Talk:Second Boer War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is  within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and  see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... African military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force

Second Boer War has been listed as a good article under the  is  a good article?">good-article criteria. If you can improve it  further, please do. If it  no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or  ask for a review.

See Help:Editing:

When adding a comment to a Talk page, you should sign it. You can do this by adding four tildes for user name plus date/time: ~~~~

Contents 1 Page one 2 'More Details' section 3 A few things about the article can change 4 more about 5 Neutrality 6 An event mentioned in this article 7 Collapsing the two Second Boer War sections together 8 NPOV 9 concentration camps 10 Boers were a mixture 11 Overseas and  non-British involvement 12 Tory defeat of 1906 13 When did the Second Boer War break out ? 14 Copyright Infringment 15 Two articles 16 infobox 17 GA review 18 GA Re-Review and  In-line citations 19 Australia? 20 Pyrrhic victory

[edit] Page one

The killing of 25000 civilians was genocide! Nice going K of K! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 November 2003 (UTC)

Just my opinion: Because the army was not recognized or  paid, many of the Boer civilians killed were actually military guerillas. This, however, does not excuse the Concentration Camp tactic used by the British toward military victory. -- Debra Summers 1/6/04 (22:11, 6 January 2004 Summerk)

The intent was not to destroy the people in the concentration camps, nor the Boers in general, even if that was the outcome. Therefore it  was not genocide ("the deliberate and  systematic destruction of a racial, political or  cultural group"). it  was a systematic but not intended destruction. I am  sure we can all accept that it  was a very bad thing without giving it  a wrong name.

[edit] 'More Details' section

Please. The 'More Details' section can be done better. A writer says:

They acted in ways designed to inflame tensions and  cause fighting to begin. Cape Colony governor Alfred Milner was one of such men. He believed that the British were natural rulers and  that British rule was best while simultaneously believing that it  was somehow morally wrong for Englishmen to be ruled by others. it  can easily be seen how Milner had no desire for a peaceful solution to the problems in South Africa.

"It can easily be seen"? How? Please prove your point. Saying things like this, with no thing written to back it  up, does not serve your cause. If you feel so strongly about Milner, please add content to the page on him, with some facts. There is  no content there now.
RayKiddy 07:48, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I, also, would like to know more  detail as to why it  was obvious that Milner did not want a peaceful solution; though I agree with the assumption. Britain had too much to lose at this time in history for the Boers to have  free will in deciding their destiny (with WW1 on the horizon and  Germany at the side of the Dutch). -- Debra Summers 1/6/04 (22:11, 6 January 2004 Summerk)

I like editing this its fun. Hi and  peace and  now bye

I totally agree with the previous person. First of all, what is  apartheid and  how does it  relate to this conflict in the Boer War? What role did the Zulu and  Shaka Zulu play in the events leading up to the war?hurry up with this folks, this global project is  due monday @_@

[edit] A few things about the article can change

A few things about the article can change.

It should be noted that the english armed over 30,000 indigenous people. it  was not common practice between western nations to involve indigenous people in an  western war.

it is  not? look at the french-indian war in the 1700's as great counter example. They had been involving them for a long time and  this war was no different. tpahl 00:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

The Boers and  British both agreed not to arm indigineous peoples in what was a "white mans' war". They had agreed, however, to let them participate as scouts or  drivers. The British did later see that the Zulu could be used to extend their military presence and  speed the end of the war so they armed them in 1901. Jason 21:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apalachee Indians of Florida, in North America, and  the Spanish were exterminated by Creek Indians and  Englishmen during Queen Anne's War. That occurred 300 years ago. ♦OldBoerParty 00:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That is  true of many North American wars alomost parrell Northewest Rebellion which I have  reffered to several times douse vary, in that there the Cree had played a sinificant role with several victories for the Métis inspite of Riel's radiacal belif he was a profit of Catholism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.47.137 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The last of the boers did not just surender at the end of the boer war. They elected members to negotiate for peace. There were several thousand boers still in the field at the end of the boer war.

The block-houses and  "drives" instituted by the british were not very effective. The article gives the impression that the guerilla tacktics of the boers were not effective. The total british millatary strength in South Africa reached 500,000 men when the boers had only 88,000 men(5.6 times more). (figures on www.onwar.com)

Most of the boers had no millitary training and  the british were proffesional soldiers.

The article could also mention Emily Hobhouse who tried to create awearness of the bad situation in the concentration camps but were ostracised in the press.

aa 19/01/2004

I disagree the writer above because concentration camps need mention. Emily was one of the few who stood up to this policy. it  is well documented in South African histroy and  will not go away or  be brushed under the carpet. Boer War or  the also known as "The Last Gentlemen's War" is  reknowned for many things eg. concentration camps, British uniform changing from red to karki, gurealla warefare and  many more. --Jcw69 06:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a Canadian I am  interested in how, Canada's first forign war, being a war against non-English colonists of European decent impacted the French Canadians perticularyly the Métis who for whom there were still memories of the North West Rebelion fifteen years prior. I must say though it  is interestion to see how the image of the Candaina cowboy became known world wide by acction half way around the globe. User:Knoss November 5, 2005

[ more  about">edit] more about

The "more about" is  far too much a personal value judgement about the war (not to mention that it  is an  expounding of a certain world view in general, this article should not be a soap box for people to promote their personal opinions) than it  is an  objective analysis. By this I mean the moralizing about war in general and  the desire for gold, etc. it  is also self-evidently biased against the British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.254.128 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

How does one officially dispute the neutrality of an  article? This article is  clearly biased, and  not only that, it  ends with a philosophical/religious thesis, meandering down an  ally about St Paul! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.253.168 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 October 2004 (UTC)

It is  hard to stay neutral in an  article of this nature. This war has two sides and  a lot of South African problems (pass cultural hatred) stems from this war. I agree we must stay neutral in writing of this article but the truth must be revelled before forgiving can happen. I am  a child of colonialism and  must not brush this under the carpet because I don’t like what my forefathers did.

--Jcw69 09:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[ an  event mentioned in this article">edit] An event mentioned in this article

An event mentioned in this article is  an October 11 selected anniversary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsing the two Second Boer War sections together

I have  tried to merge the two sections without attempting to resolve the POV dispute. Whatever the arguments are  I don't think that the article really needs to have  two sections on the same thing. I have  also eliminated a good deal of what I felt did not add any information on the subject. "The temptation of riches has led to many conflicts in the world, and  this remained true in the south of Africa." is  a nice piece of writing but IMHO not appropriate for an  encyclopedia with its high information density.

As far as the other debates on this page here is  my two-pence worth.

• "It can easily be seen how Milner had no desire for a peaceful solution to the problems in South Africa.". I can't easily see it  from what is  in the article and  it should be removed unless someone adds something to make it  easily seen.
• "several key British colonial leaders favoured a war with the Boer republics". This is  a bit that I shrunk. Even so - few people favour war on its own, they favour annexation of another country, replacing Saddam or  whatever - a war is  usually a means and  not an  end. it  should say what their real goal was. and  if there were several powerful people who held this view, then name more  than one - presumably Rhodes and  Beit and  maybe some more.
• "He believed that the British were natural rulers..." I would shorten this sentence. IMHO this is  probably correct since most "middle class" Victorian Britons took this view but the back half of the sentence doesn't add anything except a moral judgement on Milner.
• "to thwart an  attempt made by the Transvaal Republic to link up with German South West Africa.". What does "link up" mean? Join the German empire? Exchange Christmas cards? it  should be clarified.
• The concentration camps issue is  an important part of the history of the second Boer war and  its political consequences; and  more could be added. Although they have  particularly horrific connotations to us now, this was not the case when they were first created, only once conditions deteriorated (and the public became aware of it). The article correctly bears much of this out. However it  contains verbage which I haven't removed - e.g. "The tragedy of the concentration camps can be described in the toll it  took on the people held within them." - well how else would they be tragic? Its nice to see the figures and  the comparison with military casualties but I would like to see a description of why people died too, and  also the political fallout.
• There is  a lot of hyperbole still. "inept" is  fine when describing General Buller, but "hopelessly inept" is  hyperbole; The difference is  that Buller was out of his depth fighting the Boers with their modern weapons and  tactics but must have  been competent enough in other areas to have  reached a general. Ditto "amazing foresight", there are  plenty of historical precedents for Kruger and  his contempories to have  known about for people not to to be amazed, so I think amazing is  too strong->"considerable foresight", "famous Bushveldt Carbaniers" - not as famous as Elvis Presley->"Bushveldt Carbaniers" etc.
• Did the war affect the non-European population? If so then that deserves mentioning. --Jll 10:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me as if a few edits should restore NPOV without losing the Boer perception of the war. As a Boer descendant I have  never had a good insight into the British public opinion of the war at the time. I would like to see some references to newspaper articles/ points of view expressed in Brittain at the time or  was this such a minor engagement for the British empire that it  did not receive much attention in the UK press at the time? --Renier Maritz 12:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I was the one who disputed the neutrality of this article, it  now has, in my opinion, a neutral POV, therefore, unless someone objects, I will remove the POV warning.--Derinrob99 07:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] concentration camps

Remember when Prince Harry wore an  SS uniform, and  the English made such a row about it, and  saying that he should go to Auschwitz and  the concentration camps? I said to my mom about how hypocritical it  was, that the English were making such a deal about something that they invented. Thinking about it  now, I should have  written in to the newspapers who went on about the concentration camps and  said that the English in general should be silent about the issue of concentration camps. As a people in general, they are  in no right to condemn another nation for using concentration camps, when they used them themselves, and  for that, the lives of 40,000 people (almost 50% of that were children under 16) were ended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.54.56 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

I am  British and  I think that the British use of concentration camps was absolutely disgraceful. But I don't understand how you feel that the modern Britain should be silent about this particular issue, just because it  comes up in the British history (over a century ago). I think even the British press and  public back then didn't like what was going on and  did condemn the use of them, which is  probably a factor in why they havn't been used since, by the British. Whatever country you are  from, your history will still have  some pretty bad things in which you would probably want to change, if you could. If those same bad things happened in the future, you would still speak out about it, because you think its wrong, regardless of whether your country did it  in the past or  not. --84.43.56.240 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference is  also in the reasoning and  purpose of the camps. The result may be similar but from what I can see the purpose of these camps was to remove the support that the guerillas were receiving from civilians. These camps were poorly run which resulted in the deaths of thousands from malnutrition and  disease and  once the British public became aware of what was happening things improved significantly. Camps such as Auschwitz were set up with the purpose of exterminating Jews. it  can be argued that the deaths in Nazi concentration camps (or "death camps") were the result of well run camps. So whilst the result of British tactics was disgraceful they do not really correspond with those employed in Hitler's final solution. Also, if you are  going to make such a bold statement at least have  the dignity to sign your name — Zarboki 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of concentration camps in was not new. If you look at the history of Norht America, reserves had been in use since the 1860's, with many of the same problems. Malnutrition, overcrowding, disease had and  unfortunatly still do plague the reserves both in the American West and  the north and  westernly regions of Canada. User:KnossNovember 5, 2005

[edit] Boers were a mixture

Just added that the Boers were a mixture of Dutch, French and  German rather than only Dutch. Afrikaners with names like de Villers, Cronjé, le Roux etc. are  of French origin and  people with surnames like Schmidt and  Kruger are  of German origin. Nothing really big, just a tiny bit that needs cleaning up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.54.56 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

This is  true however from the way I understand it  all of the settlers of the Dutch colony were dutch citizens even if they had lived in Holland for less  then one generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.113.49 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[ and  non-British involvement">edit] Overseas and  non-British involvement

There is  a mention of POWs going "overseas". Yet there is  no mention of where they were sent. There should be, with a link to the place(s), and  footnote to back it  up. Also, Canada and  other countries, that belonged to Commonwealth, sent troops, and  should be mentioned. Canada is  mentioned in the [World War I] article, so I don't see the difference. Hopefully, somebody already has the knowledge to put something up about this. If not, I'll do some research, and  put something up in the future. --rob 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I put this in. The comments about POWs is  still sparse. Ideally, more  complete stats about POWs, with footnotes is  needed. I am  concerned some pre-existing text "Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas.". There's no footnote for this. I doubt this statement is  true, since I suspect Natal had more  than 2370 POWs (not civilians). I would not count Natal as "overseas" (I thought it  was a mainland province of South Africa, then a colony). But, honestly, I don't know, and  so didn't change touch that. I think the text in question intendend just to say the 25,630 POWs were taken further away from where they lived, but not necessarily "overseas", in the literal sense. --rob 03:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have  some knowledge of this. One of the places they were sent was Bermuda, which is  where I'm from. The Boer PoW's are  a well-known historical event in Bermuda. There is  a book about them:

• Colin Benbow, Boer Prisoners of War in Bermuda (Bermuda Historical Society, Hamilton, 1994)

which I have  a copy of.

According to it, there were in total "25,000 men and  boys" held in various places overseas when the war ended in 1902. Locations included Bermuda, St. Helena, Ceylon, India, and  Portugal (this last was for about 1,500 refugees - including women and  children - who originally went to Mozambique, and  were removed from there after complaints from the British government - they were held in "open" camps, and  were in a different legal category).

The text is  not precisely clear on the non-Bermuda numbers, but it  appears that 5,700 went to St. Helena, beginning in April, 1900; "close to 5,000" to Ceylon, starting "the following August"; and  "approximately 9,000" to India, starting in April, 1901. A planned camp in Antigua was never needed.

4,653 (including some boys) were sent to Bermuda, of whom 34 died on ships on the way (buried at sea), and  35 in Bermuda (buried in a cemetery on Long Island, in the Great Sound). Most were returned at the end of the way, except for about 100 "Irreconcilables" who for one reason or  another (most, for refusal to take the Oath) were left, and  who were released into the population in Bermuda. Most of them drifted away over the years, and  only 3 are  known to have  died in Bermuda.

The cemetery on the island is  well-maintained, with a large memorial, and  is one of my favourite places in Bermuda. Noel (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tory defeat of 1906

It it  really correct that the war cost the Conservatives the election of 1906? Most sources I've seen blame the defeat on the protectionist policies of the government, not events in South Africa --Mmartins 12:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. - Johnbull 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When did the Second Boer War break out ?

The article has Oct. 11th, 1899 as the start date in the intro, but Oct.12th in the section about the Second Boer War. Rather confusing.... -- PFHLai 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringment

The section on Australian involvement appears to have  been lifted almost verbatim from the [Australian War Memorial] website. There is  a link to the site but that still does not excuse this. Zarboki 06:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not really rewite in in 13 minutes, I had an  edit clash with Thivierr! I hope the rewrite is  sufficient. If not then please make any further changes which you think are  needed. Philip Baird Shearer 10:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't recall doing the original copyvio, the edit history makes plain it  was my fault, so I'm sorry (I'm sure I intended to make a reworded version, not a straight copy). Philip, you did a great job of the rewrite, thanks (and sorry about the edit conflict as well). --rob 10:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles

I think that here is  enough information on the two wars to justify two articles. I would like to move this page to the Second Boer War (SBW) and  then copy information relevent to both wars into First Boer War(FBW) and  move any FBW specific informaiton into the FBW page. This page (Boer War) could either stay a redirect to the larger war (SBW) or  be edited to become a disambiguation page. The reason moving this article to SBW is  preserve the history of the edits in the larger article to which most of the edits apply. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it  should be done. I would support making this a disambig page, since there's no quick way to tell which of the backlinks refers to which war (although I assume the large majority do refer to SBW, it  would be a slow process to veryify them). --rob 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Other langages still have  one article for the boer wars. This article won't be splitted in all langages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistabob (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

I made it  using the names/numbers from this page. I'm not sure if using South Africa as the location would be as accurate as possible, but that seems to be the precedent for most military articles. Ekrub-ntyh 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

• An expansion of the lead section would be fortunate.
• The inline external links should be formatted to the footnote format.
• Review the tagging of Image:Boercamp1.jpg as the tag is  obsolete. Lincher 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[ and  In-line citations">edit] GA Re-Review and  In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an  article of its size and  currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are  in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and  re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is  the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an  article to pass the verification and  reference criteria. it  is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and  deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or  would need to be de-listed. If you have  any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or  you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and  effort that you have  put into working on this article and  improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia?

Australian's did fight in the Boer war, but as British Empire subjects within their respective colonies. There was no country of Australia until the state was proclaimed in 1901. The Second Boer war was already being fought before that and  Australia was not a participating then, it  wasn't a country to participate. it  is my understanding that volunteers in each of the colonies went to Africa and  fought against the Boer's. The combatants should be changed so that it  doesn't imply Australia as a nation was a combatant. E.g. "British colonies in Australia"? or  "Volunteers from Colonies in Australia". I know it  would be wordy, but saying 'Australia' in the table is  a lie! At least to my understanding...124.177.32.94 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the above questions on the Austrlain participation in the Boer War. Those Australian colonial troops that fought in the Boer War prior to January 1901 served in units raised by the various self-governing colonies on the mainland of Australia. (these troops ought not be confused with the thousands of Australian volunteers who traveled to South Africa independently to join locally raised units such as the Natal Mounted Police or  those Australians who were already working on the Rand and  who joined local units, such as the "Imperial Light Horse"). Hence those Australian contingents were named by their colony jurisdiction; eg. 'First NSW Contingent' and  the 'Australian Horse', that is  to say both units were raised by and  paid by the NSW colonial government. There were other contingents raised in the other independent and  self-governing colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and  Tasmania. In 1901 on federation, all the forces of the independent self-governing colonies and  their troops serving in South Africa, came under the total jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. From 1 January 1901 all those various Australian colonial forces became Australian units. Several recognised Australian units were raised in South Africa and  even Rhodesia (before federation)including, 'The Australian Regiment' raised in Nov 1899 in Cape Town; 'Australian Mounted Infantry Brigade' raised in Nov 1900 in the Eastern Transvaal and  the '4th Imperial Bushmen' raised on a ship in May 1900. Following federation, the newly formed Australian government raised three seperate contingents to go to South Africa , which included "1st Commonwealth Light Horse", thru to the '8th Commonwealth Light Horse'and the 'Australian Medical Team'.

I hope this sheds some light as to why Australia was correctly classified a combatant in the war.

Suggest you try to access two Australian sources: Craig Wilcox, Australia's Boer War,Oxford, 2002. P.L. Murray, Records of Australian Contingents to the War in South Africa 1899-1902, 1911. (This is  not easy to locate) Comment by Tonyob on 9 Dec 06 Tonyob 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic victory

Why is  the Second Boer War categorised as a "pyrrhic victory"? The article lacks explanation of this despite it  being mentioned in the box to the right.--Legalides 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)