Apartheid in S. Africa / Rhodesia inevitable?

I was wondering from a general standpoint, was the rise of the National Party and Apartheid in South Africa and the similar system and UDI in Rhodesia likely to happen regardless?

My point being in the 1950s, the Rhodesia-Nysaland Federation was seen by both the British Colonial Office and the majority of Rhodesian leading politicos as the middle way between Apartheid and choatic mob-ruled black republics. The idea being slow reform would see an Anglicised biracial state form, a golden example of Britain's imperial legacy. A bit wanky to use an AH.com term but the fact the white Rhodesians who were mostly of a mildly progressive bent and consisted of an extremly working & lower-middle class by the 'gentry' standards of Kenya and elsewhere, not to mention looked on anti-British Afrikaaner nationalism were distain, was their Third Way model any more silly than them going UDI and basically doing Apartheid-lite?

Many blame the Federation which tagged would-be dominion Southern Rhodesia (future Rhodesia and Zimbabwe) to Northern Rhodesia and Nysaland both colonies with few white settlers beyond the administrators and other governmentals. The meant S.R. dominated the initial white only govt. while the Northern states had basically swapped British colonial rule for S. Rhodesian colonial rule. This embittered blacks who protested, rioted etc. which weakened liberal arguement for a paranoid white minority. Also S.R liberals fudged the first step towards reform in the late 1950s by focusing on sex and marriage reform, which strikes me as far more unthinkable for the average White farmer (it did lead to the govt. falling) to accept than voting rights.

Meanwhile in South Africa, joining WWII pissed off plenty of Afrikaaners and is attributed as the main cuase of the National Party's victory in 1948. Was the move towards Apartheid going to happen eventually or was it very much a policy idea that could have disappeared, had say the Union Party retained power into the 1950s?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It wasn't inevitable, there were forces that were against apartheid from the beginning, still it will be a challenge to keep Apartheid out.
 
I think there is plenty of opportunity for this not to go the way it did OTL, if by apartheid you refer to the post War legislative programme. A few examples

1) Britain forces adoption of the Cape Franchise rules in all 4 provinces post Boer War and doesn't let them backslide on this for a decade. By this I mean each province in the Union of 1910 when SA became SA and not the four provinces was effectively allowed to keep their own franchise rules - which mean that only the Cape had any non white electors (which were effectively emasculated by the 1930s).

2) Britain/etc doesn't let the Afrikanker politicians win their point about electoral weighting during Union negotiations. Basically here Afrikaner politicans in Transvaal especially were worried that they would be, as a community, dominated by the Utilanders and were allowed to rejig the weightings of the electorates to reflect the fact that while there might be more non Afrikaner white males in the Transvaal, the Afrikaners should have an appropriate influence based on the size of their total community, not just the white male franchise. Which allowed them to continue to dominate the Transvaal and set a precedent for gerrymandering of all sorts for the Union's early history which consistently favoured extremist Afrikaner politicans

3) There were a couple of key bits of legislation from 1910 (Native Lands Act) through to the late 1930s which set the scene for the post war Apartheid programme, which if they didn't occur would have made it harder for a ratchet like effect to take hold.

4) The National Party not winning the 1948 Election. I have no idea what POD you would need for this, but assume you could find one and the United Party under Smuts/etc stays in power till the early 1950s at least, you would have a South Africa that was firmly internationalist in principle. So you would probably see S Africa committing militarily to the Korean War, the Malaysian Emergency, etc. It wouldn't be so isolated internationally early on and it wouldnot pass a deliberately antigonistic legislative programme (while still probably not rocking the boat on keeping Whites dominant).

If that occurs then you have a much greater chance that SA would evolve to something nicer by the end of the 50s-60s
 
4) The National Party not winning the 1948 Election. I have no idea what POD you would need for this, but assume you could find one and the United Party under Smuts/etc stays in power till the early 1950s at least, you would have a South Africa that was firmly internationalist in principle. So you would probably see S Africa committing militarily to the Korean War, the Malaysian Emergency, etc. It wouldn't be so isolated internationally early on and it wouldnot pass a deliberately antigonistic legislative programme (while still probably not rocking the boat on keeping Whites dominant).

I will respond to this interesting question in more detail presently, but one nitpick, SA was involved militarily in the Korean War, as well as assisting in the Berlin Airlift.
 
I will respond to this interesting question in more detail presently, but one nitpick, SA was involved militarily in the Korean War, as well as assisting in the Berlin Airlift.

You might be right about both of those points. I was basing the Korean war bit upon a very vague recollection which could well be wrong. But the broader point was that in my reading the National Party was a fair bit more insular compared to Smuts and the UP.
 
You might be right about both of those points. I was basing the Korean war bit upon a very vague recollection which could well be wrong. But the broader point was that in my reading the National Party was a fair bit more insular compared to Smuts and the UP.

There is no doubt that the Nats were more insular than the UP, but SA was definitely involved in the Korean War and the Berlin Airlift.

If the UP had won in 1948, SA would have had a bigger non-Afrikaner white population. There was a massive drive by Smuts and the UP to encourage immigration from Britain and the rest of Europe following World War II. However, following the election of the Nats in '48 this was no longer encouraged to such a great extent, as it was feared that the Afrikaners could become a minority amongst South African whites.
 
Interesting stuff, but how important was the War on this? IF WWII hadn't happened (mass butterflies ignored for a mo) would the SA electorate be less inclined to vote Nat?
 
I think that all you need to prevent apartheid is a larger non-Afrikaner white population in South Africa. They'd act as a counterbalance, and prevent the balance of power from being quite as screwed up as OTL.

Maybe something causes a large amount of immigration from Britain or other European countries?
 
I think that all you need to prevent apartheid is a larger non-Afrikaner white population in South Africa. They'd act as a counterbalance, and prevent the balance of power from being quite as screwed up as OTL.

Maybe something causes a large amount of immigration from Britain or other European countries?

Rhodesia's white population was mostly of British origin, and they had a form of apartheid. Even if one had to look at the American South, parallels can be drawn between it and apartheid South Africa, and majority of the people were (I presume) descended from British settlers.
 
Interesting stuff, but how important was the War on this? IF WWII hadn't happened (mass butterflies ignored for a mo) would the SA electorate be less inclined to vote Nat?

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the architects of apartheid were influenced heavily by Nazi Germany. The Afrikaners suffered badly during the great depression, and their leaders - including Malan, Verwoerd, Vorster, etc. - all saw the return to prominence of Nazi Germany as being what they wished to see the Afrikaners do. The Nazis didn't help this by saying that Afrikaners were pure Aryans but Anglo-background South Africans weren't.

Smuts was very pro-British, at a time when the Afrikaners still resented Britain. The last straw was Smuts inviting the Royal Family to visit South Africa in 1947, which the Nationalists didn't like one bloody bit. Then 1948 came around, and the NP got elected. The rest is history.

I figure the best POD here could be simply not having the Royal Family visit SA in 1947. That alone could have resulted in less animosity towards the British allies, which could keep the Nats out of power at least until 1953. Smuts plans to have plenty of immigration would have probably taken hold - Rhodesia's plan was much smaller but still sent the white population from 60,000 to 250,000 between 1945 and 1965 - and gotten a couple million more white immigrants to SA, which would diminish the strength of the National Party.

Rhodesia is somewhat trickier because Whitehall and Salisbury were not even reading the same book, let alone being on the same page. Most white Rhodesians favor Southern Rhodesia outright annexing the Northern portion, whereas Whitehall wasn't too keen on that idea. The Labour governments of post-war Britain were far more sympathetic to the rights of Africans than Salisbury ever was, before or after UDI.

Best way to minimize racism here is to slow the growth of the nationalist organizations (read: The Rhodesian ANC and National Democratic Party, which evolved into ZANU and ZAPU) and/or make the Rhodesians more considerate to the idea of black involvement in government.

The premier of Southern Rhodesia during this time, Garfield Todd, tried to grow the black vote in Southern Rhodesia. To be fair, black rights did come a ways during the time from just 60 blacks on voting rolls in 1953 to junior ministers in the government ten years later.

What Britain could have done here is allow the Rhodesians independence on the condition that they work on integrating their country. If the likes of Kenneth Kaunda and Robert Mugabe had decided to work with the white governments instead of armed struggle, it would have cut the legs out from under the Rhodesian front, which would probably prevent the Bush War.

Get both, and you have what amounts to a majority ruled state in both Rhodesia and South Africa by the mid to late 1970s at latest, probably earlier.
 
Maybe, maybe not. Most of the architects of apartheid were influenced heavily by Nazi Germany. The Afrikaners suffered badly during the great depression, and their leaders - including Malan, Verwoerd, Vorster, etc. - all saw the return to prominence of Nazi Germany as being what they wished to see the Afrikaners do. The Nazis didn't help this by saying that Afrikaners were pure Aryans but Anglo-background South Africans weren't.

You sure about that? I've never heard that. And it seems pretty strange, as I always thought that the British themselves, and other Western European people were all considered Aryan by the Nazis. It seems strange that people descended from British settlers wouldn't be counted as Aryan then.
 
On Rhodesia

Indeed, thats very interesting. I've read somewhere (lets not beat around the bush, probably Wikipedia :cool:) that Mugabe as a young teacher was close friends/associates with one of the main liberal white leaders.

Say in return for accepting Huggins' wish to see both Rhodesia's united as a unitary state (leave troublesome Nysaland out of it), Salisbury is forced to begin basic reforms to give black Africans a say in government. If SA goes with Apartheid and breaking out from the Commonwealth, might Rhodesia's 'loyal' behavoiur towards Westminster see them rewarded: Campaigns encouraging white immigration to them instead of the White Dominions?

Frankly I do wonder what a natural black-majority government/state would look like in Rhodesia. If the process of democratisation is successful and swift enough (by 1965-1970 at VERY latest) it might be quite mellow as the liberal whites would have connections with the black nationalists. However the Bush War and OTL's move to BMR saw the strange effect of whites basically being barred from politics by Mugabe while being given freedom economically (white farmers had a boom time under ZANU-PF in the 1980s), at least until he need a scapegoat and we no what happened. Would a more mellow, democratic but ultimately still black nationalist force keep white in politics as is their right but seize lots of the choice farmland for blacks in a socialist land re-distribution?
 
Indeed, thats very interesting. I've read somewhere (lets not beat around the bush, probably Wikipedia :cool:) that Mugabe as a young teacher was close friends/associates with one of the main liberal white leaders.

That is quite correct. Both Mugabe and Nkomo were both well-educated, intelligent men who tried to bring about changes democratically. It's hard to blame Ian Smith for all of the troubles of Rhodesia, but it is also largely a fact. What destroyed the CAF was the fact that the black nationalists wanted more power than the whites were willing to give. You have to find a place in between.

Say in return for accepting Huggins' wish to see both Rhodesia's united as a unitary state (leave troublesome Nysaland out of it), Salisbury is forced to begin basic reforms to give black Africans a say in government. If SA goes with Apartheid and breaking out from the Commonwealth, might Rhodesia's 'loyal' behavoiur towards Westminster see them rewarded: Campaigns encouraging white immigration to them instead of the White Dominions?

This is an interesting idea, but it has a few flaws. The biggest one is Britain's Labor Party, which for political (and some personal) reasons did not like the Rhodesians. If a united Rhodesia leads to independence for Nyasaland (which would not exactly be a big loss for the CAF) and a growth in African rights, I'm pretty sure this has effects across all of Britain's African colonies. For example, with Rhodesia liberalizing over time with regards to black rights, does this lead to the Winds of Change speech? That speech by MacMillan ended the chances of a middle way - the African whites were not wanting to give up everything to the blacks, the blacks felt that they could have it all, and the middle path died right then and there because now Whitehall was not in support of it.

Here, assuming you could get Godfrey Higgins and Roy Welensky to be more considerate to African rights (or somehow get Garfield Todd as PM) you could more easily have good-faith negotiations with Kaunda, Nkomo and Mugabe. This likely results in a similar situation as South Africa in the early 1990s, constant negotiations over who holds what power. Higgins wouldn't be easy to play ball, but Todd or Welensky would be more sympathetic. A white veto on decisions is a possibility (think Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in 1979-80), but with black rule coming over time, probably full majority rule in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

As for Britain encouraging those going to Africa to land in Rhodesia instead of South Africa, it's another interesting point. That could slow white growth in South Africa (which indirectly benefits the Afrikaners) but dramatically grow it in Rhodesia. That would probably grow the united Rhodesia's white population to maybe 500,000 in 1970. That 500,000 however will be compared to 13 million black Africans, so the numerical odds still aren't very good for white Rhodesians. However, if the democratic governments are established and able to operate peacefully, this might not be much of an issue. I could see land laws limiting the white preference for land to Southern Rhodesia and choice parts of the North, but leaving much of Northern Rhodesia for black land ownership. Combined with the (relatively) plentiful capital and expertise of Southern Rhodesia, the result probably would be a class of very successful farm owners of both colors, making Rhodesia Africa's breadbasket.

One other interesting TL is the idea of Portugal giving up its colonies in 1975, and the whites of Angola and Mozambique in large part getting the hell out of there. If Rhodesia is stable and offers the same opportunities as South Africa does, I doubt the Portuguese will take the unstable apartheid state over Rhodesia.

In fact, thinking about it, if said independence is a reality by 1957-58, Rhodesia could be in a place to take the majority of whites leaving African colonies gaining independence - Portuguese from Angola and Mozambique, Belgians from the Congo, British from Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania, French from West African and Madagascar, perhaps a few disenchanted Afrikaners......now that I think about it that way, you add up all of those plus Rhodesia's indigeneous whites, you could end up with 1.2-1.4 million of them.

Frankly I do wonder what a natural black-majority government/state would look like in Rhodesia. If the process of democratisation is successful and swift enough (by 1965-1970 at VERY latest) it might be quite mellow as the liberal whites would have connections with the black nationalists. However the Bush War and OTL's move to BMR saw the strange effect of whites basically being barred from politics by Mugabe while being given freedom economically (white farmers had a boom time under ZANU-PF in the 1980s), at least until he need a scapegoat and we no what happened. Would a more mellow, democratic but ultimately still black nationalist force keep white in politics as is their right but seize lots of the choice farmland for blacks in a socialist land re-distribution?

Read above. Much of Northern Rhodesia was grasslands not farmed or used by most. I can see a condition of the 1950s negotiations being much of Northern Rhodesia being declared as being for black purchase, and allowing much of the tribal trust lands in Southern Rhodesia being parceled up and sold off, or perhaps the land and education is given to black farmers so that they can be successful agribusinessmen. The possibilities abound.

The ones left behind in this scenario are the white conservatives, which is sort of a problem as they radicalized rather rapidly in the early 1960s. I can see the likes of Kaunda and Mugabe allowing for white priviledge to be slowly whittled away over time, so as to not cause a mass uproar.
 
Very interesting stuff, particularly the idea of white colonists moving to middle-way Rhodesia as the European powers move out of the continent in general: it would certainly be a very odd mix.

North Rhodesia's wide, untapped resources do seem something of a magic solution to the black population getting a fair share in the economy.

In terms of British opposition, your right the Labour Party wasn't all too keen on the Rhodesians, well at least Huggins. However reading up on the CAF talks it seems the civil servant in charge of the talks, a left-leaning Jewish gentlemen who had been 'impressed' enough by the Holocaust to be viruently opposed to anything but total equality, and in CAF this meant black majority rule. As such it seems Federation was as much a way of protecting white South Rhodesians in their territory in the long run as it was avoiding their domination in the short run.
 
Guys

Some interesting ideas here. A few points and suggestions of my own.

a) Given the state of much of Europe during the late 40's and early 50's along with concerns about Soviet attack I could see S Africa attracting some settlement from the continent and also possibly it proving more attractive to British emigrants who otherwise went to Australia. Coupled with gradual widening of the franchise that should keep the hard-liners marginalised.

b) I think that the seats in the S African system at the time was biased towards the agricultural region. [Which had earlier been favourable to Smut but proved decisive when the Union party won more votes in 1948 but the Nationalists won more seats]. Possibly this could be modified earlier, although such a move is likely to antagonise the hard liners.

c) Not sure that the idea of whites from other European colonies moving to Rhodesia is a good one if you want a peaceful and steady development in the country. It increases the white minority enough that they might be tempted to try and maintain power by force and might well include a fair number of people who resent the loss of their former homes and lifestyles which could mean they would be hostile to racial equality in Rhodesia.

Steve
 
The other possibility in all this is if the South African government after WW1 encourages more of the hardliners to move to South-West Africa/Namibia with the tacit understanding that they can be as anti-British as they like - providing that they stick to their new country. The racial demographics would be on a ratio of about 1:1 so there wouldn't be (at least from the perspective of the hardliners) too many problems for them to maintain their own form of government though naturally the black population will resent the lack of representation will lead to friction/conflict.

With a larger white population in the territory and less of a need of a South African mandatory role, the global community is more likely to 'accept' (and I say that loosely) the status quo in South-West Africa; there isn't a white minority governing a black majority.

How this would affect the development of South Africa itself I can't say - anyone want to speculate?
 
If Smuts and the UP had come to an agreement on an electoral alignment with N.C. Havenga's Afrikaner Party in 1948, the NP wouldn't have had the absolute majority they used to begin the apartheid era.
The UP (65) and AP (9) with the support of the Labour Party (6) would've had 80 seats to the Nat's 70. The 3 independents were Native Representatives who wouldn't have voted with the Nats.
The seat results might've been different, but the AP probably could've pulled a fair number of votes away from the NP.
A victory by Smuts and his allies would've meant that SA would continue receiving immigrants (including many veterans) from the UK. War vets (The Torch Commando, Sailor Malan) were, along with the Black Sash, among the most active opponents of removing Coloured males from the voting rolls. So, that constituency would've at least been strengthened should the Nats win later and present a similar program.
There also likely would've been no SA Citizens Act, so these recent immigrants would've been able to vote after only two years residency.
Havenga was probably more inclined towards the Nats, but he was a party leader and if presented with a better deal might've gone with Smuts. He wasn't in lock-step with the Nats. He later voiced opposition (from retirement having lost out in a leadership struggle) to the constitutional jerry-rigging used by the Nats to push the Seperate Representation of Voters Act.
 
I say start with proportional representation of some kind. It was only because of the electoral system that the Nats took over in the manner they did in SA, and the system similarly led the RF to dominance in Rhodesia.

In Rhodesia you could have the anti-RF parties making more of a direct pitch to those blacks who had the vote in 1962, as their rock-bottom turnout essentially doomed the country to RF control. I like to imagine the Rhodesian Labour Party ressurecting its fortunes on an appeal to Black support, but that is mostly fanciful.

I also think the small size of the white population Rhodesia contributed to their radicalization under the RF. If we can do something about Rhodesia's amazingly high emigration rates (which everyone seems want to forget) you might add some 200,000 people to the white population, perhaps promoting more political and social complexity, or at the very least making it clearer to the black nationalists that the whites could not be so easily subdued. If nothing else I think that might help in the post 1980 environment. 400,000+ Whites would be form a far more self-sustaining community, and one far less likely to scramble to the British embassy with their grandfather's marriage certificates, than the 200,000+ of our timeline.
 
Do you think some kind of WWI-era POD, for instance a different end to WWI (not necessarily German victory, perhaps no American intervention which drags outs the time til Allied victory to '19 or '20)- something that causes a bloodier Ireland and knock-on domestic problems in Britain, which in turn causes greater emigration to Africa? With a larger British population during the inter-war period, that could create enough ripples to keep the National Party out of power?
 
Top