Prince Harry, and banning Nazi Symbols-

welsh

Junkmaster
Actually I think banning Prince Harry might be a good idea.

But what do you think about banning Nazi symbols. To much repressed rage? Too much danger in a symbol? Free speech?

Harrying the Nazis

Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Why banning Nazi symbols across Europe would be a bad idea

PRINCE CHARLES, heir to the British throne, spends a lot of time on earnest attempts to influence public policy. But he has never, so far, had the dramatic impact of his younger son, Prince Harry, whose decision to wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy-dress party in Britain may be about to trigger Europe-wide legislation. Franco Frattini, the European Union's commissioner for justice and home affairs, declared to Italian newspapers this week that “EU action is urgent and has to forbid very clearly Nazi symbols in the European Union.”

Indeed, Mr Frattini plans to put the idea of such a ban on the agenda of the next meeting of European justice ministers, on January 27th. Since that is also the day on which 40 world leaders will be gathered at Auschwitz to commemorate the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp in 1945, the chances of the EU seizing the opportunity to make a grand gesture must be high. But legislation passed at moments of high emotion is rarely well considered—and an EU-wide ban on Nazi symbols would be no exception to this rule.


The obvious problem with any such laws is where to draw the line. Do you just ban symbols, or do you also ban such offences as “Holocaust denial”? And although almost everybody may agree that Nazism was a unique evil, a ban on Nazi symbols would undoubtedly lead to a call for other similar bans. Why not a ban on the Soviet hammer-and-sickle? Or one on fascist insignia in Spain or Italy?

The issue is particularly perplexing in Mr Frattini's native Italy. Brussels-based journalists who visited the country during the Italian presidency of the EU in 2003 were startled to find Mussolini's photograph still affixed to the wall of the Palazzo Chigi, the official residence of the Italian prime minister, alongside photos of Italy's innumerable other prime ministers—and with no suggestion that there was anything remarkable about it. An official who was asked why a fascist dictator was still accorded this honour shrugged that “he's part of our history.”

He is a part of Italy's present too. The deputy prime minister (and now foreign minister) whom the journalists were ushered in to see was none other than Gianfranco Fini, who in 1994 described Mussolini as “the greatest statesman of the 20th century”. Mr Fini has now renounced this claim. Yet rows about the fascist era keep breaking out in Italy. The latest was provoked this month during a football match in Rome. After scoring a spectacular goal, Paolo Di Canio of Lazio ran over to his team's notoriously right-wing supporters and gave them a fascist salute. In theory, this is illegal in Italy. But a degree of confusion is understandable. Just outside the Olympic stadium in which the game was being played stands a large obelisk that is emblazoned with the words “Mussolini, Duce”.

Similar controversies rage elsewhere in western Europe. In Spain, the Valley of the Fallen, a fascist mausoleum built by political prisoners, remains one of the country's biggest tourist attractions. Franco loyalists still rally there on the anniversary of the caudillo's death. The Socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (whose grandfather was killed by fascists) says that it wants to cleanse public buildings of Francoist symbols. A campaign is under way to build a memorial to the victims of fascism at the Valley of the Fallen, or a museum modelled on those at Nazi concentration camps. But the government will move cautiously. The wounds of Spain's past are still sore.

The question of free speech and the past is also a live one in France. This month, Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front and one of the two run-off candidates for the French presidency in 2002, caused outrage when he suggested that the Nazi occupation of France had “not been particularly inhumane”. Mr Le Pen's critics rushed to remind him of the deportation and murder of the French Jews, and talked of such massacres as that at Oradour-sur-Glane. French prosecutors are looking into whether Mr Le Pen might be tried for the crime (in French law) of “denial of crimes against humanity”.

Back in Blighty
Now even Britain, which had long thought of itself as happily immune to such controversies, has been dragged into the debate by Prince Harry. German members of the European Parliament have led calls for the EU to adopt a law similar to Germany's own statute banning Nazi symbols. Some Germans seem to relish the unusual opportunity to take the moral high ground over Nazism. Matthias Matussek, the London correspondent for Der Spiegel (and brother of Germany's ambassador to Britain), informed his readers that, while the British were still unhealthily obsessed by the war, they had been “focusing too much on their own triumph and too little on the history of the victims. It now appears that the British have a greater problem with the past than the Germans.” You can almost taste the wishful thinking.

The argument of those Germans who want an EU-wide ban on Nazi symbols is, as Silvana Koch-Merin, a vice-president of the Liberal Group in the European Parliament, expresses it, that “all of Europe suffered because of the crimes of the Nazis, therefore it would be logical for Nazi symbols to be banned all over Europe.” But such “logic” risks redefining Nazism as a European tragedy, rather than a tragedy visited on Europe by Germans. Even today, that does not quite ring true. While it was grossly insensitive for Prince Harry to wear a Nazi uniform, a similar action by a prominent young German would have been a lot more sinister and disturbing.

That is why a ban on Nazi insignia may make sense in Germany, but be an excessive restriction on free speech in Britain and most other countries. Even in the “united Europe” of today, Nazi symbols and the memories of fascism and communism resonate differently in different countries. Each country deals with them as it sees fit, which is as it should be.
 
Don't get me started. See the NPD threat for my opinion on banning things.
 
So the actions of one stupid, juvenile wanker should dictate regional policy?

I can't believe EU is considering this. What about other wrongs that have been performed through history? Should all associated symbols be banned?

What a crock of BS.
 
I do not think banning of theese symbols is a good idea.
At least if you meet someone wearing them you know that he is a stupid prik, ignorant of history, at sight.
Much worse are thoose, on both sides, who fought in the war and instead of daming it, celebrate it.
 
calculon00 said:
Didn't World War 2 end? Like a long time ago?
Yes. Some 60 years ago. Of course, if you'd do a small bit of math, you'd notice that a lot of people alive at the time are still alive. You'd also realise that WW2 is probably the one event in recent history that has had the largest impact on European history and peoples' lives. It has caused a huge trauma, and many people still feel the effects of it these days.
With events like this, sixty years is way too little to forget it.


That said, I absolutely and fundamentally oppose any oppression of free speech, and this includes the banning of nazi symbols. It won't do anyone any good to ban nazi symbols because all it does is start a slippery-slope, it also continues along the lines of making anything anyone even remotely associated with right-wing extremism instantly 'evil' and 'wrong'. And that's just bullshit.
 
This whole thing sounds like Europe's answer to the Patriot Act. As such, fuck that shit.

Unfortunately people aren't bright enough (as a population) to know what is good for them. Hence the need to legislate what they can and cannot do/see/represent.
 
Sander said:
That said, I absolutely and fundamentally oppose any oppression of free speech

I call bullshit. Unless you're opposed to the first article of the Dutch Constitution? "Free speech" is one of the more fundamentally and heavily limited rights of man, compaired to the right to live or the right to procreate which are fairly unhindered. There are too many laws in any constitution that limit free speech to count, and saying "I absolutely and fundamentally oppose *any* oppression of free speech" is like saying "I want to live in the stone age". It's not only unrealistic, it's bullshit

Sander said:
it also continues along the lines of making anything anyone even remotely associated with right-wing extremism instantly 'evil' and 'wrong'.

I thought you were a lefty "right-wing = evahl" person.

-------------------

That said, this debate runs a lot deeper than the simple question of free speech yes or no. It's very unclear what exactly the scars are left of WW II.

The article is not kidding when it speaks of Britain's immunities to such controversies. Britain made the show "Dad's army", mocking WW II, only mere decades after the war was over, unthinkable in any other nation (including the USA) and has continued to mock its own admirable war effort over the years.

The holocaust they have shown more respect for, but realise that Britain is neither saddled with the guilt of letting their Jewish population be decimated under their own eyes (justified; it was their own (including the Jews') brave fighting that saved their Jewish population) nor do they have the US' huge Jew lobby (or, for that matter, the US' retarted lobby-system). As a result, they stood out in their opposition to Israel (for a very logical reason, if you ask me, namely that race/religion do not make the basis for the creation of a new state) and for another thing have had no jews in cabinet since Thatcher (I think, I'm sure there are no Jews in cabinet now)

That's where the problem stemmed from. Harry, being a retard, made a very honest mistake that does not seem nearly as bad in Britain as it does to other states.

And it raises a valid question; is the Nazi symbol simply an expression of political affinity with a party that is responsible for decimating a people? You'd be hardpressed to show that the symbol expresses anything else. And if that's what it expresses, it falls under the limitation of free speech that draws the border at racism and incitement to hatred.

To draw a line between Germany and other states, as the article suggests, would be historic revisionism. Before the war, such eminent British people as Lords Nuffield, Bedford and Hamilton were all interested in fascism and many countries (Italy jumps to mind, but Holland and Belgium for two more liberal-minded countries) had fascist/nazist parties before, during ánd after the war.

If a law is to be made which would only extend to officially seeing display of the nazi symbol as incitement to hate/racism, which would automatically outlaw it, then it should be done all through Europe, as all of Europe has suffered under this political view, not just Germany.

As for that if, I'm never too sure. But again, you'd be hardpressed to argue that the nazi symbol is anything more than a racist symbol, and racism is and should be a limited form of free speech.
 
I call bullshit. Unless you're opposed to the first article of the Dutch Constitution? "Free speech" is one of the more fundamentally and heavily limited rights of man, compaired to the right to live or the right to procreate which are fairly unhindered. There are too many laws in any constitution that limit free speech to count, and saying "I absolutely and fundamentally oppose *any* oppression of free speech" is like saying "I want to live in the stone age". It's not only unrealistic, it's bullshit
Well guess what, I AM saying that. I thoroughly believe that free speech should be one of man's fundamental rights. Words are only words, it's the actions one punishes and prohibits, not the right to express one's opinion.
There's only one exception I make to that rule, and that's when the press is involved. I do believe in the fundamental right of free speech, but I do not believe that the press should be allowed to abuse their position. The one thing I have a problem with in regards to the press is stating opinions or other non-factual things as facts. But that's about it.

I thought you were a lefty "right-wing = evahl" person.
No, I'm a lefty "I think right-wing = wrong" person, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to debate anything they're saying, they have a knack of defining problems that a large portion of people see as problems, and not everything they say is bullshit. And even if it were, to brand it as evil just because of actions of the right-wing in history is silly, it only hinders your own capacity to discuss anything they're saying.
 
Sander said:
Well guess what, I AM saying that. I thoroughly believe that free speech should be one of man's fundamental rights. Words are only words, it's the actions one punishes and prohibits, not the right to express one's opinion.
There's only one exception I make to that rule, and that's when the press is involved. I do believe in the fundamental right of free speech, but I do not believe that the press should be allowed to abuse their position. The one thing I have a problem with in regards to the press is stating opinions or other non-factual things as facts. But that's about it.

Whooo, talk about a distopia, free speech for everyone and a press that can GIVE YOU ONLY FACTS.

Good to know some things never change

Ok, let's check out some limitations to your right of free speech that are in several lawbooks right now:

Copyright: to copyright a product means no other person can reproduce it word by word in either word or print. This is a limitation to free speech.

Advertising: advertisments are forced to; not make any misrepresentations about their status as a product; not make any misrepresentations about the effects of their product; not make any misrepresentations about the contents of their product. These limit free speech.

The Miller Test: this is a stupid bylaw of the US that is hardly ever applied or used. Included here for a sense of completeness, but will be skipped as redundant

The European Convention on the Rights of Man Limitation on Free Speech:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Oh yeS! Information received in confidence!

Lawyers/priests: these men do not have the right to disclose information given to them in confidence, exception may apply. This limits their free speech.

Judiciary: a judiciary can not be given information from partial outside sources to maintain his impartiality. This limits the free speech of all partial outside sources.

I can go on, but I believe you may have seen my point?
 
Maybe I'm actually of British heritage, but I can laugh about Hitler jokes.

Some rather intelligent man whose name I forgot once said that Germany would not recover from the Third Reich until Germans can laugh about Hitler jokes.

I guess that'll take a while for most of us tho.


Symbols are powerful because people can be taught to associated very different things with them. Banning them, however, doesn't weaken them.

As long as a person marching with a swastika on his arm causes an outrage rather than a bored sidenote ala "What a pathetic loser", the problem hasn't been solved -- and banning it would only add to it.

Symbolism is a powerful tool and what you want to do with "bad" symbols is use them against their creators' intention.


It's simple psychology. Banned things are kewl.
 
What, Kharn, you don't think I realise that there are that many limits to freedom of speech? Of course I do, but that doesn't actually change any of my thoughts on the matter. There are many many laws in effect, that doesn't mean I agree with them.

Also, for good measure, I said that the press shouldn't be allowed to present non-facts as facts.
 
For someone who writes for the Economist, that journalist really isn't all that educated.

Article said:
And although almost everybody may agree that Nazism was a unique evil,

A unique evil? In what way?
That Hitler hated jews? Hà! Yeah, that was new. And he most certainly wasn't the only European (hell, world citizen) with anti-sememtic sentiments at that time, either.
That he eradicated the jews? Hà! Been done before. The only reason the Nazi government killed more jews than at any previous time in history, was the fact that their political and (especially) scientific level allowed that.
So, what do we have more? That he waged war to expand his nation? Oh yes, that's new too. That he constantly fed his population propaganda? Oh sure, that was (and is) uniquely Nazist!

This whole "Let us call the Nazi's inhuman" and "Let us call Nazism a temporal return to barbarism" to silence humanity's guilt is becoming more and more ignorant, dogmatic and indoctrinate, really.

a ban on Nazi symbols would undoubtedly lead to a call for other similar bans. Why not a ban on the Soviet hammer-and-sickle? Or one on fascist insignia in Spain or Italy?

"Sovjet" hammer-and-sickle? The Hammer and Sickle logo is not just an emblem of the Sovjet Union, it represents an ideology that is not inherently evil or repressive at all. En contraire. People seem to forget there's a world of difference between what Marx wrote and what Lenin/Stalin did.
Also, mr. journalist, here's a free little history lesson for you: fascism isn't the same as nazism. Fascism is a form of goverment, and racial hatred, genocide and war are not inherent to it. Hell, Mussolini and Hitler weren't exactly friends before the Spanish civil war, weren't they?

Brussels-based journalists who visited the country during the Italian presidency of the EU in 2003 were startled to find Mussolini's photograph still affixed to the wall of the Palazzo Chigi, the official residence of the Italian prime minister, alongside photos of Italy's innumerable other prime ministers—and with no suggestion that there was anything remarkable about it. An official who was asked why a fascist dictator was still accorded this honour shrugged that “he's part of our history.”

He is part of their history. Napoleon might be considered the bearded devil by all the countries that lay around France, but I don't see his portrait removed anywhere. And hey - he was just as fascist as Mussolini was. Surprise!
Granted, Mussolini made the mistake of joining hands with Hitler. But did Mussolini preach racial hatred? Did he really, truly set out to eradicate Jews out of his own ideology? "Doing it the Italian way" still is a often used term because of how he handled it, really.

He is a part of Italy's present too. The deputy prime minister (and now foreign minister) whom the journalists were ushered in to see was none other than Gianfranco Fini, who in 1994 described Mussolini as “the greatest statesman of the 20th century”. Mr Fini has now renounced this claim.

Too bad. Because, not taking into consideration that he was a ruthless dicator (something which is inherent to fascism), he really was the greatest Italian statesman of the 20th century.

Or does anyone know of any other candidates?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Kharn said:
I thought you were a lefty "right-wing = evahl" person.

Seems you're still a bit outta the loop... If you'd do some more reading on the entire Theo Van Gogh murder, you'd probably find that, unfortunatly, there aren't much "Right-wing = evil" people around in Dutchieland anymore. On the contrary, actually.

Kharn said:
To draw a line between Germany and other states, as the article suggests, would be historic revisionism. Before the war, such eminent British people as Lords Nuffield, Bedford and Hamilton were all interested in fascism and many countries (Italy jumps to mind, but Holland and Belgium for two more liberal-minded countries) had fascist/nazist parties before, during ánd after the war.

That's not the beginning of it, Kharn.
Hitler was "People's man of the year" two years in a row, and eugenetics were the prime science, then. IIRC, Churcill himself had entered a proposal to set up semi-concentration camps for lower-class workers and immigrants, so they wouldn't soil the "superior British blood".
It's remarkalbe how efficient the human mind is in forgetting, or ignoring, things he doesn't want to see, know, or talk about, really. For fifty years (yes, fifty, not sixty), mankind has demonized and inhumanized the Nazi's so they wouldn't have to look at the rotten cores of Western society as a whole.

It's what we do best.
 
Banning ? Hello no....
Some of my country's old symbols like the Sun Cross, the Sigil rune (used in a stylized form in the SS emblem) The life Rune, the odin's rune and several others were used by the Nazies during the war, and some are even used by Neo-Nazi organizations.....
they are also part of my heriditage, culture and history...... The war happened and that is a fact that you have to live with.....
Hitler decimated the jews..... Just like Christian crusader enroute to Islamic targets.....
Banning the swastica is just plain studpid... banning a symbol increases it power, not decrese it..... the better part would be If someone actually had the guts to use it for something good and thus ,making it a sign for good, or atleast nutralize it....

Just as Hitler was the worlds biggest socialist prick and a madman Stalin murdered more than Hitler ever did...... You don't see the Hammer and Sicle banned, but rather reproduced on T-shirts and sold to ignorant kids who want to look cool......

My point is rather than banning stuff we should use it for ourselves..... The N-Nazies have as much right to use a symbol as anybody else, and the only way to again asociate it with its original meaning is by using it for a better purpose.....

And Nazism a unique evil ? Don't make me laugh I have ton of much worse guys on a list....:

Stalin
Napoleon
The guys who dropped the A-Bomb
Dhjengis Khan
Alexander the great
Caesar Nero
The Crusaders
The Christian/Islamic churches for instigating wars, wich hunts, stonings trough the decades.....
 
Nocturne said:
Banning the swastica is just plain studpid... banning a symbol increases it power, not decrese it

With that, I agree. Ever since prehistoric times, it were always the taboo's that singified power. Just look at the frequent use of menstruation blood, crow's eyes, pig's penisses and such taboo-items in magic potions, for instance.

And Nazism a unique evil ? Don't make me laugh I have ton of much worse guys on a list....:

Stalin
Napoleon
The guys who dropped the A-Bomb
Dhjengis Khan
Alexander the great
Caesar Nero
The Crusaders
The Christian/Islamic churches for instigating wars, wich hunts, stonings trough the decades.....

Exept for Stalin and Nero, none of those guys compare to Hitler.
 
All those commited genicide or wholesale slaughter on the higher end of the scale...... Especially the church
 
Jebus said:
IIRC, Churcill himself had entered a proposal to set up semi-concentration camps for lower-class workers and immigrants, so they wouldn't soil the "superior British blood".

IIRC, us Brits created the fist concentration camps in the 19th century... mighr well have been the Crimean or Boer Wars.
 
Sander said:
What, Kharn, you don't think I realise that there are that many limits to freedom of speech? Of course I do, but that doesn't actually change any of my thoughts on the matter. There are many many laws in effect, that doesn't mean I agree with them.

So you're saying that you're in favour of the abolishment of copyright laws, confidentiality laws, court neutrality laws?

Jebus said:
Seems you're still a bit outta the loop... If you'd do some more reading on the entire Theo Van Gogh murder, you'd probably find that, unfortunatly, there aren't much "Right-wing = evil" people around in Dutchieland anymore. On the contrary, actually.

It comes from the mistaken view that you can battle extremism with moderate views. Ha. Poor lefties.

Jebus said:
That's not the beginning of it, Kharn.

Wow, interesting stuff.

Nocturne said:
Just as Hitler was the worlds biggest socialist prick and a madman Stalin murdered more than Hitler ever did......

Stalin also had a lot more time and space and people (Hitler didn't have *that* much land for a very long time) to do so. I never give that argument much credit.

M said:
mighr well have been the Crimean or Boer Wars.

I think that would be Crimean, not Boer. The Boer wars were not a war on that kind of scale. Concentration camps are often a minority army fighting a majority force, the Boer wars were the opposite, with half a million Brits against a handful of Boers
 
Kharn said:
with half a million Brits against a handful of Boers

Hehe. That's how we got the Empire - attack the people who have no weapons with rifles and cannons and lots more people! Fight for Britain and Fairness and Equality!
 
Mikey said:
Hehe. That's how we got the Empire - attack the people who have no weapons with rifles and cannons and lots more people! Fight for Britain and Fairness and Equality!

Yip, though the Boers had gunes, being white folk an' everything.

I was wrong, though, it was concentration camps with the boers. But off topic all this, but:

The third phase: Guerrilla war - September 1900 until May 1902

The Boer guerrillas began to attack the railroads and telegraph wires of the British army. Their new tactics changed the strategy of the war and made the traditionally large British military formations ineffective.

The new commander of the British Army, Lord Kitchener, responded by building blockhouses, small stone buildings surrounded with barbed wire, to restrict the movement of the guerrillas into a small area where they could be defeated. The wire was usually extended to the next blockhouse, around 1000 yards away with bells and tin cans, flares and sometimes loaded rifles pointing along the wire, attached to it to act as alarms. Between January 1901 and the end of the war, around 8,000 blockhouses had been constructed on a 3,700 mile grid. Each blockhouse was manned by an NCO and around six other soldiers, with a lieutenant commanding three or four blockhouses. Eventually, the British had around 450,000 British and colonial troops in the country.

The blockhouses were effective in restricting the movements of the guerrillas, but could not on their own defeat them. Kitchener formed new regiments of irregular light cavalry including the Bushveldt Carbineers who ranged across Boer-controlled territory, hunting down and destroying Boer commando groups.

In March he adopted a scorched earth policy and started stripping the countryside of anything which could be useful to the Boer guerillas; seizing livestock; burning crops and farms and forcibly moving the families that lived in them into concentration camps.

The policy eventually led to the destruction of 30,000 farmhouses and about 40 small towns. In all, 116,572 Boers were moved into camps, roughly a quarter of the Boer population, along with about 120,000 black Africans.

These new tactics soon broke the spirit and the supply lines of the Boer fighters. By December 1901 many of the camps' internees had been allowed to leave, and many of the men joined two new regiments fighting alongside the British, the Transvaal National Scouts and the Orange River Volunteers, to bring the war to an end.

The concentration camps

These had originally been set up for refugees whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, and the term "concentration camp" did not originally have a malign meaning as it was simply a camp where refugees were concentrated. However, following Kitchener's new policy many more were built and they were converted to prisons.

There were a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black African ones. The Boer camps held mainly the elderly, women and children as of the roughly 28,000 Boer prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent to camps overseas; but the native African ones held large numbers of men as well. Even when forcibly removed from Boer areas, the black Africans were not considered to be hostile to the British, and so provided a paid labour force.

The conditions in the camps were very unhealthy and the food rations were meagre. Women and children of menfolk who were still fighting were given even smaller rations. The poor diet and inadequate hygiene led to endemic contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentry. Coupled with a shortage of medical facilities, this led to large numbers of deaths — a report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boers (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure. In all about 25% of the Boer inmates and 12% of the black African ones died (although recent research suggests that the black African deaths were underestimated and may have actually been around 20,000).

A delegate of the South African Women and Children's Distress Fund, Emily Hobhouse, did much to publicise the distress of the inmates on her return to Britain after visiting some of the camps in the Orange Free State. Her fifteen page report caused uproar, and led to a government commission, the Fawcett Commission visiting camps from August to December 1901 which confirmed her report. They were highly critical of the running of the camps and made numerous recommendations, for example improvements in diet and provision of proper medical facilities. By February 1902 the annual death-rate dropped to 6.9 percent and eventually to 2 percent.

The end of the war

In all, the war had cost around 75,000 lives — 22,000 British soldiers (7,792 battle casualties, the rest through disease), 6,000-7,000 Boer soldiers, 20,000-28,000 Boer civilians and perhaps 20,000 black Africans. The last of the Boers surrendered in May 1902 and the war ended with the Treaty of Vereeniging in the same month. But the Boers were given £3 million in compensation and were promised eventual self-government, and the Union of South Africa was established in 1910. The treaty ended the existence of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State as Boer republics and placed them within the British Empire.
 
Back
Top