`How far do sources 1 and 2 challenge the reasons for Britain’s involvement in the Boer war given in source 3? ( 20 marks)
Source 1 disagrees with Britain’s involvement in the Boer war, as does source 2, which contrasts to the view presented in source 3. In source 1 it states, “It is a war waged on behalf of capitalists and not in the real interests of the empire.” It’s saying that the war is unnecessary, and will not benefit the empire or its people; it’s purely capitalists being greedy. Source 1 also presents the idea that the war is immoral: “The mining bosses and the financiers who fund them, with their methods of bribery, blackmailing, organised espionage, political and social pressures, have disregarded every kind of moral principle.” This is a similar view to the one presented in source 2. In source 2 it states, “The war has no connection with the civil rights of British subjects in the Transvaal. It is a question of profits.” Just as in source 1, source 2 is saying that the war is based on gaining wealth rather than the best interests of the people. The English government may have made out that the war was to protect its people and to gain civil rights in the Transvaal but in reality this was not the case; they were more interested in the money. It also states, “However, the way these poor hunted Boers have driven in self-defence to challenge us aggravates our crime in bringing about war.” It’s saying that the British have treated the Boers unfairly, and that it was wrong for us to bring about war. However source 2 may be biased and unfair due to its origin. It is a speech by David Lloyd George who was a liberal MP. Liberals were against war, and so he may have manipulated the true events in order to put people off supporting the war, and to gain support for his party. This means that we can’t use this source as an accurate piece of information. Source 1 is an extract taken from a newspaper at the time of the war which means that it cannot be taken as factual evidence because it is more of an opinion than a factual statement.
However source 3 completely goes against the views presented in sources 1 and 2, and agrees with Britain’s involvement in the war. It presents
