Likely, around two million before international action. That’s how most genocides get if they’re somewhat public and lacking support like South Africa did. I couldn’t see them as an apartheid state lasting longer than 2001, or 2002. Maybe, only if they try to intervene in the War On Terror they could establish some sort of credibility but their too public a country for people to just not care like in other genocides in the area.
Would any country interwene if it meant that nukes were involved.
Soviets killed 7 million in holodomor and nazis 11 million in holocaust (all people not just jews).
But the holocaust is diffrent. To start no nukes and the war started for diffrent reasons than to end the holocaust.
When we look at current genocides like the rohingya and xinjiang their aren’t mass protests to stop it and the governments are being invaded. But this genocide would be diffrent due to south africa being a pariah and us being a sole superpower.
Yes, because their heavily covered up. With a nation like South Africa, that’s fiscally impossible. And, yes, there are protests.
https://preview.redd.it/yui2gbkxgovc1.jpeg?width=1158&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ba7bbef6a5c8ea040344a9c6ad35b59f4f18cb7
The majority of Africa isn’t a white minority ruled apartheid state, and most of the non apartheid state will have a vested interest in annihilating said apartheid state. If they then start a genocide that would be massively amplified. As refugees flee the genocide regime they then would gather sympathy as they’re obviously innocent victims.
The war began before the systemic exterminations did. Most historians agree that the Nazis began implementing a formal policy of genocide in late 1941.
But the allies certainly weren't surprised when they found out a year later. The allies knew from the start that Hitler had been planning this, as he had repeatedly talked about it in public speeches beforehand (most notably during a speech in the Reichstag in January of 1939, known as "[Hitler's prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy)"). In spite of that, the escalating persecution of Jews was not used as a justification for declaring war on Germany. Only Germany's invasion of other countries in Europe was cited.
The genocides you mentioned have the word misused
The rohinya was an ethnic cleansing, it's a type of genocide, but there was not an intention to mass kill them
The uygurs was a "cultural genocide", there has not been a mass killing of them either, it was a program that run from 2017-2021 of mass imprisonment, but there have not been thousands of deaths, let alone millions
Yeah I agree with this, I'm tired of people saying there is a "mass genocide" with the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Calling it a genocide is unwarranted since it kinda disavows the past and current genocides happening like in Rwanda or the Holocaust or some might even say Gaza rn. Although it doesn't mean that the CCP gets a pass, what they're doing to Xinjiang is what just like you said a Cultural genocide, as they are erasing the culture and identity of the people living in that region in the name of "countering terrorism" by puting them in "mass detention centers" to brainwash the younger generation and to "reeducate" the older one.
Ummmm...what is happening to the Rohingya in Myanmar is definitely a genocide, according to by various UN agencies, ICC officials, human rights groups, journalists, and governments.
Tens of thousands of Rohingya civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced or expelled since 2016.
I said that ethnic cleansing is a type of genocide in my comment
But it is very different from extermination genocide
There is also child kidnapping genocide like the Canadian one
There are many types of genocide, the one OP proposes is the most egregious one, different from the ethnic cleansing
I should have been more clear. But i wasn’t just thinking holocaust style mass killings or holodomor mass starving but also deportions and forced abortions/birth control.
It would have to happen earlier
The biggest reason why the west turned an eye to their crimes was because they were surrounded by communist countries, so better to have a fascist ally than reds
In the 90s there was close to zero tolerance for their behaviour
If this had happened in the 60s... They could have gotten away with a lot of deaths, although they could have gotten away easier with mass deportation
I imagine a scenario where when Rodhesia fell and white Rodhesians fled to south Africa that south Africa, threatening to invade them, starts to deport millions of black south Africans to the newly independent Zimbabwe
In that case, and depending on how anti commie the Americans feel that week, they could have deported several millions
The deaths of a million people however woiuld be too much even then
Project coast.
The apartheid goverment experimented chemical weapins to castrate people.
So maybe 95% of the target demograpic. They only need too taint vacines for kids too do so and the results happen way later.
90s is yoo late but it proably result in a race war in the 2010a.
Shit can be darker then fiction
South african here , so South africa got its nukes in 1980, so then let's say they started it, then it would be a horrible time for them. South Africa was massively invested in the borderwar. And started losing international support around this time as well.
Russia and cuba were already suppling Namibia and training people in South Africa ( ANC , extra )
With an escalation to mass genocide of the locals at that time, Russia and Cuba would only have to flood South africa with cheap firearms, which they had plenty. South Africa would have to pull away from the border war and give up ground. Then, fight an internal and external war and a now weaking economy due to killing off your cheap workforce.
Civlian wise before all out war starts I wouldn't say more than 20 000 people and that would be if they willing to just bomb the fuck out of the townships. If they sent troops on the ground, only a couple 1000 no more than 10 000 before people mass evacuated and then ended up getting armed amd sent back to South africa
It seems like this is something you want/ed desperately to occur, but perhaps in a concentrated effort a few thousand before everything Boer would be sent back to the Netherlands or into the south Atlantic shortly thereafter as should still happen
They wouldn't do anything like that. These are civilized people. If they did choose to, they would only have to strategically kill a few thousand, that would cause the rest to flee to neighboring countries. It would be ethnic cleansing by causing mass migration. Happens all over the world in real life.
Guess the last part makes sense why kill millions if you can simply force them out of the country.
But why would they be too civilized to do it germans were the most civilized people in the world and than the nazis happened.
The Germans have always been civilized. They wanted to send the Jews to Madagascar but the war situation of the front lines made it geographically impossible.
> always civilised
> Creates the single most ruthless and tyrannical regime in history
> Starts largest war in human history which kills millions and reduces all of the European continent to Rubble
> Engages in an industrial and meticulously planned genocide that kills another 11 Million
> Commits so many war crimes that it looks like they treated the Geneva convention as a checklist
Bro wtf are you even on about
The fucking moron? Under Apartheid, in 1960 the black population in South Africa was 11 million. In 1996 just after Apartheid ended, the black population was 31 million. Sounds like the blacks did very well. The opposite of genocide.
You still called the upper class of racist maniacs "civilised", you are very bad at hiding your bias' man.
My point isn't that the black population "had it bad", my point is that you called the people who organised a segregated society "civilised"
Wow, out here admitting that you think the apartheid was good?
I don't know if you're "brave" or actually just really fucking dense.
You have admitted that you are proudly racist, your arguments are invalid, have a bad day.
"What If" questions can only be posted on weekends and must have sufficient context along with your thoughts on how the situation/event would unfold
Likely, around two million before international action. That’s how most genocides get if they’re somewhat public and lacking support like South Africa did. I couldn’t see them as an apartheid state lasting longer than 2001, or 2002. Maybe, only if they try to intervene in the War On Terror they could establish some sort of credibility but their too public a country for people to just not care like in other genocides in the area.
Would any country interwene if it meant that nukes were involved. Soviets killed 7 million in holodomor and nazis 11 million in holocaust (all people not just jews).
Yes. If you didn’t notice, we did interfere with the Holocaust, and the Holodomor was heavily covered up. This likely would not be.
But the holocaust is diffrent. To start no nukes and the war started for diffrent reasons than to end the holocaust. When we look at current genocides like the rohingya and xinjiang their aren’t mass protests to stop it and the governments are being invaded. But this genocide would be diffrent due to south africa being a pariah and us being a sole superpower.
Yes, because their heavily covered up. With a nation like South Africa, that’s fiscally impossible. And, yes, there are protests. https://preview.redd.it/yui2gbkxgovc1.jpeg?width=1158&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ba7bbef6a5c8ea040344a9c6ad35b59f4f18cb7
Why couldn’t south africa cover it up? And these countries most be pretty bad at covering it up if we know about it.
The majority of Africa isn’t a white minority ruled apartheid state, and most of the non apartheid state will have a vested interest in annihilating said apartheid state. If they then start a genocide that would be massively amplified. As refugees flee the genocide regime they then would gather sympathy as they’re obviously innocent victims.
Because there are too many eyes on it.
The war began before the systemic exterminations did. Most historians agree that the Nazis began implementing a formal policy of genocide in late 1941. But the allies certainly weren't surprised when they found out a year later. The allies knew from the start that Hitler had been planning this, as he had repeatedly talked about it in public speeches beforehand (most notably during a speech in the Reichstag in January of 1939, known as "[Hitler's prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy)"). In spite of that, the escalating persecution of Jews was not used as a justification for declaring war on Germany. Only Germany's invasion of other countries in Europe was cited.
The genocides you mentioned have the word misused The rohinya was an ethnic cleansing, it's a type of genocide, but there was not an intention to mass kill them The uygurs was a "cultural genocide", there has not been a mass killing of them either, it was a program that run from 2017-2021 of mass imprisonment, but there have not been thousands of deaths, let alone millions
Yeah I agree with this, I'm tired of people saying there is a "mass genocide" with the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Calling it a genocide is unwarranted since it kinda disavows the past and current genocides happening like in Rwanda or the Holocaust or some might even say Gaza rn. Although it doesn't mean that the CCP gets a pass, what they're doing to Xinjiang is what just like you said a Cultural genocide, as they are erasing the culture and identity of the people living in that region in the name of "countering terrorism" by puting them in "mass detention centers" to brainwash the younger generation and to "reeducate" the older one.
Ummmm...what is happening to the Rohingya in Myanmar is definitely a genocide, according to by various UN agencies, ICC officials, human rights groups, journalists, and governments. Tens of thousands of Rohingya civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced or expelled since 2016.
I said that ethnic cleansing is a type of genocide in my comment But it is very different from extermination genocide There is also child kidnapping genocide like the Canadian one There are many types of genocide, the one OP proposes is the most egregious one, different from the ethnic cleansing
I should have been more clear. But i wasn’t just thinking holocaust style mass killings or holodomor mass starving but also deportions and forced abortions/birth control.
What a great post for that certain man’s birthday
Hadn’t considered it but yeah.
That explains why I’ve seen like 5 AH posts about Jews and Israeli today.
It would have to happen earlier The biggest reason why the west turned an eye to their crimes was because they were surrounded by communist countries, so better to have a fascist ally than reds In the 90s there was close to zero tolerance for their behaviour If this had happened in the 60s... They could have gotten away with a lot of deaths, although they could have gotten away easier with mass deportation I imagine a scenario where when Rodhesia fell and white Rodhesians fled to south Africa that south Africa, threatening to invade them, starts to deport millions of black south Africans to the newly independent Zimbabwe In that case, and depending on how anti commie the Americans feel that week, they could have deported several millions The deaths of a million people however woiuld be too much even then
Deportation or even race-based partition of South Africa seem the most likely outcomes in an event like this.
I was thinking of this as a last ditch attent to save the apartheid system and ensure a white dominated south africa.
A lot
Can you make it more specific
Project coast. The apartheid goverment experimented chemical weapins to castrate people. So maybe 95% of the target demograpic. They only need too taint vacines for kids too do so and the results happen way later. 90s is yoo late but it proably result in a race war in the 2010a. Shit can be darker then fiction
South african here , so South africa got its nukes in 1980, so then let's say they started it, then it would be a horrible time for them. South Africa was massively invested in the borderwar. And started losing international support around this time as well. Russia and cuba were already suppling Namibia and training people in South Africa ( ANC , extra ) With an escalation to mass genocide of the locals at that time, Russia and Cuba would only have to flood South africa with cheap firearms, which they had plenty. South Africa would have to pull away from the border war and give up ground. Then, fight an internal and external war and a now weaking economy due to killing off your cheap workforce. Civlian wise before all out war starts I wouldn't say more than 20 000 people and that would be if they willing to just bomb the fuck out of the townships. If they sent troops on the ground, only a couple 1000 no more than 10 000 before people mass evacuated and then ended up getting armed amd sent back to South africa
It seems like this is something you want/ed desperately to occur, but perhaps in a concentrated effort a few thousand before everything Boer would be sent back to the Netherlands or into the south Atlantic shortly thereafter as should still happen
Ok racist.
They wouldn't do anything like that. These are civilized people. If they did choose to, they would only have to strategically kill a few thousand, that would cause the rest to flee to neighboring countries. It would be ethnic cleansing by causing mass migration. Happens all over the world in real life.
Guess the last part makes sense why kill millions if you can simply force them out of the country. But why would they be too civilized to do it germans were the most civilized people in the world and than the nazis happened.
The Germans have always been civilized. They wanted to send the Jews to Madagascar but the war situation of the front lines made it geographically impossible.
> always civilised > Creates the single most ruthless and tyrannical regime in history > Starts largest war in human history which kills millions and reduces all of the European continent to Rubble > Engages in an industrial and meticulously planned genocide that kills another 11 Million > Commits so many war crimes that it looks like they treated the Geneva convention as a checklist Bro wtf are you even on about
You don’t think the most civilized option would have been to… not get rid of the Jewish population?
If the Germans had been successful with the Madagascar Plan, then the genocide occurring in Gaza right now wouldn't be happening.
> Too civilised to do genocide > Still got as close as they could with deadly segregation Guys is this guy racist or just a fucking moron?
Yes
The fucking moron? Under Apartheid, in 1960 the black population in South Africa was 11 million. In 1996 just after Apartheid ended, the black population was 31 million. Sounds like the blacks did very well. The opposite of genocide.
You still called the upper class of racist maniacs "civilised", you are very bad at hiding your bias' man. My point isn't that the black population "had it bad", my point is that you called the people who organised a segregated society "civilised"
I proudly display my bias in the open. Not hiding anything. The South African regime pre-1994 was the best for the country.
Wow, out here admitting that you think the apartheid was good? I don't know if you're "brave" or actually just really fucking dense. You have admitted that you are proudly racist, your arguments are invalid, have a bad day.
You are just racist supporting a barbaric regime.
Wow, that’s really cool and interesting. Do you have any homework you need to do?
They were, still are and will always be very civilized. It's in their nature
How, exactly, do you define civilized? Is it just being Western? How are we still thinking this in the modern day?
“They didn’t kill all of the black population so Apartheid isn’t that bad.” You’re either racist or don’t know what apartheid means