In 1900: Could Boers have kept independence?

We have a "Before 1900" forum and another "After 1900" forum. But what about PoD's in 1900?:D:D:D

So, without further ado, let me pose the question: Was there any way for the Boer republics to win the Second Boer War in 1900? Bonus points if they survive as independent state(s) until decolonization. The British would almost certainly keep the Cape Colony and thus their waystation to India, but their dream of a Cape-to-Cairo empire would have been lost. What effects would this have on the larger British Empire? And how would independent Boer states affect race relations in southern Africa?
 
We have a "Before 1900" forum and another "After 1900" forum. But what about PoD's in 1900?:D:D:D

So, without further ado, let me pose the question: Was there any way for the Boer republics to win the Second Boer War in 1900? Bonus points if they survive as independent state(s) until decolonization. The British would almost certainly keep the Cape Colony and thus their waystation to India, but their dream of a Cape-to-Cairo empire would have been lost. What effects would this have on the larger British Empire? And how would independent Boer states affect race relations in southern Africa?

Frankly, the Boers did win and they won big. They emerged from the Second Boer War and basically solidified their political and cultural position over British South Africa.

For the early 1900s and 1910s they are pretty much the Arabs of their day. They are sitting on those things that make the world go round (gold and diamonds), ust like the Arabs are sitting on oil. The Boers got stuff the rest of the world wants and pretty much don't have the ability to defend themselves.
 
I think best case scenario (for the Boers) is that the republics survive until 1914, when they try to capitalize on the European war (assuming the assassination and British intervention aren't butterflied) by invading the Cape.

I would be interested in the effects of a larger surviving Boer population (i.e. if concentration camps hadn't been used.
 

abc123

Banned
We have a "Before 1900" forum and another "After 1900" forum. But what about PoD's in 1900?:D:D:D

So, without further ado, let me pose the question: Was there any way for the Boer republics to win the Second Boer War in 1900? Bonus points if they survive as independent state(s) until decolonization. The British would almost certainly keep the Cape Colony and thus their waystation to India, but their dream of a Cape-to-Cairo empire would have been lost. What effects would this have on the larger British Empire? And how would independent Boer states affect race relations in southern Africa?


Simply- no.
Because South Africa is too important for UK. And the world.
 
By 1900 there was no way outside of a huge POD for it not to end in a military defeat of the Boer Republics. Britain and the Empire had too much invested in the war not to see it through and the Boers, valiant, lucky etc as they had been were unlikely to be able to overcome this much longer than they did IOTL, without a huge distraction to the Empire, like say another largish war.

But as David said, the Boers largely won the peace. The later Union of South Africa was formed in such a way that allowed the Boers to easily dominate it. Now they probably would have either way, given their demographic edge over the non Boer White community, but the post War British administrators certainly did try to take steps to avoid this, which largely failed.

The Republics would need a pre 1900 POD I think, if this is to be realistic. I am sure you could find one if you did a close study of the post Jameson Raid and you certainly could find one prior to that. Removing the Raid itself would probably butterfly the War.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Even surviving, they'd have the problem that the largest afrikaner concentrations are in British South Africa where they're pretty much dominant, while they're only about 4-5% of the population in predominantly Sotho, Swazi and Zulu regions.
 
You'd need a much larger population to successfully defend themselves against Britain as well as better infrastructure and broader industrial base. That requires a much earlier POD than 1900.

If you want to use foreign aid, IMHO you'd still need a higher population and industrial base to get a foreign power that interested in the fate of the Boer republics to actually challenge Britain. Gold and diamonds are important, but to fight against Britain any other European power requires a clear perspective of actually winning this war.
 
I don't think the war was inevitable one year out and it certainly wasn't prior to the Jameson Raid. There are all sorts of PODs that could buttefly either away.

Maybe have Chamberlain's resignation accepted by Salisbury, or have him moved from the Colonial Office. Or change some of his appointments to South Africa - perhaps even getting rid of Milner might stop the march to war?
 

Cook

Banned
The second Boer War was the product of the greed of Cecil Rhodes and his cronies and ran contrary to the wishes of British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury. Had the Boer republics realised that they were dealing with the most powerful Empire in the world rather that a small black kingdom and not attempted a lightening pre-emptive attack things might have been very different.

If Kruger and Steyn had signed their mutual defence agreement and then opted for a defensive strategy, forcing the British to bear the political burden of starting a war, the war may never have actually kicked off.
 
They cant win militarily, so their only hope would be diplomatics.
Either something like Cook suggested or a diplomatic initative to resolve tensions with the British several years earlier (maybe giving them some mining and railroad concessions?).
 
Top