What would a South African civil war look like?

I was asking around on Facebook what would've happened had Nelson Mandela died in prison and a civil war seemed to be the consensus, due to the African National Congress becoming more aggressive without Mandela to bring South Africa together.

So, what would a South African civil war during the 80s' look like?
 
I was asking around on Facebook what would've happened had Nelson Mandela died in prison and a civil war seemed to be the consensus, due to the African National Congress becoming more aggressive without Mandela to bring South Africa together.

So, what would a South African civil war during the 80s' look like?

Civil war against the ANC and Inkhata and against the Apartheid government.
 
How unified would they have been? I know the Zulu nationalists were fairly determined to carve out their own state, but could the ANC's pan South African nationalism fall apart? Was there any chance for Bantustan nationalisms or some such to build up steam during a protracted civil war?

Also would South Africa's nuclear arsenal deter a foreign intervention? Would say Zimbabwe be as easily deterred as the US?
 
You know Syria today? Imagine that, this was the Apartheid regime's greatest nightmare and what massive numbers of Boers and other white nationalists armed themselves for. By the 1980's South Africa had nuclear and chemical weapons, they had no qualms about shooting and torturing children. They would be in the same position that Assad is now except having up to half a dozen nuclear weapons. It would be bloody beyond belief, on top of that, there is a high probability that you cause several of the civil wars that were going on, Angola and Mozambique for example, going for much longer period and destabilizing a many more nations. Africa would be a much worse place overall. East Africa would be seen the way South Africa is today.
 
Also would South Africa's nuclear arsenal deter a foreign intervention? Would say Zimbabwe be as easily deterred as the US?
I am going to say yes that no one would risk an intervention. However it does not me that South Africa destabilizes other nations, enough violence and that will spill over.
 

Magical123

Banned
The white minority would see it's very survival as at stake and would fight without reservation or holding anything back.

The black majority would fight equally if not harder.

One million casualties guaranteed.

Not to mention you have foreign volunteers black nationalists and leftists

As well as neo-nazis and white supremacists looking for their race war.

At least 2.5 million casualties by the time the dust settles.

Also Machinations of the superpowers and surrounding African nations add all that and you have a horrific bloodbath
 
Last edited:

Thothian

Banned
Torn to freaking shreds. The white minority would use chemical weapons with abandon, and possibly tactical nukes on the Bantustans. The casualties would be the worst since WW2. And outside powers would be very wary of intervention due to their troops being caught in the middle of that.
 
Torn to freaking shreds. The white minority would use chemical weapons with abandon, and possibly tactical nukes on the Bantustans. The casualties would be the worst since WW2. And outside powers would be very wary of intervention due to their troops being caught in the middle of that.

I tend to think their nuclear deterrent was to deter intervention in a potential future civil war.
 

Thothian

Banned
I tend to think their nuclear deterrent was to deter intervention in a potential future civil war.

I tend to agree; it was a shield against foreign meddling. I could see them dropping one on one of the Bantustans as a show of force, especially if one of them was taken over in large part by African rebels.
 
In response to all the comments about nukes, bear in mind that SA took several years to build six bombs: in 1979 they had maybe one (possibly Israeli?), with five more by 1989. If the hypothetical civil war breaks out, the number of functioning bombs could vary wildly.

Of course, that doesn't mean the hardliners couldn't or wouldn't use subcritical or dirty bombs as well as their bio/chem nastiness.

I can't see the neighbours coming out unscathed; Pretoria had its finger in the pie in Mozambique, Rhodesia, and Angola at various points, and I can imagine a number of fellows itching for payback.

Wonder if Castro would be so damn eager to jump into that one?
 

Magical123

Banned
What Reagan and Thatcher would do? They were pretty pro-Apartheid government.
Support the government with arms and money as part of the anti-communist crusade.

Hence a white victory and mass emigration of the black majority.
 
I tend to agree; it was a shield against foreign meddling. I could see them dropping one on one of the Bantustans as a show of force, especially if one of them was taken over in large part by African rebels.
Now that I think on it, the nuclear weapons are probably more valuable as a threat than as something used. Tactically I don't see how they would be particularly useful given the nature of what I assume would be a fairly unconventional war.

Destroying cities with the nuclear option would also risk a foreign intervention more than using other WMDs as well. They are more useful as a potential reserve and threat than as something actually employed directly, particularly given the small size of their arsenal. The main value of that small arsenal would be mystique, using them ruins that.
 
How unified would they have been? I know the Zulu nationalists were fairly determined to carve out their own state, but could the ANC's pan South African nationalism fall apart? Was there any chance for Bantustan nationalisms or some such to build up steam during a protracted civil war?

Then factor in that South African whites were also divided linguistically and to a smaller degree culturally and politically. Would most Anglophone whites be willing to pursue a civil war war that was increasingly leading towards a total national collapse?

In contrast, some of the Afrikaners would have not only political motivations, but also pseudo religious motivations that cast them as a chosen people of sorts fighting for land that they felt was sacred. Even more chaotic was that Afrikaners and Zulus were on relatively good terms with each other.
 
Torn to freaking shreds. The white minority would use chemical weapons with abandon, and possibly tactical nukes on the Bantustans. The casualties would be the worst since WW2. And outside powers would be very wary of intervention due to their troops being caught in the middle of that.
The white minority would see it's very survival as at stake and would fight without reservation or holding anything back.

The black majority would fight equally if not harder.

I don’t think the casualties would have been that high as neither side had the capacity to sustain a full scale war for very long. For the SADF, facing a global embargo, every piece of large military hardware was precious. Some, such as Tanks and aircraft were irreplaceable. Meanwhile, for black rebels, every weapon, piece of equipment and munition would have to be brought in through a road network controlled by well trained, motivated and very mobile SADF units.

I think for the rebels to do well, they needed to inflict equipment and human losses on the SADF. Whites were not only a minority, but they really were not accustomed to casualties. This would mean moving the fighting out of the open bush where the expert SADF was used Israeli / Afrika Corps mobile warfare tactics to win entire campaigns with very few deaths. Instead, the rebels would have to force battles in urban areas or in rural areas with restrictive terrain that forced SADF units to dismount and then fight continuous, casualty producing and equipment destroying battles.

Even if rebels could do this on a large scale, I don’t think they could truly win the war. Mobile SADF units would defeat every rebel unit that ventured into open terrain. Meanwhile SADF units would be increasingly reluctant to venture into rebel controlled areas. In short, I think the SA economy would crash and the war would widen internal fissures in both black and white societies.

There would be no Armageddon. Rather, a continuous small scale war between two general sides devolving into factions similar to Lebanon or Bosnia. Both general sides would field a mixture of main force units and increasingly rouge irregular style units. On again, off again fighting, ethnic cleansing, the establishment of safe areas, liberated areas, go and no go zones, massacre and counter massacre, local peace treaties, temporary alliances and double crosses would be the norm until the factions got sick of it and made peace with each other.
 
Last edited:
Top