Invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia 1976

Could the Frontline states and other socialist states in Africa along with Cuba launch an invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976

Would this inspire a black uprising in South Africa and Rhodesia

Would this invasion be successful in overthrowing Rhodesia and/or ending the Apartheid government
 
Could the Frontline states and other socialist states in Africa along with Cuba launch an invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976

Would this inspire a black uprising in South Africa and Rhodesia

Would this invasion be successful in overthrowing Rhodesia and/or ending the Apartheid government
Angola and Mozambique were in their own civil wars at this point so they probably can't do much barring two earlier PoDs. Zambia also has pretty significant economic problems at this time as well, and to begin with it was never interested in doing anything more than housing rebel forces.

By the end stage of the Bush War battles were increasingly starting the resemble conventional operations, and the Rhodesians were still winning, so I'm not sure "Storming the Heavens" 5 years ahead of schedule would have yielded desirable results.
 
Could the Frontline states and other socialist states in Africa along with Cuba launch an invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976

Would this inspire a black uprising in South Africa and Rhodesia

Would this invasion be successful in overthrowing Rhodesia and/or ending the Apartheid government

Probably have had about as much success as the Arab states had vis a vis Israel.
 
Could the Frontline states and other socialist states in Africa along with Cuba launch an invasion of South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976

Would this inspire a black uprising in South Africa and Rhodesia

Would this invasion be successful in overthrowing Rhodesia and/or ending the Apartheid government

It would probably create some sympathy for SA and Rhodesia, if they are not the aggressors.

My military history isn't good, but not sure any of the frontline states could challenge SA and Rhodesia in a conventional war.
 
It would probably create some sympathy for SA and Rhodesia, if they are not the aggressors.
Most western political establishments would initially begrudgingly accept that they could defend themselves, but once they'd start to push back invasion they'd start screaming about every collateral casualty, and demand they retreat to their own territory.
Kinda like when PLO bombs Israel, world gets angry that when Israel bombed them back, they used more bombs, or more accurate bombs.

My military history isn't good, but not sure any of the frontline states could challenge SA and Rhodesia in a conventional war.
None of them could. It'd be like Israel-Arab conflict. Arabs attack Israel, Israel pushes them back, and does so good job doing so it's labelled aggressor. After international pressure Israel retreats, gives back most captured territory, then is condemned for not giving back all of it and more.
 
None of the frontline states had significant industry, so almost everything had to come from somewhere else. If the fighting went on long enough to require resupply, then things could get ugly when Rhodesia/South Africa intercept ships or aircraft bringing supplies in, which they can do. Even if the ships/planes carry non-Soviet/WP markings/flags what happens if an aircraft refuses to divert and is shot down, or a ship refuses to stop to be boarded and gets sunk. Of course if they are openly Soviet/WP it is rally ugly. Likewise any high performance aircraft the frontline states may use are likely to be flown by Soviet/WP "volunteers". If shot down and captured, I am sure Rhodesia/SA would put them on display quickly to make this in to us versus Soviet communists affair.

While the reasons for it may be understandable, to the extent frontline forces penetrate even briefly in to Rhodesia/SA, plus any guerilla forces, there are going to be some very ugly incidents (the Mau-Mau in Kenya). This combined with the Soviet involvement may give Rhodesia/SA a bit more slack internationally.

In any case, a stand-up military confrontation will go very badly for the frontline states.
 
Angola and Mozambique were in their own civil wars at this point so they probably can't do much barring two earlier PoDs. Zambia also has pretty significant economic problems at this time as well, and to begin with it was never interested in doing anything more than housing rebel forces.
Wasn't UNITA located exclusively in the south at this point, could they launch an attack and push into South Africa ? The Mozambique civil war started the following year .

Zambia also has pretty significant economic problems at this time as well,
War is a good way to distract the population
 
Rhodesia/South Africa intercept ships or aircraft bringing supplies in, which they can do. Even if the ships/planes carry non-Soviet/WP markings/flags what happens if an aircraft refuses to divert and is shot down, or a ship refuses to stop to be boarded and gets sunk.
Could South African ships or planes even cover the whole coastline of both Angola and Mozambique ?
 
Wasn't UNITA located exclusively in the south at this point, could they launch an attack and push into South Africa ? The Mozambique civil war started the following year .

Could UNITA push into SA? They would be an SA ally.
 
The ability of SA to completely interdict those coastlines is incomplete, as is the ability of the SA & Rhodesian Air Forces to intercept all incoming aircraft to those countries. Having said that SA certainly had enough capacity to put incoming ships at hazard, and they did have submarines. Additionally port facilities in these countries were limited, and even limited mining operations would cause all sorts of problems as both countries have zero minesweeping capability. Hitting the airfields in these countries that can take large aircraft without rough field capabilities is doable, and these countries have limited ability to repair them rapidly.

Certainly supplies could be landed in other countries and transported by rail or road to the warring states, or transferred to rough field aircraft. No matter what, Rhodesia/SA have the capability to disrupt/slow the flow of military supplies in to the frontline states. Naturally should the USSR choose to intervene directly in ensuring supplies arrive, they can bull through, however direct blatant Soviet involvement makes the scenario bigger and much more dangerous.
 
Wasn't UNITA located exclusively in the south at this point, could they launch an attack and push into South Africa ? The Mozambique civil war started the following year .
UNITA has been allied to South Africa since 1975, and was collaborating with Portugal prior to that. Also while Mozambique's civil war only began the following year RENAMO had already been in existence since 1975, so civil war is inevitable.

I mean the MPLA pushing the UNITA into the SA and continuing from there.
That's exactly what the Border War was. It didn't really work.
 
Could South African ships or planes even cover the whole coastline of both Angola and Mozambique ?

They don't need to; they just need to cover enough/make any attempt at running the blockade risky enough and you'll reduce traffic quite a bit merely out of fear of getting blown out of the water. Blockades are just as much about the psychological impact on merchant traffic as direct damage to it.
 
The frontline states have nowhere near the level of internal unity to sustain the sort of casualties that rhodesia/SA will give them in a conventional showdown. How long the war could last comes down to the fact that south africa and rhodesian militaries would potentially fight to the end while the frontline states could simply overthrow their government and sue for peace at any time.
 
The frontline states have nowhere near the level of internal unity to sustain the sort of casualties that rhodesia/SA will give them in a conventional showdown. How long the war could last comes down to the fact that south africa and rhodesian militaries would potentially fight to the end while the frontline states could simply overthrow their government and sue for peace at any time.
In such a scenario what would South Africa and Rhodesia demand during the peace negotiation? Also what would the states opposing South Africa and Rhodesia be willing to offer? Then what would be a likely peace deal?
 
In such a scenario what would South Africa and Rhodesia demand during the peace negotiation? Also what would the states opposing South Africa and Rhodesia be willing to offer? Then what would be a likely peace deal?

Rhodesia and south africa DEFINITELY didn't desire extra land , and i doubt they would want to cripple their neighbors as they hardly presented a massive military threat in the first place. Most likely they would want trade deals and a promise to stop supporting black nationalist partisans.

This would be fairly attractive prospects for a frontline state that takes heavy HEAVY casualties trying to invade as they most likely would do.
 
Most likely they would want trade deals and a promise to stop supporting black nationalist partisans.

This would be fairly attractive prospects for a frontline state that takes heavy HEAVY casualties trying to invade as they most likely would do.
Assuming those trade deal effectively turn those states into transshipment points, allowing SA to bypass sanctions what would the long-term butterflies be?
 
Assuming those trade deal effectively turn those states into transshipment points, allowing SA to bypass sanctions what would the long-term butterflies be?

Rhodesia will get some breathing room that might make a internal settlement with moderate nationalists possible in the long term.

SA will be able to prolong apartheid for many years longer than OTL but potentially have a more violent transition when it happens
 
All of this hinges on the idea of Rhodesia being able to sustain itself; in all aspects Rhodesia was losing as the second phase of the Bush War came clear. Politically and socially Rhodesia was now at the end of its lifespan by 1976 and they couldn't win against the African nationalists. While an invasion of South Africa might not happen, and even if it did it wouldn't be in 1976, Rhodesia was already losing South African support in 1975-76 (fuel/munitions were limited, South Africa began an exit campaign, and economic assistance dried up). Their extension of conscription and service length started recruiting Africans and mercenaries to its rolls, with dissent against the conscription from reserve to active duty increasing. As well the use of CBW's showed just how desperate they were becoming at the end.

A war in 1976 would require either side to have significantly more support, and as some pointed, physical support a la Vietnam with the Soviets or the Chinese. If either ZANU or ZAPU were more armed and had greater support, Rhodesia wasn't going to win at the end of this.

I am sure Rhodesia/SA would put them on display quickly to make this in to us versus Soviet communists affair.

It already was a West v. East affair, being the largest proxy war in Africa, all it'd do is increase the intensity now that the cats out of the bag.

While the reasons for it may be understandable, to the extent frontline forces penetrate even briefly in to Rhodesia/SA, plus any guerilla forces, there are going to be some very ugly incidents (the Mau-Mau in Kenya). This combined with the Soviet involvement may give Rhodesia/SA a bit more slack internationally.

In more case, you'd see Rhodesia most likely go all out with their CBW now that their borders were breached and the conflict was now against them, and that'd create a much much larger incident. Rhodesia/SA wouldn't get a pass with the anti-Apartheid crowds now that they've gone off the deep end with the invasion. More than likely, once the CBW evidence comes up, it's going to dry up what remains of Rhodesian support.

Most likely they would want trade deals and a promise to stop supporting black nationalist partisans.

This would be fairly attractive prospects for a frontline state that takes heavy HEAVY casualties trying to invade as they most likely would do.

This would be borderline ASB, honestly. African nationalism was at an all time high and the conflict by 1976 was decisively in favour of the nationalists, and those frontline states had very little interest in ending the conflict now that Rhodesia was almost fully on the defensive. By 1977, the guerillas had become much more sophisticated and received support from Eastern advisors, and even if the average guerilla was still undertrained they were now much more prepared and much more ready,

Rhodesia will get some breathing room that might make a internal settlement with moderate nationalists possible in the long term.

It'd radicalize the conflict even further, considering one of the stipends of Ian Smith's accords in '76 was continued supremacy of whites even after the transition to majority rule. Any 'moderate' nationalists would've rejected it and demand full majority rule or there was no accord. Anyone who tried that would quickly find themselves ousted.

By the end stage of the Bush War battles were increasingly starting the resemble conventional operations, and the Rhodesians were still winning, so I'm not sure "Storming the Heavens" 5 years ahead of schedule would have yielded desirable results.

Having 12,500~ insurgents within your borders (and outpacing counter-insurgencies by Rhodesia with est. 38,000 in reserve), rounding up your citizens into virtual concentration camps for their safety, using chemical and biowarfare, seeing a population drain as well as economic turmoil and more in just two short years was the end stage of the Bush War. I fail to see how this is Rhodesia 'winning' in any honest case, they win battles but the war was done for them.

None of them could. It'd be like Israel-Arab conflict. Arabs attack Israel, Israel pushes them back, and does so good job doing so it's labelled aggressor. After international pressure Israel retreats, gives back most captured territory, then is condemned for not giving back all of it and more.

Political implications aside, this is untrue as I've shown above.

My military history isn't good, but not sure any of the frontline states could challenge SA and Rhodesia in a conventional war.

South Africa is your specialty Marius, how strong was South Africa in 1977 by your thoughts? Not just in military, in general, was there any serious unrest outside of anti-apartheid and others? Rhodesia was a no-brainer, it was over for them by 1976, but I'm not sure about South Africa.
 
Rhodesia will get some breathing room that might make a internal settlement with moderate nationalists possible in the long term.

SA will be able to prolong apartheid for many years longer than OTL but potentially have a more violent transition when it happens

I wonder if it could also lead to a lessening of Apartheid much earlier? Depending on how black South Africans respond to the invasion.
 
Top