Perspektiver på Boerkrigen. En analyse av samtidsvitners og historikeres beretninger om boerkrigen og dens årsaker, 1806-1902.
Abstract
In 1899 the South African War broke out between the British and the Boers, after what Smuts called “A Century of Wrong”. The War had major impact on civilians in South-Africa, especially the Boer women and children, which were forced into concentration camps. Witnesses, both observers and actors, present and discuss different reasons for the war and portray it as both a prestigious “gentlemen’s war” and a cruel conflict characterized by “methods of barbarism”. Historians have also debated its causes and reputation and illuminated the civilian perspective to uncover more of the shadowed actions. This dissertation will explore how both witnesses and historians have portrayed and debated the reasons for hostilities and eventually war. Primarily how the war has been portrayed or discussed as a colonial war or has its origin in the imperialistic order. Secondly it will focus on the justification that was given and the criticism it met, both contemporary and in retrospect. Finally, I will discuss, in extension of the justification, to what extent the war and its reputation as a “gentlemen’s war” (a concept introduced by John Frederick Charles Fuller in 1937) is relevant or just misleading to describe it.
My studies show that the South African War was both a colonial conquest and a result of the imperialistic order. Witnesses and historians point out that the war was a result of colonial interests from the British in clash with the Boers nationalistic interests of suzerainty. The discovery of gold in Transvaal spiked a major conflict of interest between British capitalists and the Boers, which added to the priors’ interests of civilizing the region. Growing relation between Transvaal and Germany challenged British interests and domain in South-Africa, which pressured them to take action in an attempt to halt foreign influence. The war is therefore also portrayed as a result of European power politics and the threat of potential alliances between the Boers and other states. The major criticism of British actions and tactics during the war, as well as the claim that the strong was attacking the weak, challenges British conduct as justified or accepted. Both the British and the Boers violated international law, but the camps and British advance has been the dominant topic for criticism by contemporary witnesses and historians. Considering the violations of international law and treatment of civilians in concentration camps, Fullers concept of the war as a “gentlemen’s war” is misleading, as it does not take into account the civilian perspective but focuses more or less solely on skirmishes between British and Boer forces.