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?