"Boer War and Philippine-American War" Topic

"and earlier in the Great War in German East Afrika as well" Uh, no. The south africans and every other white and indian troop sent up against the Germans got their butts soundly kicked – more by the terrain than by the Germans, and by the Germans I mean their black troops (although led, mostly, by Germans) though the Germans did a pretty good job of giving them lots and lots of bloody noses. Just finished rereading Battle for the Bundu a few days ago.

An aside on this point. Did the Brits have any black officers in the KAR at this time? The Germans did have in the Schutztruppe.

The KAR contained native officers in like fashion to the Germans. In fact the Germans copied the British.

The SA troops captured in Tobruk were lost to British incompetence (failure to supply, failure to support, failure to maintain the fortress after capturing it), tossing a "colonial" unit into a bad situation instead of good British lads (a habit of the British was to leave the "colonials" holding the bag whenever things went to &%^#&, just ask the NZ boys about Crete or the ANZACs about Gallipoli). If the SA troops hadn't been in the Western Desert who would have?

In Ost Afrika they were wasted by staggeringly incompetent British leadership, they were local (sort of) troops with good skills made to chase the Germans through easily defended terrain, no attempts at trying to cut off the Germans or deprive them of their supplies, just plod along after them and die in droves. Rather like the Somme , but with Tse-Tse flies. Lettow-Vorbeck was a genius at guerilla warfare, the match-up between the third-rate Brits and him could not be made up by the skill of the troops on the ground. Failings there lie with Whitehall, not the boys in the brush.

In Namibia they performed well.

A small force was sent to the Western Front where they were pushed into the battle of Delville Woods in 1916 and nearly wiped out, losing 2300 men out of 3000 (another typical treatment of colonial troops by the Brits; check how they treated the Aussies and Canadians in 1917-18, shcck troops to be expended).

The SA troops paid their dues unflinchingly, in repeated disasterous situations brought about by the carelessnes of the sloppy British commanders. To impugn their bravery, sacrifice or honor is reprehensible.

Oh not this old rubbish again.

The ANZACs at Gallipoli? You are aware that there were twice as many British troops at Gallipoli as there were ANZACs? Don't be fooled by the Mel Gibson epic. The British 29th Division – the only regular Division at Gallipoli – for example, sustained terrible casualties:

'The total casualties of the 29th Division amounted to something like 94,000. Gallipoli alone accounted for 34,000. This must be, if not a record, among the highest totals in any division … The number of Victoria Crosses won by members of this division was 27 (12 at Gallipoli). This constitutes a record'

And what, pray tell, do you think the rest of the British army was doing at that time? Sitting at home eating scones? Do you really think the 90-odd British Divisions that served in the First World War had an easy time of it and all the hard fighting was done by colonials?

No one is 'impugn' (?) anyone's bravery, but rather commenting on the throwaway remark that the South Africans saved Britain's bacon in the Western Desert – I just don't see it like that, but would be interested if you could justify it. It is not insulting to anyone to ask you to substantiate a claim.
Sure, the South Africans (just like the British, Indians, Greeks, Free French, Kiwis, Aussies, Rhodesians etc etc etc) played their part in the Western Desert and fought with courage etc: but they were also just a small part of the very multi-national 8th Army and the loss of Tobruk was (and is) considered very shameful.

It would be like me claiming that the Free Polish pilots saved Britain in the Battle of Britain – and then saying it was offensive for anyone to challenge that remark. Yes – the Poles flew and fought and played their part, but how could one justifiably say their contribution was the one that 'saved Britain's bacon'?

If you'd said the South Africans fought bravely and loyally for King and Empire in both World Wars, I would wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see when and where they 'saved Britain's bacon'.

BullDog69

I am not suggesting that the British soldiers contributions were of no consequence, or that they did not bear the same sort of crushing casualties, usually at the hands of an addle-headed British Commander. The number of has-beens and never-was' that the British put in command of the armies fighting under the banner of the Commonwealth should be a point of ever-lasting shame. The number of men that died as a result of that sort of leadership is staggering. They were not alone in that regard, they simply seemed more persistent at it.

Regarding "saving the bacon", where would Britan have found the men and resources if the SAs hadn't stepped up? The Brits were scraping the bottom of the barrel (in terms of manpower, resources and money) and stretched paper-thin on all fronts. They had no troops to replace them when they were lost at Tobruk. If the SAs had stayed home and the Brits had left an unsupplied, unsupported and ill-equipped Aussie (or NZ or Canadian or Indian et al) division there who would have held the line further east? Remember they were prepping the bases for demolition and burning all the records in Cairo while the 8th Army was fleeing eastward, the SAs were clearly being left to twist in the wind.

The SAs may feel shame at having lost Tobruk but when you have no worthwhile supplies of food, water, ammo, fuel, anti-tank guns, aircraft or artillery, and little prospect of any relief, there is only so much that can be done. The Aussies were supplied by suicidaly brave men of the Royal Navy while there were three massive land battles fought very nearby, in rapid succesion, in an effort to lift the seige. The SAs were dropped into Tobruk as a delaying force while the 8th Army fled away behind the Egyptian frontier to Alamein, so a comparison between the first and second seige is not apt in my opinion.

In 1918 in German East Africa the Brits were in no position to replace the contribution of the SAs as they had been bled white by the recurrent tactical stupidity of the generals on the Western Front. Not to mention what the naval situation would have looked like if SA had stayed neutral (truly neutral. not an active-combatant version of neutral like the US)

The point is this; the First and Second World Wars were the UK's wars, not the SAs or the ANZACs. Britan, more correctly The United Kingdom, declared war, the others joined in of their own accord. Volunteering to support the "Mother Country" is not the act of a dissaffected population (although Botha faced some pretty stiff resistance to entering WW1) which was, and still is, my point.

Modern-day hand-wringers are projecting their post-modern sensibilities onto a people that clearly did not feel that way at the time.

I still see nothing in there that suggests the South Africans 'saved the British bacon' in the Western Desert, any more than did, eg, the Rhodesians, Greeks, Indians, Kiwis, Aussies and – of course – the British themselves. One could equally say 'where would they get the man-power from?' if any of the aforementioned nations / colonies had not joined the war effort – so by that token, I guess everyone saved Britain's bacon, so why single out South Africa? You could as equally say that the Czech or Polish pilots saved Britain's bacon in the Battle of Britain, or the Norwegian MTBs that fled to Shetland saved Britain's bacon in the battle of the Atlantic.

When you made the claim, I thought you were going to point out the critical actions where the presence of the South Africans was the only deciding factor between victory and defeat of the British in the desert war, or when they remained firm and held a position while all others ran, thus saving the day.

Re. the naval situation – Simonstown was a RN base (indeed, they kept a presence there until the 1970s) so I'm not sure a neutral South Africa would have impacted too greatly on the naval situation.

But please don't misunderstand me. I have huge respect for the fighting qualities of the South African army, have no axe to grind or am in no way a 'hand-wringer' trying to run down the nation because of their post-war regime. But I am also realistic enough to say the South African contribution in the Western desert did not 'save Britain's bacon', or certainly not any more than any one else's did, including the British forces which were the largest component of the 8th Army.

Saying that the surrender of Tobruk was an embarrassment for South Africa is a simple statement of fact, in exactly the same way that the surrender of Singapore was for the British. It has nothing to do with a lack of patriotism / respect for anyone / gleeful mocking / trying to run anyone down.

As for all the negative comments against the British high command in WW1… you are aware that the British won that war, yes? I suggest reading 'Mud Blood and Poppyock' or 'Forgotten Victory' to get the side of the story not mentioned in 'Black Adder Goes Fourth'.

Re. South African resistance to entering WW1 – very true. There was huge resistance from many trouble-making Boers who saw the war as an opportunity to rise up. Indeed, mystery still surrounds the death of de la Rey.

IIRC (and I may well be wrong)the SAs were 2/3 of the Infantry Divisions going into the Gazala battle (the Aussies having gone to defend their homeland after the Japanese started the Pacific campaign), one Brit Infantry Division and two Brit Armored Divisions (which were notoriously weak on infantry support)and a few Indian Brigades with other units moving into the theater from elsewhere (Army level reserves, not involved in the fight). If the SAs weren't there things would have been far worse, I doubt that the Northumbrians on their own (as brave as they were) would have stopped the DAK from getting to the Nile (the 1st and 7th Armored divisions having been largely eliminated in the Cauldron).

So yes I will assert that the SAs saved the Brits bacon. There were no other troops there and none likely to get into position in any reasonable period of time. If the Nile fell the entire Middle East would have fallen and the Empire would have been sliced in half with only a very tenous link around the Cape (the Japanese were in contol of South East Asia and were probing into the Indian Ocean, Russia was crumbling, and the Allies were in bad shape in the Pacific).

I am well aware that the Brits were on the winning side in the Great War. You make it sound as if they were alone in that enterprise "..are aware that the British won that war, yes?" IIRC there were a few million French, Italians, Russians, Serbs, Aussies, Rumanians, South Africans, Canadians, New Zealanders,and Americans who also happened to carrying a fair bit of the load (and particularly the French and Russains, most of the dying) as well.

As far as negative comments on the Brit high command I feel justified when looking at brilliant campaigns such as the Somme, Gallipoli, Kut, and German East Africa (to name a few) where the Commanders were British and fully lived up to the "Lions led by Donkeys" assertion. "Stumble forward and then hunker-down" is not a tactical plan that indicates any active thought.

The inability to learn from experience indicates a lack of seriousness or a lack of cognitive function. The British had sent observers to the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and came away with the impression that trenches and machine guns would not have a significant impact on operations (note the tiny allotment of machine guns to Brit Infantry battalions at the start of the war). The people making these decisions were not terribly bright.

It was the Navy that pushed forward the invention of the tank which broke the dead-lock of the Western Front. The likes of Kitchener were content to feed men to machine-guns and artillery with the apparent hope that the Germans would get bored of it all and go home.

Re: SA resistance to entering the war on the side of an Empire that only a dozen years before had rounded up civilians and placed them in concentration camps, yeah, I could see where a portion of the people would be less than happy about that. But, in the end, they joined.

Gazala – which was a crushing German victory – saw the 8th army comprising 2 South African infantry divisions (one of which was half Indian), one British infantry Division, three British tank brigades, two British armoured Divisions, two Indian infantry Divisions, an independent Indian bridage and a Free French Brigade.
So South Africans saved Britain's bacon by making up about a quarter of Imperial forces in a battle that was lost, and one of the South African divisions was captured when Tobruk fell? I'm not entirely sure I follow your logic?

As I have already asked, and following your argument, do you therefore also think that, eg, the Polish pilots saved Britain's bacon in the Battle of Britain?

The reason I wondered if you were aware that the British Empire won the First World War is that it rather flies in the face of the whole 1960's 'Lions led by Donkeys' rubbish. And this is not to belittle the sacrifice of those other nations who fought, but merely to show that, ultimately, the British methods obviously worked better than the German ones. By the 'Lions led by Donkeys' argument, the German generals must have been even stupider, right? How does the war-winning 'Battle of the Hundred Days' fit into your view? Just a happy coincidence, perhaps? Incidentally, the Somme was a British victory and was fought to releive pressure on the French. One cannot simply take things in isolation.
As I say, you will enjoy reading 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' and 'Forgotten Victory'.

Saying that British officers were not very bright suggests that Continental officers were, or who are you seeking to compare them against? If this is the case, one would expect the continental armies to have performed far better than the British army. But they didn't – the French mutinied and was essentially unable to perform offensive ops by the end, the Russians collapsed into revolution and the Germans lost. The British army, in contrast, developed into the machine that won the war. So are you saying that British officers were all stupid, but French / German / Russian officers were even stupider? The French infantry, for example, took to the field in red trousers and their cavalry still had cuirassier regiments – were the British officers / planners stupid compared to that?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your statement: 'The likes of Kitchener were content to feed men to machine-guns and artillery with the apparent hope that the Germans would get bored of it all and go home'? I would be fascinated to read a quote where he says that. Kitchener was one of the few who understood that it would be a long war and that Britain needed a completely new army to fight it.

Re. concentration camps – difficult to see any alternative though. Any suggestions?

I fear that you are just being obstructionist at this point. The Somme was a victory in what way? An enormous expenditure of men and matireal to gain a few hundres yards of French mud. The relief of the French who were under heavy attack from the Germans could have been affected by better tactics and by taking over other portions of the front rather than walking slowly toward machine guns. Kitchener had an idea that it would be a long war and did what to lessen the casualties? or improve the tactics? The imp[rovement in infantry tactics was largely from the bottom up, not started by the Chateau Generals. Kitchener's Army was ill-trained and sent its death. Please point to the brilliant tactical innovation the Kitchener pushed to make these better troops.

Gazala; the Indains (aside from two brigades) were in Army Reserve, and the armor (as I pointed out) was largely expended by foolish tactics and mechanicl unreliability, at the end of things there were the three infantry Divisons; two SAs and the Northumbrians, one SA division got left behind as a speed bump, the rest fled. Explain how it would have been better if the SAs were not there.

As long as you insist on pointing out the Poles, consider this; the day the Air Marshall Bader told Churchill that the RAF had about a week left of fight in it would this event have happened earlier or later if the Poles were not there. Not to consider the diaprity of the numbers two Infantry Divisions vs a few score pilots to start with.

The Mules still have not been shown to be brilliant, the Germans were fighting a defensive war on foreign soil and conducted not significant offensives on the Western Front aside from Verdun until the Kasierschlacht in '18. They were content to trade a few yards of French land for the cream of Imperial soldiery. Please do give a detailed explaination of the brilliance that led to Gallipoli and Kut, or perhaps how Lettow-Vorbek kept a quarter-million Imperial soldiers busy in Ost-Afrika.

Didn't say there were options, but to the people who sufered through the camps (or lost loved-ones there) it would nnot engender a spirit of affection.

The Somme was a victory in that it saved the French army and caused the Germans to retreat 40 miles to their prepared defences. I'm not saying it was not won at horrific cost, only that it was – ultimately – a British victory. If you still believe the 'walking slowly towards German macine guns' myths, you really need to read the two books I have recommended.

You'll note that I never said it would be better if the South Africans had not been there – why are you now claiming that? I said I do not think being part of a losing battle is cause to claim that they 'saved Britain's bacon'. I've certainly never heard anyone else ever claim that and I've lived in South Africa all my adult life – I can assure you that South Africans are very quick to point out any failing of the British (especially as concerns wars, rugby and cricket) and yet even they have not come up with this one.

I await your Kitchener quote to back up your statement about his motives?

Gallipoli was – in my opinion – actually worth a gamble. Rather than being content to simply bang their heads against the Germans on the Western Front, the British were at least innovative (something they are generally accused of not being). The problem was – in my opinion – that the plan grew arms and legs and as a result was so clearly telegraphed to the Turks that it was doomed to failure before it had begun. Had they stuck to Churchill's original suggestion of forcing the Straits with Battleships, know what what would have happened. That said, and though ultimately nothing was gained, the butchers bill still favoured the Imperial forces at the end of the day. Just because something doesn't succeed does not make it a stupid idea.

Kut was a complete . You are bound to have some in a 4 year long war. The rest of the war in that area was a startling Imperial success, however, with General Allenby and 'Light Horse' Harry Chavel rather flying the face of the 'Lions led by Donkeys' myth.

I agree that – for example – Botha's defection to the Imperial cause was remarkable, given that he had fought so long and hard against them so recently. However, he was opposed to Kruger's war of invasion in the first place, so maybe that's understandable. The conversion of Smuts – who was whole heartedly in favour of the war at the start – is more interesting. As he had indulged in mass-murder during the war, maybe he realised he had better keep his head down and be a good boy? Who knows.
Interestingly, just after the war, Botha thanked the British for taking care of their women and children in the camps. The myth that surrounds them today seems to have largely developed later, and was of course milked for all it was worth by the Apartheid-era government and Boer-nationalists before that.

It would be interesting to ponder what would have happened had de la Rey not 'accidentally' (?) been shot on the way to a secret meeting with the revolting Boer generals. A man of his drive and charisma might have put a whole new slant on the uprising.

Also worth bearing in mind that about half of white South Africans were of British stock, so their support for the Motherland is not surprising at all. They had fought for the British during the Boer War (as had large numbers of Afrikaners) so it is not that amazing that these people should also fight for the Motherland against Germany. I don't suppose we'll ever know what percentage of former Boer fighters switched their allegiance to fight for King and Empire in World War One, though I would suggest that, as a percentage, their involvement would be considerably less than that of their English-speaking countrymen. I think this would have changed by the Second World War, though.

Oh I do love a good perfidious British high command tale. It's just a pity that all the leaders of the South African campaign in South West Africa were…. er, South Africans. At Sandfontein, their biggest loss they were lead by Lukin, the effecive head of the S. African forces. Yes it's true he was born in England but then he did emigrate to SA thirty years beforehand and served almost his entire career in the SA forces.

Kiwis stabbed in the back on Crete eh? Best not ask an Australian as to their view on the Kiwis performance on Crete.

Also interesting to note the terrible losses sustained by the Royal Navy while "stabbing the Kiwis in the back" at Crete.

Interesting article on the First Battle of El Alamein, 1-30 July 1942 which was fought in the wake of the defeat at Gazala and immediately after the fall of Tobruk. And bear in mind this is from a South African history group, not a British one.

link

Here's the conclusion

"During July 1942, 12 700 officers and men of the Eighth Army were reported killed, wounded or missing in action (Auchinleck, January, 1948, p 330). Total South African losses, from 26 June to 30 July 1942, were 433 officers and other ranks of whom 164 were killed, 253 wounded, and eight taken prisoner of war, while eight received treatment for shell shock (Roll of Honour, World War 11,1939-1945; Div Docs 105, File1 SAD/A2/2: Battle Casualties, 1-30 July 1942). Thus, compared to the rest of the Eighth Army, the South African losses were relatively light. The reasons for this were that, only on 13 July did the German panzers attack them specifically, and Pienaar did everything in his power to prevent a repetition of Tobruk and Deir el Shein. Furthermore, concentrated artillery fire improved the fire power of the defending British forces, while making the attackers' task more difficult.

Owing to several reasons, conflict between British and South African officers was inevitable. South African commanders were extremely sensitive about high casualty rates, knowing that the population of the Union was small and the country was divided on the issue of participation in the war on the British side. Furthermore, the surrender at Tobruk had been a painful experience that nobody wanted to repeat. British officers did not always understand this.

It is clear that the South African division played a decisive role during the battle, but this must be seen in perspective. The division executed a very important function on 1 July, but their losses would have been higher without the action of the brave men of the 18th Indian Brigade at Deir el Shein. Without the help of the 1st British Armoured Division on Ruweisat Ridge and the British and Australian artillery, the South Africans would not, on their own, have been able to withstand the onslaught of the panzers on 13 July. After the capture of the Tell el Eisa hill by the Australians on 10 July, the South Africans only played an active role on 13 July and again in Operation 'Manhood'.

The importance of the South African contribution was that it was part of a team effort. Their contribution prevented Rommel's forces from capturing Alexandria, the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf oilfields. This was of vital importance to the Allied war effort, as it enabled the British forces, in cooperation with their American allies, to drive the Axis forces from North Africa."

No mention of any bacon being saved there (South African losses only being 3.5% of the Imperial total for the battle), but rather a balanced appraisal of the role South African troops played as part of a much bigger picture.

Also, Lettow-Vorbek did not keep 'a quarter-million Imperial soldiers busy in Ost-Afrika'. I think you are muddling up the total number who served there throughout the war with the numbers there at any one time. The average Imperial strength in the East African campaign was less than 20,000 men. Just over a division's worth really.

Jan Smuts also commanded in the theatre for a year. Few would claim he was a member of the British officer-class / stupid / a donkey but strangely he had no more success than any one else. Do you count his term in charge as a period of 'staggeringly incompetent British leadership' too?

Getting back to the OP. If you read my earlier post, the American people including most of congress were very uneasy about the occupation.

This is reflected in legislation beginning in 1916 the Philippines were gradually gaining self-rule, this culminated in the 1934 Philippine Independence Act. There was very little debate on the issue of Philippine independence. It was a matter of when it would happen. It may have been our first attempt at nation building.

The British on the other hand, IMHO had every intention of keeping territories within the Empire for as long as they could. That is the fundamental difference. This finally began to change after WWII.

The Moro's fought against the Spanish, Americans and every Philippine government since independence. I was station there in the Navy in the 1970s and they were still fighting a guerrilla war. They wanted independence for the Moro's, the rest of the Philippines be damn.

I served with native Filipinos in the Navy, talked to a great many more. The Spanish American War and the subsequent occupation were not on their radar. WWII was still fresh on their minds and they could relate countless stories of fighting with the Americans against the Japanese. Our joint struggle against Japan seemed to have erased all before it.

Rallynow

'The British on the other hand, IMHO had every intention of keeping territories within the Empire for as long as they could. That is the fundamental difference. This finally began to change after WWII'.

I am not entirely sure what you are basing this statement on? The Cape Colony had been granted home-rule in 1872, Natal was given it in 1893. More tellingly, the captured territories of Transvaal and the Orange Free State were both granted home rule within 5 years of the end of the war, and the Union of South Africa was created in 1910.

Elsewhere, New Zealand was given self-governing status as early as 1853, while the various Australian territories were given this during the latter half of that century, culminating in the foundation of Australia in 1901.

Of course, you can argue that these stayed 'in the Empire' but what does that really mean when they had self governing status (essentially independence) and could trade freely and paid no 'subscription fee' to London. I am not sure if one can really say there was any intention of retaining an iron grip on the colonies, but rather there was an on-going determination in London to divest the long-suffering British tax-payer of these costly obligations as soon as possible.

RallyNow, could I point out that a lot of the fighting in the Phillipines was between the US occupation forces and Filipinoes who weren't Moros?

Does American popular culture have a similar hand-wringing guilt over what the US Army did / was forced to do in the Philippines? (bearing in mind that even the most conservative estimates put the number of civilian deaths at about 10 times those of the Boer War).

You'd be hard pressed to find a 'Murrican pop-culture type that was aware that we were in Iraq in 1991 for a little bit… The Spanish-American war is so far below the radar that it's not even funny.

Is there anything more amusing and ridiculous than American claims that they aren't, and never have been, imperialists.

Geez. With a straight face, tell it to Charleston, Atlanta, Meridian, etc…tell it to the Plains Indians, the rest of the hemisphere, the Phillipines, etc. etc. and on and on and baaaaaaaaaah.

Delusional.

Is there anything more amusing and ridiculous than American claims that they aren't, and never have been, imperialists.

Well yes, actually. It's the one where they say they are the leading advocates of democracy.

"In Ost Afrika they were wasted by staggeringly incompetent British leadership, they were local (sort of) troops with good skills"

Leaving aside the assertion of incompetent British leadership, I'm not sure where the South Africans in question would have acquired the "good skills". IIRC the SA troops were mostly volunteers and mostly came from urban areas, and had absolute contempt for the German East African soldiers, referring to them as "kaffirs". Where a shop assistant from East London, or a chandler's clerk from Cape Town would get an inherent and natural ability to fight in the east african bush from, I've no idea.

Chouan

I would broadly agree with what you say, though I think it is fair to say that the average (eg) South African or Aussie of the time would be more likely to be a horseman or have hunted than the average Brit of the time (and, indeed, even today).

I completely agree that growing up in Cape Town (or Melbourne or Auckland) would be no better perparation for bush warfare than growing up in Sheffield, but I would suggest the demographics of the colonies would still provide more men who had grown up in more useful conditions (ie. in the bush, on farms, hunters / outdoorsmen / pioneers etc). But no – I have no statistics to back up what is my gut feel.

The best I can do is give anecdotal evidence from the modern day – many of my friends, though they live in Johannesburg, enjoy hunting, bush camping and off-roading (which I guess is the horse-riding of today) – far more than I ever found from friends living in the UK. I think the weather is a huge factor and there is a bit more of an 'outdoor lifestyle' in the 'colonies' than the Mother country. That said, the end of military service and the advent of MTV, XBoxes and Facebook will probably change that very soon.

But as you say: just growing up and living in the Colonies does not translate to an automatic ability to ride and shoot straight, as though transferred by osmosis.

On the point of the way South African troops were likely to regard the blacks under German command – I agree, though I would also doubt that British troops of the period would have been much more 'enlightened' in terms of racial tolerance.

I take your point, however, I would suggest that urban workers in Edwardian South Africa would be no more likely to be able to indulge themselves in horse-riding and hunting etc, than would similarly employed people in England. Both had far less leisure time than people enjoy today, and transport would be far less available then than now. A clerk in Port Elizabeth, working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, would be no more able to shoot and ride than a clerk in Newcastle would, working the same hours; indeed, given the lack of public transport, I would suggest that he would have had even less opportunity.

Could I also point out that, as Crete has been mentioned, that the CinC Crete was a Kiwi? Again, hardly evidence of Brit incompetence, unless it was incompetence to appoint Sir Bernard Freyberg VC as commander?

Based on Winston Churchill's 'Story of the Malakand Field Force', the criteria for being awarded a VC seems to be "survived doing something so foolhardy that no sane man would have attempted in the first place"

Chouan

I completely agree and obviously did not explain myself clearly. What I meant was that (IMHO) South African raised troops would be less likely to be urbanites than those raised in the Motherland – based on the demographics of those nations, and their respective rural / urban splits.

While a British raised unit might have (eg) 80% of people from urban backgrounds, a South African raised unit might have (eg) 40% of such people. (I just pulled those numbers out of the air)

As I say, however, just a gut feel and I am not sure how one would research it. I'll do a bit of Googling.

The other factor that we often forget is that even urbanites of that period were very different to the urbanites of today. My grandmother, for example, would have thought nothing of killing and skinning a goose whereas the idea of a suburban house wife doing that now is almost unthinkable.
I'm not saying that made them good soldiers – only remarking on how times have changed in just a few generations.

Good point on the Kiwi commander at Crete. The unthinking / knee-jerk bashing of the British High Command is rarely based on reality or research.

On the subject of Crete:

When it was suggested that, in the face of cripling losses from air attack, the Royal Navy might abandon the (mainly Kiwi) garrison to its fate, Admiral Cunningham responded:

"The Navy must not let the Army down. It takes three years to build a Ship: It takes three Centuries to build a Tradition"

I can't find the references at the moment, but I'm sure that the SA infantry in WW1 were almost entirely raised in SA cities. Rural South Africans tended to join cavalry or yeomanry units. There was a similar urban/rural relationship between infantry and cavalry in Australia and NZ as well, I believe.

I am a Boer.
And we have always been taught to forgive, but never forget the second Anglo-Boer war.

Does American popular culture have a similar hand-wringing guilt over what the US Army did / was forced to do in the Philippines? (bearing in mind that even the most conservative estimates put the number of civilian deaths at about 10 times those of the Boer War).

Are you kidding? This is ancient history for 99% of Americans. Every 9/11 we are reminded of what happened, yet every 12/07 not a tear gets shed except for a few creaky vets.
No one over here knows about US/Philippine carnage.

Take a deep breath there and relax. It is just history we are talking about. 99% of the population doesn't care about anything discussed on TMP, so what's your point?

I didn't realize we were ignoring Pearl Harbor day. Every year there are about ten different documentaries on TV about Pearl Harbor. It is Pearl Harbor 24/7. It is still remembered at the Pearl Harbor memorial every December 7th. Were ignoring it? News to me. If anything we are still obsessed with Pearl Harbor as we are with the Kennedy assassinations and 9/11. With good reason.

9/11 is more recent the victims families are still alive. There were more casualties on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor (look it up, it's true) of course it gets more press. It was covered live on TV.

But that doesn't make Pearl Harbor less important. I don't remember the last televised documentary on the Philippine insurrection. I think there is a Philippine produced independent film making the rounds in very small theaters.

Falconius

I am not sure that the Boer-dominated governments after the war, and the later Nationalist regime ever preached forgiveness at all – the Boer War (or rather, their version of it) was used to excuse all manner of things and to forge a 'national' identity for the Afrikaners – one partly based on myth.

Perhaps it is a bit different now, but I've lived in South Africa all my adult life and think there is little 'forgiveness' from many Afrikaners (I'm married to one and have to endure the bizarre views of some of her family) and even less acknowledgement of the fact that the Boers have plenty of reason for seeking forgiveness for actions in the Boer War too.

Alright Bulldog. I'm really sorry about any mistakes my great-grandfather probably made during the second Anglo-Boer war.
But I'm willing to work side by side with anyone as long as we are trying to make this a better country for all.

However, I'm just as worried as the next reasonable South-African. If Malema's idea of nationalizing the mines with no compensation ever becomes a reality SA business would be in trouble. They could then technically nationalize any business. Minerals are after all just another resource, like creativity or management skills. Off topic, sorry.

Falconius

Yup – totally agree … Malema – and all the other morons of his ilk – are sending us on a one way express train to disaster. My brother in law was forced to sell his farm in the Free State for a pittance, and then no one occupied it. So he asked if he could plant crops on the land and was granted permission… and then the farm was suddenly occupied and he lost his harvest.
Nationalisation will destroy the SA economy (I work in the mining sector and we are already seeing this) and has never worked anywhere, ever… so why on earth are these champagne marxists keen to give it another try?
Pure insanity.

I remember reading a news article once about some bells at an air force base in the US. They were captured from a church during the Philippine Insurrection, while the base was still an army post. the Townspeople wanted the bells back saying that they were stolen, but a US veterans group (IIRC) said the bells were used to signal an ambush of US troops and thus were legitimate war trophies. This was probably a good 10 years ago.

Interesting reading this thread – I was heavily censored on another thread on the US -Mexican War for stating the Us imperialist tendancies that are conveniently brushed over and arguing against the ill-informed knee-jerk anti-British sentiment in all things. But comment on the Phillippines is allowed. Hmmmm !! No political discussion allowed I was told !!
War is the extension of politics by other means. All wars are political and therefore our hobby's roots are in politics (as long as you don't question Uncle Sam).

Bretwalda

I have no experience of what you say about American Imperialism on this site, but I have encountered a similarly slanted take on things in South Africa. In general conversation / the media etc, there seems to be a perception that only the British indulged in Imperialism in Southern Africa – it is conveniently forgotten that the Boers were imperialists themselves and captured their land off others (and desired an even vaster empire), and – even more conveniently forgotten – is the fact that the larger black tribes were also recently arrived (from Central Africa) and were also outrageously imperialistic. The Zulus and their offshoot, the Ndebele, for example, were massively aggressive and expansionist – the Zulu Empire increased 14-fold in a generation.

Strangely, however, the perception I often encounter is that the Boers and the black tribes are regarded as the 'goodies' who 'just wanted to be left in peace' while the British are the 'baddies' and should never have been in South Africa in the first place and wanted to steal everyone's gold.

"I wonder how much (if any) of the different perceptions between the conflicts has to do with the fact that the Boers were white, and the Filippinos were brown?"

Possibly the other difference is that the Boers won the resulting peace (Boer General Louis Botha becoming Prime Minister of SA in 1910).

Winners get to write history….

"I still see nothing in there that suggests the South Africans 'saved the British bacon' in the Western Desert, any more than did, eg, the Rhodesians, Greeks, Indians, Kiwis, Aussies and – of course – the British themselves"

Course we did – and the SAAF and SA 6th Armoured Divison saved the US 5th Army's bacon in Italy :-)

Everyone knows that :D

freecloud

I'm not sure the average Bitter-Einder thought of Botha as 'one of them' by that point. Many Boers considered the likes of Botha and Smuts to be dastardly turn-coats for making the best of the new situation.
But I do agree that Botha had to do a lot of 'nation building' after becoming the first PM of the Union and I actually think this is where an awful lot of the myths sprout from.