The Forum > Article Comments > Edward Presgrave and the Boer War > Comments
Edward Presgrave and the Boer War : Comments
By Peter Curson, published 11/10/2019Many young Australians denied enlistment because of age, and excited by the prospect of defending the British Empire, made their own way across and sought enlistment in an irregular unit.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 11 October 2019 9:13:10 AM
| |
Australia's participation in the Boer conflict is regularly portrayed as gratuitous... and here also.
But there were important geo-political considerations at stake that validated our involvement. At that time, Australia was utterly dependent on Britain's navy for its defence. Much more than we are currently dependent on the US forces now. Had South Africa fallen into the hands of hostile forces then the links with Britain would have been threatened and Australia's defence compromised. It was very much in Australia's interests that Britain be victorious against the Boers. Hence our involvement. Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 12 October 2019 11:31:10 AM
| |
Some people just can't accept that situations change ! And, when they do change for the better these same people want to tear it all apart because of what happened 150 years ago !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 13 October 2019 2:10:22 AM
| |
It seems to me they were Aussie fools who weren't actually defending the British Empire any more than defending Rothschilds De Beers diamond mines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers "The Second Boer War proved to be a challenging time for the company. Kimberley was besieged as soon as war broke out, thereby threatening the company's valuable mines. Rhodes personally moved into the city at the onset of the siege in order to put political pressure on the British government to divert military resources towards relieving the siege rather than more strategic war objectives. Despite being at odds with the military, Rhodes placed the full resources of the company at the disposal of the defenders, manufacturing shells, defenses, an armoured train and a gun named Long Cecil in the company workshops. Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 13 October 2019 6:42:11 AM
| |
Pretty standard AC there.
The thought process (so to speak) goes like this: If there's a conflict, a problem of any sought at any time in any place, just go looking for the nearest Jew and then, magically, the conflict/problem is both caused by and is about said Jew. And no matter the outcome of said conflict/problem, said Jew came out on top. I'm pretty sure that if I started a thread on the extinction of the dinosaur, AC would decree that it was caused by the nearest Semite Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 October 2019 3:29:59 PM
| |
Hey mhaze,
Is that your argument or a tantrum? Look if the author had've pointed it out himself I wouldn't have had to. Given this family had within it members of British parliament as well as being bankers to the crown, it's not necessarily out of place to point out a mutual interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_de_Rothschild If you think there was no mutual interest then feel free to argue there was no mutual interest. I'm not an expert historian on this topic, I don't know. But I was planning on having a better look at this 'Handbook of the Boer War' when I have more time. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15699 Given that Cecil Rhodes founded the Round Table groups, which went on to help found: The Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderberg Group, The Trilateral Commission, The Royal institute of International Affairs, The UN and The Club of Rome I thought it might be important... http://youtu.be/_hzYvN1Clfc Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 13 October 2019 4:55:57 PM
|
Alan B.