Author Topic: The boer war... (Read 1670 times)

Curval · « **Reply #60 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:38:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
As you like. Not that the situations are/were in the least similar.

Oh, I see...you want something similar to the Boer War, which you see as a war of British Imperialism (although the Boers were colonists themselves...but that wee detail is ignored).

How about The Little Big Horn then? That would bear some similarities...no? The horrible "invaders" caught unawaress by the locals and given a sound spanking, prior to the imperialists actually winning the war and claiming the land as their own. The US Calavry's resources were streched and couldn't get enough men to the scene of the battle.

Good?

straffo · « **Reply #61 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:56:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, pretty stinky.

You gents have a view of "late" that, as it happens, shows absolutely no knowledge of the US society, politics and culture at those two particular times.

Curious, because that view of "late" is so Euro-centric that it reminds of all the posts made here about how US folks only take a US view of events.

1 year and half is not late ?

Good for us you were not really late

(not that the US were prepared to enter war in 41)

Toad · « **Reply #62 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:43:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Oh, I see...you want something similar to the Boer War, which you see as a war of British Imperialism (although the Boers were colonists themselves...but that wee detail is ignored).

How about The Little Big Horn then? That would bear some similarities...no? The horrible "invaders" caught unawaress by the locals and given a sound spanking, prior to the imperialists actually winning the war and claiming the land as their own. The US Calavry's resources were streched and couldn't get enough men to the scene of the battle.

Good?

Better but only worth a nice try, for a few reasons.

One, you'll note I haven't really commented on which side was "right" in the Boer war. So, you're out of line framing my view as "British Imperialism". You don't really know my view.

Second, the Little Big Horn really isn't an apt comparison. If you've studied the campaign you'll realize the battle was one part of a larger campaign, whereas Laz is talking about an entire war.

Also, had Custer followed orders, the results probably would have been considerably different.

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:45:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
1 year and half is not late ?

Good for us you were not really late (not that the US were prepared to enter war in 41)

Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!

Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?

What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:56:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!

Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?

What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What?

Yea the American people had little interest in sending our boys to die, to stop another war started by war mongering Euro's... Go figure.

Curval · « **Reply #65 on:** January 11, 2006, 05:13:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
One, you'll note I haven't really commented on which side was "right" in the Boer war. So, you're out of line framing my view as "British Imperialism". You don't really know my view.

Second, the Little Big Horn really isn't an apt comparison. If you've studied the campaign you'll realize the battle was one part of a larger campaign, whereas Laz is talking about an entire war.

Perhaps...but don't forget I was initially responding to lazs, whose comments like "The brits had caused the war in order to take away the gold of the free Boer states. The Boers were the ones on the high moral ground in that war" seem to indictae that he looks upon the war as one of Imperialistic might vs. the poor downtrodden "locals". So, I wasn't actually framing your view as anything...I was just sticking to the general theme.

I may not be able to find an EXACT comparison Toad...that would be like trying to find identical flakes of snow, especially with you nit-picking away as you are.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** January 11, 2006, 05:28:59 PM »

LOL. Yeah, nit-pick.

Ok, a subordinate commander with a small scouting type force disobeys the orders of the campaign commander and engages an enemy of unknown numbers with worn out horses and men in a short battle that has no effect on the overall outcome of the "war".

You're right...it's the same as the entire Boer war.

Curval · « **Reply #67 on:** January 11, 2006, 06:53:21 PM »

Toad...the fact remains that lazs asked this:

"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?"

I answered it.

You responded by saying my example was not like the Boer War.

So what?

A simple question was asked and I answered it....twice.

Hangtime · « **Reply #68 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:18:58 PM »

heneh.

I'm sittin here askin myself "well daaaaam, would 'how many bermudian blue hats would it take to police the world' be a simple question...?? ..and does it have any more or less to do with the subject of the boer war...."

...but then i got a sudden headache; so i'm gonna hit the 'post' button now.

Toad · « **Reply #69 on:** January 12, 2006, 01:52:03 AM »

To recap: I don't think that either the Korean war or Custer's demise is a valid example of "our resources being stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we wanted to".

Within 3 months of North Korea's attack, they had been pushed back behind the 38th. This was due to our "resources" deploying the necessary amount of troops. 90 days hardly indicates an inability to "put as many men on the ground as we wanted". Rather it indicates an amazing ability to ramp up from peacetime to essentially "war winning". Had Mac held at the 38th it would have been game, set and match in about 3 months total.

Custer? There's no record of Terry requesting any more men or stating he needed more men in his after action report. The three columns were actually considered more than sufficient for the task at hand. Again, no indication or resources being "stretched" to put the necessary number of troops in the field. Terry HAD the forces he wanted. Custer, against orders, followed the Indian trail and made a poor decision based on insufficient recon of the enemy forces. He ASSumed and you know where that leads.

straffo · « **Reply #70 on:** January 12, 2006, 03:05:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!

Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?

Depend of the area you come from example in Angers (my beloved town) being 15 min late for an appointment is considered normal and traditional (it's called the "quart d'heure angevin") it's even considered impolite to be right on time.

But in Paris being one hour late surprise no one as the transportation problem is a big factor.

Quote

What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What? [/B]

none I know.

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** January 12, 2006, 08:26:26 AM »

why should I bother? toad is doing an excellent job... the point is.... custer had all the men he wanted... he split em up cause he felt he had more than enough... he was wrong. He coulda had all he wanted.

We coulda put all the men in Korea we wanted if we had waited.

The Boer were a recognized free state in both the Transvaal and the Orange free states.. they had governments and property and charters...

The brits invaded to get their gold. There was never any mention of those Boer states not being independent.

In Korea... we were helping an free government defend itself from an invader... the complete opposite of britsh imperialism.

In the U.S. indian wars we were not attacking any government or any land owners... we were playing by their rules... The rules were... the biggest tribe slaughtered and enslaved all the others...

Same for the Boer and the brits in africa who fought the coloreds on their own terms. Who was running south africa before whites showed up? whichever tribe was the most powerful and brutal.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #72 on:** January 12, 2006, 11:02:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Depend of the area you come from example in Angers

I still don't understand how one can be late to a party to which you were not invited, had no obligation to attend and had absolutely no desire to attend.

lazs2 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 12, 2006, 02:32:41 PM »

Another really good book on the Boer war is "Boer Commando" by Deneys Reitz.

It is written by a Boer commando who fought in most of the major battles and from the beginning to the end.

lazs

cpxxx · « **Reply #74 on:** January 12, 2006, 03:55:58 PM »

I too find the find the Boer war fascinating partly because there is an Irish link. There is an archway at the entrance to a park in Dublin commemorating those of the Dublin Fusiliers regiment (British army) killed in the Boer war. It was given the derisive nickname of 'traitors gate' by many because in fact some Irish volunteered to fight for the Boers and on one famous occasion Irish fought Irish. Not for the first time in history either.

The Boer war is very interesting in part because of lessons learned which later were put to use in guerrilla warfare in Ireland during the Irish war of Independance. This time British didn't win!

I recently worked with some South Africans. They came to Ireland to find work. All of them Afrikaaners, effectively Boers. They had unpronounceable names and a very impressive work ethic. It was very strange to hear them speaking Afrikaaner. (It's a form of Dutch). They were quite conservative and religious. Very interesting people. I got a good insight into what the Boers must have been like. I think they would fit well in many red states in the USA. I saw no sign of racism either, interestingly.
It's a mistake to think that because someone is an Afrikaaner they must be some form of white supremacist. Those guys came to Ireland for work because they trouble finding work to match their skills in the new South Africa. But I never heard a word of complaint about it. Nor did they demonstrate any bad attitudes to the many Africans working in the same company.
There are couple of good books on the Boer war out there. I must check them out.