alternatehistory.com

On the eve of World War II, the Union of South Africa found itself in a unique political and military quandary. While it was closely allied with Great Britain, being a co-equal Dominion under the 1931 Statute of Westminster with its head of state being the British king, the South African Prime Minister on 1 September 1939 was J.B.M. Hertzog – the leader of the pro-Afrikaner and anti-British National Party. The National Party had joined in a unity government with the pro-British South African Party of Jan Smuts in 1934 as the United Party.
Hertzog's problem was that South Africa was constitutionally obligated to support Great Britain against Nazi Germany. The Polish-British Common Defence Pact obligated Britain, and in turn its dominions, to help Poland if it attacked by the Nazis. When Adolf Hitler's forces attacked Poland on 1 September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany two days later. A short but furious debate unfolded in South Africa, especially in the halls of power in the Parliament of South Africa. It pitted those who sought to enter the war on Britain's side, led by Smuts, against those who wanted to keep South Africa neutral, if not pro-Axis, led by Hertzog.
What if this deliberation and hesitancy on the part of South Africa had gone on for longer than in OTL, or better yet, if Hertzog and Co. "won"? Certainly, this hesitance would be noticed in Westminster as a sign of potential disloyalty. While I don't believe that South Africa would actually join the Axis (as I understand it, neutrality was more palatable), could Britain force South Africa into the war and later enact some measure of punishment on the "disloyal" dominion later on?gl
Top