First Boer War

Why did the British do so badly during this war?
The Brits literally lost every single battle/siege. Why were the Brits terrible and how were the Boers so good?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Brits weren't used to fighting an enemy on an even semi-equal technological aspect

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The British have a historically poor track record when it comes to non-naval warfare

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did the British do so badly during this war?

    No strong ally to carry them
    They can fight alone against brownoids but not against fellow whites

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They can fight alone against brownoids
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      British, unlike the French or the Germans, have never fought by themselves against every other major european power. Frauds.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you find a point of pride in your country's diplomatic efforts being so bad you managed to get every other European power against you. You don't get a steam achivement from fighting every other faction at the same time like it's a paradox game lol

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is diplomacy what they call having a considerable body of water between you and your opponents these days?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, the diplomacy is not being at war with every major european power

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When have germans fought anyone alone? They always had a league of allies and got their asses whooped anyway

        >They can fight alone against brownoids
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

        ??
        Brits won in the end

        Brits weren't used to fighting an enemy on an even semi-equal technological aspect

        fpbp

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >use the rest of europe to defeat napoleon
    >use turks and frogs to take on the ruskies in crimea
    >get btfo during the first boer war
    >only win the second boer war because they target women and children causing boers to surrender
    >frick up gallipoli
    >surrender at kut and forced onto a death march in the desert
    >the only reward after the march is getting raped by smelly arabs
    >try to use frogs as meat shileds on the western front, but realise that isn't going to be enough
    >get completely btfo over the course of one day on the somme
    >their best general throughout ww1 isn't even a brit but an aussie
    >run away at dunkirk
    >run away at greece
    >spend years fighting against 2 german divisions in the desert
    >surrender at hong kong
    >mass surrender at singapore against a much smaller force
    >autistically land at the bottom of italy for no reason whatsoever
    >seethe moan and b***h about not getting to do another moronic landing this time in the balkans
    >only do a proper second front when their american master says so
    >only move on the japs when they're an already defeated starving disease ridden enemy
    The Brits have never been good on land.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >their best general throughout ww1 isn't even a brit but an aussie
      Like the Australians weren't British? Australia was a British colony populated by British people who referred to GB as "home" and called British-islanders "homies". The British flag was also featured quite prominently in the wartime propaganda put out by the Aussies themselves.
      >British force surrenders at Singapore
      So now Imperial troops are British again? The majority of the Garrison was Aussies, Indians, et cetera. And they werent very good for the most part: that is why they were 2nd rate garrison troops.
      The Japanese had way more tanks than the British empire forces did afaik.
      I'm not even a bongaloid so spare me the nationalist seethin', I just had to reply to this sillyness

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You do know that the Wavell report and Peter Elphick’s books were DEBOOKED a long time ago right?
        Their claims of Aussies mass deserting, getting drunk and raping had zero physical evidence backing it up. Similarly my favourite one of their claims about a certain New Zealander also had no little to no hard evidence to prove it was even decisive, you know the one I’m talking about, that a:
        >super evil pro jap kiwi spy traitor sent the enemy the secret codes which made the japs somehow win…just don’t ask how it made them win..p-please don’t ask it just somehow did ok…it had nothing to do with percival and it most definitely had absolutely NOTHING to do with wavell
        Kek yeah no, Singapore fell due to a shit officer corps.
        Historians from all over the commonwealth (excluding the likes of Elphick who isn’t even a real historian) have been asking for some actual hard evidence of any of these claims for over 80 years and I’m sure they will be asking them for many more years to come. For they will forever be simply nothing more than Wavell and Co’s hearsay only believed by the most hardcore of Anglophiles looking for any scapegoat they can possibly find, instead of simply accepting the truth.
        Simple as.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Historians from all over the commonwealth (excluding the likes of Elphick who isn’t even a real historian)
          You were ranting in the other thread that Elphicks views represented the mainstream among 'Anglo' historians when it was convenient, now he's widely considered a clown among those same circles?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well it seems he is viewed as a reliable source amongst a good portion of right wing Brits. But yes he’s viewed as a clown by just about everyone else.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    American here. Why does Britain arouse such coping and seething? It reminds me of the way Euro-peons (including the British themselves) cope & seethe at America, and Americans. Are the British the "America" of Europe?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nooooo you’re not allowed to talk about an event that IQfygays have never talked about cause muh feelings waaaaaaaaa 🙁
      Go cry me a river homosexual

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      brits do their own thing and europeans hate that

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *