How long could Rhodesia have held out?

[Seandineen]

Would need a less pragmatic, more extremist leadership than the apartheid state had in the 70s. Vorster in particular wanted peace in Rhodesia, with the option of a moderate black led government , more than trying to sustain a white state that was effectively radicalising the black opposition to it and risking a Frelimo lookalike on the Limpopo border.

Vorster would have intervened if something extreme happened eg ZANLA capturing FT Victoria, but he'd prefer peaceful coexistence that didn't threaten his state

I'm going to play contrarian. If The United Party were in power, No Bantustans, but certainly power in White colored hands only. they would be more welcoming to Rhodesia. The Afrikaners run things at all costs idea wouldn't be there, and the Most manageable non white group, the colored would be coopted as in Sailsbury.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

After the Carnation Revolution, have Ian Smith offer the hundreds of thousands of white Portuguese citizens in Mozambique and Angola 10acres of land, some cows, and guns if they move to the border regions of Rhodesia, agree to learn English, and participate in military service.

Even if you only get 30-40k Portuguese colonists to agree, it still helps.

Also, did otl Rhodesia allow women to serve?

The same Rhodesia that refused to accept European refugees and working class and lower middle class British migrants after WWII?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The same Rhodesia that refused to accept European refugees and working class and lower middle class British migrants after WWII?

Is it really the same Rhodesia though? 1975 Rhodesia is in a lot more dire straits than 1945 Rhodesia.

 

[Warthog]

However, the British might not have wanted grant that

Correct.

 

[Warthog]

I'm going to play contrarian. If The United Party were in power, No Bantustans, but certainly power in White colored hands only. they would be more welcoming to Rhodesia. The Afrikaners run things at all costs idea wouldn't be there, and the Most manageable non white group, the colored would be coopted as in Sailsbury.

Interesting

A UP run South Africa would potentially have moderated Rhodesia even in the 60s

 

[Seandineen]

Under colonialism, there was usually one favoured African group, The Zulu in South Africa, The Ndebele in Rhodesia, the Yoruba in Nigeria, the ideal is to expand the role of the westernized Africans earlier.

 

[marktaha]

I'm thinking the only way it could have held is a POD in mid 50s. 1-allow whatever eastern Europeans that want to immigrate 2- form a House of Lords type assembly for tribal elders,big ranchers, farmers, industrialists. 3- give land owning natives and military/police vets the franchise. UK and US in 70s would have a hard time criticizing Rhodesia then, in 80s you get breathing room with Reagan/Thatcher. Saying all that I don't think Smith and UDI were smooth enough politically to pull it off, plus they didn't want to share power or even want a white working class, they liked the way Rhodesia worked in post WW 2 til mid 60s. If you don't give people dignity they've no real reason to support your system.

There was a Rhodesian Senate.

 

[Seandineen]

One group we have not yet covered is the Shagan. They seemed to be less disciplined than the Ndebele yet more urbanized than the Shona, could this play a factor?

 

[htgriffin]

One group we have not yet covered is the Shagan. They seemed to be less disciplined than the Ndebele yet more urbanized than the Shona, could this play a factor?

Do they have any reason whatsoever to support the government in Salisbury? If not, would said government be willing to change this and able to do so in a manner that would not scream "Divide & Rule"?

 

[Warthog]

One group we have not yet covered is the Shagan. They seemed to be less disciplined than the Ndebele yet more urbanized than the Shona, could this play a factor?

If you mean Shangaan (Shangani in Zim, Tsonga in South Africa), the population is under 10,000, in mainly 3 remote districts in the SE

Do they have any reason whatsoever to support the government in Salisbury? If not, would said government be willing to change this and able to do so in a manner that would not scream "Divide & Rule"?

Does seem unlikely

 

[Seandineen]

The only reason I brought it up, is two leaders are quoted from that group, as being advocates of the 1971 settlement with the pierce commission. It seems like Desmond Burke and his native affairs crowd might promote the "civilized" Africans as being in favor of this idea

 

[Warthog]

The only reason I brought it up, is two leaders are quoted from that group, as being advocates of the 1971 settlement with the pierce commission. It seems like Desmond Burke and his native affairs crowd might promote the "civilized" Africans as being in favor of this idea

Who were these two?

Pedantry: Pearce Commission

 

[Seandineen]

Lawerence Casadha, And Samuel Mephale,

 

[htgriffin]

The only reason I brought it up, is two leaders are quoted from that group, as being advocates of the 1971 settlement with the pierce commission. It seems like Desmond Burke and his native affairs crowd might promote the "civilized" Africans as being in favor of this idea

Of course, again, attempting to declare one of the smaller ethic groups in the country Honorary Provisional White People would not do anything to solve the problems of the Salisbury Government.

 

[Seandineen]

I agree that it is no absolute solution. I must confess, many opportunities to work with African leaders who valued democracy and mutual good will, were lost by the white government. I don't believe white supremacy with a smile, or Shona domination were the only alternatives.

 

[RuneGloves]

Shona domination were the only alternatives.

Well they are the majority, part of what "majority rule" meant, wasn't just pan-african unity, but actual ethnic majority, which means domination. When a group has demographic advantage, they are going to use that for their benefit. The only way you avoid that, is by dividing everyone, use class, religion, region, and ethnic minorities to curtail the leading group's power. Which undermines the whole point of "majority rule".

 

[htgriffin]

Well they are the majority, part of what "majority rule" meant, wasn't just pan-african unity, but actual ethnic majority, which means domination. When a group has demographic advantage, they are going to use that for their benefit. The only way you avoid that, is by dividing everyone, use class, religion, region, and ethnic minorities to curtail the leading group's power. Which undermines the whole point of "majority rule".

I am presuming, or at least hoping, that @Seandineen is speaking in terms of non-Mashona getting the same protection of and from the law as the majority... rather than things like the Gukurahundi.

Rule of Law in general rather than an Authoritarian Strongman regime degenerating into outright kleptocracy would be a plus as well.

 

[RuneGloves]

I am presuming, or at least hoping, that @Seandineen is speaking in terms of non-Mashona getting the same protection of and from the law as the majority... rather than things like the Gukurahundi.

Rule of Law in general rather than an Authoritarian Strongman regime degenerating into outright kleptocracy would be a plus as well.

Even without authoritarian regime or genocides, it's still gonna be Shona dominantion, because they are the majority. Similar to how people positively talk about "Maoridom", which is a form of ethnic domination.

 

[Seandineen]

I am presuming, or at least hoping, that @Seandineen is speaking in terms of non-Mashona getting the same protection of and from the law as the majority... rather than things like the Gukurahundi.

Rule of Law in general rather than an Authoritarian Strongman regime degenerating into outright kleptocracy would be a plus as well.

Yes, an equitble, progressive rule of law, society, rather than the replacement of the white baas, with a warlord

 

[Warthog]

Well they are the majority, part of what "majority rule" meant, wasn't just pan-african unity, but actual ethnic majority, which means domination

equitble, progressive rule of law, society, rather than the replacement of the white baas, with a warlord

As many have pointed out, majority rule tends to result in the political process being dominated by the largest ethnic group, especially when they make up well over half the population. So Shona domination or Zimbabwe isn't much more meaningful than ethnic French domination of French politics...
Also, while there's enough atrocities committed by Mugabe to keep a world court prosecutor busy for many years, and outright election rigging in many of the more recent votes, it's an oversimplification to refer to the independence transition as from white baas to black warlord. The independence election, and at the least the two after, were internationally recognised. You can read eg Commonwealth Observer Mission reports if you want.

But all this is wandering rather off topic