apartheid surviving through to today?

I can imagine South Africa, if it becomes basically like North Korea, encouraging immigration from racist whites to come and move to South Africa. :(

Easier said than done. Sanctions really did kill apartheid, as it started wrecking the country's financial and economic situation. North Korea is destitute, and white South Africans would toss the racists in Pretoria a very long way before then.
 
^ Well, as for the obvious POD, if Smuts is still alive when the Korean War breaks out, South Africa would have probably dispatched greater numbers of troops to Korea, instead of just air force units as IOTL. That could go either way - Smuts gets another big victory against communists and uses that as a hammer to beat the NP into a loss in 1953, or its being involved in another of "England's Wars" and costs him. Would the NP still be wanting to enforce its agenda in 1953? Absolutely. Could they? Probably. It's also worth noting that the NP was run by Malan in 1953, he wasn't there for long afterwards, and both him and Smuts gone (likely by the mid 50s) changes much of the political climate.


Well you could well be right, I just think that there is a lot of potential for large butterflies in that period, given how much was going on.

It is possible the NP could fragment or change leadership too, with another 4-5 years in opposition. What is their priority in 48, when the War is still fresh in their memories (and internment for some!) may be quite different in 53 after a prolonged post war boom, substantial immigration, the Korean War, the start of the Mau Mau rebellion, decolonisation pressures to the North, the Cold War, fall of ROC etc

Also, I imagine that post War European immigration would increase a fair bit if the NP is not in charge, so that could also change electoral demographics and/or priorities of the ATL NP
 
^ Well, as for the obvious POD, if Smuts is still alive when the Korean War breaks out, South Africa would have probably dispatched greater numbers of troops to Korea, instead of just air force units as IOTL. That could go either way - Smuts gets another big victory against communists and uses that as a hammer to beat the NP into a loss in 1953, or its being involved in another of "England's Wars" and costs him. Would the NP still be wanting to enforce its agenda in 1953? Absolutely. Could they? Probably. It's also worth noting that the NP was run by Malan in 1953, he wasn't there for long afterwards, and both him and Smuts gone (likely by the mid 50s) changes much of the political climate.

The Nats had already won in 1948, so that wouldn't have made a difference. Smuts also died after the outbreak of the Korean conflict. The war started in June 1950, he died in September.

However, having him stay alive till the election of 1953 (which was also extraordinarily close) may result in a swing back to the UP, which may mean that that party regains power in '53.
 
I'm not really a fan of geological PODs, but yes, I guess if SA was blessed with another valuable/strategic mineral like oil, then they could well have lasted a fair bit longer. Plenty of other nasty regimes have done similar tricks

The problem for SA though is that it is has a lot of special characteristics that make it unlikely to be ignored. Being part of the Commonwealth (e.g. Australia, NZ and Canada all sent troops to the 1899-02 war), its participation in the big wars, the English speaking White minority, the high profile politicians like Smuts (during both Wars), cultural and sporting links etc being examples of that. It isn’t a Nicaragua or Central African Republic so other countries or interests are going to interfere or take an interest regardless of what it does.

Here is a non exhaustive list of PODS that I've raised or seen suggested in previous threads:
1) Major global PODs – say no WW1, 2 or Great Depression (usual suspects)

2) Major local PODs – no 2nd South African War (or a different one – say, earlier, later, faster, slower, no concentration camps etc), no Jameson’s Raid, no re-election of Kruger, Britain convincing Portugal to sell or lease lower Mozambique before 1899 etc, no WW1 Afrikaner rebellion

3) Lesser pre Apartheid PODs – Different post War settlement leading to a different Union? There are all sorts of things like minor changes to electoral rules in the occupied Republics or the Colonies that could make a huge difference. Say for example the British (how I do not know) force the other three constituent members of the prospective Union to adopt the Cape Franchise or something more liberal. Or in a less radical change Britain not allowing the Afrikaner population quite such a generous allocation of MPs post peace/during the Union (Smuts & co managed to get a concession allowing the number of electorates to reflect total Afrikaner population as opposed to actual voter numbers (noting that women and some poorer or uneducated types had less or no voting rights, even if white), which would have given non Afrikaner white males a stronger or dominant position in the early, pre Suffrage Union). Or say no cutting back of the Cape Franchise in the 1930s (again not sure how)

4) The obvious – NP not winning the 1948 election – if they managed to stay out of office for even one term that could introduce sufficient butterflies as IIRC the next election was 1953. By that time a lot of things had changed – all traces of post War austerity would have long gone, the Korean War would have occurred (and Smuts would have got involved if he stayed PM and did not die), Eisenhower was President, Britain had started getting a lot of pressure to decolonise in Africa (noting India/S Asia’s earlier decolonisation in 1948-onwards) – see Gold Coast especially, or Kenya (Mau Mau rebellion started in 52 IIRC). Would a victorious 1953 NP still want to, or be able to implement their hugely ambitious OTL legislative programme?

I think I've mentioned this previously, but there was an article by the well known South African historian, Arthur Keppel-Jones, regarding the possibility of the Orange Free State being more in the Cape sphere of influence, rather than that of the Transvaal.

I can't remember the exact details but he speculated that if British imperialism in the 1850s hadn't been so aggressive, the Orange Free State may have tended towards siding with the more liberal and British Cape Colony, rather than with the more insular Transvalers. He speculated that a loose federation would have formed between the Cape, Colony, natal, and the Orange Free State, with the Cape being by far the dominant member. This owuld have resulted in the relatively liberal ideas of the Cape spreading to Natal and the Free State, without the influence of the Transvaal to dilute them. This may have resulted in a qualified franchise in Natal and the OFS, with the Transvaal being on the periphery.

The discovery of the Witwatersrand gold fields would change the geopolitical dynamics obviously, making the 1880s even more interesting perhaps.
 
You probably have - this thread being the latest in a regular stream of such musings!

On the topic of earlier PODs like yours, how about a different Griqualand West settlement? I'm not quite sure where one would start - but maybe one could be where GW remains an independent Crown Colony under British protection, rather than be absorbed into the Cape Proper.

This may not change too many things, but it would throw another recognised Colony into the mix, in a very strategic area.

An earlier POD, before the foundation of the ORC/GLW/TFS could be interesting as well - where we end up with more loyalist Crown Colonies
 
As others noted... if Apartheid had had a consistently violent insurgency to wage war against, they could maintain a "state of emergency" stance versus changing the system (and, of course, not wanting to give into terrorism) and maybe they'd have an interest in staging the occasional atrocity to unite their consituents behind the regime.


On a fairly related note...


People have to notice that when South Africa invaded Angola, Cuba intervened, and hey presto, by some coincidence, South Africa was no longer in Angola.

There's a connection there. :rolleyes:

Cuban intervention thwarted South African military intervention in Angola, not once, but twice.

Given another twenty years, I'd gladly give odds that South Africa would follow tradition and invade Angola again.

And, Castro, with his rather "internationalist" stance to supporting "the revolution," would have shepherded another large Cuban intervention.

Did the Cubans receive Soviet weapons after they moved to intervene? Yes, and, do note that it was Cuban boots on the ground, late-model Soviet weapons or not.

I find it shameful that the United States was aligned no (must face it) allied with the Apartheid regime in its attempt to stake out a "buffer" zone against the rest of Africa. Americans can claim the motive was anti-communist, sure, but on South Africa's part, it was all about preserving their system of government.

To my knowledge, Cuba is the only country that can claim to have sent military force to fight against the apartheid regime. Maybe this makes Castro's Cuba look very noble, and maybe it just highlights how much a lot of world politics is a filthy nasty dirty vile affair. (As if a couple A-10 Warthogs wouldn't have saved lives in Rwanda, for example, but I digress.)

I agree with an earlier notation that the continuation of the cold war would likely have allowed South Africa more room to wriggle by.

I wonder if Castro would have outlived Apartheid in the above-noted scenario(s)?
 
in my opinion, it ws a question of mindset.

1976 - Soweto burning - got everybody to sit up.

1984 - state of emergency: Middleclass was tired of it all and just wished it to go away. That was the watershed year (IMHO). Nobody believed it could carry on at all and it was now just a matter of how, not if or when.

If PW Botha had tried to get into anything less than dismantling (despite the Rubicon speech), the white middleclass and the white liberals would have stopped him.

The AWB "bitter-enders" didn't count really.

On the efficiency of SADF: Don't put too much into it. It was excellent in terms of invading other African countries, but it was after all, only some 48,000 people in total.

I did a bit of research on my little thread: Nuclear war in Southern Africa 1986. Squint at it at your leisure.

Ivan
 
in my opinion, it ws a question of mindset.

1976 - Soweto burning - got everybody to sit up.

1984 - state of emergency: Middleclass was tired of it all and just wished it to go away. That was the watershed year (IMHO). Nobody believed it could carry on at all and it was now just a matter of how, not if or when.

If PW Botha had tried to get into anything less than dismantling (despite the Rubicon speech), the white middleclass and the white liberals would have stopped him.

The AWB "bitter-enders" didn't count really.

On the efficiency of SADF: Don't put too much into it. It was excellent in terms of invading other African countries, but it was after all, only some 48,000 people in total.

I did a bit of research on my little thread: Nuclear war in Southern Africa 1986. Squint at it at your leisure.

Ivan


I have this urge to rewrite the disco anthem "I survived" to "I subscribed," but I'm holding back.

but, yes, I subscribed.
 
so if Apartheid is still around today:

Mandela is too old to be leader of the movement against Apartheid, and dies in prison in a few years.

There may be a revolt, people in SA seeing what happened in the middle east form a resistance. Which may be helped by Mugabe's Zimbabwe (possibly) the revolution may or may not succeed and if ti does the chances for democracy are low. Many whites will die, and many more will flee the country.
 
As someone else has pointed out it would have relied on a continuation of the cold war with the United States continuing to prop up the regime but other factors such as a growth of sanctions from oil producing countries would have taken their toll.

One factor in the states of emergencies was the growth of Cosatu, the trade unions had the capability of making the country ungovernable without armed struggle. Any survival would have relied on brute force and locking up the non violent leaders i.e Archbishop Tutu. As armed rebellion seemed more imminent the banks would have put a break on investments.

The bulk of the white Afrikaaners included would have been unlikely to have wanted a last ditch Masada like stand in their Kraal and some of the poorest white actually voted ANC as they were the first people to listen to them. As it was they didn't do all that badly out of it De Klerk got them a reasnoble deal (although some Afrikaaners feel hard done by) and there is hope out there and the most powerful trade union movement in Africa offers a means of improving living standards in a sustainable manner and a more effective form of opposition than the official opposition parties.
 
Andrew: Yes, I think we all overlooked Cosatu a bit.

I still can't see SA carrying on with apartheid much longer than what they did insofar as the coffers were empty and the entire country had a "feel" of run-down and badly maintained towards the end.

Ivan
 
South Africa is as fucked up as the Congo or Zimbabwe. With the vast bulk of the country in the hands of varying rebel forces with only a white enclave constituting/answering too the ‘’central government’’. There no way Apartheid can last without genocidal brutality on the part of the white supremacist regime.

I think you are overestimating the fighting capability of the south african blacks...
 

Clipper747

Banned
The "classic" SADF may have been small in comparison to it's rivals but the punch it could deliver far outweighed that handicap.

For the SADF it was clearly "bigger doesn't mean better". It was a fighting force that did the most with what it had.

Today sadly the SA Armed forces are bloated, a shadow of their former glory and currently on par with other "developed" African nations.
 
Top