Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Conscription in Rhodesia: Difference between revisions

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Conscription in Rhodesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The white supremist state of Rhodesia, which existed in Africa from 1965 to 1979, is perhaps one of the few countries to have been crippled by military conscription. The national service scheme enabled the creation of a large-enough military to deter a potential British assault to end Rhodesian independence. However, once the nationalist insurgency really got going in the mid 1970s the only way the Rhodesian Security Forces could maintain white rule was by calling up so many white men that it contributed to massive emigration from the country which in turn forced a transition to a majority government. As such, this article covers a key aspect of Rhodesian history, as well as the history of the Rhodesian Bush War.

I developed the article during the middle months of this year as a follow on to other articles on Rhodesian military history I’ve been working on. It was assessed as a GA in October and has since been considerably expanded and copy edited. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will review on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NickD, my review:

• Could we get an image for the lead?
• Why are the 1957 Defence Act and National Security Act in Italics?
  • Some sources used this, and as it’s the norm in Australia I assumed it would also apply to Rhodesia given the British English links. It doesn’t seem like that was the case from checking sources, so I’ve removed the italics. Thanks for picking this up. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first paragraph of the “Changes during the mid 1970s” section, we say new migrants were exempted from conscription for 5 years, but in the next paragraph we say the exemption period was reduced from 4 to 2 years. When did the exemption period change from 5 to 4 years?
  • Unfortunately I don’t know. As the article notes, the frequent changes to the conscription scheme and the cumbersome way it was implemented means that historians have struggled to piece it together retrospectively, so the article (as is the case with all the sources I’ve used) has some gaps. I’d be guessing that the period was abruptly adjusted down by a year in late 1974 or early 1975, but haven’t been able to find a source on this. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What impact did casualties or injuries have on conscription and evasion? Do any sources discuss this?
  • I haven’t seen a source that discusses that explicitly. Some sources note the impact of PTSD, war weariness and an increasingly common view that the war was lost, which I’ve included. Sources on the war generally note that casualty rates were low until the last few years, and even then were not high by the standards of more intense types of wars though the impact on the small white community was significant. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do any sources have approximate numbers on how many people evaded the draft? If so, I think we should include it.
  • Not really. I’ve noted some indications of this where available (e.g. the numbers of black men who evaded the draft). As the most common way of draft dodging seems to have been emigration, I suspect that there aren’t solid figures here. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we mention how foreign volunteers reduced (or did not) the number of men drafted? We already have the “Foreign volunteers in Rhodesia” article in the See also section, there should be some information about this in there.

This is all from me. I will do the source and image reviews later. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this is outside my area of expertise. Most of what I know about Rhodesian/Zimbabwe comes from talking to white and black emigrants to Australia.

• UDI was illegal Well, declared illegal by the UK and UN would be a better wording.
  • I haven’t seen any sources that make that distinction, as it was illegal under the law that applied in Southern Rhodesia at the time. Even the South African government regarded UDI as an illegal act. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• “The number of white people in Southern Rhodesia increased from 82,000 in 1946 to 250,000 in 1965 due almost entirely to immigration”. There was also considerable immigration of black people, due to the better economy in Rhodesia compared to surrounding African countries.
  • Their birth rate was also higher. Brownell (2011), p. 32 notes that it’s impossible to know what the extent of African migration into Rhodesia was as the borders were largely unmonitored and a lot of the migration was temporary movements of people crossing colonial-era borders that weren’t meaningful to them. I’ve added some material here. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have any figures for the strength of the Rhodesian forces in the 1970s?
  • The article includes a few, especially for the final years of the war – for instance, that the average strength was around 25,000. I just tried to compile a table/graph from old editions of The Military Balance which I had high hopes for, but the classification used between the different types of personnel and estimates of their strength varied wildly from edition to edition and don’t marry up well with more modern figures that benefited from post-war research so that was a dead end. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Luise White likely to be a notable historian?
• This government lacked legitimacy, including as the Rhodesian Front continued to have a strong influence on its priorities Is “including” a stray word? This sentence seems muddled.
  • I’ve added a bit more detail here; the problem I was alluded to is that the main nationalist groups weren’t included. The whole set up was an awkward half way house for the white Rhodesian government to try to hang onto power; they managed this but it was totally self-defeating. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• “In September all student deferments were cancelled” Did this mean that they all had to report at once, or just that the government stopped issuing deferments?
• “This led to increasing evasion of call up requirements, particularly among older men” I think you mean that they were evading call-up rather than the requirements. Suggest “obligations”. And what means were used to evade?
• “They placed strain on families and contributed to a high divorce rate. Many conscripts developed post-traumatic stress disorder. This led to increasing evasion of call up requirements, particularly among older men.” I think the middle sentence is out of place here, and strain on families rather than PTSD was the more likely reason for evasion.
  • It was both. Something the sources note is that men found it stressful to live in a system where they alternated between their civilian lives and active military service, with no end in sight. I’ve tweaked the wording here to make this a bit clearer. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ‘This included granting military police the power to require that white men demonstrate that they were registered for national service, which came into effect in 1973.” I think we mean the power came into effect in 1973. Any idea how they would demonstrate that they were registered?
• Should “mid 1970s” be “mid-1970s”?
• Should “self employed” be hyphenated as “self-employed” ?
• Should “Sailisbury” be “Salisbury”?
• “three years service” -> “three years’ service”
• “days service” -> “days’ service”
• “Some where enthusiastic” -> “Some were enthusiastic”

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I note that the article says how difficult it is to summarise how the conscription scheme operated from 1972 onwards, when you have attempted just that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of being immodest, I suspect that the article has ended up one of the better accounts of how conscription worked, and likely the most comprehensive, but it’s patchy due to the issues the historians I’ve drawn on have encountered. Thank you for your comments here – I think I’ve now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags and so forth generally check out, but a couple of nitpicks:

Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]