# Talk:Conscription in Rhodesia

I only see two items that might need the writer's attention. Djmaschek (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Last word of the lede (Zimbabwe) should be linked.
Social and economic impact, paragraph 2. What are "peak bodies"?
One more thing. Photos/pictures would be nice. Djmaschek (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments - I've made those changes. Unfortunately images created in what's now Zimbabwe are generally in the public domain only if they were created prior to 1946 (see [1]). This means that Wikipedia articles on Rhodesia are rather under-illustrated. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This article is well organized and well referenced. Great work.
JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conscription in Rhodesia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 04:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 08:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take this one on, I don't know a great deal about this period in Southern Africa but I did write Guard Force (Rhodesia) a few years ago when I spotted a gap in our coverage - Dumelow (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)


### 1. Well-written
Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;  and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Background
"International pressure and a desire by all parties to end the fighting led to the Lancaster House Agreement, which was signed in December 1979."
Appreciate it's a complicated situation to summarise but I don't think we've clarified who "all parties" are here, we've only mentioned the Rhodesian government and small guerrilla groups.
I've tweaked this to 'government and nationalist groups' Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Conscription of whites and other minority groups
"All young white men were required to undertake a period of national service with the Rhodesia Regiment ... This crisis also led to the expansion of the Territorial Army, which was made up of conscripts who had completed their national service but remained liable for part-time service as reservists"
Do we know how long the period was initially?  Do we know what ages were liable to serve? Dow we know how long th period of liability was? Though I note the article later says this was complicated so perhaps too much detail?
6 weeks from 1957 and 4.5 months from the early 1960s - I've moved some details around for clarify things. The sources don't state how long the reserve obligation was until it's stated to have been 3 years in 1972. All the sources that discuss the conscription system in any detail note that it's very difficult to understand it - it appears this is because requirements frequently changed and the government covered things up from 1977. The Rhodesian government archives are apparently also difficult to access. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
"At the time of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in November 1965, white, coloured and Indian Rhodesian men were required to undertake six weeks of national service, during which they went through basic training."
Link Coloureds here and maybe Indians in Zimbabwe?  Do we know when conscription was extended to these groups, as we've only mentioned it for whites before?
Clarified - it was by UDI, but the source doesn't specify when this change was made. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
"The amount of time conscripts could be called up for was expanded in 1975, after extensive public debate. Following these changes all white men aged 25-30 were initially required to serve for up to 59 days when called up for periods of active service."
I don't think we've said how long the call-up period was before, is it known?
None of the sources says this. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Conscription of black Rhodesians
"The Rhodesian Government considered conscripting black Rhodesians at various times, with serious proposals to do being put forward from around 1977"
Doesn't read right to me with that "to do" in the middle
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"There were concerns within the civil service and Army over doing so. This was due to concerns that many black men would refuse to serve and that some of those who were successfully conscripted would be loyal to the nationalists. The Army favoured conscripting blacks as they would be paid less than white soldiers and were likely to be just as effective in battle"
We say there were concerns within the Army but then that the army favoured it.  Maybe "concerns from some in the Army" and "In general the Army..." or something similar?
Yep, that's better - I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"Some black Rhodesians were also forced to serve in the Security Force Auxiliaries from 1978, with this being undertaken by press gangs"
Might be worth briefly mentioning what the Security Force Auxiliaries were as they look to be separate from the state?  Was this private conscription formally sanctioned by the state or just allowed to happen?
I've expanded this material. The sources are silent on whether the state allowed the press ganging to occur; they all note though that the units were generally rabble, so I suspect that it was outside the state's control. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Impact
"The Police Reserve could provide less than half the number of conscripts it was able to call up with weapons, radios and transport vehicles"
Reads better to me as "The Police Reserve could provide weapons, radios and transport vehicles to less than half the number of conscripts it was able to call up", but whatever you prefer
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"Firms and industry associations expressed strong concerns over the absence of young white men, including as they were often managers in factories"
Doesn't read right to me, is "including" superfluous?
The source alludes to other reasons for these concerns. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"The Rhodesian government was aware that conscription was causing white men to emigrate from the country, and attempted to balance this against security force's needs"
should this be "the security forces' needs"?
Yep: fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"As one way of limiting the impact of conscription on emigration, in 1977 the Manpower Committee decided that the terms of military service should be obscured."
I am not sure what this means.  Is it that men were not told how long they would serve until they reported for duty?
The source doesn't give any details - it says that "it was decided to obscure the exact terms of service" Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"The Rhodesian government also attempted to reduce the numbers of white men of military age who left country."
Missing "the" before "country"
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"Manpower shortages led to the abandonment of some intended military measures and forced others to be delayed or reduced in scope"
Are there any examples?
Yep - added. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)


### 2. Verifiable with no original research
Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Sources all look to be modern and reliable
Spotcheck on sourcing:
"The Rhodesian Air Force was opposed to the call up scheme and only used reservists to protect its aircraft" checks out to White 2004, p. 107.
"Steps were taken to address draft dodging. 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." checks out to  Brownell 2008, pp. 601–602.
I can confirm the second parapgraph of "Military impact" from my work fromt he same source on the Guard Force article


### 3. Broad in its coverage
Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article doesn't mention any conscription of women, presumably this was never considered?  If so, perhaps a statement to this effect?  Otherwise there are no obvious omissions
No sources note this at all, even to note that this wasn't considered. I'll keep my eye out for material on this as part of developing the article further. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough - Dumelow (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)


### 4. Neutral
Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

I think the article discusses this contentious period in a neutral manner


### 5. Stable
Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

This is a relatively new article but there is no sign of dispute over content


### 6. Illustrated
Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Single map image is freely licensed.
Consider adding Template:Conscription if you think it worthwhile.  In any case the article should probably be this article to the historical country section - Dumelow (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added that. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@Dumelow: thanks a lot for this great review. I think that I've now replied to your comments above. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

All looks good to me, will pass this for GA - Dumelow (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)