Other than the FALs, the shorts might be the most distinctive part of the Bush War, but few know why they wore them
So we’ll explore that in the short 🧵👇
It all boils down the nature of the Bush War
This wasn’t the Eastern Front, with huge, mechanized armies opposing each other along a defined front
Rather, it was (somewhat) more like Vietnam and the Malaysian Emergency, with light infantry on light infantry conflict defining most of the war
Commie guerrillas on one side and the Rhodesians, in units like the RLI, SAS, RAR, and Selous Scouts on the other
So, the Rhodesian infantry units were often trying to track and ambush guerrilla units through the thick Rhodesian bush
This wasn’t England…it was thing, briar territory of the sort that is hellish to slug through, particularly if you’re trying to jack your way through it
So the Rhodesians didn’t want their men trying to hack and tromp through the bush
But they found that that is just what the soldiers would do if they were wearing thick pants and heavy leather boots
So they had to remove that ability to tromp through the heavy bush to get them to stop doing it
That involved taking away their heavy pants and boots
They were given, instead, the characteristic short shorts and canvas shoes…can’t tromp through thick briars in shorts. You’ll get scratched up
Instead, you have to do what the guerrillas would do and follow trails, without making noise, and sneak up on the enemy
As Tim Bax describes in Three Sips of Gin, that strategy quite worked
The Rhodesians, because they could no longer tromp, were much better at following the enemy and ambushing them, rather than getting weighed down and ambushed like US troops in Vietnam
So, that’s why they wore the distinctive short shorts!
If you enjoyed this thread, please rt it and drop a comment with your favorite pics of Rhodies in short shorts!
Oh, and @WBSApparel is making Rhodie short shorts. Check em out!
@WBSApparel And many thanks to @DonShift3 for reposting a similar thread this am that reminded me to write about this, one of my favorite tidbits of history from the Bush War
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It was said, particularly of Prime Minister Ian Smith's generation, that the Rhodesians were "more British than the British"
That sounds great, but how did they get there? How did a formerly company-run country in the middle of Africa become so British?
Immigration policy 🧵👇
As a reminder, the British South Africa Company, headed by Cecil Rhodes, conquered the territory that would become Rhodesia in 1890
The group that did so was called the "Pioneer Column". From then until 1923, Rhodesia was ruled by the BSAC as a company province
It then began administrating itself in 1923, and did so under the British aegis until 1965, when it declared independence
It was over that 1890-1920 policy that it first established its culture, then over the 1920-65 period that it solidified that and grew in size
It was through immigration policy that Rhodesia became quite British, though in Africa, rather than either going native or, like South Africa, becoming an amalgamation of European cultures
Orania and Escaping Decline: What Americans Must Know
As America declines toward crime and chaos, Americans ought look to those places that have already experienced decline, namely South Africa. More importantly, we must learn how to escape it
Orania is a great example 🧵👇
First, remember what South Africa is like: as of 2023, it had a higher per capita crime rate than Somalia
It has 80 murders daily, a farm murder a week, a r*pe every four minutes, and two or three riots a day. Meanwhile, there are 3 welfare dependents for every net taxpayer
What once was a relatively prosperous and safe society is a pigsty of crime and chaos; there are safe places, of course, but on the whole, the country is quite poor and dangerous
But then there is Orania
There's no murder, no r*pe, no welfare dependents, no riots, no carjackings, no farm murders
It is an island of old world-style stability and an entrepreneurial, small-scale of life in an incredibly dangerous country that is falling apart at its seams
Those who want the Cold War to have been about fighting communism look at the nuclear arsenals and Reagan Era guerrilla support to pretend that’s what happened the whole time
But it quite obviously didn’t. China fell, MacArthur was sacked for wanting to demolish Red China, Vietnam was lost by the French and then by us, pretty much all of Africa went Red, and South America went socialist if not communist
Further, we supplied the Soviets with grain throughout the tiresome endeavor, after having given them immense material and secrets during WW2
So, if we were fighting communism, those proxy wars abroad were largely lost
It was Churchill who saved Greece from communist domination, much to America’s displeasure
We then forced England and France to abandon their empires, even after they won wars in them (ex: Algeria and Malaysia) and those post-colonial countries turned to communism
Similarly, regions wee claimed to care about or fight in largely went left
Western Europe went socialist, Iberia fell to socialism, Africa was ruled by chaos or communism, and America, until Reagan, largely fell to communists because America found the anti-communists too unpleasant
Many in America, whether on the left, right, or center, claim that “civil war is coming”
The claim can make a bit of sense, as tensions are high, but is likely very wrong
If America is to have unpleasantness in that mold, cultural revolution is more likely than civil war
🧵👇
As a reminder, the US and English Civil Wars, to which observers point when claiming tensions will lead to civil conflict, are quite different than today
For one, there were two clear sides: the Progressive Roundheads and the Cavaliers
Further, there had been years of preparation by both sides. Militias drilled and organized into functional units, arms were stored for group rather than personal use, etc. the player were serious rather than bloviating
And, finally, each side had a goal in mind. The cavaliers wanted the king’s authority to be respected, the roundheads thought Parliament ought be superior, the Yankees wanted slavery gone and states under the federal yoke, and the Confederates wanted the old federal system and states’ rights to be respected
So, in each case there were two diametrically opposed sides that organized for war under the aegis of serious people with real goals in mind
They weren’t just bloviating commentators with no real goal in mind and even less on the ground organization
This is often one bit of criticism I get from my Rhodesia threads: people argue that the explanation for the West's destruction of Rhodesia, which is that democracy/egalitarianism compelled "us" to do it, makes no sense
"After all," they argue, "America worked with all manner of far-right dictators in the Cold War. Why would DC care about Ian Smith? It can't have been about democracy, it has to have been something else"
That argument is quite wrong for a few reasons
First, there are only a couple of examples. Temporarily Rhee in South Korea, but he was later pushed out in exchange for "liberal democracy." To some extent, Reagan worked with rightists like Pinochet in Argentina, the Contras, and rightists in El Salvador
But, that misses the forest for the trees. For one, Reagan came after Rhodesia, and so his san(er) policies aren't directly relevant. Further, his administration was attacked for working with the Contras and the fight against communism in South America was smeared as a vivacious "dirty war."
Remember, Rhodesia had no apartheid system. It simply had propertied voting, and if they had the requisite amount of property, white and black alike could vote
So it wasn't a "racist" country, wasn't communist, wasn't a dictatorship. It was just an Anglo country with a pre-Reform style voting system in South Africa
Beyond that, it was highly successful
It was the breadbasket of Africa.
It had a thriving industrial sector.
It was at the forefront of agricultural science (regenerative agriculture of the sort those like @untappedgrowth now follow was developed by Selous Scout founder Alan Savory