how long could the Apartheid system in South Africa survive?

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago.

>>1806997
Let's just talk about the early stages then.

I'd say that the only way for South Africa to survive would be genocide of the immigrant blacks.

>>1806990
>*have survived
Domestically? Almost indefinitely.
The security situation in South Africa was almost always secured and even in the worst of the dissent the homelands were maintained.
Umkhonto We Sizwe couldn't even scratch the SADF, it barely hurt much national/civilian infrastructure.

Internationally however the powers that be determined that it could not continue and lathered on the economic and political sanctions to force such.

File: 1475889112546.jpg (49KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 750x600px

>>1806990
It was international pressure that ended the Apartheid. International pressure stopped the regime from taking measures to preserve itself when it was obvious a radical change had to happen one way or another. Sanctions crashed the economy which produced enough pressure to force the white elite to cave in to black and international demands.

Without any international oversight the regime would have probably resorted to resettlement policies and other nasty things.

>>1807616
>resettlement policies
South Africa was already doing that with force long before the situation became dire.

>>1807633
Yeah but not nearly as drastic as they could have done it. I was actually thinking more along the lines of a mix of genocide and just forcing vast swathes of the black citizens to flee to other african states. Should have made that clearer.

>>1807700

Thing is South Africa made Bantustans then deported A LOT of Blacks into them and made them separate "nations" ando thers self-governing entities. Of course no nation in the world took South Africa's actions seriously and some of the entities and nations that went "okay lets try to make this work" got messed with by South Africa because South Africa STILL wanted to control all those areas that it "split" itself.

South Africa wanted to have the cake then eat it too and you see this a lot in that time period with it's policies.

>>1807345
South Africa need Blacks and Coloureds for their cheap labour.
That's why outright total removal form land wasn't an option. South Africa needed the maids and the house help and the farm labour and the miners etc. who work for basically nothing to propel it's economy.

>>1807869
That's why the people who had house servants and businesses where protesting when the government was putting the idea of outright removal on the table.

>>1806990
Why are there little flags stuck in that big flag?

File: Naval_Ensign_of_South_Africa_(1951-1952).svg.png (8KB, 718x359px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 718x359px

>>1807933
It's the flag of the Union of South Africa formed after the Boer War and the three nations/populations that were involved in the fighting that make up the Union, namely the British Empire and the two Boer republics.

The flag was an attempt to make all those parties happy.
It got a little bit silly 2bh.

>>1807869
> Of course no nation in the world took South Africa's actions seriously

And we are right bakc at the point of international pressure.

>>1807954
Still looks better than modern South Africa's flag desu

File: 13824627246.jpg (53KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x310px

>>1808070
(disagrees noisily)

The international pressure against South African Apartheid was started by the Soviets to undermine the Western capitalist presence in Africa. So that they could install communist puppet warlords. Cutting the western world off from African resources.

>>1808174
>So that they could install communist puppet warlords. Cutting the western world off from African resources.

That's what the western world was doing too brah.

>>1808229
Yes and rightfully so.
Better dead than Red.

>>1808239

The cold War actually fucked up the continent pretty hard.

>>1806990

The real truth is however as long as the west wanted it to survive. Apartheid could have continued indefinitely if the UK did not sanction SA. SA, as much as they hoped for different, was a colony and relied upon relations to the host country to survive. Once those ties were cut, money dried up and the regime ended. They chose a peaceful transition over war.

Not that it particularly matters, look at who owns and runs everything in SA: Anglos and Britons. The more things change the more they stay the same.

>>1808174

Officially yes. But the broader fact remains, by the 1980s society had decided that racial equality was important. So obviously the two remaining colonial countries had to go. And, as SA was not critically important to other facets of US policy (ie the flow of oil or south pacific security) it could be toyed with.

>>1806990
Until around 1990 apparently.

>>1806990
It's surprising it lasted as long as it did. With the state of decolonization as it was in sub-saharan Africa, the ANC could have waged a full-on guerrilla war in the style of Mugabe and Nkomo and they still would've gotten in charge. I think it's blessing the shift wasn't done so violently.

>>1808346
Actually SA managed to make Britain exiled Ian Khama's father due to his interracial marriage since SA had the resources that UK desperately needed post Ww2.