How long could apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia last with a major foreign backer

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
With a willing backer they could last indefinitely, both had a wealth of natural resources and in South Africa’s Case a large, indigenous arms industry that was able to provide everything except fast jets and naval ships. It was the defeat of the SAAF over Angola that is credited with making leading figures in Pretoria realise that they couldn’t last out much longer. If they’re able to keep fielding modern fighters then the hardliners will continue to hold sway.

As for a civil war, it’s very easy to happen, perhaps Mandela dies in prison or is assassinated by a white extremist as Chris Hani was and everything collapses.
Depends on the backer and just how committed they are.

The USSR as run in the early 60s as a backer (but without the whole going bankrupt part)? Still be apartheid, hell, still be a Rhodesia. All it takes is the backer to be able to tell everyone else to screw themselves, and to have pretty much no need to worry about popular opinion.

Civil War in that sort of a scenario is a really scary thing. The reason popular uprising work is because they can overwhelm the group in power. If, as an example, a civil war breaks out in South Africa and major backer A is will to go all in (and considers the Geneva Conventions to be little more than a waste of ink), you can find the rebels facing carpet bombing and poison gas (as happened in Afghanistan, but there was no real Afghan government at that point, so there wasn't really much to prop up). Also, unlike Afghanistan, it would be relatively easy to figure out (although there would be exceptions on both sides) who is who.

Be down right horrible.
 
With a willing backer they could last indefinitely, both had a wealth of natural resources and in South Africa’s Case a large, indigenous arms industry that was able to provide everything except fast jets and naval ships. It was the defeat of the SAAF over Angola that is credited with making leading figures in Pretoria realise that they couldn’t last out much longer. If they’re able to keep fielding modern fighters then the hardliners will continue to hold sway.

As for a civil war, it’s very easy to happen, perhaps Mandela dies in prison or is assassinated by a white extremist as Chris Hani was and everything collapses.
Actually, the SADF was still quite capable even WITHOUT air parity, and the major threats (Angola, SWAPO, Zimbabwe) could be dissuaded by diplomacy to remain at a frosty coexistence, while UmKhonto we Sizwe, the military arm of the ANC, was a laughably inept force incapable of changing much of anything or penetrating the borders of South Africa, or even to launch a guerrilla campaign of significance.

So they could keep on going without a foreign backer.

What really changed their opinions was being cut out of the international financial market. The South African economy, basically from the discovery of deep level mining onwards, has relied on absolutely massive levels of capital inflows to sustain their economy and fund the mining and commodity extraction operations that provide wealth for them. With their bonds unacceptable to the world financial market and a cut off of capital inflows, their economy could not survive indefinitely. Worse than that, the traditionally surprisingly capable Afrikaner dominated civil service and bureaucracy, after 1985 when the writing was on the wall and they knew they were isolated, began looting and engaging in corruption, perhaps not on a scale like that of modern South Africa with the great patronage barons, but enough as to cause a structural problem.

So its easy to see them being able militarily speaking to keep on, but economically, they can deal with isolation but not isolation coupled with hostility.
 
Last edited:
If Salazar lives a long time Portugal could probably hold out under Estado Novo until the mid-1980s. Assuming Rhodesia has six years from Mozambique falling as IOTL, that could get them until after the fall of the USSR, which takes ZIPRA off the table. Doesn’t do much about ZANLA though, which China will continue to back.

So for Rhodesia, figure probably until the early 1990s, same as the RSA.
 
Wasn't the National Party opposed large scale immigration due to fears of losing Afrikaner political dominance and that immigrates would ally themselves with the English population

I think that this is something people forget that ' White South Africans' are not homogenous, there;s the 'english' saffas and the Boer / Afrikaaners at the very least.

even if you being in 'Dutch' white immigrants they are more likely to align themselves with the English and any Commonwealth or USAmerican immigrants and the 'english' existign white SA population than the afrikaaners unless you seek out those who are or on the border of being ' people like us ' to the afrikaaner ( i.e. Trumpties, (U)'kippers , Gert Wiilders' lot and outright neo-nazis)
 
Top