Why did apartheid South Africa collapse so suddenly?

I dunno about that, I'm not sure any white government would be prepared to abandon the gold and platinum mines etc.

I can see some sort of partition with the Cape, parts of Natal, the Free State heartlands, and what is today Gauteng being consolidated into a white homeland.

Admittedly those weren't presented as being government plans. Michener was presenting a fictional narrative based on interviews he had conducted with various groups in South Africa- this was presented in the context of the personal views of some pro-Apartheid South African individuals.
 
Apart from the issues mentioned there is also the effect of 20 odd years of anti apartheid movement and that being cool on the peoples of Europe and North America and time. By the 90s most of the movers and shakers had grown up in an environment where racism is seen to be wrong and the apartheid regime the most obvious example of wrongness.

Without the soviet threat and realpolitik and fading memories of being on our side in WW2 (kith and kin etc in the UK) to counterbalance the RSA are just a bunch of nasty white thugs.

Not a major determinant but it all adds up. I think the people there were lucky to have Mandela and de Klerk, some others too, in power at that time.
 
an alternative explanation

I remember at the time that when asked in western TV interviews why they were planning to vote to remove apartheid, quite a few white South African males said that they wanted to see South Africa play international sport. Quite literally, many said they 'didn't like blacks' but they wanted an and to sporting sanctions so that they could watch the Springboks play again.

I have no doubt that white opposition to apartheid was increasing and that economic sanctions were continuing to bite but I think these may have been less conclusive factors for ending apartheid than you are giving them credit for. I think Botha was influenced by economics and wanted an end to isolation for diplomatic reasons as well, but some of the powerholders in the NP didn't care. Funnily enough, sport was something they did care about.

As strange as this may sound, particularly to non-Commonwealth members of AHDB, the sporting boycotts of South Africa were a major issue to male Afrikanerdom, and it's they who decided whether or not it became an issue to vote on. So I think the morality of the issue and security concerns were not really factors in the decision, and that while economics and international politics played a role thay were not necessarily the tipping point. Many white South Africans voted to end apartheid so that they could play international rugby and cricket.
 
As strange as this may sound, particularly to non-Commonwealth members of AHDB, the sporting boycotts of South Africa were a major issue to male Afrikanerdom, and it's they who decided whether or not it became an issue to vote on. So I think the morality of the issue and security concerns were not really factors in the decision, and that while economics and international politics played a role thay were not necessarily the tipping point. Many white South Africans voted to end apartheid so that they could play international rugby and cricket.


I would suggest that any such comments were more tongue in cheek, or chosen by the media - the white electorate had other reasons for wanting and end to it all, not least of all, IMHO, sheer exhaustion
 
That's also something that's confused me a bit.

Perhaps I'm totally wrong, but when ever I look at either Border War or Rhodi-war ORBAT's, I'm always taken by the surprisingly SMALL number of troops being committed to the fight.

And were draft dodgers that much of a deciding factor? After all, there WERE a very large number of (unrecognized) Black SA'ers who fought as well. Or were they the one's doing the dodging (assumed both though)?

Blacks were never drafted, so didn't need to dodge - the SADF was a two facetted organisation; It maintained a fairly large conventional army and then used special forces to adress the insurgents, to a large degree. This does not obviously ignore the large conventional engagements of the 80's, however, as far as the dirty war went, it was 32 Batt, the paras and the recces who were the sword point, supported by the full weight of a powerfull conventional army in being. The Rhodesians were a different story - their conventional set piece battle fighting ability was limited, and they relied on unconventional warfare such as the fire force concept and pseudo ops. Rhodesia was less of an assymetrical war than SA.
 
I remember watching a documentary of the South African *Nazi Movement in the last days of Apartheid. It showed footage of their thugs breaking through the entrance of the ANC offices in Jo'burg while white police stood by. Mandela threatened to muster ANC supporters as militia to protect themselves if the police didn't up their game.

Similarly there was the Nazi invasion cum drive-by of one of the Bantustans, which was run by a military strongman. The 'national' army promptly mobilised and showed what professional soldiers can do to red necks in pick-up trucks.

Both these incidents, though performed by radicals clearly shows the possibility of anarchy - an uncooperative police force, political militia, ready made tin pot dictatorships, a few nukes, it could be truly awful.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/145108

"The Leader, His Driver, and the Driver's Wife"
 
I remember watching a documentary of the South African *Nazi Movement in the last days of Apartheid. It showed footage of their thugs breaking through the entrance of the ANC offices in Jo'burg while white police stood by. Mandela threatened to muster ANC supporters as militia to protect themselves if the police didn't up their game.

Not sure if they ever attacked the ANC offices.

Are you not referring to when they attacked the World Trade Centre in Kempton Park where Codesa was being held?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_Kempton_Park_World_Trade_Centre
 
I remember watching a documentary of the South African *Nazi Movement in the last days of Apartheid. It showed footage of their thugs breaking through the entrance of the ANC offices in Jo'burg while white police stood by. Mandela threatened to muster ANC supporters as militia to protect themselves if the police didn't up their game.

And in this incident white police certainly didn't stand by while the AWB were causing trouble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ventersdorp
 
By the same token, what if there had been no arms embargo, or the French ignored it or something.

That could make things interesting...

Much more interesting topic. That will also introduce a whole heap of butterflies, but if France maintained sales (unlikely, I admit), apartheid may (and this is a big MAY) last a bit longer.
 
If apartheid had managed to survive through the 1990s, I think the system would have been more firmly entrenched today than it was in the late 1980s. Firstly, South Africa's economy is dependent on the export of natural (especially mineral) resources. Between 1983-2003 these experienced a 20 year slump in which they were low and hurt commodity exporting nations. With the rise in commodity prices, this would have only helped the regime (much as it has kept Chavez in power in Venezuela). China and to a lesser extent Japan and Korea's appetite for raw materials has caused an economic boom in Africa for the first time since the 1960s.

Secondly, the balance of power in the world is changing, and with a more multi-polar world emerging, this would have only benefited the regime. The reemergence of Russia as an authoritarian power under Putin and the growing power of China (also authoritarian), two former foes could have helped apartheid South Africa.

During the final days of apartheid in 1989-1990, SA was starting to cozy up to the USSR a bit. There were many in the country who advocated taking in a large number of Eastern European immigrants. By accepting a large enough number (say 500,000), this would have helped the country in a few ways. Firstly, it would boost the white population with "petits blancs" who were often more supportive of apartheid than the English-speaking community. Secondly, it would give South Africa some leverage in diplomatic relations with the host country. South Africa would be willing to take in engineers and highly skilled people from the former Eastern bloc to beef up the armaments industry. In OTL they had around 16,000 Poles in the country by 1990, so this is one community that could have grown during the economic turmoil of the 90s in Eastern Europe.

With the collapse of many of the Eastern bloc economies, South Africa could have acquired weapons and technology from ex-Soviet states even through smuggling and bribery. If a large enough Russian community developed in South Africa (say 250,000 Russians by today), it would not be inconceivable that the Russian government would try to be soft on South Africa for the sake of protecting their compatriots. Also, Putin's Russia has been hesitant in criticizing other regimes due to their internal policies or lack of democratic rights.

China would have become more important to South Africa if apartheid had survived. The Chinese have generally adopted a foreign policy of turning a blind eye to the internal problems of a country, for the sake of trade. Just look at their track record with Iran and Sudan. With its vast amounts of natural resources, the Chinese would simply want to do business. They may not establish official ties, but I'm sure their businessmen would be treated as "honorary whites" just as Japanese and Taiwanese were during the apartheid era.

In 2011, trade between China and South Africa totaled $45 billion, in 1992 trade between the two countries was just under $15 million. China, is today South Africa's single largest trading partner, yet Japan still accounts for a large part of the trade and investment in South Africa, much of this dating from the 1980s when the Japanese sought to displace European and American firms in the country.

As for oil, perhaps South Africa would be one of the few countries willing to import Iranian oil today. Iran which is strapped for foreign reserves might have been willing to trade oil for other resources such as gold. The irony of this would be that relations between Israel and South Africa could have been jeopardized. However, China is often against sanctions on Iran, yet has a cozy relationship with Israel when it comes to transferring weapons technology.
 
I don't remember the interviewees being tongue-in-cheek in their comments. As for selective reporting, that is difficult to prove or disprove, but all I can think of is to ask why would anyone want to present a biased account of voters' motives at the time? From memory, everything pointed to white South African voters offering their personal opinions as to which way they were going to vote and why.

I will reiterate though, the issues of economic sanctions may have been the main motive for South African industry, for the finance sector and even for government but that's not the same thing as to what white South African voters were focusing on. The moral angle was probably less significant than is being promoted as well. The "we never liked apartheid" thesis always seems to have become more popular after apartheid was repealed than before it.

On the latest suggestion - I really don't think the arms embargo was an issue for South Africa's decision to dump apartheid. They weren't going to be beaten by the frontline states, the arms embargo made no difference to South Africa's ability to dominate southern Africa. White South Africa did not disband apartheid because they were worried about being overwhelmed militarily, at least as far as I see it, so I don't think that the lack of an arms ambargo would make much difference.
 
During the final days of apartheid in 1989-1990, SA was starting to cozy up to the USSR a bit. There were many in the country who advocated taking in a large number of Eastern European immigrants. By accepting a large enough number (say 500,000), this would have helped the country in a few ways. Firstly, it would boost the white population with "petits blancs" who were often more supportive of apartheid than the English-speaking community. Secondly, it would give South Africa some leverage in diplomatic relations with the host country. South Africa would be willing to take in engineers and highly skilled people from the former Eastern bloc to beef up the armaments industry. In OTL they had around 16,000 Poles in the country by 1990, so this is one community that could have grown during the economic turmoil of the 90s in Eastern Europe.

In Israel, the Russian immigrants often support hardline parties while remaining largely unassimilated compared to previous waves of immigrants. From the perspective of Afrikaner nationalists, having a large body of people who agree with them politically without anglicizing would be ideal.
 
In Israel, the Russian immigrants often support hardline parties while remaining largely unassimilated compared to previous waves of immigrants. From the perspective of Afrikaner nationalists, having a large body of people who agree with them politically without anglicizing would be ideal.

Exactly, often times Portuguese, Italian and Greek immigrants in the country felt they had the most to lose from the dismantling of apartheid. Then there's the story of Janusz Walus a Polish immigrant who arrived in SA in 1981 and joined the AWB. He was responsible for the murder of Chris Hani of the leader of the South African Communist Party in 1993.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-15/news/mn-45981_1_south-africa
 
Exactly, often times Portuguese, Italian and Greek immigrants in the country felt they had the most to lose from the dismantling of apartheid. Then there's the story of Janusz Walus a Polish immigrant who arrived in SA in 1981 and joined the AWB. He was responsible for the murder of Chris Hani of the leader of the South African Communist Party in 1993.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-15/news/mn-45981_1_south-africa

It should also be noted that Walus' accomplice, Clive Derby-Lewis, is half-English half-Afrikaner, proving that Afrikaner ancestry isn't a requirement to being a rabid, willing-to-kill apartheid supporter.
 
Exactly, often times Portuguese, Italian and Greek immigrants in the country felt they had the most to lose from the dismantling of apartheid. Then there's the story of Janusz Walus a Polish immigrant who arrived in SA in 1981 and joined the AWB. He was responsible for the murder of Chris Hani of the leader of the South African Communist Party in 1993.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-15/news/mn-45981_1_south-africa

Yeah, some of the biggest racists I know are Portuguese.

And Indian South Africans can be as racist as really bad white South Africans at times.

And I know another Polish immigrant who, while not being a rabid racist, is as liable to stereotyping and racial slurs as the typical white South African of his age (he's about 50).
 
It's called numbers. Whites were in rapid decline as a % of the population and it was only going to get worse.

As well as their rapidly increasing numbers the black population were becoming better organized and it was only a matter of time before the country became ungovernable.

Finally the end of the cold war and the collapse of communism removed one of the pillars on which reactionary South Africa stood. They always said they were defending against communism as well as a black majority.

No USSR also led to peace settlements in Angola and Mozambique. With Afican countries less hampered by civil war life for White South Africa would become more uncomfortable in the days ahead.

Apartheid was crumbling year by year from the mid 80's. The need for skilled and semi skilled black labour meant that the Apartheid system was harming the business community just as much as sanctions.

It was time to make a deal while they still had the power to make one. They didn't want another Rhodesia and leave it too late.
 
It's called numbers. Whites were in rapid decline as a % of the population and it was only going to get worse.

As well as their rapidly increasing numbers the black population were becoming better organized and it was only a matter of time before the country became ungovernable.

Finally the end of the cold war and the collapse of communism removed one of the pillars on which reactionary South Africa stood. They always said they were defending against communism as well as a black majority.

No USSR also led to peace settlements in Angola and Mozambique. With Afican countries less hampered by civil war life for White South Africa would become more uncomfortable in the days ahead.

Apartheid was crumbling year by year from the mid 80's. The need for skilled and semi skilled black labour meant that the Apartheid system was harming the business community just as much as sanctions.

It was time to make a deal while they still had the power to make one. They didn't want another Rhodesia and leave it too late.

Um, that's what basically everybody in the thread has said.

It could be argued that initially the white Rhodesians got a better deal in the beginning, with their 20 seats reserved for whites.

In my opinion that was a bad idea though, as it probably helped to "force" white Rhodesians out of mainstream politics. Probably part of the reason for the troubles in Zimbabwe and the scapegoating of the whites was because of the retreat into psychological and social laagers by white Zimbabweans.
 
Top