Large European immigration to Rhodesia.

WI from 1900 to end of WW2 the European migration to Rhodesia was 20 times larger than otl?
Where would they come from?

I've always wondered how successful a settler colony in Africa outside of South Africa could be, drawing away colonists from Latin America and/or the United States. Personally, I think that if you got harsher American immigration laws earlier, coupled with more instability in Latin America (perhaps a more repressive, imperialistic United States which could solve both points), you *might* be able to get more people to consider South Africa but its not going to be more desirable place in terms of climate and native population.
 
Where would they come from?

I've always wondered how successful a settler colony in Africa outside of South Africa could be, drawing away colonists from Latin America and/or the United States. Personally, I think that if you got harsher American immigration laws earlier, coupled with more instability in Latin America (perhaps a more repressive, imperialistic United States which could solve both points), you *might* be able to get more people to consider South Africa but its not going to be more desirable place in terms of climate and native population.

It's worth noting that 95% of applicants to move to Rhodesia in 1948 were turned down.

There were strict quotas.

Firstly they didn't really want non british whites. Lots of Italian and Poles were refused permission to move there (and in the 1930s repeated attempts to settle European jews there were pushed back) and the post ww2 quotas explicitly said that of the 10,800 whites they would admit they would only accept a maximum of 720 non british subjects, 960 british subjects from outside the UK and South Africa and 4,560 each from South Africa and the UK.

The Rhodesian government's policy was that they did not want to "alter the social structure and weaken the British character of the country"

Secondly, they didn't want poor whites. In 1916 the figure of minimum capital for a settler was £1,000. And by 1948 any prospective settler needed to possess at least £1,500 in capital or have a regular income of not less than £500 per year.

The Rhodesian government's policy was that they had "no use for white peasants". They saw any Europeans who fell below the upper middle-class level as damaging to white supremacy.

Rhodesia repeatedly turned down offers for white immigrants during the 1930s when large amounts of Czechs and Hungarians were ready to move there. The problem is not on getting people who want to move, it's getting the Rhodesians to accept them.
 
but its not going to be more desirable place in terms of climate and native population.
Actually the Zimbabwe plateau has a humid subtropic / hot Mediterranean summer climate, like Italy, also despite having little immigration it quickly became the bread basket of africa, and combine that with the cheap price of land people could easily have become rich from the settling there, but as you say America, South Africa and Latin American countries were more popular.
 
So how would the colony look like if they weren't so strict about their immigration laws.

I'm trying to find the exact figures of how many European immigrants they were.

I found this "Between 1921-1961 Southern Rhodesia took in 248,150 white immigrants, during the same period 152,100 white people emigrated, meaning net migration was only 96,050".

But a) 1921-1961 is not the same as 1900-1945 and immigration probably was much larger in 1945-1961 than it would be from 1900-1921 and b) white does not equal European, a lot of those white immigrants would be Boers from South Africa.

But ok lets use that 248,150 figure as a ball point. And assume white emigration remains high as well.

20 times that would be about 5 million people arriving over 45 years. So about 110,000 a year albeit with 60,000 a year emigrating.

That's a lot.

The African population of Rhodesia in 1901 was only 500,000 and even by 1951 it was only 2,170,000 (and 45% of those Africans were immigrants from elsewhere in Africa e.g Nyassaland).

The lifestyle of the Southern Rhodesians relied on blacks outnumbering whites, that's how you got house servants and farm workers. Without that, the system is different. The economy is different (it would have to provide consumer goods and diverse away from tobacco farming for instance).

It would be a very different country and I don't see why anyone in charge would want that.
 
I'm trying to find the exact figures of how many European immigrants they were.

I found this "Between 1921-1961 Southern Rhodesia took in 248,150 white immigrants, during the same period 152,100 white people emigrated, meaning net migration was only 96,050".

But a) 1921-1961 is not the same as 1900-1945 and immigration probably was much larger in 1945-1961 than it would be from 1900-1921 and b) white does not equal European, a lot of those white immigrants would be Boers from South Africa.

But ok lets use that 248,150 figure as a ball point. And assume white emigration remains high as well.

20 times that would be about 5 million people arriving over 45 years. So about 110,000 a year albeit with 60,000 a year emigrating.

That's a lot.

The African population of Rhodesia in 1901 was only 500,000 and even by 1951 it was only 2,170,000 (and 45% of those Africans were immigrants from elsewhere in Africa e.g Nyassaland).

The lifestyle of the Southern Rhodesians relied on blacks outnumbering whites, that's how you got house servants and farm workers. Without that, the system is different. The economy is different (it would have to provide consumer goods and diverse away from tobacco farming for instance).

It would be a very different country and I don't see why anyone in charge would want that.
Interesting so a african country with a white majority. If the large European immigration occurs that may stop the immigration of africans from the surrounding states.

Also a Rhodesia that's economically diverse could have knock on effects of South Africa, since it would be a potential market for it's goods.
 
Also a Rhodesia that's economically diverse could have knock on effects of South Africa, since it would be a potential market for it's goods.

True, the flip side being that South Africa as a more developed economy would suck away whites who are failing in Rhodesia, as indeed it still does now.

The other thing is a Rhodesia which had that amount of white immigrants would be a Rhodesia that isn't as racist.

Because OTL Rhodesia had a white aristocracy and disenfranchised black workers. Which is why it restricted white immigration but bused in loads of Malawians to do farm work. In this TTL, you'd have poor whites doing the farm work. So the structure could not be a racist one, you couldn't use white supremacy as your justification.

It'd have to be a classist one instead (which is one of the reasons why I don't think the Rhodesian upper class would want this to happen, beyond the fact that the Africans are closer, racism is a very useful tool for creating an underclass, white immigrants would be more likely to cause trouble and more likely to have backers in Europe willing to support them in doing so).

You might also want to look up the Redlegs of Barbados for an obvious example of what a poor white under class in a settler colony with a black work force looks like. It's not great for them.
 
Rhodesia did loosen immigration restrictions after UDI, but the uncertainty regarding the country's future kept immigration low, particularly after 1975. Despite that the country did experience a net gain of white immigrants between 1969 and 1975, numbering around 50,000 IIRC. Regarding "poor whites" there were some Greeks and Portuguese whom were mostly engaged in small commerce and were looked down upon by Anglo-Rhodesians.

Angola had some poor whites, as the Portuguese government loosened immigration restrictions in 1961. The French documentary below from 1973 shows the musseques or shantytowns and informal settlements which home to 34% of Luanda's population by 1970, and were mostly black, but were home to a few thousand poorer whites and many Cape Verdean immigrants. In contrast the freguesia (paris), central Luanda bordering the habour the population was 70% white and less than 23% black, reflecting the economic stratification of the city. The video shows the musseques at 3:19 and a white woman living in that area.

 
Top