British don't use concentration camps to end the Boer War

[Jerry Kraus]

After conventional fighting had largely ceased in the Boer War, the British found themselves faced with a stubborn guerrilla resistance from the Boers, in excellent terrain for long term guerrilla warfare. Possibly, this was the inspiration for H.G. Wells "Earth Battleships" (1903), in which he imagines the Tank as a means of dealing with the problem. However, the British employed a rather different technique. They simply rounded up all the wives and children of the Boers, put them into concentration camps, and starved them to death. That did the trick! The Boers simply had no reason to go on fighting, so, they stopped. Most effective. Not too popular internationally, but, most effective

Suppose the British decide it's not worth the international condemnation, and refrain from using this technique. How long does the guerrilla warfare continue, what effects does it have on the long term history of South Africa, and of the British Empire as a whole?

 

[Ato]

Thats.... not really what happened.

The British concentration camps in South Africa were intended to be just that, camps to concentrate the civillian population so that the Boer guerillas could be weeded out. Similar to the strategic hamlets program the US would employ in Vietnam.

The horrific conditions and high mortality rate was never the intention, rather the product of bad planning, poor logistics, and callous indifference.

Concentration camp was never meant to be synonmous with death camp, but has become so because pretty much everyone who has tried the strategy has cared far more about killing hostiles than safeguarding the population they hide amongst.
That and the Nazis used it as cover for their actual intentional death camps.

If the British don't use the technique in South Africa they probably have a harder time defeating the Boer fighters, but take less flak from other european powers for the deaths of civillians in their care. Though the British probably still win, and the Dutch and Germans probably still get angry at Britain.

Others will still employ concentration strategies later, with the same miserable results. And it certainly wouldn't stop the Nazis or any atl analogue from operating actual death camps. Though they might pick a different euphamistic name for them.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Thats.... not really what happened.

The British concentration camps in South Africa were intended to be just that, camps to concentrate the civillian population so that the Boer guerillas could be weeded out. Similar to the strategic hamlets program the US would employ in Vietnam.

The horrific conditions and high mortality rate was never the intention, rather the product of bad planning, poor logistics, and callous indifference.

Concentration camp was never meant to be synonmous with death camp, but has become so because pretty much everyone who has tried the strategy has cared far more about killing hostiles than safeguarding the population they hide amongst.
That and the Nazis used it as cover for their actual intentional death camps.

If the British don't use the technique in South Africa they probably have a harder time defeating the Boer fighters, but take less flak from other european powers for the deaths of civillians in their care. Though the British probably still win, and the Dutch and Germans probably still get angry at Britain.

Others will still employ concentration strategies later, with the same miserable results. And it certainly wouldn't stop the Nazis or any atl analogue from operating actual death camps. Though they might pick a different euphamistic name for them.

I take your point, of course, and I'm aware the way I'm presenting the facts will be seen as controversial. Still, whether the intention was specifically to exterminate the civilian population, or, merely that the extermination of the civilian population was a very likely byproduct of the effort to isolate the guerrillas, the effects were precisely the same. Death Camps. Now, of course, these were not specifically racially motivated, like those of the Nazis, the Boers were just as Nordic as the British were. In fact, that was part of the problem the British had! Seeing beautiful little blonde girls starving to death was likely to make rather more of an impression on the European mind of 1900 than seeing Blacks or Chinese dying horribly.

But, you acknowledge the possibility that the British might not have won, against these guerrillas, despite the might of the British Empire? Surely, THAT would have had some important international implications!

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I take your point, of course, and I'm aware the way I'm presenting the facts will be seen as controversial. Still, whether the intention was specifically to exterminate the civilian population, or, merely that the extermination of the civilian population was a very likely byproduct of the effort to isolate the guerrillas, the effects were precisely the same. Death Camps. Now, of course, these were not specifically racially motivated, like those of the Nazis, the Boers were just as Nordic as the British were. In fact, that was part of the problem the British had! Seeing beautiful little blonde girls starving to death was likely to make rather more of an impression on the European mind of 1900 than seeing Blacks or Chinese dying horribly.

But, you acknowledge the possibility that the British might not have won, against these guerrillas, despite the might of the British Empire? Surely, THAT would have had some important international implications!

Oh, they can and would win eventually. The question is; at what point does the hit to Imperial prestige of conducting a campaign to subdue a White, Christian, Civilized nation and people with a very muddled causes belli (universally seen as bad form in international norms) outweigh the prestige lose of conceding that the Empire wasn't so rich and mighty as to be able to (profitably) hold the region without resorting to unorthodox methods that's out in the middle of nowhere and populated and defended by an independently minded, martial, but most importantly White, Christian, Civilized people. There's not as much shame in losing to them, and negotiating reasonable terms, especially if without resorting to total war/inhumane strategies Britain is seen to have played fairly and honorably

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Oh, they can and would win eventually. The question is; at what point does the hit to Imperial prestige of conducting a campaign to subdue a White, Christian, Civilized nation and people with a very muddled causes belli (universally seen as bad form in international norms) outweigh the prestige lose of conceding that the Empire wasn't so rich and mighty as to be able to (profitably) hold the region without resorting to unorthodox methods that's out in the middle of nowhere and populated and defended by an independently minded, martial, but most importantly White, Christian, Civilized people. There's not as much shame in losing to them, and negotiating reasonable terms, especially if without resorting to total war/inhumane strategies Britain is seen to have played fairly and honorably

It was a very interesting war, the Boer War, and I'm not sure its implications are even now fully understood. As you point out, the British Empire circa 1900 certainly did have the power to defeat perhaps a few tens of thousands of active combatants in South Africa, one way or another. Actually, I think the causus belli was clear enough -- the diamond mines in South Africa, by far the richest in the world, and their chief exponent, arch imperialist/entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes. Now, Rhodes actually died very near the end of the Boer War, which might have given the British a bit more of an opening to a negotiated and honorable peace, possibly, had they had the will and perception to grasp the point? Of course, by that stage, it might have been too late.

Perhaps it would have been far better if they simply had not allowed British foreign policy to be dictated by ambitious capitalists with delusions of grandeur, like Cecil Rhodes.

 

[Sam R.]

Similar to the strategic hamlets program the US would employ in Vietnam. The horrific conditions and high mortality rate was never the intention, rather the product of bad planning, poor logistics, and callous indifference.

Generally this isn't acknowledged by US biased sources regarding Strategic Hamlets.

Moreover, concentration camps as a weapon against the logistics of irregular forces occur in moments when ordinary men are willing to have good times, with or without a commissar order. Breaker Morant? Lt. Calley?

It is also commonly accepted by historians that the execution camps occurred because of the unacceptable effects of einsatzgruppen or obligatory anti-"partisan" operations on German men's minds; and, of course, the example of forced starvation amongst a million Soviet POWs over winter.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[jsb]

As you point out, the British Empire circa 1900 certainly did have the power to defeat perhaps a few tens of thousands of active combatants in South Africa, one way or another.

I think the alternative to camps if GB is struggling is simply to arm local militia, as soon as the British start handing out guns to loyal Bantu groups the Boers would realise fighting on will not work, that or deploy the Indian army.

 

[Marius]

It was a very interesting war, the Boer War, and I'm not sure its implications are even now fully understood. As you point out, the British Empire circa 1900 certainly did have the power to defeat perhaps a few tens of thousands of active combatants in South Africa, one way or another. Actually, I think the causus belli was clear enough -- the diamond mines in South Africa, by far the richest in the world, and their chief exponent, arch imperialist/entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes. Now, Rhodes actually died very near the end of the Boer War, which might have given the British a bit more of an opening to a negotiated and honorable peace, possibly, had they had the will and perception to grasp the point? Of course, by that stage, it might have been too late.

Perhaps it would have been far better if they simply had not allowed British foreign policy to be dictated by ambitious capitalists with delusions of grandeur, like Cecil Rhodes.

Putting my pedant's hat on, I would just like to say it was actually gold. The British already had control of the Kimberley diamond mines, it was the Witwatersrand gold mines they were trying to get hold of.

No concentration camps perhaps leads to better relations between Afrikaners and the British, and less resentment by Afrikaners. This may well butterfly away the Maritz rebellion and quite possibly butterflies away the National Party, with white politics following the pattern more common in the rest of the white Commonwealth and in Britain - a labour party vs a conservative or right-leaning liberal party. Might well also mean no apartheid and less harsh racial discrimination laws down the line.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Putting my pedant's hat on, I would just like to say it was actually gold. The British already had control of the Kimberley diamond mines, it was the Witwatersrand gold mines they were trying to get hold of.

No concentration camps perhaps leads to better relations between Afrikaners and the British, and less resentment by Afrikaners. This may well butterfly away the Maritz rebellion and quite possibly butterflies away the National Party, with white politics following the pattern more common in the rest of the white Commonwealth and in Britain - a labour party vs a conservative or right-leaning liberal party. Might well also mean no apartheid and less harsh racial discrimination laws down the line.

Well, sure I was thinking of mentioning the Gold, as well, Marius. But, we seem to be in agreement that this was a Greed based war, for control of the resources of the region, largely motivated by exceptionally greedy and ambitious individuals like Cecil Rhodes. Was that really a good thing? Would Britain have been better off ignoring these individuals, and leaving the Boers alone? What are the consequences? That's a much broader question, of course, than the one I'm initially posing.

We seem to agree that, on the whole, the concentration camps were a specially bad idea. Probably unnecessary to win the war, and extremely bad PR for the Empire. Any bearing on the First World War, at all? Increased British credibility and reasonableness making war with Germany less likely, if concentration camps are avoided in the Boer War?

 

[jsb]

Any bearing on the First World War, at all? Increased British credibility and reasonableness making war with Germany less likely, if concentration camps are avoided in the Boer War?

Why would it have any effect?

Did the Germans not effectively discount GB actions when they decided that going via Belgium was worth the risk of the small British forces trying to help the French? GB will still not want Germany dominating Europe so I don't see much change outside SA?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Concentration camps had their modern origins in Spanish actions against Cuban insurgents, so the British were copying and developing it

If they did not, then the war to that date shows that it cannot have been won with the forces deployed. Given Imperial prestige and all that jazz, it means that Britain would have to have effectively decided to fight an all-out war, as opposed to a colonial war, and start transporting the rest of its army.

Sure, they could win but it would cost a lot more, and the after-effects of victory seem highly unlikely to be anything akin to the OTL Union of South Africa, but more likely a blasted state where Boers were an oppressed species.

If nothing else this would have made an equivalent to the First World War a lot more dangerous as the Boers could then have REALLY risen up en masse and in support of the Germans

 

[fastmongrel]

The Boer Camps were a terrible thing but I am afraid it was the usual western hypocrisy a few thousand white people die and it was a war crime still discussed. Tens of millions of brown, black or yellow people die and no one gave or gives a damn.

At the same time as Boer Camps were being set up the USA set up concentration camps in the Phillipines and killed anything between 2,500 and 250,000 depending on who you believe. But that was okay as they were brown people not good white european christians, so no reporters wrote polemics in western papers about it.

The British didnt invent the concentration camp but they happily used it even up to the 1960s read about camps in Malaysia and Kenya.
As far as I can tell all the western Empires used concentration camps in one form or another but because they were usually full of inferior races no one knew about it.

http://pinoy-culture.com/the-philippine-american-war-the-concentration/

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Putting my pedant's hat on, I would just like to say it was actually gold. The British already had control of the Kimberley diamond mines, it was the Witwatersrand gold mines they were trying to get hold of.

No concentration camps perhaps leads to better relations between Afrikaners and the British, and less resentment by Afrikaners. This may well butterfly away the Maritz rebellion and quite possibly butterflies away the National Party, with white politics following the pattern more common in the rest of the white Commonwealth and in Britain - a labour party vs a conservative or right-leaning liberal party. Might well also mean no apartheid and less harsh racial discrimination laws down the line.

I don’t know how well Commonwealth politics would map to South Africa even if you erased the white ethnic rivalry. There would probably be some kind of enfranchisement of the black population, even if it happened at a glacial pace like in Rhodesia. I would picture Whigs and Tories with a leftist/populist black third party before I’d picture Whigs and Labor. In the southern US, the “Tories” were also the party of poor small farmers. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be a white labor faction, but they would probably be in coalition with some conservative party

 

[markus meecham]

The Boer Camps were a terrible thing but I am afraid it was the usual western hypocrisy a few thousand white people die and it was a war crime still discussed. Tens of millions of brown, black or yellow people die and no one gave or gives a damn.

At the same time as Boer Camps were being set up the USA set up concentration camps in the Phillipines and killed anything between 2,500 and 250,000 depending on who you believe. But that was okay as they were brown people not good white european christians, so no reporters wrote polemics in western papers about it.

The British didnt invent the concentration camp but they happily used it even up to the 1960s read about camps in Malaysia and Kenya.
As far as I can tell all the western Empires used concentration camps in one form or another but because they were usually full of inferior races no one knew about it.

http://pinoy-culture.com/the-philippine-american-war-the-concentration/

The supression of the Mau-Mau, now that's one story that needs to be told a lot more.
One can only wonder what Operation Legacy has hidden from our eyes forever.

 

[fastmongrel]

The supression of the Mau-Mau, now that's one story that needs to be told a lot more.
One can only wonder what Operation Legacy has hidden from our eyes forever.

My Uncle was deployed to Kenya during the Mau Mau rising and it was something he absolutely refused to talk about though he would happily discuss his time in India, Korea and Singapore. Apparently he was posted to somewhere called Argyll which I have never found on a map possibly I misheard or its a Kenyan name that is spelt differently than it sounds.

 

[Hvalrossen]

Sure, they could win but it would cost a lot more, and the after-effects of victory seem highly unlikely to be anything akin to the OTL Union of South Africa, but more likely a blasted state where Boers were an oppressed species.

Could the "boers" be reduced to the same legal status as asians, blacks and coloureds had in the South African colony?

 

[Hvalrossen]

My Uncle was deployed to Kenya during the Mau Mau rising and it was something he absolutely refused to talk about though he would happily discuss his time in India, Korea and Singapore. Apparently he was posted to somewhere called Argyll which I have never found on a map possibly I misheard or its a Kenyan name that is spelt differently than it sounds.

There is a place im Scotland named Argyll, perhaps he could have mixed place name?

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Why would it have any effect?

Did the Germans not effectively discount GB actions when they decided that going via Belgium was worth the risk of the small British forces trying to help the French? GB will still not want Germany dominating Europe so I don't see much change outside SA?

I think that's precisely my point. Germany DID discount British actions when they invaded Belgium in 1914. Would they really have done that without the Boer War? And, from a German point of view, wouldn't the most degraded, disgraceful and immoral thing the British did during that war, have been the starvation of Dutch/Boer women and children, probably quite unnecessarily, even from the standpoint of winning the war, in concentration camps?

I think it's significant that German Communist writer Bertolt Brecht wrote his Threepenny Opera in 1928, based on John Gay's Beggar's Opera, he sets it just before the Boer War, and ends it with the commencement of said War. Thus, the gangster Macheath, "Mac the Knife", is very much equated to the British Government as a whole in the Boer War. Because, at least to the German people, the Boer War was simply an act of gangsterism start to finish.

Now, gangsters are violent and greedy, they have little discipline or foresight. So, effectively, in terms of the British actions in using concentration camps particularly, Germany may have seen very little reason to take Britain seriously anymore, at all. Britain had no discipline to fight real wars, they had no principles to cause them to adhere to treaties like the inviolability of Belgium, maintained for a century, since the fall of Napoleon.

So, I think it's actually conceivable, that the reason the Kaiser sold Britain short, and confidently went to war against France and Russia in 1914, was because the British had behaved so very inappropriately in South Africa. He may simply have dismissed the British, because of those concentration camps in South Africa!

 

[fastmongrel]

There is a place im Scotland named Argyll, perhaps he could have mixed place name?

No it was definitely in Kenya he wouldnt have mixed up Argyll in Scotland with somewhere in Kenya, that side of the family is Scottish. As I say either I misheard or I have spelt a place name phonetically.

 

[jsb]

I think that's precisely my point. Germany DID discount British actions when they invaded Belgium in 1914. Would they really have done that without the Boer War? And, from a German point of view, wouldn't the most degraded, disgraceful and immoral thing the British did during that war, have been the starvation of Dutch/Boer women and children, probably quite unnecessarily, even from the standpoint of winning the war, in concentration camps?
.... He may simply have dismissed the British, because of those concentration camps in South Africa!

But without the camps does GB not simply look weak and a none land power? I cant see anything the British do (apart from deploying a million strong Indian army) actually have any effect on the short war planing in the German general staff (not sure the Kaiser actually made the plans) ?