Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
A nuclear attack on South African cities would probably have impacted the non-white population more as South African whites generally lived in suburbs, small towns and rural areas. This is particularly the case with the Afrikaners who's culture was much more rural based and many of them idolised their past conflicts in South Africa with the blacks and the British during the Boer War. The Afrikaners also generally didn't care for more liberal Anglo-whites to much and had their own sort of parallel society within South Africa. Think loads of belligerent rednecks with loads of guns and military hardware, and loads of 4X4 s and horses. They made up nearly 70% of South Africa's six million white population.
Also South Africa was a para-military state., and a very effective one. They were well prepared for all scenarios due to having a siege mentality, including military invasion and uprisings by the blacks. The white government controlled everything, including power, fuel, water and food supply. South Africa actually became a lot more dangerous as regards to crime and riotous behaviour after the end of white rule, as the black population before the end of apartheid was fairly well behaved considering their lot due the threat of security clamp downs and white retaliation.
Well that would imply to the South Africans that the only stable parts of Africa are those under the control of Western militaries; France and America. So why would they want to hand over power to black Africans who have let their countries fall apart completely everywhere else in Africa?
Also no other African country is now a major military threat to South Africa, not even a combination of them, as the Soviet Union is in no position to support them. So who's going to invade South Africa or supply arms to South African blacks with the South African military and para-military forces fully mobilised?.
|
The other countries didnt just fall apart because they were run by blacks - and that statement of mine also applies to the countries above the Sahara which are definitely not black - i.e. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc..
They fell apart either due to nuclear attacks (Nigeria, Guinea, Mozambique, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast) or because of wars and fighting (Congo, Tanzania, Comoros, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia) or because of the lack of oil and the world economy coming apart and the end of economic and food aid (pretty much everywhere else).
The only places that maintained any real cohesiveness were Rwanda (very effective military - i.e. the Israelis of Africa), Kenya (with a lot of help from the US military forces that just barely managed to get there in time), Uganda (which is now starting to come apart because of the LRA and its death squads and Kony basically thinking he is God), and the areas that the French control (which include Djibouti and Senegal and the French Comoros Islands which are now part of the French Union) - otherwise by April 2001 the continent is in a shambles
An example would be the Central African Republic - that country has completely fallen apart - outside of the capital city there is no government at all
Oh and they didnt hand power over to the blacks - South Africa still considers itself at war and the government is a coalition of blacks and white, each with equal power - its not one man, one vote like in our world - true democracy and actual black rule of South Africa will still be quite a ways in the future
As to the Soviets - they set off rebellions and guerrilla movements all across the continent including in South Africa in 1995 to distract from their invasion of China and then nuked two of their cities in 1997 so they would have still been seen as a big threat in 1998
Thus the South African whites saw that the only way to keep the country strong in the face of threats both external and internal was to do the coalition 50/50 government - thus the whites still have power, but now its shared with the blacks