Rhodesia 1922: Great Power South Africa?

Had Rhodesia joined South Africa in 1922, I find it hard to believe that the National Party ever would have been able to take over the way it did historically and implement Apartheid.

Had Smuts won the election in 1948, there'd have been a policy of gradual liberalization in terms of race and the country being more open to immigration. It wouldn't have been equality, but it'd have been less terrible than Apartheid and could perhaps have led to full legal equality several decades sooner. I've read in some places that the United Party planned on giving all coloureds (the term for mixed-race persons) the franchise had they won in 1948.

No Bantustans means black urban migration which means increased rates of education and increased earnings for black South Africans

Along with being more liberal and economically open, the country probably would get administration over Botswana (already controlling Namibia and Southern Rhodesia) and perhaps assuming the protectorate over Lesotho and Swaziland. Barotseland too might want to be a protectorate of South Africa (IIRC they wanted to maintain the British Protectorate historically).

A resource-rich nation of around 90-100 million people TTL?
 
So is this an internal development or a strategy to have the white led Dominions take stewardship over the black majority colonies to develop them further? Does London want to devolve power over colonial Africa to its Dominions? Is this intended to create a larger Dominion like Australia or Canada composed of African natives and white immigrants? I get that the United Party is not as racist as the Afrikaners but are they truly going to elevate the black African majority and accept becoming a minority or seek to Balkanize and otherwise keep their dominance in this state, and how does that impact its longer term stability? I wonder how much the black African populace are deemed homogeneous when they have their own separate identities and aspirations. My understanding was that certain groups such as the Zulu had the same idea as Apartheid, they wanted independence from and separation from the non-Zulus including whites, perhaps the tribal/ethnic diversity among the black Africans makes them just as desirous to have their own states as to merely be melded together under benevolent white rule? I am quite curious about some federal Southern African state and its potential to do much better for the peoples under its umbrella.
 
So is this an internal development or a strategy to have the white led Dominions take stewardship over the black majority colonies to develop them further? Does London want to devolve power over colonial Africa to its Dominions? Is this intended to create a larger Dominion like Australia or Canada composed of African natives and white immigrants? I get that the United Party is not as racist as the Afrikaners but are they truly going to elevate the black African majority and accept becoming a minority or seek to Balkanize and otherwise keep their dominance in this state, and how does that impact its longer term stability? I wonder how much the black African populace are deemed homogeneous when they have their own separate identities and aspirations. My understanding was that certain groups such as the Zulu had the same idea as Apartheid, they wanted independence from and separation from the non-Zulus including whites, perhaps the tribal/ethnic diversity among the black Africans makes them just as desirous to have their own states as to merely be melded together under benevolent white rule? I am quite curious about some federal Southern African state and its potential to do much better for the peoples under its umbrella.

What were the conditions under which Rhodesia was supposed to join the Union of South Africa historically? I imagine Rhodesia would join under those terms and the same could be said later regarding a direct annexation of Southwest Africa. As for Botswana/Basutholand, the place historically was pretty much joined at the hip to South Africa up until independence (with the seat of the government actually being in South Africa oddly enough). I don't think it'd be that unlikely for the protectorate to be elevated to the status of full province.

South Africa OTL was a larger dominion like Australia or Canada (there being 4 preceding colonies) and here it just ends up being even larger.

In 1948 I doubt the United Party would go for full racial equality, but giving the full franchise to Indians and Mixed-race persons, being more open to immigration, and not setting up the bantustan system would be an improvement. If you have a large urbanized African population, by the 60s/70s I could believe that they'd have the political and economic power to force equality on the country (especially with the US Civil Rights movement being a comparable example).

My understanding is that part of the issue with resisting Apartheid was that the Zulu didn't want to cooperate with the Xhosa-dominated ANC. I'm not sure about what you're saying about the Zulu aside from that however.

Seretse Khama would likely be a very influential player in TTL South Africa I think.
 
This is one of my favorite topics on this site. If Smut's party had been back in power, the plan was to start bringing Eastern Europeans who native countries were overrun by the Soviet Union. This would have built up the white minority and diluted the Afrikan vote. Also some scenarios on this site had the white settlers from different African countries moving to South Africa when life became unbearable where they were living. Also there would be efforts to encourage migration from Britain.

As for the black population, while extending the voting franchise to everyone would have met a great deal of resistance, slowly extending the franchise to blacks who met certain education requirements, military service, police service, or income status would be easier to accomplish. There has been speculation on this site about a tribal chief council that would advise the government of their issues and concerns. I always think about the safety value on a boiler. If the steam pressure gets too high, the safety value lets some escape and avoids an explosion. If you do not let the safety value work, them you have an explosion. If you can show that blacks are slowly getting the vote, then it relieves some of the pressure.

Regarding the plans for Greater South Africa, it did include the southern part of Portuguese Mozambique. The plan was to control everything south of the Zambezi river.

If this had come to past, then I would like to think that Africa would be in better shape with a economically strong well governed country there to be a leader.
 
What were the conditions under which Rhodesia was supposed to join the Union of South Africa historically? I imagine Rhodesia would join under those terms and the same could be said later regarding a direct annexation of Southwest Africa. As for Botswana/Basutholand, the place historically was pretty much joined at the hip to South Africa up until independence (with the seat of the government actually being in South Africa oddly enough). I don't think it'd be that unlikely for the protectorate to be elevated to the status of full province.

South Africa OTL was a larger dominion like Australia or Canada (there being 4 preceding colonies) and here it just ends up being even larger.

In 1948 I doubt the United Party would go for full racial equality, but giving the full franchise to Indians and Mixed-race persons, being more open to immigration, and not setting up the bantustan system would be an improvement. If you have a large urbanized African population, by the 60s/70s I could believe that they'd have the political and economic power to force equality on the country (especially with the US Civil Rights movement being a comparable example).

My understanding is that part of the issue with resisting Apartheid was that the Zulu didn't want to cooperate with the Xhosa-dominated ANC. I'm not sure about what you're saying about the Zulu aside from that however.

Seretse Khama would likely be a very influential player in TTL South Africa I think.

I am working off a twenty-plus year old interview I read with Buthelezi who as I recall essentially saw Apartheid as a good thing, the Zulu wanted nothing to do with the other "tribes" or the whites, they wanted their own Kingdom just as apart. Now I may be completely off base but I gather that it is potentially fatal to merely treat the black African peoples as one group, they had their own history, culture and language, in this South Africa they are not merely a minority like the First Nations in Canada but the majority. That is my point. You can create a "kinder/gentler" South Africa but the inevitable is that the native peoples will either want independence or need a say in how the whole is run, how do the non-African immigrants, white, coloured and even other blacks from other parts of Africa integrate into that majority? A democracy here will not leave the white European minority in charge for long. And I think the assumptions are that South Africa is "well-run" because it was white run. Granted, a better history of education, economic development and political integration will make this one of the best areas in Africa, and I think that is the real goal of any such alternative, the challenges are still real. A federalized South Africa may balance the divides and preserve the whole, but there is a lot to be done to integrate the white-coloured-black divide.
 
Top