WI: Rhodesia joins the Union of South Africa in 1922?

[Julius Vogel]

Colonial/settler governments tended to go hot and cold on immigration based on the political and economic cycle and it is important to remember that when looking at places like SA or Rhodesia.

From the Decolonisation era mass European migration makes a lot of sense to South Africa/Rhodesia, whereas the same was very attractive to NZ and Australia after WW2, when both countries drew the conclusion that they needed more Europeans /population generally.

If SA/Rhodesia were so inclined the 1920s would have been the perfect time to encourage migration from Europe, but at the time, the stomach was not there for it

 

[Arachnid]

I wonder how hard it would be, pre Union, to alter this slightly, so this kind of mild preference was less pronounced.

Well Boer means farmer and as I understand it the importance of "working the land" is a bigger part of the culture than among English-speakers, but I might be wrong.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Well Boer means farmer and as I understand it the importance of "working the land" is a bigger part of the culture than among English-speakers, but I might be wrong.

I studied this area a bit back at uni and from what I recall, it very much became part of the pre Union negotiations to reflect the bigger Afrikaner community in the parliament.

I think the farming culture side of things is less important than the fact that most Afrikaners at the time lived in rural communities.

On a similar note NZ for a long time allowed rural electorates to be a little smaller than urban electorates (5% iirc). That is largely no longer true

 

[Fearless Leader]

Definitely. Under Smuts there were plans to encourage greater European immigration, but when the NP won in 1948, these plans were shelved, and immigration policy became more restricted.

Of course, this began to change in the 1960s, when the apartheid regime realised that there simply were not enough white people in the country to run it and supply all the skills necessary, and began to encourage European immigration.

For example, a friend of mine's parents are Franco-Mauritian. They were planning to emigrate from Mauritius and were deciding between SA and Australia. They decided to choose SA because my friend's dad was given a job and a house, and everything was done to encourage him and his family to move to SA. And they definitely boosted SA's white population. Being from a Catholic family, my friend is the youngest of six

That could be interesting come the 1930's. Assuming Hitler and the Nazi's come to power in TTL a flood of German and later general European Jews could have interesting consequences...Do you think Smuts would be amiable to such immigration?

 

[Marius]

That could be interesting come the 1930's. Assuming Hitler and the Nazi's come to power in TTL a flood of German and later general European Jews could have interesting consequences...Do you think Smuts would be amiable to such immigration?

Smuts was deputy PM in the 1930s, and became PM again in 1939 (because Hertzog refused to support South African entry into WWII).

I don't see there being too much difference in the 1930s, re: immigration policy.

The big difference will come post-WWII.

 

[Enigmajones]

What does that mean?

It means an additional 80,000 Rhodesians added into the mix of the Anglo's. And the Rhodesians have some big differences with the coast hugging merchant Anglo's of the Natal and the Cape. They would have more in common with the Afrikaners and would probably be a bastion for the National Party if anything. The one thing Rhodesians fear is the end to white minority rule. If it comes down to a vote, Rhodesia will go NP.

 

[Marius]

It means an additional 80,000 Rhodesians added into the mix of the Anglo's. And the Rhodesians have some big differences with the coast hugging merchant Anglo's of the Natal and the Cape. They would have more in common with the Afrikaners and would probably be a bastion for the National Party if anything. The one thing Rhodesians fear is the end to white minority rule. If it comes down to a vote, Rhodesia will go NP.

I don't know so much about that. White Rhodesians were always 'more British than the British' and are unlikely to support, in any numbers, a party that is openly hostile to the UK and the Queen.

And a large number of white Rhodesians were urban, meaning they would probably be more liberal, and more likely to support reform-oriented parties.

But I definitely disagree with you that they would be a bastion of Nat rule.

The Natalians are pretty similar to the Rhodesians, and the Nats hardly ever won seats in Natal.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I don't know so much about that. White Rhodesians were always 'more British than the British' and are unlikely to support, in any numbers, a party that is openly hostile to the UK and the Queen.

And a large number of white Rhodesians were urban, meaning they would probably be more liberal, and more likely to support reform-oriented parties.

But I definitely disagree with you that they would be a bastion of Nat rule.

The Natalians are pretty similar to the Rhodesians, and the Nats hardly ever won seats in Natal.

Post War British Rhodesia was quite different from pre War Rhodesia, population-wise. IIRC the pre war population was about 70k, but with massive British immigration it got up to the the 200k plus mark by the 1960s.

 

[glenn67]

This scenario has been discussed here before. Someone wrote a TL where uber-SA was an economic powerhouse and the black population was gradually enfranchised based on education.

Zionist Uganda by David bar Elias

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=38786

 

[Marius]

Post War British Rhodesia was quite different from pre War Rhodesia, population-wise. IIRC the pre war population was about 70k, but with massive British immigration it got up to the the 200k plus mark by the 1960s.

Yes, that's right, can't find the stats now, but the white Rhodesian population peaked at about 200 000.

Nowhere close to the South African white population of close to six million at its peak, but a substantial increase in the white voting population.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

On the one hand, Rhodesia's problem of international and geopolitical isolation is obviously resolved.

On the other hand, you're bringing in a whole other kettle of fish to South Africa's already pretty messy racial situation with regards to the Ndebele-Shona issues.

With regards to the question of who the Rhodesians are going to side with, I'd say I'm leaning towards a middle ground between Marius (saying they're liberal and would support reform) and Enigma (saying they'd be loyal NPers).

The situation that we have here would be unprecedented in Rhodesia's history as a colony, and now they've gotten themselves thrown into the midst of a divide between the English and the Afrikaners, nothing is guaranteed here. Ostensibly, there are issues for both camps:

-Rhodesia cannot easily go liberal because they have plenty of baggage with regards to local Rhodesian blacks. Reforming the system in Rhodesia has the same problems that it would have had in South Africa: ultimately the existence of the white settler community is one that comes at the expense of the blacks. Rhodesian whites may be a predominantly urban group, but the vast majority of Rhodesia's income came from cash-crop agriculture, primarily tobacco. That means you get the same issues as you got in British Kenya and other colonies that had a substantial settler presence: inevitably the whites will need to sustain growth by acquiring more land, this means pushing the blacks off of the good stuff and steadily forcing them onto more and more peripheral land. Meaningful reform, while not per se impossible, is very difficult and ultimately any "reform" initiated by whites will almost inevitably still primarily serve the interests of Rhodesia's white population.

So yeah, people whose way of life and income depends on displacing blacks from the best farmland are not inclined to start throwing out bones and making reforms.

-Meanwhile, the fact that the Rhodesians consider themselves first and foremost British will not mingle well with the staunchly anti-British National Party. Rhodesia in its independence never once renounced Elizabeth II as Queen or of Rhodesia as a British subject, someone earlier said that the Rhodesians saw themselves as more British than the British, and really that's pretty much the best way to describe it.

Rhodesians and Afrikaners will in some cases see eye to eye on racial matters, but the things that make problems for English South Africans and Afrikaners will cause divides between the Rhodesians. There can never be a full reconciliation between a group that fundamentally sees itself as British and another in which anti-British sentiment is part-and-parcel of their identity.

The Rhodesians are basically going to be sort of the third power in South Africa's politics: not liberal enough for the English, not fully comfortable with the Afrikaners either, but at the same time having commonalities with both. Basically, the alignment of the Rhodesians will be constantly in flux based on who offers a better deal and which group serves their interests more at any given time.

 

[Arachnid]

Might you see a four party system with;

National Party: an almost purely Afrikaner party less successful than OTL at attracting English-speakers, basically the same policy wise.

Dominion Party: Right-wing party for English speakers, dominant in Rhodesia and similar areas. Similar to the Rhodesian Front and the short lived Dominion Party, supportive of apartheid like policies but also pro-British and opposed to Afrikaner nationalism.

Democratic Party: Moderate party for Cape Town English speakers turned off by the Dominion Parties support for Apartheid and racial restrictions but also think the Progressive's are too liberal.

Progressive Party: Basically as OTL, anti-apartheid, urban, liberal etc.

With a more even racial balance and more European immigration without the 50's restrictions you could see a much more interesting political scene rather than OTL's one party rule as the National, Dominion and Democratic Parties manoeuvre to form coalitions with none ever attaining a safe majority.

 

[stubear1012]

Displaced Persons immigration after WWII

It is my understanding that after WWII, there were large numbers of displaced persons who could not or would not go back to their native countries because of the Soviet Union take over. It is my understanding that they were Balts, Poles, Czechs, and other nationalities. I am assuming that the Jews would continue to want to go to Israel or the USA.

What if the Balts, Poles, Czech, and so on were allowed to immigrate to SA in large numbers? Since some of the National Party policies sound identifical to that of the Nazis party, I am assuming that they would not vote for the National Party. Could they have made a difference in the direction that SA took?

Stubear1012

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Would former white Kenyan settlers emigrate to there?

 

[Mad Missouri]

Would former white Kenyan settlers emigrate to there?

Maybe some, but I doubt it. By the time the ethnic Brits are forced out of Kenya the writing in already on the wall for all to see. It had to be clear to most that future role of ethnic Europeans in Africa was over. The native peoples were hell bent on getting black power as soon as possible and didn't care at all if that meant solid third world status, civil war, famine and general chaos for the next 50 years. I think most Kenyan Brits would see that a SA even with a large white minority population that it only delays the inevitable and would are make similar choices like they did in OTL, back to Britian or off to Australia. After all who wants to work hard rebuilding a life in SA only to lose it again once the black majority decides to seize white property in whatever "reforms" come after they gain one party rule. It would be better to only have to rebuild once in Australia rather twice after you flee SA in the 1990's.

 

[Marius]

Maybe some, but I doubt it. By the time the ethnic Brits are forced out of Kenya the writing in already on the wall for all to see. It had to be clear to most that future role of ethnic Europeans in Africa was over. The native peoples were hell bent on getting black power as soon as possible and didn't care at all if that meant solid third world status, civil war, famine and general chaos for the next 50 years. I think most Kenyan Brits would see that a SA even with a large white minority population that it only delays the inevitable and would are make similar choices like they did in OTL, back to Britian or off to Australia. After all who wants to work hard rebuilding a life in SA only to lose it again once the black majority decides to seize white property in whatever "reforms" come after they gain one party rule. It would be better to only have to rebuild once in Australia rather twice after you flee SA in the 1990's.

I don't think so.

Just because the blacks take over, doesn't mean you have to flee

And South Africa is full of white Zimbabweans who have came here in the past 20 to 30 years.

Their decision may also be influenced by the kind of support that they are given in emigrating.

 

[Marius]

It is my understanding that after WWII, there were large numbers of displaced persons who could not or would not go back to their native countries because of the Soviet Union take over. It is my understanding that they were Balts, Poles, Czechs, and other nationalities. I am assuming that the Jews would continue to want to go to Israel or the USA.

What if the Balts, Poles, Czech, and so on were allowed to immigrate to SA in large numbers? Since some of the National Party policies sound identifical to that of the Nazis party, I am assuming that they would not vote for the National Party. Could they have made a difference in the direction that SA took?

Stubear1012

Dude, the Nats were dickheads, and apartheid was wrong, but it was nowhere close to Nazism.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I wonder if this could have knock-on effects for the survival of Portuguese Africa. There was a good thread on it a few months ago.

 

[Marius]

Might you see a four party system with;

National Party: an almost purely Afrikaner party less successful than OTL at attracting English-speakers, basically the same policy wise.

Dominion Party: Right-wing party for English speakers, dominant in Rhodesia and similar areas. Similar to the Rhodesian Front and the short lived Dominion Party, supportive of apartheid like policies but also pro-British and opposed to Afrikaner nationalism.

Democratic Party: Moderate party for Cape Town English speakers turned off by the Dominion Parties support for Apartheid and racial restrictions but also think the Progressive's are too liberal.

Progressive Party: Basically as OTL, anti-apartheid, urban, liberal etc.

With a more even racial balance and more European immigration without the 50's restrictions you could see a much more interesting political scene rather than OTL's one party rule as the National, Dominion and Democratic Parties manoeuvre to form coalitions with none ever attaining a safe majority.

I think you may be onto something here.

However, I think we could have a scenario where in the fusion of 1933, when the National Party and the South African Party united to form the United Party, we would have two breakaways (I think in this TL, even with Rhodesia added, fusion is still likely).

We would thus have the United Party, the breakaway HNP, and then perhaps a reconstituted Dominion Party, made up of MPs who have no desire to be in the same party as Afrikaner nationalists. There would probably be a couple of Rhodeisan and Nat MPs there.

So, come the 1950s we have:

The Nationalists - the party for Afrikaners and apartheid, draws support from rural Afrikaners, but also support from urban Afrikaners and intellectuals

The United Party - a real 'national' party, drawing support from urban whites (English and Afrikaans), with significant coloured support.

The Dominion Party - supports racial segregation but continued close ties to Britain. Support mainly in Natal and Rhodesia, with pockets in the Transvaal and the Cape.

And then, as you said, a Progressive analogue, urban liberals, calling for a qualified franchise.

 

[Marius]

I wonder if this could have knock-on effects for the survival of Portuguese Africa. There was a good thread on it a few months ago.

Well, Renamo was created and initially funded by the Rhodesians, and then the South Africans.

Maybe we will see a bigger Renamo.

But who knows what butterflies this Greater South Africa will cause.