The Bulldog Fights On: A British Politics TL (version two)

What are the effects on the British Empire in this timeline? Will he go for an Imperial Federation of holdable regions (Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, most likely excluding India etc.) or will he do the same as in OTL, or just hold the smallest possessions and ports?
 
I'd estimate Smuts might get as many as 3 Afrikaaners voting for him. Fagan represented pretty much everything the Afrikaaners were against.
Not all Afrikaners were opposed to the Fagan Commission - for example, Smuts himself was an Afrikan and he was in favour of the Report. So it is unlikely that every Afrikan was part of a hive mind who were bitterly opposed to Fagan.
 
Agreed and probably a public relations disaster in South Africa as well. Could white Rhodesian troops be used instead? If foreign troops are needed, then I think a better use would be for garrison duty in the areas of SA not involved in the fighting. This would free up South African troops for use in the Civil War.
Good point. I'll duly modify the post.
 
Not all Afrikaners were opposed to the Fagan Commission - for example, Smuts himself was an Afrikan and he was in favour of the Report. So it is unlikely that every Afrikan was part of a hive mind who were bitterly opposed to Fagan.

I've an Uncle who went to Transvaal during the Second World War (and he's still out there). I can assure you the Transvaal in particular was stone-cold against the whole idea.
 
Not all Afrikaners were opposed to the Fagan Commission - for example, Smuts himself was an Afrikan and he was in favour of the Report. So it is unlikely that every Afrikan was part of a hive mind who were bitterly opposed to Fagan.

Mate, you're successfully implementing racially positive legislation in a nation that has a bitter history of race relations - remember apartheid? I'd listen to David's advice - you can have the Union win the Civil War, but an aftermath in which there isn't mass unrest, rioting, lynchings and a long-term insurgency is the most unrealistic thing in this TL yet. Let alone Afrikaaners voting for Smuts after a Civil War.
 

Deleted member 94680

How about a compromise? Smuts makes it law in the aftermath of the Civil War, it is massively unpopular in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The government (re-elected in a contentious election where many 'disloyal' Boers are disenfranchised) spends the next few years fighting a low-level counterinsurgency against hardline holdouts - a South African 'troubles', as it were?
 
How about a compromise? Smuts makes it law in the aftermath of the Civil War, it is massively unpopular in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The government (re-elected in a contentious election where many 'disloyal' Boers are disenfranchised) spends the next few years fighting a low-level counterinsurgency against hardline holdouts - a South African 'troubles', as it were?

That's viable, although it's not going to be a pretty bloody low-level counter-insurgency, it's going to be for more than a few years (the Troubles were around 30 years, and this is going to be every bit as bad), and its going to be pretty much across the whole of the two Provinces rather than "hardline holdouts". To all intents and purposes, TV and OFS will be de facto under enemy occupation.

To add to things, the author has put British troops as an occupying force in Boer territory. I can assure you that this is not going to end well.

And then there's the domestic political implications of Churchill sending British troops to serve in South Africa to help put down a rebellion.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

That's viable, although it's not going to be a pretty bloody low-level counter-insurgency, it's going to be for more than a few years (the Troubles were around 30 years, and this is going to be every bit as bad), and its going to be pretty much across the whole of the two Provinces rather than "hardline holdouts". To all intents and purposes, TV and OFS will be de facto under enemy occupation.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree to the scale.

ITTL, the author had the NP retain their republican ambition, alienating moderate Boers. Now, the Race Relations Act will surely radicalise some of the moderates, but not all. There will be areas (mostly rural, going by voting patterns) where the anti-Smuts view is in the majority. There will also be areas where it's 50/50 and even pro-Smuts in a majority (mostly urban). This, IMHO, will make it an insurgency as opposed to a rebellion or 'enemy occupation'.

To add to things, the author has put British troops as an occupying force in Boer territory. I can assure you that this is not going to end well.

And then there's the domestic political implications of Churchill sending British troops to serve in South Africa to help put down a rebellion.

Well the author has already said he will change the British troop part, so let's see what he does first.
 
Well the author has already said he will change the British troop part, so let's see what he does first.

As far as I can tell, originally, British troops were involved in the fighting. After comments, this was modified to British troops occupying towns captured by the South Africans. So I think we've had the change.
 
I think that while not all
of Transylvania and orange free state will be opposed to south africa I whould say somewhere around 60% to 70% will be hostile to them
 
Last edited:
Top