mostly with Africa south of the Zambezi

Cook

Banned
Since the countries listed didn’t restrict immigration of “Whites” I don’t see what you trying to establish here.
:confused:

You may want to spell it out very carefully so that you don’t come across as just being blatantly racist.
 
Since the countries listed didn’t restrict immigration of “Whites” I don’t see what you trying to establish here.
:confused:

You may want to spell it out very carefully so that you don’t come across as just being blatantly racist.

they did block it in the early 1900s all so what i am trying to say would things like the racial segregation in most of those nations last as long ps i am black
 
mostly with Africa south of the Zambezi

Someone explain to me what this means.

Do you want more or less white people in South Africa?

Edit: Oh, I see now, you want the figures in your post to be true! Ah, I get it.

Mass genocide of Africans, mass exportation of Africans, mass importation of Whites (unwanteds perhaps?), is that all?
 
This is possible only with genocide on a scale normally found in Hitler's wet dreams. Whoever is in charge of this could give the Nazis a few pointers. South Africa 85% white? When's the POD?

If this was done, then it would be remembered as the greatest tragedy in human history. The colonies would probably stay colonies, more likely Dominions if they are British.

EDIT: RMc, check the racial percentages in the OP.
 

Cook

Banned
they did block it in the early 1900s all so what i am trying to say would things like the racial segregation in most of those nations last as long ps i am black

I don’t see how racial segregation could be expected to last less time with a larger white population base.

A larger white population would only squeeze the black population into narrower field of more menial occupations.

Mate, I’m not trying to run down your proposal, just suggesting you spell it out clearly so as to avoid confusion. I suggest you do what I do; write it up in Microsoft Word, run spell check and proof read it, and re-write it till you are satisfied and then post it. It isn’t a perfect solution as you can see from my stuff ups, but it helps.
;)
 

Cook

Banned
they did block it in the early 1900s all so what i am trying to say would things like the racial segregation in most of those nations last as long ps i am black

Sorry. I had thought they’d had an open door to immigrants from the British Isles.
 
South Africa in 1910 had 4 million black Africans, so if you want a 85% majority for whites at that population level, you need 23 million whites, more than the number of African whites at the absolute peak of colonialism.

Such a number would only be possible with a systematic extermination of black Africans, and while that may not be something to blanche at then, it was almost certainly unfeasible.
 

Cook

Banned
how would it be different if after ww2 this is not is it possible but how it would affect the world…


South Africa in 1910 had 4 million black Africans, so if you want a 85% majority for whites at that population level, you need 23 million whites, more than the number of African whites at the absolute peak of colonialism.


Not that I think it makes a difference.
 
Besides, much of the territory you want is malaria. There is a reason there are a lot more whites in South Africa than most of Africa - they didn't die like flies there. The High Veldt of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia is fine, as would Lesotho (high) and most of Botswana (dry) be. but....


Ja, mass genocide would be about the only way.
 
Top