RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2009, 06:23 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default YaATW2KT: What about South Africa?

One of the big questions that I have yet to satisfactorily answer about the TW2K alternative timeline and gazeteer I'm working on concerns the fate of the Republic of South Africa.

The policy of apartheid and white minority rule seems to have quickly been dismantled following the collapse of the Soviet Union. My impression is that once the Soviet Bloc collapsed the white minority government could no longer justify their opposition to Mandela and the African National Congress on the grounds that the ANC was pro-communist. With the Soviets consigned to the dustbin of history, America and NATO was no longer worried about the Red Banner Northern Fleet rebasing to Capetown. So, the white minority government realize that they could no longer justify the apartheid system as a bulwark against communism. Within just a few years of the Soviet collapse, white minority rule was over.

But if Gorbachev is assassinated in 1989 and hardliners control the Kremlin and the satellite states of the Warsaw Pact, would the South African government dismantle apartheid?

What would be the fate of South Africa during the Twilight War?

Would South Africa continue fighting in Namibia and Angola?

Would South Africa's neighbors like Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe organize to invade South Africa on a mission of racial liberation?

Would South Africa's English and Africkaner minorities hold the country together or would they retreat to a smaller, more defensible area and try and hold out? Or would they start fleeing for places like Australia and New Zealand? Maybe bartering the nation's nuclear capacity for a mass evacuation of the white population?

Would it turn into a race-war blood bath or could Nelson Mandela and President Botha come together to try and preserve the country while the rest of the continent is being destroyed by a hundred tiny wars over tribalism, resources and religion?

Could (or rather would) Apartheid be dismantled in time to avoid an apocalyptic race war? Or would some other accommodation be reached between whites and blacks in South Africa to get the nation through the global crisis?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2009, 07:02 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

From the Australian point of view, it's extremely doubtful we'd take any of the South Africans if Apartied was still in force. Australian's like to think we're multicultural (the reality is somewhat different), and so the populace would strongly resist what might essentially be the setting up of a racist "sub-nation" within our borders.

We'd also be likely to reject any offers of nuclear weapons even though we're one of the greatest producers of Uranium in the world. We also only have one tiny research reactor in the country, which is regularly picketed by anti nuke protestors.

I would imagine New Zealand would have a similar outlook.

With regard to what might happen with South Africa as a country, my guess is very little would change. My understanding is that under Apartied they had to become virtually self sufficient in almost all ways, developing their own military hardware, etc. Therefore the collapse of the rest of the world would likely have little real impact on them.

On the other hand, WWIII might spark a general uprising in the native population, and along with an influx of refugees from other African countries which even though aren't subject to white rule would be in worse state, the military would be hard pressed to keep control.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2009, 08:36 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

I think what happenes in South Africa during and after T2K would be related to what is happening in the rest of the world, and how it directly effects South Africa. I'm not sure if South Africa is actually nuked in the T2K, or if its was were the actual targets were. But if it is not nuked then South Africa would certainly be one of the most important countries in the world after T2K, and it would be by far the most powerful country in Africa.

I'm sure the blacks would revolt and there would be a fair bit of bloodshed, but any revolt is likely to result in failure unless the entire South African military aparatus is destroyed by direct nuclear attack. Neighbouring states without their friends in Moscow to support them are unlikely to even think about getting involved for a number of reasons.

The South African government had fairly effictively enforced apartheid since the last 1940's, by arranging population into racial groups, enforcing strict racial segregation in urban areas, restricting African urbanization, tightly controlling migrant labour, encouraged tribalism among native Africans and enforcing strict security legislation and control. This legislation was supported by most whites and by nearly all of the Afrikaaner ethnic group who manned the majority of the military and para-military security forces. Whites were the only part of South Africa's population allowed to legally own weapons and they were by and large very heavily armed for a civilian population, especially the largely rural Afrikanners. White schools children were (and still are) thought how to use rifles and practice markmanship. Many rural Afrikaaner whites were members of clubs or organisations which would be classified as right wing para-military militias in Western countries.

When internal resistance start to build up to apartheid and was supported from outside the country, particularly edin the 1970's, South Africa started a policy of attacking terrorist bases in neighboring countries. Principle targest were guerrillas in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique. South African hit squads frequently raided gurerilla camps across borders, the South African Air Force frequently bombed targest in neighbouring countries, and the army launched a full scale invasion of Angola. ANC and other black revolutionaries were also targeted across Africa and even in European countries such as France, Belgium, Sweden and the UK.

South Africa developed a formidable defence industry in direct response to the boycott imposed on it by the international community. Sophisticated small arms, munitions, artillery and military vehicles were all produced by South Africa during Apartheid, as were electronics and many spare parts for aircraft. Close links were also developed with other "isolated" countries such as Israel, who actively helped South Africa maintain and even upgrade her forces. Nuclear cooperation almost certainly occured and South Africa is known to have had at least a half dozen nuclear weapons by the 1980's.

South Africa is the most developed country in Africa, with a technology base more akin to Europe than Africa and a massive resource base. During the oil embargo South Africa succesfully developed a synthetic liquids fuel programme to convert coal to oil.

The South African military is the most powerful and sophisticated in Africa. Training standards are equivalant to western military forces, particularly British Commonwealth militaries, and are superior to neighbouring African states. South African special forces were among the best counter insurgency forces in the world during the apartheid period, and were greatly feared by African guerillas and their Eastern Bloc advisors.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:08 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
From the Australian point of view, it's extremely doubtful we'd take any of the South Africans if Apartied was still in force. Australian's like to think we're multicultural (the reality is somewhat different), and so the populace would strongly resist what might essentially be the setting up of a racist "sub-nation" within our borders.
I had read that back during the apartheid Australia was taking a lot of whites who were fleeing South Africa... so maybe they would accept South African refugees (they speak English, they are of European descent, they are Christians) if they came individually, but not if they were part of some kind of Afrikaner "nukes for land" swap?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
We'd also be likely to reject any offers of nuclear weapons even though we're one of the greatest producers of Uranium in the world. We also only have one tiny research reactor in the country, which is regularly picketed by anti nuke protesters.
But (in my timeline) Australia is going to be locked in a military struggle with Indonesia. The creepy military government Indonesia has embraced the Jihadists in order to co-opt them into a ultra nationalist movement to focus and distract the population with a war to liberate the "occupied" areas of "Greater Indonesia," most importantly Borneo and New Guinea.

(BTW This war will involved Australia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and East Timor fighting against Indonesia. Maybe even the Philippines if the Muslim/Nationalists in Indonesia are supporting a full-blown Moro rebellion in Mindanao.)

The Australian military might need the nukes to fend off the Indonesians.

I do think that after the Twilight War that experimental nuke plant better be upgraded to produce power or Australia is going to start looking like "Road Warrior" when their access to Indonesian oil dries up. The protesters can go out to the radioactive crater at Pine Gap and protest US imperialism out there. I can't imagine the Sovs not dropping a weapon on the NSA/GCHQ facility Pine Gap even if Australia stays neutral in the conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
I would imagine New Zealand would have a similar outlook.
I can't imagine the Kiwis swapping nukes for refugees... after all who would they nuke with them? Sure, I imagine New Zealand giving covert assistance to Australia during their war with Indonesia, but apart from fending off pirates/refugees, disaster relief, and controlling internal lawlessness, what is the New Zealand military going to do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
With regard to what might happen with South Africa as a country, my guess is very little would change. My understanding is that under Apartied they had to become virtually self sufficient in almost all ways, developing their own military hardware, etc. Therefore the collapse of the rest of the world would likely have little real impact on them.
That's sort of my take on it to. Mandela might never be released from prison, his (now ex-) wife might rise in prominence and the ANC might become more communist-aligned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
On the other hand, WWIII might spark a general uprising in the native population, and along with an influx of refugees from other African countries which even though aren't subject to white rule would be in worse state, the military would be hard pressed to keep control.
I think the refugees plus the internal dissent might spark a general rebellion. Imagine the current refugee problem in South Africa. The current government seems content to let local South Africans beat and murder refugees in order to "encourage" them to leave the country. The Apartheid government might tolerate this kind of violence too, so long as it is directed at blacks from other countries, assuming wrongly that it doesn't matter so long as it's blacks killing blacks. With the right incident all that violence could end up directed against the government and the white minority population, especially if South Africa's neighbors are beating the drums of "national liberation" and "anti-colonialism."

So? would the white government, military and police go down under a tidal wave?

Or would they cut a power sharing deal with the Zulus to fight at their side against the Showa and other tribes of South Africa?

Or would they retreat to someplace like Capetown, with their backs to the sea, and be besieged?

Is there a more defensible/resource rich area of South Africa that would be a good place for the Apartheid government to try and make a last stand?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2009, 09:53 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
The Australian military might need the nukes to fend off the Indonesians.
Doubtful I'd have to say. Back in the day this particular scenario was the one we trained for the most. Yes numerically Indonesia has a larger army, but the problem they faced was getting those numbers safely onto the Australian mainland and in a location they could actually DO something. The north of the continent is largely one great big open desert - you can drive for half a day without coming across even one other traveller let alone a settlement, and that's on the highways!

While the Australian military is relatively small, it's highly trained, well equiped, and if an enemy was on the doorstep, you can bet highly motivated! The navy, admittedly has had a few troubles in recent years (the poor service record of the Collins class submarines spring to mind), but they'd still manage to put serious pressure on Indonesian troop and supply convoys. As the Indonesian forces moved southward, the lack of viable land transportation option would force supply by shipping, further exposing them to being cut off by naval and air assets.

Yes, we might have a few hundred thousand (give or take) foriegn troops on our soil, but give it a few months (probably MUCH less without supply) and our biggest problem would be finding enough guards for the prison camps!

Why use nukes if the environment itself can do the job for you?

In the wet season (roughly equating to summer), travel on anything but sealed roads in the north is a nightmare (and even some of the sealed roads are often cut by flooding). In the dry season (the other 6 months) water and dust are a MAJOR problem. Now take soldiers used to tropical jungles, etc and drop them into that and see how they do....

In the much more likely event that hostilities are confined to Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and East Timor, nukes just aren't appropriate. Engagements often involve much smaller units due to restrictions in the terrain itself as was shown by the WWII battles along the Kokoda track where 10,000 Japanese were held back intially by a company sized unit of Australian Militia.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2009, 10:34 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

First of all I agree with everything that Legbreaker has said in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
I had read that back during the apartheid Australia was taking a lot of whites who were fleeing South Africa... so maybe they would accept South African refugees (they speak English, they are of European descent, they are Christians) if they came individually, but not if they were part of some kind of Afrikaner "nukes for land" swap?
Both before the fall of Apartheid and after many white South Africans moved to Australia. I know quite a few myself and because the city where I live is the closest Australian city in distance to South Africa I believe more South African immigrants to Australia moved to Perth and the surrounding areas than to any other parts of Australia. It needs to be understood that during the latter part of white rule in South Africa (especially during the 1980s) Australians and Australia's government were greatly opposed to Apartheid and Australia strongly backed sanctions against the white government in South Africa. All of the South Africans that I personally know in Perth were totally against Apartheid. The ones that moved here during white rule did so because they didn't like the policies of the white government in South Africa. Those that moved here after the fall of white rule did so because of economic and social difficulties which incressed after the fall of white rule, not because they were protesting the end of Apartheid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
But (in my timeline) Australia is going to be locked in a military struggle with Indonesia. The creepy military government Indonesia has embraced the Jihadists in order to co-opt them into a ultra nationalist movement to focus and distract the population with a war to liberate the "occupied" areas of "Greater Indonesia," most importantly Borneo and New Guinea.

(BTW This war will involved Australia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and East Timor fighting against Indonesia. Maybe even the Philippines if the Muslim/Nationalists in Indonesia are supporting a full-blown Moro rebellion in Mindanao.)
I'd agree with that but I refer back to what Legbreaker has said about the certain failure of any Indonesian invasion of Australia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
The Australian military might need the nukes to fend off the Indonesians.
We wouldn't need nukes to do that. Crocodiles followed by dehydration would do most of the work for us. And no, I'm not joking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
I do think that after the Twilight War that experimental nuke plant better be upgraded to produce power or Australia is going to start looking like "Road Warrior" when their access to Indonesian oil dries up.
Not true. Australia has many energy options. We produce a fair amount of oil and heaps of natural gas and have huge untapped reserves of both. Australia is one of the biggest coal exporters in the world. We also produce huge amounts of sugar cane so alcohol production on a large scale would be easy to get underway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
The protesters can go out to the radioactive crater at Pine Gap and protest US imperialism out there. I can't imagine the Sovs not dropping a weapon on the NSA/GCHQ facility Pine Gap even if Australia stays neutral in the conflict.
Pine Gap might well be nuked but it would be a much bigger bummer for the US than for us. There isn't very much out there that would break our hearts if it was nuked. There are a few other nuke-worthy targets in Australia, a few airbases and naval facilities, that would hurt us more from a military point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
I can't imagine the Kiwis swapping nukes for refugees... after all who would they nuke with them? Sure, I imagine New Zealand giving covert assistance to Australia during their war with Indonesia, but apart from fending off pirates/refugees, disaster relief, and controlling internal lawlessness, what is the New Zealand military going to do?
There are few nations on earth with closer ties than Australia and New Zealand. There is a kind of sibling rivalry between them and New Zealand is politically a fair bit "greener" and left leaning than Australia but basically they will always be there for each other through tick and thin. Any assistance from New Zealand to Australia would be very much overt, not covert. In every major conflict that Australia has been in since the Boer War, New Zealand has been right there with us. The weapons and equipment and training of both militaries is almost 100% compatible. Yes it is true that New Zealand's geographic location protects it from any realistic threats apart from nuking but look at it from New Zealand's point of view - if Australia was ever to fall to an enemy New Zealand would be next. During the Twilight War New Zealand would back Australia 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy
I think the refugees plus the internal dissent might spark a general rebellion. Imagine the current refugee problem in South Africa. The current government seems content to let local South Africans beat and murder refugees in order to "encourage" them to leave the country. The Apartheid government might tolerate this kind of violence too, so long as it is directed at blacks from other countries, assuming wrongly that it doesn't matter so long as it's blacks killing blacks. With the right incident all that violence could end up directed against the government and the white minority population, especially if South Africa's neighbors are beating the drums of "national liberation" and "anti-colonialism."

So? would the white government, military and police go down under a tidal wave?

Or would they cut a power sharing deal with the Zulus to fight at their side against the Showa and other tribes of South Africa?

Or would they retreat to someplace like Capetown, with their backs to the sea, and be besieged?

Is there a more defensible/resource rich area of South Africa that would be a good place for the Apartheid government to try and make a last stand?
I work with a white South African who is a former role playing gamer and is very knowledgeable about military and history matters. I've talked to him many times about the discussions on these forums. He has told me that even if the USSR hadn't fallen Apartheid would not have lasted all that much longer in South Africa, it was simply unsustainable. In my opinion shortly before or during the Twilight War white rule ould have ended in South Africa. If it was before the war it might have happened much like it did in RL. If it was during or after the Twilight War my guess is that it would have been brutal and bloody.

Finally, the last time Australia really made a push to acquire nukes was when it was a partner in the Blue Streak missile program from the mid 1950s through to the 60s. The only reason that Australia invested in the program was because we had an understanding with the British that they would sell us nukes to put in the Blue Streak. Those hopes ended when the US pressured the British not to give Australia nuclear weapons technology because the US considered Australia to have too much of a leftist streak and thought we would be an intelligence risk. Since then Australia has made no official attempts to gain nukes and in fact has been very anti-nuclear (that feeling ebbs and flows depending on who is in government).

Here is a link to Wiki's take on Australia's WMD history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ss_destruction
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 08-27-2009 at 12:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2009, 11:07 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Yes numerically Indonesia has a larger army, but the problem they faced was getting those numbers safely onto the Australian mainland and in a location they could actually DO something.
(SNIPPING all kings of relevant points about Indonesia's lack of ability to logistically support their army in the incredibly hostile environment of northern Australia)

The scenario I have in my timeline/gazetteer does not imagine a gigantic (and logistically unsupportable) Indonesian invasion force stomping around the most hostile environments in Oceania until the starving stragglers come begging the Australians to take them prisoner so they can get some food and water.

The war with Indonesia is going to be fought among the islands of Melanesia, and on the Island of Borneo. Indonesia has always had an interest in conquering the islands they've had to share because of European powers dividing up the area. East Timor used to be Portuguese... Papua New Guinea was consolidated from German and British claims before WWI, and Borneo is split between former British and Dutch possessions. I imagine the Indonesians invading Malaysia, Brunei, Papua New Guinea and East Timor (again?). Australian energy sources would be held to ransom by Indonesia if they don't join in and help defend these places. Otherwise (in twenty years) maybe the Indonesians will actually have the logistics to sail down to New South Wales or Wellington and eliminate the last "Colonial" holdings in Oceania?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
In the much more likely event that hostilities are confined to Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and East Timor, nukes just aren't appropriate. Engagements often involve much smaller units due to restrictions in the terrain itself as was shown by the WWII battles along the Kokoda track where 10,000 Japanese were held back intially by a company sized unit of Australian Militia.
Nukes could be very appropriate. One nuke in Jakarta could decapitate Indonesia's command and control and throw the entire island of Java into chaos. It might even lead to the break up of the Indonesian junta into competing warlords. Indonesian naval bases could be hit, destroying the junta's ability to support and maintain it's navy. A high altitude air burst or two could plunge Java (and a few other important logistical hubs) back into the middle ages as electronics and microchips are cooked by the EMP.

There are plenty of places to apply a nuke besides on top of a tank division or a ICBM complex. Besides, the nukes the South Africans had to trade were (if I remember right) were in the 20K ton range... not much bigger than Fatman and Little Boy. With only six or so, even if the South Africans traded them to Australia for a way out of Africa, the Australians would have to be very picky how and where they were used.

Perhaps a better question would be, if the Apartheid government holds on to power in South Africa through the 1990s and into the Twilight War, where would THEY use the nukes if they were trying to hold onto power in the face of an uprising at home and maybe even an invasion by their neighbors?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:13 AM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
All of the South Africans that I personally know in Perth were totally against Apartheid. The ones that moved her during white rule did so because they didn't like the policies of the white government in South Africa. Those that moved here after the fall of white rule did so because of economic and social difficulties which incressed after the fall of white rule, not because they were protesting the end of Apartheid.
I never thought the ones fleeing during Apartheid were immigrating so they could set up little neo-nazi cells in Western Australia. But Australia is a natural place for English speaking European Christians to flee to from South Africa. I mean, its a close to home as they are likely to find in the southern hemisphere. Plus, unlike the UK, USA and Canada, Australia isn't getting nuked. So, I'll write off the big Afrikaaner nukes for land swap. Nevertheless, South Africans (and even white Zimbabweans) would be heading to Australia all through these alternative timeline 1990s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Australia has many energy options. We produce a fair amount of oil and heaps of natural gas and have huge untapped reserves of both. Australia is one of the biggest coal exporters in the world. We also produce huge amounts of sugar cane so alcohol production on a large scale would be easy to get underway.
Interesting... but currently Australia still buys the bulk of it's petroleum from regional sources, correct? Like Indonesia and Brunei? It won't do Australia any good (for a year or so until alternatives can be brought online) if the Indonesians cut off those supplies in a fit of nationalistic fervor. I mean, Australia will suffer a huge energy shortage with fuel rationing, brown outs, and the like, but I take your point that losing access to oil from Bornea clearly won't tumble Australia to the Middle Ages.

Still, I cannot imagine there not being a pro-nuke power faction in Australia after the Twilight War. France might come to Australia and offers to buy their uranium (since France is heavily favoring nuclear power), especially since many of the other sources of Uranium are going to be a mess. The French could easily exchange oil from the Middle East for uranium. In the canon they are sitting on Kuwait. In my version, the US CENTCOM is in Kuwait and the French are in Saudi Arabia.

Following France's example, certain Australian interests might press for the creation of a nuclear power station or stations... but I expect that would be a project that wouldn't see fruition the 2010s. So, it wouldn't really affect Australia's situation at the turn of the Millenium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
There are few nations on earth with closer ties than Australia and New Zealand. There is a kind of sibling rivalry between them and New Zealand is politically a fair bit "greener" and left leaning than Australia but basically they will always be there for each other through tick and thin. Any assistance from New Zealand to Australia would be very much overt, not covert. In every major conflict that Australia has been in since the Boer War, New Zealand has been right there with us. The weapons and equipment and training of both militaries is almost 100% compatible. Yes it is true that New Zealand's geographic location protects it from any realistic threats apart from nuking but look at it from New Zealand's point of view - if Australia was ever to fall to an enemy New Zealand would be next. During the Twilight War New Zealand would back Australia 100%.
Point taken. New Zealand's military forces would be actively and openly supporting Australia's (and the rest of the anti-Indonesian alliance's) efforts to keep the Indonesian junta from gaining hegemony over the region. When I amend the time line and gazetteer, I'll be sure to make New Zealand more front and center in the conflict.

So, how much of this help would be in the form of Naval and Air Forces and how much Army forces do you think New Zealand could spare? I'm thinking given the conditions of the Twilight War, even New Zealand would have conscription. But do the conscripts serve at home keeping the country together, or are they send to fight in the Indonesian War? Personally, I think it would be better for morale and maintaining discipline if the conscripts were kept closer to home and the volunteer (and therefore more professional) forces were used to support Australia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
I work with a white South African who is a former role playing gamer and is very knowledgeable about military and history matters. I've talked to him many times about the discussions on these forums. He has told me that even if the USSR hadn't fallen Apartheid would not have lasted all that much longer in South Africa, it was simply unsustainable. In my opinion shortly before or during the Twilight War white rule would have ended in South Africa. If it was before the war it might have happened much like it did in RL. If it was during or after the Twilight War my guess is that it would have been brutal and bloody.
I think that's a fair assessment. If apartheid is dismantled before the Twilight War begins (or at least goes nuclear) then South Africa might be the largest organized national governments to continue to operate in Africa, so long as they can avoid committing national suicide by indulging in tribalism or revenge on the white minority population. As the rest of the African continent melts down, everyone is going to rush to the "safety and prosperity" of South Africa, threatening to "swamp the lifeboat." Common cause like that might give the English, the Zulus, the Showa and the Afrikaaners a reason to work together. Of course, in a crisis, people who should work together often turn on each other.

If the apartheid government hangs on too long, the country goes down in a race war that leaves it as wrecked and ruined as the rest of the African continent. White refugees get on the last boats out and try and make it to Australia.

I guess the question is, which scenario is more interesting? I think I like South Africa holding on as a real, functional, post-apartheid republic, that is holding the line against the tide of barbarism spreading out of central Africa.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:30 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
So, how much of this help would be in the form of Naval and Air Forces and how much Army forces do you think New Zealand could spare? I'm thinking given the conditions of the Twilight War, even New Zealand would have conscription. But do the conscripts serve at home keeping the country together, or are they send to fight in the Indonesian War? Personally, I think it would be better for morale and maintaining discipline if the conscripts were kept closer to home and the volunteer (and therefore more professional) forces were used to support Australia.
Australia and New Zealand might well introduce conscription during the Twilight War.

Sadly New Zealand no longer has a combat air force IRL. It still has its Skyhawks in mothballs after a deal to sell them was suspended for reasons that have not been made public (there is another thread on these forums in which that was discussed). If the Cold War had not ended it is not inconceivable that New Zealand might have gone through with a plan that was put forward during the early 90s to lease F-16s from the US. The RNZAF's operations in the Twilight War would mostly involve moving troops and, equipment and supplies around.

New Zealand has a pitiful navy and its two ANZAC class frigates were commissioned in 1997 and 1999 IRL. Perhaps Australia and New Zealand might have produced more ANZAC class frigates and commissioned them sooner if the Cold War had not ended.

New Zealand's main military assistance to Australia would be through the Army, especially special forces. The Australian and New Zealand SAS train and operate together very regularly and I think they are universally regarded as being highly effective (though few in number). New Zealand currently operates LAV IIIs IRL so it is possible that during the Twilight War they might deploy mechanised infantry forces equipped with LAV-25s/ASLAVs alongside Australian Army forces. And of course standard infantry and M-113s.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 08-27-2009 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:31 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Interesting... but currently Australia still buys the bulk of it's petroleum from regional sources, correct? Like Indonesia and Brunei? It won't do Australia any good (for a year or so until alternatives can be brought online) if the Indonesians cut off those supplies in a fit of nationalistic fervor. I mean, Australia will suffer a huge energy shortage with fuel rationing, brown outs, and the like, but I take your point that losing access to oil from Bornea clearly won't tumble Australia to the Middle Ages.
Yes, but really only to conserve the reserves we've got.
In the initial stages, only fuel will be much of a problem. The vast majority of energy in Australia is from Coal and hydro (especially the latter in Tasmania). Wind is also seeing a bit of growth.
The last federal government were toyng with the idea of building nuclear power plants (in around 2005-6 I think it was) but before then there was deafening silence on the topic. Resistance to the idea when it was raised was immense.
Given the virtually nonexistant reliance on oil for electricity production, brownouts are only likely as a byproduct of transportation difficulties and EMP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Still, I cannot imagine there not being a pro-nuke power faction in Australia after the Twilight War.
There's always been and will be pro nuke factions, but it's highly doubtful they'd gain any traction whatsoever - there's just too many actively against the idea for both weapons and power.
Some oil might be bought from the middle east through the French, but it would be done with great resistance. Not many would like the idea of buying from what is essentially an occupying power...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
So, how much of this help would be in the form of Naval and Air Forces and how much Army forces do you think New Zealand could spare?
http://www.invadenewzealand.com/
The above link isn't all that far from reality. NZ hasn't got much of an airforce any more and the Navy I believe isn't much better. For armoured vehicles, the last I heard was they had nothing heavier than Scorpion and Scimitars.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:36 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Funny but very offensive.

I think that from late in the Twilight War onwards Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and a bunch of Pacific islands would form an antipodean version of the EU.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:52 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Funny but very offensive.
Only to you (ex) New Zealanders.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2009, 12:56 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
I think that from late in the Twilight War onwards Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and a bunch of Pacific islands would form an antipodean version of the EU.
This is so obvious to me that it is my final choice in any case and timeline. As you said Targan, I can't imagine Australia and New Zealand turning away from each other. But you know that already.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-27-2009, 01:03 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Only to you (ex) New Zealanders.
Darn it. Its hard to pretend that I'm pissed off when I'm laughing.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-27-2009, 11:30 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

In my games I have South Africa on NATO side fighting all over Africa.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2009, 04:18 AM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Tell us more Dog 6..

Is it a post Apartheid state or a South Africa that still practices Apartheid? How widespread are South Africa's forces? Are they agents of stability or are they just fighting it out with the local Soviet proxies?

Anyone else have a preference here? A barely functioning post Apartheid South Africa, probably lead by Nelson Mandela... the one guy the blacks would support and who wouldn't indulge in bloody revenge on the whites... This state would be besieged by armies of refugees and marauders pouring into the relative stability of South Africa, overrunning farms and looting communities.

...or a besieged apartheid South Africa, probably led by F.W. de Klerk, or a more reactionary Afrikaner President elected during the 1994 presidential race. This state would be besieged from within and without, fighting a very ugly race war. This war would turn much of South Africa into a war zone, and it would therefore be less attractive to refugees seeking safety. But perhaps foreign marauders would enter the country claiming to be there to liberate the place from "White Colonialism," only to loot and pillage any ethnic group that has something they want. This "race-war" South Africa is going to be a place of bloody absolutes and total war against civilians and soldiers.

Which one would make for a more likely scenario?

And which one would make for a more interesting role-playing environment for your players?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2009, 06:43 AM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Tell us more Dog 6..

Is it a post Apartheid state or a South Africa that still practices Apartheid? How widespread are South Africa's forces? Are they agents of stability or are they just fighting it out with the local Soviet proxies?

Anyone else have a preference here? A barely functioning post Apartheid South Africa, probably lead by Nelson Mandela... the one guy the blacks would support and who wouldn't indulge in bloody revenge on the whites... This state would be besieged by armies of refugees and marauders pouring into the relative stability of South Africa, overrunning farms and looting communities.

...or a besieged apartheid South Africa, probably led by F.W. de Klerk, or a more reactionary Afrikaner President elected during the 1994 presidential race. This state would be besieged from within and without, fighting a very ugly race war. This war would turn much of South Africa into a war zone, and it would therefore be less attractive to refugees seeking safety. But perhaps foreign marauders would enter the country claiming to be there to liberate the place from "White Colonialism," only to loot and pillage any ethnic group that has something they want. This "race-war" South Africa is going to be a place of bloody absolutes and total war against civilians and soldiers.

Which one would make for a more likely scenario?

And which one would make for a more interesting role-playing environment for your players?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
I have no Apartheid in South Africa, they are the main suppler of DU tank ammo in 2001. They have divisions all over from cape town to central Africa along with a US army group. They even took part in operations in the med and the war with france. "armies of refugees" LOL a few 20kt bombs fixed that problem.

BTW we play Battalions and up, mostly division's.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Anyone else have a preference here? A barely functioning post Apartheid South Africa, probably lead by Nelson Mandela... the one guy the blacks would support and who wouldn't indulge in bloody revenge on the whites... This state would be besieged by armies of refugees and marauders pouring into the relative stability of South Africa, overrunning farms and looting communities.

...or a besieged apartheid South Africa, probably led by F.W. de Klerk, or a more reactionary Afrikaner President elected during the 1994 presidential race. This state would be besieged from within and without, fighting a very ugly race war. This war would turn much of South Africa into a war zone, and it would therefore be less attractive to refugees seeking safety. But perhaps foreign marauders would enter the country claiming to be there to liberate the place from "White Colonialism," only to loot and pillage any ethnic group that has something they want. This "race-war" South Africa is going to be a place of bloody absolutes and total war against civilians and soldiers.

Which one would make for a more likely scenario?

And which one would make for a more interesting role-playing environment for your players?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Just a few very quick thoughts on this....

Personally I think the most likely scenario would probably be the first one, with Mandela elected in 1994 as he was in real life.

I do wonder, though, whether even if you go with option one South Africa would have remained intact and stable as a country following the world wide chaos of a Twilight War or whether it would have fragmented into a number of different mini States, probably based along tribal lines? This might give the opportunity for a role play environment similar to that outlined in option two (which does strike me as the more interetsing of the two)?

Cheers
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-29-2009, 01:09 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

I think that you are all right but I chose the exact opposite with South Africa remaining under a revived Apartheid.

In 1993, Chris Hani (an anti-apartheid activist) is assassinated (that failed in real life) by a Polish immigrant. The murderer is found dead and the investigation is slow.

As a result, riots are taking place in various districts. Mandela and the ANC fail to take control of the uprising and several white people are killed in the following weaks. As a result, the white/coloured minority starts to worry and de Klerk is forced to resign from the party. He is, then, replaced by Ferdinand Hartzenberg, a conservative. Later, the ANC is banned again, Mandela is send back to jail and dies, while the parliament change the law again and call for the 1994 election to be cancelled.

Of course, the result is growing chaos but basically, South Africa is left alone. The Western world is more concern about the Russian coup and the soviets don't get involved except for a renewed support to several of South Africa's neighbours. In addition, South Africa retain control of Walvis Bay.

When tensions start to really grow and war is on sight, NATO declares that it has no reason to get involved in South African's internal affairs. In return, it gets a fair access to the South African ressource market. Surprisingly, despite this, the country is never targeted by the Warsaw Pact.

Of course, internal tensions goes from riots to unrest to local uprising to full civil war but the various ethnic groups fail to unite and the government is able to play on these tensions. At last, while everyone else is engaged in the Twilight War, Hartzenberg's government meet the revolt with full military force, eventually dropping a few nukes on the few neighbour state providing what little support they can to the insurgents.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-30-2009, 03:55 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

A previous thread related to this topic.

South Africa http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=944
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:22 PM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
I think that you are all right but I chose the exact opposite with South Africa remaining under a revived Apartheid.

In 1993, Chris Hani (an anti-apartheid activist) is assassinated (that failed in real life) by a Polish immigrant. The murderer is found dead and the investigation is slow.
Mo, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding here and you're using the Chris Hani assassination as a suggested point of divergence from the real life timeline, but in real life the assasination didn't fail - Chris Hani was indeed murdered in April 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hani


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
As a result, riots are taking place in various districts. Mandela and the ANC fail to take control of the uprising and several white people are killed in the following weaks. As a result, the white/coloured minority starts to worry and de Klerk is forced to resign from the party. He is, then, replaced by Ferdinand Hartzenberg, a conservative. Later, the ANC is banned again, Mandela is send back to jail and dies, while the parliament change the law again and call for the 1994 election to be cancelled.

Of course, the result is growing chaos but basically, South Africa is left alone. The Western world is more concern about the Russian coup and the soviets don't get involved except for a renewed support to several of South Africa's neighbours. In addition, South Africa retain control of Walvis Bay.

When tensions start to really grow and war is on sight, NATO declares that it has no reason to get involved in South African's internal affairs. In return, it gets a fair access to the South African ressource market. Surprisingly, despite this, the country is never targeted by the Warsaw Pact.

Of course, internal tensions goes from riots to unrest to local uprising to full civil war but the various ethnic groups fail to unite and the government is able to play on these tensions. At last, while everyone else is engaged in the Twilight War, Hartzenberg's government meet the revolt with full military force, eventually dropping a few nukes on the few neighbour state providing what little support they can to the insurgents.
The above all sounds plausible if you want to keep an apartheid Government in place. I'd suggest it's probably also worth looking at the Afrikaner Volksfront as a means of resurrecting Apartheid. The Volsfront was led by General Constand Viljoen, a former head of the South African Defence Force and a hero to many Boers. In real life Mandela met with Viljoen in August 1993 and was able to persuade the General and the rest of the Volksfront leadership to take part in the 1994 elections. More on Viljoen here, including the fact that he apparently had 50,000 to 60,000 trained military personnel under his command and could have taken over large parts of South Africa had he chosen. I've also read that had he chosen to launch a takeover large parts of the SADF would have supported him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constand_Viljoen

As a point of divergence I'd suggest the possibility of white extremists assasinating Viljoen, but successfully managing to put the blame on the ANC in the process. In my opinion that could well have blown apart the 1994 elections and led to a very, very nasty racially motivated Civil War. A white victory in that War would probably have taken South Africa back to the worst days of apartheid.

I totally agree that with War on the horizon, NATO would not have interfered in South African internal politics, particularly if given preferential access to South Africa's natural resources.

Cheers

Dave
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:32 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
Mo, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding here and you're using the Chris Hani assassination as a suggested point of divergence from the real life timeline, but in real life the assasination didn't fail - Chris Hani was indeed murdered in April 1993.
Right, thank you for correcting me. I just got confused. what changed in real life is the fact that the murderer wasn't found assassinated. As a result, the deputy behind the assassination was identified.

Sorry, I must have got tired.

I didn't know of the Volksfront, however. Thanks for the information on that. My purpose, then, is to keep South Africa out of the war and bring more chaos to it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.