What if the british empire use the concentration camps during the American revolutionary war/war of 1812 before the boer/zulu war?

I've always curious and somewhat fascinated of the british empire's actions/activities during the age of imperialism/colonialism, especially during the its rebellions and wars on it's belt.

from the american revolutionary war and its small "skirmish" in 1812 (considering napoleon and his empire building in europe), the rebellions in india and wars for harmfull drugs in china (opium wars) and especially the empire's conquest in africa...

it is there that the british empire have invent what we would call one of the most horrific and prolific war crimes in modern era, the concentration camps, used both to the native tribes like the zulus and the boers to great effect (granted the u.s is exterminating and displacing western native american tribes into reservations and by lesser extent the rest of the americas), while leopold the ll's hand-chop quota policy was the most infamous in its time, the camps that the british had set up are to me in my understanding of the british imperial colonial policy are the most "effective", influential and the most underscored legacies of the empire, (same thing to the "management" of the irish potato famine) and in the modern era they try to downplay, whitewash and even gaslight some of its atrocities by focusing on their goodwill and achievements like their banning of the atlantic slave trade...

and it is only that when the nazis had an "ingenious" idea to take the concept of the concentration camps set up by the british and put it further with "improvements" for their "final solution" of their jewish/undesirables problem...


So my question and what if scenario here is that what if the british empire use the concept of the concentration camps used in our timeline to the zulus and boers, to the american patriots/yankees by way of order and "inspiration" from king george lll or parliament itself to the american revolutionaries, both white, free/slave black and including the native tribes in the iroqouis confederation (or maybe not considering some of the tribes there have some pro-british sympathies) and excluding their loyalists to break american morale.

how would the continental congress, army and their civilian population would react to this escalation of the war?

or how would the american government, canadian congress and military/people, slaves and slaveowners and native tribes during 1812 (if its feasible or not during the napoleonic wars, hell how would napoleon take advantage of this) react to the british empire resorting to camps during the war of 1812?


what butterflies would have an effect on this tl?


what cultural shifts would happen in this version of the u.s, rest of the americas, european empires and its colonies and the rest of the world like in asia, africa and the middle east in general.

(like maybe in the movie the patriot with the british commander's actions but made worse, plus the memes)

alt-revolutionary war concentration camps victim: we're staving here to death, you limey bastards!!!

british empire :
1671768538303.png



p.s i got inspired by this idea when i was rereading okmangezz's asb tl, the american dream, in the anglo-american war and in its chapters where the british, waning spanish and rump state french bourbon dynasty empires decides to set up the camps in imperial alliance occupation of the american southern states in reaction to the fierce american civilian resistance...

 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure such a policy would destroy any chance for actually finding the Loyalists they desperately wanted to believe just needed to see British soldiers and they'd come pouring out to support the lawful government (for the Revolution) and dramatically hurt support for the war within Britain, and that's before even getting into if it would be feasible to try.

Meanwhile, in the War of 1812 there's less of the hope for loyal or at least neutral Americans, but I'm not really sure it would be any more popular at home.
 
I'm pretty sure such a policy would destroy any chance for actually finding the Loyalists they desperately wanted to believe just needed to see British soldiers and they'd come pouring out to support the lawful government (for the Revolution) and dramatically hurt support for the war within Britain, and that's before even getting into if it would be feasible to try.

Meanwhile, in the War of 1812 there's less of the hope for loyal or at least neutral Americans, but I'm not really sure it would be any more popular at home.

so what about the pro-british native tribes, canada or even the southern slave owners during the 1812 version, or hell even napoleon himself being this part of factor in consideration for his empire...
 
so what about the pro-british native tribes, canada or even the southern slave owners during the 1812 version, or hell even napoleon himself being this part of factor in consideration for his empire...

I mean, I don't think anyone is going to like this. I don't think anyone is even going to propose this, realistically. Napoleon might try to make a propaganda point about the British here, but I don't think it's going to change his policies as much.
 
Concentration camps were born out of the need of dealing with a constant, well-rooted, guerilla insurgency because the British Army had all the advantages in the open field.
In any post-independence Revolutionary War, the British Army simply does not enjoy that kind of pretty absolute advantage. It being a century before the 2nd Boer War, I don't think it'd be considered that horrible by contemporaries, but still hurt more than help.
 
Last edited:
I don' think they'd do that with so many loyalists in the colonies. That said, such tactics can work. It did work in the Boer war despite the policy antagonizing the locals rather than winning hearts. This won't work if Britain has to fight another war with say... France. So this is a dead end here. Could it work in another context? Absolutely.
 
Concentration camps were born out the need of dealing with a constant, well-rooted, guerilla insurgency because the British Army had all the advantages in the open field.
So more like the kind of thing the british would be facing if they actually beat the revolutionaries?
 
So more like the kind of thing the british would be facing if they actually beat the revolutionaries?
i can see that happening to at least "break" the morale of the american traitors to the empire, even better if they use their loyalist forces especially their slaveowner and pro-britain tribes...

kinda like what happened to the boers in otl after their war. they became "loyal" subjects and eventually even genuine ones that they're allowed to set up apartheid in their stead to control the african continent. like the british raj in india and hongkong in china...
 
Last edited:
Um, this does not work. The British peaked at about 50,000 men versus a population of about 3 million. That isn't really enough to guard the concentration camps, much less get people there in the first place. The Boer war only involved ~200,000 in concentration camps, and the British had several hundred thousand men, so it was possible. All any attempt would do is ensure a much earlier defeat by losing a lot of Loyalists flip and those sitting bench-side actively oppose the British.
 
I don't think it'd be much use in 1812 given the UK was rarely occupying American territory for prolonged periods during that conflict. It was very fluid conflict, predominantly fought in the Canadas and the sparsely inhabited border regions.
 
I don't think it'd be much use in 1812 given the UK was rarely occupying American territory for prolonged periods during that conflict. It was very fluid conflict, predominantly fought in the Canadas and the sparsely inhabited border regions.
The other part too was that the British logistics were heavily reliant on American smuggling feeding the British Army. The British aren't dumb enough to bite the hand that (literally) feeds them.
 
So my question and what if scenario here is that what if the british empire use the concept of the concentration camps used in our timeline to the zulus and boers, to the american patriots/yankees by way of order and "inspiration" from king george lll or parliament itself to the american revolutionaries, both white, free/slave black and including the native tribes in the iroqouis confederation (or maybe not considering some of the tribes there have some pro-british sympathies) and excluding their loyalists to break american morale.
Frankly what happens is that the British officers running the war refuse to obey and send back protests to Britain, where Parliamentary opposition goes up in an uproar, and so does much of what was the king's side in Parliament. I'd also expect a number of British officers who know about to order to mutiny at any sign the order might be put into effect and openly joining the side Americans until such time as the orders are rescinded. When copies of the orders get into American hands the Patriots have a field day. Loyalists desert the British in droves as every paper in the colonies plasters the orders up everywhere people can see, and any hope the British have of winning the war goes up in smoke as militias re-enlist. Britain's native allies, seeing themselves included also switch sides, because the Americans have not (yet) done anything even approaching this level of mistreatment to them.

Meanwhile in Europe the French get involved even earlier, as the collapsing British war effort means there is a much greater chance of the British just giving up before anyone else gets any spoils.

Quite possibly Canada is lost as well since Quebec is going to look at what the British government is willing to do to the Protestant English colonists and start wondering what's in store for THEM if they ever go into revolt in the future.d

Bottom line, this order is a complete and utter disaster for the British. Parliament is thrown into disarray and Lord North's government collapses. Whoever replaces him forces through a Regency Act and places the Queen in charge as regent until George IV is old enough to do the job. I can't imagine the subsequent peace will end up going nearly as much in Britain's favor, as the Americans will have an even stronger position in North America, the Army and Navy are in uproar, and the British public is solidly anti-War as well.
 
As I understand it, there were already a fair number - even of those that did serve in the war - of British officers who saw the war as a tragic thing. Something like this kind of policy really needs those implementing it (as in those actually doing the concentration camps) to have a rather hostile attitude to the people they're putting in the camps, and to ditch the idea that "total war" is not actually particularly gentlemanly for this to even happen, let alone accomplish anything but inspiring hatred.
 

kholieken

Banned
What about limited concentration camps ? British thrown civilians West of Appalachia into concentration camps (in Ohio ?), but did not practice it on large scale.
 
As I understand it, there were already a fair number - even of those that did serve in the war - of British officers who saw the war as a tragic thing. Something like this kind of policy really needs those implementing it (as in those actually doing the concentration camps) to have a rather hostile attitude to the people they're putting in the camps, and to ditch the idea that "total war" is not actually particularly gentlemanly for this to even happen, let alone accomplish anything but inspiring hatred.

Notably amongst them were William Howe and Henry Clinton, the men running the Army. And Cornwallis, who led the southern campaign (in 1765 he was one of only 5 lord to vote against the Stamp Act for instance.)
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
@Hastings
The 1770 census of the Thirteen Colonies put the total population at 2,090,119. That would be a ration of just under 42 colonists for every soldier of a force of 50,000. I think 3 million is a bit of an over estimate, If 2,090,119 were in rebellion and the rest were not, it would amount to the same thing. Can ten people guard 419? Sure. With barbed wire, dogs and guns. Not that the rebel percentage of the total population was ever that high. The key to implementing this is successfully is early adoption. Before rebels take up arms to fight as a united force. What the later USA called internment.
 
Last edited:
Not that the rebel percentage of the total population was ever that high.
No, but the percent that wasn’t loyalist was over 80%, with outright pro-independence being about half. And this policy will drive the most neutrals toward Rebellion, and also some of the Loyalists. 70%+ being pro-rebellion would not be inconceivable in such circumstances.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
No, but the percent that wasn’t loyalist was over 80%, with outright pro-independence being about half. And this policy will drive the most neutrals toward Rebellion, and also some of the Loyalists. 70%+ being pro-rebellion would not be inconceivable in such circumstances.
Since my own example used 2,090,199 out of 3 million (over 69.67%) you are quibbling.
 
Top