Rhodesia internationally recognized

I have always said that Rhodesia under Ian Smith would certainly have been recognized by a different US president, either Barry Goldwater after 1964 or even Ronald Reagan after 1976 ( No Jimmy Carter means no Andy Young supporting Mugabe). Any butterflies stemming from this?
 
This sounds like a question @Asp can answer well.

Thanks for the shoutout.

Anyway Rhodesia could be internationally recognized with white minority rule at least by the western bloc

You would need to find a way to get Salisbury to accept the proposals made during the HMS Fearless and HMS Tiger conferences. They were pretty generous to Rhodesia actually; Harold Wilson offered to delay the end of white rule to the cusp of the 21st century. This would require the Rhodesians to have a massive collapse in their position (if the Portuguese Empire implodes early that might do it) and probably someone more sensible than Ian Smith as PM. Any of his predecessors would probably have gone for it. So yeah, that would probably get you an internationally recognized, unsanctioned Rhodesia.
 
I have always said that Rhodesia under Ian Smith would certainly have been recognized by a different US president, either Barry Goldwater after 1964 or even Ronald Reagan after 1976 ( No Jimmy Carter means no Andy Young supporting Mugabe). Any butterflies stemming from this?

I don’t see either of them going for it and they would never have gotten the Senate aboard, at least if events are remotely close to OTL. It’s worth noting that *Margaret Thatcher*, with conservative England’s ties to the place, wouldn’t even go so far as to recognize a compromise black government. The problem was that the issues at play were much bigger than just Rhodesia. Recognizing them would have massively pissed off the OAU and the African Commonwealth while putting all non-aligned and pro-western governments on the continent in a really bad position. No one was willing to do that.
 
The most I could see Smithy getting is Reagan in '76 selling him arms and it turning into a scandal a la Iran-Contra.

International recognition was probably never going to happen, and if it were, Smith would have to pursue a more moderate course during the '60s - which he was never going to do.
 
Keep the Federation around and Souther Rhodesia in it. The franchise was expanding albeit slowly and if politicians such as Garfield Todd and Hardwicke Holderness can keep control of the UFP, you are looking at a better chance of the Federation succeeding. The more nasty settlers need to be held at bay, but that is easier said than done.
 
If South Africa could not make a go of apartheid, with its strategic position geographically and a ton of valuable minerals etc, Rhodesia has less to offer. Furthermore the white minority is smaller, and has much less history there than the Boers who can legitimately claim a long tenure.
 
I do know that Thatcher really wanted to recognise the Muzorewa government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia only to be over-ruled by Kaunda of Zambia and Nyerere of Tanzania, who were both leading and influential Third World leaders at the time.
 
I do know that Thatcher really wanted to recognise the Muzorewa government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia only to be over-ruled by Kaunda of Zambia and Nyerere of Tanzania, who were both leading and influential Third World leaders at the time.
This is true, but Zimbabwe Rhodesia was a very different entity than Ian Smith's Rhodesia, mind.
 
You would need to find a way to get Salisbury to accept the proposals made during the HMS Fearless and HMS Tiger conferences. They were pretty generous to Rhodesia actually; Harold Wilson offered to delay the end of white rule to the cusp of the 21st century. This would require the Rhodesians to have a massive collapse in their position (if the Portuguese Empire implodes early that might do it) and probably someone more sensible than Ian Smith as PM. Any of his predecessors would probably have gone for it. So yeah, that would probably get you an internationally recognized, unsanctioned Rhodesia.
Would Zimbabwe be richer in this timeline than in OTL? How would ethnic relations be affected by this different course? Would civil unrest diminsh?
 
From what I remember and what I've read,the Rhodesian politicians and powerbrokers had no subtlety,they went out of their way to defy the UK before the world.If they played the game with Wilson,put a multi house political system that gave some power to minor tribes,diluted voting rights with National Service or linking voting with property,then waited.After all,all the failures going on in Africa at the time(Biafra,Idi Amin,Angolan civil war,Kuandu,Nyere,the Dergue....) and some skilled p.r. work would have shown a prosperous nation with a certainly more open voting system than many of their neighbors,especially South Africa.
 
Would Zimbabwe be richer in this timeline than in OTL? How would ethnic relations be affected by this different course? Would civil unrest diminsh?

Yeah, avoiding Mugabe and decades of sanctions would definitely help the country. It was also quite reduce the militant problem, which helps with that further. Overall, the country is probably more stable and race relations are better.
 
Yeah, avoiding Mugabe and decades of sanctions would definitely help the country. It was also quite reduce the militant problem, which helps with that further. Overall, the country is probably more stable and race relations are better.
But would Zimbabweans accept that their white compatriots ruled the country? Would not the majority agitate for more rights? Would they be content to wait?
 
But would Zimbabweans accept that their white compatriots ruled the country? Would not the majority agitate for more rights? Would they be content to wait?
It depends how much of it is ruled by Whites. I imagine if a full half is set up as almost entirely autonomous regions (for at least a dozen different chiefs, kings, etc) then it might be more palatable. The central government could then focus on farming and mining, while each region trades with them, thought he airports and trains would mostly be owned by Whites.
 
It depends how much of it is ruled by Whites. I imagine if a full half is set up as almost entirely autonomous regions (for at least a dozen different chiefs, kings, etc) then it might be more palatable. The central government could then focus on farming and mining, while each region trades with them, thought he airports and trains would mostly be owned by Whites.
Maybe Zimbabwe could be partioned into small statelets unified under a common govorment? The statelets would share some functions like military, foreign policy, foreign trade, etc. But internally they would set their own taxes and etc. These statelets could be democratic or aristocratically governed. Citizens of different statelets should be able to own property in other statelets. Each statelet would also be able to decide its own migration policy, allthough their might be a shared policy on the world outside zimbabwe. Some statelets would be white, some Shona other Ndebele. Could something like this work?
 
Anyway Rhodesia could be internationally recognized with white minority rule at least by the western bloc
Gaining full dominion and thus independence status immediately after WWII before African decolonisation begins. Though the question should read Southern Rhodesia as Northern Rhodesia became Zambia.
 
But would Zimbabweans accept that their white compatriots ruled the country? Would not the majority agitate for more rights? Would they be content to wait?

A good deal wouldn’t be but Rhodesia’s position in dealing with any insurgents or large-scale unrest would be infinitely stronger.
 
Being able to openly buy oil and modern weapons would be a huge benefit to the Rhodesians. They'd still face the same problems the South Africans had and would have to abandon their racial policies at about the same time.
 
Top