This sounds like a question @Asp can answer well.
Anyway Rhodesia could be internationally recognized with white minority rule at least by the western bloc
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 is true, but Zimbabwe Rhodesia was a very different entity than Ian Smith's Rhodesia, mind.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.
Would Zimbabwe be richer in this timeline than in OTL? How would ethnic relations be affected by this different course? Would civil unrest diminsh?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?
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?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.
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.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?
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?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.
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.Anyway Rhodesia could be internationally recognized with white minority rule at least by the western bloc
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?