Anglo-Boer War

[Nod]

The symptoms of disease and dysentery perhaps?

Yes, and malnutrition. They didn't just get that way overnight. Without fresh food, the body's defences will go down pretty quickly, leaving you open to all kinds of nasties.

 

[Sackboy]

Yes, and malnutrition. They didn't just get that way overnight. Without fresh food, the body's defences will go down pretty quickly, leaving you open to all kinds of nasties.

The sense I'm getting here is that the British soldiers let them fall ill, which is nonsense. Not a lot was known at the time about water-borne diseases for a start. The poor hygiene of the Boers was a contributing factor - adequate water or not.

 

[Gothan]

Well, quite rightly so. The TVL republic was quite happy to let the "Uitlanders" in to mine the gold so that they could impose excessive taxation yet deny representation.

Another piece thats interesting:

"The war and its aftermath reverberated across the Empire. The importing to South Africa and use (especially on the gold mines) of Chinese labour, known as Coolies, after the war by the governor of the new crown colonies, Lord Milner as cheap labour to repress local workers and break strikes, also caused much revulsion in the UK and Australia. The Chinese workers were themselves often kept in appalling conditions, receiving only a small wage and isolated from the local population "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Boer_War


Seems you can't really fault the transvaal on this, if the british turned around when they came into control, and were actually a lot worse towards "foreigners"

 

[Blah!Blah!]

The sense I'm getting here is that the British soldiers let them fall ill, which is nonsense. Not a lot was known at the time about water-borne diseases for a start. The poor hygiene of the Boers was a contributing factor - adequate water or not.

the english let them starve bud, the boers where not given sufficient food,water, medicine also the boers where used to living in the "velt" and being all cramped together led to poor hygiene.

The scorched earth policy didn't exactly make it possible to supply food .. since everything was burnt.

Plenty english soldiers also died due to lack of food and medical care, the british put them in camps for "their own safety" and then let them die .. simple go do some extensive reading on the subject.

The hope of making the Boers stop fighting by burning their farms and putting their family in camps backfired since in most cases it spurned them on and made the boers hate the british even more.

The camps caused great shame to befall on England and Lord Kitchener was a twat

 

[Gothan]

The sense I'm getting here is that the British soldiers let them fall ill, which is nonsense. Not a lot was known at the time about water-borne diseases for a start. The poor hygiene of the Boers was a contributing factor - adequate water or not.

And you've heard about the "broken glass in the mieliepap" tricks.

But I agree with you, it was not the intention of the British , but the british (lets be clear, the british military rulers, not the british as a people) also did not stop the camps when they saw they could not cope, they continued with their scorched earth policy

EDIT : Dang Blah!Blah! you jumped head of me with your post

 

[Blah!Blah!]

Another piece thats interesting:

"The war and its aftermath reverberated across the Empire. The importing to South Africa and use (especially on the gold mines) of Chinese labour, known as Coolies, after the war by the governor of the new crown colonies, Lord Milner as cheap labour to repress local workers and break strikes, also caused much revulsion in the UK and Australia. The Chinese workers were themselves often kept in appalling conditions, receiving only a small wage and isolated from the local population "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Boer_War


Seems you can't really fault the transvaal on this, if the british turned around when they came into control, and were actually a lot worse towards "foreigners"

also the British changed the mining laws from 1 white miner for every 5 black miners to 1 white miner for every 10 black miners, thus threatening white employment, the chinesse where eventually expelled from the country.

 

[Blah!Blah!]

And you've heard about the "broken glass in the mieliepap" tricks.

But I agree with you, it was not the intention of the British , but the british (lets be clear, the british military rulers, not the british as a people) also did not stop the camps when they saw they could not cope, they continued with their scorched earth policy

EDIT : Dang Blah!Blah! you jumped head of me with your post

lol soz bud just glad to have people here willing to discuss history

 

[Mila]

lol soz bud just glad to have people here willing to discuss history

+10 I love reading this. And not once did someone say You stinka for doing this and that. Just stating facts. Very cool

 

[TheHiveMind]

The hope of making the Boers stop fighting by burning their farms and putting their family in camps backfired since in most cases it spurned them on and made the boers hate the british even more.

Hmm, should have fought in rows. Wouldn't have been any reason for a scorched earth policy or concentration camps if they had not initiated guerilla warfare. Should've picked "civilized warfare". The decisions made by the boer leaders cost their people dearly. They could not win that war.

 

[Nod]

Hmm, should have fought in rows. Wouldn't have been any reason for a scorched earth policy or concentration camps if they had not initiated guerilla warfare. Should've picked "civilized warfare". The decisions made by the boer leaders cost their people dearly.

And I suppose the Boere should also have worn bright coloured jerseys so that the brits could see them easier? Don't be silly.

 

[Blah!Blah!]

Hmm, should have fought in rows. Wouldn't have been any reason for a scorched earth policy or concentration camps if they had not initiated guerilla warfare. Should've picked "civilized warfare". The decisions made by the boer leaders cost their people dearly. They could not win that war.

lol I hope that you said that tongue in cheek

 

[Blah!Blah!]

anyway while Winston Churchill was captured by the boers ( he was their as a reporter) the guerilla warfare of the boers impressed him so much that when he created a elite force during the second world war he called them ... "Commandos"

 

[TheHiveMind]

And I suppose the Boere should also have worn bright coloured jerseys so that the brits could see them easier? Don't be silly.

You are right, they stood no chance either way so I'm still confused as to why they didn't back down in the first place. They must have known the Brit generals would respond in kind when they didn't play by the "rules of warfare". That was ofcourse why they existed.

Atleast in civilized warfare, you settle it on the battlefield, you don't make the entire country a battlefield. Men die there, women and children don't.

 

[Blah!Blah!]

You are right, they stood no chance either way so I'm still confused as to why they didn't back down in the first place. They must have known the Brit generals would respond in kind when they didn't play by the "rules of warfare". That was ofcourse why they existed.

Atleast in civilized warfare, you settle it on the battlefield, you don't make the entire country a battlefield. Men die there, women and children don't.

How could they back down, their way of life was under attack, their country being taken away from them etc. ...

 

[Mila]

civilized warfare,

Is that not a oxymoron?

What is civilized about standing in rows to be shot?

 

[TheHiveMind]

How could they back down, their way of life was under attack, their country being taken away from them etc. ...

It is true, that their right to govern themselves was under attack, because numbers threatened their majority vote, and the Brits tried to cause an uprising to bring about control which was very underhanded. However I also find it interesting, because the influx of Europeans were here for the same reason the Boers had come here in the first place. Why did they regard themselves as rightful owners? They were playing the game of conquest and that is how they flourished in this country. And then the Brits did the same to them. Is there a difference? What makes one more righteous than the other?

 

[Nod]

Atleast in civilized warfare, you settle it on the battlefield, you don't make the entire country a battlefield. Men die there, women and children don't.

There haven't been a "battle ground" in ages (at least a 100 years or so).

 

[Blah!Blah!]

Here is something written in 1901 by Count Sternberg who was a german advisor during the boer war

The quantity of foreign criticism on the war in South Africa leaves nothing to be desired. The quality may be inferred from the fact that one of the best known of German military historians declares that khaki was not taken into wear until after many defeats ; that the English infantry attacked in solid line ; that volleys were the only species of fire employed ; and that the Boers never made use of the spade ! The critics have probably been misled by the gutter press, for from no other source could the many false statements which form the basis of their criticism have been derived ; and they have no doubt been greatly hampered by their want of experience of modern war. It Is disappointing, at the same time, to find such deep students of European campaigns so utterly abroad when they approach another continent ; and men who have been, and are perhaps still, soldiers, so careless of fact and so forgetful of fair play. The majority of the articles dealing with the campaign are not only remarkable for inaccuracy, but dis- play an almost incredible disregard of the peculiar features of the theatre of war,...

.pdf 17megs

 

[Blah!Blah!]

It is true, that their right to govern themselves was under attack, because numbers threatened their majority vote, and the Brits tried to cause an uprising to bring about control which was very underhanded. However I also find it interesting, because the influx of Europeans were here for the same reason the Boers had come here in the first place. Why did they regard themselves as rightful owners? They were playing the game of conquest and that is how they flourished in this country. And then the Brits did the same to them. Is there a difference? What makes one more righteous than the other?

long answer needed to answer that ... I will try type out a short version and post later ...got work to do

you can start by reading this if you are interested

love reading all these old books written by people in the time - this particular book was published in 1902

Preface

After resigning membership of the British House of Commons in October, 1899, as a personal and political protest against a war which I believed to be the greatest infamy of the nineteenth century, I proceeded, a short time afterwards, to the Transvaal to see and learn more about the little nation against whose liberty and land this crime had been planned and executed. This book embodies the facts and information which I obtained in my intercourse with the leaders and people of both Republics.

It also contains the impressions which followed from a few months' close contact with them during their unparalleled struggle to retain their independence. I owe the expression of grateful acknowledgments for the facilities given and the assistance willingly tendered to me by members of both governments during my stay in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, and to numerous officers and officials who supplied me with authentic details of the earlier battles of the campaign in Natal and on the western borderland.

 

[Gothan]

It is true, that their right to govern themselves was under attack, because numbers threatened their majority vote, and the Brits tried to cause an uprising to bring about control which was very underhanded. However I also find it interesting, because the influx of Europeans were here for the same reason the Boers had come here in the first place. Why did they regard themselves as rightful owners? They were playing the game of conquest and that is how they flourished in this country. And then the Brits did the same to them. Is there a difference? What makes one more righteous than the other?

You do know, that the area in question was agreed upon in the peace treaty at pretoria by the boer republics and the british at the end of the 1st ABW.

Most of the foreigners in joburg was very happy with the laws passed by the volksraad, cause it had very little impact on them, most of them came in search of gold.

But the british was afraid that transvaal would become the economic powerhouse, which it did (thanks rwenzori for pointing me in the right direction). The British were afraid that the cape colony would dwindle (which it did economically), and thats why they wanted the Boer republics, nothing sacred as "helping the poor foreigners".

There is a difference between a settler and a colonizer