Boer Victory Over the British?

Aren't the purposes of concentration camps in the name? To concentrate a troublesome population in a manageable area. Most deaths were due to bad management or disease. That's why I prefer to use the term extermination camps when referring to the Nazis.

Well, while some of the camps (Auschwitz and the like) were extermination camps, not all the German camps existed for the purpose of killing their internees (which was, for the Nazis, a happy result of their mistreatment and conditions of the internment), the great majority of the camps existed for concentration purposes, or for provision of forced labour.

Regarding the actual question, I agree with Dirty Commie, the best way would have been for the Boers to not try and besiege the South African towns, but instead to fight a more coordinated guerilla campaign to frustrate the British. Home opinion expected the war to be over within months, as the war dragged on without any sign of an end and casualties mounted up due to fighting and disease, the support of the press and parliament would inexorably wane, perhaps forcing an end to the war.
 
stateless_englishman

The problem with this is how? Once the supporting farmers had been isolated and moved to the camps the guerillas have to find alternative sources of supplies, food, ammo etc. [As well as fodder for their horses, which are important for their mobility]. They did do a lot of attacks on British supply lines and isolated outposts and the army developed fairly extensive methods for keeping the outposts supplied. Furthermore much effort was put into dividing the veldt up into sections, using those outposts and large amounts of barbered wire as well as their own mobile units to pursue the guerillas and prevent them resting. It took a hell of a lot of effort and organisation but they basically had no where to go and exhaustion wore them down until they accepted the peace.

Steve

Well, while some of the camps (Auschwitz and the like) were extermination camps, not all the German camps existed for the purpose of killing their internees (which was, for the Nazis, a happy result of their mistreatment and conditions of the internment), the great majority of the camps existed for concentration purposes, or for provision of forced labour.

Regarding the actual question, I agree with Dirty Commie, the best way would have been for the Boers to not try and besiege the South African towns, but instead to fight a more coordinated guerilla campaign to frustrate the British. Home opinion expected the war to be over within months, as the war dragged on without any sign of an end and casualties mounted up due to fighting and disease, the support of the press and parliament would inexorably wane, perhaps forcing an end to the war.
 
The idea is to prevent the construction of the concentration camps at all by using a relentless, grinding guerrilla campaign in British South Africa itself. Forcing the Brits to defend their own territory rather than launching offensives into the Republics would have caused a quick end to the war.
 
I don't think that the Boers had a shot at winning militarily, so long as the British were willing to commit all the resources of their empire to the war. However wars are not only won on the battlefield, and under the right conditions I think the Boers could have forced the British to negotiating table in a manner similar to the first Boer War.

The most important thing you need for that to happen is for the Liberals to win the 1900 election. They were less ideologically committed to victory, and would have been more open to a peace agreement, especially after the bad press about the concentration camps got out.
 
I don't think that the Boers had a shot at winning militarily, so long as the British were willing to commit all the resources of their empire to the war. However wars are not only won on the battlefield, and under the right conditions I think the Boers could have forced the British to negotiating table in a manner similar to the first Boer War.

The most important thing you need for that to happen is for the Liberals to win the 1900 election. They were less ideologically committed to victory, and would have been more open to a peace agreement, especially after the bad press about the concentration camps got out.

Antipater

Possibly but the big thing might be for the Boers not to attack. While there was a lot of tension by becoming the aggressor themselves they made it much more difficult for anti-war groups to agree peace. Force the British government, if it decided to do so, to be the attacker and you have a much greater chance of a negotiated settlement.

You're still got the problem that triggered the war with the ruling Boer group being a small minority controlling great wealth and the bulk of the white population having no political power. That's going to make for an unstable situation, especially as the bulk of that population identify with the massive super-power over the border.

Ultimately the Boers put up enough of a fight that in the end they got pretty generous terms and it was the blacks that were sacrificed to the new ruling coalition.

Steve
 
Top