In some ways, this should be relatively short, as the history of Zimbabwe only stretches back to 1980. (Everything relating to Rhodesia/ the short-lived Zimbabwe Rhodesia transitional government, and the bush war is deliberately separated). However, whilst current events are tending to overshadow the genuine, progressive promise that was initially offered, it seemed entirely possible, that once the worst of the Fifth Brigade's actions had taken place and ZANU and ZAPU had reached an accord, Zimbabwe could properly take on the mantle as one of the few genuine success stories in Africa. Almost immediately after Zimbabwean independence, things had started to go badly wrong.

When news sources note simply that Zimbabwe gained independence from Britain in 1980, they are factually correct - for a very brief period, after the final 

cease-fire, when genuine multi-racial elections took place, Britain had to resume its position as  the colonial power. But UDI in 1965 removed any British control - Britain may not then have reacted with sufficient opposition to Smith, but could certainly no longer be portrayed as the colonial master. For a short time, essentially for legal reasons whilst the 1980 elections took place, Britain was then the colonial power - but more de jure than de facto.