What if rather than the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965, the Government of Ian Smith asks to be Annexed by South Africa, with the father of Apartheid himself as South Africa's Prime Minster I think they might say yes, what would happen than?
Rhodesia: no UDI but Annexation
- Thread starter black angel
- Start date
Annexing Rhodesia means a lot more Anglo-Africans and the Afrikaners might not like that, since the Anglo-Africans tended to be more liberal politically.
Plus this could be considered an act of war against the British Empire. Maybe if the annexation takes place a decent interval after the UDI, it might not be that provocative.
If this does go through, the Rhodesians might lead to some major political upsets within the apartheid system.
Plus this could be considered an act of war against the British Empire. Maybe if the annexation takes place a decent interval after the UDI, it might not be that provocative.
If this does go through, the Rhodesians might lead to some major political upsets within the apartheid system.
The South Africans aren't going to piss off the British so deliberately - Britain was the biggest source of foreign investment in the apartheid period. They didn't even grant the Rhodesian Government diplomatic recognition.
Ismail
Banned
One big problem is that South Africa was trying to reduce the number of blacks within it (hence the bantustans), and at the time was also trying to improve its relationship with other African countries. I can't see South Africa willingly subjecting itself to strong international condemnation, a probable rupture of relations with Britain, many more blacks (not to mention the active ZANU and ZAPU insurgencies) to deal with, and annoyance on the part of the Afrikaners.
If it actually went through then South Africa gets another Namibia to deal with. The end of apartheid would probably go through with more violence and ex-Rhodesia would eventually attain independence as Zimbabwe sometime in the late 80's or early 90's in connection with concurrent events in Namibia.
If it actually went through then South Africa gets another Namibia to deal with. The end of apartheid would probably go through with more violence and ex-Rhodesia would eventually attain independence as Zimbabwe sometime in the late 80's or early 90's in connection with concurrent events in Namibia.
Last edited:
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Eurofed, you are my European history connection, you're great.
Early enough not to make Britain sanction South Africa to Hell and perhaps (optimistic guess) enough to have a less vicious Apartheid policy given the Rhodesians now in the population, might put the USSR harder to work in Africa though, a large, potentially strong and most assuredly pro-Western South Africa isn't going to be a game the Soviets want to play.
I'd guess that WWII and such would still happen, this is a butterfly that's HUGE for South Africa and Rhodesia but not immensely significant in international affairs, Hitler still seizes power in Germany, WWII still happens, OTL results largely are the same, the USA still falls out with the USSR, I can't see any reason to have it different.
Ismail
Banned
Not necessarily, especially if it gets annexed in the 60's or 70's. Even if it joins the Union of South Africa in the 1920's, it'll be pretty bad for the South African Government if its blacks develop their own nationalism in the 60's and 70's.