Define "as successful as some users parrot". Because of course, compared to European (including American) standards it obviously would've been lesser developed, for the reasons you mentioned as well as because it's a jungle and because it's full of black people.

But by sub-Saharan African standards it was one of the most developed nations (besides South Africa, Namibia and maybe Botswana), and it was the bread basket of Africa. Even an increasing number of black Zimbabweans themselves admit this, hate Mugabe for killing Zimbabwe, and love the white Rhodesians who got kicked out by Mugabe.

As for whether white people have a claim to it or not, maybe they initially were in the wrong to take it from the black natives, but every trace of civilization in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was a product of the white/European settlers; the farms, the capital city Salisbury (now Harare), the roads, the running water and electricity, so you could argue that they kinda worked their way up to also having a claim over the land.

Also, why are you ok with the white farmers getting expropriated without compensation, despite the fact that none of the original farmers who "stole" the land is alive today, meaning all farmers alive today either got their farms through hard work and purchasing them or inherited them? Wouldn't that be communism?