Why Whites are justified in going to WAR over Land Seizure: Zimbabwe’s Third Chimurenga
Videos ONLY! Follow History Reviewed TV on Telegram
You can watch my videos on your phone! This channel is only for History Reviewed‘s videos!
When Mugabe seized the land, he also engaged in military tactics and strategies. At a point he ordered 27,000 AK47’s from Russia which were flown to Zimbabwe.
Mugabe created a special army. In Africa, these black communists CREATE semi-military forces for what I would call “Political warfare”. They operate on the border line between true military actions and politics. The “Militia” which Mugabe created was composed of young blacks called up for military service in the Militia. I believe he trained a total of 200,000 of them. They received training and indoctrination. He even wrote a book called The Third Chimurenga. A Chimurenga is a race war. He wrote and published this book, calling the land seizures The Third Chimurenga of the blacks against the whites.
I obtained 50 pages of the book from a BBC journalist. The book contained twisted facts and was a racist propaganda book aimed at motivating the young blacks in the Militia.
Here is a link which talks about this: https://www.pindula.co.zw/Third_Chimurenga
A short quote: The Third Chimurenga in Zimbabwe was an extensive process of repossession of land by the majority local indigenes from the white minority commercial farmers. It was initiated by the Zanu P.F government on the 15th of July 2000 under the leadership of Robert Mugabe in order to repossess and redistribute land. The centrality of land at the heart of this scheme has resulted in the Third Chimurenga being intimately associated with the Fast Track Land Reform Program.
In black terminology the 2nd Chimurenga is the war we whites call: The Rhodesian Bush War. The first Chimurenga was a black rebellion in the 1890s which the whites put down with force. Thus the Third Chimurenga, in Mugabe’s view was yet another WAR against the whites – this time for land.
Here is another Zimbabwean website that tells you the same thing:
The Struggle for Land in Zimbabwe (1890-2010)…the Third Chimurenga – April 1980 to 2010
Quote: The willing-buyer-willing-seller Lancaster Constitution arrangement unfortunately made the success of the Resettlement Programme very much dependent on the ‘good will’ of the European settler-farmers and, as expected, they refused to offer the huge tracts of land the Government required, so that by 1988, only about
42 000 families had been resettled on about 2 600 000 hectares of land, writes Dr Felix Muchemwa in his book The Struggle for Land in Zimbabwe (1890-2010) that The Patriot is serialising.
Further down the black authors say:
There was ‘every sign that the British Government (was) striving behind the scenes to perpetuate Lancaster House beyond April 1990 and so prevent significant land reform from taking place’. (Palmer, 1990, p.163-4)
It is worth noting that although the number of European settler-farmers had decreased from 6 000 in 1979 to 4 300 in 1989 (Hungwe, p.143), they were still dictating the terms on land acquisition for resettlement.
They still held more than 39 percent of all land in Zimbabwe and 90 percent of all arable land. (Stiff, 2000: p.295)
By 1990, the number had declined to about 4 000 (Herbst, 1990: p.37), but still these few European settler-farmers held almost all the land on the Zimbabwean Highveld agricultural regions I, II, III and IV clandestinely and illegally against the Land Acquisition Act No. 21, 1985, Section 6 which gave the Zimbabwe Government the right of first refusal on any farmland on sale.
The European settler-farmers continued to sell and buy more and better-soiled land in good rainfall areas among themselves. (Hungwe, p.148)
They were strictly adhering to the Lancaster House Constitutional requirements, while totally disregarding the Land Acquisition Act of 1985 which they regarded as unconstitutional and impinging on their constitutional right to sell their land on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis. (Hungwe p.148)
In short, the blacks are saying that the agreements between the whites and the blacks were NOT favouring the blacks enough. Therefore, the blacks felt justified in seizing it by other more radical means.
This process is now also happening where the blacks in South Africa believe that the negotiated process of 1994 is not working in their favour. However, both in Zimbabwe and in South Africa these are the internationally accepted political settlements that blacks and whites did agree on and now the blacks, unilaterally begin throwing it aside.
In my view the whites are therefore totally justified in GOING TO WAR OVER THIS UNILATERAL BLACK ATTEMPTS TO FORCE THIS UPON THE WHITES. If they want to throw previous agreements out the window, unilaterally, then we have every right to defend our property.
NOTE: There are many white farmers in Zimbabwe who bought land under the Mugabe Govt, legally. i.e. It was NOT land “from colonial times”. It was land that was bought by whites under black rule. The whites had worked inside the legal structure of Mugabe and ZANU PF. Then Mugabe decided to nullify that! That to me is reason enough for rebellion and war.
The same situation is building up in SA.
If the blacks want to unilaterally, shove a “new deal” down the throats of the whites against their free will and their constitutional rights, then the whites have every right to mobilize and fight back until we can once more sit at the negotiation table and negotiate the next New Deal. This business of them forcing it down our throats against our will clearly flies in the face of all international norms and I find it unacceptable.
Mugabe openly saw and knew that what he was doing was in reality DECLARING WAR ON THE WHITES and he created a military strategy that was a kind of “Political Warfare” that went with it.
I want to describe this new form of warfare:
He created the Militia which was a strange kind of new army. The militia was also mocked by the Whites as “The Green Bombers”. They went on a rampage. They raped and beat black MDC supporters. They engaged in a campaign of murder and terror. Some were armed I believe with AKs. But they could basically do as they pleased. I do not know what their command structure was. But I am certain that they were controlled by the Zimbabwe Govt.
Whenever blacks ran to the police wanting to report abuses and attacks on them, the Police would simply refuse to get involved by saying “Its Politics”. Therefore, the Militia had carte blanche and the Police did nothing. I strongly suspect that the Police were ORDERED BY GOVT to do nothing. The Militia was a new army, of a special kind. They also got drugs and they had access to young women and could do as they pleased.
They thus waged a form of political war in Zimbabwe, especially against the MDC.
In South Africa, I have spoken to whites who are/were in the SANDF and we have discussed how the black politicians here might fight whites. I have come across reports of blacks doing military training. I’ve even heard of rumours of it in Windhoek, Namibia – I can’t vouch for the reliability of the source. I believe it is a white Christian priest in the area, but I never contacted him.
There seems to be some kinds of crime and attacks going on in SA, either against whites or between blacks among themselves which seem to be a form of this “Political warfare” with “Renta-a-Crowds” and “Rent-an-army” which go into action. This is particularly true in the Northwest Province and even in the fighting that tore up Mafikeng last year.
The black politicians generally are corrupt and have access to large amounts of money. Therefore, military officers I have spoken to, agree with me that the real threat against whites, if it should come will not be directly from the military or the Police but through these informal militias created by black politicians and businessmen.
Follow History Reviewed on Telegram
You can follow HistoryReviewed‘s posts directly on Telegram. All the posts and videos go out on this Telegram Channel.