Jan Smuts The Old Boers What was The Old Boers? the Old Boers (Hertzog, Steyn, De Wet), Why was he called this? I don't know. What did he do during this time/? A small-scale miners' dispute flared into a full-blown strike, and rioting broke out in Johannesburg after Smuts intervened heavy-handedly. What was the dispute over? With the schism in internal party politics came a new threat to the mines that brought South Africa its wealth. What were they mining? I don't know. Did Africa gain wealth? Smuts lost Interior and Mines, but gained control of Finance. When did he gain control over France? This was too much for the Old Boers, who set up their own National Party to fight the all-powerful Botha-Smuts partnership.
What year did he try to gain control over France?
What year did Jan Smuts try to gain control over France?
The Union of South Africa was born, and the Afrikaners held the key to political power, as the majority of the electorate. Although Botha was appointed prime minister of the new country, Smuts was given three key ministries: Interior, Mines, and Defence. Undeniably, Smuts was the second most powerful man in South Africa. To solidify their dominance of South African politics, the Afrikaners united to form the South African Party, a new pan-South African Afrikaner party.  The harmony and cooperation soon ended. Smuts was criticised for his overarching powers, and the cabinet was reshuffled. Smuts lost Interior and Mines, but gained control of Finance. This was still too much for Smuts' opponents, who decried his possession of both Defence and Finance: two departments that were usually at loggerheads. At the 1913 South African Party conference, the Old Boers (Hertzog, Steyn, De Wet), called for Botha and Smuts to step down. The two narrowly survived a confidence vote, and the troublesome triumvirate stormed out, leaving the party for good.  With the schism in internal party politics came a new threat to the mines that brought South Africa its wealth. A small-scale miners' dispute flared into a full-blown strike, and rioting broke out in Johannesburg after Smuts intervened heavy-handedly. After police shot dead twenty-one strikers, Smuts and Botha headed unaccompanied to Johannesburg to resolve the situation personally. Facing down threats to their own lives, they negotiated a cease-fire. But the cease-fire did not hold, and in 1914, a railway strike turned into a general strike. Threats of a revolution caused Smuts to declare martial law. Smuts acted ruthlessly, deporting union leaders without trial and using Parliament to absolve him and the government of any blame retroactively. This was too much for the Old Boers, who set up their own National Party to fight the all-powerful Botha-Smuts partnership. CANNOTANSWER
CANNOTANSWER
Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts,  (24 May 1870  11 September 1950) was a South African statesman, military leader and philosopher. In addition to holding various military and cabinet posts, he served as prime minister of the Union of South Africa from 1919 to 1924 and 1939 to 1948.

Smuts was born to Afrikaner parents in the British Cape Colony. He was educated at Victoria College, Stellenbosch before reading law at Christ's College, Cambridge on a scholarship. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1894 but returned home the following year. In the leadup to the Second Boer War, Smuts practiced law in Pretoria, the capital of the South African Republic. He led the republic's delegation to the Bloemfontein Conference and served as an officer in a commando unit following the outbreak of war in 1899. In 1902 he played a key role in negotiating the Treaty of Vereeniging, which ended the war and resulted in the annexation of the South African Republic and Orange Free State into the British Empire. He subsequently helped negotiate self-government for the Transvaal Colony, becoming a cabinet minister under Louis Botha.

Smuts played a leading role in the creation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, helping shape its constitution. He and Botha established the South African Party, with Botha becoming the union's first prime minister and Smuts holding multiple cabinet portfolios. As defence minister he was responsible for the Union Defence Force during World War I. Smuts personally led troops in the East African campaign in 1916 and the following year joined the Imperial War Cabinet in London. He played a leading role at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, advocating for the creation of the League of Nations and securing South African control over the former German South-West Africa.

In 1919, Smuts replaced Botha as prime minister, holding the office until the South African Party's defeat at the 1924 general election by J. B. M. Hertzog's National Party. He spent several years in academia, during which he coined the term "holism", before eventually re-entering politics as deputy prime minister in a coalition with Hertzog; in 1934 their parties subsequently merged to form the United Party. Smuts returned as prime minister in 1939, leading South Africa into World War II at the head of a pro-interventionist faction. He was appointed field marshal in 1941 and in 1945 signed the UN Charter, the only signer of the Treaty of Versailles to do so. His second term in office ended with the victory of the reconstituted National Party at the 1948 general election, with the new government beginning the implementation of apartheid.

Smuts was an internationalist who played a key role in establishing and defining the League of Nations, United Nations and Commonwealth of Nations.

Early life and education

Smuts was born on 24 May 1870, at the family farm, Bovenplaats, near Malmesbury, in the Cape Colony. His parents, Jacobus Smuts and his wife Catharina, were prosperous, traditional Afrikaner farmers, long established and highly respected.

As the second son of the family, rural custom dictated that Jan would remain working on the farm. In this system, typically only the first son was supported for a full, formal education. In 1882, when Jan was twelve, his elder brother died, and Jan was sent to school in his place. Jan attended the school in nearby Riebeek West. He made excellent progress despite his late start, and caught up with his contemporaries within four years. He was admitted to Victoria College, Stellenbosch, in 1886, at the age of sixteen.

At Stellenbosch, he learned High Dutch, German, and Ancient Greek, and immersed himself in literature, the classics, and Bible studies. His deeply traditional upbringing and serious outlook led to social isolation from his peers. He made outstanding academic progress, graduating in 1891 with double first-class honours in Literature and Science. During his last years at Stellenbosch, Smuts began to cast off some of his shyness and reserve. At this time he met Isie Krige, whom he later married.

On graduation from Victoria College, Smuts won the Ebden scholarship for overseas study. He decided to attend the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom to read law at Christ's College. Smuts found it difficult to settle at Cambridge. He felt homesick and isolated by his age and different upbringing from the English undergraduates. Worries over money also contributed to his unhappiness, as his scholarship was insufficient to cover his university expenses. He confided these worries to Professor J. I. Marais, a friend from Victoria College. In reply, Professor Marais enclosed a cheque for a substantial sum, by way of loan, encouraging Smuts to let him know if he ever found himself in need again. Thanks to Marais, Smuts's financial standing was secure. He gradually began to enter more into the social aspects of the university, although he retained a single-minded dedication to his studies.

During this time in Cambridge, Smuts studied a diverse number of subjects in addition to law. He wrote a book, Walt Whitman: A Study in the Evolution of Personality. It was not published until 1973, after his death, but it can be seen that Smuts in this book had already conceptualized his thinking for his later wide-ranging philosophy of holism.

Smuts graduated in 1894 with a double first. Over the previous two years, he had received numerous academic prizes and accolades, including the coveted George Long prize in Roman Law and Jurisprudence. One of his tutors, Professor Maitland, a leading figure among English legal historians, described Smuts as the most brilliant student he had ever met. Lord Todd, the Master of Christ's College, said in 1970 that "in 500 years of the College's history, of all its members, past and present, three had been truly outstanding: John Milton, Charles Darwin and Jan Smuts."

In December 1894, Smuts passed the examinations for the Inns of Court, entering the Middle Temple. His old Cambridge college, Christ's College, offered him a fellowship in Law. Smuts turned his back on a potentially distinguished legal future. By June 1895, he had returned to the Cape Colony, determined to make his future there.

Career

Law and politics

Smuts began to practise law in Cape Town, but his abrasive nature made him few friends. Finding little financial success in the law, he began to devote more and more of his time to politics and journalism, writing for the Cape Times. Smuts was intrigued by the prospect of a united South Africa, and joined the Afrikaner Bond. By good fortune, Smuts' father knew the leader of the group, Jan Hofmeyr. Hofmeyr in turn recommended Jan to Cecil Rhodes, who owned the De Beers mining company. In 1895, Smuts became an advocate and supporter of Rhodes.

When Rhodes launched the Jameson Raid, in the summer of 1895–96, Smuts was outraged. Feeling betrayed by his employer, friend and political ally, he resigned from De Beers, and left political life. Instead he became state attorney in the capital of the South African Republic, Pretoria.

After the Jameson Raid, relations between the British and the Afrikaners had deteriorated steadily. By 1898, war seemed imminent. Orange Free State President Martinus Steyn called for a peace conference at Bloemfontein to settle each side's grievances. With an intimate knowledge of the British, Smuts took control of the Transvaal delegation. Sir Alfred Milner, head of the British delegation, took exception to his dominance, and conflict between the two led to the collapse of the conference, consigning South Africa to war.

The Boer War

On 11 October 1899 the Boer republics declared war and launched an offensive into the British-held Natal and Cape Colony areas, beginning the Second Boer War of 1899–1902. In the early stages of the conflict, Smuts served as Paul Kruger's eyes and ears in Pretoria, handling propaganda, logistics, communication with generals and diplomats, and anything else that was required. In the second phase of the war, from mid-1900, Smuts served under Koos de la Rey, who commanded 500 commandos in the Western Transvaal. Smuts excelled at hit-and-run warfare, and the unit evaded and harassed a British army forty times its size. President Paul Kruger and the deputation in Europe thought that there was good hope for their cause in the Cape Colony. They decided to send General de la Rey there to assume supreme command, but then decided to act more cautiously when they realised that General de la Rey could hardly be spared in the Western Transvaal. Consequently, Smuts was left with a small force of 300 men, while another 100 men followed him. By January 1902 the British scorched-earth policy left little grazing land. One hundred of the cavalry that had joined Smuts were therefore too weak to continue and so Smuts had to leave these men with General Kritzinger. Intelligence indicated that at this time Smuts had about 3,000 men.

To end the conflict, Smuts sought to take a major target, the copper-mining town of Okiep in the present-day Northern Cape Province (April–May 1902). With a full assault impossible, Smuts packed a train full of explosives, and tried to push it downhill, into the town, in order to bring the enemy garrison to its knees. Although this failed, Smuts had proved his point: that he would stop at nothing to defeat his enemies. Norman Kemp Smith wrote that General Smuts read from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason on the evening before the raid. Smith contended that this showed how Kant's critique can be a solace and a refuge, as well as a means to sharpen the wit. Combined with the British failure to pacify the Transvaal, Smuts' success left the United Kingdom with no choice but to offer a ceasefire and a peace conference, to be held at Vereeniging.

Before the conference, Smuts met Lord Kitchener at Kroonstad station, where they discussed the proposed terms of surrender. Smuts then took a leading role in the negotiations between the representatives from all of the commandos from the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (15–31 May 1902). Although he admitted that, from a purely military perspective, the war could continue, he stressed the importance of not sacrificing the Afrikaner people for that independence. He was very conscious that "more than 20,000 women and children have already died in the concentration camps of the enemy". He felt it would have been a crime to continue the war without the assurance of help from elsewhere and declared, "Comrades, we decided to stand to the bitter end. Let us now, like men, admit that that end has come for us, come in a more bitter shape than we ever thought." His opinions were representative of the conference, which then voted by 54 to 6 in favour of peace. Representatives of the Governments met Lord Kitchener and at five minutes past eleven on 31 May 1902, the Acting State President of the South African Republic, Schalk Willem Burger signed the Treaty of Vereeniging, followed by the members of his government, Acting State President of the Orange Free State, Christiaan De Wet, and the members of his government.

A British Transvaal

For all Smuts' exploits as a general and a negotiator, nothing could mask the fact that the Boers had been defeated. Lord Milner had full control of all South African affairs, and established an Anglophone elite, known as Milner's Kindergarten. As an Afrikaner, Smuts was excluded. Defeated but not deterred, in January 1905, he decided to join with the other former Transvaal generals to form a political party, Het Volk ('The People'), to fight for the Afrikaner cause. Louis Botha was elected leader, and Smuts his deputy.

When his term of office expired, Milner was replaced as High Commissioner by the more conciliatory Lord Selborne. Smuts saw an opportunity and pounced, urging Botha to persuade the Liberals to support Het Volk's cause. When the Conservative government under Arthur Balfour collapsed, in December 1905, the decision paid off. Smuts joined Botha in London, and sought to negotiate full self-government for the Transvaal within British South Africa. Using the thorny political issue of South Asian labourers ('coolies'), the South Africans convinced Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and, with him, the cabinet and Parliament.

Through 1906, Smuts worked on the new constitution for the Transvaal, and, in December 1906, elections were held for the Transvaal parliament. Despite being shy and reserved, unlike the showman Botha, Smuts won a comfortable victory in the Wonderboom constituency, near Pretoria. His victory was one of many, with Het Volk winning in a landslide and Botha forming the government. To reward his loyalty and efforts, Smuts was given two key cabinet positions: Colonial Secretary and Education Secretary.

Smuts proved to be an effective leader, if unpopular. As Education Secretary, he had fights with the Dutch Reformed Church, of which he had once been a dedicated member, which demanded Calvinist teachings in schools. As Colonial Secretary, he opposed a movement for equal rights for South Asian workers, led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

During the years of Transvaal self-government, nobody could avoid the predominant political debate of the day: South African unification. Ever since the British victory in the war, it was an inevitability, but it remained up to the South Africans to decide what sort of country would be formed, and how it would be formed. Smuts favoured a unitary state, with power centralised in Pretoria, with English as the only official language, and with a more inclusive electorate. To impress upon his compatriots his vision, he called a constitutional convention in Durban, in October 1908.

There, Smuts was up against a hard-talking Orange River Colony delegation, who refused every one of Smuts' demands. Smuts had successfully predicted this opposition, and their objections, and tailored his own ambitions appropriately. He allowed compromise on the location of the capital, on the official language, and on suffrage, but he refused to budge on the fundamental structure of government. As the convention drew into autumn, the Orange leaders began to see a final compromise as necessary to secure the concessions that Smuts had already made. They agreed to Smuts' draft South African constitution, which was duly ratified by the South African colonies. Smuts and Botha took the constitution to London, where it was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent by King Edward VII in December 1909.

The Old Boers

The Union of South Africa was born, and the Afrikaners held the key to political power, as the majority of the increasingly whites-only electorate. Although Botha was appointed prime minister of the new country, Smuts was given three key ministries: Interior, Mines, and Defence. Undeniably, Smuts was the second most powerful man in South Africa. To solidify their dominance of South African politics, the Afrikaners united to form the South African Party, a new pan-South African Afrikaner party.

The harmony and co-operation soon ended. Smuts was criticised for his overarching powers, and the cabinet was reshuffled. Smuts lost Interior and Mines, but gained control of Finance. That was still too much for Smuts' opponents, who decried his possession of both Defence and Finance, two departments that were usually at loggerheads. At the 1913 South African Party conference, the Old Boers (Hertzog, Steyn, De Wet), called for Botha and Smuts to step down. The two narrowly survived a confidence vote, and the troublesome triumvirate stormed out, leaving the party for good.

With the schism in internal party politics came a new threat to the mines that brought South Africa its wealth. A small-scale miners' dispute flared into a full-blown strike, and rioting broke out in Johannesburg after Smuts intervened heavy-handedly. After police shot dead twenty-one strikers, Smuts and Botha headed unaccompanied to Johannesburg to resolve the situation personally. Facing down threats to their own lives, they negotiated a cease-fire. But the cease-fire did not hold, and in 1914, a railway strike turned into a general strike. Threats of a revolution caused Smuts to declare martial law. He acted ruthlessly, deporting union leaders without trial and using Parliament to absolve him and the government of any blame retroactively. That was too much for the Old Boers, who set up their own National Party to fight the all-powerful Botha-Smuts partnership.

First World War

During World War I, Smuts formed the Union Defence Force. His first task was to suppress the Maritz Rebellion, which was accomplished by November 1914. Next he and Louis Botha led the South African army into German South-West Africa and conquered it (see the South-West Africa Campaign for details). In 1916 General Smuts was put in charge of the conquest of German East Africa. Col (later BGen) J.H.V. Crowe commanded the artillery in East Africa under General Smuts and published an account of the campaign, General Smuts' Campaign in East Africa in 1918. Smuts was promoted to temporary lieutenant general on 18 February 1916, and to honorary lieutenant general for distinguished service in the field on 1 January 1917.

Smuts' chief Intelligence officer, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, wrote very critically of his conduct of the campaign. He believed Horace Smith-Dorrien (who had saved the British Army during the retreat from Mons and was the original choice as commander in 1916) would have quickly defeated the Germans. In particular, Meinertzhagen thought that frontal attacks would have been decisive, and less costly than the flanking movements preferred by Smuts, which took longer, so that thousands of Imperial troops died of disease in the field. He wrote: "Smuts has cost Britain many hundreds of lives and many millions of pounds by his caution... Smuts was not an astute soldier; a brilliant statesman and politician but no soldier." Meinertzhagen wrote these comments in October/November 1916, in the weeks after being relieved by Smuts due to symptoms of depression, and he was invalided back to England shortly thereafter.

Early in 1917, Smuts left Africa and went to London, as he had been invited to join the Imperial War Cabinet and the War Policy Committee by David Lloyd George. Smuts initially recommended renewed Western Front attacks and a policy of attrition, lest with Russian commitment to the war wavering, France or Italy would be tempted to make a separate peace. Lloyd George wanted a commander "of the dashing type" for the Middle East in succession to Murray, but Smuts refused the command (late May) unless promised resources for a decisive victory, and he agreed with Robertson that Western Front commitments did not justify a serious attempt to capture Jerusalem. Allenby was appointed instead. Like other members of the War Cabinet, Smuts' commitment to Western Front efforts was shaken by Third Ypres.

In 1917, following the German Gotha Raids, and lobbying by Viscount French, Smuts wrote a review of the British Air Services, which came to be called the Smuts Report. He was helped in large part in this by General Sir David Henderson who was seconded to him. This report led to the treatment of air as a separate force, which eventually became the Royal Air Force.

By mid-January 1918, Lloyd George was toying with the idea of appointing Smuts Commander-in-Chief of all land and sea forces facing the Ottoman Empire, reporting directly to the War Cabinet rather than to Robertson. Early in 1918, Smuts was sent to Egypt to confer with Allenby and Marshall, and prepare for major efforts in that theatre. Before his departure, alienated by Robertson's exaggerated estimates of the required reinforcements, he urged Robertson's removal. Allenby told Smuts of Robertson's private instructions (sent by hand of Walter Kirke, appointed by Robertson as Smuts' adviser) that there was no merit in any further advance. He worked with Smuts to draw up plans, using three reinforcement divisions from Mesopotamia, to reach Haifa by June and Damascus by the autumn, the speed of the advance limited by the need to lay fresh rail track. This was the foundation of Allenby's successful offensive later in the year.

Like most British Empire political and military leaders in World War I, Smuts thought the American Expeditionary Forces lacked the proper leadership and experience to be effective quickly. He supported the Anglo-French amalgamation policy towards the Americans. In particular, he had a low opinion of General John J. Pershing's leadership skills, so much so that proposed to Lloyd George that Pershing be relieved of command and US forces be placed "under someone more confident, like [himself]". This did not endear him to the Americans once it was leaked.

Statesman

Smuts and Botha were key negotiators at the Paris Peace Conference. Both were in favour of reconciliation with Germany and limited reparations. Smuts advocated a powerful League of Nations, which failed to materialise. He was sent to Budapest to negotiate with Béla Kun's Hungarian Soviet Republic to withdraw from unrecognized territory, and the Hungarian Communist Party's refusal to meet him led to the conference's approval of a Czechoslovak-Romanian invasion and harsher terms in the Treaty of Trianon. The Treaty of Versailles gave South Africa a Class C mandate over German South-West Africa (which later became Namibia), which was occupied from 1919 until withdrawal in 1990. At the same time, Australia was given a similar mandate over German New Guinea, which it held until 1975. Both Smuts and the Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes feared the rising power of Japan in the post First World War world. When former German East Africa was divided into three mandated territories (Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanganyika) Smutsland was one of the proposed names for what became Tanganyika. Smuts, who had called for South African territorial expansion all the way to the River Zambesi since the late 19th century, was ultimately disappointed with the League awarding South-West Africa only a mandate status, as he had looked forward to formally incorporating the territory to South Africa. 

Smuts returned to South African politics after the conference. When Botha died in 1919, Smuts was elected prime minister, serving until a shocking defeat in 1924 at the hands of the National Party. After the death of the former American President Woodrow Wilson, Smuts was quoted as saying that: "Not Wilson, but humanity failed at Paris."

While in Britain for an Imperial Conference in June 1921, Smuts went to Ireland and met Éamon de Valera to help broker an armistice and peace deal between the warring British and Irish nationalists. Smuts attempted to sell the concept of Ireland receiving Dominion status similar to that of Australia and South Africa.

During his first premiership Smuts was involved in a number of controversies. The first was the Rand Revolt of March 1921, where aeroplanes were used to bomb white miners who were striking in opposition to proposals to allow non-whites to do more skilled and semi-skilled work previously reserved to whites only. Smuts was accused of siding with the Rand Lords who wanted the removal of the colour bar in the hope that it would lower wage costs. The white miners perpetrated acts of violence across the Rand, including murderous attacks on non-Europeans, conspicuously on African miners in their compounds, and this culminated in a general assault on the police. Smuts declared martial law and suppressed the insurrection in three days – at a cost of 291 police and army deaths, and 396 civilians killed. A Martial Law Commission was established which found that Smuts used larger forces than were strictly required, but had saved lived by doing so.

The second was the Bulhoek Massacre of 24 May 1921, when at Bulhoek in the eastern Cape eight hundred South African policemen and soldiers armed with maxim machine guns and two field artillery guns killed 163 and wounded 129 members of an indigenous religious sect known as "Israelites" who had been armed with knobkerries, assegais and swords and who had refused to vacate land they regarded as holy to them. Casualties on the government side at Bulhoek amounted to one trooper wounded and one horse killed. Once again, there were charges of the unnecessary use of overwhelming force. However, no commission of enquiry was appointed.

The third was the Bondelswarts Rebellion, in which Smuts supported the actions of the South African Administration in attacking the Bondelswarts in South West Africa. The mandatory administration moved to crush what they called a rebellion of 500 to 600 people, of which 200 were said to be armed (although only about 40 weapons were captured after the Bondelswarts were crushed).  Gysbert Hofmeyr, the Mandatory Administrator, organised 400 armed men, and sent in aircraft to bomb the Bondelswarts. Casualties included 100 Bondelswart deaths, including a few women and children. A further 468 men were either wounded or taken prisoner. South Africa's international reputation was tarnished. Ruth First, a South African anti-apartheid activist and scholar, describes the Bondelswarts shooting as "the Sharpeville of the 1920s".

As a botanist, Smuts collected plants extensively over southern Africa. He went on several botanical expeditions in the 1920s and 1930s with John Hutchinson, former botanist-in-charge of the African section of the Herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens and taxonomist of note. Smuts was a keen mountaineer and supporter of mountaineering. One of his favourite rambles was up Table Mountain along a route now known as Smuts' Track. In February 1923 he unveiled a memorial to members of the Mountain Club who had been killed in World War I.

In 1925, assessing Smuts's role in international affairs, African-American historian and Pan-Africanist W. E. B. Du Bois wrote in an article which would be incorporated into the pivotal Harlem Renaissance text The New Negro,Jan Smuts is today, in his world aspects, the greatest protagonist of the white race. He is fighting to take control of Laurenço Marques from a nation that recognizes, even though it does not realize, the equality of black folk; he is fighting to keep India from political and social equality in the empire; he is fighting to insure the continued and eternal subordination of black to white in Africa; and he is fighting for peace and good will in a white Europe which can by union present a united front to the yellow, brown and black worlds. In all this he expresses bluntly, and yet not without finesse, what a powerful host of white folk believe but do not plainly say in Melbourne, New Orleans, San Francisco, Hongkong, Berlin, and London.

In December 1934, Smuts told an audience at the Royal Institute of International Affairs that:How can the inferiority complex which is obsessing and, I fear, poisoning the mind, and indeed the very soul of Germany, be removed? There is only one way and that is to recognise her complete equality of status with her fellows and to do so frankly, freely and unreservedly ... While one understands and sympathises with French fears, one cannot, but feel for Germany in the prison of inferiority in which she still remains sixteen years after the conclusion of the war. The continuance of the Versailles status is becoming an offence to the conscience of Europe and a danger to future peace ... Fair play, sportsmanship—indeed every standard of private and public life—calls for frank revision of the situation. Indeed ordinary prudence makes it imperative. Let us break these bonds and set the complexed-obsessed soul free in a decent human way and Europe will reap a rich reward in tranquility, security and returning prosperity.

Though in his Rectorial Address delivered on 17 October 1934 at St Andrews University he states that:The new Tyranny, disguised in attractive patriotic colours, is enticing youth everywhere into its service. Freedom must make a great counterstroke to save itself and our fair western civilisation. Once more the heroic call is coming to our youth. The fight for human freedom is indeed the supreme issue of the future, as it has always been.

Second World War

After nine years in opposition and academia, Smuts returned as deputy prime minister in a 'grand coalition' government under J. B. M. Hertzog. When Hertzog advocated neutrality towards Nazi Germany in 1939, the coalition split and Hertzog's motion to remain out of the war was defeated in Parliament by a vote of 80 to 67. Governor-General Sir Patrick Duncan refused Hertzog's request to dissolve parliament for a general election on the issue. Hertzog resigned and Duncan invited Smuts, Hertzog's coalition partner, to form a government and become prime minister for the second time in order to lead the country into World War II on the side of the Allies.

On 24 May 1941 Smuts was appointed a field marshal of the British Army.

Smuts' importance to the Imperial war effort was emphasised by a quite audacious plan, proposed as early as 1940, to appoint Smuts as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, should Churchill die or otherwise become incapacitated during the war. This idea was put forward by Sir John Colville, Churchill's private secretary, to Queen Mary and then to George VI, both of whom warmed to the idea.

In May 1945, he represented South Africa in San Francisco at the drafting of the United Nations Charter. Also in 1945, he was mentioned by Halvdan Koht among seven candidates that were qualified for the Nobel Prize in Peace. However, he did not explicitly nominate any of them. The person actually nominated was Cordell Hull.

Later life

In domestic policy, a number of social security reforms were carried out during Smuts' second period in office as Prime Minister. Old-age pensions and disability grants were extended to 'Indians' and 'Africans' in 1944 and 1947 respectively, although there were differences in the level of grants paid out based on race. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1941 "insured all employees irrespective of payment of the levy by employers and increased the number of diseases covered by the law," and the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1946 introduced unemployment insurance on a national scale, albeit with exclusions.

Smuts continued to represent his country abroad. He was a leading guest at the 1947 wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
 At home, his preoccupation with the war had severe political repercussions in South Africa. Smuts' support of the war and his support for the Fagan Commission made him unpopular amongst the Afrikaner community and Daniel François Malan's pro-apartheid stance won the Reunited National Party the 1948 general election.

In 1948, he was elected Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, becoming the first person from outside the United Kingdom to hold that position. He held the position until his death two years later.

He accepted the appointment as Colonel-in-Chief of Regiment Westelike Provinsie as from 17 September 1948.

In 1949, Smuts was bitterly opposed to the London Declaration which transformed British Commonwealth into the Commonwealth of Nations and made it possible for Republics (such as the newly independent India) to remain its members. In the South African context, republicanism was mainly identified with Afrikaner Conservatism and with tighter racial segregation.

Death

On 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, Jan Smuts suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950.

Relations with Churchill
In 1899, Smuts interrogated the young Winston Churchill, who had been captured by Afrikaners during the Boer War, which was the first time they met. The next time was in 1906, while Smuts was leading a mission about South Africa's future to London before Churchill, then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. The British Cabinet shared Churchill's sympathetic view, which led to self-government within the year, followed by dominion status for the Union of South Africa in 1910. Their association continued in World War I, when Lloyd George appointed Smuts, in 1917, to the war cabinet in which Churchill served as Munitions Minister. By then, both had formed a fast friendship that continued through Churchill's "wilderness years" and World War II, to Smuts's death. Lord Moran, Churchill's personal physician, wrote in his diary: Smuts is the only man who has any influence with the PM; indeed, he is the only ally I have in pressing counsels of common sense on the PM. Smuts sees so clearly that Winston is irreplaceable, that he may make an effort to persuade him to be sensible.

Churchill:Smuts and I are like two old love-birds moulting together on a perch, but still able to peck.

When Eden said at a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff (29 October 1942) that Montgomery's Middle East offensive was "petering out", after having some late night drinks with Churchill the previous night, Alanbrooke had told Churchill "fairly plainly" what he thought of Eden's ability to judge the tactical situation from a distance (Churchill was always impatient for his generals to attack at once). He was supported at the Chiefs of Staff meeting by Smuts. Alanbrooke said he was fortunate to be supported by: <blockquote>
a flow of words from the mouth of that wonderful statesman. It was as if oil had been poured on the troubled waters. The temperamental film-stars returned to their tasks - peace reigned in the dove cot! </blockquote>

Views
Non-white suffrage
At the Imperial Conference of 1925 Smuts stated:

Holism and related academic work

While in academia, Smuts pioneered the concept of holism, which he defined as "[the] fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe" in his 1926 book, Holism and Evolution. Smuts' formulation of holism has been linked with his political-military activity, especially his aspiration to create a league of nations. As one biographer said:
It had very much in common with his philosophy of life as subsequently developed and embodied in his Holism and Evolution. Small units must develop into bigger wholes, and they in their turn again must grow into larger and ever-larger structures without cessation. Advancement lay along that path. Thus the unification of the four provinces in the Union of South Africa, the idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and, finally, the great whole resulting from the combination of the peoples of the earth in a great league of nations were but a logical progression consistent with his philosophical tenets.

Segregation
Smuts was, for most of his political life, a vocal supporter of segregation of the races, and in 1929 he justified the erection of separate institutions for blacks and whites in tones prescient of the later practice of apartheid:

In general, Smuts' view of black Africans was patronising: he saw them as immature human beings who needed the guidance of whites, an attitude that reflected the common perceptions of most non-blacks in his lifetime. Of black Africans he stated that:

Although Gandhi and Smuts were adversaries in many ways, they had a mutual respect and even admiration for each other. Before Gandhi returned to India in 1914, he presented General Smuts with a pair of sandals (now held by Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History) made by Gandhi himself. In 1939, Smuts, then prime minister, wrote an essay for a commemorative work compiled for Gandhi's 70th birthday and returned the sandals with the following message: "I have worn these sandals for many a summer, even though I may feel that I am not worthy to stand in the shoes of so great a man."

Smuts is often accused of being a politician who extolled the virtues of humanitarianism and liberalism abroad while failing to practise what he preached at home in South Africa. This was most clearly illustrated when India, in 1946, made a formal complaint in the UN concerning the legalised racial discrimination against Indians in South Africa. Appearing personally before the United Nations General Assembly, Smuts defended the policies of his government by fervently pleading that India's complaint was a matter of domestic jurisdiction. However, the General Assembly censured South Africa for its racial policies and called upon the Smuts government to bring its treatment of the South African Indians in conformity with the basic principles of the United Nations Charter.

At the same conference, the African National Congress President General Alfred Bitini Xuma along with delegates of the South African Indian Congress brought up the issue of the brutality of Smuts' police regime against the African Mine Workers' Strike earlier that year as well as the wider struggle for equality in South Africa.

In 1948, he went further away from his previous views on segregation when supporting the recommendations of the Fagan Commission that Africans should be recognised as permanent residents of White South Africa, and not merely as temporary workers who belonged in the reserves. This was in direct opposition to the policies of the National Party that wished to extend segregation and formalise it into apartheid. There is, however, no evidence that Smuts ever supported the idea of equal political rights for blacks and whites. Despite this, he did say:  The Fagan Commission did not advocate the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa, but rather wanted to liberalise influx controls of blacks into urban areas in order to facilitate the supply of black African labour to the South African industry. It also envisaged a relaxation of the pass laws that had restricted the movement of blacks in general.

In the assessment of South African Cambridge professor Saul Dubow, "Smuts's views of freedom were always geared to securing the values of western Christian civilization. He was consistent, albeit more flexible than his political contemporaries, in his espousal of white supremacy."

Zionism

In 1943 Chaim Weizmann wrote to Smuts, detailing a plan to develop Britain's African colonies to compete with the United States. During his service as Premier, Smuts personally fundraised for multiple Zionist organisations. His government granted de facto recognition to Israel on 24 May 1948 and de jure'' recognition on 14 May 1949 (following the defeat of Smuts' United Party by the Reunited National Party in the 26 May 1948 General Election, 12 days after David Ben Gurion declared Jewish Statehood, the newly formed nation being given the name Israel). However, Smuts was deputy prime minister when the Hertzog government in 1937 passed the Aliens Act that was aimed at preventing Jewish immigration to South Africa. The act was seen as a response to growing anti-Semitic sentiments among Afrikaners.

Smuts lobbied against the White Paper of 1939, and several streets and a kibbutz, Ramat Yohanan, in Israel are named after him. He also wrote an epitaph for Weizmann, describing him as "the greatest Jew since Moses." Smuts once said:

Legacy

One of his greatest international accomplishments was the establishment of the League of Nations, the exact design and implementation of which relied upon Smuts. He later urged the formation of a new international organisation for peace: the UN. Smuts wrote the first draft of the preamble to the United Nations Charter, and was the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations and the UN. He sought to redefine the relationship between the United Kingdom and her colonies, helping to establish the British Commonwealth, as it was known at the time. This proved to be a two-way street; in 1946 the General Assembly requested the Smuts government to take measures to bring the treatment of Indians in South Africa into line with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
  
In 1932, the kibbutz Ramat Yohanan in Israel was named after him. Smuts was a vocal proponent of the creation of a Jewish state, and spoke out against the rising antisemitism of the 1930s. A street in the Jerusalem suburb of German Colony and a boulevard in Tel Aviv are named in his honour.

The international airport serving Johannesburg was known as Jan Smuts Airport from its construction in 1952 until 1994. In 1994, it was renamed to Johannesburg International Airport to remove any political connotations. In 2006, it was renamed again to its current name, OR Tambo International Airport, for the ANC politician Oliver Tambo.

In 2004, Smuts was named by voters in a poll held by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) as one of the top ten Greatest South Africans of all time. The final positions of the top ten were to be decided by a second round of voting but the programme was taken off the air owing to political controversy and Nelson Mandela was given the number one spot based on the first round of voting. In the first round, Field Marshal Smuts came ninth.

Mount Smuts, a peak in the Canadian Rockies, is named after him.

In August 2019, the South African Army Regiment Westelike Provinsie was renamed after Smuts as the General Jan Smuts Regiment.

The Smuts House Museum at Smuts' home in Irene is dedicated to promoting his legacy.

Orders, decorations and medals
Field Marshal Smuts was honoured with orders, decorations and medals from several countries.

South Africa
 Africa Service Medal
 Dekoratie voor Trouwe Dienst
 Efficiency Decoration
 Medalje voor de Anglo-Boere Oorlog
 Union of South Africa Commemoration Medal
 Victory Medal
United Kingdom
 1914–15 Star
 1939–1945 Star
 Africa Star
 British War Medal
 Defence Medal
 France and Germany Star
 Italy Star
 King George V Silver Jubilee Medal
 King George VI Coronation Medal
 Order of Merit
 Order of the Companions of Honour
 War Medal 1939–1945

Belgium
 Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold II (1946)
 Grand Cross of the Order of the African Star (1948)
 Grand Officer of the Order of Leopold (1917)
 Croix de Guerre (1917)
Denmark
 King Christian X's Liberty Medal (1947)
Egypt
 Grand Cross of the Order of Muhammad Ali (1947)
France
 Commander of the Legion of Honour (1917)
Greece
 Grand Cross of the Order of the Redeemer (1949)
 Gold Cross of Valour (1943)
Netherlands
 Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion (1946)
Portugal
 Grand Cross of the Order of the Tower and Sword (1945)
United States
 European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal

References

Sources

Primary

Secondary

Further reading

External links

 
 
 "Revisiting Urban African Policy and the Reforms of the Smuts Government, 1939–48", by Gary Baines
 Africa And Some World Problems by Jan Smuts at archive.org
 Holism And Evolution by Jan Smuts
 The White man's task by Jan Smuts
 

 
1870 births
1950 deaths
Afrikaner anti-apartheid activists
South African mountain climbers
People from the West Coast District Municipality
Afrikaner people
South African people of Dutch descent
South African Party (Union of South Africa) politicians
United Party (South Africa) politicians
Prime Ministers of South Africa
Defence ministers of South Africa
Finance ministers of South Africa
Members of the House of Assembly of South Africa
20th-century South African philosophers
Alumni of Christ's College, Cambridge
Alumni of Paul Roos Gymnasium
Apartheid in South Africa
South African Republic generals
British field marshals
Chancellors of the University of Cambridge
Fellows of the Royal Society (Statute 12)
Legion of Frontiersmen members
Members of the Order of Merit
Members of the Order of the Companions of Honour
South African members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom
Recipients of the Croix de guerre (Belgium)
Commandeurs of the Légion d'honneur
Rectors of the University of St Andrews
South African military personnel
South African people of World War I
South African people of World War II
Systems scientists
World War II political leaders
South African Zionists
South African Republic military personnel of the Second Boer War
Ministers of Home Affairs of South Africa
Justice ministers of South Africa
Members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa
South African Queen's Counsel
Boer generals
Foreign ministers of South Africa
Chancellors of the University of Cape Town
Compliance gaining is a term used in the social sciences that encompasses the intentional act of altering another's behavior. Research in this area originated in the field of social psychology, but communication scholars have also provided ample research in compliance gaining. While persuasion focuses on attitudes and beliefs, compliance gaining focuses on behavior.

Overview
Compliance gaining occurs whenever a person intentionally induces another person to do something that they might have not done otherwise. Compliance gaining and persuasion are related; however, they are not one and the same. Changes in attitudes and beliefs are often the goal in persuasion; compliance gaining seeks to change the behavior of a target. It is not necessary to change a person's attitude or beliefs to gain compliance. For instance, an automobile driver might have positive attitudes towards driving fast. The threat of a speeding ticket from a police officer positioned in a speed trap may gain compliance from the driver. Conversely, persuading someone to change their attitude or belief will not necessarily gain compliance. A doctor might tell a patient that tobacco use poses a serious threat to a smoker's health. The patient may accept this as a fact and view smoking negatively, but might also continue to use tobacco.

Developments
Compliance gaining research has its roots in social psychology, but overlaps with many other disciplines such as communication and sociology. Compliance gaining can occur via mediated channels, but the research is most associated with interpersonal communication.  In 1967, sociologists Marwell and Schmitt attempted to explain how people select compliance gaining messages. The researchers posited that people have a mental bank of strategies that they draw from when selecting a message. Marwell and Schmitt created a typology for compliance gaining techniques: promise, threat, positive expertise, negative expertise, liking, pregiving, aversive stimulation, debt, moral appeal, positive self-feeling, negative self-feeling, positive altercasting, negative altertcasting, altruism, positive esteem, and negative esteem. This study was the catalyst for more interest in compliance gaining from communication scholars.

Miller, Boster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977) as well as Cody and McLaughlin (1980) studied the situational variables that influences compliance gaining strategies. The latter study identified six different typologies of situations that can influence compliance gaining behaviors: personal benefits (how much personal gain an actor can yield from the influencing behavior), dominance (the power relation between the actor and the target), rights (whether the actor has the right to expect compliance), resistance (how easy will the target be influenced), intimacy (whether the relation between actor and target is shallow), and consequences (what sort of effect this situation would have on the relationship between actor and target). Dillard and Burgoon (1985) later investigated the Cody-McLaughlin typologies. They concluded that situational variables, as described by Cody and McLaughlin, did very little to predict compliance gaining strategy selection. As early as 1982, there was already strong criticism about the strength of the relationships between situational variables and compliance gaining message selection.

By the 1990s, many research efforts attempting to link compliance gaining strategy selection and features of a situation or features of the individual "failed to coalesce into a coherent body of knowledge". Situational dimensions and individual differences were not effective in predicting so researchers went into other perspectives in an effort to understand compliance gaining. For instance, Schrader and Dillard (1998) linked primary and secondary goals to compliance gaining strategy. Using the theoretical framework of Goals-Plans-Actions developed by Dillard in 1980, Schrader and Dillard operate from the assumption that individuals possess and act on multiple goals. In any compliance seeking situation, the actor has primary goals that drive the attempt to influence a target. The primary goal is what the interaction is all about. For instance, if an actor wants a target to stop smoking, this is the primary goal and this is what drives the interaction. However, in the course of pursuing that goal, there are "secondary" goals to consider. These are goals that limit the behavior of the actor. If getting a target to stop smoking is the primary goal, then a secondary goal might be to maintain a friendly relationship with the target. Dillard specifies five types of secondary goals that temper the compliance gaining behavior: identity goals (morals and personal standards), interaction goals (impression management), relational resource goals (relationship management), personal resource goals (material concerns of the actor), and arousal management goals (efforts to manage anxiety about the compliance gaining attempt).

Despite the charges of individual differences making very little progress in prediction compliance gaining strategies, some researchers in the 2000s have focused their efforts to rectify this weakness in the research to link individual differences with compliance gaining effectiveness. King (2001), acknowledging the paucity of robust situational and trait studies linked to compliance gaining, attempted to isolate one situation as a predictor for compliance gaining message selection. King's research suggested that when target of compliance gaining were perceived to be less resistant to influence attempts, the actors used more compliance gaining tactics. When targets were perceived as strongly resistant, the actors used less tactics. Elias and Loomis (2004) found that gender and race affect an instructor's ability to gain compliance in a college classroom. Punyanunt (2000) found that using humor may enhance the effectiveness of pro-social compliance gaining techniques in the classroom. Remland and Jones (1994) found that vocal intensity and touch also affect compliance gaining. Goei et al. (2003) posited that "feelings of liking" between target and actor as well as doing favors for the target lead to liking and obligation, which leads to increased compliance. Pre-giving (giving a target a small gift or favor such as a free sample of food) is positively associated with increased compliance in strangers. 
One of the major criticisms of examining compliance gaining literature is that very little research studies actual compliance. Filling out a survey and reporting intent to comply with a request is certainly different than actually completing the request. For example, many people might report that they will comply with a doctor's order, but away from the doctor's office, they may ignore medical advice.

Application
Compliance gaining research has a fairly diverse background so much of the research uses alternate paradigms and perspectives. As mentioned above, the field of compliance gaining originated in social psychology, but was adopted by many communication scholars as well. Many fields from consumer psychology to primary education pedagogy have taken great interest in compliance gaining.

Medicine 
Doctors have expressed much frustration with compliance resistance from their patients. A reported 50% of patients do not comply with medical advice and prescriptions. Researchers, as well as medical professionals, have a vested interest in learning strategies that can increase compliance in their patients. Many severe and chronic conditions can be avoided if early treatments are followed as prescribed, avoiding death, permanent injury, and costlier medical treatments later on. Researchers in communication have reported some key findings such as: clear and effective communication about a patient's condition or illness increases the likelihood of patient compliance with medical advice; doctors that use humor in their communication with patients have higher satisfaction rates; high satisfaction rates with physicians is highly correlated with patient compliance.

Pedagogy 
For teachers, gaining compliance from students is a must for effective teaching. Studies in compliance gaining have ranged from elementary education  all the way to adult and higher education.

Sales and consumer psychology 
Advertising and marketing are tools of persuasion. There is literally centuries' worth of literature available about persuasion. However, changing attitudes and beliefs about a product does not necessarily change behaviors. Purchasing a product is a behavior. Researchers such as Parrish-Sprowl, Carveth, & Senk (1994) have applied compliance gaining research to effective sales.

Compliance
Compliance gaining was not originally conceived in the field of communication but found its roots in the late 1960s as a result of studies and research by two sociologists, Gerald Marwell and David Schmitt. In 1967, Marwell and Schmitt produced some interesting compliance-gaining tactics concerning the act of getting a teenager to study. The tactics, sixteen in all, are as follows.

 Promise: If you comply, I will reward you. For example, you offer to increase Dick's allowance if he studies more.
 Threat: If you do not comply, I will punish you. For example, you threaten to forbid Dick to use the car if he doesn't start studying more.
 Expertise (positive): If you comply, you will be rewarded because of the "nature of things." For example, you tell Dick that if he gets good grades he be able to get into college and get a good job.
 Expertise (negative): If you do not comply, you will be punished because of the "nature of things." For example, you tell Dick that if he does not get good grades he will not be able to get into college or get a good job.
 Liking: Act friendly and helpful to get the person in a "good frame of mind" so they comply with the request. For example, you try to be as friendly and pleasant as possible to put Dick in a good mood before asking him to study.
 Pre-giving: Reward the person before requesting compliance. For example, raise Dick's allowance and tell him you now expect him to study.
 Aversive stimulation: Continuously punish the person, making cessation contingent on compliance. For example, you tell Dick he may not use the car until he studies more.
 Debt: You owe me compliance because of past favors. For example, you point out that you have sacrificed and saved to pay for Dick's education and that he owes it to you to get good enough grades to get into a good college.
 Moral appeal: You are immoral if you do not comply. You tell Dick that it is morally wrong for anyone not to get as good grades as possible and that he should study more.
 Self-feeling (positive): You will feel better about yourself if you comply. For example, you tell Dick that he will feel proud if he gets himself to study more.
 Self-feeling (negative): You will feel worse about yourself if you do not comply. For example, you tell Dick that he will feel ashamed of himself if he gets bad grades.
 Altercasting (positive): A person with "good" qualities would comply. For example, you tell Dick that because he is a mature and intelligent person he naturally will want to study more and get good grades.
 Altercasting (negative): Only a person with "bad" qualities would not comply. For example, you tell Dick that he should study because only someone very childish does not study.
 Altruism: I need your compliance very badly, so do it for me. For example, you tell Dick that you really want very badly for him to get into a good college and that you wish he would study more as a personal favor to you.
 Esteem (positive): People you value will think better of you if you comply. For example, you tell Dick that the whole family will be very proud of him if he gets good grades.
 Esteem (negative): People you value will think the worse of you if you do not comply. For example, you tell Dick that the whole family will be very disappointed in him if he gets poor grades.

In 1967, Marwell and Schmitt conducted experimental research, using the sixteen compliance gaining tactics and identified five basic compliance-gaining strategies: Rewarding activity, Punishing activity, Expertise, Activation of impersonal commitments, and Activation of personal commitments.

Power
Another element of compliance-gaining was produced in the early 1960s, as French and Raven were researching the concepts of power, legitimacy, and politeness. They identified five influential aspects associated with power, which help illustrate elements of the study of compliance. The fives bases of power are as follows:

 Reward Power: A person with reward power has control over some valued resource (e.g., promotions and raises).
 Coercive Power: A person with coercive power has the ability to inflict punishments (e.g., fire you).
 Expert Power: Expert power is based on what a person knows (e.g., you may do what a doctor tells you to do because they know more about medicine than you do).
 Legitimate Power: Legitimate power is based on formal rank or position (e.g., you obey someone's commands because they are the vice president in the company for which you work).
 Referent Power: People have referent power when the person they are trying to influence wants to be like them (e.g., a mentor often has this type of power).

(French & Raven, 1960)

Techniques
The study of compliance gaining has been central in the development of many commonly used or heard of techniques. The following techniques are a few of what has evolved as a product of the study of compliance gaining strategies. Note, many of these techniques have been empirically documented increasing compliance.

Foot-in-the-door (FITD) 

With research starting in 1966 by Freedman & Fraser, foot-in-the door is one of the earliest and most researched compliance gaining techniques. This technique gains compliance by making a smaller easy  request then a larger more difficult request at a later time. The smaller request is usually one that would be widely accepted without scrutiny. The larger request is usually the actual the task or goal wanted to be completed.

Effectivity 
Freedman and Fraser thought that after satisfying the smaller initial request, if the person was not forced to do then they must be "the type of person who fulfills such requests".

The smaller task/request should relate to the larger request and not be trivial. For the foot-in-the-door technique to be successful it must generate the self-aware "I am the kind of person who fulfills this type of request" other wise known as the self-perception theory. Other studies found that if the initial request is easy but unusual or bizarre, it would also generate the foot-in-the-door effectiveness. This idea was developed further into the Disrupt-Then-Reframe technique.

There are other reasons besides the self-perception theory that makes the foot-in-the-door technique successful.

Consistency – Cialdini and Guadagno, Asher, and Demaine believe that what makes people want to fulfill larger request is the need to be consistent.

The Norm to Help Others – Harris believed that after the first request, the norm to help others becomes clear. It only becomes evident after the person reviews his or her reason why they completed the original request.

Satisfying the First Request – Crano and Sivacek thought what made the technique so effective was personal satisfaction. "The person learns that the fulfillment of request brings the reward of a positive experience. One may assume that the likelihood that satisfaction of this type appears willi increase if the person has to react to something unusual that awakens his or her mindfulness, and will decrease in situations in which the person reacts automatically and habitually".

Door-in-the-face (DITF) 

Door-in-the-face was first introduced in 1975 by Cialdini and colleagues. The opposite of foot-in-the-door, in the door-in-the-face technique, the requestor asks a large objectionable request which is denied by the target instead of gaining compliance by asking a smaller easy request. The requestor seeking compliance ask a smaller more reasonable request.

There are several theories that explain why door-in-the-face is an effective gaining compliance technique.

Self-presentation theory – "that individuals will comply with a second request due to fears one will be perceived negatively by rejecting successive prosocial request for compliance".

Reciprocal concessions – this theory describes the effects of door-in-the-face as a "process of mutual concessions". "The second request represents a concession on the part of the sender (from his or her initial request), and compliance to the second request represents a concession on the part of the receiver (from his or her inclination to not comply with the first request)".

Guilt – One reason that makes door-in-the-face such an effective technique is people feel guilty for refusing to comply with a request twice.

Social Responsibility – this theory describes the social repercussions and pressures that occur if an individual declines a request.

All together the theories propose that a target who declines the first request feel a "personal or social responsibility" to comply with the second request. In an effort to avoid feeling guilty or reduce the sense of obligation the target would have.

Recent techniques

Disrupt-then-reframe (DTR) 
DTR was first introduced by Barbara Price Davis and Eric S. Knowles in 1999. This technique states that a person will be more likely to comply with a request if the initial request or pitch is confusing. The pitch is immediately followed by a reframing or a reason to comply with the request.

An example of this technique is: A waiter states that "the steak dinner is on special for 800 pennies; it's a really good deal". Disrupting the couple by saying "800 pennies" instead of "8 dollars", the waiter is able to increase the likelihood that they will buy the steak dinner.

DTR was found to be a very effective way to gain compliance in non-profit instances such as raising money for charities or asking people to take a survey. DTR was found to be less successful as a sales technique; this may be because the message is more scrutinized, making it harder to confuse the target.

Persistence 
Persistence used as a compliance gaining technique, gets the target to comply by repeating the message. In 1979, Cacioppo and Petty found that repeating the message more than five times lead to decrease in compliance. Success is enhanced if the repetition comes from more than one person and is enhanced further if the message has the same idea or meaning but is not exact.

An example of this technique would be: "My wife kept reminding me to take out the trash until I finally did it."

Dump and chase (DAC) 
Persistence has a high probability of annoying the target and creating a negative interaction which could be viewed as "nagging". A way to avoid this would be rejecting the targets objection to your request by asking "why not?", then forming another message to overcome the second objection to gain compliance. This technique is called dump and chase.

Mechanics of this technique are urgency and guilt. When the repeated message is presented to the target it may be perceived as urgent, thus making it seem more important, and more willing to comply. By creating a sense of obligation in the request, the target may develop guilt if not willing to comply.

Just-One-More (JOM) 
Just-One-More was developed as a way to make a donation seem more important. The use of this technique involves using the language of "Just-One-More" to gain compliance. The technique is found to be most useful in instances regarding volunteering and donations. It is seen as "the last person to help will be more rewarding than being one of the first or those in the middle, due to the expectation that the requestor will appreciate the last person more than any of those who complied previously".
For Example: "Do you want to buy this car? I need just one more sale to reach my quota this month."

If the target finds that the requestor is lying or being deceptive about being the last one, it will create a negative outlook on the person and the organization that he or she represents. Even though losing some of the effectiveness the requestor could state that they are "close to their goal" or "almost there".

64 compliance gaining strategies 
In "Classifying Compliance Gaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder and Strategic Confusion", Kathy Kellermann and Tim Cole put together 64 compliance gaining strategies as an attempt to classify more than 820 previous strategies.
 Actor Takes Responsibility:  Try to get others to comply by stating your willingness to help them or even work on the request yourself.  That is, try to gain their compliance by offering to do it yourself as a means of getting them to do what you want. Example: "Is there anything I can do to so you can finish the project on time?"
 Altercasting (Negative):  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that only a bad person would not do what is wanted.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that only a person with negative qualities wouldn't comply. Example: "You should stop watching these types of television shows as only a disturbed  person would like them."  
 Altercasting (Positive):  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that a good person would do what is wanted.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that any person with positive qualities would comply. Example: "A good boy would eat all his vegetables."
 Altruism:  Try to get others to comply by asking them to give you a hand out of the goodness of their heart.  That is, try to gain their compliance by asking them to be altruistic and just do it for you. Example: "Could you help me move, I would really appreciate it."
 Assertion:  Try to get others to comply by asserting (forcefully stating) what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by demanding (commanding) them to comply. Example: "Go get a bandaid now!"
 Audience-Use:  Try to get others to comply by having a group of other people present when you make your request.  That is, try to gain their compliance by asking them in front of other people as a way to back up your request. Example: "I asked her to go to the prom with me in front of her friends." 
 Authority Appeal:  Try to get others to comply on the basis of the authority that you or other people have.  That is, try to gain their compliance by using or relying on a position of power over them to get them do to what you want. Example: "My boss told me to get him the reports by 10 am so I did."
 Aversive Stimulation:  Try to get others to comply by doing things they don't like until they agree to comply.  That is, try to gain their compliance by bothering them until they do what you want. Example: "My co-worker kept bothering me to quit smoking until I finally did."
 Bargaining:  Try to get others to comply by striking a bargain with them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by negotiating a deal where you each do something for the other so everyone gets what they want. Example: "If you help me with the dishes, I will help you with the laundry."
 Benefit (Other):  Try to get others to comply by telling them people other than themselves would benefit if they do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out how it helps people other than themselves if they comply. Example: "By donating to our fundraiser, You ensure that everyone will have a coat this winter."
Benefit (Self):  Try to get others to comply by telling them you personally would benefit if they do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out how it helps oneself if they comply. Example:  "If you helped me with the yard work, then I won't get a ticket by the city tomorrow."
Benefit (Target):  Try to get others to comply by telling them they personally would benefit if they do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out how it helps them if they comply. Example: "If you go grocery shopping for me tonight then you will have something for lunch tomorrow."
Challenge:  Try to get others to comply by challenging them to do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by provoking, stimulating, tempting, goading, and/or galvanizing them to comply. Example: I didn't want to race until his car pulled beside mine and he revved the engine. 
Compliment:  Try to get others to comply by complimenting them on their abilities or accomplishments.  That is, try to gain their compliance by praising them to get them to do what you want. Example: With that jump shot, you would be really good at basketball. 
Compromise:  Try to get others to comply by offering to compromise with them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by making a concession to them so they'll make their concession to you and do what you want. Example: "I will drop you off at the airport if you will go to the dentist with me."
 Cooperation:  Try to get others to comply by being cooperative and collaborating with them.  That is, try to gain their compliance not by telling the other person what to do but by offering to discuss things and work them out together. Example: "We should get the team together and brainstorm new ideas for this problem."
Criticize:  Try to get others to comply by criticizing them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by attacking them on a personal level to get them to do what you want. Example: "It looks like you're really gaining some weight, why don't you go on a run with me."
Debasement:  Try to get others to comply by acting pitiful and pleading.  That is, try to gain their compliance by debasing, demeaning, degrading, devaluing, humiliating, and/or lowering yourself so as to deprive yourself of esteem or self-worth to get them to do what you want. Example: "I am so stupid, I can't believe I deleted the report. Can you please go delay the presentation." 
Debt:  Try to get others to comply by reminding them they are in debt to you because of things you have done for them in the past.  That is, try to gain their compliance by indicating that they owe it to you to do what you want. Example: "You should paid for my lunch, I bought your lunch last time."
Deceit:  Try to get others to comply by misleading them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by lying to or deceiving them. Example: "We told them the car was in perfect working order, but the transmission is about to go out."
Direct Request:  Try to get others to comply by just making a direct request.  That is, try to gain their compliance by simply asking or stating what you want without giving any reasons for them to comply. Example: "Can I use the computer?"
Disclaimer (Norms/Rules):  Try to get others to comply by downplaying or disavowing restrictions and constraints that might prevent them from doing what you want them to do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that otherwise applicable procedures, rules, norms, and/or expectations should be broken in this instance. Example: "You should drive faster than the speed limit, this is an emergency!"
Disclaimer (Other):  Try to get others to comply by downplaying or disavowing the ability of anyone else to do so.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that other people can't help you or do what is needed. Example: "I would ask Ted for his help but we know that he is not good at presentations."
Disclaimer (Self):  Try to get others to comply by downplaying or disavowing your reasons for asking.  That is, try to gain their compliance by indicating that:  (a) you don't want to make a bad impression nor do you have bad intentions, (b) you don't really want to make the request and you are only doing so reluctantly, and/or (c) you simply have no choice but to make the request. Example: "I'm sorry that I am asking you for money, I'm really not a beggar."
Disclaimer (Target):  Try to get others to comply by acknowledging and sympathizing with why they may not want to do so.  That is, try to gain their compliance by indicating that:  (a) you understand and are aware of their reasons, feelings, and abilities, and/or (b) that you are sensitive to their needs and concerns even though you must ask them to do what you want. Example: "I know that you're disappointed that you can't go on the trip, but do you mind helping me get the presentation ready?"
Disclaimer (Task):  Try to get others to comply by downplaying what you are asking them to do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by indicating that what you want them to do isn't what they think it is and shouldn't pose a problem; it isn't awful, effortful, difficult, or dumb. Example: "Updating the database shouldn't take that much time."
Disclaimer (Time):  Try to get others to comply by downplaying or disavowing being busy as a reason to refuse your request.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that there is or soon will be enough time for them to do what you want. Example: "We should go to the store now, you can finish your report later."
Duty:  Try to get others to comply by pointing out it is their duty to do so.  That is, try to gain their compliance by stating they should fulfill obligations, responsibilities, and commitments that they have. Example: "Taking out the trash at the end of the day is a part of your job."
Equity:  Try to get others to comply on the grounds that it is equitable to do so.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that being fair, just, and impartial means they should do what you want. Example: "Your brother cleaned the house last time; it's your turn now."
Esteem (Negative) by Others:  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that, if they do not do so, other people will think worse of them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in the eyes of others they will be viewed more negatively if they don't do what you want. Example: "If you don't go to that college, other people will think you're going to a party school."
Esteem (Positive) by Others:  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that, if they do so, other people will think better of them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in the eyes of others they will be viewed more positively if they do what you want. Example: "If you play football, everyone will think that you're really tough."
Esteem (Negative) by Actor:  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that, if they do not do so, you will think worse of them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in your eyes they will be viewed more negatively if they don't do what you want. Example: "I would be really disappointed if you went to the party instead of studying."
Esteem (Positive) by Actor:  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that, if they do so, you will think better of them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in your eyes they will be viewed more positively if they do what you want.  Example: "If you went to law school, I would have a new level of respect for you."
Expertise (Negative):  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that because of the way the world works, unfavorable things will happen if they don't change their behavior. That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in the natural course of things, bad outcomes will occur if they don't do what you want. Example: "You will get the flu, if you don't get a flu shot."
Expertise (Positive):  Try to get others to comply by pointing out that because the way the world works, favorable things will happen if they change their behavior. That is, try to gain their compliance by noting that in the natural course of things, good outcomes will occur if they do what you want. Example: "If you work hard at your job, you're sure to get that promotion."
Hinting:  Try to get others to comply by hinting around at what you want them to do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by indicating indirectly what you want, hoping they will figure it out and comply even though you never come out and really say it. Example: "I left the trash by the front door, so Dan would take it out." 
I Want:  Try to get others to comply for no reason other than you want them to.  That is, try to gain their compliance by telling them to do what you want because you desire it. Example: "I want you to go with me to the city."
Invoke Norm:  Try to get others to comply by indicating they would be out of step with the norm if they didn't do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by prodding them to conform to what others have, do, or desire. Example: "Everyone is going to the gym after work."
It's Up to You:  Try to get others to comply by telling them the decision is theirs to make and it's up to them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by telling them the choice to comply is up to them. Example: "It's up to you to save your money, instead of spending it on video games."
Logical Empirical:  Try to get others to comply by making logical arguments.  That is, try to gain their compliance through the use of reasoning, evidence, facts, and data. Example: "Statistics show that non-smokers live longer than smokers."
Moral Appeal:  Try to get others to comply by appealing to their moral or ethical standards.  That is, try to gain their compliance by letting them know what is right and what is wrong. Example: "Don't buy those shoes they are made using child labor."
My Concern for You:  Try to get others to comply because of your concern for them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by referring to your regard for, consideration of, interest in, and feelings for them. Example: "Please go to the doctor, I'm worried about you."
Nature of Situation:  Try to get others to comply by being attentive to the situation or circumstances you find yourselves in.  That is, try to gain their compliance by taking note of the appropriateness of their behavior to the situation and/or the appropriateness of your request in the situation. Example: "I told my son that the bed was not a trampoline." 
Negative Affect:  Try to get others to comply by being really negative:  expressing negative emotions, acting really unfriendly, and creating an unappealing impression.  That is, try to gain their compliance by acting displeased to get them to do what you want. Example: "Angrily, I told her to put her phone on silent after it went off in class.."
Not Seek Compliance:  No attempt is made to get others to do what you want.  That is, no compliance is sought. Example: "I didn't ask if I could go out tonight."
Persistence:  Try to get others to comply by being persistent.  That is, try to gain their compliance by persevering (continuing) in your attempts to get them to do what you want. Example: "After asking for over a year, we are finally getting a pool."
Personal Expertise:  Try to get others to comply by referring to your credibility (your personal expertise).  That is, try to gain their compliance based on your experience, know-how, trustworthiness, and judgment. Example: "You should get those shoes, I have them and they feel great when running. 
Positive Affect:  Try to get others to comply by being really positive:  expressing positive emotions, acting really friendly, and creating an appealing impression.  That is, try to gain their compliance by charming them into doing what you want. Example: "She was really happy, when she asked for a raise."
Pre-Giving:  Try to get others to comply by doing positive and nice things for them in advance of asking them to do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by giving them things they'd like and then only afterwards making your request. Example: "I bought my wife flowers, then later asked if I could go fishing this weekend."
Promise:  Try to get others to comply by making a promise.  That is, try to gain their compliance by offering to give them a reward or something they'd like if they do what is wanted. Example: "If you behave in the store, I promise that we will stop for ice cream on the way home."
Promote Task:  Try to get others to comply by promoting the value and worth of what you want them to do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by identifying one or more positive qualities of the thing you are asking them to do (e.g., what you want them to do is important, meaningful, rewarding, enjoyable etc.). Example: "If you complete this presentation on time, you will be less stressed and will get a good grade."
Self-Feeling (Negative):  Try to get others to comply by stating that not doing so will result in an automatic decrease in their self-worth.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that they will feel worse about themselves if they don't do what you want. Example: "You will feel bad if you throw all that food away instead of donating it."
Self-Feeling (Positive):  Try to get others to comply by stating that doing so will result in an automatic increase in their self-worth.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that they will feel better about themselves if they do what you want. Example: "You will feel better if you donate that old coat to charity instead of selling it in the garage sale." 
Suggest:  Try to get others to comply by offering suggestions about what it is you want them to do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by subtly proposing an idea that indirectly points out and describes what it is you want them to do. Example: "Why don't you try the steak instead of the chicken?"
Surveillance:  Try to get others to comply by indicating your awareness and observation of what they do.  That is, try to gain their compliance by referring to your general vigilance, surveillance, scrutiny, and/or monitoring of their behavior. Example: "I will find out if you're lying to me about the car accident." 
Third Party:  Try to get others to comply by having someone else ask them for you.  That is, try to gain their compliance by getting someone else to intervene and do it for you. Example: "Jane don't you think Jim should go on that date with the girl from accounting." 
This Is the Way Things Are:  Try to get others to comply by telling them they have to because that is just the way things are.  That is, try to gain their compliance by referring to rules, procedures, policies, or customs that require them to comply. Example: "You should slow down since the speed limit is only 25 mph."
Thought Manipulation:  Try to get others to comply by convincing them that the request you are making is really their own idea.  That is, try to gain their compliance by having them think they were the ones who really wanted to do it in the first place. Example: "We should go on the roller coaster, since you wanted to come to the fair in the first place." 
Threat:  Try to get others to comply by threatening them.  That is, try to gain their compliance by saying you will punish them if they don't do what you want. Example: "If you go to the bar again tonight, consider us done." 
Value Appeal:  Try to get others to comply because of important values that compel action in this instance.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing to central and joint beliefs that should guide what they do. Example: "Since we both care about the ocean, we should volunteer for the cleanup."
Warning:  Try to get others to comply by warning them about what they are doing.  That is, try to gain their compliance by alerting them to possible negative consequences of their behavior. Example: "You might get fired if you stay up all night." 
Welfare (Others):  Try to get others to comply by telling them how other people would be hurt if they don't do what you want.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out that the welfare of other people is at stake. Example: "If you are not going to be in the family photo then we won't take one." 
Why Not?:  Try to get others to comply by making them justify why they should not.  That is, try to gain their compliance by pointing out there are no real grounds for not doing so. Example: "Why wouldn't you help your sister?"
Your Concern for Me:  Try to get others to comply because of their concern for you.  That is, try to gain their compliance by referring to their regard for, consideration of, interest in, and feelings for you. Example: "If you really cared for me then you would go to the dance recital."

References

Further reading
 
 Dillard, J.P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.) Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 French, J. P. R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607–623). New York: Harper & Row.
 
 
 
 McQuillen, J. S., Higginbotham, D. C., & Cummings, M. C. (1984). Compliance-resisting behaviors: The effects of age, agent, and types of request. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 747–762). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
 
 
 Wheeless, L. R., Barraclough, R., & Stewart, R. (1983). Compliance-gaining and power in persuasion. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 105–145). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Persuasion
Attitude change
Sociological theories The ballon au poing is a popular team sport in Picardy (France). This game is played by teams of six. It is a game of gain-ground.

This sport must not be confused with the fistball.

To be able to hit the ball, players surround their hand and their wrist with a strip of canvas or leather.

The teams are separated on the ground by a line ( la corde - the rope) which is mobile during the party. This new limit is shown by a chasse.

The purpose of the game is to gain ground by moving the rope. To do it, we try to make the ball "die" in the opposite camp.

Points mark by 15, 30, 40 and game.

Each 15 August at the Parc de la Hotoie ( Amiens ), the city receives the final stages of Ballon au poing.

See also 
Others games of gain-ground

Notes 
  Luc Collard, Longue paume et ballon au poing, revue EPS, n° 274, p. 72-75, nov-déc 1998

External links
 Ballon au poing on french-wikiversity
 www.jeuxpicards.org
  Caron Gilles , LE BALLON AU POING : COUPES DE FRANCE de 1991 à 2019 - CHAMPIONNATS EN SALLE de 1994 à 2019, 38 pages

Games of gain-ground
Handball sports
Team sports
Sports originating in France