Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal [Hardcover]

The picture painted by this book (as one would expect from an autobiography) is very different indeed. Ian Smith claims to be the victim of slanderous lies told by both African nationalist leaders and British politicians - with no right of reply.

So is this book an outing of the truth at long last, or is it grand revisionism?

Ian Smith, in this book, claims not to have been a racist. He claims to have been committed to "unimpeded progress towards black majority rule". There was no racial bar to the right to vote and the black people were the best cared for in Africa at that time, so the book claims.

Ian Smith claims that throughout the whole period of his political career British, South African and American politicians reneged on agreements and not least the agreement that Rhodesia would be granted independence should the federation with Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) break up. This happened in 1960 but independence was not forthcoming - "the great betrayal".

From my limited knowledge of Rhodesian history, it would appear that Ian Smith has omitted much information - not least the extent to which many black people were eager to become involved in politics, but were prevented. His claim to have been committed to working towards black majority rule rings rather hollow given his 1976 radio broadcast, "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia. Not in a thousand years".

The importance and relevance of this book as a work of history is however made even greater given the "bitter harvest" since independence. A country which was once one of the most peaceful and most prosperous has now fallen in to lawlessness. The economy has collapsed and the leaders are corrupt and desperate to cling on to power at any cost. Perhaps Ian Smith's views, while certainly not "politically correct", were at best realistic. He wanted "evolution not revolution". Perhaps Zimbabwe today would have been a lot better off if history had developed in a different way.

I would encourage anyone with an interest in world affairs and particularly those of Southern Africa, to read this book. Ian Smith takes us through the complex events of the UDI period in a clear, methodical way, explaining his thought processes and feelings at every stage.

How accurate and truthful it all is, I'm not sure. But my views on Ian Smith, as a result of reading this book, have certainly been altered, if not totally transformed.

The book then becomes a blow-by-blow account of Britain's betrayal of his government. Whether Britain acted honourably is questionable, but the principle which Britain adopted was probably correct, despite the terrible consequences which have followed the election of Robert Mugabe. There are times when he rather childishly makes personal and unnecessarily offensive remarks about those he disliked. This seems odd, and rather un-statesmanlike.

His account of those events which took place before the formation of Zimbabwe are important from an historical prospective, and this book is well worth reading.