AHC: Save Rhodesia

Pokemon Master

Pokemon Master

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to have Rhodesia survive to the present day. It can be in either its Rhodesia/Nyasaland Federation or it can be its UDI Republic.

My idea: For the Federation, just have it become a full-fledged Commonwealth realm and have it abolish its racist policies, not unlike what South Africa did in the early 1990s.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Even if they peacefully transitioned to democratic rule, I'ce got a hard time imaging a black voting population keeping their country named after the like of Cecil Rhodes.
 

IndefatigableRN

Pokemon Master said:
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to have Rhodesia survive to the present day. It can be in either its Rhodesia/Nyasaland Federation or it can be its UDI Republic.

My idea: For the Federation, just have it become a full-fledged Commonwealth realm and have it abolish its racist policies, not unlike what South Africa did in the early 1990s.
Click to expand...

It is going to be extremely difficult. It is certainly possible that if the Franchise was extended in Southern Rhodesia in the late 50s, and that the Federal Government followed suit, the African middle class might have been on board. But the key here is "might".

And frankly, I think it is unlikely that the liberal whites pushing that agenda (Todd, Tredgold, Holderness, etc.) would be able to push that legislation through in the face of the majority of intransigent racist white settlers.
 

IndefatigableRN

John Fredrick Parker said:
Even if they peacefully transitioned to democratic rule, I'ce got a hard time imaging a black voting population keeping their country named after the like of Cecil Rhodes.
Click to expand...

Rhodes may have been a hardcore imperialist, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that he wasn't a racist...

"I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#cite_note-61
- Cecil Rhodes quoted in Cecil Rhodes and His Times
 
Simon

Simon

Well the last time something like this came up in January the two best responses I saw were TheMann's timeline which involves more black Rhodesian soldiers fighting in WW2 and gaining the vote, Sir Garfield Todd's United Rhodesia Party winning the 1962 general election so avoiding UDI, the gradual expansion of the franchise, and a long slow process of liberalisation; and Jonathan Edelstein's timeline where they try and institute some small reforms but are limited to a much slower so that the wheels start to come off. Just go read them as they're both rather good.


IndefatigableRN said:
Rhodes may have been a hardcore imperialist, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that he wasn't a racist...
Click to expand...
Well there was that whole bit about helping roll back the Cape Qualified Franchise, although I'm not sure how much of that was paternalism and how much political expediency.
 
Last edited:

Ijon Tichy

The key issue is land. Even if the black middle class is conciliated, they will still share the sense of injustice the rest of the majority population feels over the colonial landgrab, and they will push for some kind of land reform. The white settlers, in turn, will push back. As tgat

So, no, Rhodesia can't be saved (and doesn't deserve to be) - not unless the landgrab of the early colonial period is butterflied away, or is less severe than in OTL.

As for greater black participation in the second world war inclining them to be more loyal to the state in the post-war era, that too is overoptimistic. In Britain's colonies, participation in the war played a major part in radicalisation of the masses during and after the conflict, and helped boost decolonisation shortly after that.
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

Even if it were possible to build a loyal (?) black middle class to support the State, do we even have time? Rhodesia, as a state is pretty new. How does one quickly build a large, educated and co-opted middle class sufficient, in the few decades we have, given the attitudes of the age?

At earliest it would have to start after WW1. Then the Depression will kick in, reducing White voters's willingness to sacrifice for this development if it somehow exists. Then WW2 and OTL decolonisation kicks off.
 

satilisu

The one thing Rhodesia needs to save itself is friends. Rhodesia lost the Bush War because it lost a friendly government in Mozambique, which meant Rhodesia's port was gone and it now had a porous border. I don't recall there being all that much in the way of mass protest against the regime, but rather that they couldn't take guerrillas out faster than they were coming in.

However, Rhodesia already enjoyed some level of support in the black population, since unlike South Africa blacks volunteered (in varying senses of the word) to fight for the regime and units like the Selous Scouts were majority African. Perhaps Rhodesia could exploit the Shona/Ndebele divide and align a portion of the population with the whites that way?
 

SeanPdineen

this is fun

Two possibilities, if the pearce commission of 1972, thank you Sir Alex Douglas Hume, has passed the test of acceptability. This is basically an internal settlement seven years earlier, a ten year commitment to majority rule, white security and large scale western power aide. Second If the 79 elections, had brought into power, Sithole, he was a former zanu leader, with toughness and common sense.
Muzorewa meant well, but didn't have the street smarts, and chief Chiaru was seen as a stooge. My friend is right about ethnic divisions. The Ndebele has always been treated relatively better than the Shona, the Shagaan population in Manicaland could have been more cleverly seduced.
 

Ganesha

Ijon Tichy said:
The key issue is land. Even if the black middle class is conciliated, they will still share the sense of injustice the rest of the majority population feels over the colonial landgrab, and they will push for some kind of land reform. The white settlers, in turn, will push back. As tgat

So, no, Rhodesia can't be saved (and doesn't deserve to be) - not unless the landgrab of the early colonial period is butterflied away, or is less severe than in OTL.
Click to expand...

I agree - land is the key issue. That's easy to see by looking at what Mugabe did after he took power.

But the white settlers aren't going to just give up their land. So the key is to decrease the amount of land they own in the first place while still maintaining their power so that Rhodesia is recognizable as Rhodesia. I'm not sure how you'd do that.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

Otis R. Needleman

Banned
Or a different tack entirely. Higher levels of white immigration from the UK/Europe/wherever produces a much larger white population. UDI Rhodesia only had about 250,000 whites. Couple that with no economic sanctions after UDI and you have a Rhodesia much more able to defend itself and avoid having a majority-rule situation forced upon them. Over time, a majority-rule government could develop.

IOTL Zimbabwe has gone right down the toilet due to Mugabe. Rhodesia routinely exported food, tobacco, and minerals. People had at least enough to eat. The country was well-run. The Rhodesians did quite well with what they had. Zimbabwe's a mess. Hunger, hyperinflation, dollarizing the economy...what a price to pay for majority rule...one person, one vote, one time. Mugabe was elected in 1980 and is still there.
 

Ganesha

Otis R. Needleman said:
Or a different tack entirely. Higher levels of white immigration from the UK/Europe/wherever produces a much larger white population. UDI Rhodesia only had about 250,000 whites. Couple that with no economic sanctions after UDI and you have a Rhodesia much more able to defend itself and avoid having a majority-rule situation forced upon them. Over time, a majority-rule government could develop.

IOTL Zimbabwe has gone right down the toilet due to Mugabe. Rhodesia routinely exported food, tobacco, and minerals. People had at least enough to eat. The country was well-run. The Rhodesians did quite well with what they had. Zimbabwe's a mess. Hunger, hyperinflation, dollarizing the economy...what a price to pay for majority rule...one person, one vote, one time. Mugabe was elected in 1980 and is still there.
Click to expand...

It's not all one-sided - Mugabe sucks and Rhodesia was okay is a pretty simplistic view to take. This New York Times article presents a pretty balanced view - income inequality did decrease, and there was a strong psychological shift in the country. Well worth reading.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Ganesha said:
I agree - land is the key issue. That's easy to see by looking at what Mugabe did after he took power.

But the white settlers aren't going to just give up their land. So the key is to decrease the amount of land they own in the first place while still maintaining their power so that Rhodesia is recognizable as Rhodesia. I'm not sure how you'd do that.

Cheers,
Ganesha
Click to expand...

Rhodesia had a land reapportionment system not unlike colonial Kenya wherein the best land consistently went to the whites and the blacks were increasingly forced onto the most marginal land.

Some degree of land redistribution was a requirement for any kind of stability in the country, though if the people who IOTL undertook the Unilateral Declaration of Independence didn't wind up winning out in Rhodesian politics, it may very well have been possible to see a more moderate transition to independence without the mass exodus of white Rhodesians (who formed the basis of the agricultural economy and caused a collapse when they left) and thus a country that actually maintained its reputation as the breadbasket of Southern Africa.

Ganesha said:
It's not all one-sided - Mugabe sucks and Rhodesia was okay is a pretty simplistic view to take. This New York Times article presents a pretty balanced view - income inequality did decrease, and there was a strong psychological shift in the country. Well worth reading.

Cheers,
Ganesha
Click to expand...

Not to mention the enormous amounts of malnutrition that were present in Rhodesia.

Rhodesia was indeed a fine place to live if one was white.

People don't tend to revolt against a situation they're happy in.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Invent a time machine and go back with piles of documentation of how badly Mugabe will screw the pooch.
 

jackalope

satilisu said:
The one thing Rhodesia needs to save itself is friends. Rhodesia lost the Bush War because it lost a friendly government in Mozambique, which meant Rhodesia's port was gone and it now had a porous border. I don't recall there being all that much in the way of mass protest against the regime, but rather that they couldn't take guerrillas out faster than they were coming in.

However, Rhodesia already enjoyed some level of support in the black population, since unlike South Africa blacks volunteered (in varying senses of the word) to fight for the regime and units like the Selous Scouts were majority African. Perhaps Rhodesia could exploit the Shona/Ndebele divide and align a portion of the population with the whites that way?
Click to expand...

Mozambique was a difficult case. The Portuguese really mishandled the guerilla war post 1965. They had a good general or two, but were rotated out I think. In the end, it was the bad strategy pushed the Army of white Portuguese to mutiny in the Carnation Revolution over having been on an endless treadmill rotating back to one of the colonies and getting shot at. Change that and there is a chance of at least a worthwhile ally. Zambia would be even more compliant with an Angola that is not revolutionary. Most of the goods like bombs came through FREMILO territory in the end.
 

jackalope

Ijon Tichy said:
So, no, Rhodesia can't be saved (and doesn't deserve to be) - not unless the landgrab of the early colonial period is butterflied away, or is less severe than in OTL.

As for greater black participation in the second worldQUOTE]

If the land grab did not happen, then the government would almost certainly go the way of every other country in Africa, and a conquering Rhodes namesake and traditions would go out the window.

As far as your opinion goes of deserving, well, history is not deserving, merely what power from the end of a gun and/or pen dictates it to be. I would greatly agree that participation in WWII is a big negative. Idi Amin was part of that post war, for instance, and others in the original fray. The biggest force for guerillas and political action were those blacks brought in from outside the country, due in part because they never went back to their hinterlands for a spell, unlike the local ones. Farther away one went from Harare (Salisbury pre 1979), the more the country language (first book published in the 1950's) fell away to no usefulness. Tribal issues became paramount. Local tribes near Salisbury/Harare could comute for a weekend easily and lost ties to local chiefs.

From those who have been in the area, with the UN for example, have told me that the movie The Air Up There 1994 does the most justice to the situation. One man tries to tie all the money down. Under that situation, no way would a Rhodesia stay Rhodesia.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

jackalope

IndefatigableRN said:
Rhodes may have been a hardcore imperialist,
Click to expand...

Yep, and how brother plus then some. Not saying it is good, bad, or indifferent, but when asked what was next after the Cape to Cairo railway, Rhodes was to have said "Annex the Planets". True story, or at least that is what was in a history book. It was a direct quote, too.

No piker he.
 

Blackfox5

Rhodesia can only survive if its independence is officially recognized. So either Britain agrees to recognize Rhodesian independence in some format acceptable to Ian Smith, or Rhodesia has to become independent much earlier when London would not have cared so much about white majority rule in the country.

Rhodesia was not an apartheid state, and in theory black Africans would have gained the vote and political power and even eventually dominate the country. Although there would be increasing international pressure to accelerate that process, an existing independent Rhodesia that was able to buy on international markets would have lasted far longer than the beleagured Rhodesia of OTL. It would be much harder to convince the international community to institute an embargo than simply preserve one already in place.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Divide the tribes, give some the status of honorary whites and the rights of whites-and the land of other tribes that are bigger then theirs so that they are not strong enough to hold on without the help of the whites. So if the whites are pushed out, those tribes suffer too. That converts some tribes into strong supporters. The Belgians did it in OTL with the Tutsis that were friendly/neutral with the Hutus before the colonisers came. Of course it requires not being utter racist idiots and treating some of the blacks equally, including giving them the vote.
 

Blackfox5

Wikipedia on UDI lead to a book titled So Far and No Further! Rhodesia's Bid For Independence During the Retreat From Empire 1959–1965. Page 279 states Britain offered Rhodesia independence twice, first during World War II and the second in 1952. Rhodesian PM Godfrey Huggins (Lord Malvern) refused, presumably because he thought Southern Rhodesia could be united with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and then be given independence.

If accepted at that time, Rhodesia could already be independent when Africa starts becoming decolonized. At that point, it would already be part of the international system and could easily survive. A combination of encouraging white immigration, and an active policy of improving conditions for black Africans to integrate them into the establishment and retain international support could probably see the country do quite well and remain recognizably "Rhodesia".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top