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?)
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).
It should be noted that one of the principal ways in which the British made themselves hated was that they abolished slavery.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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’ (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 who, if anyone, could be called the originator of the movement (during the Boer War she traveled to South Africa and there protested in 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. 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).
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.