PC: Successfully Operation Savannah

How would you define a successful Operation Savannah? What would be the metrics rendering the operation "successful"?
 
Capture the capital Luanda
Well, if they're able to successfully take Luanda, AND maintain the covert nature of the whole thing, the whole region would be very different.
It was the discovering of South African involvement in Angola that really put the final nail in the coffin of sanctions against South Africa. So, if their involvement remains sufficiently quiet, the US doesn't clamp down as hard on South Africa, and we see a much longer timeline for getting rid of Apartheid.

Not sure if this would translate into greater US support of FNLA, as that was pretty much shot in the foot before the South Africans really dug in. But if Luanda does fall to the South Africans AND things remain covert, we might see renewed support, and they might be able to pull it off.

For Angola, the Soviets/Cubans would have a MUCH harder time reinforcing the MPLA without the port of Luanda; which would probably see a tin-pot dictatorship set up in the form of Holden Roberto.

Overall, not sure if this would be enough to save Ian Smith's govt, as the Brit's cutting them off after UDI is pretty much a death knell; although a less-sanctioned South Africa might be more emboldened to give them a hand. Not sure if such assistance would be enough to save them though.

If Apartheid (which did) and White rule in Angola and Zim/Rhodesia managed to survive to the end of the Soviet Collapse, the would probably still be doomed; as even if Soviet support for opposition fails, US attention would be turned to smaller enemies; and there might not be the inclination to look so favorably on minority rule if they're no longer functioning as the "bulwark against Communism in Africa"...

So overall, my estimate would be more whites in southern Africa, a longer and more gentle transition to majority rule, and probably a bit more prosperous in Angola (but not much, as the dictatorial right-wing alternates weren't much better) and a lot better outcome for Zim. South Africa's Apartheid might have hung on longer, but the internal pressures were mounting anyway, and the writing was on the wall. So maybe a few years delayed, but by the mid/late 1990's, white rule would be over.

Bit of a rambling response, but that's my off-the-top-of-my-head idea.
 
Overall, not sure if this would be enough to save Ian Smith's govt, as the Brit's cutting them off after UDI is pretty much a death knell; although a less-sanctioned South Africa might be more emboldened to give them a hand. Not sure if such assistance would be enough to save them though.
as long as Mozambique is hostile.Rhodesia is untenable due to longer border and access to the port of Beria.

White rule in Angola
What white rule in Angola given all the factions are black ?
 
as long as Mozambique is hostile.Rhodesia is untenable due to longer border and access to the port of Beria.
It's pretty well recognized that Ian's government didn't militarily loose the war; it was the sanctions and economic untenability of the war that did them in.

What white rule in Angola given all the factions are black ?
Sorry; that was a tongue-in-cheek comment to the idea that the FNLA would have certainly had black leadership, but would have been propped up by South Africa and (maybe) the US. Hence, white leadership behind the scenes.
The FNLA was never really that viable/well organized. So if they were to hold on to power (as SA wanted them to), it would have been with the direct support of SA, and possibly the US.
 
It's pretty well recognized that Ian's government didn't militarily loose the war; it was the sanctions and economic untenability of the war that did them in.

It's two sides if the same coin. While the Rhodesians maintained military superiority to the end by the late 70's the Rhodesians simply couldn't afford the sort of military they needed. It's sort of like the fall of the Soviet Union, right up to 1989 the Warsaw Pact remained militarily competitive but by the mid 80's the economy simply couldn't support the military's requirements.
 
It's two sides if the same coin. While the Rhodesians maintained military superiority to the end by the late 70's the Rhodesians simply couldn't afford the sort of military they needed. It's sort of like the fall of the Soviet Union, right up to 1989 the Warsaw Pact remained militarily competitive but by the mid 80's the economy simply couldn't support the military's requirements.
Precisely.
That's why I'm thinking that if South Africa wasn't in nearly so bad an economic situation itself (OK, it wasn't horrible, but the sanctions didn't help it), and if the anti-Apartheid pressure wasn't so great (stemming from the US pulling support when Operation Savanna went public), they might be more inclined to lend a helping hand; greatly alleviating the Rhodesian economic situation... leading to that govt lasting much longer than it did (as mentioned; into the 90's).
The upshot for Rhod/Zim being, of course, we may well see Uncle Bob never coming to power; instead someone else more sane, and we don't have the catastrophic collapse of the Zim economy, leading to their much better situation long-term. Maybe Muzorewa stays in power for a full term or two, and we (fingers cross) see a peaceful transition of power... and a more stable/responsible long-term government.

It's more about money than the military capability question.
 
For the Rhodesians to hold on you'd need South African troops on the ground. While financial pressures were enormous an even bigger issue was the increased operational tempo of the Rhodesian Light Infantry, the economy simply couldn't function with so many 18-40 men in uniform.
 
For the Rhodesians to hold on you'd need South African troops on the ground. While financial pressures were enormous an even bigger issue was the increased operational tempo of the Rhodesian Light Infantry, the economy simply couldn't function with so many 18-40 men in uniform.
Which they may very well be emboldened to do; if they get away with Savannah (and the war in general) without western sanctions.
 
Top