Illoyal South Africa in WW1

Susano

Banned
So, when WW1 broke out, the two Boer republics had been added to the British Empire just few years ago. Yet, the Boers were one of the largest British forces in Africa. It seems to me that should be easily reversible.

So what would have happened if between 1906 and 1914 the integration of South Africa didnt happen so smoothly? And what if as a result of that the Boers used World War 1 as a chance and revolted in some form.
 

Susano

Banned
It seems to have failed because the government and most of their armed men were loyal to Britain. But it seems to me that this doesnt need to be so, after just 12 years after the 2nd Boers War. Well, your eteh expetr .- is there any way to change that?
 
I thought the British deliberately made many concessions to the Boers to get them 'on side', such as granting Boer leaders the right to stand for election etc. Given the manner in which the war was fought during the last 2 years, guerrilla tactics and consequent concentration camps, it was obviously fairly successful.

So I suppose if the British hadn't decided so, they'd be far more resentment in 1914. But then the British wouldn't have stripped SA of its British garrison to send to France (or if they did, they would've swapped them for TA troops, or even Indian troops - and imagine how the ardent Boers would've liked that!).

Disloyal, btw.
 

maverick

Banned
First...Is Illoyal a word? I'm kinda confused on that one...

Secondly...what about some political assassination to stirr things up amongst the natives? maybe Jan Smuts or Botha...

Or, maybe if the Government preemptively arrests the Leaders of the Boer community, confiscates their land, etc as war nears in fear of a rebellion, they accidentally trigger an uprising...

Or, if conditions were more similar to Ireland, but we need a religious divide then...maybe with simple discrimination of the Boers and exclusion...like an Apartheid, but against the Boers, with Bantustans for White's, internal passports, etc...
 
So I suppose if the British hadn't decided so, they'd be far more resentment in 1914. But then the British wouldn't have stripped SA of its British garrison to send to France (or if they did, they would've swapped them for TA troops, or even Indian troops - and imagine how the ardent Boers would've liked that!).

Disloyal, btw.

This is the thing, the British can just arm the blacks if they really think they might lose the colony. This would lose them forever the prospect of partnership with the Boers, but if they were past this stage anyway it would not matter.
 
The only way you could have a rebellion would be for the Boers to be very badly treated after the war. In OTL, as has been alluded to, Boers were granted full political rights. Anyway, there were a significant number of Afrikaners in the Cape who had been loyal to Britain during the war, so just because somebody was Afrikaans speaking, that didn't make them anti-British. Although the British won the war, the Boers still won South Africa.

Most of the Boers who took part in the rebellion apaarently did so only because they were being paid, not because of any latewnt desire to resurrect the Boer republics.
 
First...Is Illoyal a word? I'm kinda confused on that one...

Secondly...what about some political assassination to stirr things up amongst the natives? maybe Jan Smuts or Botha...

Or, maybe if the Government preemptively arrests the Leaders of the Boer community, confiscates their land, etc as war nears in fear of a rebellion, they accidentally trigger an uprising...

Or, if conditions were more similar to Ireland, but we need a religious divide then...maybe with simple discrimination of the Boers and exclusion...like an Apartheid, but against the Boers, with Bantustans for White's, internal passports, etc...

A political assassination of Smuts or Botha would not "stir up the natives". The vast majority probably wouldn't care a jot.
 
So, when WW1 broke out, the two Boer republics had been added to the British Empire just few years ago. Yet, the Boers were one of the largest British forces in Africa. It seems to me that should be easily reversible.

So what would have happened if between 1906 and 1914 the integration of South Africa didnt happen so smoothly? And what if as a result of that the Boers used World War 1 as a chance and revolted in some form.

Well, a start should be no Union of South Africa in 1910 and no self-government, or at least having the area of self-government not include the former Boer republics.
 
Well, a start should be no Union of South Africa in 1910 and no self-government, or at least having the area of self-government not include the former Boer republics.

Then you wouldn't have a disloyal South Africa, which is the point of this thread. What must be remembered is that the Transvaal, especially Johannesburg and surrounds had a significant non-Boer white population, so witholding self-government to the Transvaal would probably not be feasible, unless you did not extend the franchise to Boers. Probably unviable, and would just lead to more resentment, and much wider support for the Kaiser when World War I does break out.
 
Then you wouldn't have a disloyal South Africa, which is the point of this thread. What must be remembered is that the Transvaal, especially Johannesburg and surrounds had a significant non-Boer white population, so witholding self-government to the Transvaal would probably not be feasible, unless you did not extend the franchise to Boers. Probably unviable, and would just lead to more resentment, and much wider support for the Kaiser when World War I does break out.

Which is the whole point of this thread...
 
Which is the whole point of this thread...

But the Union of South Africa wouldn't exist in the way we know it. We would possibly have either one self-governing colony made up of the Cape and Natal (although it just as likely they would continue as two separate self-governing colonies) and two non-self governing colonies, in the form of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. By definition, these latter two can't be disloyal as they wouldn't be self-governing, and the thought of the Cape and Natal rebelling against Britain prior to, or during World War I is ASBs.
 
Well, read Susano's post again. He's aiming for a (major) Boer uprising only - so if the Union of South Africa does exist or not in the ATL and what does Cape Town is irrelevant. The thread title is confusing, though.
 
Well, read Susano's post again. He's aiming for a (major) Boer uprising only - so if the Union of South Africa does exist or not in the ATL and what does Cape Town is irrelevant. The thread title is confusing, though.

Fair enough, his post doesn't say there has to be a united SA. Apologies.
 
Top