# How Much of an Annoyance Were The Boers (to The British Empire) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 6, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435 "2013-02-06T00:35:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/21 "2013-02-07T21:49:31Z")
The discovery of gold on the Rand was a game-changer. Until then nobody cared all that much if the Boers did go off and found their own republics - there was nothing they had that was perceived as desirable. The influx of foreigners, mostly British, into the Transvaal goldrush was something the Boers found disturbing. They would rather have done without them but the taxes they paid were vital to the State’s treasury (the first Boer republic had been so short of cash that the Postmaster-General had had to take his salary in stamps and the Surveyor-General had to take his in land). Oom Paul Kruger could see that these immigrants would soon be able to outvote his bloc if they obtained the franchise, while the _uitlanders_ [foreigner] objected to ‘taxation without representation’ (sound familiar?) ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/22 "2013-02-07T22:35:02Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > nlike so-caleld “imperialist wars” of today, the victors didn’t set up a half-way decent government, pour money into the place to look good, and eventually leave. The British established elected (by whites, of course) responsible government along the standard Westminster lines in the Transvaal and the OFS in 1907. And in terms of the Treaty of Vereeniging Britain gave 3 million pounds of reconstruction aid (about 300 million in today’s money). > [@](#): > > Britain had previously annexed the Boer in what is now the region around Cape Town. The British evidently made themselves so hated in such a brief amount of time that the Voertrekkers simply packed up and left to go far inland (making the British substantially responsible for several more population displacements and some fo the later ethnic and racial tensions in the region). It should be noted that one of the principal ways in which the British made themselves hated was that they abolished slavery. ---
**Author:** ![ctaylor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6f9a4e/32.png) [@ctaylor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctaylor)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/23 "2013-02-08T03:13:53Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > … > -it did not involve the Royal Navy (the premier force of the Empire) Right, there weren’t any sea battles but I have a book about the war that shows some Naval personnel manning large guns that were used in battle. I guess the Navy had artillery that could be deployed ashore if needed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/24 "2013-02-08T05:49:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Everything is connected. Every event has a number of effects on the society, both immediately and later on. And every event has a multitude of people making connections backward in hindsight, some of which are accurate and some are made to support a thesis. This is a general truth, and nothing to do with Massie, whom I haven’t read. He may be completely correct in what you report. Whether he is or isn’t is irrelevant. There were several zillion steps on the path to the Great War, and it would have happened even if South Africa as a country never existed. That’s part of my definition of whether an event was major or not. We seem to have such totally different definitions that we’ll never agree on this. From what I read the major cause of the British involvement in WWI was due to the fact that the Kaiser started a major fleet building program, and the reason for that, basically is that he wanted a fleet to play with. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/25 "2013-02-08T08:25:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > From what I read the major cause of the British involvement in WWI was due to the fact that the Kaiser started a major fleet building program, and the reason for that, basically is that he wanted a fleet to play with. From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Naval_Laws): > [@](#): > > Germany’s real threat to the Royal Navy began with the Second Naval Law. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), the Germans greatly sympathized with the Boers, whom they considered a racially and culturally akin people. In January 1900, British cruisers on patrol detained three German mail steamers off the coast of Africa to search them, suspecting them of carrying materiel to the Boers. Although the British quickly apologized, Germans were outraged, and Admiral von Tirpitz took advantage of the anger to introduce a new naval bill, which passed through the Reichstag with very little opposition on June 20 of that year. This law doubled the size of the fleet from 19 to 38 battleships; two flagships, four battle squadrons of eight battleships each, and four reserve battleships were to be constructed over seventeen years, from 1901 to 1917. This law made clear that not only was the German Navy to be a powerful battle fleet instead of a coastal defence force (in the process turning Germany into the second-strongest naval power in the world), but that the primary opponent of this enlarged fleet was to be the United Kingdom. > > Throughout the 1890s, Britain had been building its own battleships on a massive scale, and was more preoccupied with France and Russia than Germany, which it viewed more as an ally than as an enemy. However, the Second Naval Law, with its rapid expansion of the German fleet, began to gravely worry the island nation. German naval expansion threatened British control of the seas, which was vital not only to the maintenance of the British Empire, but also to the security of the British Isles themselves, as naval supremacy had long shielded Britain from invasion. > > As a result, the British began to shift their foreign and naval policies to meet the German threat. From 1902 onward, an Anglo-German naval arms race developed as the Admiralty advocated the Two-Power Standard plus an additional six battleships over and above parity with the French and Russians. Diplomatically, the British forever abandoned Splendid Isolation by concluding the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902, then followed it two years later by signing the Entente cordiale with their long-time rivals, the French. With the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente in 1907, the German fear of encirclement became a reality. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/26 "2013-02-08T08:45:46Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > The British evidently made themselves so hated in such a brief amount of time that the Voertrekkers simply packed up and left to go far inland (making the British substantially responsible for several more population displacements and some fo the later ethnic and racial tensions in the region). Yeah, let’s just stop and remember that the final straw for a lot of Voortrekkers was _the British ending of slavery_ in all colonies in 1834, and earlier _equal rights_ Cape legislation of '28. So let’s not try and revisionistically paint the Boers as just some sort of picked-on rugged individualists out to escape an oppressive English regime. They were the worst sort of people - racist fuckers who went looking for (and taking by force) new lands to lord it over. Anything bad that happened to them subsequently (Blood River, Boer War?) Not anything I’m in favour of, but clearly actions have consequences - they reaped what they sowed. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/27 "2013-02-08T16:54:26Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So let’s not try and revisionistically paint the Boers as just some sort of picked-on rugged individualists out to escape an oppressive English regime. They were the worst sort of people - racist fuckers who went looking for (and taking by force) new lands to lord it over. Granted, but history isn’t easy, and the British didn’t make life easy on anyone. It’s also true that racial attitutes became much more hardened after the British annexations, and the British created some of the more violent rivalries themselves. I don’t have to hold that the Boers were saints to point out that the British made errors and these had major consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/28 "2013-02-08T17:42:39Z")
I wonder if one of the major outcomes of the Boer War was Winston Churchill’s successful escape from a POW camp launched his political career. Probably he would have found another was-he was ambitious enough and likely would have found some other way to follow the publicity he got in the Malakand Field Force and the Sudan. It’s also interesting that a Boer leader like Jan Smuts could play a major role in the British Empire for the next half century. I can’t think of any figures from the Confederacy with a similar imprint after the civil war. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/29 "2013-02-08T18:26:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Naval_Laws): Yes, that was the excuse. But the reality was that the Kaiser really admired the British fleet, was a honorary Admiral, etc and wanted a fleet of his own to play with. That incident gave the Kaiser an excuse to build. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/30 "2013-02-09T17:08:00Z")
It may well have sealed Germany’s defeat in WWI-the Kaiser’s “play navy” (the High Seas Fleet) could never be big enough to challenge the Royal Navy. But it was big enough to siphon precious resources away from the army-this probably insured defeat. The only time the High Seas Fleet attempted engagement with the RN, it was defeated (Jutland), and never did do more than stay bottled up in the Baltic Sea. Theodore von Bethmann-Holweg prdicted this, and urged the Kaiser to not build a large navy-he didn’t listen. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/31 "2013-02-09T17:38:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > It may well have sealed Germany’s defeat in WWI-the Kaiser’s “play navy” (the High Seas Fleet) could never be big enough to challenge the Royal Navy. But it was big enough to siphon precious resources away from the army-this probably insured defeat. The only time the High Seas Fleet attempted engagement with the RN, it was defeated (Jutland), and never did do more than stay bottled up in the Baltic Sea. Theodore von Bethmann-Holweg prdicted this, and urged the Kaiser to not build a large navy-he didn’t listen. Yes, but for more reason than that. If the Kaiser hadn’t built a navy to challenge GB’s, GB might have remained neutral. Remember for hundreds of years the French were the enemy, and Russia had been one too recently. Whilst the Kaiser was part of the Queen Victoria’s family. However, in some ways Jutland could be considered a victory for Germany, the British navy’s losses were much higher, they lost three modern dreadnoughts to the High Seas Fleets one. This is one of my hypotheticals, a 'what if" that actually could have occurred. What if Adm Sheer had not retreated and the British fleet had continued losing ships at that rate? This could have changed the course of the war. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/32 "2013-02-09T19:36:49Z")
“The prisoner assaulted it’s jailer, but at the end, it was still in jail”. Scheer concluded that the High Seas Fleet could not risk another general engagement with the RN and advised the Kaiser that the best course was to remain a fleet-in-being. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/33 "2013-02-09T23:51:07Z")
Quote: However, in some ways Jutland could be considered a victory for Germany, the British navy’s losses were much higher, they lost three modern dreadnoughts to the High Seas Fleets one. The loss of the three RN battle cruisers was an unfortunate accident-they were lost because the fires in the gun turrets ignited the magazines. This defect was corrected. Also, the battle cruisers were not employed correctly-Admiral Beatty had them too close to the German battleships. Admiral Jellicoe led his force effectively-his failure to sink more German ships was due to the bad design of the British 12" shells (bad detonators). Admiral Scheer was correct-the High Seas Fleet was completely outclassed, and another engagement (after Jutland) would likely have meant the loss of most of the fleet. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/34 "2013-02-10T00:47:14Z")
One effect of the Boer War, on the upper class in particular, was to provide the impetus for a home-grown anti-war protest movement. Cutting their teeth in opposition to the Boer War, and especially the British imposed concentration camps, members of this movement would became a major player in The Great War - for the first time, one could question the actions and goals of the government (and by implication, the King). More generally, the existence of such a movement helped engender the huge social changes that defined the 20th century. For those interested, I suggest checking out [Adam Hochschild’s magnificent ‘To End All Wars’](http://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Rebellion-1914-1918/dp/B009LPNH0K/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360455771&sr=1-1&keywords=to+end+all+wars) (which I’ve mentioned on these boards a few times, and focuses on those who opposed WWI and the consequences they incurred as a result). You might also look into the life of [Emily Hobhouse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Hobhouse) who, if anyone, could be called the originator of the movement (during the Boer War she traveled to South Africa and there protested i_n situ_ her country’s “crime” in running the concentration camps). Similarly, opposition to the Boer War was a defining trait of members of the hugely influential [Pankhurst family](http://www.sylviapankhurst.com/about_sylvia_pankhurst/the_pankhurst_family.php). Energized by their fight against the Boer War, various family members would become a huge thorn in the side of the government when they actively and openly campaigned against getting involved in WWI. In addition, that same activism, nurtured by opposition to the Boer War, was a major force in the suffragette movement (the ultimate success of the latter having obvious implications to British society). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435/35 "2013-02-10T01:31:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but for more reason than that. If the Kaiser hadn’t built a navy to challenge GB’s, GB might have remained neutral. Remember for hundreds of years the French were the enemy, and Russia had been one too recently. Whilst the Kaiser was part of the Queen Victoria’s family. As I noted above, Britain had no formal alliances (only “interests”) prior to the Boer War. But the country Britain was closest to was Germany. And two countries Britain viewed as rivals (mostly over colonial issues) were France and Russia. So it would have seemed an Anglo-German alliance was much more likely than the Entente which historically happened. World War I would have been a very different war if Britain had fought on the German side. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-of-an-annoyance-were-the-boers-to-the-british-empire/649435.md?page=1)