During the war, many countries sympathized with the Boers, but what would have to change to get any or all to enter the war on the Boer's behalf? Would they actually see fighting or just pressure the British to stop meddling in Transvaal and the Orange Free State? could actual fighting lead to an earlier WW1? Just some thoughts of mine on the subject, looking for some input.
European Intervention in the Second Boer War
- Thread starter MadMc
- Start date
Volunteer brigades perhaps? No European nation is going to directly challenge the UK, but I could see a better Boer PR campaign attracting mercenaries, idealists and volunteers to South Africa to fight for Boer freedom.
Might we have volunteers from the American south, helping out a kindred people with similar religious and ethnic motivations?
There will probably never be enough of them to make a major odds, but you never know... it might throw an interesting spanner into the British works.
Might we have volunteers from the American south, helping out a kindred people with similar religious and ethnic motivations?
There will probably never be enough of them to make a major odds, but you never know... it might throw an interesting spanner into the British works.
mowque
Banned
Some Americans DID show up and fight. It wasn't the whole 'South' thing. But because the Americans saw the Boers as freedom fighters.
You'll need to do something about the Boer leadership's approach to weapons procurement.
The head of their military questioned why he should get more artillery than the 40-45 guns he actually had, half of them mere pom-poms(rapid firing one pound guns) while not long before the war the Boers purchased almost forty thousand rifles at a remarkably good price...because the rifles were such junk that no one else would purchase them in the first place so the Boers had to make a second purchase, this time of the right arms.
The head of their military questioned why he should get more artillery than the 40-45 guns he actually had, half of them mere pom-poms(rapid firing one pound guns) while not long before the war the Boers purchased almost forty thousand rifles at a remarkably good price...because the rifles were such junk that no one else would purchase them in the first place so the Boers had to make a second purchase, this time of the right arms.
I was thinking about a similar scenario the other day. In which the US, Germany and Holland came out very strongly on the side of the Boers. Now, for a start, the Boers would have to stay within their own borders, and not raid across the line into Bechuanaland and other places. The Germans really couldn't give a damn about the Boers [ from Breaker Morant] but want to give the British a hard time. The Dutch find their errant brethren something of an embarrassment, but in the end, family ties win out over common sense. For the US to weigh in will take some major butterflies, maybe by Teddy getting elected to the presidency in '96, somehow, and by him being more anti-British than he was in OTL. [or have I read too much Turtledove?]
So, In such a scenario, can world opinion force some sort of negotiated setttlement, where the Transvaal and OFS can exist with at least some form of home rule within the empire. I don't know how the average American felt 110 years ago, but in the present era, the Brits would be seen as big time bullies, especially when news about the concentration camps got out.
So, In such a scenario, can world opinion force some sort of negotiated setttlement, where the Transvaal and OFS can exist with at least some form of home rule within the empire. I don't know how the average American felt 110 years ago, but in the present era, the Brits would be seen as big time bullies, especially when news about the concentration camps got out.
A problem with supporting the Boers is that supporting them is essentially being against imperialism. Many people at that time were against imperialism but few countries had an anti-imperialist stance at that period.
Basically, for a European country to support the Boers meant that their own colonies had the right to rebel. It's like French support for the American Revolution. It inspired the French population to reject their monarchy as well.
Even America wouldn't officially support the Boers as they were sticking their finger the imperial pie at that time.
Basically, for a European country to support the Boers meant that their own colonies had the right to rebel. It's like French support for the American Revolution. It inspired the French population to reject their monarchy as well.
Even America wouldn't officially support the Boers as they were sticking their finger the imperial pie at that time.
I am not sure that having an international brigade or even worse another countries army would have helped the Boers. Their tactics were hit and run, with the exception of places like Mafeking most of the fighting didn't involve set piece warfare.
If they had changed their tactics I am sure they would have lost the war more emphatically than they did. After all they came out very well in the peace talks.
If they had changed their tactics I am sure they would have lost the war more emphatically than they did. After all they came out very well in the peace talks.
The Boers were white, Protestant, and were colonialists themselves. Someone with no qualms against using Maxim guns on armies of guys with spears and imported rifles might have concerns here.
The Boers fought and won set-piece battles at first--the guerrilladom came in later, when the Boers lost the set-piece battles and lost control over most of their territory.
My appolgies, you are absolutly correct, I got my facts confused.
However the simpathy the Boers had around the world only started to manifest after they had started to loose the war, so had swapped to the guerillar tactics.
Given the horror felt in Britain when the news of the concentration camps became public I wonder if an international brigade would have included some Brits!
If there were British in arms against British troops in the Boer country, things could get very bad.
For starters, they could be hung as traitors and whatever political cause they had smeared.
On the other hand, British subjects being killed for opposing a war many people opposed might galvanize antiwar Britons, even if they don't approve of taking up arms against their own government.
(Look at how many Britons supported the American Revolution, even refusing to fight the Patriot soldiers.)
How big can international brigades get before Britain starts demanding that countries start trying to stop them themselves? If there is a huge amount of support from, lets say America, the British government is sure to start pressuring the American government to make an effort to cut down on people helping out the cause. If America doesn't, England wouldn't declare war but they may start making trade difficult for them. American trips near Africa might be seized under suspicion of being transporting aide to the Boers.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Ropp theorises that France could have launched a successful surprise attack against Britain, and that due to a number of contributory factors it could have been successful enough for them to be able to send whatever part of their army was ready to be sent (presumably no general mobilisation or it wouldn't be a surprise)
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Anecdotal evidence from families of people who fought on the Boer side is that there were some British fighting on the Boer side. Mainly Scots and Irish who were already living in the Transvaal. Probably fought because they saw it as being against the English; and generally Scots and Irish enjoy a good fight.