Would a longer lasting USSR have also meant a longer lasting apartheid S. Africa?

Recently on the Twilight 2000 forum I encountered a discussion about Africa in Twilight 2000. I made a post that pretty much diverted the discussion to whether apartheid would still exist in a world where the USSR also existed. The crux of the argument by some posters was that as long as the USSR existed, the US, Britain and other western governments would have tacitly supported the white regime in order to prevent that country turning communist and becoming a Soviet client state, as well as control of the sea lanes between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, because the ANC and other anti-apartheid groups were backed by the Soviets, among others. You can find the discussion here.

So what I'm asking is, would a USSR surviving until the present day have also meant apartheid lasting until modern times? I've always thought that apartheid was already on the way out by the late 80s due to a combination of the international sanctions, internal unrest and a recognition by De Klerk and others that S. Africa was going to have to reform or go down in flames.
 
Probably not until modern times, but the end of the USSR was a big reason for aparthied ending when it did. Not just outside support, but internal support for aparthied was from anticommunism. Harder to end aparthied when you're fighting Cuban troops in Angola.
 

cumbria

Banned
Recently on the Twilight 2000 forum I encountered a discussion about Africa in Twilight 2000. I made a post that pretty much diverted the discussion to whether apartheid would still exist in a world where the USSR also existed. The crux of the argument by some posters was that as long as the USSR existed, the US, Britain and other western governments would have tacitly supported the white regime in order to prevent that country turning communist and becoming a Soviet client state, as well as control of the sea lanes between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, because the ANC and other anti-apartheid groups were backed by the Soviets, among others. You can find the discussion here.

So what I'm asking is, would a USSR surviving until the present day have also meant apartheid lasting until modern times? I've always thought that apartheid was already on the way out by the late 80s due to a combination of the international sanctions, internal unrest and a recognition by De Klerk and others that S. Africa was going to have to reform or go down in flames.

This is what made me ask about the soviet union carrying on the other week.
Its a very good point.
 
If the cold war continued apartheid would not have ended without a fight. The white South Africans feared that if they agreed to majority rule that the ANC would take power and install a Marxist dictatorship backed by the Soviets. For that reason it was only in 1994 once the bogeyman of the USSR was out of the picture that they gave in.

Interestingly enough most of the western powers believed this too. Perhaps that is why formal economic sanctions against South Africa were only implemented after 1986 when the cold war had begun to thaw. Despite this, the sanctions imposed on South Africa were not nearly as harsh as they were against Iran or Cuba. For instance South African Airways was able to order 4 Boeing 747-400s in 1989 that were delivered beginning in 1991.

If South Africa had clung onto apartheid and the Soviet Union still fell I'd imagine you would see good relations between Moscow and Pretoria despite apartheid. Closer relations between the two countries were already emerging by the late 1980s as the two countries resumed diplomatic relations and South Africa's president paid a state visit to Moscow. Gorbachev for his part said that the interests of the white minority in the country needed to be safe guarded (this would have been unthinkable only five years before). The New York Times and Washington Post from 1989-1992 even have several articles alluding to a future Moscow-Pretoria alliance.

South Africa for its part was actively trying to court Eastern European immigrants from the late 1980s until the formal end of apartheid. By 1989 there were some 16,000 Poles and 12,000 Hungarians in the country. After 1991 on there were some Russians and Ukrainians that came to Russia as well. The applications to immigrate to South Africa from Eastern Europe rose continually until the end of apartheid in 1994.

Eastern European immigrants were thought of as beneficial for several reasons. Firstly, many were highly skilled and worked in the mining and industrial sectors, especially in the defence industry. These were the type of immigrants that the South African economy needed. Secondly many had been living under conditions so miserable that South Africa was an attractive option.
Finally, it was hoped that if enough immigrants from these countries could be attracted that the mother countries would be wary of being too harsh regarding condemnation of South Africa. Israel and Greece for instance often refused to apply sanctions or condemn South Africa because they did not want the respective Jewish or Greek communities in South Africa to suffer.

Also, if South Africa clung to apartheid you would have the emergence of a relationship that would be economically advantageous to Russia as well as Ukraine after 1992. Throughout the 1990s the post-Soviet economy in shambles and one of the few valuable exports they had was military hardware, the problem was with the cold war over there weren't many large buyers left. Despite sanctions, I lots of newer Soviet weapons would have made it to South Africa, possibly through semi-official third parties.
 
Also, if South Africa clung to apartheid you would have the emergence of a relationship that would be economically advantageous to Russia as well as Ukraine after 1992. Throughout the 1990s the post-Soviet economy in shambles and one of the few valuable exports they had was military hardware, the problem was with the cold war over there weren't many large buyers left. Despite sanctions, I lots of newer Soviet weapons would have made it to South Africa, possibly through semi-official third parties.

That would have been interesting. The South Africans were limited in domestic tank, aircraft, and SAM technology. The old SA military could have used new equipment. But I don't see how that would have helped further apartheid.
 
That would have been interesting. The South Africans were limited in domestic tank, aircraft, and SAM technology. The old SA military could have used new equipment. But I don't see how that would have helped further apartheid.

It really wouldn't have helped unless South Africa goes to war with a neighbouring country. I suppose if a hard line government was in power and became increasingly more isolated from the international community it would feel that it could act much as Israel does today (albeit without U.S. support) and attack hostile bases in Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia etc.
 
Interesting replies, but I still think that even with a surviving Soviet Union it would have been hard for white South Africans to keep apartheid. Especially if a surviving USSR was like the one from 1989-1991, i.e. withdrawn from Eastern Europe, no longer pursuing a cold war etc., kinda like modern Russia, only bigger.

Regardless, even before Gorbachev's reforms there was less and less support for South Africa in the west as the 1980s progressed. In 1986 the US Congress overrided Reagan's veto of the Comprehensive Apartheid Act, it was the first time since 1973 that Congress had overridden a presidential foreign policy veto. Western Europe and Japan soon followed with similar sanctions against South Africa, which plunged the South African economy into a deep recession. The fact that over 70 per cent of South Africans were too poor to contribute to the economy as consumers just worsened things and accelerated the domestic unrest, which had already led P.W. Botha to declare a state of emergency in 1985.

When Nelson Mandela was released in 1990, that was pretty much the death-blow for apartheid, kinda like its "fall of the Berlin wall". Even if the Soviet hardliners' coup had prevailed in 1991, it would've been too late for South Africa to roll back the clock, events had progressed too far.

In any case, although there probably was some concern about communist meddling in South Africa, I've always considered to whole anti-communism argument for apartheid to just be an excuse, where a boogeyman was made out to be much stronger than what it really was. I mean, it sounds much better to say "Help us! Help us! We're threatened by the ghastly communists!" than "Help us! Help us! Me must keep the filthy kaffirs and bantus in their place!"
 
In any case, although there probably was some concern about communist meddling in South Africa, I've always considered to whole anti-communism argument for apartheid to just be an excuse, where a boogeyman was made out to be much stronger than what it really was. I mean, it sounds much better to say "Help us! Help us! We're threatened by the ghastly communists!" than "Help us! Help us! Me must keep the filthy kaffirs and bantus in their place!"

OT, I strongly suspect a similar attitude with regard to Cuba. The exiles in the US don't hate Castro because he's a brutal dictator (he is, or was, but he's certainly not the first) they hate him because he had the gall to take their sugar plantations and give them to the unwashed. His brutality makes a better public argument though.
 
Top