WI Second Boer War concentration camps didn't become absolute humanitarian disasters?

What if the British concentration camps during the 2nd Boer War had been properly managed and provided for from the start to the finish (as opposed to suffering from criminally incompetent mismanagement in the middle). Let's say deaths from disease, poor sanitation, and hunger are cut down to a negligible minimum and the overwhelming majority of internees survive their stint in the camps without undue physical deprivations. How would this affect the way in which the remainder of the guerilla war plays out?

Would the British public's opposition to the war remain undiminished without Hobhouse's whistleblowing work? Would the Boer commandos still in the field be more or less inclined to give up their arms and come to the negotiating table? How would Afrikaner demographic growth after the war develop without the large number of deaths of individuals interned in the camps?

edit: This should go in post 1900. I don't know why I posted it here.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How do you propose this happening? You will need the British to be willing to build functional cities, and anticipate this need early in the war. The POD is not jumping to mind. But thoughts.

1) I don't see doing the "Salt the earth" type campaign with building nice camps for the Boers. The harshness of the campaign was need to end it. The war last longer.

2) Longer war combined with larger expenses for these nicer camps means a bigger budget hole. It will come out of some program. Which one is interesting butterfly.

3) In this time period, can you really keep the typhus down?

4) I think the longer war will lead to even more anti-British feelings in Germanic lands. Sure fewer die per year in camps, but war last longer. I see bigger/more German naval bills.
 
Í suppose that this could be in either pre or post 1900 forums (1899 -1902) :D

The demographic implcations are possibly the most interesting consideration, bearing in mind that blacks were also incarcerated, albeit in proportionately smaller numbers.

However, as noted, this was total war, so why would the camps have been run better?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
However, as noted, this was total war, so why would the camps have been run better?

Stated better than I did. I think the more interesting part relates to what is the POD that makes the UK go for limited war and likely lose. What changed?
 
The camps weren't actually that terrible at the start. It was only when overcrowding began that the shortcomings of British mismanagement of the camps resulted in a high death rate. It was also in the interests of the British to keep conditions in the camps from deteriorating as ideally the acceptable living standards were supposed to lure the Boer holdouts into rejoining their families and abandoning the fight.
 
Bear in mind also, that the boers that were incarcerated, were not used to living in close quarters with others. These were subsistence farmers, used to acres and acres of space around them. The camps were crowded to a degree that would have required personal hygiense standards several grades higher than was the general practice of the times (Anywhere).

My great great aunt was in the belfast camp and family recollection was that the boers did not practice very high standards of hygiene. Obviously,as disease spread these would have deteriorated even further.
 
Top