http://www.bowlerhat.com.au/sawvl/con-camps.html

The mother sat on her little trunk with the child across her knee. She had nothing to give it and the child was sinking fast. We watched the child draw its last breath in reverent silence. The mother neither moved nor wept. Dry-eyed but deathly white she sat there... in the depths of grief beyond all tears.
Emily Hobhouse

In our country...December was a month of pleasure, but now it opened instead with sorrow. For it was this day, the 1st of December, that old Tant' Hannie died...It was hard to believe that she had gone from amongst us, for whom she had filled so large a place...I never thought with my eyes to see so much misery...tents emptied by death. I went one day to the hospital and there lay a child of nine years to wrestle alone with death. I asked...where I could find the child's mother. The answer was that the mother died a week before, the father is in Ceylon, that very morning her sister of 11 died. I pitied the poor little sufferer as I looked upon her...There was not even a tear in my own eyes, for weep I could no more. I stood beside her and watched until a stupefying grief overwhelmed my soul...
Diary of Alie Badenhorst
1st December 1901.


These camps were places where African and Boer women and children and Boer men unfit for service were herded together by the British army during the War. Many of these people had become homeless as a result of the destructive tactics which the British army adopted in the Transvaal and Orange Free State after the last months of 1900 in order to deprive the Boer commandos of the means of subsistence and thus force their surrender. Attempts had been first made to burden the combatants with these dependents in the hope of breaking the morale of the commandos. When this proved unsuccessful, it was decided to house the non-combatants in camps.
The first two of these were established, as a result of a military notice of 22 September, 1900, to protect the families of burghers who had surrendered voluntarily. As the families of combatant burghers were also driven into these camps, they ceased to be 'refugee' camps and acquired the 'concentration' camp designation, as did other camps established later in the War. Eventually there were 50 camps, in which about 136 000 people were interned. So inefficiently were they organised and managed that they soon became notorious throughout the world. The families were conveyed to the camps by ox-wagon, trolley or railway train - usually in open coal- or cattle trucks without any sanitary arrangements - or they even marched on foot. They were swept together 'higgledy-piggledy' to use Milner's terms. No proper provision had been made for their housing. Numbers of them had at first to make shift in the open until tents - many almost useless - were provided, or were held in hutments in the camps. Those who did not receive tents were, according to the report of the British commission of inquiry, placed,

in every conceivable kind of dwelling, from a church vestry, hotel and store to a blacksmith's forge.
In the opinion of the Commission some of the places were hardly suitable for pigs. As there were insufficient blankets, clothes and other means of protection, and sometimes not even beds or mattresses, the internees were exposed, especially on the Highveld of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, to extreme privations which undermined their strength, more especially in the case of the large numbers of small children.

The food supplies in the camps, which were often established on badly chosen sites and were dangerously overcrowded from the start, was wretched. Not only was the food inadequate, but the quality, especially of the meat, sugar and flour, was at first very poor, while vegetables, fruit and other essential foodstuffs were not supplied at all; consequently, many of the inmates, especially children, wasted away to living skeletons within a few months. One British camp doctor felt compelled to report that,



on account of the deficiency in diet the children especially become emaciated and have very little resisting power to disease.
The sanitation, too, was very inefficient. No adequate provision was made for the disposal of garbage, and the latrines were so primitive that they became breeding-grounds for germs and areas of infection. So disease, particularly measles, broke out in the camps during 1901 and, as there were not enough doctors or other medical care, the death-rate became appallingly high. The climax was in October, 1901, when the figure was 326 per 1 000 per year for the Transvaal camps and 401 per 1 000 per year for those in the Orange Free State. The reports of camp superintendents as well as those of Emily Hobhouse showed that this was due to the bad conditions, and there was an outcry from the whole world, including England itself. This forced the British government to order a full investigation by a committee of prominent women, and sweeping changes were made in accordance with their recommendations.
As a result of these changes, introduced toward the close of 1901, and which included great improvements in housing, sanitation, food-supply, medical attention, and protection against cold, the death-rate immediately dropped and by March 1902, was back to 'normal'.

In total, approximately 27 927 persons died in the camps - 1 676 mainly elderly men, 4 177 women and 22 074 children under 16.

The terrible prospect...that the continuation of the war would in that manner eradicate our whole generation,
was one of the main reasons why the Boers ceased fighting and acknowledged defeat. It left a deeper impression on the Afrikaner's mind than perhaps any other event in their history, and seemed more than anything else to strengthen their determination to strive for national self-preservation and the recovery of political independence.



http://www.bowlerhat.com.au/sawvl/images/image3-a.jpg

http://www.bowlerhat.com.au/sawvl/images/lillyvanzyl_th.gif

http://www.bowlerhat.com.au/sawvl/images/child_emac_th.gif

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm

The Concentration Camps
1. Introduction

The concentration camps in which Britain killed 27 000 Boer women and children(24000) during the Second War of Independence (1899 - 1902) today still have far-reaching effects on the existence of the Boerevolk.

This holocaust once more enjoyed close scrutiny during the visit of the queen of England to South Africa, when ten organisations promoting the independence of the Boer Republics, presented her with a message, demanding that England redress the wrongs committed against the Boerevolk.

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/familieaankoms.gif
Family arrived at the consentration camp

2. Background

The Second War of Independence was fought from 1899 to 1902 when England laid her hands on the mineral riches of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal) under the false pretence of protecting the rights of the foreigners who swarmed to the Transvaal gold fields.

On the battlefield England failed to get the better of the Boers, and decided to stoop to a full-scale war against the Boer women and children, employing a holocaust to force the burghers to surrender.

3. Course of the holocaust

3.1. The war against women and children begins

Under the command of Kitchener, Milner and Roberts, more than homesteads and farms belonging to Boer people were plundered and burned down. Animals belonging to the Boers were killed in the cruelest ways possible while the women, whose men were on the battlefield, had to watch helplessly.

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/doodskape.gif
Killing sheep

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/doodskape2.gif
Leaving the sheep rotten

3.2. False pretences

To the world England pretended to act very humanely by caring for the fighting Boers' women and children in "refugee camps". An English school textbook published in 1914 in Johannesburg, but printed in England, Historical Geography: South Africa, by JR Fisher, makes the following claim:

"During the later stages of the war, the relations, women and

children, of those Boers still in the field, were fed and cared

for at the expense of Great Britain, a method of procedure which,

though humane, postponed the end of the war, at the expense of

many valuable lives and much money."


This statement is contradicted by various sources. The Cape Argus of 21 June 1900 clearly states that the destitution of these women and children was the result of the English's plundering of farms: "Within 10 miles we (the English) burned not less than six farm homesteads. Between 30 and 40 homesteads were burned and totally destroyed between Bloemfontein and Boshoff. Many others were also burned down. With their houses destroyed, the women and children were left in the bitter South African winter in the open." The British history text book says nothing about this.


Awfully generous of the English to care for those whose houses they destroyed!

Breytenbach writes in Danie Theron: "The destruction was undertaken in a diabolic way and even Mrs Prinsloo, a 22 year old lady who gave birth to a baby only 24 hours ago in the house of Van Niekerk, was not spared. A group of rude tommies (British soldiers), amongst whom a so-called English doctor, forced their way into her room, and after making a pretence of examining her, they drove her out of the house. With the aid of her sister, she managed to don a few articles of clothing and left the house. Her mother brought a blanket to protect her against the cold. The soldiers robustly jerked the blanket out of her mother's hands and after having looted whatever they wanted to, put the house to fire. Afterwards the old man was driven on foot to Kroonstad by mounted kakies (British soldiers), while his wife and daughter (Mrs Prinsloo) were left destitute on the scorched farm."

England's claim of caring for the Boer women reminds one of somebody who boasts to have saved the life of someone he himself has pushed into the water. However, there is one vital difference: The holocaust on the Boer women and children began in all earnest once they had been forced into the concentration camps under the "care" of the British!

Family at the beginning - newly arrived with tea and bread (English Propaganda).

Despite the English claims that the concentration camps were "voluntary refugee camps" the following questions must be asked:

- From whom did the refugees flee? Certainly not from their own husbands and sons!

- How can the fact that the "voluntary" women and children had to be dragged to the concentration camps by force be explained?

- Why should the "voluntary refugee camps" be enclosed by barbed wire fences and the inmates be overseen by armed wardens? Kimberley camp had a five meter high barbed wire fence and some camps even had two or three fences!

- Why would one of the camp commanders make the following statement quoted by Emily Hobhouse: "The wardens were under orders not to interfere with the inmates, unless they should try to escape."? What kind of "voluntary refugee" would want to escape?

Perhaps the words of the Welsh William Redmond are closer to the truth: "The way in which these wretched, unfortunate and poor women and children are treated in South Africa is barbarous, outrageous, scandalous and disgraceful."

3.3. Planning for death

The English claim of decent actions towards the Boer women and children are further contradicted by the location of the concentration camps. The military authorities, who often had to plan and erect camps for their soldiers, would certainly have been well aware of the essential requirements for such camps. Yet the concentration camps were established in the most unsuitable locations possible.

At Standerton the camp was erected on both banks of the Vaal River. It was on the Highveld, which ensured that it was extremely cold in winter and infested with mosquitoes in summer. The fact that Standerton had turf soil and a high rainfall, ensured that the camp was one big mud bath in summer, even inside the tents.

The same circumstances were experienced in camps such as Brandfort, Springfontein and Orange River. At Pretoria, the Irene Camp was located at the chilly southern side of the town, while the northern side had a much more favourable climate. Balmoral, Middelburg and other camps were also located on the south-eastern hangs of the hills to ensure that the inhabitants were exposed to the icy south easterly winds.

Merebank camp was located in a swamp where there was an abundance of various kinds of insects. Water oozed out of the ground, ensuring that everything was constantly wet and slimy.

By October 1900 there were already 58 883 people in concentration camps in Transvaal and 45 306 in the Free State.

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind2.gif

The amenities in the camps were clearly planned to kill as many of the women and children as possible. They were accommodated in tattered reject tents which offered no protection against the elements.

Emily Hobhouse, the Cornish lady who campaigned for better conditions for the Boer women, wrote: "Throughout the night there was a downpour. Puddles of water were everywhere. They tried to get themselves and their possessions dry on the soaked ground."

(Hobhouse: Brunt of the War, page 169.)

Dr Kendal Franks reports on the Irene Camp: "In one of the tents there were three families; parents and children, a total of 14 people and all were suffering from measles."

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind1.gifIn Springfontein camp, 19 to 20 people where crammed into one tent.

There were neither beds nor mattresses and nearly the whole camp population had to sleep on the bare ground, which was damp most of the time.

One person wrote the following plea for aid to the New York Herald: "In the name of small children who have to sleep in open tents without fire, with barely any clothes, I plea for help."
3.4. Let them die of hunger

According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield."

The detainees received no fruit or vegetables; not even milk for the babies.

The meat and flour issued were crawling with maggots. Emily Hobhouse writes: "I have in my possession coffee and sugar which were described as follows by a London analyst: In the case of the first, 66% imitation, and in the case of the second, sweepings from a warehouse."

In her book, Met die Boere in die Veld (With the Boers in the field), Sara Raal states that "there were poisonous sulphate of copper, grounded glass, fishhooks, and razor blades in the rations." The evidence given on this fact is so overwhelming that it must be regarded as a historical fact.

Full Text (http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm)

Reminds me of the Bantustans the Boers would later set up in South Africa.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator
Reminds me of the Bantustans the Boers would later set up in South Africa.

You apparently don't know much about Bantustans. Show me some Bantustans where people were dying off by the thousands from diseases.

I have heard a great deal of this before. I believe that Lord Kitchner was largely responsible for this. Kitchner was an early believe in "Total War" against enemies of the Empire. He believe that the British culture was superior to all others. He detested the Boars and their insubordination to the British. He had similar views of Irish Catholics by the way. During the first world war he favored excluding Irish for service in the war.

An excellent film which deals with the Boar War is "Breaker Morant" Staring Micheal Caine. The film centers around three Australian Officers court marshalled by the British for atrocities committed during the war.

Gee. Makes me wonder what the stakes were in WWI and WWII. If England was so cruel......

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
Gee. Makes me wonder what the stakes were in WWI and WWII. If England was so cruel......

We won both of those wars.

Reminds me of the Bantustans the Boers would later set up in South Africa.

Sulla does not care if Boer women and children were butchered...since they are not black or Jewish their lives are meaningless to him.

Sulla also does not seem to know that the Bantustans were independent self-governing black homelands.

Originally posted by Frank


Sulla does not care if Boer women and children were butchered...since they are not black or Jewish their lives are meaningless to him.



Pot. Kettle. Black.

You make no bones about your caring only for whites, and turn around and accuse, (with zero evidence), that someone else feels the same way with races reversed? Hypocrite.

You make no bones about your caring only for whites, and turn around and accuse, (with zero evidence), that someone else feels the same way with races reversed? Hypocrite.

Education time Dngrmse. I am a White racist it is not hypocritical for me to care about whites only. However, it is hypocritical for an egalitarian to condemn Nazis for putting Jews in camps, condemns the National Party for creating Bantustans for blacks decades after this atrocity, yet refuses to condemn the internment and butchering of WHITE Boer women and children who were guilty of no crime.

Now Prodigal Son, I thank him quite happily for bringing this to light. Though in America I really do not expect any sympathy or condemnation. The victims in this case are the wrong colour.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


We won both of those wars.

I don't know who you mean by "WE". White people lost both World Wars very badly. The Only people to really benefit from both wars were jews! Jews won and are still enjoying the fruits of their victories. WE lost a massive pool of fine genetics. Hah hah. And the joke is on the winners in the end. When WE lose good genes, everyone loses, especially those who depend on those of good gentic composition. Russia collapsed because she killed most of her best genes. That is what happens when the left half of The Bell Curve wins!

Originally posted by Frank


Education time Dngrmse. I am a White racist it is not hypocritical for me to care about whites only. However, it is hypocritical for an egalitarian to condemn Nazis for putting Jews in camps, condemns the National Party for creating Bantustans for blacks decades after this atrocity, yet refuses to condemn the internment and butchering of WHITE Boer women and children who were guilty of no crime.


I absolutely condem putting Boer women and children into camps. You seem to make a lot of assumptions, which is typical for someone who lacks any evidence.

Do you condem German atrocities against Jews? Do you condem Boer atrocities against blacks?

You didn't answer him Sulla. Show us a Bantustan where the Blacks were dying in their thousands.

Originally posted by Chris
You didn't answer him Sulla. Show us a Bantustan where the Blacks were dying in their thousands.

The BBC World Service has just celebrated its 70th anniversary.

To mark this, leading BBC correspondents look back on the major world events they have covered in recent decades.

Mike Wooldridge was the BBC's Southern Africa Correspondent when Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and looks back on an amazing day.

For more than 40 years, South Africans lived under a system unique for its institutionalised racial divide.

Before apartheid finally gave way to non-racial democracy, thousands were killed in violence and many spent long periods in detention.

Nelson Mandela left 27 years of imprisonment behind him to become president and one of the great iconic figures of our time, a symbol of reconciliation and the absence of bitterness.

Gallows or life sentence

Nelson Mandela became the world's most famous political prisoner, but he might just as easily have gone to the gallows.

He knew it - in his famous speech at the Rivonia trail he did not deny planning sabotage, he said he had always fought against white domination and also black domination.

He said he cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society and hoped to live to see it, but, if needs be, it was something for which he was prepared to die.

His co-defendants had prevailed on him to put in the "if needs be", so as not to encourage the idea that they were seeking martyrdom.

In the event, the judge believed that to silence them was enough.

The future president began his life sentence crushing rocks on the notorious Robben Island. He was virtually within site of the Cape Town parliament where just four years earlier the then British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan had talked of the "Wind of Change" blowing through Africa.

It was to be many years before it would blow through South Africa itself.

Free at last

Some aspects of Nelson Mandela's imprisonment were extraordinary.

Towards the end there were the secret contacts with the government, but also warders took him out for walks and even to cafes where he went unrecognised - the last published photograph of him was in 1962.

Before his release, he lived in a cottage in the grounds of Victor Verster prison in a rural area some 50 kilometres from Cape Town, with his own cook.

The suspense on the day he was to be freed was tremendous.

The government had lifted the ban on the ANC and other illegal organisations a week earlier.

In his cottage, Mr Mandela was filling crates with books and papers - like anyone on the move.

Outside the prison gates a swelling crowd of well-wishers sang freedom songs.

They brought large black, green and gold ANC flags, among the T-shirt slogans Welcome Leader Mandela.

Mr Mandela, a stickler for punctuality, was late emerging, but when he did so a great roar went up - ANC!


Nelson Mandela walks free from prison in 1991

Mr Mandela, hand in hand with a beaming Winnie Mandela, thrust his fist in the air - and the crowd responded.

ANC flags were even taken through the prison gates.

Nelson Mandela later called the experience "breathtaking" - he said he'd expected to see only a few dozen people and he was taken aback by the sight of the world's media at the gate.

I described these dramatic events for BBC listeners courtesy of a passing telephone engineer who rigged up a phone from the overhead line - everyone was caught up in the spirit of the occasion.

Tough line

So, now we knew what Nelson Mandela looked like - some signs of his years, yes, but a figure who cut a dash too.

Now, how would he break the enforced silence of his long incarceration - would he be challenging or conciliatory?

He was both.

He spoke that evening at a heaving rally in Cape Town.

He said the factors that force the ANC to take up its arms struggle still existed and he urged the world not to relax sanctions.

But he also called President de Klerk a man of integrity and he appealed to whites to join in shaping a new South Africa.

Nelson Mandela then spent his first night of freedom at the home of the Archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, one of the most prominent of those who carried the torch of opposition to apartheid while Mr Mandela was in prison.

The Archbishop remembers the conversation that night - being interrupted constantly by calls from around the world - the White House included.

Soon Mr Mandela was on his way to Johannesburg, to the family home in the sprawling township of Soweto and another rousing reception from youngsters schooled in years of protest - the "liberation now, education later" generation.

He thanked them but had another message for them too, firmly delivered - it was time to go back to school.

From prison to president

Nelson Mandela was known as the Black Pimpernel when he went underground for the ANC, now he was on his way to becoming the country's first black president.

Only too well aware that political change was one thing, but removing the huge disparities in wealth and living standards, deepened by apartheid, would be quite another.


Nelson Mandela stepped down and Thabo Mbeki took over

And yet it is certainly not unfair to draw comparisons between Nelson Mandela's release and the momentous events in Eastern Europe at the time.

Some called it South Africa's 'Berlin Wall'.

George Bizos, a lawyer, who's been close to Nelson Mandela for many years and was in the defence team at the Rivonia trial, told me when I was back in South Africa recently that he shed tears of joy when he heard of the release.

Mr Mandela fell ill in jail in the 80s - the lawyer said that having been spared from a death sentence at the trial he had lived with the fear that Nelson Mandela might still never have come out of prison alive.


In his recently published book on the truth commission, its Deputy Chairperson, Alex Boraine writes:

“From June to August 1997, the TRC analysed a large amount of evidence presented to it concerning allegations of torture committed by the security forces. Our information indicated that the rate of torture increased more than ten-fold after the declaration of the state of emergency in 1986. Furthermore the TRC had received statements alleging that the security forces had been involved in almost 2000 acts of torture in more than 200 different venues around that time.”

“Torture was not something that took place in a handful of prisons, performed by perverted warders. Torture was endemic. There was no place we visited, no hearing we conducted , which did not contain stories of torture. Thousands were killed, not merely at roadblocks, in ambushes and raids, but also by abduction and design. Those who were seen as a threat to the apartheid regime were in many instances summarily executed”

Boraine,A. A Country Unmasked: Inside South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Oxford 2000 p.131

Denial

(Earlier this year, I made a brief visit to New Zealand. Whilst I was here a friend of mine told me about a conversation he had with a South African woman who was visiting her son here. My friend mentioned to her that I would be visiting and that I worked with victims of violence and torture. Her response was to state unequivocally that there had been no torture in South Africa although she conceded that some people were killed. My friend promised to tell me that I was wasting my time since noone had been tortured in South Africa. I could not help wondering how many ostriches New Zealand has imported from South Africa.)



Why Torture

Why torture? What is the point? People are tortured in order to extract information. It is used as a form of punishment and also to intimidate. One person is tortured to terrorize others and prevent them from following the same course of action.

During the struggle for liberation in South Africa torture was part of the arsenal of state terrorism. It became an instrument with the primary purpose of breaking the will of the people to resist and to be free. The only way the regime could try and crush the spirit of the people was by physically crushing their bodies.


Often I have been asked: How could this happen? How could a group of human beings do this to another human being? Often young people would be in the forefront of calling for the neck lacing of another alleged collaborator. My question was: What had been done to these young people that they should relish this option?

Under apartheid the moral order was inverted. Torturers and assassins were respected members of the community, although they may have never told their children how they passed their days. They were rewarded and promoted and given golden handshakes when they retired.

Survivors of torture were portrayed by the state as lying criminals who deserved to be disbelieved and punished. Because of their degrading and humiliating experiences, torture victims often speak of their own sense of shame at what has happened to them. Survivors sometimes wait for many years, even for decades before they speak of what has been done to them. “Will I be believed? What will people think of me if they know what has happened to me?” This is particularly true of sexual torture and of rape especially of women but also of men. In the recesses of the human heart the victim sometimes blames her or himself for being a victim. Not long after I had survived the attempt to kill me, I apologized to a friend for having survived whilst her own son had been killed. For both perpetrator and victim, there is a need to restore a moral order in which good is called good and evil is called evil.

There is a consensus in the international community that apartheid was morally evil. Indeed the family of nations asserted that apartheid was a crime against humanity. Ironically, inside South Africa, it was the liberation movement that was first called to account for its transgressions of human rights not the apartheid regime.

In case you don't know, there is a difference between torture and starvation. In addition, these acts of torture are alleged to have taken place in the prisons, not in the self-governing Black republics called Bantustans.

Chris: What Sulla forgets to mention is that Nelson Mandela was terrorist. Sulla's article neglects to mention that much of the kiiling and torture was done by Mandelas ANC:

Atrocities of the Marxist ANC
'Truth' commission reveals Mandela's bloody path to power

By Anthony LoBaido
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/ANCAtrocities.htm

More on the terrorist Mandela: The following is a letter from the "Herstigte Nasionale Party van Suid-Afrika" to the former President Clinton on Nelson Mandela:

The President of the USA
The White House
Fax: 091 202 456 2883
WASHINGTON, DC

Mr President

In South African newspapers you are reported to have said in a speech at the White House that the present South African President, Nelson Mandela, had taught you not to hate your political enemies. Mandela is said to have told you that he harboured no grudge against his enemies who "cast him into jail". And you, in the speech concerned, said that your (present) crisis could be compared to Mandela's suffering in jail.

You seem to be under some misapprehension about the circumstances of Mandela's incarceration and the crimes for which he was sentenced to imprisonment, otherwise you may not be desirous to identify with him. And you evidently have been given a distorted idea of how the African National Congress (ANC) under direction of its leader, Nelson Mandela, is vengeantly acting against their political enemies and opponents.

Your remark about Mandela's having been "cast into jail" creates a wrong impression. Mr President, he was not "cast into jail": he was charged for acts of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Judge President of the then Transvaal Division of the South African Supreme Court after a protacted hearing in which he had had representation and every opportunity to defend himself. He, however, refused to take the oath and testify, and could consequently not be taken under cross-examination. Finding him guilty, the Judge said that he had been wrongly charged for acts of sabotage instead of for treason, in which case the sentence would not have been imprisonment but the death penalty. The trial was attended by journalists, jurists and others from all over the world. None could find fault with the proceedings and the findings of the Court.

Even The Rand Daily Mail, the most outspoken liberal newspaper at the time in South Africa, and in many ways a supporter of Mandela and the ANC, wrote about the sentences passed by the judge,"The sentences pronounced by Judge De Wet at the close of the Rivonia trial are both wise and just. The law is best served when there is firmness tinged with mercy, and this was the case yesterday. The sentences could not have been less severe than those imposed. The men found guilty had planned sabotage on a wide scale and had conspired for armed revolution. As the judge pointed out yesterday, the crime of which they were found guilty was really high treason. The death penalty would have been justified ".

These are the facts of history. Sentencing Mandela to imprisonment instead of letting him be hanged was an act of mercy on the part of his political enemies. Mandela has, therefore, every reason to be grateful and not the least reason to harbour a grudge against them. He owes his life to them. You will agree that this puts a completely different complexion on your statement that "he was cast into jail".

This is by no means all of which Mandela should be grateful for. In the time of PW Botha's prime ministership in the 'eighties Mandela was moved from the Robben Island prison to the Pollsmoor prison near Cape Town, where he received VIP treatment. PW Botha was in this way making the first instalments in Mandela's release on the pretext that he would not wish "an old man to die in prison".

From Pollsmoor prison Mandela was moved to the residence of a senior officer on the staff of the Prisons Department in the town of Paarl in the Western Cape. There he had every convenience at his disposal to play a political rôle, including the use of a fax machine. And he was attended to day and night by a white policeman.

After a carefully orchestrated campaign inside and outside South Africa he was released by the FW de Klerk government to a stage-managed reception in Cape Town, receiving prime coverage from the South African Broadcasting Corporation and providing him with a launching pad for political initiatives. Thereafter the De Klerk government in a treasonable series of acts started peace negotiations with the ANC and moved on to draw up a new constitution on the basis of one man, one vote in an undivided South Africa, which in essence meant surrendering to the ANC and enabling Mandela to become the president of South Africa.

The essence of this political move was spelt out by Paul Johnson, well-known British intellectual, in The Spectator in April 1994. "South Africa under F W de Klerk", he said, "Made a suicidal leap to universal suffrage". He predicted that within ten years the country could be the theatre of Africa's endless civil wars. "In any case it would become an industrial rubble heap, beastly, bloody and bankrupt (...) There is not the slightest hope that it (South Africa) will continue to exist on a system of universal suffrage - it is one of the most divided societies on earth: racially, ethnically, linguistically, as well as economically".

This is De Klerk's achievement. You may recall that you at one stage telephoned him and told him that you "marvelled" at what he was achieving in pushing South Africa along this disastrous course.

Some ten months later (February 1995) The Spectator published another article on South Africa in which its readers were told, "A country ravaged by crime and corruption, with plummeting standards and a people condemned to a sordid and brutal life". The article describes the ANC government as "corrupt and incompetent". This is Nelson Mandela's government.

What is revealing is that while De Klerk was treacherously steering the country towards this national misery, newspapers reported: "Britain fights fervently for FW in UN debate". And later: "Brits full of praise for FW as architect of peaceful change". And eventually: "Brits bear De Klerk, their hero, on their hands". Only an Afrikaner who is a traitor to his own people would be regarded by Brits as their hero. And De Klerk became the hero of Brits by letting loose the man who, according to Judge De Wet, should have been hanged for high treason.

You may sense the degree of loathing on the part of Afrikaners like myself, who had a father who fought, was wounded and kept a prisoner-of-war on St Helena Island by the British for more than two years while they devastated the country and caused the death of over 22 000 children under the age of 16 years and who, a few generations thereafter sees De Klerk being treated as a hero by Brits for having "irreversibly" destroyed White South Africa (as in foolish vanity he said his aim was).

As Mr Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, said in January 1998 that the British "never forget the past even when addressing the future", so we naturally also do not forget the past - also the recent past when the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) had their headquarters in London from where with British moral and other support they conducted their terrorism against South Africa.

In the period September 1984 to August 1989 no fewer than 1770 schools were destroyed or extensively damaged, as were 7187 private homes of Blacks, 10318 buses, 152 trains, 12188 private vehicles, 1265 shops and factories, 60 post offices, 47 churches and 30 health clinics. And, what is even worse, there were 300 cold-blooded murders by the barbarous necklace method and 372 deaths of people trapped in homes set alight by terrorist gangs.

These were the means employed in "the struggle" to bring to power, under Mandela, a Communist-controlled organisation, which Peter Younghusband, in the London Daily Mail in November 1994, described as follows, "The ANC never was worth much as a liberation movement - and apart from a few random urban terrorist acts, its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was equally worth little as a fighting force (...) the ANC very conveniently sat in exile waiting for the world to bring the White regime to its knees". And, he said, Mandela is unable to run the country, and he and the ANC is steadily reducing South Africa to yet another Third World plodder.

It is one thing to say that Mandela bears his political enemies no grudge, but it is another thing to judge him by what he does, by what he allows, and by what he neglects to do.

To consider this one must see it in its historical perspective. When Mandela and his Communist cohorts at their Rivonia hide-out were planning bloody revolution in the early 'sixties, the Afrikaner Nationalist Government (ANG) was under the leadership of Dr HF Verwoerd. And it was under the direction of Dr Verwoerd that this Communist conspiracy to violently overthrow the South African government was stamped out, Mandela and his collaborators landing in jail and the organisation of the Communist Party of South Africa being destroyed shortly thereafter through the efficient action of the security police in infiltrating the Communist cells.

Verwoerd frustrated and humiliatingly defeated Mandela's plans. And for Mandela there is consequently one political enemy not to be forgiven for saving South Africa from a bloody Communist revolution. That is Hendrik Verwoerd. He and his ghost are haunting those who are destroying the results of his unequalled successful statecraft.

Verwoerd was not only the man under whose direction a Communist-led revolution was prevented. He also became the towering South African statesman of this century, and he was equal, if not superior, to any of his contemporaries in the Western World, a statement that may be evaluated on the ground of his achievements in the face of international enmity from the Anglo-American block, the Communist block and the Afro-Asian block.

He not only secured South Africa's survival against this many-sided onslaught: he, more-over lifted the country to a level of stability, well-being and prosperity seldom, if ever equalled in history anywhere under similar circumstances.

To support this remark let me call opponents and enemies of Verwoerd to testify in this regard. Jan Botha, an outspoken liberal, in his book, Verwoerd is dead, refers to "the threats from the United Nations and the arms boycott by the United States and Britain". Then he writes:

"By the time he died, Dr Verwoerd had built his own monument which was there for all to see: the Republic of South Africa. The White people had been forged together in unity, the country was militarily strong and resilient, the police and security forces were effectively dealing with all attempts at subversion and infiltration, the country's economy was dynamic, expanding and had become largely self-sufficient.

"... in the history of South Africa his name will live for ever as the leader who, when his country was threatened with internal disorders and with economic sanctions, boycotts and open aggression from overseas, stood as a symbol of defiance, and the will and determination to survive".

He not only frustrated the objectives of the great power blocks, but he also defeated the ANC's plans to create internal disorder.

That Jan Botha's was not a lone voice, can be shown by quotations from other sources. Paul Barrow in The Statist shortly before Verwoerd was assassinated on 6 September 1966 by the Communist Tsafendas wrote, "At the rate at which South Africa is now expanding, the term 'miracle' is likely to be appropriate to its development in the next few years".

And on 31 July 1966 the unofficial mouthpiece of the South African liberal establishment The Rand Daily Mail, wrote:

"At the age of nearly 65 Dr Verwoerd has reached the peak of a remarkable career. No other South African prime minister has ever been in such a powerful position in the country. He is at the head of a massive majority after a resounding victory at the polls. The nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity and he can command almost unlimited funds for all that he needs at present in the way of military defence. He can claim that South Africa is a shining example of peace in a troubled continent, if only because overwhelming domestic power can always command peace. Finally, as if that were not enough, he can face the session with the knowledge that, short of an unthinkable show of force by people whom South Africans are rapidly being taught to regard as their enemies, he can snap his fingers at the United Nations. Thanks to the recent judgment of the Hague Court he can afford to condescend to the world body, graciously remaining a member as long as it suits him".

These are the achievements of the man against whose memory a vendetta is being conducted under the direction of Mandela and his comrades. His name was ordered to be removed from the Verwoerd Building, the Verwoerd Dam, the Verwoerd Hospital, and under Mandela's leadership his statue at the Free State provincial headquarters was pulled down in an act bristling with hatred and vengeance.

Of course, Verwoerd as leader of the Afrikaners being a symbol of his people, the attacks on him have been indirect attacks on the Afrikaners themselves, so that Mandela's followers - never rebuked - felt free to shout: "Kill a farmer, kill a Boer", instigating the killing of hundreds of Afrikaner farmers and their families, 431 in 1997 and 104 from 1 January to 31 August 1998 in 590 attacks. In the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya in the 'sixties only 39 White farmers were killed and in the terrorist war against Rhodesia only 300 were killed in the course of 14 years. Among those who have had as their battle cry "Kill a farmer, Kill a Boer" is Peter Mokaba, promoted by Mandela to Deputy Minister. Other appointments of identified Communists as Ministers and Deputy Ministers tell the same story, highlighted by the appointment of the Communist Mboweni as President of the SA Reserve Bank in a move to further impoverish Afrikaners in the name of "affirmative action". These are ways in which Mandela has been allowing his grudge against the Afrikaners, as his political enemies, to be exploited, while he goes around pretending that he has no grievance against his enemies.

Even more unmistakable are his appointments to the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the way in which this commission has conducted its business. It was packed by him with enemies and opponents of the former government. The two Afrikaners, De Jager and Malan, who were included among the 15 other, were in different ways opponents of the previous government. However, De Jager resigned in disappointment, if not disgust, and Malan eventually showed his dissension from the majority by writing a minority report on the Commission's findings.

This commission appointed by Mandela has little to do with truth and nothing with reconciliation. It is a hybridization between the Nuremberg trials of German war leaders and Stalin's Moscow Show Trials of the nineteen thirties. Its prime objective was to place Afrikaners on the bench of the accused to be prosecuted, tried and convicted by their enemies, and to treat the ANC terrorists on a completely different basis, which resulted in some amazing events.

In flagrant violation of the provisions of the relevant act it, for example, granted amnesty to a bunch of 37 top level ANC leaders for crimes associated with political motives, without specifying the various acts, which is in conflict with the requirements of the law. In this group there are among others, Thabo Mbeki, Leader of the ANC, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nzo, Minister of Justice Omar and Minister of Defence Modise. Although this decision has been nullified by a judicial verdict, nothing has been done to rectify the situation.

In such cases, the Commission's concern was not seeking and revealing the truth, but suppressing and stifling it - a procedure that would not have been countenanced when it concerned Afrikaners of the Security services who fought against the terrorists. They were paraded as criminals who individually under severe pressure had to confess in detail for whatever amnesty was asked for.

In these various ways Mandela created outlets for his grudges against the Afrikaners -- the very people whose representatives saved him from the gallows and later gave him all the help to become the President of South Africa.

Against this background it is dismaying to read that this man has every reason to hate his enemies, yet does not think of retribution! And while allowing a vendetta to be conducted against the Afrikaners, he is presiding over the decay of this country, which the Afrikaners wrestled from the wilderness, fought wars for against imperial powers and, under Dr Verwoerd, was developing into the industrial giant of Africa.

Where under Verwoerd, "the nation was suffering from a surfeit of prosperity", and South Africa "was a shining example of peace on a troubled continent", under Mandela the nation is suffering from a surfeit of poverty and the country has become the crime capital of the world - 137 reported rapes, 63 murders, 73 attempted murders, 176 robberies, 670 housebreakings and 35 highjackings on an average every day of the year. It is common cause that a government that cannot secure the lives and properties of its civilians is unfit to rule.

"South Africa", read a newspaper report on 29 November 1998, "occupies the first or second spot in all forms of crime on the world list for crime, and it is the young people and the homeless who pay the price". Of the thousands who passed the matric examinations in 1998 less than one in 10 will get a job in the formal sector. In the four years of ANC government the national debt more than doubled - from R194 billion ($34 billion) In 1994 to over R400 billion ($70 billion) presently, the interest on which accounts for 21 per cent of the budget.

In the same period the South African rand lost 80 per cent of its value. And in the first ten months of 1998 more than 2,8 million man-days were lost to a wave of industrial strikes.

This is a picture of the country which under Verwoerd had the second highest economic growth rate in the world (7,9% per year), an average inflation rate of 2 per cent, was accommodating new labour in the formal sector at 73,6 per cent per year, and enabled the living standards of Blacks in the industrial sector to rise at 5,3 per cent per year as against those of Whites at 3,9 per cent per year. The Financial Mail published a special survey entitled "The fabulous years: 1961-66". And as the previously mentioned Jan Botha wrote, Verwoerd "had launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for the non-Whites that South Africa had ever seen".

This, Verwoerd achieved in the face of fierce diplomatic and economic opposition from the United States, Britain, Soviet Russia and others. Mandela, on the other hand, has the blessing and support of these powers, yet under his hand the country is disintegrating and has sunk to a state of lawlessness, joblessness and futurelessness unprecedented in South African history. Yet, Mandela is not struggling to emulate Verwoerd, but to denigrate him and his people.

Perhaps you will reconsider your emotional identification with Mandela in the light of historical truth.

Yours sincerely

J A MARAIS
LEADER OF THE HNP

Give it up, Frank and Chris. The boerevolk are not Jewish. As such they are goyim; pack animals worthy of no particular notice. Atrocities can only be perpetrated against the Chosen.

Naturally. How could I have forgotten?

Originally posted by Chris
In case you don't know, there is a difference between torture and starvation.


ROFL The logic of the butcher.

Originally posted by Frank
Chris: What Sulla forgets to mention is that Nelson Mandela was terrorist. Sulla's article neglects to mention that much of the kiiling and torture was done by Mandelas ANC


Actually, it mentions exactly why he was arrested. I'm not a big Mandela fan, but what you're attempting to do is laughable.

MOST killing and torture was done by the South African Security Forces.


Atrocities of the Marxist ANC
'Truth' commission reveals Mandela's bloody path to power


ROFL Wait a minute, so you are accepting the findings of the TRC to be legitimate?

Do you condem the South African Security Force torturing non-violent protesters, Frank?

You said that the Boer concentration camps reminded you of the bantustans. When asked where there was massive starvation and disease, you changed the subject to the alleged torture of political prisoners.

Please explain why the Boer concentration camps reminded you of the Bantustans and quit trying to change the topic.

ROFL Wait a minute, so you are accepting the findings of the TRC to be legitimate?

*Yawn* The ANC themselves admitted to their atrocities:

Mandela's party admits anti-apartheid atrocities

http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/05/13/world_nation/wn13c.ap/

Maybe you would like to discuss the Angolan death camps next?

You said that the Boer concentration camps reminded you of the bantustans. When asked where there was massive starvation and disease, you changed the subject to the alleged torture of political prisoners.

Chris, Sulla changes the topic because he was caught in a lie. He made a claim he could not prove.

His version of South African history is unique as it seems based on his own beliefs and what he reads in news rags rather then reality.

Sulla has two strategies when he is caught in a lie or cannot prove his claims. 1) Answer questions with questions: this way he saves himself from being exposed and gets to go on the offensive in one post. 2) He will change the topic altogether (as he did above) in a manner that tries to make his opponents position look bad on the issue being dealt with without having to admit he was caught.

Originally posted by Chris
You said that the Boer concentration camps reminded you of the bantustans. When asked where there was massive starvation and disease, you changed the subject to the alleged torture of political prisoners.


I never said there was mass starvation in the Bantustans. I simply said one reminded me of the other. You and your Straw Men.


Please explain why the Boer concentration camps reminded you of the Bantustans and quit trying to change the topic.

You should have asked this in the first place. Forced internment? Capricious Security Forces? 3rd class status?

LOL, and the local lockup reminds me of the Gulags - they have fences, armed guards and the prisoners are imprisoned without a trial!

A nice try Sulla, but you obviously don't know much about the black run Bantustans.

Originally posted by Frank


*Yawn* The ANC themselves admitted to their atrocities:


ROFL So do the South African Security Forces. THE PROBLEM is that on the Phora, you denied the legitimacy of these admissions when it was the Boers, but are perfectly willing to accept the confessions of the ANC. You're interested in Cafateria History.



Maybe you would like to discuss the Angolan death camps next?


ROFL I never said the ANC was innocent of anything. I dislike the ANC. What amuses me so much is your use of the TRC as evidence, when you claim the TRC is illegitimate (Despite the CONFESSIONS of Security members).


Chris, Sulla changes the topic because he was caught in a lie. He made a claim he could not prove.


Show me where I said thousands starved in Bantustans. Oh yeah, you're the one who's lying.


His version of South African history is unique as it seems based on his own beliefs and what he reads in news rags rather then reality.

Wasn't one of your links to something called, "White Survival.com"? LOL Frank, the holder of LEGITIMATE knowledge! This is a Theater of the Absurd.

"The BBC is an illegitimate ZOG source. The only real evidence comes from Jeffsarchive".


Sulla has two strategies when he is caught in a lie or cannot prove his claims. 1) Answer questions with questions: this way he saves himself from being exposed and gets to go on the offensive in one post.


Like this, you mean:

Sulla the Dictator:


I absolutely condem putting Boer women and children into camps. You seem to make a lot of assumptions, which is typical for someone who lacks any evidence.

Do you condem German atrocities against Jews? Do you condem Boer atrocities against blacks?

Frank:

(Sound of crickets)

...Yeah, *I* sure avoided the point. :rolleyes: I openly condemned the one, and asked if you condemned the other. You do not respond, because you do not want to be exposed as the type of one dimensional monster that typifies most of your fellow extremists.


2) He will change the topic altogether (as he did above) in a manner that tries to make his opponents position look bad on the issue being dealt with without having to admit he was caught.


I never made the claim you're pretending I made. In fact, you and Chris are trying, rather desperately, to restate what you really said. Chris didn't ask me where blacks were starved. He said, "Show us a Bantustan where the Blacks were dying in their thousands". He later goes on to say that since blacks were TORTURED in police stations, rather than starved, it doesn't count.

Despite the fact that he didn't ask about starvation in the first place.
You guys are a lot of fun.

ROFL So do the South African Security Forces.

So what? When people in the West start condemning the ANC as they have the National Party, then maybe I will stop pointing out the acts committed by the ANC.

Sadly Sulla this is not the issue...You have taken a thread about the first concentration camps in which 27,000 Boer men, women and children were interned, starved and brutalized and somehow have turned it into an opportunity to bash the Afrikaner nation.

You said that the Bantustans reminded you of the camps which starved people and tortured them to death, Chris simpy asked you to provide the link between the Bantustans and these camps that would lead you to believe that they were similar. Instead of admitting you do not know what you are talking about, you evade and elude by changing the topic and demonizing the victims.

Show me where I said thousands starved in Bantustans. Oh yeah, you're the one who's lying.

You said the the camps reminded you of the Bantustans, people starved in the camps. Draw your own conclusions folks.

Wasn't one of your links to something called, "White Survival.com"? LOL Frank, the holder of LEGITIMATE knowledge! This is a Theater of the Absurd.

The article itself was from "WorldNetDaily."

By Anthony LoBaido
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily international correspondent Anthony C. LoBaido has lived and traveled extensively throughout southern Africa over the past decade. His stories have covered the private apartheid special forces army Executive Outcomes, the war in Angola, and farm massacres of whites in Zimbabwe. In this first of a three-part series, LoBaido documents the crimes committed by the Marxist African National Congress, or ANC, during its war against the apartheid regime in South Africa. In Part II, tomorrow, LoBaido chronicles the misdeeds of the right wing.
By Anthony Lobaido
© 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.

...Yeah, *I* sure avoided the point. I openly condemned the one, and asked if you condemned the other. You do not respond, because you do not want to be exposed as the type of one dimensional monster that typifies most of your fellow extremists.

You only condemned it when I challenged you to do so and put you on the spot. In fact that is the only way I can get you to condemn atrocities committed by blacks or atrocities against whites and I AM THE MONSTER!? :rolleyes:
In answer to your question...It is wrong to exterminate innocent people who have committed no wrong.

I never made the claim you're pretending I made. In fact, you and Chris are trying, rather desperately, to restate what you really said. Chris didn't ask me where blacks were starved. He said, "Show us a Bantustan where the Blacks were dying in their thousands". He later goes on to say that since blacks were TORTURED in police stations, rather than starved, it doesn't count.

You said: "Reminds me of the Bantustans the Boers would later set up in South Africa."

Unless you can show me a link between the two or admit that you were wrong, I see no reason to continue this.

Originally posted by Frank



You said: "Reminds me of the Bantustans the Boers would later set up in South Africa."

Unless you can show me a link between the two or admit that you were wrong, I see no reason to continue this.

You can count on Sulla to change the topic again (to soemthing like Ian Smith's view towards colonialism, etc...) instead of replying to your messages. My advice Frank-don't do battle of wits with an unarmed person.

--Joseph.