The British, the super power of the late 19th century poured almost half a million troops and suffered 20,000 dead to bring South Africa back into the fold.
The British had to change tactics to deal with a guerilla styled enemy.
Eventually they were victorious.
Gold was a motivating factor.
But within a few decades, they lost South Africa due to “democracy”
Twenty thousand dead for a few decades of South Africa under British rule?
What a waste of humanity.
Well I’m seeing the Iraq war in the sense of deja vu.
Super power against guerilla war, oil instead of gold, trying to implement a favourable government on a people, the Afrikaans, who have vastly different idea about human rights.
What if the US is able to declare a victory and withdraw?What guarantees can the US government provide that Iraq won’t descend into an unfavourable state?
So far 3000 American lives have been sacrificed in Iraq. For what? Democracy? Democracy itself isn’t good enough. I hear that they hold elections in Iran as well.
and had to invent the concentration camp, don’t forget that…
Well, some parts of SA had been under British rule for a lot longer before the Anglo-Boer War. The nice parts. Also it took 60 years, I wouldn’t class that as “A few decades”, it was certainly long enough for a lot of South African gold and diamonds to enrich the Empire.
That’s Boers, not Afrikaans. Afrikaans is a language, Afrikaner is someone who speaks it (not neccessarily white). Mostly, nowadays, we call it the South African War because a lot of different peoples took part in it.
None.
The SA War and the suffering of Boer non-combatants therein actually led to the kind of laager mindset that designs apartheid to keep “Die Volk” (The People) safe , for instance. That also almost led to SA coming out on the German side in WWII, for instance, such was the hate for the British. I can certainly see some Iraqis developing the same hate for the coalition troops, and by extention, the West.
Really? I didn’t realise that there was a debate about this at the time. Given that Jan Smuts was simultaneously Prime Minister of South Africa, member of the Imperial War Cabinet and a Field Marshall in the British Army throughout the unpleasantness, I’d aways assumed that SA was a staunch ally.
Whoops - firstly, I meant WWI there (but Smuts was a British officer for that one too, same as WWII) - read about the Maritz Rebellion here. Although there was also a substantial pro-German movement in WWII (Broederbond - 80s arcade games by Broderbund Software always made me smile!). But just because some one man in power is enlightened (and Smuts in some ways came to be a very enlightened man - did you know he invented the modern usage of “Holistic”?) does not mean the Boer on the Street was. Hell, in some places, speaking English in a bar can still get you the cold shoulder at best.
I am sure that a diplomatic solution could have been found
I don’t see much similarity between that conflict and Iraq, in SA it was expansion of one colony’s established territory into another colony’s established territory.
Actually the similarities beween the Boer War and the US War of Independance are striking, an undecided population, guerrilla tactics and a failure of established ‘warfare’ techniques.
Iraq is more of a Civil War with a powerful and alien state getting involved.