As we all experienced in the recent covid pandemic, during World War 2, all significant international sporting activities like the Olympics and Test matches came to a grinding halt for the duration of the war. Luckily, we’ve ‘rekindled’ our sporting trophies post Covid, however this wartime rugby trophy ‘The Book’ has been lost to future generations – and judging by all the new and evolving rules of rugby and the fierce contest that is any All Black and Springbok test match – if there is one trophy that needs a resurgence – it’s this one.
The fun bit, this is a trophy which was only ever intended to be awarded in a ‘test’ rugby match between South African ‘Springboks’ and New Zealand ‘All Blacks’ and the loser … NOT the winner … the loser gets to “win” this particular trophy.
A ‘winning’ trophy to the loser in a Springbok vs. All Black rugby humdinger – huh! So, what happened – how is it we’ve lost this, one of our most significant rugby trophies?
Let’s start at the beginning, to rugby mad nations like South Africa and New Zealand the on-set of World War 2 posed a problem for the sport and it was made worse by the fact that nearly all the young men playing in top division rugby leagues and top flight rugby clubs in all the ‘Allied’ countries like England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand had joined their respective armed forces and were off to war as ‘brothers in arms’ – all these Allied countries also happened to constitute the lead nations in the rugby playing world (then and now).
So, our wartime generation “made a plan” and the default “National” rugby squads fell to the various expeditionary forces finding themselves in the same theatre of operations. Initially informal rugby matches started in the North Africa Theatre of Operations where South African units (mainly Army and Air Force) found themselves alongside British, Australian and New Zealand counterparts. Soldiers been soldiers started niggling and ragging one another over national pride. It all started whenever there was a lull in fighting or whenever on rest and recuperation leave touring the hot spots of Cairo.
In particular, South African soldiers (also known as Springboks then) would seek out New Zealand soldiers (known as Kiwis) and before each contest would rib one another for not knowing the ‘rules’ of scrummaging and rugby as a whole (we still do).
Heads and bodies clashed immediately to form a scrum, with all the ‘dark arts’, grunting, groaning and shoving. With the scrummaging done all would rise up from the resultant ruck smiling and laughing, shake hands and arm-in-arm then proceed to the bar or mess to drink a beer or three.
It would not take long for the leader elements of the British, Australian, South African and New Zealand military formations to realise the benefits of all this camaraderie, teamwork, goodwill and national identity rugby offered and to settle this entire issue with more formalised rugby games.
In the South African Union Defence Force ‘sports officers’ in North Africa and the Middle East, started to organise multiple matches with sports officers in other allied formations, playing on whatever surface they could find with whatever ‘rugby’ poles and whitewash markers they could find. In all the various rugby games, the great rivalry was the same as it was in peace time – and this was the great South Africa and New Zealand ‘test’ match.
The Legend of ‘The Book’ – Part 1
The legend that was to become ‘The book’ starts to take shape amidst all this informal scrummaging competitions and rugby games between the Springbok soldiers and their Kiwi rivals.
As many may have guessed by now – The Book – is The Book of Rugby Union Rules. The South Africans claiming the Kiwis were hopeless and needed to learn the rules, and the Kiwis claiming they wrote the rules – so no need to learn them (or vice versa). The idea of each respective side “learning the rules” first became a general jibe and joke between Kiwi and Springbok service personnel.
The 6th Armoured Division “Springboks” – Egypt
By May 1943, South Africa’s 6th Armoured Division was formed as South Africa’s contribution to the invasion forces of Italy – and they took part in training exercises in Egypt before heading to Italian front. In identifying a need for stronger and more formal sports representation, and especially rugby – within the 6th Armoured Division there would also form South Africa’s default “Springbok” rugby side to take on the planned ‘internationals’ with ‘select’ sides from British, Australian and New Zealand military formations now in Italy – notably the 2nd New Zealand Division in Italy.
This 6th Armoured Division rugby team, playing in the Springbok ‘Green and Gold’ is no shrinking violet, it’s a rugby powerhouse on the level of an actual Springbok Rugby team – consider the players and the pedigree:
Initially the 6th Armoured Division team includes both current Springbok and future Springbok rugby players – George Daneel, Bennie Osler, Jimmy White, Jack Gage, Frank Waring, Howard Watt, Louis Babrow, Ebbo Bastard, George van Reenen, John Apsey, Pat Lyster, Henry Martin, Dendy Lawton, Tony Harris, Richard Luyt, Bill Payn, Hermanus de Jongh, Bert Kipling, John Dold, Joe Nijkamp, Bert Reid and notably – Boy Louw, who had played for South Africa from 1928 to 1938.
Then there was the talent still on its way to Egypt to join the team, the likes of Felix du Plessis, Basil Kenyon and Stephen Fry, all three of whom would Captain the actual Springboks after the war. There were other future Springboks – Okey Geffin, Dennis Fry, Franz van der Ryst and Cecil Moss. Then there were also many highly talented provincial players joining the team, Billy Anderson and Hannes Morkel to name just two.
Even the coach was Springbok pedigree, now with the rank of Bombardier, Boy Louw, the Currie Cup 1939 referee would coach the 6th Armoured Division team, after the war Louw would go on to famously coach the 1960-61 Springboks Grand Slam tour to the UK and Ireland.
Before heading to Italy, practice, trials and selections would take place in Egypt at the Gezira Sporting Club on an island in the Nile River and at Polygon Ground in Abbassia, a suburb of Cairo.
Their first proper game in Egypt is significant, it’s played against the ‘old rivals’ the New Zealand Base, and it’s played at the El Alamein club on 7 November 1943. The second billed “Springbok” and “Kiwi” clash in Egypt with the New Zealand Base is a narrow and hard game, it takes place at the same club on New Years Day 1944. The South Africans win both games.
Action shot from the SA 6th Division vs New Zealand Base on 1st Jan 1944.
Games against other military formations in Egypt are also played at the El Alamein Club, and in all the results speak for themselves – they played 6 and won 6:
Egypt Matches
1. SA 6th Armoured Division vs New Zealand Base, 22-5 on 7 November 1943 at the Alamein Club
2. SA 6th Armoured Division vs 10th Armoured Division, 49-0 on 14 November 1943 at the Alamein Club
3. SA 6th Armoured Division vs Cairo United Services, 28-3 on Christmas Day 1943 at the Alamein Club
4. SA 6th Armoured Division vs New Zealand Base, 12-11 on New Year’s Day 1944 at the Alamein Club
5. SA 6th Armoured Division vs Rest of Egypt, 12-9 on 23 January 1944 at the Alamein Club. The Rest were a Barbarian side made up of New Zealanders, South Africans and British players.
6. SA 6th Armoured Division vs Rest of Egypt, 27-3 on 4 March 1944 at Alamein Club.
Then onto Italy. The 6th Armoured Division are deployed to Italy along with their ‘Springbok’ rugby team, they depart Alexandria, Egypt by ship from the 14th to the 16th April 1944, arriving in Taranto Italy on the 20th and 21st April 1944.
The 6th Armoured Division “Springboks” – Italy
Into the thick of it, the immediate priority for the South African 6th Armoured Division is winning the war and not playing sport, from May 1944 to May 1945 the South Africans found themselves in a series of brutal engagements, starting with the Battle of Monte Cassino which ended on the 18th May 1944 as South African 6th Division engineers cleared the access roads to close off the fighting.
In the race to liberate Italian cities from German troops, the fighting South African ‘Springboks’ found themselves in action over the ‘Albert Line’ and then commanding the Arno Valley, and once again they found themselves in rivalry with their counterpart New Zealand 2nd Division ‘Kiwi’ and ‘Māori’ troops.
This time their respective national pride and ‘rivalry’ was not rugby, it was on a very serious military level as they both raced “shoulder to shoulder” to take the honours of liberating the regional capital city of Florence on the 4th July 1944. The South Africans beating the New Zealanders just hours ahead of them as South African 6th Armoured Division units consisting of the South African Imperial Light Horse and the Kimberley Regiment managed to get across the landmark Ponte Vecchio – the only remaining bridge into central Florence not blown up by the retreating German forces – and raced into central square whilst the New Zealanders entered the city from other points. Funnily as rivalry’s go (if you can be funny about war) – to this day New Zealand still claims the honours of liberating Florence, whereas the historical record and ‘honour’ was given to South Africa, the satirist would say, as birds go they are being Magpies and not Kiwis.
South African 6th Division tank entering Florence’s central square (Left) on 4th July 1944 and New Zealand 2nd Division tank entering Florence (Right) on the same day – enthusiastic Italian crowds greeting both.
Crossing the Arno River, the South African 6th Armoured Division found itself fighting along the ‘Gothic line’, advancing into Bologna and in action around the peaks of Monte Sole and Caprara di Marzabotto. Advancing through the Po Valley, they end their war in near the northern city of Treviso, thereafter they are ordered west to garrison the city of Milan on 29th April 1945.
A year of heavy fighting later, the South Africans suddenly found themselves at rest, idol and a little bored in Milan. They managed to famously conclude their Victory Parade on the 14th May 1945 on Milan’s neighbouring world-famous Monza racing track, but very soon their attention also turned to sport on the orders of Major-General Frank Theron, and very specifically – rugby.
Original colour image of the South African 6th Armoured Division Victory Parade on the famous Monza raceway – 14th May 1945.
The Legend of ‘The Book’ – Part 2
Whilst the 6th Armoured Division was in Milan in July 1945, a detachment of it, a South African Artillery Regiment – the 7-23 Medium Regiment found itself in liaison with the local Italian Amatori Rugby Club – which was playing a rugby game after an athletics meet at the local stadium, war had thinned their numbers somewhat and they only had 8 players, so they thought to ask some South African Gunners to make up their numbers.
Rugby in Italy in 1945 was still at its infancy, and weary that they were playing in front of an Italian audience who did not really understand the rules of rugby, the South Africans produced a small pamphlet simplifying Rugby Union rules for easy understanding and had it translated into Italian. Copies of pamphlet was then distributed to all interested watching the game.
Among the spectators at the rugby game were a handful of Kiwis who received this Italian pamphlet. The ‘old rivalry’ kicked in, the New Zealanders were immediately amused and started to taunt the South Africans taking part in the game. At last, South Africans can learn how to play rugby they declared loudly, but what a pity they’ve got to learn it from the Italians!
That night in the pub at Corner House, the South African rest camp in Milan, usually referred to as “Kiwi Corner” – copies of the pamphlet were predominantly displayed. The banter continued with the flow of more beer and the pamphlet became one of the treasured souvenirs of the Italian campaign – no lucky Springbok or Kiwi who managed to get hold of a copy was ever persuaded to part with it.
The banter, jesting and ribbing did not stop there, almost immediately afterwards cartoons were pinned up in the South African Springbok and New Zealand Kiwi messes respectively.
The South African cartoon depicted a triumphant Springbok standing over three battered little Kiwis studying ‘The Book’, opened on the first page which read, “The Game of Rugby How it is Played.”
The Kiwis cartoon comeback was equally good and taunting to the South Africans, it showed their Kiwi man as a schoolteacher of massive physique standing in front of 15 little Springboks with a rugby ball in his hand and asking sternly. “Come, come now, surely there is one among you who knows what this is?”
The idea of a ‘book of rugby union rules’ as a prize to the ‘losing’ team to “go away and learn the rules” started to take root, and there was only one way to solve this – a match to who might win this “least” converted and most undesirable “book” had to be played – New Zealand or South Africa.
The South African 6th Armoured Division Rugby Football Team was quickly re-established. Bombardier Boy Louw, the coach was re-engaged and he went about pulling a top-notch team together. He famously roped in real talent like Cpl Cecil Moss, then a Medical Corporal in the Special Service Battalion stationed at Monza, near Milan who arrived for ‘rugby’ duty in an ambulance (Dr. Cecil Moss was the Springboks’ vice-captain in the first post-war series against the touring All Blacks in 1949).
Before squaring up against the New Zealand 2nd Division’s default “all blacks” and to teach them a rugby lesson and hand them a copy of the rule “book” so they can learn to play the game, the “springboks” held trials on 22 October 1945 in Rapallo and then arranged a practice game against a ‘barbarian’ squad of rugby players of all nations station in the “59 Area”. The Sixth Division Rugby squad thumped the ensemble ‘59 Area’ Rugby squad 45-3. With that under their belt they were ready for the big showdown with New Zealand and the decisive ‘winner’ of the Book.
The Showdown for ‘The Book’
The South African 6th Armoured Division Rugby XV and the 2nd Division New Zealand Expeditionary Force Rugby XV clash was scheduled to take place in the small town of Rapallo on the Italian Riviera on the 10th November 1945. Billed as the ‘Grande Combattimento’ the game began to hype up to a spectacle of the old Springbok vs All Black rivalry.
Image: Advertisement hyping the game ‘Grand Combattimento’ and the contest for ‘The Book’
Although an “un-official” test match whose score would not count, in the minds of the men from both countries of the wartime generation this game was considered the most important or symbolic game they had ever watched. Both sides fielded XVs filled with current capped internationals or men who would go on to represent their countries at the highest level and receive caps in future.
Two South Africans, Lt. Keith Oxlee and Capt. J.G. Louden, are credited with the idea, of actually producing “The Book” before the game, with the intent of handing it out to those present and the losing side being given a copy so that they could go away and study the game! The idea was to make it like the Ashes, however unlike the Ashes, the losing team would be given the “trophy”. In the event a small, folded booklet consisting of only 8 pages with illustrations and rules was handed out at the game to the truckloads of troops, New Zealanders and South Africans who packed out the stadium.
The cartoon illustrations of the rules in ‘the book’ where drawn by cartoonist Richard “Ginger” Townley Johnson who drew draw sports caricatures for the Cape Town Times before and then after the war. It also contained the team lists (this booklet is now a highly collectable and sought after rugby piece of rugby lore and memorabilia).
Image: ‘The Book’ as outlined in pamphlet form produced by the South Africans
A “curtain raiser” was played before the main game, between the two respective “dirt-track” B team players – the Division Equipment Park versus the Artillery/ Armoured Group.
After the curtain raiser the two main contesting teams entered the stadium, the main attraction was on, history records the run-out sides as:
For the South African 6th Armoured Division: Oscar Swanson, Ian Frylinck, Cecil Moss (future Springbok), Jimmy Hearne, Frank Kingwill, Peter Stewart, John Youngelson, Dick Holton, Dr. Piet Duvenhage (Capt), Apie Greeff, Hannes Morkel, John Clother-Morkel, Cas Botha, Stephen Fry (future Springbok) and Hendrik Swartz.
Note: Aside from the two Springboks, all the other players would go on to play Provincial or 1st Division rugby.
For the 2nd New Zealand Division Expeditionary Force (NZEF) the names recorded on the pamphlet are: Greig, Evans, O’Byrne, Murphy, Marshall, Robinson, Finnerty (Capt), Figher, Hoffman, Honana, McNab, Haimona, Gibson, Cameron and Green.
The referee was Captain Robin Prescott – Prescott was a front row forward for England prior to the war (capped from 1937 – 1939), later from 1962 – 1963 he served as Vice- President of the Rugby Football Union.
The two teams were lined up and introduced to the much loved and highly respected Commander of the South African 6th Armoured Division – Major General Evered Poole by the respective Team Captains.
Image: Major General Evered Poole greeting the South African 6th Division (left) and Brigadier Pleasants (New Zealand 2nd Division) alongside Maj General Poole exiting the playing field after introductions (right).
So, what happens? Who gets the book?
Long and short the South Africans obliterate the New Zealand side, it’s a thumping, made worse considering the rugby old points scoring in 1945 (only 3 points for a try and 2 points for a conversion if successful called ‘a goal’– a penalty was worth 3 points and a drop goal 4 points), the South Africans score no less than 7 tries, the New Zealanders replied with only 1 try. The final score 30-5 with the South African 6th Armoured Division the clear victors.
Image: Line-out action during the SA 6th Div and NZ 2nd Div match at Rapallo on the 10th November 1945.
Eastern Province’s Frank Kingwill scored “the try of the match” a 50-yard run that split the field and sealed the victory. The headline in La Stella d’Oro, an army newspaper loudly declared: “Springboks Smash Kiwis in Game of the Century!”
The introduction to the story says everything and read:
“The SA Sixth Division ‘Springbok fifteen’ trounced the New Zealand Kiwi’ team 30 (three goals, four tries and a penalty) to 5 (one goal) to establish very definitely that the New Zealanders are the ones that need to study The Book.”
So, what next? Obviously, the New Zealanders want a re-match, so the South Africans give them one.
The re-match for ‘The Book’
The re-match is set for the19 November 1945, once again it’s the South African 6th Armoured Division versus the New Zealand 2nd Division Expeditionary Force, but this time its scheduled to be played at the Florence Stadium in the city Florence (the same city the South Africans and New Zealanders dispute over ‘liberating’).
The second game was played in a strong wind, and again its played to a packed stadium of South African and New Zealand supporters. Not to be outdone, this time it’s the New Zealanders turn to produce their official version of The Book for this match, and it is titled:”This is The Book” – it’s also a pamphlet form and consisting of 8 pages with the two teams listed and cartoon caricatures illustrating respective rugby union ‘rules’. The kiwi artist illustrating the cartoons was Captain Peter McIntyre. McIntyre, OBE, New Zealand’s official war artist (again, this booklet is a highly sought after rugby artefact now).
Image: ‘The Book’ pamphlet produced by the New Zealanders
The South Africans are confident going into this game, Boy Louw makes no changes to the team which thumped the New Zealand 2nd Division just 9 days earlier in Rapallo. The Kiwi’s go in with a much-changed side, the South Africans record that the Kiwis backline’s defence was improved and that they boosted their forwards with a few tough Māori’s. The referee is again the English prop – Captain Robin Prescott.
The teams are listed as:
South African 6th Armoured Division XV – Swanson, Frylinck, Moss, Hearn, Kingwill, Stewart, Youngelson, Holton, Duvenage (capt), Greeff, Morkel J, Morkel J C, Botha, Fry S and Swartz.
New Zealand 2nd Division XV: Hill, McKay, Birchfield, O’Byrne, Evans, Clay, Finnerty, Gardner, McNab, Murray, Haimona, Waaka, Honana, Mathews and Poki.
The game is noted as scrappy one in windy conditions with many infringements and rough play, given the conditions and the improved Kiwi backline, the South Africans keep the ball ‘tight’ in the forwards as a tactic and the two packs pounded each other into submission.
So, who won and who walks away with ‘The Book’ to learn the rules of rugby? Well, again it’s a thumping, a proper drubbing – the South Africans convincingly clock up 25 points, the Kiwis managed only 3 points to become he undisputed winner of ‘the book’ (again).
In true comradeship, after the match a complimentary dinner is hosted by the Kiwis for the two teams at the New Zealand Forces Club at the Hotel Baglioni.
Touring
With the matter of who keeps ‘the book’ settled for once and for all. The balance of the South African 6th Armoured Division XV campaign in Italy is nothing more than one outstanding victory after victory. They emerge from Italy, as they did in Egypt with a complete winning streak having played 6 and won 6.
In all the Italian tour records:
1. SA 6th Division vs 59 Area, 45-3 on 27 October 1945 in Rapallo.
2. SA 6th Division vs 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force, 30-5 on 10 November 1945 in Rapallo.
3. SA 6th Division vs 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force, 23-3 on 19 November 1945 in Florence.
4. SA 6th Division vs 2 Military District, 19-3 on 27 November 1945 in Rapallo.
5. SA 6th Division vs British Army XV, 17-10 on 1 December 1945 in Milan.
Italy done, the issue of ‘the book’ settled – the 6th Division team then goes on to tour the United Kingdom, France, Germany and back to Egypt before been shipped back to South Africa, arriving to a hero’s welcome in February 1946.
In all they Played 22 matches, won 19, drew 1, lost 2, and one match was cancelled. Now that is some track record, by any rugby teams standards.
Image: Team photo of the South African 6th Armoured Division touring squad 1945-1946
In Conclusion
Nobody knows where the ceremonial ‘book’ which acted as the trophy is. In 1949 Pat Swanepoel and others got together and recreated “The Book”, embellishing and expanding it and published it to celebrate the arrival of the 1949 All Blacks in South Africa on the first post-war tour. This version of ‘The Book’ was edited by Pat Swanepoel and illustrated by John Jackson. It is thought to have been whisked away by this losing All Black XV side when the Springbok XV made a clean sweep of them in the 1949 Test series. It has never been seen by the South African public since.
Would it not be nice to resurrect this fine tradition again and remember our wartime generation who secured liberty for Europe and the world over and who made such a significant sacrifice?
I would imagine it’s about time. I’m glad the All Blacks have held onto ‘The Book’ of rules to learn them since 1949 and feel it necessary to hang onto it to overcome whatever inadequacy they may have; some would however say it’s also rightful that South Africa should have walked away with ‘The Book’ after some woeful Springbok tours to New Zealand since. Either way, it’ll be great to have this quirky tradition back – rather than tin cups and shields, this particular trophy has substance, quirkiness, history and pride just oozing from it.
Written and Researched by Peter Dickens
References:
War stories: Rugby games ‘Up North’. By Paul Dobson. Rugby 365 June 2020.
The Book – article in the Eastern Province Herald on October 27th, 1994, by Norman Canale
Khaki-clad Springboks: Rugby played by the 6th South African Armoured Division 1943-1946 by Gideon Nieman – Jstor public domain.
Lecture by Dr. Yvonne Malan with Peter Dickens from The Observation Post as a co-panelist.
If you are in Kimberley – don’t miss this! As many who follow the Observation Post know, I am currently researching The Torch Commando and Sailor Malan. I will be joining up with Dr. Yvonne Malan (a relation of Sailors’) for her “I fear no Man” The Life and Legacy of Sailor Malan memorial lecture. Details as follows:
Date: Saturday, 16 September 2023
Time: 11:00 am
Venue: Sol Plaatjie University – Auditorium 1, Humanities Building, Kimberley
RSVP
It is important to RSVP for this event: RSVP details as follows:
RSVP before 13th September 2023 with Felicity Msuthu – e-mail: felicity@museumsnc.co.za
Images: Sailor Malan the WW2 Battle of Britain Squadron Leader and Fighter Ace and Sailor Malan The Torch Commando Political Activist (colourising by Photo Redux)
Bio’s
Yvonne Malan DPhil (Oxon):
Yvonne Malan was born in South Africa and educated at New College, University of Oxford. Her research interests include post-conflict reconstruction and transitional justice. She is the founder of the prestigious Bram Fischer Memorial Lecture at the University of Oxford. A former Oxford ‘Blue’, she is a keen runner, cricketer and boxer.
Yvonne is active raising the profile of her relative, the late Group Captain Adolph Gysbert ‘Sailor’ Malan, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar. ‘Sailor’ Malan was one of the most outstanding Spitfire pilots and leaders within the Royal Air Force during the Second World War (1939-1945) and a leading anti-apartheid campaigner and political activist as leader of The Torch Commando during the 1950’s.
Peter Dickens B SocSc, H Dip:
Peter Dickens works closely in South African military veterans affairs, in the United Kingdom he is the President of the South African Legion of Military Veterans – United Kingdom and Europe Branch and he is also the founding Chairman of the Royal British Legion – South African Branch. In South Africa he is the Old Bill of the Memorable Order of Tin Hats – Seagull Shellhole.
In terms of military experience, Peter served in the South African Army as an Operations Officer, a Convoy Commander and finally as a SSO3 in 15RCD – Gauteng Command, he holds the rank of Captain.
Peter has a B Soc Sc from Rhodes University in South Africa majoring in Economic History and Economics and a H Dip Marketing from UNISA. He has three broad passions – underwater wreck diving, flying light aircraft and military history.
Related links:
Sailor Malan is an exceptional South African, to learn a little more on this Military hero and Patriot – here are some links on the Observation Post to previous work:
A lot has been written on the extreme sacrifice at the Battle of Delville Wood during the Somme offensive of 1916, and lets also remember the extreme courage of these South Africans, a young country, the Union of South Africa formed just 6 years prior in 1910 after the devastation of the South African War (1899-1902) i.e. Boer War 2 … and here Afrikaner and English heritage South Africans were fighting shoulder to shoulder in one of the most most desperate engagements in the history of World War 1, and the most heroic and desperate battle in South African’s entire military history – then and even now, and that’s saying something as there have been quite a few notable actions in between.
If there was courage to be rewarded from this desperate South African action on the Somme, the Battle of Delville Wood saw one South African individual rise above to an unprecedented level of gallantry and was awarded The Victoria Cross (VC) – the highest award for valour in the British and Imperial Forces (later Commonwealth) – that was Cpl William Faulds serving in the 1st South African Infantry Brigade. For his full story follow the link to this Observation Post Delville Wood’s Victoria Cross – William Faulds
Cpl William Faulds and an artists impression of his heroic deed at Delville Wood 18th July 1916
However, there is a missing South African Victoria Cross from the Somme Offensive and Battle of Delville Wood, one not usually recognised or known about in South Africa, and one that is not often referenced in the narrative of Delville Wood, his name is Lt. Alexander Young VC of the 4th South African Infantry Brigade (South African Scottish).
The ‘missing’ story of Lt. Alexander Young VC – 4th South African Infantry
Lieutenant Alexander Young VC is ‘missing’ in more ways than one, not only from our general conciseness as South Africans, but he is also literally missing too – his body has never been found.
You can however find him today on the ‘Thiepval Memorial to the Missing in the Somme’ in France – his name is on Pier 4, Face C, alongside all the other missing South Africans from the Somme Offensive and Battle of Delville Wood who have no known grave.
Thiepval Memorial – Pier 4, Face C – South African section names – my photo, Peter Dickens copyright
So, why don’t we as South Africans know much about this missing South African Victoria Cross? Well, the first reason is that the Irish regard it as their Victoria Cross as Alexander Young was born in Ireland, the second reason is his Victoria Cross was awarded to him for actions, as a Cape Colony colonialist serving in the Cape Colony Police, during The South African War (1899-1902) i.e. Boer War 2 – and not World War 1 (1914-1918) which took place after the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910.
All that aside, Alexander Young VC was a South African to his bones and an incredibly brave one at that – not only fighting for the British Army, but also fighting as Cape Colony Mounted Policeman as their Regimental Sergeant Major and then ultimately fighting as a Commissioned Officer in the Union of South Africa’s forces during World War 1. He saw action and served in India, Egypt, Sudan, Zululand, South Africa, German South West Africa, East Africa and France – his impressive array of decorations and medals include: The Victoria Cross, The Queen’s South Africa medal, The King’s South Africa medal, The Zulu Rebellion medal and then his three WW1 medals – The 1914-1915 Star, British War Medal, and the Victory Medal.
That he was a very remarkable South African is beyond doubt, and this is his story and the story of his Victoria Cross (large extracts courtesy The South African War Graves Project):
Ireland and British Army (early years)
Alexander Young was the son of William and Annie Young, of Ballinamana, Co. Galway. He was born in Ballinona, Galway, Ireland on the 27th January 1873. Educated at the Model School in Galway, Young showed great prowess as a horse rider in his youth and when he was only seventeen, he joined the Queen’s Bays at Renmore. He soon gained the attention of his superiors, was sent to India as a riding instructor, and then served as a sergeant major with Lord Kitchener during the 2nd Sudan War (1896-1898).
South African War (1899-1902)
Sgt Maj Alexander Young became recognised as one of the best horseman in the British Army and as a rough rider was unexcelled. It was after he had been injured by a horse that he retired from the British Army and came to the Cape Colony in August 1899 when The South African War (1899-1902) i.e. Boer War 2 broke out, here he joined colonial forces, attesting in the Cape Mounted Police, and as a skilled horseman he was soon picked to form one of a mounted bodyguard for Lord Milner on an official visit to the Transkei.
Now this is an interesting photograph of these Cape Mounted Policeman escorting Lord Milner from Grahamstown to King Williamstown in 1899 – in just this single tiny detachment of Policemen there are three future recipients of the Victoria Cross. It says a lot for the calibre of soldier South Africa has bred (The three men are: Colonel J. Sherwood-Kelly VC, CMG DSO, received his VC during the First World War, Lieutenant W. Bloomfield VC, also First World War and finally our man, Sergeant Major Alexander Young VC, who received his during the South African War).
Now stationed at King William’s Town, Sgt Maj. Young saw action whilst serving with General W. F. Gatacre at Stormberg Junction (December 1899) which was routed by Boers, he escaped and was mentioned in dispatches for his coolness in saving Bethulie bridge in March 1900.
Alexander Young’s day in the military history annuals for the highest valour would come on the 31st August 1901 when he took part in the engagement at Ruiterskraal and led a small body of men against a hill held by Republican forces under Commandant J.L.P. Erasmus.
When the Boers tried to escape, he closed in on them, succeeded in taking prisoner Erasmus (who had fired at him point-blank three times) and was awarded the Victoria Cross for his heroic deed. His Citation in the London Gazette on 8thNovember 1901 reads:
“Towards the close of the action at Ruiter’s Kraal on the 13th August, 1901, Sergeant-Major Young, with a handful of men, rushed some kopjes which were being; held by Commandant Erasmus and about 20 Boers. On reaching these kopjes the enemy were seen galloping back to another kopje held by the Boers. Sergeant-Major Young then galloped on some 50 yards ahead of his party and closing with the enemy shot one of them and captured Commandant Erasmus, the latter firing at him three times at point blank range before being taken prisoner.”
German South West Africa and Bambatha Rebellion
Young remained with the Cape Mounted Police until 1906, when he joined the German forces in German South-West Africa and saw service during the Herero uprising (January 1904 to March 1907). For this he was decorated by Kaiser Wilhelm II. During the last phase of the Bambatha Rebellion (February-June 1906) he served in Natal and Zululand, after which he turned to farming.
1st World War
When the First World War (1914-1918) broke out he took up his old position of Regimental Sergeant-Major in the Cape Mounted Police, and served under General Louis Botha in German South-West Africa campaign, thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant and was subsequently active again during the East Africa campaign under General Jan Smuts, joining the Natal Light Horse.
He was amongst the first to respond to the call for South African troops to head to Europe and he transferred his commission to the 4th South African Infantry (the South African Scottish), he would however first see action against the Senussi in Egypt, he was again in the thick of it with the 4th South African Infantry in France during the Somme Offensive of 1916 and was later wounded in the crucible which was the Battle of Deville Wood in July 1916.
On recovering, he returned to take part in the later stages of the Somme Offensive under Captain T. H. Ross, he was tragically Killed in Action just before the battle of Warlencourt by German bombs and flame-throwers during an attack on his ‘Snag Trench’ on the 19th October 1916.
His body has never been identified and his mortal remains are known only to his God. Thiepval Memorial is unique in that it is both a British and South African monument, recorded on its walls are all the ‘missing’ during all the battles of the Somme offensive – a staggering: United Kingdom 71,341, South Africa 832. Total 72,173.
The Thiepval Memorial is one of the most visited Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites in the world. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme (1 July 1916) almost 20,000 men under British command died. By the time the battle was over, 141 days later, more than a million people on all sides were killed, wounded, or went missing.
For the British and South Africans with no known grave, the Thiepval Memorial stands in their honour.
In Conclusion
I had the privilege of officiating and commanding the remembrance parade at Thiepval Memorial to mark the centenary of the Battle of Delville Wood. During my speech I referenced Lt. Alexander Young VC and pointed out the panel on which his name is recorded.
It is with deep appreciation and honour, that on the 10th July 2016, South African military veterans of The South African Legion, Memorable Order of Tin Hats, The Royal British Legion – South African Branch and just about every single CMVO Registered South African Veterans Association, with Rhodesian veterans in addition could ‘stand-to’ on top of Thiepval Memorial 100 years later – with banners flying and heads bowed – whilst we remembered the sheer sacrifice and the many brave South African men, men like Alexander Young VC.
References and extracts from The South African War Graves Project
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Thank you to Brigadier Hennie Heymans for this remarkable photograph artefact of the Cape Mounted Police.
The artist`s impression of the action at Deville Wood for which William Faulds was awarded the Victoria Cross. From the book “Deeds that thrill the Empire” Vol 5
I’m currently researching the Torch Commando for an academic seminar I’m involved in on Sailor Malan to be held in Kimberley in September 2023, part of this is researching the ‘Nazification of the Afrikaner Right’ which triggered the returning South African WW2 veterans into mass protest when the National Party came to power in 1948. In doing this we uncover more “inconvenient history” and nothing more inconvenient to our general understanding is the sudden conversion of the much loved (in white South African circles at least) Prime Minister, General J.B.M. Hertzog … to Nazism.
What! No way, we’ve heard about all the ‘Pure’ Afrikaner Nationalists flirting with Nazim, how now General James Barry Munnik Hertzog? He was all about the South African ‘Union’ with Jan Smuts! This was no ‘Nazi ‘surely!
But I’m afraid here’s some more history that your Apartheid period schoolteacher either glossed over or had no clue about. But let’s cover a little of Hertzog’s background to this infamous U-turn first.
Hertzog’s political career in a nutshell
Much is written about General Barry Hertzog. A complex character, his popularity amongst Afrikaners was cemented when as a ‘Bittereinder’ Boer War General, he played a pivot role alongside Generals Louis Botha, Koos de la Rey and Jan Smuts in the Peace agreement that ended the Boer War. He joined Botha, and Smuts to form the South African Party (SAP) and was key to the establishment of ‘Union’ which saw a South African Union formed out of the two old Boer Republics and two primary British Colonies under the British family of nations, established in 1910, with Louis Botha as the country’s first Prime Minister.
Issues within the SAP would however start to come to head between Hertzog and Botha when Hertzog chose neutrality when the First World War broke out with Imperial Germany in 1914, Hertzog then joined a small minority of Ministers who voted against invading German South West Africa (the vote was 92: In Favour and 12: Against – going to war against Imperial Germany).
He would ultimately break away from the SAP later in 1914, found and head up the National Party after a disagreement with Prime Minister Botha, who favoured a ‘one-stream’ policy (English and Afrikaners together policy) as opposed to Hertzog’s ‘Two-Stream’ which sought a separate development of English and Afrikaans to protect Afrikaans culture (an early form of Apartheid). He would state of British Imperialism at this time, that he would remain committed to it, on the proviso that it benefited the white Afrikaner, the minute it did not, he would happily break with it.
After the Miner’s Strike (Rebellion) in 1922, Jan Smuts’ Prime Ministership and the reign of the SAP was lost, and Hertzog was able to come into power under the National Party banner by climbing into bed with the Labour Party (‘English’ white ‘Bolsheviks’ in effect) in a very uneasy coalition. Although clipped somewhat by the Labour Party as to the maintenance of Union under the British flag (Hertzog leaned to Republicanism) the ‘majority’ National Party was now able to pass extensive ‘segregation’ based legislation, and even change the national flag from the ‘Red Duster’ to the OBB (Orange, White and Blue) incorporating the old Boer Republic flags.
With respect to the South African Union, despite at times harbouring deep wishes for the re-establishment of Boer Republicanism and the possible unbundling of the Union. After the Belfour Declaration of 1926, of which Hertzog was the South African representative and signatory, he remained committed to Union, and to South Africa’s status as a British Dominion. Having played a key role in the agreement he believed that the Balfour Declaration of 1926 had granted sufficient autonomy to British dominions and negated any idea of any overt British Imperialism or influence playing any sort of significant role in South Africa’s future. South Africa (like Canada and Australia) had ‘figurehead’ British monarchist representation, but could crack on with its own laws and independence, completely free of Westminster.
The Balfour Declaration 1924: King George V (front, centre) with his prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference – Monroe (Newfoundland), Coates (New Zealand), Bruce (Australia), Hertzog (South Africa), Cosgrave (Irish Free State), Mackenzie King (Canada) and Baldwin (United Kingdom).
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 would be Hertzog’s crowning achievement and personal pride. However dynamics within the electorate in by 1934, would see the Hertzog’s National Party out of its coalition with Labour and into “Fusion” with Jan Smuts’ opposition South African Party to maintain its authority and Hertzog’s Premiership over South Africa. The decision in this “Fusion” would see Hertzog and Smuts shelve their respective parties and form a new entity called The United Party (UP) – essentially to consolidate a white hegemony in South Africa with a better balance between white English and Afrikaans speakers.
By this stage Hertzog would become the longest serving South Africa Premier in history, presiding over no less than 4 governments. Hertzog’s mantra as Prime Minister revolved around the reconciliation of white Afrikaans and English speakers as the only viable path for South Africa, in this respect he became an intense supporter of “English Rights” and he continued his commitment to South Africa remaining a British Dominion. Hertzog and his Nationalist cabal within the UP are however still able to continue to with segregationist and race-based policies, albeit these were ‘softened’ significantly by the more liberal Smuts and his cabal.
Hertzog’s United Party cabinet, a curious mix of hard conservatives like Jan Kemp and democratic progressives like Jan Smuts and Patrick Duncan.
A small group of disgruntled nationalists ‘on the rump’ of the party would however break away from Hertzog’s nationalists and form the ‘Pure’ National Party or Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) – under the leadership of Dr. D.F. Malan. They would turn their vitriol against Hertzog, who they now regarded as traitorous as Smuts and a British puppet.
On the other hand, within The United Party, by the late 1930’s things had started to come to a head between Hertzog and Smuts. One issue was South West Africa (Namibia), now under South African Union mandate, and part of Smuts’ and the Union’s vision for ‘Greater South Africa’.
Hertzog’s right hand-man, Oswald Pirow – the National Party’s Minister of Defence and a devout Nazi supporter and admirer of Adolf Hitler had been sent by Hertzog to the Nazi German state on a number of ‘unofficial’ state visits – in doing so Pirow would meet Hitler and assure him of Afrikaner support of the Reich and that should there be war against the British – South Africa would remain neutral and should Germany win they could re-claim their old colony of South West Africa as German (something Hitler re-iterated to Pirow as a fait accompli).
Oswald Pirow in Nazi Germany, November 1938 in Berlin inspecting a honour guard from the German Luftwaffe (Air Force), to his left is Wilhelm Canaris, to his right Ernst Seifert.
Things would really come to a full head when Britain and France declared war against Nazi Germany in 1939. A Parliamentary three-way debate would take place at the beginning of September 1939 primarily between the two factions in the United Party and the Pure Nationalists now in opposition, as to whether South Africa should go to war against Germany or remain neutral. As the United Party was loaded with Hertzog’s Nationalists and there was also Malan’s Nationalists in opposition, Hertzog was very confident he had the majority to carry his motion of neutrality.
Prime Minister Hertzog would argue in his speech that Hitler’s invasion of Poland and annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia was not an indication that Hitler aspired to world conquest, and Afrikaners well understood the Germans right to struggle for their own self-determination against the hostility of the outside world. Germany’s actions constituted no threat to South African security whatsoever and a policy of neutrality under these circumstances was the only logical policy to adopt.
General Smuts would reply in his speech that since the fate of South West Africa would depend on the outcome of the war, South Africa’s interests were virtually involved. Furthermore, South Africa was part of the Commonwealth whose fate now hung in the balance, to stand aside from the conflict would be to expose the whole civilised world to danger.
Smuts’ amendment to Hertzog’s Motion of Neutrality was carried by 80 votes to 67 votes on the 4th September 1939 and South Africa found itself at war against Nazi Germany. Surprised at the outcome, Hertzog promptly resigned, leaving the South African Premiership and the leadership of the United Party to General Jan Smuts and both he and some of his supporters left the United Party.
Field Marshal Smuts with a ‘V’ for Victory and the pin commemorating his win over Hertzog’s motion of neutrality on the 4-9-1939
On the 23rd November 1939 the National Party’s “Malanites” and “Hertzognites” met and tried to reconcile their differences, they could not, the stumbling block was Republicanism – the ‘Pure’ Malanite Nationalists wanted a Republic regardless, Hertzog felt that a break from Union and the declaration of Republic could only take place if both Afrikaner and English whites were in agreement with the idea.
To the ‘Malanite’ Nationalists, the UP’s decision to go to war had vindicated their intensive segregationist policies which they had been following since 1934, and that Hertzog’s flirtation with English speakers ‘rights’ was delusional (the Malanites classified English speakers as secondary citizens, albeit they made up around 40% of the white population). Unable to reconcile, Dr. D.F. Malan seized the opportunity to take over leadership of all ‘Afrikanerdom’ and cast Hertzog out into the political wilderness. Hertzog tried again on 5th November 1940 at the National Party’s Convention to reaffirm his position on English-speakers rights, falling on deaf ears, he grabbed his hat and walked out of the National Party – forever.
In his retirement from politics, and in his private life, no longer walking ‘coalition’ and ‘fusion’ political tightropes and toeing UP party-political lines, Hertzog felt confident to reveal his true colours. He performed an especially remarkable volte-face (U-Turn) when, just after leaving the National Party over his defence of English-speakers’ rights, he suddenly became a champion of full-blown National Socialism (Nazism).
Angered by his treatment by Dr D.F. Malan and the endless machinations of National party politicians, General Hertzog issued a press statement in October 1941 in which he excoriated “liberal capitalism” and the democratic party system, while praising National Socialism, as in keeping with the traditions of the Afrikaner, and as a system National Socialism simply had to be adapted to South African needs under the oversight of a one-party state dictatorship.
General Hertzog’s press release led to frenzied activity as the various Afrikaner pro-Nazi and anti-war factions tried to reunite. In the months following Hertzog’s pro-Nazi declaration Germany was joined by Japan, and the Axis forces won victory after victory. This was the point where Smuts was at his most perilous and the Smuts Government really feared that all could easily be lost. The National Party at this point even gave Dr. D.F. Malan dictatorial powers over his party to meet the Hertzog induced “crisis.”
The United Party’s Secretary Louis Esselen even wrote to Sidney Waterson, the wartime Minister of Transport that General Hertzog was ready to be proclaimed saviour of the Afrikaner volk once the war was lost.
According to Hertzog’s officially appointed biographer C.M. van den Heever, in his ‘General J.B.M Hertzog’ published in 1944; the following on Hertzog’s volte-face towards Nazism over this period is noted:
“Hertzog became “bitterly disappointed in the democratic system, with its capitalist foundations and press influence, for he had cause to know that the voice of the majority is not only the voice of wisdom … he was convinced that a new world order was on its way … after his retirement … he became more inclined towards National Socialism, by which he meant the adaption of the old Free State model republic to modern conditions, using the best from recent European experiments. … He regarded National Socialism as suited to the moral and religious outlook of the Afrikaner; indeed, he considered that the constitution of the old Free State Republic was based on it.”
As it happened the Malan’s Nationalists were not able to reconcile with all the pro-Nazi Afrikaner factions – the Ossewabrandwag, the Greyshirts (and the other ‘shirt’ movements), the New Order and the Boerenasie. The ‘Greyshirts’ – The South African Christian National Socialist Movement (SANP) themselves were unable to convince anyone to accept their rather opportunistic leader Louis Weichardt to be appointed as Führer under Hertzog’s ceremonial patronage. Dr. D.F. Malan was certainly unwilling to be usurped by anybody as the leader of “Afrikanerdom” – he had fought very hard to get to this position and rid the party of Hertzog, and even the Ossewabrandwag leader Dr Hans van Rensberg, a man who also converted the idea of Führer for himself, would ultimately find himself on the wrong side of Malan.
Also, according to C.M. van den Heever, Hertzog became increasingly private and isolated. Also noted is that Hertzog started to become seriously ill a year later in 1942 passing away on the 21st November 1942 aged 74. Some apologists to Hertzog’s volte-face and sojourn with Nazism point to his illness and him becoming ‘senile’ – however he was also considered by many to have been well within his faculties a year before in 1941 when he published his pro-National Socialist press release.
That said, his turn to Nazism, given his entire political career and his strong position on ‘Fusion’ and equality between English and Afrikaans speakers along with ‘Union’ – his turn to Nazism seems a little out of character – his illness and realisation that he was closing in on his twilight years may have played a role in that he may have wanted ‘to get it off his chest’, or he may have genuinely become completely mentally discombobulated.
Like father like son?
Barry and Albert Hertzog
However, it’s in his private life and not in his public life that we find a more compelling clue, and in retirement especially he was very much focussed on his family. They say ‘the apple does not fall far from the tree’ and here we find General Hertzog’s son, Dr. Albert Hertzog who followed his fathers’ footsteps into politics.
Dr. Albert Hertzog was a key figure in the Afrikaner Broederbond, in 1948 he stood as a National Party candidate, becoming a Minister of Parliament. Dr. Albert Hertzog’s views were extreme, he wanted to nationalise the gold mines and as devout National Socialist he looked to reforming Afrikaner and white labour unions – especially the Afrikaner Bond of Mineworkers. He even advocated state control of the entire economy.
So extremely right wing in his views, Dr. Albert Hertzog eventually found the National Party too ‘liberal’ for his liking and came to loggerheads with them – he was removed from the party, and he moved to establish the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Reconstituted National Party) or HNP in 1969 and head it up as a breakaway to the extreme right of the NP. Joining him as his deputy was Jaap Marais, an ex-Ossewabrandwag stalwart and National Party Minister, who along with Dr Albert Hertzog harboured such extreme National Socialist views that he too was removed from the NP.
The HNP bordered on a Neo-Nazi party in its mandate, advocating complete racial segregation with ‘Pure’ white Afrikaners in full control, dictatorial government, ‘Blood and Land’ ideals and the only official language in South Africa was to be Afrikaans. The party would see the likes of Eugène Terre’Blanche emerge from it (forming the neo-Nazi – afrikaner weerstandsbeweging – AWB) and believe it or not the HNP still exists in modern South Africa today with a mandate to revert to Verwoerdian Apartheid – such is our free democracy, but how they realistically intend to do this is anyone’s guess.
Legacy
General Hertzog was a much-loved leader, and that’s attested by his oversight over 4 governments, he carefully balanced Smuts’ ‘liberals’ against the more conservative Nationalists and as a result had a tenure over South Africa that even exceeded Smuts’ – and this has not been matched by a South African premier since – even in the modern democratic era. His disposition to ‘reconciliation’ of Afrikaners and English with Smuts alongside him was his downfall in the face of the extreme Afrikaner Nationalists advocating a return to ‘Krugerism’, and an all-encompassing Afrikaner ‘white’ Republic, with the emerging Broederbond advocating a Weimar Eugenics and National Socialist infused definition of Afrikaner ‘Christian Nationalism’ in addition.
Had it remained there, history would have been kinder to General Barry Hertzog. Unfortunately, his volte-face to accept National Socialism (Nazism) at the very end of his career will forever tarnish his legacy, as there is literally no way it can be shaken off. In this respect he joins the likes of all the other National Party members who embraced National Socialism as an ideology prior to and during the war (some even after the war) – B.J. Vorster, Oswald Pirow, Hendrik van den Bergh, Johannes von Moltke, P.O. Sauer, Frans Erasmus, C.R. Swart, P.W. Botha, Eric Louw, General Manie Maritz, Jaap Marais, Louis Weichardt, The Rev. Koot Vorster, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, Henning Klopper, Dr. Nico Diedericks, Piet Meyer, General Rudolph Hiemstra, Dr. Eben Dönges, Dr. Hans van Rensberg and even his own son … Dr. Albert Hertzog.
The Springbok Legion and the Torch Commando, consisting of returning World War 2 veterans repeatedly warned that the under the thin veneer of Afrikaner Nationalism dwelt full blown National Socialism (Nazism), and they pointed repeatedly at the likes of Pirow, Vorster, Erasmus, Verwoerd and Swart. At the helm of the National Party during the 1950’s was Dr. D.F. Malan, and he was just about the only Afrikaner Nationalist in the NP’s leader element who had not either partly or fully embraced Nazism as a political ideology prior to and during World War 2.
The ‘Malanazi’ as published in ‘Blikfakkel’ the Torch Commando’s mouthpiece in June 1952 – political cartoon by Berry – served to ridicule Dr. D.F. Malan, the Prime Minister and leader of The National Party, humorously depicted as a poor cousin of Nazism.
The National Party spent years covering up its National Socialist affiliations, declaring they were just “anti-British” during WW2 and promoted “neutrality” and not war with Nazi Germany – a “no, Nazi to be seen here .. move on!” approach. But this argument starts to really fall about when you look at General Hertzog’s conversion to Nazism in addition to the rest, the National Party’s founder, its most successful premier and cornerstone for the party for over three decades.
Written and Researched by Peter Dickens
References:
Pro-Nazi Subversion in South Africa, 1939-1941: By Patrick J. Furlong.
General J.B.M Hertzog: Official biography published 1944: By C.M. van den Heever.
The Rise of the South African Reich: 1964: By Brian Bunting
The White Tribe of Africa: 1981: By David Harrison
National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa: The case of L.T. Weichardt and his Greyshirt movements, 1933-1946: By Werner Bouwer
The Final Prize: The Broederbond by Norman Levy: South African History On-line (SAHO) War and the formation of Afrikaner nationalism: By Anne Samson: Great War in Africa Association
From Boer ‘Refugee Camps’ to Nazi ‘Konzentrationslager’
In some recent social media postings, the old fracas between the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg’s inflammatory statements about Boer War concentration camps and Pretoria University’s erstwhile Professor Fransjohan Pretorius’ emotionally charged response to it seems to have resurfaced (not that Rees-Mogg cares a jot, or has even responded to Professor Pretorius), a key source of the fracas in both respects – the use of language surrounding concentration camps.
The issue lies around how ‘concentration camps’ are perceived in our common modern consciousness and what the phrase means to us – not only in South Africa but world over. This was adequately demonstrated in the TV interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, who, whilst defending Winston Churchill’s legacy, was challenged on the issue of British concentration camps in South Africa during the South African War (1899-1902) a.k.a. Boer War 2.
His response, falling back on a typical Etonian education, compared the death rate in Boer War concentration camps to the death rate in Glasgow at the beginning of the 20th Century – i.e., disease, not war, being the major issue. In Reese-Mogg’s political context he is using a ‘deflection’ as one can scalp mortality statistics and disease statistics by demographic segment and by country from 1899 to 1902 in many ways.
Rees-Mogg’s comparison of Glasgow and South African camps is, however, statistically unsound – mortality rates in South Africa during disease epidemics at the time, notably the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 would have been more compelling and comparative argument.
Rees-Mogg’s grip on disease statistics aside, he then went to state that the camps were set up for protecting Boer citizens. This is a partial truth, believe it or not, the camps were initially set up for protecting refugees – but it comes with a double-edged sword when forcibly displaced citizens were added to the genuine refugee population of the camps, hence the controversy, confusion and general indignation across the Afrikaner community.
Then, Rees-Mogg goes on to state that one should not to confuse the Boer concentration camps with Hitler’s extermination camps. This is an absolute truth, Rees-Mogg is correct, the two concepts are completely different. However, the morality issue regarding the outcome of both systems (i.e. the death of civilians in wartime) will forever be argued – especially when one starts to add modern day 21st Century WOKE sensibilities to 20th Century contexts – the idea that war kills, whether by virus or bullet, makes no difference to the dead.
Wading into this fracas to “set Rees-Mogg strait” comes Professor Fransjohan Pretorius from the University of Pretoria, using equally emotionally charged language.
What is however very interesting to this discussion, and more to the subject to this article, is just how loaded the words ‘concentration camp’ are, and it’s seen in Rees-Mogg’s co-discussant on the panel, Grace Blakeley, an academic, journalist and far left leaning political commentator who best describes herself as a ‘socialist’ – and on the Boer War concentration camps she literally loses the plot – dramatically declaring with great dollops of repugnance that “the British invented the Concentration Camp” – a complete untruth, the Spanish invented concentration camps.
Grace Blakeley then loudly proclaims with all the authority in the world “it was systematic murder!” Now, in the 125 odd years since the war not one single case of ‘systematic murder’ in a Boer concentration camp has been proven – not then and not now – and that’s not an opinion it’s a fact, whether some like it or not. Even the old Afrikaner National Party had 40 years in the pound seats with all the resources at hand to try and ‘prove’ a legitimate case of systematic murder which could hold up to legal scrutiny and could not do it. The simple truth is that all deaths recorded in both the ‘Boer’ and the ‘Black’ Concentration camps of the Boer War are disease or health related (more on this later).
She then excitedly declares “hundreds of thousands of people died” in the white Boer concentration camps – implying mass genocide and ethnic cleansing – whilst in truth 28,000 people died in the ‘white’ camps and about 20,000 in the ‘black’ camps (some say more) – all whilst very tragic, it is hardly ‘hundreds of thousands’ that really is hyperbole.
In Jacob Rees-Mogg’s rather measured counter response to Grace Blakeley’s wild claims he reiterates that it is “completely wrong” for her to compare the Boer War 2 concentration camps to that of Adolf Hitler’s extermination camps of World War 2.
So, how is it that Grace Blakeley (a Labour Party strategic think-tank economist with a Masters Degree in African Studies) gets her facts so woefully wrong?
Another glaring problem with her outbursts, and its highly indicative of the issue at hand, Professor Fransjohan Pretorius in his effort to “set Jacob Rees-Mogg strait” on his facts, only takes aim at Rees-Mogg, the net result is a raft of indignation levelled directly at Rees-Mogg by many in South Africa simply because the good Professor said so. What he does not do, is take aim at Grace Blakeley, an expert in her field, for her equally stupid, emotionally charged and factually incorrect statements. This is a BBC ‘Balance’ panel of Tory and Labour after all. Here the good Professor is ‘Tjoepstil’ – nada, nothing, silent … crickets! But why?
The uneasy answer is that he agrees with Blakeley, and by NOT “setting Grace Blakeley strait” in addition to Rees-Mogg, he tacitly approves of her statements. He is ‘weaponising’ the issue, the surge in indignation from South Africa (and even the UK) does not target the ‘Labourite’ in the debate, but rather the ‘Tory’ – nobody cares about what Grace Blakeley said, they all tacitly agree with her in addition.
It exposes a tremendous old Afrikaner Nationalist bias, something Professor Fransjohan Pretorius is often criticised for in his history writing, and one that is currently undermining his credibility. As they say in Afrikaans “Jou onderrok steek erg uit” (your underwear slip is exposed i.e. your hidden bias is plain to see) – and by nailing his bias to the mast in the way he does – calling the British “scandalous” in addition, and politicising the issue by focusing only on the Tory MP, he creates a fracas and feeds a hungry audience seeking to chastise the British for just about every misery on the planet.
So, what’s with all this tacit approval of this Labourite’s assertions that this was a “British invention”, “systematic murder” and a genocide of “hundreds of thousands” … what’s the connection between the South African War (1899-1902) a.k.a. Boer War 2 and World War 2 (1939-1945) in weaponising words like “concentration camps” for political currency?
The answer funnily enough lies in the little Austrian born Bavarian Lance Corporal with megalomaniac tendencies, to which Jacob Rees-Mogg refers and to whom Grace Blakeley infers (more on Hitler later).
The Boer War ‘Concentration Camps’
Let’s take a quick step back, what’s with attributing the term ‘Concentration Camp’ to the Boer War of 1899 and why the confusion?
Many people have little understanding of the concentration camps of the Boer War. In essence there are two separate phases.
Data Reference: The Boer concentration camps of the South African War, 1900-1902 by Elizabeth van Heyningen.
Phase 1: Started the 22nd September 1900 – they are set up under British military administration by Major-Gen J.G. Maxwell and they are initially intended and termed as “refugee camps” for ‘hensopper’ families (Boers who surrendered early – these include men in addition) and ‘joiner’ families (Boer families whose menfolk joined the British forces and were away fighting) – they are all voluntarily seeking shelter and safety from the Guerrilla phase (Bittereinder campaign) of the war which commences from mid 1900 once Pretoria falls to the British. Here these families are, as Rees-Mogg correctly points out, “sheltered and fed” as there is a “war going on”.
The camps are also referred to as “Government Laagers” – however on the 21st December 1900 Lord Kitchener comes up with a different intention for these “Government Laagers” completely, and he decrees:
“the most effective method of limiting the endurance of the guerrillas … The women and children brought in should be divided in two categories, viz.: 1st. Refugees, and the families of Neutrals, non-combatants, and surrendered Burghers. 2nd. Those whose husbands, fathers and sons are on Commando. The preference in accommodation, etc. should of course be given to the first class. With regard to Natives, it is not intended to clear (Native) locations, but only such and their stock as are on Boer farms.”
The camp concept is then opened up from January 1901 to include “bittereinder” families, which are primarily women and children as their menfolk are still “on Commando” (and any other families for that matter), they are involuntarily displaced by Kitchener’s Scorched Earth policies and this curious concept of a refugee camp/displacement camp is expanded somewhat. Similarly, internees in the black camps (which include men and women) are civilians who are also involuntarily displaced. It’s this bit that Rees-Mogg conveniently ignores.
From March 1901 disease related mortality rates in the camps start to climb to unprecedented and alarming levels, and at their peak the mortality rate is driven primarily by a measles epidemic which sweeps the white camps and accounts 30% the overall deaths – as a child’s disease, along with the high infancy mortality rate and child death ratio in the Victorian period, coupled with the difficulty of wartime conditions and camp sanitary standards, by the beginning of 1902 children account for nearly 2/3 of all deaths.
The period March 1901 to November 1901 is 9 months of abject misery and suffering. However, contrary to modern propaganda, although there are many in the camps who are malnourished and conditions are extremely harsh, they are not purposefully starved to death – ‘Starvation and Scurvy’ accounts for only 3% of recorded deaths in the white camps (the records for the black camps are incomplete). There are also no recoded cases of premeditated murder or executions, all deaths are attributed to disease or medically related conditions.
The conditions and plight of the women and children in the camps, against the context of respiratory and waterborne disease, coupled with inadequate medical countermeasures and failures in administration is highlighted by the likes of Emily Hobhouse and later in 1901 by the Fawcett Commission.
Phase 2: From November 1901 as a result of the Commission’s and parliamentary recommendations, Lord Alfred Milner, the Cape Colony High Commissioner is tasked with taking over the ‘white’ camps from the military and bringing them under civilian authority instead (the Black camps remain under military authority).
Image: Boer concentration camp – children carrying water buckets, colourised by Tinus Le Roux – note the nature of the camp – bell tents, demarkation lines and administration blocks.
As a result of Milner’s direct intervention, from November 1901 the mortality rates start to drop off dramatically as his civilian administrators and medical staff start to get on top of the epidemics, food supply and sanitary issues. They also do away with the preferential treatment of ‘hensopper’ versus ‘bittereinder’ families initiated by the military in the white camps.
Milner’s actions and policies are extremely effective, in just 4 months the mortality rates in the white camps drop to acceptable mortality rates for the Victorian era, made even more remarkable considering that these mortality rates are declining and have plateaued-out in the white camps when the Guerrilla Phase and Scorched Earth policy is at its height and at its most destructive (the black camps are a separate matter).
These ‘acceptable’ i.e. normal mortality rates in the white camps continue up to the end of the war on 31 May 1902 and then remain acceptable long after the end of the war as the camps are then used as ‘resettlement’ centres for displaced Boer families until the end of 1902.
As to Milner, it’s also an inconvenient truth, that a man so often vilified by modern white Afrikaners as the devil reincarnate, is the same man responsible for saving thousands of Boer women and children’s lives.
Look out for a future Observation Post on the Boer War camps whilst we tackle this extremely difficult, deeply tragic and often misunderstood concept of Boer War refugee/displacement/re-settlement camps for whites and refugee/displacement/labour camps for blacks (a.k.a concentration camps). This subject is highly nuanced and highly complex and it is certainly not the highly simplistic and emotionally charged outline put forward by Professor Pretorius in his response to Rees-Mogg.
What’s in a word?
The words “concentration camp” comes from two sources really, the Spanish invent the concept and are accredited with the first use of concentration camps starting in 1896 (not the British – the Spanish ‘invent’ the camps three years before Boer War 2), the Spanish call them “campo de concentración” (concentration camps) during The Cuban War of Independence (1895–98) and they ‘concentrated’ Cuban civilians in camps to break their supply lines to marauding Cuban guerrillas.
The second source of the word “concentration camp” ironically comes from the source of the argument between Rees-Mogg and Grace Blakeley, it’s the Germans. It is the ‘German’ version and evolution of concentration camps which would really weaponise the words and bring in concepts of pre-meditated genocide and systematic murder, and oddly enough it does NOT start with Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cabal, it happens well before Hitler’s time and it does NOT start in Europe, as irony goes – it starts in Africa.
Etymology of concentration camps
As to the actual etymology of concentration camps – as said earlier they start with the Spanish during Cuban War of Independence in 1896, the next country to use concentration camps are the Northern Americans (the USA) in the Philippines during the Tagalog Insurgency earlier in 1899 (as with the Spanish – the USA concentrated Filipino civilians in camps to break their supply lines to marauding guerrillas – with the same tragic outcome as the Spanish when disease takes root in the camps).
The third country to use Concentration Camps are the British in late 1900 to forcibly displace Boer ‘Bittereinder’ civilians and cut Boer guerrilla supply lines in addition to providing genuine refugee shelter to ‘Joiners’ and ‘Hensoppers’, with the same disastrous consequences as the Spanish and the Americans as disease takes root in the camps.
As irony goes (and inconvenient truth) it is also the Germans who suggest the use of a concentration camp system during the Boer War, in addition to a Scorched Earth policy, to the British. Kaiser Wilhelm II, as a favour to his blood relative Queen Victoria – after the ‘Black Week’ British defeats to the Boers in late 1899, sets up a strategic planning session with his military elite and compiles a military strategy, not to help the Boers, but to help the British win the war and shared it with them instead. Kaiser Wilhelm II even proudly proclaiming at the end of the Boer War that the British had followed his plan precisely as he had outlined it to them – not Field Marshal Frederick Robert’s plan (see: John C.G. Röhl: The Kaiser and England during the Boer War).
Now, also as inconvenient history and etymology of concentration camps goes, the fourth country to use Concentration Camps is Germany, it’s Kaiser Wilhelm’s military elite who first uses the system for Germany – and it is NOT Adolf Hitler and his Nazi circle.
The 1st Genocide of the 20th Century
The first German concentration camps are initiated just 2 years after the Boer War, they fall part of the Herero Wars (1904-1908) in German South West Africa (now Namibia) and it is infamously officially regarded as the first Genocide of the 20th Century (not the Boer War).
It starts in a similar vein to the Boer War’s Guerrilla Phase, the Herero lead a guerrilla campaign against the Germans to overthrow their colonial yoke. It cumulates in a battle on the 11th August 1904, known as the Battle of Waterberg and the Herero army is defeated, scattered and weakened. In October 1904, General Lothar von Trotha issued orders to kill every male Herero and drive women and children into the desert, denying them access to key water holes. In the desert ‘hundreds of thousands’ of them promptly die of thirst.
The extermination order was finally suspended by the German government at the end of 1904, the surviving tribesmen are then herded as prisoners into Concentration Camps – in German, now termed “Konzentrationslager” (Concentration Laager or ‘camp’), there are 5 concentration camps and over the course of their existence the Hereto tribe is joined with members of the Nama tribe also rebelling against the Germans. In the concentration camps the Hereto and Nama are put to slave labour in support of the German military and German settlers. Again, the camps are horrific, and the inmates starved of rations and water, disease also takes hold.
These camps are fundamentally different to the British Boer War concept, these are slave labour camps, inmates are imprisoned, there are cases of them been shot, starved and worked to death – some are even hanged. There is no real consideration to medical care and as to medical intervention, the Germans also enter the history books as the first to use concentration camp inmates for medical experimentation.
In all, between the war, the order of extermination and resultant starvation and the concentration camps engaging slave labour approximately 80,000 Hereto and Nama die.
Image: Chained prisoners from the Herero and Nama tribes during the 1904-1908 war against Germany.
Modern Historians have drawn a linear connection between Germany’s ‘Konzentrationslager’ of the Namibian conflict in line with the German ‘Konzentrationslager’ of World War 2, the central thread is “pre-meditated Genocide” (systematic murder in effect). The idea of Concentration Camps to exterminate races of people and ‘purify’ the population starts with General Lothar von Trotha in his written statement on the matter;
“I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood … Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.”
The simple truth is, when the Nazi party came to power in Germany, this German policy of using concentration camps for ethnic cleansing and not merely for defeating ‘Guerrilla’ warfare by cutting civilian supply lines as the Spanish, Americans and British had used them – and this Genocidal intent for “Konzentrationslager” becomes highly apparent and acceptable in Germany itself.
Enter Herr Hitler
Now we get to the subject of the Austrian born Bavarian Lance Corporal with megalomaniac tendencies, to which Jacob Reece-Mogg refers and to whom Grace Blakeley infers. What is his connection to The Boer War?
If you’re a big fan of Paul Kruger and Boer Republicanism, and believe that our modern interpretations of the Boer War have nothing to Nazism – now is the chance to look away, because this next bit is going to sting somewhat – our modern interpretation of the Boer War has a lot to with Adolf Hitler and Nazism – in fact Hitler and his Nazi inner circle’s interpretation of the Boer war still guides European opinion of it in Europe and it fundamentally reinforced the Afrikaner Nationalist interpretation of it in South Africa – a legacy that continues even to this day.
Huh! How’s that all connected … Kruger, Hitler and Nationalist Afrikaner ideology and identity? Well, it starts with Herr Hitler’s enthusiasm for everything Boer War related and his dramatic and spell-binding speeches.
Hitler would record in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ that in his youth;
“The Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the far horizon. Day after day I used to gaze intently at the newspapers, and I almost ‘devoured’ the telegrams and communiqués, overjoyed to think that I could witness that heroic struggle, even from so great a distance…”
Then on the 30th January 1940, with Nazi Germany at the height of its influence and popularity, Adolf Hitler gave a speech at the Sportspalast and stated the following on The Boer War;
“They (Britain) waged war for gold mines and mastery over diamond mines”
Hitler then went on in the same speech to say of the Boer War:
“After all, this entire blockade warfare is nothing other than a war against women and children just as once was the case in the Boer War … It was then that the concentration camps were invented. England locked up women and children in these camps. Over 20,000 Boer women (and children) died wretchedly at the time.”
Just about every sentence Hitler is uttering here is either pure falsehood or a half truth – blaming the British for “inventing” the “Konzentrationslager”, painting the camps as “locked” prisons, and implying the British wage genocide and not war.
Image: Adolf Hitler speaking at the Sportspalast
Ah, but it’s just a speech Mr Dickens – you make too much of it! Hitler said many things comes the universal call … nobody took him seriously! Wrong … this gets much bigger than just a speech – this ‘Pro-Boer’ Nationalism morphs into an entire Nazi propaganda campaign – one which is regarded as the most influential and successful Nazi propaganda campaigns ever devised – so bear with me.
What Hitler is doing in his speech is using his intense ‘fame’, peaking in 1940, across Germany, Western Europe and the globe in some respects – remember that Hitler is a world player and influencer from 1935 to 1940, he is literally a “God” in Germany and Austria – what comes out his mouth people listen to and literally millions of people gobble it up as a truth. With this statement he achieves three things:
Firstly, he demonises the British (the only real “enemy” he has left in 1940) as an enemy of the German people, but also – most importantly – an enemy to Europeans at large – and he uses the Boer War for this purpose as it is in living memory for many Europeans, this deflects the focus on Germany as the enemy to Britain as the enemy of Europe. Europe is now also within the 3rd Reich’s scope of influence – which at the time needs to be viewed as sort of early version of the European Economic Union, and in 1940 it was literally at its height.
Nazism and the concept of the 3rd Reich was a lot more popular in Europe in the lead up to World War 2 than most people would believe now. In fact its position as “anti-bolshevist” (anti-Communist) and as “anti-Judeo Capital” found vast popular appeal in right wing and conservative parties across Europe – especially in France, the Netherlands and Belgium, these people would see Nazi Germany as liberators – not invaders – and after Germany invades Western Europe in 1940 they all immediately come into government of their respective countries as collaborating parties to the Nazi cause (the conservative and popular southern based “Vichy French” government is a case in point), and they immediately engaged with the 3rd Reich and it’s regional economic and political policies. Hitler is relying on these supporters to support his view that Britain and not Germany is the true enemy, and the Boer War according to Hitler is his ‘proof positive’ of this.
Secondly, Hitler is reinforcing Anglophobia and Republicanism in South Africa through propaganda and he is giving re-assurance to the Afrikaner nationalist cause from Berlin. To understand this better, Afrikaner Nationalism starts in earnest with the establishment of the National Party in 1914 – at this stage it has as its central ideology ‘Krugerism’ – Kruger’s political philosophy and the old ZAR’s (Transvaal) Republicanism constitution and race laws (Grondwet) at its centre. An Oligarchy bordering on a Theocracy with no political emancipation for Black Africans whatsoever (the majority), and racially based franchise and citizenship restrictions for white ‘foreigners’ (read British) and Jews.
By 1940 this party has evolved its ‘Krugerism’ ideology to a ‘Christian Nationalism’ ideology – a political philosophy which B.J. Vorster (a future South African head of state) famously equated with National Socialism (Nazism) in 1942 when he said:
“We stand for Christian Nationalism which is an ally of National Socialism. You can call this anti-democratic principle dictatorship if you wish. In Italy it is called Fascism, in Germany National Socialism and in South Africa, Christian Nationalism”.
Also bear in mind in 1940, when Hitler gave this speech and referenced the Boer War, the National Party was bound to the hip with openly pro-National Socialism, Pro-Hitler, Pro-Nazi Germany movements in South Africa – domestic political organs like the South African Nazi ‘shirt’ movements – Louis Weichardt’s South African Christian Nationalist Socialist Party or “Greyshirts” and Manie Wessels’ and Chris Havemann’s ‘Democratic Movement’ or “Blackshirts”. Other Nazi ‘shirt’ organisations included the Volksbeweging (People’s Movement) or ‘African Gentile Organisation’ which was established by H.S. Terblanche. Johannes Bruwer also founded the ‘Bond van Nasionale Werkers’ (National Workers Union) which became known as the “Brownshirts”.
Added to this was the Ossewabrandwag led by a Nazi devotee – Dr J.F.J. van Rensburg who transformed the Ossewabrandwag from a predominately Afrikaner cultural movement surrounding the 1938 Great Trek Centenary into a militarised, totalitarian, anti-Semitic, anti-British, anti-Anglo/Judaism capital and pro-Nazi movement operating under the guise of an Afrikaner cultural movement. In addition, the National Party’s Defence Minister, Prime Minister Barry Hertzog’s right-hand man, Oswald Pirow was another Nazi devotee, and it inspired his organisation – the Nazi ‘New Order’ or Nu Order. Added to this is the popular leader of the 1914 Boer Rebellion – Manie Maritz, who has become an Hitler worshiper and rabid antisemite, now leading the ‘anti-democratic’, ‘one party’, ‘national socialist’ – ‘Boerenasie’ (Boer Nation) party.
Images: SANP and Ossewabrandwag
As outlined by Werner Bouwer in his ‘National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa’ – to all these South African Hitler admirers and their followers, Hitler’s assurance that the British committed a Boer ‘Genocide’ is music to their ears. They all attested to the concept that the British had tried to ethnically cleanse South Africa of the Boer nation during the war – and here one of the world’s greatest leaders, a 20th Century iconoclast who agreed with them, and whose not to believe Adolf Hitler? He is a European powerhouse, he’s at the helm of a super-power like Britain and now he’s standing up to Britain and telling it as it is – if it comes from Hitler it’s a truism, the British committed Boer Genocide and stole the Boer’s gold … and it does not end there, Hitler goes further … much further.
Enter Herr Göring
During a press interview Hermann Göring (the spokesperson on behalf of Adolf Hitler), took a leaf out his Führer’s leader’s book on the Boer War when he deflected a challenge from Sir Nevile Henderson, the British ambassador to Berlin who protested about the German government’s use of concentration camps for the political ‘re-education’ of German’s dissonant non-believers in Nazism and opposition in 1935, and using a ‘press stunt’ Göring dramatically sprung up, walked over to a bookcase and like a thespian actor, grabbed a German encyclopedia opening it at “Konzentratinslager” he read out loud,
“First used by the British, in the South African War”.
Although factually incorrect, his action served as a skilful stroke of deflection of which Hermann Göring was a past master.
Image: Adolf Hitler (left) and Hermann Göring (right).
It was not just Hermann Göring in Hitler’s inner circle toeing his Führer’s line on the Boer War, using all the propaganda tools at their disposal, this myth was about to hit the big time as also in the ‘inner circle’ is the Nazi Propaganda Minister and he’s going to really propagate Boer War myths – not only in Germany, but also across the entire Western European continent.
Enter Herr Goebbels
Dr. Joseph Goebbels was a propaganda mastermind, he was a rabid, almost insane follower of his Führer, Adolf Hitler and a devout Nazi.
In printed media, the German propaganda machine would go even further on the back of Hitler’s speeches and use an image of Paul Kruger and the Boer War on propaganda posters to recruit Waffen SS troops in the Netherlands and Belgium, with whom these countries had an affinity for the Boer War. Both these countries proved highly fruitful in recruiting Waffen SS troops as they feared Bolshevism more than Nazism and for these conservative sections of the populations Nazism had an appeal (not to be confused with the SS, the Waffen SS also comprised ‘non-German’ and ‘foreign’ battalions – and later in the war they proved to be ferocious and devout combatants).
Next up in Goebbels’ propaganda arsenal was radio. Joseph Goebbels made this radio address on 19 April 1940, on the eve of Adolph Hitler’s birthday and said:
“On 3 September last year (1939), two hours after English plutocracy declared war on the German Reich, the British Prime Minister Chamberlain gave a radio speech …The point of the speech was that England had no intention of waging war against the German people … get rid of the Führer or so-called Hitlerism …. At the beginning of the war, however, they sang the same old song …. Its melody was dull and worn out. British plutocracy had tried to persuade the Boers during the South African war of the same thing. Britain was only fighting Krugerism. As is well known, that did not stop them from allowing countless thousands of women and children to starve in English concentration camps”.
Image: Joseph Goebbels making a radio address on the eve of Adolph Hitler’s birthday.
The idea that Britain and not Germany is the natural enemy of civilised Europe because of they way they conducted the Boer War and committing pre-meditated genocide in concentration camps is starting to take shape. Goebbels said of radio;
“We want a radio … that is an intermediary between the government and the nation, a radio that also reaches across our borders to give the world a picture of our character, our life, and our work.”
In this respect Radio Zeesen was also part of the arsenal, it was a Nazi German ‘International’ propaganda service radio station broadcasting in short wave in eighteen different foreign languages including Afrikaans, it broadcasted both Hitler’s speeches and Goebbels’ messages – and eagerly picked by devout Afrikaner Nationalists in South Africa.
Also, Goebbels loved, literally adored movies and the moving picture industry – he regarded this industry as his single most powerful propaganda tool, and he made a number of movies that came to define the Nazi legacy:
The Jud Süß – ‘Süss the Jew’ – was released in 1940, and it became an absolute blockbuster – today it is considered one of the most antisemitic films of all time. However, even this movie did not make it to the much-converted Reich Propaganda Ministry’s “Film of the Nation” rating. Only four movies made it to this rare honorary distinction deemed critical viewing for national identity in Nazi Germany – Heimkhehr (1941) – an anti-Polish movie, Der große König (1942) – a movie about Frederick the Great of Prussia, Die Entlassung (1942) – a movie about the dismissal of Otto von Bismarck and finally …… Ohm Krüger (1941), a movie about Paul Kruger and the Boer War.
Say what? Ohm Krüger – Uncle Paul Kruger! What on earth does that have to do with German National identity, all the other movies are about Germany and the Nazi journey in forging their National Socialist identity – that all makes sense, what on earth is a movie about South Africa and the Boer War doing in the mix – what does that possibly have to do with Nazi identity?
Well, as an inconvenient truth goes, it turns out quite a lot – so let’s examine what its purpose was, how its linked to Nazim, its relationship to Concentration Camp propaganda and how it fared – its impact.
Ohm Krüger, the man, the movie and the myth
Directed by Hans Steinhoff and starring Emil Jannings, Lucie Höflich and Werner Hinz. Although the plot has nothing to do with Germany, the story centres around a character which the Germans could admire, “Uncle” Paul Kruger – a man the Propaganda Minister wants to draw parallels to Adolf Hitler, who he deems is also a man with a common touch, from a simple background and one who is thrust into extraordinary circumstances due to international aggression and a conspiracy of greedy ‘foreigners’.
The plot revolves around a dying Kruger’s flashback, now old and blind confined to a sanatorium in Switzerland.
Harping back to an earlier time, Kruger is portrayed as having all the mystique of a great national leader at odds with Great Britain and proclaims, “With England, one cannot come to an understanding”, “We have only one aim, peace and liberty”, “One must be a dreamer to become a ruler.” Much as Adolf Hitler himself is proclaiming.
Lord Kitchener, the British Commander in South Africa is portrayed as a sadist stating things like “No more humanity”, “We must be without mercy”, “We must set up concentration camps” and fight the war “by colonial means.”
The film also centres on Cecil John Rhodes as the principle villain, desirous of Transvaal Gold he creates border disputes (the Jameson Raid) in cohorts with Joseph Chamberlain (the Colonial Secretary), who in turn solicits the support of Queen Victoria and Price Edward, who also become desirous of invasion once they learn of the gold in the region, Queen Victoria’s character states “If there’s gold to be found, then of course it’s our country. We British are the only ones capable of carrying the burdens of wealth without becoming ungodly”.
Kruger then tricks the British into signing a treaty which gives them the gold, but Kruger holds onto the supply of dynamite as a monopoly, which the British then have to buy from him at exorbitant prices.
Cecil Rhodes, having been tricked and outmanoeuvred by the astute Kruger, then tries to buy Paul Kruger’s allegiance offering him a ‘open’ chequebook. However, Kruger is incorruptible and rejects his offer. Rhodes then decides to expose members of Paul Kruger’s Raad (council) who are British spies on his payroll and shows Kruger a list of names. Fearing an internal plot that will over-throw his authority, Kruger decides to declare war against the British or lose his country.
The Boers are initially victorious in the war, but Lord Kitchener then rather cowardly decides to use Boer women and children as human shields and places them in concentration camps in an attempt to demoralise the Boer Army. To this point Kitchener’s character says, “an end to woolly humanitarianism, which means hitting the Boers where they are vulnerable. We must burn their farms, separate wives and children from their men folk, and put them in concentration camps. From today all Boer, without exception, are outlaws. No distinction is to be made between soldiers and civilians.”
Kruger’s own son, Jan Kruger, tries to find his wife in a concentration camp, he’s portrayed as educated at Oxford University and at first harbours pro-British sympathies, but changes his mind completely when a drunken British Sergeant assaults his wife. Jan Kruger is caught and becomes the martyr for the Boer cause when he is hanged by the neck by the British on a hill that looks like Golgotha. “I die for the Fatherland” he cries.
Like a Shakespearean tragedy, a British soldier then shoots Jan Kruger’s wife (their children are already dead) and the interned Boer women respond angrily to the hanging, so the British then form a skirmish line and brutally massacre them – indiscriminately shooting women in the back and mowing them down as they flee the executioner’s hill with Jan Kruger swinging from a lone tree.
The flashback concludes in the Geneva hotel room. In conclusion, the dying and blind Kruger reflects on the defeat of the Boers then prophesies the destruction of Britain by major powers of the world declaring “We were a small people, but great and powerful nations will arise to reduce the British to pulp” which alludes to the German Third Reich, Fascist Italy and later Imperial Japan.
To any historian who knows his salt, this entire plot is pure fable, it really is “Ouma se stories” – absolute ‘Hollywood’. Gold is the ‘Catalyst’ to the war but not the ‘Casus Belli’ of the war – that’s a franchise vote for a disenfranchised majority in the Transvaal. No women and children are ever shot in a Concentration Camp by any British soldier – ever, didn’t happen, there’s also no recorded ‘massacre’ as is portrayed in the movie, didn’t happen either – in fact there is also no recorded hanging in a concentration camp, public or otherwise.
The British are victorious in both phases of the war – not the Boers. Kruger’s’ son is never executed by the British, they also never shoot his wife. Kitchener goes to pains to distinguish between civilians and combatants in proclamation after proclamation. The Jameson raid is to raise ‘white’ disenfranchised miners, into revolt not hordes of native ‘blacks’ into rebellion (as is the movie’s sub plot – with Blacks depicted as ‘treasonous’, ‘primative’ and ‘ignorant’ requiring good white Afrikaner benevolence and oversight). Joseph Chamberlain is exonerated over the Jameson Raid and there is no documented proof he had oversight of the raid whatsoever, Queen Victoria certainly had no knowledge of the Raid.
Queen Victoria is also not a drunk and in fact goes out her way to affirm her wish for independence for the ZAR. Jan Kruger is never a British sympathiser, nor does he go to Oxford, also there is no such thing as list of ZAR ‘Raad’ spies shown to Kruger by Rhodes as the ‘trigger’ to the war – the ‘trigger’ to the war is the Boer invasions of sovereign British territories on the 11th October 1899. The British never seize a gold mine, they nationalise nothing, in fact they don’t even really benefit from the taxes from the mines – the mines remain in private hands, before and after the war.
And the Nazi German propaganda machine didn’t miss a beat in the movie, the evil Cecil Rhodes is played by none other than the Austrian actor Ferdinand Marian, who was better known to German audiences as Süss the Jew in the very popular and disgustingly antisemitic “The Jud Süß” – a better villain to link Judeo-Capitalism with British-Capitalism they could not find.
As antisemitic the undertone is, as racist the overtone is, British missionaries are seen handing out rifles to Black South Africans to rise in rebellion and kill Boers singing ‘God save the Queen’ and onward Christian soldiers. Queen Victoria herself is portrayed as a cunning old harridan addicted to whisky, and a Winston Churchill look alike is portrayed as an overfed commander of a concentration camp for Boer women, who are kept in a condition of starvation and whose plight is depicted, not in bell tents on open veldt, but in an Auschwitz look-alike camp complete with towers and barbed wire containment fences.
On Churchill, the Nazi propaganda machine surrounding the movie also doesn’t miss a beat either. Churchill’s involvement in the Boer War is mercilessly exploited, even accusing him directly of implementing the concentration camp policy (which is pure fabrication) – and the following media release accompanies the film:
“The same Churchill who in South Africa saw his ideas about exterminating the Boers followed throughout, as the English rulers, voicing polished humanitarian slogans, while driven by mere greed, unleashed the most contemptible actions on a people under attack. The same Churchill is now Great Britain’s prime minister.”
Winston Churchill is an imbedded journalist and later a combatant and has nothing to do with concentration camps, in fact he never laid eyes on a Boer one – he returns to Great Britain at the end of the 1st Phase (Conventional war phase) of the war before the camp system is initiated.
British concentration camps were portrayed in the film as intentionally inhumane. Meanwhile, as irony goes, at the same time major expansion of the Nazi German system of concentration camps is taking place, designed for actual ethnic cleansing, slave labour and systematic murder and it was being enthusiastically implemented by those very same Nazi.
As extreme irony goes, the set of the British concentration camp for Ohm Krüger was actually but a few miles from a real Nazi Concentration Camp at Sachsenhausen, an interesting case of art imitating life. Out of 200,000 inmates in the real camp, half died, about 100,000 people from 1936 to 1945 – twice as many than the entire Boer War, and that is only ONE of the German concentration camps – theirs is murder on an industrial level.
Finally, as the film’s prediction goes – the world powers do not rise up to crush Britain, in fact they rise up and crush Germany. But to the power of propaganda, there are still people in South Africa and Europe who would take all of Ohm Krüger as an absolute truism – even to this day.
To see the full movie of Ohm Krüger – with English sub titles, here is the YouTube link:
What’s the outcome, how does this movie do?
It’s a massive success, a propagandistic blockbuster, it’s by far the most expensive film produced in Nazi Germany up to that time with a 5.5 million Reich Marks budget and a massive film lot outside Berlin that resembles a mini-South Africa with 100 Longhorn cattle and African huts. Ohm Krüger offers plenty of entertainment – ‘wild west’ frontier grit alongside its vivid battle scenes, as if John Ford’s Monument Valley had been transposed onto South Africa’s Transvaal region.
It is first screened on 4th April 1941 in Germany, and it’s rolled out across Europe – it opens in Italy in September 1941, France on the 1st October 1941, Hungary on the 19th December 1941, Finland on the 15th March 1942 and it even makes it to Japan on the 2nd September 1943. It makes it way right across Europe – Bulgaria, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium etc.
Both locally and internationally, it is received to rapturous applause. It is pitched as the European cinema equivalent to ‘Gone with the wind’ and it’s a winner – literally, not only the first movie to win the converted ‘Film of the Nation’ and the award for ‘Film of Special Value in terms of state policy and art’, but importantly – it also wins the Mussolini Cup for the Best Foreign Film at the 1941 Venice Film Festival.
The movie is so popular, the Nazi propaganda machine even decided to re-release it in 1944. In the end – millions of people see it, today it is regarded as Nazi propaganda master stroke. However, as irony goes the Nazi propaganda machine ‘Bans’ the movie in 1945, not because it’s a great yarn, entertaining and an outstanding propaganda piece – but because they are concerned that the graphic massacre of Boer women at the end of the movie would upset the female population of Germany concerned about their treatment at the hands of the counter-attacking and invading Soviet Union and other Allied armies at the end of the war.
How does this movie stack up to our modern understanding of Concentration Camps, what does it do to link Nazi Concentration camps to Boer Concentration Camps? Let’s look at how the international critics review this movie in relation to this question.
Erwin Leiser in his 1974 work Nazi Cinema said;
“Ohm Kruger is meant to show that Britain is the brutal enemy of any kind of order or civilization … when England realizes that even with cannon and rifles she cannot crush the little nation whose heroic struggle is jubilantly acclaimed by the whole world, she (England) decides to commit one of the most obscene acts in the history of the world … the technique makes it possible to reveal that concentration camps were no German invention: the peculiar logic of Gobbels thereby justifies the Nazi camps.”
And Roger Manvell in his study of Films and the Second World War concludes;
“The shattering conclusion to the movie, the concentration camp massacre, provokes and disturbs even today, not only due to its undeniable artistry, but more because of how it invites comparison with the still greater horrors we associate with Nazi Germany, atrocities this movie was designed to rationalize and exonerate.”
Bottom line, the movies broad appeal, the unrelenting publicity and propaganda machine surrounding it, its popular acceptance in Europe and extensive distribution cements the idea throughout Europe that the Boer Concentration Camps are a British invention and that they are intended to ethnically cleanse the Boer nation. By demonising the British in this way, the German propaganda machine very successfully deflects and sanitisers their own Nazi ‘Extermination Camp’ Concentration Camps which are indeed intended to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, asylum patients and even Freemasons.
The Nazi German death rate in their concentration camp, POW camp and extermination camp systems is on an industrial scale, 18.5 million die in total, a figure so high that it is almost impossible to comprehend – the idea that concentration camps are purposefully engineered and designed to eliminate hundreds of thousands of people at a time, the 6 Nazi extermination camps in Poland alone kill over 3 million people.
In Conclusion
The net result of it, to this day, throughout Europe (as this is all still in living memory within one generation to many) the British are forever tarnished with the idea that they “invented the concentration camp” and they committed “systematic murder” and genocide to “hundreds of thousands” of Boers as the poorly misguided and very misinformed Grace Blakeley blurts out in her response to Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Now, Grace Blakeley is not a known South African historical commentator, in fact it’s doubtful she’s ever read a proper historic treatise on the Boer War, the conversation she is having with Jacob Rees-Mogg is on Winston Churchill’s legacy, the Boer War is mentioned in passing. What she states as ‘facts’ on the Boer War are nothing more than perceptions, and in Europe the perceptions on the Boer War were driven by the both Nazi propaganda machine and the concept of the German Konzentrationslager.
Afrikaner Nationalism from 1948 and their Christian Nationalist propaganda on the Boer War is highly isolated, it exists in South Africa only, it does not make it onto a European platform in any significant way whatsoever – as far as the British education establishment are concerned the official history of the Boer War is Leo Amery’s 7 volumes titled ‘The Times History of the war in South Africa’ – end of story, and it says nothing about “systematic murder”, ethnic cleansing or the British “inventing the concentration camp”, it’s this history that Etonian teachers impart to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Grace Blakeley has never been exposed to an Afrikaner Christian Nationalist education and it’s doubtful she’s even read Leo Amery – she would not know what a South African ‘Boer’ is if one jumped up and bit her on the bum. It’s not accredited history that is guiding Grace Blakeley, she has no clue that the Spanish and Americans used concentrations camps before the British. The Spanish who actually invented the concentration camp and whose mortality rate on Cuban civilians far exceed that of the Boer camps get away with it scot-free, even to this day, such is the power of this propaganda.
Nor has Grace Blakeley any idea of Boer mortality during the war. Her view is sheer perception based on the output of an extensive and very effective Nazi German propaganda campaign in Europe, coupled with the fact that Germany is singularly responsible for linking concentration camps to systematic murder and pre-meditated genocide, which it invented (not the British) as early as 1904, and by 1945 had perfected the killing machine on an unpredicted level. Hence the reason Jacob Rees-Mogg has to remind her that she’s promoting a Nazi construct and intensionally confusing the matter.
The erstwhile Professor Fransjohan Pretorius in tacitly harbouring the same sentiment and directly supporting Grace Blakeley as both of them are now in unison challenging Jacob Reese-Mogg, and this desire to morally “set him strait” is testament to the power of the propaganda driving both of them. In pitching his rebuttal to Rees-Mogg and approaching the media in the way Professor Fransjohan Pretorius does, he is allowing everyone else, now armed with confirmation bias, to challenge Jacob Rees-Mogg’s misunderstandings only and not challenge the Nazi inspired mistruths peddled by Grace Blakeley.
On linking Nazism, Kruger, Krugerism and Christian Nationalism, I’m afraid the hard truth is that linking Kruger to Hitler was done very effectively by the German propaganda ministry in Europe prior to and during World War 2. The Afrikaner Nationalist ‘right’ in their support of Nazi Germany during WW2 and infusing the edicts of Krugerism with Weimar Eugenics to create Apartheid after World War 2 certainly creates a linear relationship and reinforces the argument somewhat.
Written and Researched by Peter Dickens
References:
National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa: The case of L.T. Weichardt and his Greyshirt movements, 1933-1946 By Werner Bouwer
Ohm Kruger/Uncle Kruger: The notorious of Nazi Germany’s Anti-British Statements. By Blaine Taylor
Concentration camps in the South African War? Here are the real facts! by Professor Fransjohan Pretorius
BBC On-Line: Jacob Rees-Mogg comments on concentration camps
IMDb On-Line: Ohm Krüger
Ohm Krüger: The Genesis of a Nazi Propaganda Film By Christian W. Hallstein
Films and the Second World War (1974) by Roger Manvell
Morbidity and Mortality in the Concentration Camps of the South African War, 1899-1902 (2007) by Dr Iain R. Smith (History, Warwick University) and Dr Elizabeth van Heyningen (University of Cape Town) 2007.
Nazi Cinema (1974) by Erwin Leiser
The Kaiser and England during the Boer War by John C.G. Röhl
South African Scientific Journal “The Boer concentration camps of the South African War, 1900-1902” By Elizabeth van Heyningen – Department of Historical Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa
The Rise of the South African Reich. By Brian Bunting – published in 1964.
Thanks to JennyB Colourising and Tinus Le Roux for the colourised images.
The Observation Post 