In her study, L. Grundlingh explores various methods employed by the South African government to recruit Black soldiers during the Second World War. Key strategies included propaganda campaigns that highlighted the promise of employment, pay, and post-war benefits. Pages 73-76 detail that the government leveraged economic anxieties stemming from the Great Depression and job scarcity to entice Black men into military service. They framed enlistment as a pathway to financial stability for themselves and their families, thus appealing to their immediate economic needs.
Additionally, the South African government collaborated with African traditional chiefs and headmen for recruitment, a tactic extensively discussed on pages 76-78. The primary rationale behind this collaboration was to utilize the influence these local leaders held over their communities. However, some chiefs resisted government directives, often due to dissent against the colonial structure, loyalty to their people, or concerns about the impact of military service on their communities. While some individuals recruited through chiefs may have had some semblance of choice, many did so under pressure, reflecting complex dynamics of coercion versus agency. Overall, the recruitment drive led by African chiefs proved only partially successful; while it generated some enlistments, many community members remained skeptical or outright refused.
The economic motivations for enlistment, as elaborated on pages 79-86, were primarily rooted in the dire financial situations confronting many Black South Africans. Factors such as the allure of stable wages, the ability to support families, and the prospect of gaining new skills drove many to view military service as a viable economic opportunity amidst widespread unemployment and socio-economic marginalization.
In assessing the author's use of sources, the footnotes reveal a mix of primary documentation, qualitative interviews, and historical analyses. Primarily, archival records and official military documents are utilized, while personal narratives appear less frequently. The abundance of archival sources provides a robust framework for understanding government perspectives, while the scarcity of personal accounts may limit insights into the individual experiences of enlisted men. This reliance on institutional documents could also introduce bias, as they might not fully capture the diverse realities of enlistment beyond official narratives.