The quantity and quality of military historical work on the participation of South Africa in the Second World War, with few exceptions, namely that of a few significant academic contributions over the last decade, lags appreciably compared to the plethora of titles offered on all aspects of the war in the buoyant international market. This article investigates and evaluates more important South African primary and secondary sources pertaining to the Union Defence Force's participation in the Second World War, highlighting available sources and limitations in published material. Possible opportunities for further research are identified where there are areas of historiographical hiatus. Reasons are offered for what amounts to a rather threadbare South African historiography, especially when compared to the prolific historiographical output of other belligerents. The article offers a brief survey of primary sources, identifying some of the archives that have received scant attention. Then follows an analysis of secondary sources broken down into official, semi-official and general history that examines their methodological integrity and completeness with a view to identifying what historical contributions may still be made in the light of what has been produced.

Brigadier-General Wilfrid Malleson (1866Malleson ( -1946 received his commission into the Royal Artillery in 1886 and transferred to the Indian Army in 1904. He was relatively inexperienced in combat having served on the staff of Field Marshal Kitchener as part of the British military mission in Afghanistan. Malleson was later transferred to East Africa where the 2nd South African Division fell under his overall command during the catastrophic attack on Salaita Hill. This was the first occasion, since the formation of the Union Defence Force (UDF) in 1912, where a British officer commanded South African troops in battle -with disastrous consequences. There were deep underlying reasons behind the fledgling UDF's first defeat at the hands of the veteran Germans, commanded by the wily Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964). Malleson's lack of combat experience was a factor in the defeat, but more importantly, the uninspired plan of attack doomed the UDF to failure.Keywords: Jan Smuts; South Africa; Von Lettow-Vorbeck; German East Africa; military doctrine; Union Defence Force; Salaita Hill; manoeuvre warfare. -Generaal Wilfrid Malleson (1966-1946 Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964. Hoewel Malleson se gebrek aan gevegservaring ʼn rol gespeel het in die nederlaag, was dit grotendeels die ongeïnspireerde plan vir die aanval wat gelei het tot die UVM se mislukking. Opsomming Brigadier

The battle of Sandfontein November 26, 1914 marked the fledgeling Union Defence Force’s first defeat. Historians have used this long-forgotten battle as a lens to view the divisive political and military aspects of the Union’s early history. Unfortunately, some of their scholarship has passed through a distorted lens. Official histories were the first to obfuscate military and leadership shortcomings and interfere with the operational context surrounding Sandfontein. Theirs was for political reasons—a mission to protect delicate reputations and mollify a divided population. Historians have erroneously assumed that General J.C. Smuts’ initial plan for the invasion of German South West Africa 1914 was modified to exclude Walvis Bay/Swakopmund’s occupation. Instead, delays in occupying Walvis Bay/Swakopmund placed the UDF’s forces at Lüderitzbucht in a precarious position. Sandfontein, a desperate attempt to distract the Schutztruppe, was an operational failure, rather than the tactical faux pas portrayed by historians.

Most quarters of the Allied camp greeted the fall of Tobruk on 21 June 1942 with incredulity. The epitome of a heroic defence conducted the year before had now deteriorated into a military debacle, resulting in thousands of Allied soldiers sent 'into the bag'. The enormity of the defeat, at first greeted in muted fashion by a stunned press, soon turned into outrage at yet another Allied military fiasco. The British and South African papers began to demand answers from politicians and military leaders for this shocking and unexpected catastrophe. The press, normally sensitive to maintaining positive home front morale, discarded their wartime cosseting approach and embarked on a quest to find a scapegoat. Those captured at Tobruk were equally outraged that their freedom had been traded cheaply with hardly a fight. To many of these prisoners of war, the blame for their ignominious surrender rested squarely with the fortress commander, Major General HB Klopper. It was of little consequence to those now languishing behind the wire that the reasons for defeat were much more intricate and went beyond the performance of one man. This article examines a selection of representative press reports in the weeks immediately preceding and following the rout, and the oral reminiscences of former prisoners-of-war taken at Tobruk, which together, have contributed towards an enduring memory of the so-called Tobruk 'debacle'.

The initial stages of the Second Anglo Boer War demonstrated the efficacy of the Boer tactical system, which produced some astounding results. Boer mobility, coupled with directive command, individual initiative, and logistical flexibility allowed the Boers to practice an effective form of manoeuvre warfare. The Boers neither reduced their way of war to writing nor produced manuals on their tactical or operational doctrine. Their doctrine existed as an institutional belief system evolved over centuries of conflict with the tribes of southern Africa and the British. The Boer military lacked insight at the strategic level, and early brilliant Boer successes at the tactical level were not enough to swing a strategic victory. This article aims to reveal the Boer way of war through its evolution and development at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels using the lens of the Second Anglo Boer War and the German South West African campaign 1915.