Customer Reviews

The Great Betrayal: The Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book gives the other side to the Rhodesia conflict namely that of former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith who is probably one of the most unfairly despised individuals in the world. Far from being an uncouth racist as much of the world's press would classify him as, Smith shows himself to have been a model statesmen and ardent patriot to his beloved Rhodesia. Clearly the book reads like a Greek tragedy in which tiny Rhodesia is betrayed by its mother country (Britain) and even its friends (South Africa) in its long struggle against terrorist organizations in which it racked up an impressive military record. For all interested in that little country that once was, this is a definate necessary read. After finishing the tome, one can see why Ian Smith so richly deserved the praise he received from his fellow Rhodesians and anti-communist well-wishers around the world. God bless you, Ian Smith, for your valiant fight.

As a child of 10 I was thrilled by Ian Smith and his brave defiance of a perfidious, corrupt and flaccid British Government.UDI to me was like our own Declaration of Independence.The Great Betrayal gives a blow-by-blow account of the forces which shaped the politics of Rhodesia, the events leading to UDI and subsequent events which led to majority rule.Tales of duplicity will shock but not surprise as we are all now aware of the calibre of the men and women who shape this tale. Perhaps the greatest disappointment is to learn of the inaction of Margaret Thatcher whom I greatly admire. My opinions of a lot of people were either confirmed or lowered after reading this book. Smith has been accused of racism but should more properly be described as paternalistic. Mugabe is the real racist.Smith goes out of his way to naively portray men like Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and Andrew Young as well-meaning ambassadors of peace. In reality, these men saw Rhodesia only as a pawn which was disposable in the great game with the Communist menace. What they and their successors have foisted upon the Zimbabwean people is as great as any crime perpetrated by Saddam Hussein or Slobo Milosevic. The difference is that we went to war for the latter so that refugees could return home yet most of the so-called free world won't even allow Zimbabwe refugees a haven. Smith is not entirely blameless in that he allows himself to be taken in time after time by the blandishments of those who had proven themselves dishonourable, dissembling hypocrites. The history is gripping, but Smith's style is sometimes tedious. He most certainly overuses the words "sadly" and "regrettably".The lesson in this is that local problems should be solved locally. Though Rhodesia's neighbors were egging on Mugabe's murderous guerillas, the Rhodesian Army could have smashed them all if given free rein to do so. Only if the Russians became directly involved should the West have meddled. One can only wonder how prosperous Zimbabwe might be today had Smith and the Chiefs been permitted to hammer out a meaningful transitional agreement. In view of the current desperate situation,by allowing the Mugabe dictatorship to take root, the Western Powers delivered a defeat for civilization and for mankind.

If you are British or American you will need a strong stomach to read this book. Indeed you may well want to throw-up at the political chicanery and cowardice of your politicians and diplomats. One examaple is the attitudes of Lords Carrington and Soames. During the 1980 Zimbabwe-Rhodesia election, Ian Smith, ( former Rhodesian PM, 1964-79 ) reminded Soames, the British Governor responsible for overseeing fair play, that the Lancaster House agreement was being breached by massive political intimidation by ZANU(PF) forces. Soames conceded that he had received over 1000 affidavits, many endorsed by British observers who had witnessed Mugabe's comrades distinctive campaigning style-with the point of a gun!

When Smith, who had handed government over to Bishop Abel Muzorewa in mid-1979, reminded Soames to do his duty and disqualify the gangsters from participating in the poll, Soames pathetically replied that Carrington ( foreign secretary in Thatcher's new Tory government) advised that such a course would be unacceptable to the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) and that "the principles and standards on which you and I were brought up to believe in, are no longer part of this world." One could add, probably because certain British 'gentlemen' see no further need to stand up for such values!

When you add the craveness of virtually every senior British politician from MacMillan onwards, plus the duplicity of the South African government under Vorster, and the incompetent Carter Administration in the US, you have a sorry history of the decline of western values, something that has endured for the latter 40 years of the 20th century.

Ian Smith has written superb memoirs and his 1997 warnings in this book ( and also to this reviewer, via the phone in early Jan.1998 ) over Mugabe's politicisation of farm land is now even more apparent as the Zimbabwe gangster engages in his 'ethnic cleansing' against white farmers as a sordid distraction to his his 20 year rule of disaster and destruction.

Of course those western liberals who were so distressed about the political and social life of Rhodesia, under Smith, remain strangely mute over the real atrocities of Mugabe, preferring, like those who preceded the Good Samaritan, to pass by on the other side to another 'politically correct' crusade.

Whatever faults Smith had pales into insignificance besides his detractors and the hoodlums and nitwits running Zimbabwe today.

Ian Smith was so right about the UDI and he must be so heartbroken to see what is happening now to Zimbabwe. Once the breadbasket of Africa. But looking at the other countries in Africa, it is just a repeat. On the brink of starvation and again the NGO's are pleading for Aid. While, when country was called Rhodesia, these same NGO's were helping the so-called guerillas with aid.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Smith 5 times.
I admire him how he never had a bodyguard and mixed with people of all races. How he drove his old 1965 Peugot 404 himself and stopped at stoplights.
Today when President Mugabe moves through town with 20 Mercedes Benzes, motorbikes, sirenes, armed soldiers, ready to shoot anyone who doesn't get off the road and stops, what a difference.

It is still amazing how much the people in the West have been indoctrinated by the Press and have a wrong opinion about him.
Also how the people in the West have hailed Mugabe and now don't want to talk about it anymore.
Neither Ian Smith nor Robert Mugabe have changed.
Mugabe always kept his promise to destroy and rob Zimbabwe for his own benefit.
Smith always had the welfare of all the people at heart only he wanted to bring the African people slowly into political power by evolution not by revolution and to create a middle class.
But Democracy is alien to Africa and many change of governments was caused by coups.

Having lived in the Rhodesia and in Zimbabwe as an immigrant, I have met many great and good people of all races. I despise the Leftwing good-doers, who caused a lot of damage to the country.
The last thing Ian Smith wanted to say is "I told you so".

The story of how the perfidity and backstabbing on the part of the U.S., Britain, and South Africa destroyed the nation of Rhodiesia and replaced it with the blood soaked regime of Robert Mugabe. "The Great Betrayal" provides an excellent overview of the ideas and events that have created modern Africa.

I had purchased this book fully expecting to find it full of bigotry and smugness in view of Smith's success in running an economy crippled by sanctions, as opposed to Mugabe's failure to run an economy assisted by foreign cash. In fact Mr Smith was neither biggoted nor smug. His hurt is quite evident when he looks at Zimbabwe, a country which, whilst the name has changed, is still very much his home.

Clearly Mr Smith feels that Rhodesia was betrayed by many parties who put their own self interest before any sense of honour or fair play. This could be attributal to either naiivety or honour in Smith, depending on wether you support his position or condemn it. It clearly shows that there is no longer any honour in politics, and a man such as Smith who held such principles in high esteme is doomed in the world of real politik. A good book which leaves the reader enlightened, and wondering if the Zimbabwe we now see could not have been different if Smith had been listened to a bit more at the time

I was born in Rhodesia in 1960 and did service in the Rhodesian Army during the late 70's in the communist war. 17 years later I emigrated from Africa to Canada and was very surprised to hear about the propaganda that had been brainwashed into people in North America by the media. This situation caused me to research my own history and 'The Great Betrayal' was one of the books I read. I found the book to be extremely valuable to 'fill the cracks' of the information as I knew it first hand. I have refered the book to many of my new friends in North America and those that have read it are now even more shocked at what that great country Rhodesia, has now become under the rule of Mugabe and his comrades.

Ian Smith provides a perspective of an episode in African history that is rarely discussed. He repeatedly points out that, as an African, he must live with the consequences of the negotiations determining the fate of Rhodesia. His mistake is in thinking anyone might care. ZANU and ZAPU were masters at expoiting the European feelings of guilt to their advantage (and to this day Robert Mugabe employs racist tactics as a political vehicle) and to the British and Americans Rhodesia was interesting only in the context of their domestic agendas. In the 1970s, maintaining perceived colonial relationships was rapidly becoming unacceptable to Western voters who were as uninformed (and disinterested in fact and detail) as they are today.

The story of Rhodesia is infuriatingly tragic. Within a period of less than seventyfive years, the white pioneers took a civilization which had yet to invent or become exposed the the wheel (!) to a people educating its own doctors and lawyers within a civilized society functioning under the rule of law. While Ian Smith's reference to "our blacks" is undoubtedly parternalistic, the contribution of the white population to the development of Rhodesia dramatically outweighs their lack of freedom as percieved by outsiders; freedom in a society in which poverty, disease and death dominate all functioning and interaction is highly compromised. By this measure, Zimbabwe is less free today than during the leadership of Ian Smith. Harrold Wilson, naturally, remains unaffected.

Reading this book gave me a great sense of sadness over the tragedy of both Ian Smith's Rhodesia and modern Africa in general. Smith and his predecessors in Rhodesia built a model state that provided for the welfare of both its white and black citizens. However, in spite of the fact that the white minority regime in Rhodesia did not go to the lengths of the Apartheid state in South Africa in discriminating against the blacks (and other racial groups), the fact that the white minority controlled the government and the top positions in industry made the long-term survival of the regime impossible, in spite of Smith's ingenuity in keeping it going until 1979 in the face of economic sanctions and massive international political pressure. During World War II the world was mobilized to fight for freedom and democracy against fascism, racism and tyranny. Black Africans, many of whom served in the allied armies in the war, were aware of this and began to ask the question "Why doesn't the freedom we are fighting for apply back home?" The paternalistic white-run goverment did make great efforts to improve the situation of the black population, but more educated members found that they were shut out of the decision-making process and advancement to the top of the local industries. By 1960, the Western world had given up on the idea of colonialism as a force for civilization (which Smith eloquently defends in the book and which people like Tony Blair seems to be returning to in justifying sending troops to Afghanistan not just to remove a terrorist Taliban regime but also the "improve the lot of the women there" etc.)and had taken up the idea of "self determination", self-determination at all costs, regardless of the damage done to the population. Therefore, in the 1970's, Smith's Rhodesian goverment, overseeing a relatively prosperous country (before the onset of the "war for liberation") was an international pariah, whereas Idi Amin's tyrannical regime in Uganda was accepted in international circles. Today, in Zimbabwe, there is "self-determination", but it basically ignores the needs of the country, and is primarily interested in enriching the ruling elite. This is tragically the same story in so much of Africa. Was there any other way it could have turned out? Some believe that after Smith's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), if his regime had made a sincere effort to bring blacks into the highest levels of government, he could have brought about a gradual transfer of power to majority rule without causing all the bloodshed and misery of the "war of liberation" in the 1970's and the corrupt rule of Mugabe later. However, this opportunity was missed and the white-minority regime felt it could hold out indefinately, and the rest is known. Smith rails against the "unfairness" and hypocrisy of the outside world which was pressuring for immediate transfer to black majority rule, and he is correct in much of his criticism, but he fails to acknowledge that the tide of history, for good or for ill, was against the maintainance of the status quo. Winston Churchill fought for many years against the granting of independence to British-ruled India, but when the time came in 1947 and he had the power to delay the transfer of power by two years due to a Conservative party majority in the House of Lords, he realized that the moment had come for him to gracefully concede. Ian Smith did not have this historical insight. We now anxiously watch South Africa as it makes its own transition to true majority rule. Will the ANC leadership there learn the lessons of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe?

Ian Smith is so right about his quote, which was taken out of constest. He said that together with the Chiefs, we/they can rule the country. Them, meaning the African Nationalists, couldn't run the country in a thousand years. Which is now, to my deep sorrow, true. In the sixties, nowhere in Africa, was there any example for Rhodesia to look at. Only corruption, mismanagement, genocides, famine, war, so what should Smith have done! Turn it over to tugs! Now after the Cold War is over, noone gives a damm what happens to Zimbabwe and its people, but the Western Politcy have a lot to answer for. Meanwhile American and European Nationalists are seen as enemies but African nationalists where hailed by the same people.That Zimbabwe still have some economy left and still is working dispite the thieving rulers, is because of the UDI. Which gave Zimbabwe 15 years more of stable development, then countries like Zambia that had Independence since 1964. Zimbabwe is now on the edge of famine, created not by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front, but by Robert Mugabe and the ZANU PF.