Southern Rhodesia joins the Union of South Africa
- Thread starter MrHola
- Start date
Isn't it already a white-minority-ruling-over-black majority area at the time? If so, more of what'd happen in South Africa already in the very basic sense.
The addition of the Southern Rhodesians (who were mostly British, with a small Afrikaner minority) to the Union, would presumably mean a victory for Smuts and the United Party in 1948. The Southern Rhodesians would probably overwhelmingly have voted for the United Party. In any case, the '48 election was very close, Smuts won more votes than the Nationalists, but won less seats, condemning him to defeat. There would possibly be apartheid, but not in the form that we would recognise. The Fagan Commission gave its findings to Smuts in about '47, and stated that it would be impossible to stop the influx of blacks into white urban areas. If Smuts had won in '48, and accepted these findings, Verwoerdian grand apartheid, would have been dead in the water.
Also, the United Party was in favour of increased European immigration, whereas the Nats were more wary, as they felt increased immigration from Europe could dilute the Afrikaner nation. A Smuts vicotry would also mean a bigger white population in South Africa, as more Europeans are encouraged to go there.
So, in other words, you agree with me.
Anyway, if we accept the white populations in Botswana, South West Africa and Southern Rhodesia, you add roughly 450,000 to the white population circa 1970, but also add nine million blacks. Overall, likely similar percentage, anyways.
Admiral Canaris
Banned
However it goes, Mugabe almost certainly wouldn't come to power, so the Rhodesian people are winners either way.
Could Ian Smith become Prime Minister/President of South Africa?
Could Ian Smith become Prime Minister/President of South Africa?
It depends on where he hangs his hat politically. The United Party would be the major force for sometime in South African politics. Opposition would obviously come from the National Party, depending on how liberal the United Party is after 1948, an analogue to OTL's Progressive Party would form, calling for more rights for non-whites. Also, again depending on how British a ruling United Party is, a Pro-Britain "Dominion" party could form, with most of its support coming from Rhodesia and Natal.
If Smith throws his lot in with the United Party he could well rise to a senior position. Whether he becomes leader is another matter.
Assuming Smuts still dies in 1950, and looking at post-1948 leaders of the United Party in OTL, he would presumably be succeeded as PM by JGN Strauss, and then Sir De Villiers Graaff. Rhodesian politicians such as Ed Whitehead, Roy Welensky and Garfield Todd, may also rise to prominent positions in the United Party though.
Smith was pretty young when he became the PM of Rhodesia, so if he gets to power it would be long past the Welensky/Whitehead era in Rhodesia. We'd probably be seeing him about the time of John Vorster in OTL.
Also, I gotta imagine that universal suffrage would come long before it did in OTL, because the Nationalists stuck to the racial dogma right to the end. As late as 1993 de Klerk wanted a white veto on decisions made by the government. I don't think the United Party was that hardline. As you pointed out, blacks were starting to mingle with whites in the 1940s, so Verwoerd-style grand apartheid would be impossible. Heck, it's only dubiously possible in 1948.
Now comes the next question - media-wise. IIRC, the SABC held a monopoly over broadcasting in South Africa for quite some time. However, in OTL the SABC introduced TV very late because of the power of the Dutch Reformed church. Can this be altered so that television could be introduced earlier in South Africa, especially in this case?
I would imagine that when you factor in the Rhodesian whites and those in Bechuanaland and South West Africa, along with the continuing immigration from Europe, this will dilute the power of the Afrikaners with the government - and that would inevitably dilute the power of the Dutch Reformed Church.
I would imagine so, but I wouldn't say that absolutely. Don't count on Smuts setting up a visit for the royal family again, mind you. The 1947 tour did NOT go down well.
I think it depends where they toured. Amongst English-speaking whites, I think the royal visit would have been much appreciated. One of the main roads in my home town, Benoni, is still called Princes Avenue, following the Royal visit in the '40s.
Admiral Canaris
Banned
If the other colonies became independent, they'd still hate any remaining colony, no matter how it treated them. And since they would still be the majority, they'd force them out.
Admiral Canaris
Banned
That South Africa joined with Rhodesia would still not be able to remain a member of the Commonwealth, since the freed African/Asian colonies and the NAM would view them as Evil Imperialists (TM).
The reason why the Dutch Reformed Church was so supportive of the Nats, is for quite an interesting reason. I recently read a book called Total Onslaught by De Wet Potgieter, chronicling the propaganda and dirty tricks played by the Nats against their enemies, white, blacks, and Nats who'd fallen foul of the regime. The author claims that the Broederbond (the secret society for Afrikaners, aimed at making sure South Africa became and stayed Afrikaner ruled) made it their mission to infiltrate Broederbonders into every niche of South African society, and push their narrow vision of Afrikaner nationalism. The Dutch Reformed Church was not always so supportive of apartheid, and it was only when the Broederbond managed to get their men into high profile positions in the church that it became so conservative and pro-Nat. With the addition of Southern Rhodesia (as TheMann has already pointed out) the influence of the Dutch Reformed Church will be less, and may well totally butterfly away the influence of the Broederbond in South African politics. Although it wasn't essential that to succeed in Afrikaner society one had to be a Broederbonder, it definitely helped, most cabinet ministers would Broeders, as were a number of other influential Afrikaner figures, but by no means, all.
It depends how hard-line this expanded Union of South Africa would be. Anyway, the catalyst which saw South Africa expelled from the Commonwealth was the 1960 referendum, where SA voted to become a republic, where a narrow majority voted for it (I think it was something like 52% in favour, 48% against). The new Republic of South Africa applied to remain a member of the Commonwealth (following the Indian precedent) but because of its racial policies, was denied. In this ATL Union, with Rhodesia, the Nats would probably not be in power, meaning no referendum. Even if they were, the whites in Rhodesia, who are overwhelmingly pro-British, will be enough to sway the vote in favour of the anti-Republicans.