AHC: How can South Africa have these borders?

With any POD after the 1st of January 1900, how can South Africa achieve these borders?

2017-08-26 12.44.55.png
 
Well, I believe the easiest way possible would be a majority of southern rhodesians voting for union with south africa in the 1922 government referendum. A relatively small majority (by althist parameters) voted for responsible government ~59%, so it isn't that unlikely to believe a victory for the union option could come out. If that was to happen, the bechuanaland protectorate would be kind of "isolated" by south african territory, and since the majority of white population there were afrikaner boer settlers, you could see the ruling minority pushing for union aswell.

For more info on the referendum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Rhodesian_government_referendum,_1922

Going a lil' bit more apeshit, an axis victory (at least partially) that lead to a collapse of the british empire could see south africa taking over "responsibility" for these territories, and the rhodesians themselves would possibly want to join the union for safety reasons.
 
The UK falls to the Nazis and South Africa annexes most of the southern colonies as a front against possible German invasion.
 
This is quite easy I think - as mentioned let Southern Rhodesia vote to join the Union. This means no NP win in '48 as most Rhodesian seats will be safe United Party seats (although the Fusion of 1933 is probably butterflied away). No apartheid government might mean the High Commission territories are given to SA (which was the aim of the SA gov) and might mean no international opposition to a formal annexation of South-West Africa.

Voila, you have your borders.
 
This is quite easy I think - as mentioned let Southern Rhodesia vote to join the Union. This means no NP win in '48 as most Rhodesian seats will be safe United Party seats (although the Fusion of 1933 is probably butterflied away). No apartheid government might mean the High Commission territories are given to SA (which was the aim of the SA gov) and might mean no international opposition to a formal annexation of South-West Africa.

Voila, you have your borders.

Yup, rhodesian districts would probably remain safely in the United Party side for at least a few decades. However, in due time you could see a coalition between the afrikaner National Party and Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front (or some similar political force). It seems unlikely at first, due to the cultural differences, however entering the cold war, when the white minority as a whole would start to feel more and more the "encroachment" (from their white-centered perspective) of the african black majority, you could see an alliance like that turn up, so maybe apartheid would happen nonetheless.
 
This is quite easy I think - as mentioned let Southern Rhodesia vote to join the Union. This means no NP win in '48 as most Rhodesian seats will be safe United Party seats (although the Fusion of 1933 is probably butterflied away). No apartheid government might mean the High Commission territories are given to SA (which was the aim of the SA gov) and might mean no international opposition to a formal annexation of South-West Africa.

Voila, you have your borders.

This, pretty much. It would, however, change South Africa dramatically later on - no apartheid may well mean a steady process to some sort of power division between blacks and whites, or it could go as OTL did. Either one is entirely possible.
 
South Africa keeping South-West Africa past the 1990 would be hard but not impossible. Maybe their is a referendum of some type to keep them in (so no, or less white farmers going north to take land basically, which wouldn't raise tensions, also more development in general), as for Zimbabwe, maybe South Africa gets blessing from other countries to invade them (especially if Rob goes insane early) or perhaps they get the blessing to take the land after the bush war perhaps if they get a decisive win(which won't be pretty).

It really depends on how heavy handed the colonial powers want to get.
 
If that was to happen, the bechuanaland protectorate would be kind of "isolated" by south african territory, and since the majority of white population there were afrikaner boer settlers, you could see the ruling minority pushing for union aswell.

Bechuanaland was ruled by a Tswana King.

Khama III accepted protectorate status specifically to prevent encroachment by Boers, German colonialists, and the Ndebeles. As well, he was very popular in London for his Christianizing of Botswana and because he assisted the British in both the Matabele and Boer Wars.

There's really no way to get the Tswana King to give up Botswana. You'd have to dissolve the protectorate somehow. The only option I can think of is to have Pretoria send troops in to occupy it while banking on London and the Anglo-South Africans/Rhodesians not giving enough of a damn.
 
Bechuanaland was ruled by a Tswana King.

Khama III accepted protectorate status specifically to prevent encroachment by Boers, German colonialists, and the Ndebeles. As well, he was very popular in London for his Christianizing of Botswana and because he assisted the British in both the Matabele and Boer Wars.

There's really no way to get the Tswana King to give up Botswana. You'd have to dissolve the protectorate somehow. The only option I can think of is to have Pretoria send troops in to occupy it while banking on London and the Anglo-South Africans/Rhodesians not giving enough of a damn.

Indeed, I had no idea about this "unique" development of botswana. Doing a little more research about it, I've discovered about the pre-union of south africa conflict between the british and the boers for bechuanaland, and the existence of Stellaland, which was later incorporated into South Africa. Indeed, it is easy to make Rhodesia join the Union, but Botswana is quite harder (without making huge changes in WW2). Perhaps after Khama III's death in 1923, the British, now in control of the Union and more indifferent to Bamangwato independence, this could happen. After all, the Rhodesian referendum happened in 1922, and if the Union option had won, perhaps in the "expansionist" climate, the Union under J.B.M Hertzog could successfully push for the integration of the protectorate, but still quite unlikely to happen. Anyhow, thanks for flaring up my interest in the subject.
 
Indeed, I had no idea about this "unique" development of botswana. Doing a little more research about it, I've discovered about the pre-union of south africa conflict between the british and the boers for bechuanaland, and the existence of Stellaland, which was later incorporated into South Africa. Indeed, it is easy to make Rhodesia join the Union, but Botswana is quite harder (without making huge changes in WW2). Perhaps after Khama III's death in 1923, the British, now in control of the Union and more indifferent to Bamangwato independence, this could happen. After all, the Rhodesian referendum happened in 1922, and if the Union option had won, perhaps in the "expansionist" climate, the Union under J.B.M Hertzog could successfully push for the integration of the protectorate, but still quite unlikely to happen. Anyhow, thanks for flaring up my interest in the subject.

Honestly you just have to look at Lesotho and Swaziland to see that those random holes in South Africa won't necessarily be plugged.
 
South Africa keeping South-West Africa past the 1990 would be hard but not impossible. Maybe their is a referendum of some type to keep them in (so no, or less white farmers going north to take land basically, which wouldn't raise tensions, also more development in general), as for Zimbabwe, maybe South Africa gets blessing from other countries to invade them (especially if Rob goes insane early) or perhaps they get the blessing to take the land after the bush war perhaps if they get a decisive win(which won't be pretty).

It really depends on how heavy handed the colonial powers want to get.

It's hard after 1990 in OTL, but in a TL with Rhodesia as a fifth province and no aparthed who knows what will happen.
 
Bechuanaland was ruled by a Tswana King.

Khama III accepted protectorate status specifically to prevent encroachment by Boers, German colonialists, and the Ndebeles. As well, he was very popular in London for his Christianizing of Botswana and because he assisted the British in both the Matabele and Boer Wars.

There's really no way to get the Tswana King to give up Botswana. You'd have to dissolve the protectorate somehow. The only option I can think of is to have Pretoria send troops in to occupy it while banking on London and the Anglo-South Africans/Rhodesians not giving enough of a damn.

The British's original plan was for Bechuanaland to be governed by Rhodesia or South Africa. If we avoid apartheid it's not such a stretch to see Bechuanaland become a protectorate of South Africa.
 
Well, I believe the easiest way possible would be a majority of southern rhodesians voting for union with south africa in the 1922 government referendum. A relatively small majority (by althist parameters) voted for responsible government ~59%, so it isn't that unlikely to believe a victory for the union option could come out. If that was to happen, the bechuanaland protectorate would be kind of "isolated" by south african territory, and since the majority of white population there were afrikaner boer settlers, you could see the ruling minority pushing for union aswell.

For more info on the referendum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Rhodesian_government_referendum,_1922

Going a lil' bit more apeshit, an axis victory (at least partially) that lead to a collapse of the british empire could see south africa taking over "responsibility" for these territories, and the rhodesians themselves would possibly want to join the union for safety reasons.

Were the majority of whites in Bechuanaland Afrikaners? I'm not so sure.
 
It's hard after 1990 in OTL, but in a TL with Rhodesia as a fifth province and no aparthed who knows what will happen.

yeah it would be met with a lot of resistance but if you have gradual improvements in the decades prior (with south-west africa at least, lets say, instead of white south africans going up there to take land or at least make deals that are more favourable to the local population) then it would probably lead to an easier transition.
 
yeah it would be met with a lot of resistance but if you have gradual improvements in the decades prior (with south-west africa at least, lets say, instead of white south africans going up there to take land or at least make deals that are more favourable to the local population) then it would probably lead to an easier transition.

Remember, South-West Africa has had whites living there from the late 19th century, mostly Germans and some Afrikaners, so the dynamic is different. It isn't just arriving and taking land.
 
Remember, South-West Africa has had whites living there from the late 19th century, mostly Germans and some Afrikaners, so the dynamic is different. It isn't just arriving and taking land.

that is true, it wasn't really but a lot of the local black population did resent that fact, but i guess given they were outnumbered, it wouldn't have made it that difficult (not like Zimbabwe).
 
that is true, it wasn't really but a lot of the local black population did resent that fact, but i guess given they were outnumbered, it wouldn't have made it that difficult (not like Zimbabwe).

I don't think black people in SWA were outnumbered by whites.
 
Top