Guilty for fighting the Boer the way they fought them

[LaCroix]

Not really.  It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.

why not WWI?

[Neil]

Not really.  It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.

why not WWI?

I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War.  They wouldn't have been able to resist Naziism though, on account of the fact that they were already there.

[LaCroix]

I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War.  They wouldn't have been able to resist Naziism though, on account of the fact that they were already there.

i can see them playing footsie with the hun in the early years before the war, then unleashing hell once war broke out. might there be: a cape town gun?

[dps]

Not really.  It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.

why not WWI?

I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War. 

Given that they did revolt in 1914 (though the revolt fizzled), I'm not so sure.

[Neil]

I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.

[Habbaku]

Not really.  It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.

why not WWI?

I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War. 

Given that they did revolt in 1914 (though the revolt fizzled), I'm not so sure.

Without the subjugation beforehand, why would the Boers fight on the German side?  They certainly didn't possess the means to take and hold South Africa.

[dps]

I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.

If they had fought the British to a standstill in the 2nd Boer War and then entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers?  No, they wouldn't have conquered South Africa.  They would have been a big headache to the British for a while, but ultimately, the Allies would have brought in enough troops to swamp them.

[LaCroix]

Without the subjugation beforehand, why would the Boers fight on the German side?  They certainly didn't possess the means to take and hold South Africa.

first boer war. plus, the germans supplied them with quite bit of heavy and small arms. with their gold reserves, i don't think they would have stayed friendly with the brit out of pure paranoia if anything. the first moment of true weakness the Empire exhibited, i think they'd have struck. crushing the boers for good was sound policy, imo

@neil: as dps said, i really doubt they'd actually be able to conquer south africa.. but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try

[Neil]

I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.

If they had fought the British to a standstill in the 2nd Boer War and then entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers?  No, they wouldn't have conquered South Africa.  They would have been a big headache to the British for a while, but ultimately, the Allies would have brought in enough troops to swamp them.

I think that the counterfactual was that the 2nd War never happened.  Once the war was on, I don't know how the British could lose, unless they put Italians in command.  Fortunately, Buller was smart enough to learn.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.

[dps]

It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.

Possible.  There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI.  Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war.  They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity.  Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved.  The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure.  Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.

[Razgovory]

Such is the tragedy of the Great War.

[Duque de Bragança]

It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.

Possible.  There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI.  Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war.  They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity.  Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved.  The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure.  Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.

Any more info or even links about that incident?

[grumbler]

Possible.  There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI.  Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war.  They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity.  Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved.  The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure.  Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.

I must say that your is a narrative that is pretty much 180 degrees out from what I have read elsewhere (though I haven't seen much on the topic). In conventional histories, the Germans are the ones instigating the revolts in Angola and Mozambique (and the invasions were to  support those tribes and bring them against the British) and the Germans won the battles with the Portuguese, suffering few losses.

Where did your read your version of the history?