Larger Republic of South Africa?

So, I know that changing borders on modern African nations are about as rare as unicorn eggs, but I'm curious as to how plausible it would be for South Africa to maintain control over Soutwest Africa/Namibia past 1990, or annexing it outright. Mayhap something along the same lines in Rhodesia to protect fellow Afrikaaners?

Basically just wondering how much larger the Union/Republic of South Africa could conceivably expand.
 
South Africa has had expansion on its mind since its founding. See Ronald Hyam's book on the subject: 'The Failure of South African Expansion, 1908-1948.'

For example, Southern Rhodesia had a referendum in 1922 about joining the Union, but it failed. Some suggest that it actually would have helped Smuts retain power and lessen the influence of the National Party.

That there is the key. Britain would never turn over colonies with large African populations to a blatantly racist regime. This is particularly the case regarding the High Commission Territories and one of the reasons why they were never given to South Africa for administration. This is also one of the reasons why any talk of South African expansion ends after 1948, the National Party is now in power and starts to really implement apartheid.

Also, note that the National party did not really want more Africans in their country.

Possibly, and I am very hesitant to say that, possibly there could be some sort of union in the 1970s with Rhodesia and Portuguese Mozambique, but I can't see how the international community would allow that. Furthermore, the South Africans didn't want to bring pressures down on themselves, hence why they stopped support for Rhodesia.

Basically, unless South Africa is run by a United Party that eventually allows majority rule, they aren't going to be given any territory. If they want to take land, they will most likely be crushed.
 
There was much talk during the 60's and 70's of SWA (Namibia) being the fifth province of the Republic - The Nats would probably have liked to annex it, but had the (for them, rare) common sense not to. Either way, the outcome would have been the same. As regards the Pretoria - Salisbury - Lournco Marques axis arising out of a union between Rhodesia, SA and Mozambique: There was discussion and speculation in '75 - this could have held the line a bit longer, as the key players, SA and Rhodesia, were already pariahs, so they would have gained a bit of strategic depth and another port. This of course, off set by another war front ...
 
I saw an election poster from the 1924 election, with the South African Party, represented by Smuts, pushing South Africa (literally, an outline of South Africa), away from the abyss, while the Pact opposition, represented as a man with two heads of Hertzog and Cresswell (representing the leaders of the National and Labour parties).

Anyway, the map included Botswana and Namibia, showing the wishful thinking of South Africans already back then.

Yeah, the best way is to get Southern Rhodesia to vote for union in 1922.

This will see a more moderate SA government post-1948, with possibly a more amenable British government, re: SA expansion.

With the explicitly racist governments that South Africa has had it would be very difficult to get the British government to give SA more territory than it already had.
 
So the key here is convincing the British government that South Africa isn't going to subjugate the natives the moment they assume control. Which is never going to happen unless the demographics shake up the upper reaches of government. Given that the South African Army fared as well as it did in its expeditions despite its small scale, could an expansion of its armed forces allow for better results territory-wise? Could South Africa's economy support this, cut off as it was?
 
Top