go unpunished. All this came in the name of reconciliation.