WI: Rhodesia joins South Africa in 1923

In 1923, a referendum was held in Southern Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe - as whether not to join the Union of South Africa. Probably due to the overall Boer nature of SA, Rhodesians opted not to join in favor of “responsible government.” What would happen if the opposite happen?

One, SA would have a much larger English population, thus hampering the chances of the Afrikaaner National Party from gaining power. Smuts’ United Party would probably remain in power for longer, due to English votes from Rhodesia. Institutionalized Apartheid would have been avoided, though white rule wouldn’t have been ended.

Another result would be, ironically, South Africa being a much whiter nation. Restrictions on immigration instituted by the National Party wouldn’t have been implemented as European immigrants would have been encouraged to settle in SA.

SA would also likely continue as a dominion, unless events change.

What do you all think?
 
A white-minority government ruling over a single state comprised of OTL South Africa, South West Africa, and Rhodesia? That's going to cause some serious ramifications. How well are the British and Boers going to get along with each other? How long can they continue disenfranchising the non-white majority until they're forced to hand over power to a black-run government? Will this (informal) apartheid end more violently like in Zimbabwe, or more (relatively) peacefully like in South Africa and Namibia?
 
If you avoid the National Party maybe race relations slowly improve over time instead of the nationals going full apartheid, you'd still have racism of course but maybe not so blatant (think, more like an America, Australia or any other anglo country at the time, maybe a bit worse).

Ironically enough, without as much racism you'd probably have less resentment, more resources and ultimately a better country overall where maybe everyone is more or less equal (provided that the United party actually made a conscientious effort to improve the standard of education in rural areas).

On the other hand tensions between the British and Afrikaaners would be worse.
 
A white-minority government ruling over a single state comprised of OTL South Africa, South West Africa, and Rhodesia? That's going to cause some serious ramifications. How well are the British and Boers going to get along with each other? How long can they continue disenfranchising the non-white majority until they're forced to hand over power to a black-run government? Will this (informal) apartheid end more violently like in Zimbabwe, or more (relatively) peacefully like in South Africa and Namibia?

My guess is that it would depend on the white-to-black ratio. In any case, whites would still remain a minority. However, a, let's say, 1:3 ratio instead of a 1:5 one would make ending informal apartheid a lot more complicated. Depending on the overall international mood, coupled with the effectiveness of certain resistance movements, I don't think international pressure would be as effective as it was, if we factor in English control, a greater white population, and a far better economic situation. If opposition to white rule turns out to be more on the radical side, it would be even harder for Western powers to put the proverbial screws to what would be the strongest bastion against Communism in Africa.

Such a union would be incredibly rich in terms of resources. It would be an economic powerhouse.

Undoubtedly. Also, with an informal apartheid at worst, there probably would have been greater economic opportunity for blacks as well. While there definitely would still be opposition to white rule, it might not be as potent if a large portion of African enjoy greater standards of living.

If you avoid the National Party maybe race relations slowly improve over time instead of the nationals going full apartheid, you'd still have racism of course but maybe not so blatant (think, more like an America, Australia or any other anglo country at the time, maybe a bit worse).

Probably SA would be closer to OTL Rhodesia. I would say Anglophone governance would probably allow for gradual improvement of racial relations, even if de facto white rule continues.

Ironically enough, without as much racism you'd probably have less resentment, more resources and ultimately a better country overall where maybe everyone is more or less equal (provided that the United party actually made a conscientious effort to improve the standard of education in rural areas).

If SA under Boer rule could develop nuclear weapons, I could see this SA being leaps and bounds what it was OTL.

On the other hand tensions between the British and Afrikaaners would be worse.

Probably, but I doubt this would translate into anything like armed conflict. I could see certain regions (Orange, Transvaal) gaining considerable autonomy in the interim, if only to pacify them.
 
We discussed this a few months ago:

***

Although Smuts hoped that the incorporation of Southern Rhodesia would help him in the upcoming 1924 South African general elections, in fact it would probably not be enough. (Remember, it's seats, not popular votes, that are decisive, with South Africa's first-past-the-post system.) In OTL, the result was 63 seats for Hertzog's National Party, 53 for Smuts' South African Party, 18 for Labour and one Independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1924 Under Smuts' proposal, Rhodesia was to become the fifth province of the Union with ten members in the Volksraad/House of Assembly. Even if we assume that every Rhodesian member in the new Assembly is from Smuts' party--which would probably not be the case (I think there would be at least one Labour representative from Rhodesia)-- the result would be a tie, and with the support of Creswell's Labour, Hertzog would still win. So Hertzog still comes to power, and the "white welfare state" established by Hertzog will in this TL also extend to Rhodesia. Hertzog is still out in 1939, presumably more decisively than in OTL.

Anyway, given the closeness of the 1948 election, I think it is likely that Smuts' United Party combined with Labour will defeat the parties supporting Malan (the Reunited National party and the Afrikaner party). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948 Moreover with Smuts encouraging British immigration to South Africa (and anyway as in OTL there would be British immigration to Rhodesia) I am not sure if the Afirkaner-Nationalists could ever get a majority.

Politics in the 1950's and 1960's should be interesting. Smuts will presumably die on schedule in 1950. If Afrikaners think they have no more chance of dominating the government and that the United Party's policies will ultimately endanger white supremacy, could we see Afrikaner terrorism, a demand for an independent Afrikaner state, etc.?

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/rhodesia-joins-south-africa.438508/#post-16676866
 
One thing to remember is that South Africa had a First Past the Post system where the winner takes all. During the 1948 General Election, the HNP received 122,000 fewer votes than the United Party, yet because they won 70 seats vs 65, with the Afrikaner Party winning another 9 seats Malan was able to form a government.

If Southern Rhodesia's European population is similar to what it was around the late 1940s or early 1950s, it would at most have at most another 10 seats House of Assembly. This would be enough to prevent the HNP/Afrikaner Party from winning a majority. It is important to note that around one-fifth of Southern Rhodesia's population was of Afrikaner origin, though they were spread out enough that the HNP/Afrikaner Party would not be able to gain any seats. Adding Northern Rhodesia to the mix might help, but there Afrikaners were more numerous there, but they would have at most another 2 to 3 seats.
 
Would Bostwana be included in this eventual South Africa?

In addition to more immigration from Europe, with the Afrikaaners not in full control, might we see more immigrants from India and Asia?
 
Top