Talk:Southern Rhodesia in World War II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this very interesting-looking article today or tomorrow. I have experience in developing similar articles, so hopefully my comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article Nick. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "operating primarily in the European theatre, the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre, East Africa and Burma" - 'primarily' looks a bit odd here given the number of locations ;) - I'd suggest omitting it

• OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• The background section should note the status of Rhodesia's race relations: the elephant in the room when you talk about all white units and the white government is what was going on with the other 95% of the population. Were they excluded from the military and government?

• At the time there was a qualified franchise—basically if somebody had a certain amount of money/property/education he could vote. In theory this was non-racial but in practice there were very few black voters at the time and no black MPs (the first black MPs were elected in the 1962, after a separate "B"-roll was created with lower qualifications). In the 1930s black Rhodesians were in the British South Africa Police, which was at the time still largely paramilitary, but apart from that there were no black units. The Rhodesia Native Regiment had been disbanded after WW1 and a replacement wasn't created until the RAR during WW2. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Seeking to renew his government's mandate to pass emergency measures, he called an early election in which his United Party won an increased majority" - did black Rhodesians have the vote at this time? If not, can anything be said about how they viewed the decision to enter the war?

• See above. I'll try to find a sourced statement on this, but the fact is that at the outbreak of war the majority of black Southern Rhodesians didn't really see it as anything to do with them and basically ignored it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the current coverage now does the trick for GA status, but this and related topics are a key area to keep expanding as the article is developed given that the topic of the article is 'Southern Rhodesia in World War II' rather than the military history of the country in the war: the experiences of the black 95% of the population should be covered in detail. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will try my best but it is difficult. Sources make it hard to cover the black population in the same amount of detail as the whites. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Southern Rhodesia duly embarked on all-out military mobilisation" - seems an over-statement given that recruitment appears to have initially been limited to the white 5% of the population

• OK, removed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• What was the mechanism through which white Rhodesians posted to command units from other colonies? Were they members of the British Army? (and were they filling the 'white' roles in these units which British officers in NCOs would have otherwise filled?)

• Mostly they were members of the Southern Rhodesian forces, mainly the Rhodesia Regiment, seconded to the British Army. (Some were immigrants to Rhodesia and already had attachments to British units). Yes I think the last part of your question would be a concise way of describing their role. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• "On 25 May 1940 Southern Rhodesia, the last country to join the EATS, became the first to start operating an air school under it, beating Canada by a week" - you might want to note how this unit was staffed: was it a SRAF unit?

• No—RAF (by May 1940 the SRAF had been absorbed). When you say staffed, do you mean the instructors specifically, or all staff? The instructors were a mixture of Brits, Rhodesians and others. Most administrative staff etc were local. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Noting where all the staff came from would be good. I think that this model was different to that in the other EATS countries, which entirely staffed their own training schools, though it makes sense given Southern Rhodesia's small white population and economy. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Rhodesian contingents in the 11th Hussars, Leicesters, Buffs, Argylls, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, Durham Light Infantry and Sherwood Foresters were transferred en masse to Kenya in February 1941 to join the new Southern Rhodesian Reconnaissance Regiment, which served in East Africa over the following year" - was this a reversal of the policy of spreading Rhodesians across units rather than forming an all-Rhodesian recon unit?

• The source doesn't say specifically. My impression is that the SRRR was not as large as the recon unit proposed pre-war would have been. It served in East Africa for about a year, then went back to Rhodesia for training, then joined the SA 6th Division in Egypt, at which point it was fragmented again before going to Italy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Was the Southern Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery permanently attached to a British unit, or was it an independent unit?

• So far as I can tell, an independent unit. It seems to be with a different formation every time it's mentioned. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The British finally delivered vital supplies to Malta on 15 August with Operation Pedestal, a great strategic success for the Allies that is often cited by naval historians as a turning point in the siege and the whole war" - I'm not sure if this sentence is necessary, and I've never seen it argued that Operation Pedestal was a turning point of the war (which seems very hard to justify).

• I just went with what Latimer said. But OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• " the autonomous nature of Southern Rhodesia's war effort" - given that Rhodesian personnel were deliberately spread across British units, this seems questionable

• In the field perhaps, but how about the home front? —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• On that topic, did the Rhodesian Government ever attempt to exercise control over what its personnel were doing (I suspect not given that the Australian Government failed to attempt to influence the postings of the Australian airmen and sailors posted to the British military)

• Not really, apart from joining the command with South Africa in late 1942. After this most new Rhodesian personnel fresh from the colony went to South African units. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• As something for further development, I'd suggest expanding upon this (while spreading personnel across many units was obviously the right thing to do, the flip side is that it meant that the Southern Rhodesian government would have had very little, if any, control over how and where its men fought) Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• " Rhodesian Anti-Tank Regiment " - should this be 'battery' rather than regiment? The expansion of the unit to a full regiment isn't noted.

• That's a mistake—fixed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest tweaking the wording in the Britain, Norway and western Europe to make it clearer that the Rhodesian squadrons were almost always a small part of much larger Allied forces - at the moment their operations are generally presented in isolation

• I've tried to rectify this issue, I hope it's better —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• That looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest omitting the photo of the paratroopers from this section given that it doesn't depict Rhodesians, and only a small number apparently served in this unit

• OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• From my reading of the material on Rhodesia's contribution to the various British African divisions, an unusually high proportion of Rhodesian soldiers must have ended up in leadership positions given the small size of the white Rhodesian population. Do any of the sources talk about this? It would be interesting to note how this impacted on the training system, and whether there were problems with the suitability of personnel for these roles.

• I'll look in the sources for more details. I do not recall anybody complaining about them as being unsuitable. I will try to find something on the training etc. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is also for further development, but I guess what jumped out at me is that due to this use of Rhodesian personnel, men who would have been limited to the ranks in other armies would have ended up in leadership positions in the British African divisions. Unless White Rhodesians were unusually well educated (which seems unlikely given the nature of the country and it's economy at the time) or very well trained, this would have led to some problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• In blunt terms, the basic idea for this was that many white Rhodesians had grown up in the bush, bossing the local black kids around, and in adult life often worked jobs where they supervised black farm labourers, factory workers etc. They were therefore perceived as naturally hardy frontiersmen with experience commanding black subordinates. I'm still scanning the source material for specific references but they seem to have been at least passable as they were retained in these roles right up to the end of the war against Japan. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• A quote from Blake (p. 233): "White Rhodesians, constituting as they did an elite governing class, were accustomed from earliest youth to giving orders—especially the children of farmers who, in the words of Gann and Gelfand [in their book Huggins of Rhodesia], 'were used to "bossing up" African play-mates, and, however, regrettable this might appear to liberal critics of their society, Rhodesian youngsters learned habits of command from early childhood'. Clearly the best way of employing them was as officer rather than 'other rank' material. The rather bogus egalitarianism which in England obliged the officer class to serve as private soldiers before entering an OCTU and gaining a commission did not apply in Southern Rhodesia, or if it did, applied very differently; the Africans were the 'other ranks'." —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, thanks - that's really interesting (and says a lot about the attitudes of the time), and might be a good topic to expand upon as the article develops (it would also be interesting if any of the sources discuss how the black soldiers reacted to this). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Most volunteers for the regiment came from Mashonaland, much to the surprise of the white recruiters, who had expected Matabeleland to provide more men" - why did they expect this? (was it the size of the population, their attitude to the government, their martial traditions, etc?)

• The Matabele were an off-shoot of the Zulus of South Africa, and retained much of the Zulu's military tradition. The Mashona were largely agrarian and traditionally not very warlike. Indeed early white settlement in the 19th century was moralised by some as a means to protect the Mashona from the Matabele custom that before getting married a man had to "wash his spear" in blood. Traditions such as these had ended by the time of WW2 but the stereotype endured among many whites that the Matabele were born warriors. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Southern Rhodesian military surveyors did much of the preliminary planning work for the Allied invasion of Madagascar in May 1942" - I think that this is an overstatement. The invasion was planned centrally in the UK, from which most forces originated (the main body of the invasion force departed from Scotland, and had only a brief stopover in South Africa!). I imagine that the surveyors provided valuable input on the island's geography, but the operation would have been planned well above their level.

• OK, I've reworded to "contributed to the preliminary planning work". —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding EATS (and this goes to one of my points above), in Australia the Royal Australian Air Force was basically turned into a huge training institution during 1940 and 1941 to man Australia's contribution to the scheme, with few new Australian units being formed other than the British-controlled Article XV squadrons (most of which contained few Australians). I think that the RCAF and RNZAF had similar experiences. Did the same thing happen to the SRAF?

• The SRAF actually ceased to exist in April 1940, becoming part of the RAF, and was only re-established after the war. Its only squadron, which became No. 237 Squadron, served in the field throughout the war. Those at home took part in the training scheme. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Rhodesian Air Training Group section could be expanded somewhat to discuss the timing of the build up of the training institutions, and the timing of their closure (EATS was run down pretty sharply from mid-1944 when the lower-than-expected casualties in Europe meant that the RAF had vastly more aircrew than it believed it would need for the remainder of the war). You could also discuss the types of schools set up - did Rhodesia provide basic to advanced training schools and specialist training institutions covering navigation, gunnery and bombing like Australia did? (my understanding is that it did, with airmen converting to their speciality in conversion units fairly close to the front line immediately before being posted to an operational squadron; Australian airman Peter Raw being an example) Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've expanded this along the lines you suggested. So far as I know the Rhodesian training was not stripped back as much as the Canadian and Australian schemes were (remember the Rhodesian scheme was smaller)—indeed the RAF continued training in Rhodesia until the 1950s. —  Cliftonian (talk) 

• That looks good. This is another topic which could be expanded as the article is developed, though from personal experience it's hard to say much of interest about EATS once the scheme was up and running - it operated remarkably efficiently Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest noting whatever the Rhodesian Air Training Group's share of the total number of EATS-trained airmen was to help put its contribution in context. Do you know if the airmen trained in Rhodesia were particularly likely to be posted to particular theatres? Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've added the first part of this to the statistics section. The second part I will try to find. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As an extra comment, a few images need details about where they were sourced from:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sherman_SSB.jpeg Looked into sourcing for this one. Seems to come from a blog that cites it to South African National Museum of Military History —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Katangais, the user who uploaded it, says: "If my memory serves me right, the image you referenced came from the AML Masondo Library in Saxonwald. I last saw it being displayed rather prominently in the portrait corridor adjoining the library to the Ditsong museum. As opposed to paintings, few of the photographs there carry an annotation about their copyright status/original author. Works are generally attributed to the SANDF Archive." —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that this one can be safely assumed to be an official government photo, but clearer sourcing might be needed at FA level (where I hope this article ends up) Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italian_East_Africa_Map.jpg swapped this one for [1], which I think is okay —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6_SA_Arm_Div_Monza_Parade.jpg Comes off "Flickr Commons" apparently. (?) —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• It needs a link back to where it came from to establish this Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• It was posted here by a chap called Etienne du Plessis. He provides an email address so I've sent him a note to ask where the picture's from. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given that the image is currently licensed as 'all rights reserved' at Flickr, I'd suggest removing it from the article Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• (comment after end of review) I got a reply from Etienne. He says he scanned the picture from a book (he didn't say which) by Jeffrey Ethell, an American pilot and author (now passed away) who had an extensive collection of WWII colour images. However he is 100% sure Ethell did not own the original copyright; he does not know who the original holder was but he suspects it was a photographer for Life magazine. He says he'll let me know if he finds out anything more certain. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. It doesn't sound like the photo is usable, which is a shame Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1944_Yugoslavia_liberated_territories.jpg

• I've switched for this map, which appears to be okay as a work of Yugoslav government. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italian_detainees_in_Southern_Rhodesia_WW2_1.jpg (the date this was first published is needed to demonstrate it's PD) Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Working on this one. Apparently the chap who posted the pictures died in January. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Probably best just to lose this, at least for now. I don't think it will be easy or quick to find out the copyright status. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nominated this and two others from the same collection for deletion from commons. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Now that all my comments have been addressed I'm pleased to pass this article Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)