Talk:Jan Smuts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan Smuts is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 25, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] League of Nations

'Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was in the establishment of the League of Nations, the idea for which is usually credited to Woodrow Wilson, but the implementation of which was guided by Smuts.'

Is this really his greatest accomplishment? Perhaps it would be best to consider his work towards the foundation of the United Nations rather than the League (which, after all, did fail rather abysmally).

Xdamr 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why the qualifier 'perhaps' is used. Smuts did more to create the League of Nations than he did the UN, since the embryonic UN being formed out of a wartime alliance, which Smuts played no part in forming. Moreover, as the first organisation of its sort, the foundation of the League of Nations was only allowed by the victory over the ideology of isolation by Jan Smuts and Woodrow Wilson. Its failure is not really related, since Smuts played little part in that, although his inability (and that of Wilson) to win over the US Senate did condemn the organisation to a slow and bitter death. Perhaps, if that rationale cannot be expounded in the introduction, the statement should read: "Perhaps his greatest accomplishments were the establishment of the League of Nations and its successor organisation, the United Nations: outlets for communication between nations for which Smuts had tirelessly campaigned." Or something to that effect.
On a side note, with someone else showing interest, I will soon get to finishing the small tasks that I pledged myself to do three months ago. Bastin8 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Granted that the UN did not bear Smut's imprint as much as the League did and that the failure of the League was not the responsibility of Smuts. My point really was that to single out the League, an institution now largely regarded as a failure, as 'perhaps' his greatest accomplishment does not do his achievements justice. Smuts' work towards the League found it's way into the later UN; to omit mention of the UN in this regard seems to suggest that his work was a failure, along with the League. Combining the League with a nod towards its influence on the later UN would be a good compromise.
Xdamr 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Smut's role in the League of Nations is totally over-rated!

Care to expand on that?
Xdamr 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)



As I understand things (and perhaps this may assist you with your write-up on Smuts and the League)...........

The story and glory of the League of Nations was not as simple as its success or failure (as contemporary ignoramuses may like to compare) but rather its core concept, which was completely new to the world! This is the point that should be made, with all due credit given to Jan Smuts for proposing something so bold. Previously it was considered impossible to create an organization which standardised norms of behaviour on a global scale.

Jan Smuts was in the unique position to observe British munificence after the Anglo Boer War. After losing the war, it was Smuts who appealed to the British to preserve Afrikaner identity and self-determination. This was given - a credit to Smuts' convincing arguments, and his appealing and sagacious character. Effectively, the Afrikaners got everything they wanted and much more (while expecting the contrary): an Afrikaner became head of state to the newly formed and larger Union of South Africa! Its affects were profound, for the more radical, autocratic and paranoid Paul Kruger faction, the group of Afrikaners bent on ideas of persecution from the British, were forced to take a back seat in politics (at least until 1948).

Jan Smuts saw the benefits of a nation NOT scorned after losing a war. This was a concept Smuts tried to instil in the League of Nations, predicting the global consequences of treating Germany badly after WW1. He was not able to convince the French and other nations who wanted to completely carve up Germany. The League of Nations was therefore an attempt to tame vindictive attitudes which, if left unchecked, may have plunged the world into war again. Unfortunately, the world was not ready to submit to a higher and saner authority. Germany was indeed scorned and the resulting resentments from Germany again plunged Europe into war. Although the League was weak, it was this insight into world events that Jan Smuts MUST BE CREDITED WITH.

The failure of the League had little to do with Jan Smuts. However, the original intentions and merits of the League (i.e. those that were carried through into the UN) had everything to do with the vision of Jan Smuts, as was echoed in his inaugural speech to the UN.

Eltharian Talk 30 April 2006

[edit] Organisation

I never envisaged this article to be this long, but it is. If I continue this article with this amount of detail, as I intend to do, it will soon become unwieldy (even without pictures). I suggest that this article be broken up into a series of separation articles. I think that the only biography to be similarly divided at this moment is that of Sir Isaac Newton. Does anyone object to that style of biography? Bastin8 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria College

Smuts could not have met his wife at Victoria since it was (and still is in the form of the Paul Roos Gymnasium) a boy's school.

Recommend revising to say he met her in Stellenbosch.

Thanks for pointing that out. Changed. Bastin8 13:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest South African Poll

The initial assertion in this article that Smuts was placed ninth is indeed incorrect, since (as correctly noted), places 2 to 10 were not ranked. When the programme was axed, Smuts was ranked sixth in terms of votes cast. With the existing caveat, I believe that that position should be used. Bastin8 13:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As the one who made the change in the first place, I agree that what you are suggesting sounds eminently sensible. Batmanand 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the Anonymous Editor

First, create a Wikipedia account, and use it. That way, other people can tell who you are.

Second, you'll have to explain the sort of conjectures that you're making about the article thus far. It's not perfect, and it's certainly not finished. However, your disputes with it are hardly well thought out. I've cited my sources, which plainly support the article as I've written it. His inability to get on with Gandhi is well-known and well-documented, but, if you have any evidence that Smuts and Gandhi were friends, I'd like to see it. Bastin8 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up the article

As promised 3 months ago, I am dividing this article into sections that deal with different parts of his life. Nobody objected to it then, so I assume that nobody objects to it now. Right now, the organisation is rather rudimentary, with the articles at JanSmuts/[section title]. If, right now, it seems like a step backwards, that's because it probably is. In the next week or so, I will sort out some of the bigger problems resulting from this reorganisation.

Again, if anybody thinks that there's something inherently wrong with splitting up this article, please mention that now. Within the next few days, it will be possible to change it back quite easily, but if someone objects to it a month down the line, I'll be really pissed off. If there are problems that you've noticed that aren't listed at my Jan Smuts project page, correct them or discuss them here. Bastin8 15:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No, I think it looks excellent like this. I knew virtually nothing about Smuts before reading it and it is really fascinating, easy to read and well laid out. I've begun taking a real interest in South African affairs recently after I came back from there a few weeks ago. My uncle is a politician there and my family was heavily involved in the anti-apartheid movement but I've never really taken much interest until recently. This was an excellent starting poin as it is really detailed, helpful and informative. Thank you. XYaAsehShalomX 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I think your articles are very good, be aware that the us of / in article space is now avoided (excpet for things like /temp /oldversion etc.) So you should probably be looking at Youth of Jan Smuts etc as the article names. If you need help, let me know. Rich Farmbrough. 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It was originally just a temporary arrangement, but I got lazy (hence the other delays). Since I've begun updating the articles again recently, I hope that I'll resolve this problem very soon (I assume it not to be urgent). Bastin8 15:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership of WW1 War Cabinets

I was wondering if someone who edits this page can clarify something for me. Jan Smuts is listed as being a member of two war cabinets in the First World War:

  • The Imperial War Cabinet, which was made up of ministers from a number of countries in the British Empire.
  • The British War Cabinet, which - other than Jan Smuts - was made up entirely of British politicians.

The Jan Smuts article isn't too clear on the matter. The introduction lists him as a member of the British War Cabinet, whilst the "Soldier, Statesman, and Scholar" lists him as a member of the Imperial War Cabinet. Does anyone know whether he served in just one or both of the cabinets? Thanks. Road Wizard 18:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Both. Smuts, as representative from South Africa, was member of the Imperial War Cabinet. In June 1917 he was offered (& accepted) a place in the British War Cabinet.
Xdamr 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on segregation and Smuts

I have added a section on Smuts view on segregation between the races. This is a subject that surprisingly has been almost completely neglected in an otherwise substantial article. By not dealing with this controversial issue the article seems more like a hagiography than a balanced assesement of the man.

It is wrong to say that as "Prime Minister, he opposed a majority of Afrikaners that wished to continue and further the de facto Apartheid of the inter-war years." In 1948 Smuts wanted to continue white minority rule, but reform some of the aspects of segregation like the restrictions on African movement inot the cities. In the introduction I therefore instead emphasised Smuts' long commitment to segregation, without failing to mention that he started to move away from it on the eve of the nationalist victory in 1948.

Also changed the statement that during the negotiations on a constitution of the the Union of South Africa Smuts supported " an inclusive electorate (including women, many Asians, and even Africans" This could give the perception that Smuts wanted universal suffrage in South Africa in 1910, which is definitely not the case. it is possible that he wanted a more liberal suffrage law than the most hardline Afrikaners,e.g. some votes for a few propertied Africans such as the case was in the Cape Province, I do not know the details there so I challenge the contributor behind the statement to go more into the details there and document his sources. Therefore changed statement to " a more inclusive electorate", hope someone can change that when they have found sources on exactly what kind of suffrage rules he wanted. :kjetor

The views expressed here are fair and the edits are to my mind accurate and justified. However, I am saddened (but not surprised) by the automatic association of Afrikaners (a cultural/language group) with certain political views. I am also interested in the fact that Smuts should be criticised for his commitment to segregation at a time when most of his contemporaries shared those views, and (for example) the United States still practised it in many (legal) forms, including the Indian reservations, segregated schools and so on. The much more radical racial views and acts of Cecil John Rhodes do not seem to merit as close an analysis and scrutiny. My own opinion is that Jan Smuts was (in his beliefs) a liberal, especially when contrasted with his contemporaries. However, he was also a politician,and like most effective politicians, a pragmatic one. pietopper (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You General Smuts Day

I recently read in a high school history textbook of a celebration held at some point (in an October I believe) in Smuts' honour, "Thank You General Smuts Day". I can't find any other information about it. Does anyone know anything about this (particularly the specific date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.68.167 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burial

The article on Irene, Gauteng states that Smuts' ashes are scattered on Smuts Koppie. This article says he was buried. Any clarification on this?196.36.71.28 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) M de Jager