say the war went on for at least a decade and seemed unwinnable, would Britain simply give up?
say the war went on for at least a decade and seemed unwinnable, would Britain simply give up?
Nah the British would completely depopulated the veldt before they gave up they didn't have the same problem with press the Americans did .
say the war went on for at least a decade and seemed unwinnable, would Britain simply give up?
That's also why Perfidious Albion's comparison of Malaya to Vietnam falls down - the Communists in Malaya had neither, those in Vietnam had both.2) The Boer War can't replicate Vietnam for two obvious reasons.
a) There is no sanctuary area for the Boers to operate from.
b) There is no Great Power supplying the Boers lavishly with arms.
1) This belongs in post-1900. Just barely, but after 1900.
2) The Boer War can't replicate Vietnam for two obvious reasons.
a) There is no sanctuary area for the Boers to operate from.
b) There is no Great Power supplying the Boers lavishly with arms.
Yeah I think the British government would see every last Boer dead befpre pulling out and importantly, the population at home don't care.
say the war went on for at least a decade and seemed unwinnable, would Britain simply give up?
That's also why Perfidious Albion's comparison of Malaya to Vietnam falls down - the Communists in Malaya had neither, those in Vietnam had both.
Does the analogy fall down? Certainly, because we're talking about real-life scenarios, they're not identical-except-for-one-difference as would be ideal for analysis; of course there are multiple differences between the two scenarios. Ultimately it's up to us to work out which of the differences were decisive in causing the different outcome.
Since not only were the Malaysian communists working with much less than the Vietnamese communists but the British Empire and its cohorts were working with much less than the United States, I'm not inclined to think that it was a matter of the Malayans lacking the necessary supplies. That leaves the matter of safe havens and the matter of British strategy vs American strategy. I'm inclined to favour the latter, but I understand that it can be reasonable to draw different conclusions; I'm not claiming that it is as clear-cut a case as the old "Could Hitler have won WW2?"