Springboks in the Waffen SS

Springbok Renegades: South Africans serving in the British Free Corps of the Waffen SS during the Second World War.

By Peter Albert Dickens

Introduction

In military history circles, there is an often asked question. How many South Africans served in Nazi Germany’s Armed Forces? This is usually followed by an enquiry on these “renegades” and if they were ever brought to book.

Because of all the publicity it generated many people are aware of Robey Leibbrandt – the firebrand Afrikaner insurgent who trained as a German Paratrooper and special forces operator, sent to South Africa to take over the Ossewabrandwag and direct a Afrikaner Nationalist revolt to topple Smuts. His capture and sentencing a well known aspect of Afrikaner Nationalist lore, so too his eventual pardon by the National Party in 1948.

Some are aware of Leutnant (Lt.) Heinz Werner Schmidt, who was one of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s personal aids in the North African conflict – and that’s because after the war he re-settled back in South Africa and published a book “With Rommel in the Desert”. As a standard Wermacht officer (Germany Army – Statutory force) with a dual national status (known as Volksdeutsche – a foreign national with German heritage) he was often just viewed with interest. There were also a small number of South West Africans (Namibians) who found their way into German forces because of their German national heritage – notably here is another member of Rommel’s staff, his driver Leutnant (Lt.) Hellmut von Liepzig.

But what of the rest? Surely there are more.

The truth is there are some more, not many mind – but there are more – known as ‘Renegades’ they can be found in all sorts of Nazi German military and propaganda structures. After the war some South Africans were arrested, some having served in the German Waffen SS, and they surrender to the Allied forces occupying Germany in 1945, to a man all claiming they were just fighting against the Communist onslaught of the Red Army. Theirs is an interesting story and also a complex one, as they do not volunteer to join Germany upfront, they all join the South African Army upfront, and they have no dual German nationality or stated German affinity – they are South African soldiers pure and applied – affectionately known at the time in South Africa as ‘Springboks’ – mid way through the war they change sides, put on German uniforms, and take up arms against their own country and its Allied forces – they all join the infamous Nazi German Waffen SS (the Nazi party and Hitler’s personal army) in a special ethnic unit set aside for ‘British’ renegades – but why this extraordinary ‘volte-face‘?

It’s a very complex question, to understand their motives for committing such an act of treason we need to understand the background as to Nazism and anti-Communism in both South Africa and the United Kingdom – and the political landscapes driving each.

The bedrock of Nazism and anti-Communism in South Africa

The background to South African Nationals joining the Nazi German Waffen SS, and other German forces for that matter, lies against the background and popularity of National Socialism and Fascism as ideologies prior to the Second World War in South Africa and in the United Kingdom respectively. Within this context we find a variety of home grown National Socialist and Fascist movements incorporating fierce anti-Communist and anti-Semitic ideologies. Even the mainstream opposition and governing political parties in South Africa and the United Kingdom had strong anti-Communist leanings. This socio-political dynamic forms the backdrop to understanding the motivations of British, South African, and other Commonwealth citizens joining the German forces during the war. In the Waffen SS, an overarching proposition put to foreign recruits, and to motivate them join, was to fight alongside Nazi Germany forces to prevent the onset of Bolshevism (Communism).

Prior to the Second World War, South Africa was governed by a Fusion party created between General James Barry Munnik Hertzog’s National Party (NP) and General Jan Christian (JC) Smuts’ South African Party (SAP) in 1933, this party came about to tackle the economic challenges of the Great Depression and also sought to maintain a Afrikaner led hegemony in the interests of South Africa’s white population.1 Hertzog led this fusion undertaking as Prime Minister with Smuts as his deputy. Known as the United South African National Party, or simply the “United Party”2 it contained within it a component of Afrikaner nationalists harbouring republican desires and a component within it of Afrikaners satisfied with Union and South Africa’s status as a British Dominion.

Afrikaner nationalists to the political far right of their colleagues who had now joined the United Party  were unhappy with the idea of Fusion. Led by Dr. Daniël François (D.F.) Malan this grouping of dissatisfied nationalist broke away from Hertzog’s old National Party and reconstituted themselves as the ‘Purified’ National Party (PNP) in 1935.3 The ,central objective of the PNP was a complete break with Britain and the establishment of an independent oligarchy Republic under a white Afrikaner hegemony.4 Anglophobia was a critical ideology underpinning DF Malan’s PNP. This resulted from the scorched earth policy used during The South African War (1899-1902) by British forces, and Malan sought to exclude English speakers from the PNP completely.5 The Purified Nationalists became the official opposition after the General Election held on 18 May 1938.6

Since the Union of South Africa’s declaration of war against Imperial Germany in 1914, and the invasion and annexation of German South West Africa (GSWA) shortly thereafter, a bitter internal debate had raged amongst Afrikaner Nationalists across the political spectrum. The invasion of GSWA was led by General Louis Botha and General Jan Smuts and supported by the ruling party – the SAP. Primary motivations included supporting Britain and France’s war effort. However, another key objective for South Africa’s invasion of GSWA was a domestic one as the war presented an opportunity for South Africa’s own territorial ambitions. The 1909 Conference for a Closer Union and the establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910 had within its construct the initial inclusion of GSWA in addition to Southern Rhodesia, Delagoa Bay, Bechuanaland, Lesotho and Swaziland in the Union.7

However, for cultural and historic grounds large swathes of the white Afrikaner community held sympathies for Germany. They believed Germany had supported them during the South African War and hence sought neutrality instead.

The resultant failed Afrikaner Rebellion of 1914, pitching Afrikaner against Afrikaner over the invasion of GSWA, left a long legacy of more bitterness and even deeper political polarisation. The country was further divided on racial fault lines with the majority of the black indigenous population groups on the political periphery, with little attention paid to their political aspirations and emancipation.

In the inter-war years (1918-1939), and with the rise of National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy from the mid 1920s, many Afrikaner Nationalists increasingly came under the influence of Adolf Hitler and his specific brand of German National Socialism (Nazism). With this came their abhorrence for Communism. Oswald Pirow, Hertzog’s Minister of Defence (1933-1939), was one of the most influential Afrikaners to fall under Hitler’s spell. Pirow met with Hitler, Hermann Göring, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco8 as an envoy on behalf of the United Party government. Pirow received Germany’s feedback on GSWA and the ‘new order’ should Germany go to war with Britain and her allies. Pirow gambled his career on a Nazi Germany victory in what he saw as an inevitable war. On 25 September 1940, he founded the national socialist ‘New Order’ (NO) for South Africa. He positioned it as a study group within the reformulated National Party (HNP), and based it on Hitler’s new order plans for Africa.9 During the Second World War, Pirow also positioned the NO as a defender of whites in Africa against the threat of Communism.10 In terms of the NO’s values, Pirow espoused Nazi ideals and advocated an authoritarian state.11

Oswald Pirow inspecting Nazi German Forces

In addition to Oswald Pirow’s NO, other leading and influential Afrikaner Nationalists were forming German National Socialist movements with distinctive antisemitic and anti-communist leanings in South Africa during the interwar period. As a committed antisemite, Louis Theodor Weichardt founded the South African Christian National Socialist Movement when he broke with the National Party on the 26 October 1933. This included a paramilitary ‘security’ or ‘body-guard’ section (modelled on Nazi Germany’s brown-shirted Sturmabteilung) called the “Gryshemde” or “Grey-shirts”. In May 1934, the paramilitary Grey-shirts officially merged with the South African Christian National Socialist Movement and formed a new enterprise called ‘The South African National Party’ (SANP). The SANP would continue wearing Grey-shirts as their identifying dress and would also make use of other Nazi iconography, including extensive use of the swastika.12 Overall, Weichardt saw democracy as an outdated system and an invention of British imperialism and Jews.13

Weichardt also pitched the SANP as a fully bilingual organisation appealing to both English and Afrikaans speakers, he found favour in some English speaking corners with hardened antisemites, however for the most part his organisation and its ideology appealed to Afrikaners.

Grey-shirt leadership outside the courts in Grahamstown. Left to Right – standing outside the courthouse in Grahamstown in full SANP dress is Johannes von Strauss Moltke, Harry Inch and David Olivier. Insert picture Louis Theodor Weichardt

Other neo-Nazi and fascist groupings either spun out of the SANP Grey-shirts, or mushroomed as National Socialists movements with the German model front and centre in their own right. Also included was Manie Wessels’ ‘South African National Democratic Movement’ (Nasionale Demokratiese Beweging) formed in Johannesburg. They became known as the “Black-shirts”, and operated in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. The ‘Black-shirts’ form in opposition to the ‘Grey-shirts’ anti-democracy position and look to a more “purified” whites only democracy free of Jewish and Capitalist influence.14

The Black-shirts themselves would splinter into another Black-shirt movement called the ‘South African National People’s Movement’ (Suid Afrikaanse Nasionale Volksbeweging). Started by Chris Havemann and based in Johannesburg, these Black-shirts advanced a closer idea of National Socialism. By 1937 this Black-shirt splinter group boasted 265 branches mainly in the Transvaal. ‘The Swastika’ was their official mouthpiece.15

Another National Socialist movement known as the ‘African Gentile Organisation’ was also formed in Cape Town by HS Terblanche in September 1934, Dr AJ Bruwer formed the ‘National Workers Union’ (Bond van Nasionale Werkers) in Pretoria – also known as the “Brown-shirts”. Additionally, Frans Erasmus formed another national party militant group called the “Orange-shirts”.16

Two National Socialist movements broke away from the SANP Grey-shirts, when the SANP leader JHH de Waal resigned and formed the ‘Gentile Protection League’. Their sole aim was to fight the ‘Jewish menace in South Africa’.17 Johannes von Moltke, Weichardt’s right hand man, then broke away from the SANP  along with most of his Eastern Cape constituency. They formed a new organisation called ‘The South African Fascists’ who wore Nazi iconography, blue trousers, and Grey-shirts.

Additionally, Manie Maritz, a veteran of the South African War  and influential leader of the 1914 Afrikaner Rebellion, also admired German National Socialism. A converted antisemite, he even blamed the South African War on a Jewish conspiracy. He founded the anti-parliamentary, pro National Socialist, antisemitic ‘Volksparty’, in Pietersburg in July 1940.18 This evolved and merged into ‘Die Boerenasie’ (The Boer Nation), a party with National Socialist leanings originally led by JCC Lass (the first Commandant General of the Ossewabrandwag) but briefly taken over by Maritz until his accidental death in December 1940. Thereafter it was headed up by SK Rudman.19 Maritz would also detail his Antisemitic and National Socialist views in his autobiography ‘My Lewe en Strewe’ (My life and Aspiration) published in 1939 and modelled on Hitler’s own ‘Mein Kampf’. 20

Aside from all these various parties, the Ossewabrandwag (OB, the Ox-Wagon Sentinel) was the largest and most successful Afrikaner Nationalist organisation with pro-Nazi sympathies prior to and during the Second World War. The Ossewabrandwag was formed on the back of the 1938 Great Trek Centennial celebration – the centennial was planned under the directive of the “Afrikaner Broederbond” (Brotherhood) and championed by its Chairman, Henning Klopper. They sought to use the centenary anniversary of the 1828 Great Trek to unite the “Cape Afrikaners” and the “Boere Afrikaners” under the pioneering symbology of the Great Trek and to literally map a “path to a South African Republic” under a white Afrikaner hegemony. The trek re-enactment was very successful, and Klopper managed to realign white Afrikaner identity under the Broederbond’s Christian Nationalist ideology calling on providence and declaring it a ‘sacred happening’.21

The OB was tasked with spreading the Broederbond’s (and the PNP’s) ideology of Christian Nationalism like “wildfire” across the country (hence the name Ox wagon “Firewatch”’ or “Sentinel”). The OB’s national socialist leanings are seen in correlation with other world ideologies of the time, and specifically to that of Nazi Germany.22 Afrikaner Christian Nationalism, although grounded in “Krugerism” as an ideology, can be regarded as a derivative of German National Socialism and Italian Fascism and is identified as such by OB leaders like John Vorster in 1942.23 Earlier, the future leader of the OB, Dr Hans Van Rensburg, whilst a Union Defence Force officer, had met with Adolf Hitler and became an avowed admirer of both Hitler and Nazim. As leader of the OB, he then later infused the organisation with National Socialist ideology, whereafter the organisation took on a distinctive fascist appearance, with Nazi ritual, insignia, structure, oaths and salutes. 

Ideologically speaking the OB adopted a number of Nazi characteristics: they opposed communism, and approved of antisemitism. The OB adopted the Nazi creed of “Blut und Boden” (Blood and Soil) in terms of both racial purity and an historical bond and rights to the land. They embraced the “Führer Principle” and the “anti-democratic” totalitarian state (rejecting “British” parliamentary democracy). They also used a derivative of the Nazi creed of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (Children, Kitchen, Church) as to the role of women and the role of the church in relation to state. In terms of economic policy, the OB also adopted a derivative of the Nazi German economic policy calling for the expropriation of “Jewish monopoly capital” without compensation and adding “British monopoly capital” to the mix.24

Ossewabrandwag dress and bearing

Although the OB never pitched itself as a National Socialist party, the OB is regarded as a Nazi-sympathising grouping.25 By the early 1940’s the OB gained its own militaristic wing, called the “Stormjaers”, who countered the South African war effort through sabotage of infrastructure, targeting Jewish businesses and assassinations. The OB during the war also directly aided the Nazi war efforts aimed at sedition, espionage, spy smuggling, and collecting intelligence in the Union. The post-war Barrett Commission investigation into South African renegades even contains a personal confession ‘van Rensburg vs. Rex’ as to van Rensburg’s regular and treasonous collaboration with Nazi Germany over a set period of time during the war.26

By July 1939, the Black-shirts were formally incorporated into the OB and focussed on the recruiting of “Christian minded National Aryans” into the OB infusing it with more National Socialist “volkisch” Nationalism. This took the OB well beyond its original intention of functioning as a wholesome cultural organ of Afrikanerdom and the National Party.27

The bedrock of Fascism and anti-Communism in Britain

Following the Great Depression in the early 1930s, the United Kingdom and Europe too saw a spike in support for the ideals of fascism. Initially small, these early British fascists pointed to the success of emerging autocracies in Italy and Germany. They saw this mode of fascism as a solution to the economic ramifications of the Great Depression. In Britain, Oswald Mosley was  a popular Labour Party Member of Parliament and he brought what may have remained an insignificant fascist voice to prominence.28

During the early 1930s, Mosley became convinced that this new fascist ideology offered the way forward for economic and political reform. The severe economic and unemployment crisis caused by the Great Depression in Britain led Mosely to believe in a centralised political power based on a Keynesian economic state, yet with a broader emphasis on deficit spending and socialism.29

Mosley resigned from the Labour Party in early 1931. On 28 February 1931 he formed the “New Party” and, based on his memorandum of economic reforms, this party in turn became increasingly influenced by fascism. In January 1932, Mosley met with Benito Mussolini in Italy.30 Mosley wrote a new manifesto “The Greater Britain”, which inspired him to fold the New Party and form the British Union of Fascists (BUF), on 1 October 1932.31 By 1934, the BUF hit a very popular chord with a segment of the British public, and initially grew to around 40,000 members. Mosley had previously advocated for a corporate state, but rejected the essential Marxist tenet of class conflict and the BUF switched to an anti-Communist leaning.32 Mosely had also previously advocated that trade with the Soviet Union conflicted with his plans for a self-sufficient imperial economic system.33 The BUF followed the dictatorship principle, and Mosley’s system thus called for a powerful executive figure called “The Minister”.34 Mosley also adopted the Italian Fascist Corporate system, or “Corporativismo”, which allowed for capitalism, but where it failed, or worked against the state, then the state would intervene in economic production.35

Oswald Mosely and his British Black-shirts

However, his movement eventually became a haven for lunatic antisemites and far right-wing extremists from the fringes of British society. It was not Mosley’s carefully outlined fascist policies, nor his vision of an industrial and economic utopia, which came to represent the BUF. Instead, it was their reputation for violence and the forcible removal of hecklers at rallies by uniformed BUF strongmen also called “Black-shirts”. The general public began to perceive the BUF as little more than violent thugs on the fringe of society. By 1937 the BUF had further distanced itself from popular favour and moved from a benign, harmless curiosity, to a para-military menace. Mosley also increasingly embraced violent change and anti-Semitism. By the end of 1936, the general public associated the BUF and Mosley with German National Socialism and Hitler, and both he and the BUF became a hated national pariah on the fringe of British society.36

Such was the universal British hatred for Mosley’s movement on the home front that it initially turned the British public against Nazism and Fascism as ideologies, more so than Hitler or Mussolini. By the start of the Second World War in 1939, the BUF membership declined to about 20,000 members.37

Although Fascism was a fringe ideology in the United Kingdom, other Britons were also romanced by German National Socialism and Italian Fascism, the most significant individuals here are John Amery, Eric Pleasants, and William Brooke Joyce. American born Joyce was a member of the BUF whilst he lived in Britain, and later would infamously became known as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ – a propagandist broadcasting from Nazi Germany during the war. All three would play a key role in the future “British Free Corps” (BFC) of the Waffen SS.

Road to War

In South Africa and in the United Kingdom this fierce polarisation over Nazi Germany came to a head when Britain and France declared war against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939. In Britain the activities of fringe fascists were relatively easily curtailed when on the 23 May 1940, Mosley and 740 other BUF members were interned under the Defence Regulation 18B. On 10 July 1940, the organisation was declared unlawful, whereupon it ceased to exist with no real resistance.

The South African case was an entirely different matter. The polarisation over Nazism and Germany was especially felt in the Afrikaner Nationalist community who, through the various neo-Nazi movements in the Union described above, had become enamoured and invested in Nazi Germany. When Britain declared war on Germany, the United Party found itself in a dilemma and a parliamentary three-way debate would take place almost immediately after Britain’s’ declaration. This debate, primarily between the two factions in the United Party (Hertzog’s cabal and Smut’s cabal) and the Purified Nationalists, was 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, Prime Minister Hertzog was very confident he had the majority to carry a motion of neutrality.

Hertzog would argue in his speech that Hitler’s invasion of Poland, and annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, was not an indication that the German leader aspired to world conquest, and that the Afrikaners well understood Germany’s right to struggle for their own self-determination against the hostility of the outside world. He also argued that Germany’s actions constituted no threat to South African security whatsoever, and that 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 British Commonwealth whose fate now hung in the balance. To stand aside from the conflict would be to expose the whole “civilised” world to danger.38 Smuts’ amendment to Hertzog’s Motion of Neutrality was carried by 80 votes to 67 votes on the 4 September 1939, and as a result South Africa thus found itself at war against Nazi Germany. Surprised at the outcome, Hertzog promptly resigned and along with 36 of his supporters left the United Party, thereby leaving the South African Premiership and the leadership of the United Party to Smuts.39 The Union officially declared war on Nazi Germany on 6 September 1939.40 Later, on 10 June 1940, Italy declared war on France and Britain, and in response as an Allied country, South Africa declared war on Italy the next day.41

Hertzog moved to form a new party – the “Volksparty” and successfully reconciled with the “Malanites” in the PNP to then form the “Herenigde Nasionale Volksparty” (HNP)42 or Reunited National Party. However, on 5 November 1940 at the HNP’s Convention in Bloemfontein, Hertzog reaffirmed his position on English-speakers rights, and falling on deaf ears, he grabbed his hat and walked out of the National Party forever. In retirement and angered by his treatment at the hands of HNP and Malan, he performed a remarkable volte-face and issued a press release in October 1941 in which he championed National Socialism.43 In the release Hertzog excoriated “liberal capitalism” and the democratic party system, praised National Socialism as in keeping with the traditions of the Afrikaner, and argued that South Africa needed the oversight of a one-party state dictatorship.44

As happened in the United Kingdom, the Union instituted emergency regulations to the curtail Nazi sympathetic organisations and their leaders during the war – even imprisoning some. However unlike in Britain, this was met with home grown resistance in South Africa when pro-Nazi organisations like the SANP and OB moved into active and direct support of both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy’s war efforts. They did this either through espionage, sedition, or through armed actions and sabotage. On the political stage the HNP continued with its neutrality position whilst at the same time it tacitly supported Nazi Germany.

Approach to Recruitment – South Africa, Britain and Germany

With war declared, in South Africa attention was given to recruiting and bolstering South Africa’s statutory forces, which were undercapitalised and under resourced by the National Party during the inter-war years. On 14 March 1940, Smuts forced Pirow out of his position as Minister of Defence for mismanaging his parliamentary portfolio and his failed “bush cart strategy”.45 Smuts concluded that the re-bolstering and recruitment of the Union Defence Force (UDF) had to be done using volunteerism and not conscription – especially given the sensitivities of Afrikaners to both Germany and Great Britain. Using this strategy, Smuts was able to ultimately call up nearly a quarter of the white adult population for voluntary wartime service – half of which were Afrikaners. Their motivations and political dispositions for joining the Union’s war effort varied considerably. Some held indifferent views as to National Socialism, many held strong views as to anti-Communism, and many joined solely for economic reasons – mainly employment given the ‘poor white’ problem which had historically hobbled the white Afrikaans speaking community.46

South African recruitment poster and South Africans in action in north Africa – colour photo by Photo Redux

With war declared, in Britain the process of recruitment was somewhat different to South Africa. As with South Africa, the inter-war period and austerity measures had left Britain’s armed forces woefully unfit for purpose. Consequently, on 3 September 1939, Britain immediately turned to conscription. The day Britain declared war on Germany, Parliament passed The National Service (Armed Forces) Act and imposed conscription on all males aged between 18 and 41,47 regardless of their political affiliations and/or dispositions to Nazism, Fascism, or Communism.

With war declared and as the war progressed, Germany’s approach to resourcing its armed forces was also somewhat different. Conscription into military service into the statutory German armed forces (Wehrmacht)  had begun as early as 16 March 1935, and it initially applied to all German men of “Aryan”’ classification aged between 18 and 45. 

British propaganda poster and troops in action

In parallel to the Wehrmacht, the Schutzstaffel (SS) was born under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, and was essentially a police force and not a military one. One arm of the SS, the SS Verfugungstruppe (SSVT), emerged as a paramilitary wing and, on 17 August 1938, prior to the infamous “Kristallnacht”, Hitler decreed that the SSVT was not purely that of a police force, nor of an army unit. Rather, it was a National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) political unit at his personal disposal.48 The SSVT would be the forerunner of the Waffen SS when it began to take on an increasingly military guise. On 19 August 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, on an order from Hitler, the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), placed the SSVT under the commander-in-chief of the Army (Heer) to fight alongside the Wehrmacht.49

The formation of the Waffen SS and the British Free Corps

Broadly speaking, once the war was underway the SS had evolved into three groups – the Allgemeine SS (General SS), which was a general police force also enforcing Nazi racial policy; the Waffen SS, which consisted of militarised combat units with special allegiance to Hitler and the Nazi Party; and finally, the SS Totenkopf (Death Head) units that were in charge of concentration camps and the extermination of Jews and other undesirables according to Nazi philosophy.

The Waffen SS would grow from just 3 Regiments to a mammoth para-military army with 22 Corps, just over 38 Divisions, 16 Brigades and about 14 Foreign Legions during course of the war. Initially recruitment was limited to ethnic Germans of “Aryan ancestry”. Yet this was relaxed from 1940, and then widened again after Operation Barbarossa was launched in June 1941. After the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Waffen SS was pitched as a crusade against the onset of Bolshevism (Communism in effect). More foreign volunteers, and even eventually foreign conscripts, were raised from occupied countries and/or countries deemed as having population demographics which met with Nazi Aryan dogma. Many of these foreign national volunteers and conscripts joined the various ethically and culturally differentiated Waffen SS structures.

Waffen SS recruitment – colour of Waffen SS in action – image by Doug

One such Waffen SS unit focussed on British Commonwealth and Allied volunteers who displayed a positive disposition to National Socialism and anti-bolshevism, and met the Nazi “Aryan” recruitment ideals. The unit was originally conceived as the “Legion of St George” by John Amery. Amery was born into the British political elite, the son of Leo Amery, and older brother of Julian Amery, both of whom served as Tory (Conservative) Ministers of Parliament. John Amery was considered a troubled and difficult youngster and became a committed fascist and staunch anti-Communist. Moving to France after he was bankrupted, he was reputed to have joined Franco’s Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War in 1936, eventually returning to France, and was there when Germany occupied France in June 1940.50

John Amery travelled to Berlin in October 1942 and proposed to the “German English Committee” the formation of a British volunteer force to help fight bolshevism. Remaining in Germany, Amery made a series of pro-German and anti-Communist propaganda radio broadcasts to British listeners. After meeting Jacques Doriot in January 1943, Amery modelled his concept on the “Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism” – a German Wehrmacht unit consisting of French collaborators. Called the “Legion of St George”, Amery released a proclamation primarily targeting British and Commonwealth prisoners of war (POW), from which cohort he aimed to recruit about 100 members. 

John Amery

In his proclamation Amery appealed to these POWs and warned that their wives and children at home are menaced by the invasion of the “Hordes of Bolshevik Barbarity” and the “Dragon of Asiatic and Jewish Bestiality”. He urged these POWs to join the Legion of St George to fight on the German-Finnish front alongside the German and Finnish people against the Soviet Union. He issued a mistruth, stating that hundreds of their countrymen had already joined his legion for the purposes of upholding the British Empire.51

Amery’s recruiting drive, despite persistence, did not yield the hundreds of volunteers as he had hoped, as his message simply did not resonate with the British, Commonwealth and Allied prisoners. However, he managed to prick the interest of a handful of POWs, notably Kenneth Berry – a young and impressionable British merchant mariner and William Charles Brittain, a British Royal Warwickshire Regiment member, captured in Crete in 1941. The first POW recruits were accommodated at what was pitched as a “holiday camp” in Genshagen, Berlin in August 1943.52 By November 1943, they were moved to a requisitioned café in the Pankow district of Berlin.53 Amery’s link to the unit ended in October 1943, after the Waffen SS decided they did not need his services. The unit subsequently officially become a military unit of the Waffen SS on 1 January 1944, and was re-named the “British Free Corps” (BFC).54

William Brittain in BFC uniform and BFC recruitment poster.

In addition to Amery, it is also noted that the infamous BUF stalwart, the American born Joyce was also in Germany at this time. He, like Amery, was also involved in Nazi propaganda radio broadcasts. Joyce and his wife Margaret became German citizens on 26 September 1940, and his reach expanded with script writing for a trio of stations: Radio Caledonia, Workers’ Challenge, and the New British Broadcasting Service. He also helped write propaganda to assist in the recruitment British POWs to enlist in the BFC and published a book, “Twilight Over England”, in which he contrasted the ideal of Nazi Germany versus the Jewish-dominated, capitalist enemy state.55

Resourcing the BFC

The first Commander of the BFC was Hauptsturmfurer SS Hans Werner Roepke, an English-speaking German.56 Continuing to recruit British and Commonwealth POWs to the BFC, the unit was equipped and repeatedly moved between Hanover and Dresden, and by 8 March 1945 they were billeted near Berlin.57 From its conception to the end of the war, a period of nearly fifteen months, the BUF could account on only 39 people who ultimately served in it.58

Initially only six men joined the BFC, and they became known as the “Big 6”: Thomas Cooper,59 a British born member of Mosley’s BUF with a German mother. He joined the Waffen SS as a Volksdeutsche (a foreign national with German heritage) and transferred to the BFC. Roy Courlander,60 a Lance Corporal with strong anti-Communist leanings serving with the New Zealand Armed Forces in their Intelligence Corps prior to his capture. Before joining the BFC, he was involved in broadcasting Nazi propaganda to his countrymen. Edwin Martin,61  a Private in the Canadian Army, who served in the Essex Scottish Regiment prior to his capture. Frank McLardy,62 another member of Mosley’s BUF and a Sergeant the Royal Army Medical Corps prior to capture. Alfred Minchin,63 a captured British merchant mariner who is accredited with selecting the name of the BFC.64 Finally, John Wilson, a British trooper serving with the Royal Marines No. 3 Commando prior to his capture.65

Roy Courlander in his BFC uniform and BFC recruitment poster

By February 1944, the BFC boasted only eight members, however, soon thereafter more recruitment of Allied POW took place and Robert Heights (British), Robert Lane (British), Norman Rose (British), Lionel Wood (Australian) and Thomas Freeman (British) joined the unit. Freeman, also a BUF member prior to the war, did so to sabotage the project. Freeman and Wilson recruited two Australians, Robert Chipchase and Albert Stokes, and then Theo Ellsmore –  a Belgian who masqueraded as a South African. Chipchase only spent a couple of days in the BFC. Stokes was Freeman’s friend and he also initially intended to sabotage the project.66

Leading up to June 1944, William How (British), Ernest Nichols (British), Herbert Rowlands (British) – he had also been a BUF member before the war, and Roland Barker (an Australian, regarded as man of limited intelligence) all joined the BFC. In June two Britons, John Leister and Eric Pleasants (another former BUF member) joined the unit – both were convicted thieves serving time in France in a merchant navy POW camp.67

Other POW recruits over this period included Harry Dean Bachelor (British), Hugh Cowie (British), Roy Futcher (British), Frank Maton (British, also a BUF member before the war) and Tom Perkins  – of this group only Maton stood out for his pro-Nazi convictions. In June 1944 the BFC total compliment reached 27 men.68

Eric Pleasants in BFC uniform and BFC recruitment poster

In June 1944, and after the D-Day landings and the commencement of Operation Overlord, the BFC was marred by mutiny. Freeman, Courlander, Maton, and Rowlands all escaped from the unit. Other members returned to and/or requested to be transferred back to the POW camps. Some of the troublesome members were transferred to isolation and labour camps. Some members joining the BFC complained about being blackmailed into it, while others were identified as being mentally unstable.69 A stable, conformist and homogeneous military unit, the BFC was not.

Enter the South Africans

By November 1944 the BFC stabilised somewhat, and some members even returned to it from their respective POW camps. During the summer of 1944/1945 new members started to arrive, and of importance at this time was a trio of South African Prisoners of War – Pieter Labuschagne, Lawrence Viljoen, and, of specific importance is Mardon, a South African with fierce Russophobia, attributed to the contact he had with Russian POWs.70 By the end of January 1945, the BFC reached its zenith in terms of numbers on the ground – 27 members,71 which is only about the size of a single platoon.

Other South Africans have been involved in the recruiting of BFC members, these include Sgt. F.W. Lochrenburg, Gnr B.J.F Brandsma and Pte. S.P.J. van Dyk, however they do not join the BFC and are instead used by the German and BFC authorities as stool pigeons to lure recruits to the BFC.

On the three South Africans that do join the BFC, all come from varying backgrounds:

Douglas Mardon was born in Durban on 22 May 1919, he’s of British heritage. He saw service as member of 2nd Transvaal Scottish and when war broke out he attested with the 1st Battalion of the Royal Durban Light Infantry in 1940, having had attained the rank of Lance Corporal. He is in North Africa fighting for his unit when he is captured during the Battle of Gazala on 6 June 1942. Initially in a POW camp in Italy and thereafter he is transferred to Museburg in Austria – it was here that he made contact with Russian POW whom he learned to detest. He was moved to Stalag 8B and discovered a pamphlet for the BFC inserted into a packet of cigarettes and it perked his interest in joining the BFC.72

Labuschagne is born 4 January 1922, of Afrikaans heritage from Zastron and attests with the President Steyn Regiment (later with Louw Wepener Regiment). Captured on 23 November 1941 at the Battle of Sidi Rezegh in North Africa. Initially in a POW camp in Italy, he is later transferred to Germany. He learns about the BFC from a distributed pamphlet which is left on his bed.73

Viljoen was listed as a Constable and attests as a Private in the 1st South African Police Battalion, Afrikaans by heritage, born on 19 June 1917. Viljoen is from Laingsburg and later lives in Worcester in the Western Cape.74

Mardon on 8 March 1945 received a promotion to Unterscharführer and was given command of a section of the BFC, the other two are given the rank of ‘SS Mann’ (the equivalent of a private).

On 13 February 1945, whilst the BFC was billeted in Dresden on their way to the Eastern Front, now outside Berlin, the city came under air attack by Allied bombers – during this attack Viljoen disappeared. His colleagues thought he was dead, but this turned out not to be the case.75

BFC Combat deployment

By March 1945, the BFC was deployed to Berlin for combat. At this stage, some of its members had already started to have second thoughts on the prospect of fighting a losing battle, which prompted some members to request to be returned to their POW camps or transferred to other non-combat units. With a corium of committed BFC members having volunteered to fight Communism on 15 March 1945 the BFC was deployed to Berlin and billeted on the eastern front alongside the III (Germanisches) SS-Panzer Korps. Under-resourced, they are not formally given ammunition, the BFC use initiative and secure limited stocks of ammunition.76

On 22 March 1945, the BFC was ordered to reinforce a reconnaissance battalion of the 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland, which was regarded as one of the most multicultural divisions in the Waffen SS. The 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland was commanded by Brigadefürer Joachim Ziegler and fell under the III (Germanisches) SS Panzer Corps under the overall command of Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner.

11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland in action and their insignia

Only one BFC combat engagement is found in contemporary accounts, and it is unclear as to the full role of the BFC. On 22 March whilst the BFC section under Mardon’s command was entrenching itself alongside the 3rd Company of SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 11 “Nordland” – the reconnaissance battalion it was attached to. They were now situated in the village of Schoenburg near the west bank of the Oder Canal.77 This 3rd Company of the SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 11 “Nordland” was partially overrun by an advance element of the Red Army who had blundered onto its position by accident. Although taken by surprise, the Waffen SS troopers launched a spirited counterattack driving off the Soviets. It is however unclear if any BFC members were involved in the fight and to what extent, as interviews with BFC members after the war point to minimal if any involvement in actual combat (although this reasoning was also used by BFC members as an excuse to evade charges of treason), according to court statements they were located in the second trench line behind the primary line on the Oder canal, and the second trench line never came under attack by the Red Army.78

Whilst the BFC was entrenched outside Schoenburg with the 3rd Company of the SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 11 “Nordland”, Cooper managed to convince the Division’s Commander, Brigadefurer Joachim Ziegler, that the BFC was indeed unfit for combat and it was withdrawn from the line and sent to Tempin 79 on 16 April 1945 to join the transport company of Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner’s Headquarters staff (Kraftfahrstaffel StabSteiner).80 The BFC moved with the transport company to Neustrelitz whereupon on 29 April 1945 Obergruppenführer Steiner orders his Panzer Corps to break contact with the Soviets and to head west into Anglo-American captivity. By 2 May 1945, Cooper and the remnants of the BFC surrendered to the 121st Infantry Regiment of the United States of America near Schwerin.81

After the war ended, numerous commissions were instituted by the British and the Commonwealth countries to round up and interrogate all their nationals who aided any of the Axis powers by any means during the war. Those accused of High Treason were brought to justice. In the case of those who had joined the Waffen SS, and specifically those having joined or were associated to the BFC, the sentences and outcomes varied from acquittal, to time served, to fines, to various degrees of incarceration and hard labour, and even capital punishment. The gallows were a fate awaiting Amery, who hanged on 19 December 1945, as well as Joyce, who hanged on 3 January 1946, Cooper was also given the death sentence, but his execution was stayed at the last minute on 20 February 194682 and commuted to life in prison.

John Amery (top left) and William Joyce (bottom left) were both executed, Thomas Cooper (top right) had his death sentence commuted to life.

In the end they all fall onto the “wrong” side of history, and can be best summed up by John Amery’s epitaph written by his father Leo Amery (who by co-incidence also penned the Times history of the South African War 1899-1902):

‘At end of wayward days he found a cause – ’Twas not his Country’s – Only time can tell if that defiance of our ancient laws was as treason or foreknowledge. He sleeps well.

Communism – not our creed

As in Britain, in South Africa at the start of the war Communism is perfectly legal. It is however regarded with disdain by moderate and right wing white South Africans, however it does find a home in some white supporters of the Labour Party and in the small community of Jewish immigrants who are highly unionised (especially in the garment industry) and have liberal leanings. White South Africans in general are in support of the United Party and fearful of Communism and its growing support amongst aspirant and politicised Black South Africans.

As to the fear of Communism, the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany on 22 June 1941 causing the Soviet Union to side with the Allies proves a problematic and awkward question in South Africa. The ruling party, the United Party, as well as its primary opposition party, the Reformed National Party – are all principally anti-communist, in fact they are very vocally anti-Communist. General Jan Smuts would try and give reason to his and his country’s own anti-Communist sentiments and siding alongside the Soviet Union in July 1941 when he said:

‘Nobody can say we are now league with the Communists and fighting the battles of Communism. More fitly can the neutralists and the fence sitters be charged with fighting the battle of Nazism. If Hitler has driven Russia to fight in self-defence, we bless her all success, without for a moment identifying ourselves with her Communistic creed. Hitler has made Russia his enemy and not made us friendly to her creed’.83  

The Soviet flag was raised over the Reichstag 30 April 1945 – insert letter from the Union of South Africa in support of the USSR.

What remains a truism throughout the war, is that although Communism is an anathema to the United Kingdom, United States and the South African Union’s mainstream and right wing politics, the Soviet Union remains a key supported ally, and inside South Africa the Red Cross raises support for the Soviet Union and Smuts’ United Party even expresses solidarity with the Soviet Union after a meeting held on 16 October 1942 and they notify the Consul General of the USSR in Pretoria of their unwavering support.84

South African Renegades – The Rein and Barrett Missions

After the end of the Second World War, all the Allied nations embarked on a Nazi hunt to prosecute war criminals. This included high profile war crimes, but it also included hunting all nationals who, by siding with Nazi Germany and the Axis forces, had committed an act of High Treason. South Africa’s post war hunt for its nationals assisting or joining Nazi Germany and other Axis forces remained relatively undocumented and under-researched, however this does not mean that South Africa did nothing to find and prosecute its war criminals.85

In December 1945, it was agreed that those South Africans who had committed treason as Union nationals, would be dealt with by the Department of Justice, whereas those who qualified as ex-Union Prisoners of War who joined German forces would be dealt with by the Union Defence Forces’ Military Disciplinarian Code.86  In February 1946 the Rein Mission left for Europe to work alongside British MI5 to identify South African War criminals, this opened the way to a more comprehensive mission, called the Barrett Mission aimed primarily at South Africans who whether directly or indirectly aided the German War effort.87 These South Africans were referred to by historian Ian van der Waag as ‘Hitler’s Springboks’ and they included Radio Zeesen Afrikaner broadcasters, stool pigeons, collaborators and members of the Waffen SS (and BFC).88

‘Hitler’s Springboks’ then constituted a small number of South African citizens in Nazi Germany who were swept up by Allied forces, having either caught up with them through various interrogations or them having surrendered to Allied Forces directly. Previously embargoed or restricted archival material, now in the Department of Justice archives indicates that by 21 July 1945 the Department of Military Intelligence of the Union Defence Force started formulating lists of South African Union Nationals in Nazi Germany during wartime and requesting the British MI5 Intelligence Service to supply more information on them and that they had to hold them for interrogation. These primarily included name lists of South African Nationals or German Nationals with South African heritage or background who had in some way played a role in influencing South African Prisoners of War (POW) in various POW camps in Germany. This was achieved either through propaganda, through printed media, and/or radio broadcasting with the expressed purposes of forwarding Nazi German war aims and trying to influence them to join Germany’s armed forces.89  

Of interest here are the various Afrikaner broadcasters of Radio Zeesen, Eric Holm, Johannes Snoek, Michael Pienaar, Francois Schaefer, Betty Blackburn (Marshall), Isa Goos, Danie Michell, and Marjorie Sanna (Hofmeyr), along with three German academics with South African backgrounds – Onderfuehrer Becker, Professor Bruxmer and Captain Brauer who play a key role in trying to influence South African POWs at various POW camps in Germany. Also swept up in this request to MI5 are a handful South African Nationals with German heritage (Volksdeutsche) who had been in Germany at the start of the war and had joined standard German Wehrmacht units, notably Carl Johannes Hugo and Konrad Rust.90

The Justice Department meets on 19 March 1946 at the Ministry of Justice (including Barrett), whereby a decision is taken to issue Police dockets and prosecute through the Ministry all identified ‘High Treason’ Union Defence Force renegades who had served in German Armed Forces. Those Union renegades identified with lessor infractions of the military code of conduct would be prosecuted by the Union Defence Force.91

The Rein Mission and MI5 British Intelligence had forwarded their initial findings on South African Union renegades in BFC to the Union from their preliminary investigations to the South African Union’s Justice Department – these include 62 sworn affidavits and 53 police statements from 166 interviews to the Rein Mission.92 Identified British Free Corps (BFC) South African Union nationals who qualified as renegades having potentially committed High Treaso, they are – L/Cpl D.C. Mardon, Pte P.A.H. Labuschagne and Pte L.M. Viljoen.93

Other South African Union Defence Force (UDF) members are identified as having joined or having been recruited to the BFC, of these the notable members are; Sgt. F.W. Lochrenburg, Gnr B.J.F Brandsma and Pte. S.P.J. van Dyk, however the initial investigations indicate they acted as stool pigeons94  – In addition, the chaotic nature of the BFC, and their short flirtations with it, there is insufficient evidence. This compels the Justice Department to believe there is an insufficient case for High Treason and they leave their cases to the UDF to investigate under their disciplinary code.95

By 4 July 1946, the case against South African nationals who had been recruited and/or joined the British Free Corps (BFC) of the Waffen SS had been fully reviewed by the Barrett Mission. Mr. L.C. Barrett, acting as the Senior Professional Assistant for the Attorney General in Pretoria issues a relatively comprehensive report on the BFC, outlining its history and intent, the grounding of the founders in British Fascism, its recruitment procedures, leadership, and deployment. These findings gleaned primarily from British Intelligence and confessions of BFC members in the United Kingdom who had already been interrogated. On the issue of South African Union Defence Force members who had served in the BFC or had been stool-pigeons in the recruitment process for the BFC, he concludes that there is a certainly a case to be made of high treason for Mardon, Labuschagne and Viljoen back in the South African Union.96

On Trial for High Treason

After Mardon, Labuschagne and Viljoen were arrested and repatriated back to South Africa a decision had to made as to how the charges and trials against them would proceed, especially in light of the unique socio-political landscape in South Africa and Prime Minister Jan Smuts’ continual reconciliation and appeasement of the Afrikaner right in order to establish ‘racial harmony’ and reconciliation, an approach he had taken to this demographic which had its roots going back even as far back as the 1914 Maritz Revolt.97 An approach which had not changed much by the end of World War 2 given Smuts’ cautious approach taken to political opponents who had flirted with Nazism like Hans van Rensburg, the Commandant General of the Ossewabrandwag and the ever increasing case of high treason stacking up against him, so much so that ‘van Rensburg was indeed guilty of high treason’.98

In addition Smuts had taken a lenient approach to Robey Leibrandt, the leader of the National Socialist Rebels whose death sentence for high treason he commuted to life in prison instead, the underpinning reason – he had fought alongside Leibrandt’s father during the South African War (1899-1902, seeking harmony instead with this highly disgruntled anti-British demographic of Afrikanerdom.99

Given this background, the decision was taken to prosecute all renegade cases of high treason using a special court.

The charges against Mardon, Labuschagne and Viljoen broadly covered three areas of High Treason Firstly, that whilst members of the South African state’s statute forces, they joined the statute forces of the German state, whilst South Africa was in a state of war against Germany (the enemy). Secondly that they joined military structures controlled by the enemy German state. Thirdly that they wore the uniform of the enemy German State. Fourthly that they underwent military training offered by the enemy German State. Fifthly, they bore arms against an allied state of the Union of South Africa.100

Mardon in his defence insisted that his sole motivation was to fight against Bolshevism (Communism), which he saw as a threat to his homeland in South Africa as it would bring with it “black domination”. He also claimed he did not take the oath of allegiance to Nazi Germany and Hitler. The crown found that regardless, he had displayed “hostile intent” to both the Union of South Africa and her Allies by taking up arms and donning a German uniform – albeit with some adaptions showing a Union Flag on the sleeve and the British lions on the collar instead of the usual Waffen SS lightening bolts. The court did take into account that it was Mardon’s wish to only fight Communism and he wished no harm on his countryman and that he was true to this conviction having been assured by his German handlers that this was the sole purpose of his recruitment into the Waffen SS. As to anything unclear to what constituted ‘high treason’ the court found that any act which was designed to assist the enemy:

‘positively by giving help of any kind, or negatively by obstructing or weakening forces arrayed against (the enemy), is an act of high treason’. 101

In this key respect to this Mardon is found guilty of High Treason.

Oswald Pirow is one of the members of the renegades defence council, he applies for postponement of the verdict and withdraws when its refused. Barrett acts for the crown. The verdict is announced on 14 April 1947. On the charge of High Treason: Mardon is found guilty, he is given a fine of £75 or 9 months in prison.

In handing down a light sentence, Justice Ramsbottom finds mitigating factors in Mardon’s intentions to only fight against Communism and not the Union in his age and cites naivety of youth, he also considers the Prisoner of War position and the lack of uncensored ‘news’ available to persons in a POW camp and they been susceptible to enemy propaganda. Furthermore, he finds mitigation in the fact that the South African renegades only join the BFC late in the war, when the advancing Red Army is a well established fact, and their intentions were only to fight communism. Mardon’s time in prison of 3 months to date is also factored and the Judge looks to the case of another BFC member Kenneth Berry who is given a 9 months sentence by a British court as an appropriate benchmark for his verdict.

Noted here, Kenneth Berry’s case is a little unique in that does not advance in rank in the BFC and remains a ‘SS Man’ (a private) whereas Mardon is made a non-commissioned officer – a Unterscharführer and was given command of a section (10 men of the BFC). Berry receives what was considered at the time by Rebecca West to be the ‘lightest sentence conferred on any traitor’102 in the United Kingdom on account of his age. Berry is regarded by the Director of Public Prosecutions ‘as an irresponsible youth who was easily led.’103

Kenneth Berry has served his sentence by the time Mardon, Labuschagne and Viljoen are brought to trial, and he is brought to South Africa as a witness in their case, so too is William John Miller, another BFC member (British) who was a Royal Artillery Gunner prior to his capture – he was deemed so “useless” that Mardon refused to deploy him in a combat role.104 Harry Dean Batchelor, a British Royal Engineers sapper who joined the BFC also appears as a witness, so too does a German, Wilhelm August ‘Bob’ Rössler, a German Heer signaler, wounded he is attached to the BFC as an interpreter as his English was very good.105

Of interest is Kenneth Berry as a very wayward young man, he is positively disposed to the British Union of Fascists and John Amery, and even writes to Amery to give him a progress on how he is doing in the BFC and enjoying it.106 Berry spends much of his testimony on the difference between the German “Heer” (Statutory Army) and the Waffen SS, in addition to the differences in BFC insignia and that of other Waffen SS units.

Kenneth Berry (centre) in a propaganda photograph in his BFC uniform with SS-Sturmmann Alfred Minchin, an ex British Merchant sea-man talking to German officers, during a recruitment drive in Milag, April 1944. – the uniform and insignia of the BFC left.

In fact during the case, the issue of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) surfaces as there are so many members of the BFC who were BUF members – so much so it starts to take a strong BUF disposition and the unit’s leadership has to make it clear that it is not a ‘fascist’ undertaking but an anti-Communist undertaking so as to attract non-fascist and non-BUF British and Commonwealth Prisoners of War.107

Labuschagne’s charges follow the same as Mardon’s and he found guilty of High Treason on exactly the same terms as Mardon – that he joined an organisation controlled by the enemy (the BFC) for the purposes of fighting against the Soviet Union – an Ally of South Africa, that he was deployed in service of the enemy, that he donned the enemy’s uniform and that he underwent military training whilst in service of the enemy. In addition, Labuschagne is also found to have actively tried to recruit other South African Union POW to join the BFC. In all the court also concludes ‘hostile intent’. One difference is that Labuschagne at times uses the alias “Smith” however the court concludes that whilst this could be seen as a sinister move to cover his tracks, they also accept that he uses the alias as many of his British counterparts could not pronounce his surname.108

One key mitigating factor is brought up in Labuschagne’s case, when the BFC unit is been prepared for deployment to fight on the Berlin front, all the BFC members are called in and informed whether they have been selected to go, and although all of them have volunteered to go, Labuschagne is informed he has to stay behind at the base. The reason cited for this is Labuschagne is unliked by the men, especially Mardon who does not rate him and finds him to be a disrupter – so for the sake of maintaining a positive esprit de corps Labuschagne is removed from the line.109

Labuschagne’s is found guilty of High Treason, and his verdict is also announced on 14 April 1947. Like Mardon his sentence is also very light, and its in fact lighter than Mardon’s sentence – Labuschagne is given a fine of £40 or 4 months in prison.

Viljoen’s charges follow the same outline as Mardon and Labuschagne – that he joined an organisation controlled by the enemy (the BFC) for the purposes of fighting against the Soviet Union – an Ally of South Africa, that he was deployed in service of the enemy, that he donned the enemy’s uniform and that he underwent military training whilst in service of the enemy. Viljoen is however found to have absconded from the BFC during the Dresden Air Raid and was never really operationally deployed. His verdict, his charges are withdrawn and he’s acquitted.

The Oswalds

Of importance in also understanding the socio-political context of the treason trials of Mardon, Labuschagne and Viljoen, and that of other South African renegades, is the political disposition of their defence council. Oswald Pirow in almost all instances of the renegade defences acts as legal counsel, and Pirow has a special relationship with Oswald Mosley.

In terms of historic sweep, Pirow is a highly accredited advocate and counsellor, however, he is also the previous National Party Defence Minister under Hertzog and the founder of the National Socialist ‘New Order’ think tank within the National Party prior to the war. Oswald Mosley, on the other hand is the previous leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) which had played a significant role in influencing many of the British nationals to join the Waffen SS and the BFC. After the war (and his imprisonment) Mosley releases his book “The Alternative” in October 1947, which is a re-hashed National Socialist ‘New Order’.110 Prior to the war, Oswald Pirow and Oswald Mosely, even as early as 1938, have been in contact collaborating with one another. Just after defending the BFC South African renegades treason cases in April 1947, Pirow makes contact with Mosley again and they collaborate on a paper for a fascist and racially separated African order.111 They come up with the Mosley-Pirow Proposals, which were:

‘a natural development of General Hertzog’s Segregation Policy and was foreshadowed by (his) then cabinet colleagues 15 years earlier’.112

The proposals essentially divide Africa into a large southern ‘white’ state with its labour provided by separate ‘black’ vassal states on temporary work permits. The work foreshadows the Apartheid Bantustan program and influx control policies.113

The Oswalds collaborating – Oswald Pirow and Oswald Mosley right

This mutual political disposition and outlook between ‘the two Oswald’s’ is an interesting twist as it signals what sort of post war sentiment there is in many parts of South Africa, even years after the war is over. Mosley is regarded as ‘the most hated man in Great Britain’ and his writings that of the ‘loony’ right. Pirow on the other hand is taken a little more seriously in South Africa, he’s eventually appointed the State Prosecutor in the Treason Trial and these writings of his foreshadow some the National Party’s policies on Apartheid.

Pirow’s involvement as defence council in all the cases of South African renegades is interesting – be they people caught spying for Nazi Germany in South Africa, or be they members of Radio Zeesen broadcasting Nazi propaganda to South Africa or be it this case, the South Africans joining the Waffen SS. In all instances Pirow – as a previously committed and vocal Nazi and anti-Communist politician – is “protecting his own” and bringing his formidable legal and political skills to bear in doing this. His presence alone would give an atmosphere that Nazism and Fascism were normative and accepted practices in some communities in South Africa before and during the war, so too the deep seated hatred and fear of Communism. His open relationship with Mosely, and support of British fascism also gives a little gravitas to the British Union of Fascists (BUF) and all the BFC members who belonged to it.

Waffen SS Propaganda – Dutch and South African

An interesting facet of the Waffen SS and BFC story is the extreme hatred for Communism and the fear of the on-set of Bolshevism in Europe, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. So how successful was Nazi Germany in recruiting Waffen SS members from foreign counties on the same premise of anti-bolshevism? On a cultural, language and historical basis (as its shared) the closest we can compare the recruitment of South Africans into the Waffen SS, especially Afrikaners, is to compare the appeal the German’s made to recruit the Dutch and its successes.

The appeal for Dutch recruits into the Waffen SS has a distinctive South African message. Hitler in 1940, is a firm fan of the Afrikaner Nationalist cause and shares the ‘politics of pain’ caused during the South African War with them. Hitler’s passion for Boer politics starts early and he states in his autobiography Mein Kampf: 

‘The Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the far horizon. Day after day I used to gaze intently at the newspapers … overjoyed to think that I could witness that heroic struggle.”114

On 30th January 1940 at the Sportspalast, during his speech, Hitler drives his pro-Afrikaner Nationalism positioning home when he makes two significant points, he says:

“They (Britain) waged war for gold mines and mastery over diamond mines.”115

Then later in the speech Hitler says:

‘When has England ever stopped at women and children? 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, a war on women and children. It was there (South Africa) that the concentration camps were invented, in an English brain this idea was born. We only had to look up the term in the dictionary and later copy it .. with only one difference, England locked up women and children in their camps. Over 20,000 Boer women (and children) died wretchedly at the time. So why would England fight differently today?’

Later Hitler would again engage his propaganda ministry to drive his opinion on the Boer War, Joseph Goebbels who on 19 April 1940, on Hitler’s birthday speech, would broadcast over Radio Zeesen (and others), and he said:

‘Get rid of the Führer or so-called Hitlerism … 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.’116

Ohm Krüger (Uncle Paul), a movie about the Boer War is released in 1941 – it’s Joseph Goebbels’ masterpiece on South Africa. Winner of the Reich Propaganda Ministry’s “Film of the Nation” rating (one of only 4). The movie is a propaganda masterstroke which would reach millions all across Europe, especially in the Netherlands and related territories. Directed by Hans Steinhoff the story is about Paul Kruger, the Transvaal Republic President, and the Boer War from a ‘Dutch’ (Boer) perspective and it climaxes with the massacre and starvation of Boer women and children in British concentration camps – it’s highly inaccurate and an historic fabrication, however it nevertheless strikes a chord with the Dutch, who supported the Boer cause during The South African War.

Hitler speaking at the Sportspalast, inserts Mein Kampf and Ohm Krüger movie poster.

Dr Erik Holm – the South African Afrikaans broadcaster for Radio Zeesen would recall Hitler’s open admiration for General Christiaan De Wet during the Boer War and his guerrilla tactics in flummoxing the British – from conversations he personally had with the Führer on the Boer War.117

The Nazi propaganda ministry and the Waffen SS used this very powerful affinity and memory to the South African War to appeal to the Dutch, playing on the sense of injustice done to their “Dutch” cousins in Africa by the British, bearing in mind the South African War still in living memory for many elderly Dutch and still a point of deep political outrage. At the same time the Germans cleverly conflate the call to action to fight against onset Bolshevism (Communism) with the political outrage of the South African War to drive Dutch volunteerism – especially to the ranks of the Waffen SS.

One wartime Waffen SS recruitment poster demonstrates this sentiment perfectly, it shows an image of the Transvaal Republic Boer Republic President – Paul Kruger in a mythical sense of memory, it has a famous period quote by the Orange Free State Boer Republic President Johannes Brand ‘Alles sal recht komen als elkeen zijn plicht doet’ or simply ‘Alles sal reg kom’ (all will be well) – and the main call to action in Dutch reads ‘Fights against Bolshevism in the Waffen SS.’

Dutch recruitment line and a South African themed Waffen SS poster to recruit them.

In targeting this Dutch and Flemish community which is historically and culturally very closely associated and linked to the Afrikaans community, we see some of Nazi Germany’s greatest success in recruiting for the Waffen SS. According to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation is estimated that between 20,000 to 25,000 Dutch volunteer to join the Waffen SS 118 (almost twice the number that join the Dutch Resistance). These Dutch Waffen SS all go on to demonstrate a high degree of fighting prowess, military discipline, strong battle order and an almost fanatical focus in their defence of Europe against the counter-attacking Soviet Red Army and its Allies.

The vast difference between the Dutch versus the South African recruits to the Waffen SS, on the same call to action and historical affinity, is seen statistically – in the numbers alone – 25,000 Dutchmen and only 3 South Africans, and this alone draws its own conclusion. The recruitment campaign for the BFC is statistically insignificant in comparison with just about every key ethnic formation in the Waffen SS, the BFC are numerically inconsequential.

A key difference to note here is that the threat of Bolshevism is seen in an entirely different way in Europe as opposed to the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth when it comes to propaganda and political rhetoric. In the United Kingdom and South Africa, both Winston Churchill and Jan Smuts position the Soviets as key allies first, as Smuts notes in his speech to both houses of the British Parliament in 1942, he refers to Russia’s ‘indomitable spirit’, having taken the hardest blows and made the ‘most appalling bloodletting necessary for Hitler’s defeat’ and because of this ‘they alone‘ can win the war.119 In general the Allied propaganda and messaging points to a prioritisation to defeating “Hitlerism” first as the greater of the two evils, a more imminent priority is to stand “Together” with the Soviet Union and defeat the common enemy. Examples of this propaganda and messaging are seen in the posters below:

Together with the Soviets propaganda

This propaganda is in sharp contrast to the German messaging when it comes to Europe defeating Communism and the prioritisation of this endeavour as the greater evil. This is especially apparent in Waffen SS posters and propaganda targeted at citizens of ‘Germanic regions and peoples’ – the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway where National Socialism prior to World War 2 is far more palatable as a social order for Western Europe than Communism.

Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner the III SS Panzer Corps Commander would note that the highly unstable socio-economic conditions in Europe in the 1930’s caused by the Great Depression impacted the youth of Europe and led to ‘intellectual despair’ which in turn contributed to Waffen SS recruitment. To Steiner, the European youth were so disillusioned by the apparent helplessness and instability of their own governments many began to search for an ideal that would give meaning to their lives and tended to regard developments in the Third Reich with ‘idealistic hopefulness.120 For these recruits, Communism and future uncertainty it offered is superseded by their adoration for the discipline and successes of Nazism and as a net result the Waffen SS recruitment for its “Nederland”, “Norland”, “Wiking” divisions and other Legions such as the “Flemish Legion” and “Walloon Legion” is highly successful.

Waffen SS anti-Bolshevism propaganda

This exceedingly low conversion rate of British, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and South African POW to the Waffen SS is held up by the fact that in these servicemen by and large followed the prevailing call to action in their countries to fight as a collective to beat Hitlerism as a priority. These POW simply do not have the same frame of reference as the European youth, and it can be proposed that their loyalty to their country’s Casus Belli supersedes all else, especially in South Africa where all serving in Africa and Europe were volunteers.

Even militarily speaking, where the Norland and Wiking divisions of the Waffen SS, as well as other ethnic divisions and legions are renowned for almost fanatical battlefield prowess and highly disciplined battle order, the BFC is ineffectual as a fighting unit. Although the BFC is only a platoon size and although they spend a month in the combat theatre in earthen trenches with a sense of determination, they were fractured, ill-disciplined, inclined to desertion and highly compromised, as pointed out by Colonel S.T. Pretorius, a prosecutor during the trial of the South African Waffen SS members, had the Red Army attacked their position they would have run over them with ease. According to Pretorius:

… the BFC was a ‘dismal failure’, ‘never up to strength’, ‘the members could never agree amongst themselves’ and at times ‘the Germans did not know what to do with these men.’121

The fractured nature of the BFC and that it is no match for the Waffen SS Norland division it has been attached to also supports the notion that BFC simply did not share the moral convictions or values of their Waffen SS counter-parts and were simply not fit for purpose.

In Conclusion

In the United Kingdom, the British renegades joining the Waffen SS or involved in propaganda in support of British POW joining the Waffen SS received a broad range of sentencing, however in general those found to be in leadership positions – fully committed to fighting Bolshevism on behalf of Nazi Germany and serving in German uniform with ‘hostile intent’, as well as those at the heart of the propaganda initiatives received severe High Treason guilty sentences, some received the death sentence and others harsh sentences of lengthy imprisonment with hard labour. This has a lot to do with retribution and intolerance of Nazism in the post war environment in the United Kingdom.

The British ‘rank and file’ in the British Free Corps receive varying degrees of sentences, some prison time, time already served to acquittal, this has a lot to do with war weariness and the wish for new horizons, which are the grounding reasons underpinning the change in government in 1945 and would see Winston Churchill lose his premiership and his Conservative Party out of power, of which given his success in World War 2 Churchill was certain would be retained. The Labour Party’s emphasis on social reform clearly resonated with a war weary Britain and gave Labour a landslide victory at the polls and a clear mandate for change.122

In South Africa the matter is treated somewhat differently, the advent of the National Party to power in 1948 would see all South Africans involved in collaborating with Nazi Germany receive full amnesty, however even prior to that the High Treason cases are handled somewhat leniently in comparison to those in Britain, and this also has a lot to do with war weariness, a reconciliatory post war environment and Smuts’ continued appeasement of an irreconcilable Afrikaner Nationalist community in South Africa tolerant of Nazism and Nazi Germany.

The socio-political landscape in South Africa, prior to, during and after the war is substantially different to that of the United Kingdom – or any of the other Commonwealth countries. South Africa is the only country in the Allied mix where a significant majority did not fundamentally support going to war – although South Africa’s black population saw an opportunity to improve political emancipation, the support in joining the war effort was not broad in relation to population. In the white population, suitably enfranchised, a very significant swathe of whites were in antitheses to the call to war with Nazi Germany and in fact many in direct support of Nazi Germany.123

As with Churchill in the United Kingdom, Smuts in South Africa was buoyed by his strong electoral performance in 1943, mid way into the war, where he held a clear constitutional majority. Smuts, like Churchill, did not see his opposition, the Afrikaner Nationalists also take up the mantra of social reform at the end of the war, demanding change with a new reform policy called Apartheid, and it also held a high appeal to a war weary nation still bitterly divided over Smuts’ decision to go to war. In a surprise 1948 General Election result the Reunited National Party and its partners were able to sneak in on a single constitutional seat and oust Smuts. The new Minister of Justice C.R. Swart on 11 June 1948 issued a statement of general amnesty for individuals convicted of war crimes relating to treason, the statement read:

‘(The National Party) government (wanted) to relieve the people of the Union from the strain of the war years and to endeavour to end all the unpleasantness and rancour that flowed from it’124

By October, the majority of South African men who had sympathised with, or supported Nazi Germany directly were released, the South Africans who had served in the Waffen SS found themselves free of prosecution, their decision to support the Nazi state and fight Communism a favorable one in the eyes of the incoming nationalist government. A different matter entirely in Germany, from 20 November 1945 to 1 October 1946, the Nuremberg Trial takes place and exposes the full criminality of the Nazi Party regime and its ideology. The National Socialist dogma with its focus on the bogus “protocols of the elders of Zion”, which blamed all of Germany’s economic, social and political problems on Judaism, Freemasonry and Communism and was used to justify the holocaust and the massacre of soviet citizens and POW en masse along racial and political lines is exposed as willful genocide and deemed a crime against humanity.

Although Nazi ideology and dogma was no longer tolerant in the political sphere in South Africa after 1945, ‘no solid measures were put in place by the Smuts government to prevent it from flourishing. Afrikaner Nationalists entertaining strong National Socialist ideologies and having committed treason and sedition during the war, who in European countries would have been hanged for war crimes, landed up back in mainstream party politics under the banner of the National Party and many even ended their days in Parliament.’125


Written and Researched by Peter Dickens

Footnotes

  1. D Harrison, The White Tribe of Africa: South Africa in Perspective (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981), 99. ↩︎
  2. Harrison, The White Tribe of Africa, 99. ↩︎
  3. TRP Davenport, South Africa, A Modern History. Cambridge Commonwealth Series (London: Macmillan Publishers 1977). ↩︎
  4. B Bunting, 1964. The Rise of the South African Reich (London: Penguin Books 1964), 41. ↩︎
  5. Harrison, The White Tribe of Africa, 112. ↩︎
  6. ‘Elections in South Africa’, African Elections Database, 10 November 2004. Accessed 8 August 2024 ↩︎
  7. DB Katz, ‘General Jan Smuts and his First World War in Africa 1914–1917’ (Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers 2022), 34-35. ↩︎
  8. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 57.  ↩︎
  9. FA Mouton, ‘Beyond the Pale’ Oswald Pirow, Sir Oswald Mosley, the ‘enemies of the Soviet Union’ and Apartheid 1948 – 1959,  Journal for Contemporary History, 43, 2 (2018), 18. ↩︎
  10. Mouton, ‘Beyond the Pale’, 20. ↩︎
  11. FL Monama, Wartime Propaganda in the Union of South Africa, 1939 – 1945 (Dissertation for the degree of history, University of Stellenbosch. Stellenbosch, 2014), 62. ↩︎
  12. M Shain, ‘A Perfect Storm’, Antisemitism in South Africa 1930-1948, (Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers, 2015) , 55–58. ↩︎
  13. W Bouwer, National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa: The case of L.T. Weichardt and his Greyshirt movements, 1933-1946. (MA Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 2021), 18. ↩︎
  14. Shain , A Perfect Storm, 41. ↩︎
  15. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 84. ↩︎
  16. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 76. ↩︎
  17. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 82. ↩︎
  18. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 230. ↩︎
  19. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 84 ↩︎
  20. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 231. ↩︎
  21. Harrison, The White Tribe of Africa, 103 – 106. ↩︎
  22.  DP Olivier, A special kind of colonist: An analytical and historical study of the Ossewa-Brandwag as an anti-colonial resistance movement (thesis, University of the North West, Potchefstroom 2021) ↩︎
  23. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 98 ↩︎
  24. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 92 – 93 ↩︎
  25. Olivier, A special kind of colonist ↩︎
  26. Kleynhans, Hitler’s Spies, 199. ↩︎
  27.  Shain, A Perfect Storm, 238 ↩︎
  28. B Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism: Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists, Intersections, 11, 2 (2010): 323-380.  ↩︎
  29. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 323-380. ↩︎
  30. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism,  343. ↩︎
  31. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 349. ↩︎
  32. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 344. ↩︎
  33. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 348. ↩︎
  34. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 351. ↩︎
  35. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 354. ↩︎
  36. Rubin, The Rise and Fall of British Fascism, 323-380. ↩︎
  37. RC Thurlow. Fascism in Britain: from Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts to the National Front. (New York:  I.B. Tauris & Co, 2006), 94. ↩︎
  38. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 85. ↩︎
  39. Shain, A Perfect Storm, 233. ↩︎
  40. Bunting, The Rise of the South African Reich, 85. ↩︎
  41. A Delport, Changing attitudes of South Africans towards Italy and its people during the Second World War, 1939 to 1945,  Historia, 58, 1, (2013) ↩︎
  42. Shain , A Perfect Storm, 237. ↩︎
  43. CM van den Heever , General J.B.M Hertzog, (Johannesburg: A P Boekhandel, 1943) ↩︎
  44. Furlong, ‘Pro-Nazi Subversion in South Africa’, 16. ↩︎
  45. Mouton, ‘Beyond the Pale’, 18. ↩︎
  46. Roos, Neil. 2004. Ordinary Springboks – White Servicemen and Social Justice in South Africa 1939 to 1961. Pages 13 – 19 ↩︎
  47. UK Parliament on-line May 2024, Living Heritage , people and transforming society ‘Conscription: the Second World War’. ↩︎
  48. Thomas, M.J. The Waffen SS 1933-45 ‘Soldiers, just like the others’? Part 1. South African Military History Journal Vol 12 No 5 – June 2003. ↩︎
  49. Thomas, M.J. The Waffen SS 1933-45 ‘Soldiers, just like the others’? Part 1. South African Military History Journal Vol 12 No 5 – June 2003. ↩︎
  50. Freedman, Morris 1963. Fact and Object. Harper & Row. Page 67 ↩︎
  51. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  52. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Location 1948. ↩︎
  53. Weal, ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’, Kindle Location 2002. ↩︎
  54. Weal, ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’, Kindle Locations 2172 – 2173. ↩︎
  55. Warfare History Network online. Nazi Propagandist William Joyce American-born Nazi radio propagandist William Joyce amused, and also terrorized, British listeners. 2017. By Blaine Taylor ↩︎
  56. Weal, ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  57. Weal, ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’, Kindle Locations 2979 – 3007. ↩︎
  58. Weal, ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  59. Weal, Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen, Kindle Locations 2209-2211. ↩︎
  60. Weal, Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen, Kindle Location 2342. ↩︎
  61. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Locations 1998-1999. ↩︎
  62. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Location 2342. ↩︎
  63. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Locations 1968-1969 ↩︎
  64. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Locations 1968-1969. ↩︎
  65. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. List of members – appendix 5. ↩︎
  66. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’. ↩︎
  67. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  68. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  69. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  70. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  71. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’ ↩︎
  72. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  73. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  74. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  75. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  76. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  77. Landwehr, Richard (2012). Britisches Freikorps: British Volunteers of the Waffen-SS 1943-1945. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 83 ↩︎
  78. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  79. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. On-line summation reference ‘British Free Corps in SS Waffen – Myth and Historic Reality’.  ↩︎
  80. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Locations 3077-3078 ↩︎
  81. Weal, Adrian: ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994. Kindle (2014). Random House. Locations 3132 – 3141 ↩︎
  82. British National Archives – Kew reference KV 2/254 Thomas Cooper ↩︎
  83. Smuts, J.C. Jan Christian Smuts by his Son (London Cassell. 1952) 678-679 ↩︎
  84. See image insert ↩︎
  85. Kleynhans, Evert – Hitler’s Spies, Secret agents and the intelligence war in South Africa, 1939 to 1945. Jonathan Ball. 2021. Page 172 ↩︎
  86. Kleynhans, Evert – Hitler’s Spies, Secret agents and the intelligence war in South Africa, 1939 to 1945. Jonathan Ball. 2021. Page 173 ↩︎
  87. Visser, George C. OB: Traitors or Patriots. Macmillian. 1976. Pages 176-177 ↩︎
  88. Kleynhans, Hitler’s Spies,179 – referencing Van der Waag, Ian. A military history of modern South Africa. ↩︎
  89. Archive Box 1620 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals’ General File – Part 1 ↩︎
  90. Archive Box 1620 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals’ General File – Part 1 ↩︎
  91. Archive Box 1621 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals’ General File – Part 2 ↩︎
  92. The National Archives, United Kingdom – Kew. Information about UK renegades from the Continent of Europe. Item number: 7212995 Catalogue reference: KV 2/3581 ↩︎
  93. Archive Box 1621 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals ‘General File – Part 2 ↩︎
  94. The National Archives, United Kingdom – Kew. Information about UK renegades from the Continent of Europe. Item number: 7212995 Catalogue reference: KV 2/3581 ↩︎
  95. Archive Box 1621 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals’ General File – Part 2 ↩︎
  96. Archive Box 1621 – Justice Department: 1-49-44 ‘War Criminals General File – Part 2 ↩︎
  97. Katz, David. General Jan Smuts and his First World War in Africa, 1914–1917: Incorporating His German South West and East Africa Campaigns. Delta. 2022. Pages 83-88 ↩︎
  98. Kleynhans, Evert – Hitler’s Spies, Secret agents and the intelligence war in South Africa, 1939 to 1945. Jonathan Ball. 2021. Page 199 ↩︎
  99. Jan Visser, George C. OB: Traitors or Patriots. Macmillian. 1976, Nongqai magazine reference  ↩︎
  100. Special Criminal Courts Archive Reference 44 – High Treason Cases – Justice Department  ↩︎
  101. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44 ↩︎
  102. West, Rebecca. The Meaning of Treason. London: Macmillan & Co Ltd. Page 280 ↩︎
  103. National Archives, London. Document KV2/255 ↩︎
  104. Weale, Renegades, Kindle Location 2911-2912, 3000, 3186. ↩︎
  105. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44 ↩︎
  106. West, Rebecca. The Meaning of Treason, 278-280 ↩︎
  107. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44 ↩︎
  108. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44 ↩︎
  109. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44. ↩︎
  110. Mouton, F.A. 2018 ‘Beyond the Pale’ Oswald Pirow, Sir Oswald Mosley, the ‘enemies of the Soviet Union’ and Apartheid 1948 – 1959. UNISA, Journal for Contemporary History 2018. Page 23 ↩︎
  111. Mouton, F.A. 2018 ‘Beyond the Pale’ Oswald Pirow, Sir Oswald Mosley, the ‘enemies of the Soviet Union’ and Apartheid 1948 – 1959. UNISA, Journal for Contemporary History 2018. Page 23 – 27 ↩︎
  112. British National Archives – Kew reference 2/908, 12 April 1948 – Oswald Pirow Statement. ↩︎
  113. British National Archives – Kew reference 2/908, 12 April 1948 – Oswald Pirow Statement. ↩︎
  114. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (Ralph Manheim Translation), Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1925 original publication, translation published 1999. Page 158 ↩︎
  115. Hitler, Adolf. Speech by the Fuehrer in the Sportpalast in Berlin, on 30 January 1940. English translation – Sons of Liberty, 1977 ↩︎
  116. Goebbels, Joseph. Our Hitler,1940 Speech on Hitler’s Birthday, 20 April 1940. Reference: Goebbels, J. Die Zeit ohne Beispiel Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1941) ↩︎
  117. Potgieter, De Wet & Lazarus, Jannie. Sunday Times – Page 2, Nazi Radio man took part in Hess Service: 30 August 1982 ↩︎
  118. Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, ‘De SS en Nederland Documenten uit SS-Archieven 1935-1945. Part 1 ↩︎
  119. The offensive phase : the historic speech delivered by General Smuts to members of the two Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, October 21st 1942. ↩︎
  120. Stein, George. The Waffen SS : Hitler’s elite guard at war, 1939-1945. Cornell University Press. 1984. Page 141 to 142 ↩︎
  121. Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44 ↩︎
  122. Larres, Klaus. How Winston Churchill Lost the 1945 British General Election. The Churchill Project on-line August 27, 2020 ↩︎
  123. Giliomee, Hermann. The Afrikaners: Biography of a People. 2003. ↩︎
  124. Kleynhans. Hitler’s Spies. 205 ↩︎
  125. Furlong. Pro-Nazi Subversion in South Africa, 1939-1941 ↩︎

Bibliography and References

Books

Bunting, Brian. The Rise of the South African Reich. Penguin Books. 1964

Cawthorne, Nigel. The Waffen-SS: The Third Reich’s Most Infamous Military Organization.

Dorril, Stephen. Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Moseley and British Fascism. Penguin UK. 1999

Freedman, Morris. Fact and Object. Harper & Row. 1963

Giliomee, Hermann. The Afrikaners: Biography of a People. Cape Town: Tafelberg, 2003.

Goebbels, Joseph. Die Zeit ohne Beispiel Die Zeit ohne Beispiel. Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1941.

Harrison, David. The White Tribe of Africa: South Africa in Perspective. Macmillian Publishers. 1981

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (Ralph Manheim Translation), Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1925 original publication, translation published 1999.

Hitler, Adolf. Speech by the Fuehrer in the Sportpalast in Berlin, on 30 January 1940. English translation – Sons of Liberty, 1977

Katz, David Brock. General Jan Smuts and his First World War in Africa, 1914–1917: Incorporating His German South West and East Africa Campaigns. Delta. 2022.

Kleynhans, Evert – Hitler’s Spies, Secret agents and the intelligence war in South Africa, 1939 to 1945. Jonathan Ball. 2021

Landwehr, Richard. Britisches Freikorps: British Volunteers of the Waffen-SS 1943 to 1945. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012

Milton, Shain. A Perfect Storm – Antisemitism in South Africa 1930-1948. Jonathan Ball. 2015

Mouton, F.A. The Opportunist: The Political Life of Oswald Pirow, 1915-1959. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis. 2022

Pugh, M. ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’ – Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars. Pimlico. 2006

Roos, Neil. Ordinary Springboks: White Servicemen and Social Justice in South Africa,1939-1961 Ashgate: Aldershot 2005.

Seth, Ronald. Jackals of the Reich: the story of the British Free Corps. New English Library. 1973

Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Simon and Schuster. 1974 edition.

Smuts, J.C. Jan Christian Smuts by his Son. London Cassell. 1952.

Stein, George. The Waffen SS : Hitler’s elite guard at war, 1939-1945. Cornell University Press. 1984.

Strydom, Hans. For Volk and Führer: Robey Leibbrandt & Operation Weissdorn. Jonathan Ball. 1982

Van Rensburg, Hans. Their Paths Crossed Mine: Memoirs of the Commandant-General of the Ossewa-Brandwag. Central News Agency. 1956.

Visser, George C. OB: Traitors or Patriots. Macmillian. 1976

Weal, Adrian. ‘Army of Evil: A History of the SS’. Penguin. 2012

Weal, Adrian. ‘Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen’. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1994

Weal, Adrian. ‘Patriot Traitors: Roger Casement John Amery and the Real Meaning of Treason’. Viking. 2001

Weal, Adrian. Army of Evil: A History of the SS. International Edition. 2013

Weal, Adrian SS: A New History. International Edition. 2012

Wegner, Bernd. The Waffen-SS: Organization, Ideology and Function. First Edition. 1990.

Williamson, Gordon. The SS: Hitler’s Instrument of Terror. 2004

West, Rebecca. The Meaning of Treason. London: Macmillan & Co Ltd. 1949.

Thesis and Dissertations

Bloomberg, Charles. Christian Nationalism and the Rise of the Afrikaner Broederbond in South Africa, 1918 to 1948. Indiana University Press. 1989 

Bouwer, Werner. National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa: The case of L.T. Weichardt and his Greyshirt movements, 1933-1946

Delport, Anri. Changing attitudes of South Africans towards Italy and its people during the Second World War, 1939 to 1945. Historia vol.58 n.1 Durban Jan. 2013

Fokkens, A.M. Afrikaner unrest within South Africa during the Second World War and the measures taken to supress it. Journal for Contemporary History 37/2. 2012

Furlong, Patrick J. Allies at War? Britain and the Southern African Front in the Second World War. South African Historical Journal 54/1. 2009

Furlong Patrick Jonathan – National Socialism, the National Party and the radical right in South Africa, 1933-1948 (D.Phil. Thesis, University of California, 1990

Furlong, Patrick J. Pro-Nazi Subversion in South Africa, 1939-1941. 1988. Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 16(1)

Grundlingh, Albert. ‘The King’s Afrikaners? Enlistment and Ethnic Identity in the Union of South Africa’s Defence Force during the Second World War 1939-45’. Journal of African History 40 (1999).

Hattingh, Isak. Nasionaal-Sosialisme en die Gryshemp-beweging in Suid-Afrika (D.Phil. Thesis, University of the Orange Free State, 1989)

Horn, Karen. ‘Researching South African Prisoners-of-War Experience During World War II : Historiography, Archives and Oral Testimony’. Journal for Contemporary History 39, no. 2 (2014).

Horn, Karen. ‘South African Prisoner- Prisoner -of-War Experience during and after World War II : 1939 – c . 1950’. Stellenbosch University, 2012.

Katz, David B. A Case of Arrested Development: The Historiography Relating to South Africa’s Participation in the Second World War. Scientia Militaria 40/3. 2012

Marx, Christoph. Ox wagon Sentinel: Radical Afrikaner Nationalism and the History of the Ossewabrandwag. South African University Press. 2008

Macklin, Graham. ‘Very Deeply Dyed in Black’ Sir Oswald Mosley and the Resurrection of British Fascism After 1945.  Bloomsbury Academic. 2007

Monama, Frankie. Wartime Propaganda In the Union of South Africa, 1939 – 1945. Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. 2014

Mouton, F.A. 2018 ‘Beyond the Pale’ Oswald Pirow, Sir Oswald Mosley, the ‘enemies of the Soviet Union’ and Apartheid 1948 – 1959. UNISA, Journal for Contemporary History 2018

Roos, Neil. ‘The Springbok and the Skunk: War Veterans and the Politics of Whiteness in South Africa during the 1940s and 1950s’. Journal of Southern African Studies 35, no. 3 (2009).

Sacks, Benjamin. Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism: 1937. New Mexico Quarterly. Volume 7, issue 4, Article 4.

Scher, David M. Echoes of David Irving – The Greyshirt Trial of 1934.

Thomas, M.J. The Waffen SS 1933-45 ‘Soldiers, just like the others’? Part 1. South African Military History Journal Vol 12 No 5 – June 2003.

Werner, Bouwer. National Socialism and Nazism in South Africa: The case of L.T. Weichardt and his Greyshirt movements, 1933-1946

Archives – United Kingdom

Information about UK renegades from the Continent of Europe. names and details of British and other renegades who worked for the German cause during the war, including membership of the British Free Corps. KV2/3581

National Archives, Kew:  Disposal of non-German nationals who served in Wehrmacht or Waffen SS. WO 309/1424

National Archives, Kew:  Department Inland II: Geheim: Recruitment of foreign-based Germans to the Waffen SS. GFM 33/2254/5239

National Archives, Kew:  Renegades and Persons suspected or convicted of assisting the Enemy: COOPER, Thomas Heller, one-time member of the British Union; served in the Waffen SS. HO 45/25805

Private Paper Archives – UK

University of Birmingham: Oswald Mosley papers: Nicholas Moseley Collection, 19 Boxes. Reference OMN

Archives – South Africa

National Archives and Record Service of South Africa (Pretoria, South Africa). Public Records of Central Government since 1910.

Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 44.

Special Criminal Courts (SCC). Box 45.

Secretary of Justice. Box 1620

Secretary of Justice. Box 1621

Secretary of Justice. Box 1622

Churchill behind the mask

Sir Winston Churchill the drunk? Nazi propaganda did a very good job painting Churchill as a drunk and glutton, in the Nazi Propaganda Ministry’s block buster of about the Boer War “Uncle Kruger” Ohm Krüger (1941), Churchill is depicted as a Concentration Camp Commandant, complete with bulldog, which whilst feasting himself he also feeds prime cuts to his bulldog, all the time whilst his Boer women and children in the camp are being starved to death.1

Churchill as depicted in Ohm Krüger (1941)

In another propaganda poster – this one from Serbia during World War 2, called ‘Churchill behind the mask’. After taking off his mask shown to the public, halo and all, a Jewish star now above his head and showing a drunken, haggard face and whiskey bottle in his pocket.

The poster falls part of an anti-Semitic campaign called ‘The Grand Anti-Masonic Exhibition’, which opened in Belgrade, in occupied Serbia on 22 October 1941. Financed by Nazi Germans and opened with the support of collaborationist leader Milan Nedić. Although being anti-Masonic in its title, the primary purpose was to promote antisemitic ideology and intensify hatred of Jews – ironically Churchill was a Freemason for a short time, but that is coincidental.

A famous quote has also entered the lexicon of Winston Churchill as proof positive he was a ‘drunk’ (bear in mind its the only quote) – Churchill was accompanied Ronald Golding his bodyguard and whilst exiting the Parliament building and he was confronted by Bessie Braddock, a fellow MP, who said:

Bessie Braddock: “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.”

Churchill replied: “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.”

A lush surely this Churchill fellow must be, he said so – right? Turns out Ronald Golding later admitted Churchill was not drunk that night, merely exhausted and unsteady. Being tired he gave Braddock both barrels, and what he quoted was from his rather photographic memory, and it was a W.C Fields character in the movie “its a gift” who when told he is drunk, responds, “Yeah, and you’re crazy. But I’ll be sober tomorrow and you’ll be crazy the rest of your life.” So, the Bessie Braddock encounter was really Churchill editing and reciting W. C. Fields.2

Was Churchill known for drinking? In fact no member of his family ever saw Churchill the worse for drink, they saw him drink yes, but never ‘drunk’. Richard M. Langworth spent 40 years researching Churchill and only found one reference of him been drunk … it came from a military staffer who helped Churchill and Eden on a wobbly walk back to the British Embassy in Teheran, this after a late-night of mutual toasts with the Russians.3

Whilst it is true that at the on-set of the South African War (1899-1902) – Churchill, the son of a Baron and part of British well-to-do society, aged 25 and acting as a correspondent on the Morning Post took with him 36 bottles of wine, 18 bottles of ten-year old scotch, and 6 bottles of vintage brandy. Such was the arrogance of aristocracy in addition to this booze cabinet he also took a valet with him to South Africa. However, if you step back from this and see that Churchill took with him a full year’s supply, then that ‘booze’ cabinet hardly makes a mark.4

With this Churchill became synonymous with two things according to modern writers – alcohol and war.

In one famous wartime episode during World War 2, when George VI set a personal example to the troops by giving up alcohol, Churchill declared the whole idea absurd and announced he would not be giving up drink just because the King had.5

He also became synonymous with excess when it came to food, cigars and alcohol, he was known to consume high degrees of relatively low ABV Champagne and watered down brandy. On the food front he detested the idea of the ‘French’ manner of serving seven courses starting with an aperitif and ending with a small dessert. On the ‘formal 7 course’ menu he would start with the meal he enjoyed the most and end on the one he enjoyed least.6

He started the day (every-day) with a small whiskey and water, his daughter would recall it as the “Papa Cocktail” – a smidgen of Johnnie Walker covering the bottom of a tumbler, which was then filled with water and sipped throughout the morning. This practice Winston Churchill learned as a Victorian habit – as a young man in India and South Africa (see My Early Life) he writes that the water was unfit to drink, and one had to add whisky and, “by dint of careful application I learned to like it.”7 Jock Colville, his private secretary would say of the ‘papa cocktail’ that it was so watered down it was akin to mouthwash.8

He however was renowned, not for drinking whiskey, but for drinking brandy and champagne both at lunchtime and dinner, and he was renowned for putting away copious amounts of it. He averaged on 500ml of 12.5% ABV Pol Roger Champagne for lunch and 500ml of Pol Roger Champagne for dinner along with a couple of diluted brandy glasses per day – in all this is estimated about 150ml AA per day. It certainly is ‘heavy drinking’ by any standard but in context of his time Russian delegations meeting him, thought of him as a ‘lightweight’ on this front. Having also said that, large amounts of adult population in South Africa still consume a bottle of wine and a couple of spirit chasers a day – 150ml AA. Only on reaching 76 years of age did Churchill decide to ‘cut down’ a little and said:

“I am trying to cut down on alcohol. I have knocked off brandy and take Cointreau instead. I disliked whiskey at first. It was only when I was a subaltern in India, and there was a choice between dirty water and dirty water with some whiskey in it, that I got to like it. I have always, since that time, made a point of keeping in practice.”9

Churchill would also not “nurse” a bottle of alcohol the way a alcoholic would, and seldom drank ‘neat’ spirits (preferring not to), unlike alcoholics he also did not drink randomly during the day, sticking to mealtimes instead, and even then none of his colleagues ever reported seeing Churchill the worse for drink. Thus Churchill’s famous quip:

“I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.”10

Very famously, Churchill was knocked down by a car New York in 1931 during the American Prohibition 1920 – 1933 on alcohol (he was looking the wrong way), Dr. Otto C. Pickhardt attended to him, actually issued a medical note that Churchill’s medical condition “necessitates the use of alcoholic spirits especially at mealtimes,” specifying 250cc per day as the minimum. A little cheeky to overcome the rigours of Prohibition perhaps, but this is not a sign of dependency – 5 years after this incident in 1936 he took a bet with Rothermere that he could abstain from hard spirits for a year – which apparently he did.11

Churchill’s famous ‘Doctor’s note’

After World War 2, he developed a reputation for really enjoying food and drink, One visitor from the period noted: “There is always some alcohol in his blood, and it reaches its peak late in the evening after he has had two or three scotches, several glasses of champagne, at least two brandies, and a highball… but his family never sees him the worst for drink.”

That is the point with Churchill, he drank copious amounts of alcohol – no doubt, but he ‘held his booze’ remarkably well, he was never really totally inebriated or ‘drunk’ in fact he detested drunks and could not stand been out of control of his faculties and senses. He was raised as an aristocrat, he believed drunkenness to be contemptible and disgusting, and a fault in which no gentleman indulged.

He also had a very healthy mental appreciation for alcohol and remarked, “my father taught me to have the utmost contempt for people who get drunk.” adding to this he said that a glass of Champagne lifts the spirits, sharpens the wits, but “a bottle produces the opposite effect.”12 Here we also note that Churchill throughout his life kept his wits about him and kept them as sharp as ever.

Churchill with his favourite tipple – Pol Roger champagne

The image of excess is often even associated with Churchill’s disposition to smoking cigars. However very few people know that he seldom smoked more than a third of a cigar, allowing the cigar to burn itself out instead and if anything he took to chewing the end, using it more as image prop than anything else.13

On the physical health front, Churchill did have a heart attack during World War 2, how much of that was excess and how much of it stress is anyone’s guess, however he did recover remarkably well, Dr. Mather, his Doctor reported that Churchill’s blood pressure was a very healthy and very consistent 140/80 well into his eighties.14 In fact most of Churchill’s accompanying younger male military personnel and politicians complained that they could hardly keep up with him, his energy and pace, the speed at which he did everything was legendary. He lived to 90 years old, and died of a stroke – a very long and fruitful innings and not one marred by any alcohol related sickness like liver failure/disease.16

Was he an alcoholic? The general opinion amongst some medical practitioners and historians is that he was not. He demonstrated no real medical signs of a person associated with alcoholism. Did he ‘abuse’ alcohol in our 21st century understanding of excessive drinking and functional alcoholism – yes, no doubt in this context you would place him as someone who abused alcohol for his own edification and enjoyment (of course he would have no idea what you were talking about, as a Victorian born in 1874 faced with a 2024 definition of alcoholism – the modern-day idea simply would not compute).

As to the propaganda, the relentless drive by Hitler and his Nazi Propaganda Ministry to paint Churchill as a glutton and a drunk – rather surprisingly that is the legacy which carries to this day. As an example I once posted Churchill’s medals on a Boer War social media group, it was met with a particular nasty Anglophobic Afrikaner who warned users that Churchill was a rabid alcoholic and his alcohol addled, warmongering mind was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people – the devil reincarnate – and I should be ‘very weary’ of who I regard as ‘my hero’ or he would have a few more things to say about him.

Now, I’m a South African – the simple fact he thinks of Churchill as ‘mine’ denotes a massive bias on his behalf and ironically I fear alcohol in the form of far too much ‘branders’ has fuelled his outlook – however, it is interesting to note that in this grouping Churchill’s legacy is still viewed by some in the light of propaganda and not the actual historiography of the man.


Written and Researched by Peter Dickens

Footnotes

  1. H Steinhoff, Ohm Krüger (1941, Tobis Film, Screenshot from YouTube) ↩︎
  2. R Langworth, Drunk and Ugly: The Rumour Mill, International Churchill Society 10 January 2011 [accessed 12 August 2024] ↩︎
  3. Langworth, Drunk and Ugly: The Rumour Mill ↩︎
  4. PA Dickens, How South Africa Forged Churchill, 22 April 2018 [accessed 12 August 2024] ↩︎
  5. Langworth, Drunk and Ugly: The Rumour Mill ↩︎
  6. B Johnson, The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History (London: Hodder & Stoughton), 2015 ↩︎
  7. WS Churchill, My Early Life: 1874-1904 (London: Thornton Butterworth) 1930 ↩︎
  8. M Richards, Alcohol Abuser, International Churchill Society 29 August 2008 [accessed 12 August 2024] ↩︎
  9. Langworth, Drunk and Ugly: The Rumour Mill ↩︎
  10. Richards, Alcohol Abuser ↩︎
  11. Ibid ↩︎
  12. Idid ↩︎
  13. Ibid ↩︎
  14. Ibid ↩︎
  15. Johnson, The Churchill Factor ↩︎

Hitler’s Boer War

This is a famous speech, 30th January 1940 at the Sportspalast by Adolf Hitler and it had a significant impact on South Africa which very few people know about today. It’s Hitler’s take on the South African War (1899-1902) a.k.a. Boer War 2.

The speech is a lash out against Britain for declaring war against Nazi Germany for the invasion of Poland. Hitler in his speech seeks to paint Britain and the warmonger – and not Germany who we paints as Britain’s victim after the Treaty of Versailles – which he equates as Britain’s “Bible” as they have forsaken God and Christianity in favour of greed and materialism (unlike the God fearing Germans who keep a puritan faith).

To view Hitler’s speech on 30th January 1940 at the Sportspalast in full, here’s the YouTube link:

To ground his argument he uses the Boer War, and makes two significant points, he says:

“They (Britain) waged war for gold mines and mastery over diamond mines.”

Then later in the speech Hitler says:

“When has England ever stopped at women and children? 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, a war on women and children. It was there (South Africa) that the concentration camps were invented, in an English brain this idea was born. We only had to look up the term in the dictionary and later copy it .. with only one difference, England locked up women and children in their camps. Over 20,000 Boer women (and children) died wretchedly at the time. So why would England fight differently today?” 

Now, I’ve seen people on social media immediately conclude that this is yet another rant of a mad-man, Hitler was a megalomaniac with more mental issues than you wave a stick at. As for Nazism – that’s pure evil, nothing to do with good Christians, Afrikaners and the Boer War thanks – no words from the madman here, linking Hitler and World War 2 to the Boer War is mischievous and contentious!

But here is a problem, this is 1940, Hitler is at the absolute pinnacle of his power. Nazism is at the absolute zenith of its popularity – millions, literally millions of Europeans are in favour of the “The Third Reich”. People today don’t really understand what the ‘The Third Reich’ was all about … in a modern construct its a early form of the European Union, only the EU head office is not in Brussels its in Berlin – the Third Reich is all about free trade, semi-open borders, freedom of movement and freedom to assimilate and commercially transact in Europe – its a wealth generator. It’s about respect for “cultural boundaries” according to Hitler – but in reality he’s hoodwinking again – behind the scenes it is in fact a “vampire economy” as Germany gears all its production from food to armaments to war and directs all economies to itself and its nefarious ends.

Adolf Hitler giving a speech at the Berlin Sportspalast

You can hear about all of this in the first 10 minutes of Adolf Hitler’s speech – its a utopian concept, and millions across Europe – in Germany, Austria, Fascist Italy, Hungary, Romania, Fascist Spain – even Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands and literally the whole of the south of France (Vichy France) are into this free trade union with Germany (in fact by definitions of the EU they still are – and immediately after the war ended they strove to get back to it only this time with a different leadership construct without the ‘vampire economy’ ideal).

The speech is also music to the ears of South African Neo-Nazi movements on the far right political spectrum in South Africa, the “cultural fronts” of Afrikaner Nationalism – The Ossewabrandwag, the Grey Shirts, the Black Shirts, The Boerenasie Party and the New Order. All have adopted National Socialism in one form or another and all have declared open admiration for Adolf Hitler – and he’s saying the right stuff, Britain is the warmonger, Britain is greedy for Boer gold and diamonds and Britain waged genocide against Boer women and children. A European world leader, an iconoclast in 1940, a national hero to millions said so. This speech streaming into Afrikaner homes across South Africa by Radio Zeesen (the Nazi Germany’s foreign radio service also broadcasting in Afrikaans).

Mein Kampf

And what’s not to like about Hitler in 1940, he’s a firm fan of the Afrikaner Nationalist cause and shares the ‘politics of pain’ of the Boer War with them. Hitler would write of the Boer War in his autobiography Mein Kampf in 1935: 

“The Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the far horizon. Day after day I used to gaze intently at the newspapers … overjoyed to think that I could witness that heroic struggle.”

Hitler would put his money where his mouth is and engage his propaganda ministry to drive his opinion on the Boer War, Joseph Goebbels on 19 April 1940, on Hitler’s birthday speech, would broadcast over Radio Zeesen (and others), and he said:

“Get rid of the Führer or so-called Hitlerism … 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” 

Dr Erik Holm – the South African Afrikaans broadcaster for Radio Zeesen would recall Hitler’s open admiration for General Christiaan De Wet during the Boer War and his guerrilla tactics in flummoxing the British – from conversations he personally had with the Führer on the Boer War.

Ohm Krüger

Then there is Ohm Krüger (1941), a movie about the Boer War – Joseph Goebbels’ masterpiece. Winner of the Reich Propaganda Ministry’s “Film of the Nation” rating (one of only 4). A propaganda masterpiece which would reach millions all across Europe, complete with a massacre at the end of hundreds of Boer women as they are mowed down execution style by a skirmish line of British tommies (a scene repeated by Nazi Germany against Jews all over Europe).

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’.

Waffen SS

The Boer War and Paul Kruger are even used by the Nazi propaganda ministry for recruitment into Dutch Corps of the Waffen SS. In fact the Dutch and Belgians in the Waffen SS Regiment Westland and other SS corps and Wehrmacht formations made up over 25,000 members – the backbone of the Waffen SS.

Press Junkets

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 encyclopaedia opening it at “Konzentratinslager” (concentration camp) 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.

Nationalism – two separate peas, same pod!

That the Boer War is nuanced was not on Hitler’s agenda, the fact that the British did not “invent” the concentration camp, the fact that diamonds were already on British soil, the fact that the gold mines in the Transvaal were already owned by British and German private consortiums, the fact that the Boers also first brought ‘British’ women and children into the conflict by driving the ‘Uitlander’ population out of Johannesburg, including all the black mine labour, then declaring war and invading British sovereign territories and laying their towns to siege (with British citizens – black and white – in them). All this mattered not a jot to Adolf Hitler.

Hitler in his speech and radio broadcasts is also reinforcing Anglophobia and Republicanism, 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”.

Two people in history play a significant role in generating myths around the Boer War, building into it Afrikaner nationalism constructs and identifying trigger areas for the “politics of pain” necessary for a Christian Nationalism or National Socialism ideology to surface and survive. Known as Hegemonic Nationalism this shared type of Nationalism needs an identified “internal” economic enemy and a “external” political enemy – all grounded on a specified nation’s ‘trauma’. In the case of German National Socialism, it’s World War 1, the Treatise of Versailles is the villainous instrument, the economic enemy is “Judaeo-Capital” profiteering off their misery. In the case of Afrikaner Christian Nationalism it’s Boer War 2, the British concentration camps the villainous instrument, the economic enemy is “British-Judaeo Capital” (“Hoggenheimer”) profiteering off their misery.

The first chap to build up all this nationalism is a fellow by the name of Henning Klopper – he is the Chairman of Afrikaner Broederbond in 1940, Klopper survives a Boer War concentration camp at the tender age of 6 and cannot understand why his older brother is isolated with measles, assuming that Britain murdered him and its all a campaign of genocide – Klopper would use this to principally guide Christian Nationalism as the Broederbond’s official ideology.

The other person is Adolf Hitler himself, one cannot under-estimate his influence, it still influences how the Boer War is seen and understood in Europe to this day – an example is the British “invention” of concentration camps – a myth which still holds right across Europe, the British used the concept of concentrating civilians in camps whilst they fought a guerrilla war (like the Spanish and the United States before them) no doubt there, but they certainly did not “invent” the concept (the Spanish did). To dismiss Hitler as irrelevant to the Boer War is to dismiss factual and relevant history and in fact to censor it for no good reason serves only to distort history.

In Conclusion

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 ideology of Krugerism with Weimar Eugenics to create Afrikaner Christian Nationalism certainly creates a linear relationship and reinforces the argument on exactly who is culpable for the ideals of Apartheid.


Written and Researched by Peter Dickens

Related work:

The Nazification of the Afrikaner Right – Torch Commando series – Link here: The Nazification of the Afrikaner Right

Uncle Kruger – the movie and the myth – link here: Oom Kruger, the man, the movie, the myth!

British-Judaeo Capital – Hoggenheimer – Link here: Just whistling an innocent ‘toon’

The myth around the invention of concentration camps – Link here: Debunking the myth that the British invented the ‘concentration camp’

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.

Pro-Nazi Subversion in South Africa, 1939-1941: By Patrick J. Furlong.

The Rise of the Afrikaner Reich: Published 1964. By Brian Bunting

Oom Kruger, the man, the movie, the myth!

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. 

To see the full interview between Jacob Rees-Mogg (right) and Grace Blakeley (left) follow this BBC link: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-47247835

Wading into this fracas to “set Rees-Mogg strait” comes Professor Fransjohan Pretorius from the University of Pretoria, using equally emotionally charged language.

To see Professor Fransjohan Pretorius’ full response follow this link: https://theconversation.com/concentration-camps-in-the-south-african-war-here-are-the-real-facts-112006

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. 

To read a little in-depth more on this, follow this link to an Observation Post article: Debunking the myth that the British invented the ‘concentration camp’

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).

To see a full article on this Waffen SS campaign using Boer War triggers, follow this Observation Post link: ‘Waffen SS’ uses the Boer War to recruit the Dutch

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.