So with hindsight, how does Apartheid South Africa's historical performance stack up?

So with hindsight, how does Apartheid South Africa's historical performance stack up? How well did they manage to arm themselves outside of the embargoes on them? Any unique stories to tell about SAF?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Decently all things considered. They really revolutionized individual kit and webbing(with things like the pattern 83 series, armson oeg sights, etc), and by the late 80s they had pretty much mastered fighting an unconventional war in the south african bush. Unfortunately this wasnt enough, as while they won a majority of their engagements in angola and namibia, none of that matters when international pressure is so strong that you basically have to tip toe around any sort of escalation or commitment to conflict.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      shoulda just tore the bandage off.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they also were instrumental in creating modern anti mine vehicles. A lot of the old guard SA MIC now work for GD

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Also, if you want to read about probably one of the most insane engagements in the border war, check out the battle of cassinga lol

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'd go as far to say that they wrote the book on counterinsurgency. They had some immensely innovative ideas and did way more than one would expect to become self-reliant going as far to develop their own indigenous mirage upgrade package and nukes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they wrote the book on counterinsurgency
      What did they do that was so special? I'm entirely unfamiliar with their performance aside from being pretty solid

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Read leopold scholtz's book on the border war if you want an excellent overview of their tactics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >indigenous
      >SA nukes
      they had help
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Somewhat overrated, while they were undoubtedly the best military in Africa at that point in time all of their opponents were basically uneducated, untrained, unorganized blacks during the chaotic decolonization era so they weren't in a position to put up that much of a threat anyways, except for the time they had to face Cubans. Compared to any first world, or even second world nation at the time they were basically a 60's era military operating in a 90's world. They did do pretty good with what they had though considering the sanctions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >60s era equipment in a 90s world
      I think you are moronic and have no idea what you are talking about

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This. South Africa was extremely ahead of the curve.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It seems to went decently for them. The decision to use eastern weapons went in their favor for their special forces since it added deniability. Politically keeping apartheid up was a shot in the foot because they couldn't buy western weapons while earning the ire of the rest of the world, and by the late 80s their air force was out of date and being out matched. Their artillery pieces were ingenious though. The military strategy was sound. Lots of counter insurgency lessons were learned from the conflict such as the U.S. with the MRAP.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dunno if this thing counts as apartied era, but I think its cool as shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      arguably even the rooikat would count because it was conceptualized and prototyped during the apartheid era but was first used after it.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >lost 1/3rd of their territory
    >arguably handled international disapproval better than Rhodesia but far worse than Israel as far as apartheid states go and did not secure any meaningful support abroad
    >played the greedy game of all or nothing between domestic and foreign entities and lost miserably due to the lack of willingness to compromise on absolutely everything
    >said greed put their wealth disparity at some of the absolute worst in the planet with some of the absolute poorest people in the continent and absolute richest somehow living right next to eachother
    >economic policies were trash overall
    >apartheid ended and now whites who used to rule the nation are being killed daily due to massive wealth disparity mentioned before

    the only thing that was above average was always and is still their military, but it completely falls flat in comparison to how bad and flat out unsustainable things were under the apartheid government, and especially now with the nation just barely hanging on to any semblance of being a "developed" nation. Places like Nigeria and Kenya are already outpacing them in economic development and what money is still there is very quickly leaving. I will never go back, it was never just the whites in the past and it was never just the blacks in the present. Everyone collectively chose all the wrong moves over and over again until there was nothing left.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know looking back I have no idea what their long term plans were for the country considering Apartheid was never going to work long term anyways. You can't govern a country where 95% of said country lives as essentially second class citizens and expect them to stay content forever. The only two options they realistically had were either split the country up India/Pakistan style through population transfers and just become two separate nations or use their resources to improve the lives and educate the African population for the future so they can actually remain as a successful unitary state, but then they decided to do neither. Annexing Namibia just made it a lot worse too because not only was it the start of the decline of relations with other other nations considering the UN didn't want them to annex it but it also added a shitload of native Africans that were going to be extra pissed off because they know had to live under Apartheid as well putting even more strain on the country. People like to jerk off Apartheid SA as being "civilized" and "stable" but they literally did everything wrong.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >use their resources to improve the lives and educate the African population for the future

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Population explosion my friend. You look at the black v white population in the 1900 census
        >1 million white
        >3 million black
        and then look at the 1996 census
        >4 million white
        >31 million black

        The sadness is that when Apartheid started in the 1950's it actually kind of made sense. But then the black population expanded exponentially.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You know looking back I have no idea what their long term plans were for the country considering Apartheid was never going to work long term anyways. You can't govern a country where 95% of said country lives as essentially second class citizens and expect them to stay content forever. The only two options they realistically had were either split the country up India/Pakistan style through population transfers and just become two separate nations or use their resources to improve the lives and educate the African population for the future so they can actually remain as a successful unitary state, but then they decided to do neither. Annexing Namibia just made it a lot worse too because not only was it the start of the decline of relations with other other nations considering the UN didn't want them to annex it but it also added a shitload of native Africans that were going to be extra pissed off because they know had to live under Apartheid as well putting even more strain on the country. People like to jerk off Apartheid SA as being "civilized" and "stable" but they literally did everything wrong.

          Caveat: Petty Apartheid (whites only benches etc) was gay. But it ended by the late 70's so whatever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The sadness is that when Apartheid started in the 1950's it actually kind of made sense.
          >kind of made sense.
          >in the heart of darkness
          It never made sense and the people that did it were fricking morons. Imagine trying to start a white ethnostate in Mombai.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Imagine trying to start a white ethnostate in Mombai.
            Not really the plan, friendo. The plan was basic
            >we have been trying to murder each other for 300 years
            >so lets just stay separate
            >you keep what tribal lands that remain
            >we keep what we settled
            Hence: Bantustans.

            >in Mombai.
            Refer to the census data.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But Bantustans were small states with only the bare minimum of "autonomy", they couldn't even represent themselves as separate countries on the national stage. If the Apartheid government wanted to devolve into two/multiple separate nations it could have done so but they didn't, it's the same reason why they outright annexed Namibia when the UN explicitly told them not too. They wanted to have a unitary state even when most of the people who lived inside of it couldn't even fully be citizens.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But Bantustans were small states with only the bare minimum of "autonomy"
                they roughly represented their tribal boundaries with the exception of one or two who had the misfortune of having massive cities in them.

                >they couldn't even represent themselves as separate countries on the national stage
                Thanks largely to the rest of the world, their lack of status was not due to a want of trying on South Africa's part.

                > If the Apartheid government wanted to devolve into two/multiple separate nations it could have done so but they didn't,
                It did
                They were for all intents and purposes independent states, with their own armies.

                >They wanted to have a unitary state even when most of the people who lived inside of it couldn't even fully be citizens.
                We wanted separate states with freedom of movement, as blacks were our labor pool and we were their skills pool.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most of the land not given to bantustans was a majority populated by blacks more so than whites, even before the exceptional growth of the black population. Even if it the didn't belong to one majority African tribal group it's a bit dishonest to say they gave blacks self-determinism when a majority still lived under Apartheid rule. And if the Apartheid government was serious about self-determinism they would have not annexed SWA/Namibia and would have allowed it to fall under trusteeship and allowed Namibians to reorganize themselves according to the people living there, as the UN intended, but they didn't. The bantustans were de-facto client states and it was obvious to any at the time.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >majority populated by blacks more so than whites
                Yeah. Thats the purpose of a Bantustan.

                >Even if it the didn't belong to one majority African tribal group it's a bit dishonest to say they gave blacks self-determinism when a majority still lived under Apartheid rule.
                No one was preventing them from living in the Bantusans.

                >. And if the Apartheid government was serious about self-determinism they would have not annexed SWA/Namibia and would have allowed it to fall under trusteeship and allowed Namibians to reorganize themselves according to the people living there, as the UN intended, but they didn't.
                Alas, the cold war was a thing.

                >The bantustans were de-facto client states and it was obvious to any at the time.
                You just changed your argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated to the south from central africa.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated to the south from central africa.

              https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=ccr

              Nope that's wrong san and swahili traded with each other long before the white came

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Nope that's wrong san
                San arent black. They are bushmen. None of the South African tribes speak a Swahili dialect. You're talking out your ass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >None of the South African tribes speak a Swahili dialect.
                https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=ccr

                Arabs and irans were also in south africa before the europeans lol

                San (Bushmen) traded ivory and gold for glass beads from the coast. One source estimates that as much as 20 million ounces of gold were taken from south central Africa during the period of approximately 800-1600 mostly through Swahili port.
                nope

                >The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002040/

                some of the ancestors of the Nguni people migrated from west of the geographic centre of Africa towards modern-day South Africa 7000 years ago (5000 BC). Nguni ancestors had migrated within South Africa to KwaZulu-Natal by the 1st century AD and were also present in the Transvaal region at the same time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Arabs and irans were also in south africa before the europeans lol
                They never settled.

                >The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated
                I never said that. First contact was along the Fish River in the Eastern Cape.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Arabs and Iranians were also in South Africa
                Source:Bro Tell Me

                Swahili isnt even an official language in South Africa which has 11.
                Because barely anybody except amongst newly arrived foreign African migrants who speak it amongst themselves.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Any historical research papers online that proves that what Chatgpt said was wrong?

                Just the fact that chatgpt is labelling the arrival of the Dutch as the beginning of colonialism in the region is proof of the ideological bias

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002040/

                >some of the ancestors of the Nguni people migrated from west of the geographic centre of Africa towards modern-day South Africa 7000 years ago (5000 BC). Nguni ancestors had migrated within South Africa to KwaZulu-Natal by the 1st century AD and were also present in the Transvaal region at the same time
                https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=ccr

                >San (Bushmen) traded ivory and gold for glass beads from the coast. One source estimates that as much as 20 million ounces of gold were taken from south central Africa during the period of approximately 800-1600 mostly through Swahili port.

                ignoring evidence the fricking Swahili traded with them long before the dutch came

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >still here
                >still posting the same sources

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Still can't debunked them...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I did, and you had no response.

                >Arabs and irans were also in south africa before the europeans lol
                They never settled.

                >The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated
                I never said that. First contact was along the Fish River in the Eastern Cape.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Bantus hate the San as much as they hate the Boers and Anglos. The San have been on the Cape for 40,000 years, the Boers have been there since the 1750s, and the Bantus migrated in Acker the Mafeking in the 1820s

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The whites were there first.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                probably speaking primarily of Bantus rather than the Khoi-San, whom if i'm not mistaken sparsely populated the Cape and other parts of South Africa due to them being Hunter Gatherers, and said Hunter Gatherer's having a low population density

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Africans are all the same and have infested every single corner of Africa since the dawn of time
                Gas

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous
            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >t. Rhodesia fetishizer
              You can be racist against blacks if you want but FFS learn some history my man

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The whites were there first. The vast majority of the black population emigrated to the south from central
              africa
              Even A.I think you're moronic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >chatgpt

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Any historical research papers online that proves that what Chatgpt said was wrong?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Any historical research papers online that proves that what Chatgpt said was wrong?

                Just the fact that chatgpt is labelling the arrival of the Dutch as the beginning of colonialism in the region is proof of the ideological bias

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Dutch as the beginning of colonialism in the region is proof of the ideological bias
                Colonialism in South Africa did start when the Dutch arrived in the Cape in 1652. Don't know what "ideological bias" you're referring to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Khoi arent Bantu and the first contact between Whites and Bantu's was along the Fish River in the Eastern Cape.

                While, blacks were in the interior of the country, most of it was pretty easily settled by whites because of what the Sesotho call the "Mfecane" - the depopulation caused by the Zulu wars of conquest. Put simply, the entirity of the Cape Province, most of the Eastern Cape, the Northern Cape, the Northwest and the Free State were devoid of meaningful bantu population groups.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wasn't the idea to carve out the bantu stans eventually

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In the long term the only viable solution would have been to exterminate the Black folk but back then nobody had the stomach for it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >arguably handled international disapproval better than Rhodesia but far worse than Israel as far as apartheid states go and did not secure any meaningful support abroad

      Western and even Soviet disapproval of Israel was entirely theatrics for the Arabs. It is only recently that they're getting any push back at all now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Places like Nigeria and Kenya are already outpacing them
      All the illegal African economic migrants would be heading to those countries not South Africa if it were true.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How well did they manage to arm themselves outside of the embargoes on them?
    obscenely well.

    >Any unique stories to tell about SAF?
    So when South Africa bought German Type 209 subs in the 2000's the South Africans told the Germans the specifications they wanted for the periscopes, and the Germans thought there was some mistake because the specifications were absurd. South Africans responded with
    >our current periscopes can do that
    Suffice as to say the local periscope manufacturer got bought up by the Germans in the space of two years.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know now why Afrikaners lost control of South Africa, kek.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I know now why Afrikaners lost control of South Africa, kek.
      Got out bred and then decided to do let the blacks have the vote?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They had some neat weapons but the lesson is that if you're already international pariah you may as well do the needful and liquidate the undesirables.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Its a complex issue because in the south african mind the pariah status was never fully understood. The opposition to majority rule was founded on
      1. we fricking hate communists
      2. they aren't part of our country, and for good reason because when we try to live together we just murder each other.
      Untangling the move towards Apartheid and the move against communism is impossible, because they are so closely interlinked. You add in the historical context, namely that the Blacks had tried to shoa the Afrikaners on a number of occasions and you get an insanely confusing outcome.

      A very, very similar scenario is modern day Israel and Palestine (if you swop communism for militant Islamism).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they aren't part of our country, and for good reason because when we try to live together we just murder each other.

        Dude even Rhodesia was able to figure that out better than SA. It wasn't because of practical reasons, it was for cultural and (partially) religious reasons. SA never even bothered to try. Sure, obviously, full integration would have been a massive undertaking, but doing SOMETHING (see, Rhodesia) to making a single economy and work force beats doing nothing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Dude even Rhodesia was able to figure that out better than SA.

          We say Zimbabwe now, don't we?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Its a complex issue because in the south african mind the pariah status was never fully understood. The opposition to majority rule was founded on
        >1. we fricking hate communists
        I'm not South African but that makes sense to me. South Africa was tangled up in the Cold War so negative polarization set in.

        >You add in the historical context, namely that the Blacks had tried to shoa the Afrikaners on a number of occasions and you get an insanely confusing outcome.
        The Boers were also pioneers in insurgency more than a century ago against the British who needed hundreds of thousands of troops and concentration camps (which some say Hitler learned from) to get them to capitulate. It's interesting to read about these guys who went private in the 90s in African bush wars where they seemed to be highly effective and at ease operating in an African context. Like you'd go into an expat bar in Sierra Leone in the 90s and there would be these pudgy, pale, and generally loathsome and miserable American diamond dealers who looked 60 despite being 40, hating themselves and hating the place they were in, telling stories about being in the KKK and talking about how the 15-year-old girls hanging out in the place would frick you like they're 30, like some kind of grotesque tourism. Then the Afrikaners would be there but acting like it's home, more or less, while looking tanned, fit, and actually at ease with themselves and where they were (and thus actually effective).

        I don't think there are many whites in the Jacob Zuma fan club but he called Afrikaners the only true South Africans among whites.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >do the needful and liquidate the undesirables
      While the SA’ffers were making some interesting developments in weaponised sterilants I’m not sure a “frick it we ball” situation would be in the best interest of the government, since then they now have to deal with the entire black/coloured population fighting for their lives (granted if it was a more clandestine and slow approach they probably could make some headway but eventually the blacks are going to figure out something isn’t right)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        SA pushing healthcare in the form of abortion rights would have been hilarious

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The idiocy of the Apartheid system was that the Afrikaners were trying to have a cheap and reliable black labor force without giving them any of the rights that would make those possible ie they wanted black workers in their cities but no black residents. If they had committed to No Blacks then the system might have been workable.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Nguni people were in South Africa more than 7,000 years ago. The Bakoni date back 250,000 and longer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ...according to linguistic reconstruction

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ...according to linguistic reconstruction
            Archeological discoveries.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What ethnic group did those rocks belong to?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ancient Bakoni People in Mumpumala in the North of South Africa.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whenever you solve hunger and medicine for simple people thier population explodes without the prior forces that limited it.

    Africa went from a small part of the world pop and is set to be most humans in a century.
    South Africa dealt with that same scenario.

    Most blacks moved to white states because they had attractive economies and better qualities of life. Blacks willingly migrated somewhere to be a second class citizen because it was better than being an equal citizen in a black run state. Then the world pressured the whites to give them the nation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it wasnt migration, our border was on perma lockdown. It was just a population bomb.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They completely fricked up their counterinsurgency against the ANC by allowing them to achieve hegemony over the anti-Apartheid opposition

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    ...according to linguistic reconstruction

    Bantus literally did not have any settlements untill 30 years after the Europeans arrived. Bushmen were around but who cares? They make up a negligible part of the black population. Whites had every right to make a homeland

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Bantus literally did not have any settlements untill 30 years after the Europeans arrived.
      What did they live in for millienia before those 30 years?

      >Bushmen were around but who cares?
      They resided around the Cape where the Dutch wanted to establish a sea port. Not the the whole of South Africa.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I actually find interesting you guys mention Israel, as I understand neither muslim or israelite population have anything stopping them from moving to each other neighbors, it's just they prefer to stay apart outside of business, while funds are unequal there is nothing stopping an arab from getting rich if he puts a mind to it, they have been allowed to participate in national politics even while conscription doesn't apply to them and the only people who seems to have given israelites problems are from the Gaza strip despite getting autonomy and economic support, why they didn't try this in SA?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *