bartieboy

I find the second Boer war and operation Iraq freedom to be quite similar, both wars were about a superpower having a lot of trouble to control a small country because of guerilla tactics. This is the cause for great debts for the superpower and marks the beginning of the end of a superpower.

Anyone disagrees? tell me why

redcoat

The claim that either of the two Anglo-Boer wars had anything to do with the decline of the British Empire is nonsensical.
Over extension of the Empire post WW1 and the decline of British industrial superiority were the true causes of the Empires decline.

bartieboy

im not saying it was the main factor for the decline but i certainly do see a similarity, Britain wasnt the superpower it was some time before, just like the USA today. And the Boer war did gave the British government some great debts, which was a factor to their decline. Just like the USA today...

Linschoten

The National Debt actually fell in the period between the Boer War and the First World War. This is a very interesting comparison, I think, but I don't see the Boer War as being a significant factor in the decline in British power (as I don't the Iraq adventure will in itself lead to a significant decline in American power). It wasn't of course the Iraq War itself which was so disastrous, but the failure of the Americans to plan for what would happen afterwards or indeed understand anything about the country they had taken over. But there is a parallel in a great power having great difficulty in dealing with irregular fighters, and in the international unpopularity that the relevant power incurred in both cases, and in the way in which they came to commit dishonourable actions (the mistreatment of prisoners, i.e. Abu Ghraib etc., in the one case, and the bad conditions in which Boers were interned in the earlier episode, leading to many fatalities). In both cases, it all seemed a fairly simple matter in the beginning, but led to nothing but trouble and enbarrassment. As an Englishman, I find the Boer War awful to look back on, in much the same way as Americans do and will find the Iraq episode awful to look back on (the British were also involved, of course, in Iraq, and most unhappily too, but it was basically an American mess).

bartieboy

that was 90% of the point i was trying to make

general.wolfe

like others have said, the boer war wasn't that bad for the british empire. america owned most of britain's debts at the end of the first world war which was more damaging to the british empire. they could effectively tell britain to scap some of it's naval vessels to come in line with the washington naval treaty

Knarly Dan

I'll take a couple stabs in the dark at it, because I'm not well read on that war (as may be all too evident).


1) Many Americans think a major reason for attacking Iraq was oil. That hasn't worked out so well, of course, but doesn't in itself mean the charge is untrue.

Not sure, but wasn't the Second Boer War motivated by that area's gold and/or diamond deposits?


2) The Bush administration assembled all the allies it could prior to invading.

Great Britain went after the Boers with few if any allies, other than members of the Empire.

Pancho35

The difference is that the Americans do not know how to handle guerilla fighters. When the Boers tried that stuff on us it caused a slight delay but with great British minds like Kitchener we soon figured out how to totally defeat guerilla warfare.

Belloc

Well one comparison that could be made is how popular arguments in favor of both wars were rather similar: Britain was bringing Western civilization to the Boers, America was going to bring Western democracy to Iraq.

Major Wilson

I disagree.

Britain peaked, compared to other countries, in the 1860s. From then on Britain never had the same superpower status compared to the US, Germany, France etc. The other countries became more industrialized, growth was stronger and generally were closing the gap they had to Britain.

The Boer war was not the beginning of the end, rather the moment when people in Britain realised that the empire was not only 'positive' (in lack of a better word). It wasn't the usual 3 month colonial war with 300 dead soldiers. Instead it dragged on for years and the treatment of civilian population wasn't exactly helping Britains reputation.

The US probably peaked in the 1990's. The downfall is/will not be because of Iraq, but instead other countries growing faster and catching up with the US. Eventhough the willingness to use military force to impose US politics abroad is lower now than before Iraq, this could easily change under a new administration.

The Boers attacked British colonies and therby started the war - the opposite happened in Iraq where the US attacked Iraq.

I'm rather grateful Britain took the trouble to fight the war, simply because this prevented a Boer republic which would have been more racist and oppressive than what was the case during the Union of South Africa (1910 onwards). If you have Ghandi on your side, surely this must be the just cause? But I'm not sure how history will look upon the Iraq war and guerilla tactics. It's too early to say.