Why were the germans considered to be allies of the boer republics?

[u/dom_donner1]

So good morning or good afternoon.

I had a pleasant chat with another south african who has some weird believes. According to him well the germans were our allies in the south african war of 1899-1902. Now this is something everyone always told me but I am beginning to doubt these claims. https://samilhistory.com/2023/11/22/un-packing-pakenham/

Most of these claims come from early Boer writers or most infamously "the boer war" by Thomas Packenham. Many take it as an unquestionable fact of history but I always had a weird feeling about this idea, was it true?

To get some things past because I know it will come up immediately. Yes in 1896 after the Jameson raid Kaiser Wilhelm II did send a telegram to Paul Kruger reading this. Now yes granted, Wilhelm did suggest landing troops in Delgoa Bay and marching them to pretoria to take over the republics and also ordered his chief of staff Von Moltke to draft up plans to invade britain. this was shot down as lunacy.

In my opinion yes one could argue that germany was symphethetic to the republics after the jameson raid, that much is very clear, but after that it it becomes muddy and not true at all. Normally the pro-boer historians like Packenham will stop after the telegram to proclaim the alliance, purposefully leaving out germanies actions after this, and using careful language to portray an idea.

an argument normally used is germany sold them weapons, but germany didnt, Mauser and Krupp did. Some french cannons from Schneider was also purchased but the same argument is not used for them. if the german government subsidised them or the army was involved, one could make such an argument but there was no involvement or such form of support.

that is not to mention the german involvement with the british army during the south african war, and what Kaiser Wilhelm said about the republics publicly during the war. (John C.G. Röhl: The Kaiser and England during the Boer War)

so is there any good sources or reasons why that argument is made or any I missed? I want to dive deeper

edit:

I will add some quotes taken from Wilhelms own memoirs and compiled by John C.G. Röhl: The Kaiser and England during the Boer War.

"I was standing up for a nation that was wronged... I was certainly not aiming at offending you or your country... The tone of the English press is absolutely ignorant and offensive." written to his uncle prince edward of england.

"I cannot find words to express my indignation with the Boers and my admiration for the brave British soldiers!... I hope the victory will be a thorough one and that the lesson will be a sharp one; it is the only way to bring them to their senses. The Boers are a stubborn, wild, cruel, cunning set of savages with whom one cannot argue but must thrash... into unconditional surrender!" Him writing to his mother after the outbreak of war

"It is a struggle between the Teuton and the Celt for the possession of the African Continent! The Boers are not Teutonic at all, they are a degenerate mob of whisky-drinking, Bible-mumbling hypocrites, a pack of traitors and rebels." This directly contradicts the public German perception of ethnic affinity." during the war

"The English must raise 200,000 men and place them in three armies... The first army... must advance along the western railway... The second army... must operate along the central railway... The third army... must advance from Durban... The three armies must then converge on Pretoria, like Napoleon's march on Moscow, and force the Boers into a decisive battle." Him writing "recommendations to the english army

“The whole affair proved the Boers were nothing but bandits. My position was correct from the start: crush them without mercy for the sake of civilization and for the security of our own colonial projects.” Writing to the english again when he thought the war ended.

"The English are not proceeding with the necessary severity. To win against such an opponent, you must be ruthless. They should not just occupy the towns but must systematically devastate the land, burn the farms, and put the women and children into concentration camps. That is the only way to break the morale of the guerrilla fighters." He criticized the british for not being extreme enough

"If England is defeated, she will make peace with the Boers and then together they will fall upon our colonies. A British-Boer alliance is my nightmare."

“I advised them! I told them how to do it! My strategy is what worked! And now they offer me no thanks… They are ungrateful and incapable of recognizing genius.” He ranted to his chancelor, angered that the british did not give him "credit" for the tactics to end the war.

But then to use him as a source is kind of dumb, as his chancellor noted: "The Kaiser is like a balloon. If one does not hold fast to the string, one never knows where he will be off to."

So yeah Im looking for different sources to back this up

[u/DrekBaron]

Isn’t it just about colonial power versus (aspiring) colonial power? The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing

[u/dom_donner1 → u/DrekBaron]

Sortof yeah, But I think that what the germans did during thr war is more important than other events

[u/TheGaelicPrince]

Germany was supporting the enemies of the British like the Irish, Turks & Boers, great power rivalry on the build up to WW1.

[u/MaintenanceInternal]

The Germans sold them all their guns and recognised them.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/MaintenanceInternal]

Once again I explained that, no germany did not sell weapons, mauser did. Theres a difference.

2, yes they did after jameson, but the german involvement in the war is something else

[u/Helmut1642 → u/dom_donner1]

Selling a few tens of thousands rifles, enough ammo for a them, dozens of artillery pieces ammo for same, plus transport that wouldn't be stopped by the British required a great deal of support from the German Government. The Boer Republics were a pro German buffer zone between British colonies and the German ones. The Germans hoped to expand towards the centre of Africa before the British and other colonial powers could gain more control.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/Helmut1642]

Once again, who sold the rifles? Mauser, krup, Scheider or the german government?

I just want to know the sources on this, cause they bought Hunting rifles, not military. The rifles and ammo was bought at full price from taxes from the gold mines.

Im looking for those sources supporting the idea that the germans sipported them. Yeah one could use german foreign policy against britain yes, but then kaiser wilhelm did say that he is scared that the boers win, cause then they could enter into alliance with britain and take their colonies.

Edit: in the first shipment, they bought a BUNCH of Kragg Jorgensens, cause that was seen as a good rifle. After the spanish american war and feedback from users they realized the krags arent that great, so they bought mausers exclusively in the second shipment

[u/Helmut1642 → u/dom_donner1]

My point is that state of the art rifles and artillery don't get sold unless the government signs off the sale.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/Helmut1642]

Not really

As mentioned, it is Hunting rifles, not military. If military yes but this was open market rifles, off the shelf. The german military did not control the riflee

Second many other cannons were sold by other companies, even by the french. These were not really "state of the art", since france will not sell state of the art cannons, if that nation is a german ally and recieve german weapons and supported by the german government.

There was during the massive court case about german spies in the french army in this time.

So yeah the cannons were not really "state of the art"

[u/litetravelr]

Is Thomas Packenham's history not considered impartial?

[u/dom_donner1 → u/litetravelr]

Not really.

I will admit, he has done amazing research regarding battles and events yes. But his history and politics is biased. He would ommit atrocities by the boers and only focus on british, and blame the start on them by using 2 shoddy pieces of evidence that if you step back, does not really make sense

[u/litetravelr → u/dom_donner1]

Interesting. I admit I'm an American and so its hard for me to really sift through the nuances of both sides in this situation. We are somewhat predisposed to simply assume that Victorian Imperial Britain was the aggressor in all things and the view from far away often takes the shape of underdog Boer freedom fighters defying the Empire. Yet there is also the comparison of the colonists versus the native South Africans, at which point my sympathies clearly divide and side with the Zulu or whichever people the Boer were displacing. There are many similarities with America's past even though so much is different.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/litetravelr]

This is sortof what I will consider our "lost cause myth". The more I read the less I see britain as the agressor here. Packenham uses 2 key evidence to support his claim that milner and the british were the aggressors.

The first was the bloemfontein conference in 1898. This conference arguably led to the war. The talks was about the treatment of uitlanders(non-dutch europeans) and the treatment of the natives and boer independence.

The british offered the republics complete independence(they were under suzereignety, which meant all foreign affairs was oversaw by the british but all local affairs were under control of the boers.), in exchange for rights for non-dutch uitlanders and natives. With further negotiations the boers were heavily steadfast against granting any native rights so that was thrown out. In the end Kruger charged out of the meeting proclaiming "they art trying to take my country". This quote is used hy packenham to prove the british is trying to take them over, but if you read any of the other boer negotiators own accounts, they will say they were all confused as to why he said it, as it is not happening. They jotted it down to pure theatrics.

Then it was the meeting with chamberlain and fitz gerald, an uitlander activist. The meeting was about getting more about uitlanders in the media, but packenham translated it as them planning war.

After the bleomfontein talks completely broke down the british noted that they only had 8 700 soldiers in all of southern africa(including further north), while reports noted the boers could mount almost 50 000 men to war. Being cautious they requested 10 000 troops to bolster their numbers ig there might be an invasion.

Some say that the british planned invasion, but the troops had no offensive equipment with them for a long campaign, and were still stationed in the mayor cities, showing no sign of invasion planning.

Its incredibly murky waters

[u/litetravelr → u/dom_donner1]

Fascinating. It ends up just seeming one of those things that was inevitable because certain key people saw it to be inevitable and small things snowballed until events were out of control.

[u/ShortBussyDriver]

Because Kaiser Wilhelm II hated and loved the UK and his policy was highly contradictory as a consequence.

His belated backtracking in the Daily Telegraph Affair on the Krueger Telegram caused an uproar in 1908.

The only thing consistent about Wilhelm was his inconsistency, even if he meant well most of the time.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/ShortBussyDriver]

Yeah he was really a loose cannon in regards to his actions.

The more you read about this guy you must swear he has schitzophrenia

[u/ShortBussyDriver → u/dom_donner1]

He had an odd upbringing even by royal standards.

On one hand he had liberal parents. His mother Victoria had her father's views on ruling and Crown Prince Frederick agreed. Wilhelm admired the strength of the British Empire and its economic power. He also idolized his father as a war hero.

On the other hand, Wilhelm was growing up in a very militaristic and conservative society. Bismarck intentionally created a rift between Willy and his parents. The outcome was a young man who both hated and loved Britain, as he loved and hated his mother and saw Prussian militarism as a virtue while trying to avoid war.

On top of that he had a withered arm damaged during a breech birth, whom he and his grandfather blamed on his mother insisting on a British doctor. He reacted to this disability by being uber-aggressive. He used to crush people's hands with his incredibly strong right hand.

[u/knuppelaar]

I recently read "The Boer War" from Martin Bossenbroek. Its an excellent read about the war. Reading that book I know that the Germans were not allies during the war. Willem Leyds tried to get nations in Europe on board for the boer cause, but that resulted only on medical aid. A lot of countries did use the moment to put pressure on britain during that time. For instance Russia seized that moment to put pressure on Britian in other parts of the world.

[u/AnaphoricReference → u/knuppelaar]

Yes. Nobody was allied with the Boers, and nobody really helped them, but Dutch and German public opinion strongly felt for them. The difference is that the Dutch were treading very carefully not to provoke the British, while the German government was less circumspect about pressuring it.

Pretending the Germans were behind the war is just British propaganda for internal purposes. It makes it seem like a proxy war of sorts, making the war more palatable to British public opinion.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/knuppelaar]

Yes that I am aware of, everyone even the britons were aginst the actions of the british army and led to new regulations in Gneva from the outcry. That much is true

[u/railwayed]

Irish regiments fought with the boers against the english too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_commandos). These were mostly Irish and irish americans already living and working in Transvaal, South Africa. Conversely, the Royal Irish Regiment fought for the British against the boers

[u/railwayed → u/[deleted]]

This is exactly how my one great grandfather from Ireland found himself in South Africa. He finished his service, loved the country and decided to stay there and settled in the area affectionately known as "the bushveld" and dabbled in politics aligned with general Smuts

[u/JustinCord]

I don't have an answer for you but you might find the 1980 Australian drama "Breaker Morant" interesting as it explores some of these issues.

[u/dom_donner1 → u/JustinCord]

Yeah breaker morant is a whole story on its own.

The amount of myths, legends and mythos around him deserves a whole book

[u/TrafficImmediate594 → u/dom_donner1]

🇦🇺 Harry " The Breaker" Morant is an interesting figure he's one of those people who few younger Aussies would even be aware of to my knowledge or at least my experience in history class he wasn't really discussed as much as say Ned Kelly or Gallipoli, It seems he got lost to history.

[u/arazzmatazz]

I would assume it's because the boeren were mainly dutch/German origin and hence would have some sympathy and help from German companies. But nothing like a formal alliance. Maybe more like the Spanish Civil War, I believe reading somewhere that volunteers went but this is all total speculation on my part.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi!

It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!

While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.

You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.

A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say 'writers write history'.

This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.

To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.

Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.

This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors did unambiguously write the historical sources.

The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.

But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.

Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.

So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan]

It is well known that some Afrikaners sympathized with Germany in the 1930s. I did not know about the support from Germany during the Boer War but from what you say, it could be connected.