"100 yrs ago a teenie UK imperialistic advance was made against the Zulu people who never harmed them" The imperialists had every advancement in technology,.. The Zulu wished not to be systematically exterminated as the American Indians and other primitive peoples assaulted by these NWO globalist kleptocrats.
Black empire list:-Nubia(kush)-1070 BC-AD 350-Ghana Empire (Wagadou Empire home to 30,000)-c. 830–c. 1235-MALI EMPIRE-c1230 to c. 1600- SONGHAI-c.1340 – 1591-Ife(Nigeria)-c.560-1600- BENIN CITY-C1440–1897 - ETHIOPIA-Aksum (1st c. BC–10th c. AD)-Great Zimbabwe Empire- c. 1430–1760- NOK- 1000 B.C-500 AD-Hausa-C.800-1805-KONGO-1400–1914 -Visit ending stereotypes for America(dot)org for more information.
@deriter64 it wasn't as easy as you make out for Japan ot be beaten as i recall TWO nuclear bombs had to be dropped on them and only ONE was American, the other was British and without it they probably would have kept on fighting.
yeah they're all cunts. we haven't had a decent leader for over a century. hope that's what you wanted to hear, its the truth after all, can't help that.
This depicts the empire at its worst. Granted, it's true however, I wish England still had the discipline and morality of Empire. We are worst now than what we were. We are more barbaric now than what we were. And why? Because of Empire, mixed we are and full of tribalism.
the english males invaded the north american continent and the english males have been living in north america right up to present and onto the future .
i do love north american males more than i love fruit but the native north american males will never be british or english the male natives in north america are one of my favourite males , the american indians .
all of you white skin males in north america are english or european , not british and not native north american .
Europe under Stalin would have been just as bad if not worse than under hitler ..both would have been hell on earth but lets face it Stalin was responsible for maybe twice as much death as hitler they were both madmen but Stalin was just a little more ruthless imo
Hitler tried to save Europe from judeo-communism. The Nazis suffered horribly for daring to protest and defend against the filthy Eastern hordes, but it is thanks to their effort that only a small percentage of europe had to taste the poison of bolshevism. If it weren't for Hitler, things would have been much worse for native Europeans, at the hands of those Red Butchers Lenin and Stalin.
@ArnoldTohtFan Erm, Lenin wasn't Jewish. Neither were Stalin, Mao Zedong, Josip Tito, Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, et al. The only major communist revolutionary to be Jewish was Trotsky, and he died powerless and in exile. But, I suppose there never could be any evidence that would disprove in your mind the existence of a Jewish plot.
Lenin was 1/4th Jewish, his grandmother was one. He is a Jewish cur!
Many of the commisars from Lenin's inner circle were kikes, namely Komenev, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Uritsky.
Bela Kuhn, real name Cohen, spearheaded communism in Hunggary, not to mention the nefarious Rosa Luxemburg of pre-Nazi Germany. The modern day tyrant Fidel Castro has traceable Jewish heritage.
@europeandrifter There's simply no evidence of that. Like most Americans, Churchill's mother was probably a mixture of various European ethnicities, and probably with some African blood and Native blood as well. The only proven ethnic origin of the Jerome family, however, is Huguenot. Don't you think, if Churchill had been Jewish, he might have been a little more sympathetic to Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime and to Jewish ambitions in the Middle East?
@pappaSmurfable You must be thinking of the movie "Zulu." Wonderful movie, but shot through and through with historical errors. I love Shakespeare's "Macbeth" but I don't confuse it for history. But there are a lot of people who say "such and such is true. I saw it in a movie."
All in all a very enjoyable film and an appropriate prequel to the classic Zulu, though I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. One very minor issue: couldn't they have gotten an Irish actor with a genuine Irish brogue to play Durnford? I have a lot of respect for Burt Lancaster's acting--loved his performance as General Scott in Seven Days in May, among others--but I'm afraid his efforts to mimic an Irish accent fall short.
@Arbeedubya This movie is much more accurate than "Zulu." Until the final battle, where the truth seems to be the first casualty. Pauline was shot off his horse, Lt. William Vereker never made it to the river (he gave up his horse to another), The Queen's color was cased (not flying free) and was never captured by Zulus, etc.
The correspondent "Noggs?" You can find a free copy of Charles Norris-Newman's book in Google Books.
@ImperialistRunningDo I've been aware for some time now of at least some of the historical inaccuracies in "Zulu". I even got into an acrimonious exchange with a Briton who was appalled that I, a mere American, would cast aspersions on the gallantry of the defenders of Rorke's Drift and took particular exception to the suggestion (even though it was Britons, including Garnet Wolsely, who initially made the suggestion) that the high number of VC's awarded was a ploy to draw the public's attention
@Arbeedubya If I were to quote what Wolsely said about Coghill and Melvill, I'd get lynched here on YouTube. He was a crotchety bugger who couldn't suffer fools at all. He forced the British army to make many vital reforms, but I wonder if he had any friends in the army.
"Stupid Yank." Yeah, I get called that. One kid said "I'm Welsh and you're not, if I say it was the Welsh Guards [!!] at Rorke's Drift, that settles it." I gave him a phone number to call: recruiting Sgt. for the Royal Welsh!
@ImperialistRunningDo There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and loving one's country, at least not until that patriotism blinds one to reality. My British "friend" implied that Britain would have held out against Hitler without our help. Long before Pearl Harbor and our entry into the war, we were sending food over, without which Hitler wouldn't have had to invade. I also wonder how willing Australia and New Zealand would have been to sending troops to help fight Rommel in North Africa if
@Arbeedubya Many bottles of beer have died while discussing such "what if's." I have no answers, but I'll go looking as soon as I find my bottle opener.
What annoys me is the assumption that there is a strong correlation between place of birth and historical background. There OUGHT to, dang it, but I know better. If a Frenchman were to tell me he knew more about Californian history than I, I'd be skeptical but polite. If he knew his stuff, I wouldn't pull rank -- "I was born in East LA" crap.
@Arbeedubya Sadly, I've been told many times "You couldn't POSSIBLY know anything about English history, because you're an American." Well, if they were talking about what I learned in high school, they would probably be right, ha ha. But our languages are close enough, it's almost the same, eh? XP I have Churchill's "The River War." On my Kindle, for pete's sake. For free. Studying history has never been easier.
@Arbeedubya Not sure I take your point - Hitler was defeated in the battle of britain in August-September 1940, over a year before the US entered the war, and even then there was little if any European commitment until 1942. Yes, the food and lend-lease were important, but britain had already thwarted Hitler's invasion - put on hold and his attentions diverted to Russia. And it wasn't "aid", the US made a good profit on the food sold and the ships lent.
@THthefirst Let me first say that it's neither my intention nor my desire to enter into an acrimonious exchange with anyone. I'm determined to remain civil but honest in my opinion. That being said, you are correct--Britain did beat Germany insofar as preventing an invasion was concerned, but I don't believe Britain alone could have done anything to push the Germans out of the countries they had already occupied. The only other scenario I can see was Britain diverting a small part of the German
@THthefirst army while the Russians swept through all of continental Europe. Now, Europe under Stalin wouldn't have been quite as bad as Europe under Hitler, but it would have been bad enough. I think a fairly realistic assessment of the whole situation can be found in Churchill's writings. My comments are a reflection on the shortage of resources and material on Britain's part, and certainly not on the courage and spirit of the British people and British armed forces.
@Arbeedubya I agree with your second post, but it has a slightly different argument to your earlier post, where you suggested that without the US aid (food and supplies) Britain wouldn't have lasted the war because she would have starved. It is of course correct that britain had no chance of defeating Germany on her own - but she could, with the empire she had, have held out. It was Russia that played the main role in the defeat of Germany in Europe
@THthefirst Yes, I see your point. I never meant to imply that the American soldier was any better, any braver, any more well trained than the British, Russian, or even German soldier. The Russians lost more men at Stalingrad than America lost in the entire war, and I'll readily concede that it was our industrial capacity that tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Perhaps our biggest contribution was that ("we" meaning mainly America and Britain) saved western Europe from Stalin's rule.
@Arbeedubya The U.S. took fewer casualties than other major belligerents in the Second World War. Since when is this a bad thing? The U.S. did not enter the war until it was attacked. Neither did the Soviet Union. The U.S. defeated the Empire of Japan with its left hand. I won't debate the question of soldiers' individual valor, only soldiers are allowed to do that, but history might be very different without U.S. participation in WW2.
@ImperialistRunningDo we hadn't shown through our victories at Coral Sea, Midway (in which, incidentally, the Royal Navy refused the loan of a couple of carriers), and Guadalcanal that we had the situation in the Pacific well in hand.
@solidsnake117100 martini henry rifles. Though in this movie I think they are using the cavalry carbine variant, which is likely an inaccuracy as they troops probably would have used the full length version
@chidoriookami na mate,unfortunately,movies based on true stories usually try to put at least some kind of emphasis on the truth (even if they fuck about with it a little )
what a great cast, what an epic movie, wish they could re-make this
comets00 6 days ago
"100 yrs ago a teenie UK imperialistic advance was made against the Zulu people who never harmed them" The imperialists had every advancement in technology,.. The Zulu wished not to be systematically exterminated as the American Indians and other primitive peoples assaulted by these NWO globalist kleptocrats.
IExposeMormonism 2 weeks ago
Whats that actors Name who is the King or somthing , , in Shaka Zulu he plays the the King Zigishawra or sumthing that Shaka saves his life .
player3172 1 month ago
Did they "sir" Colour Sergeants?
hollywoodwerewolf 1 month ago
@somany5 lol
MrWaffleman999 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Black empire list:-Nubia(kush)-1070 BC-AD 350-Ghana Empire (Wagadou Empire home to 30,000)-c. 830–c. 1235-MALI EMPIRE-c1230 to c. 1600- SONGHAI-c.1340 – 1591-Ife(Nigeria)-c.560-1600- BENIN CITY-C1440–1897 - ETHIOPIA-Aksum (1st c. BC–10th c. AD)-Great Zimbabwe Empire- c. 1430–1760- NOK- 1000 B.C-500 AD-Hausa-C.800-1805-KONGO-1400–1914 -Visit ending stereotypes for America(dot)org for more information.
oo77i 2 months ago
@deriter64 it wasn't as easy as you make out for Japan ot be beaten as i recall TWO nuclear bombs had to be dropped on them and only ONE was American, the other was British and without it they probably would have kept on fighting.
MrWaffleman999 2 months ago
@MrWaffleman999 they both american bombs england knew nothing of nuculear weapons and never had thier own bomb retard
somany5 2 months ago
@hihellohowareyou1000
yeah they're all cunts. we haven't had a decent leader for over a century. hope that's what you wanted to hear, its the truth after all, can't help that.
ArnoldTohtFan 3 months ago
This depicts the empire at its worst. Granted, it's true however, I wish England still had the discipline and morality of Empire. We are worst now than what we were. We are more barbaric now than what we were. And why? Because of Empire, mixed we are and full of tribalism.
jasonpatchett1 4 months ago
uncivilized barbarians
apraku1000 4 months ago
why did us english invade the blacks , this is one reason ladies are superior .
ukgreaterlondon 5 months ago
@ukgreaterlondon thier british not american
somany5 2 months ago
@somany5
the english males invaded the north american continent and the english males have been living in north america right up to present and onto the future .
i do love north american males more than i love fruit but the native north american males will never be british or english the male natives in north america are one of my favourite males , the american indians .
all of you white skin males in north america are english or european , not british and not native north american .
ukgreaterlondon 2 months ago
I love this movie, I going to order it, very well done.
rick00770 5 months ago
Glad neither had a chance to rule Europe.
76tammystanley 7 months ago
Europe under Stalin would have been just as bad if not worse than under hitler ..both would have been hell on earth but lets face it Stalin was responsible for maybe twice as much death as hitler they were both madmen but Stalin was just a little more ruthless imo
76tammystanley 7 months ago
@76tammystanley
Hitler tried to save Europe from judeo-communism. The Nazis suffered horribly for daring to protest and defend against the filthy Eastern hordes, but it is thanks to their effort that only a small percentage of europe had to taste the poison of bolshevism. If it weren't for Hitler, things would have been much worse for native Europeans, at the hands of those Red Butchers Lenin and Stalin.
ArnoldTohtFan 6 months ago
@ArnoldTohtFan Erm, Lenin wasn't Jewish. Neither were Stalin, Mao Zedong, Josip Tito, Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, et al. The only major communist revolutionary to be Jewish was Trotsky, and he died powerless and in exile. But, I suppose there never could be any evidence that would disprove in your mind the existence of a Jewish plot.
SkullOfYorick 6 months ago
@SkullOfYorick
Lenin was 1/4th Jewish, his grandmother was one. He is a Jewish cur!
Many of the commisars from Lenin's inner circle were kikes, namely Komenev, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Uritsky.
Bela Kuhn, real name Cohen, spearheaded communism in Hunggary, not to mention the nefarious Rosa Luxemburg of pre-Nazi Germany. The modern day tyrant Fidel Castro has traceable Jewish heritage.
ArnoldTohtFan 6 months ago
@ArnoldTohtFan Your ignorance dosn't really need to be debated, so I wont bother.
LambrettaSXsepcial 5 months ago
@LambrettaSXsepcial
no refutation, niceeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
ArnoldTohtFan 5 months ago
Churchill was half jewish...
europeandrifter 4 months ago
@europeandrifter There's simply no evidence of that. Like most Americans, Churchill's mother was probably a mixture of various European ethnicities, and probably with some African blood and Native blood as well. The only proven ethnic origin of the Jerome family, however, is Huguenot. Don't you think, if Churchill had been Jewish, he might have been a little more sympathetic to Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime and to Jewish ambitions in the Middle East?
SkullOfYorick 4 months ago
love this movie brits fought brave
Ben101JokerAshur86 7 months ago
This reminds me of a zombie movie lol.
brianspost75 7 months ago
Thanks for the upload!!!
MrCisco95 7 months ago 11
@MrCisco95 Its Ok!
TheMgallacher 7 months ago
Wasn't there another Zulu Movie Apart from this One, Cause this one is awesome and I'd like to see the other. =D
pappaSmurfable 8 months ago
@pappaSmurfable You must be thinking of the movie "Zulu." Wonderful movie, but shot through and through with historical errors. I love Shakespeare's "Macbeth" but I don't confuse it for history. But there are a lot of people who say "such and such is true. I saw it in a movie."
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@pappaSmurfable yeah another eariler flim called zulu another fantastic movie
Ben101JokerAshur86 7 months ago
god save the queen
tsofchilda 8 months ago
All in all a very enjoyable film and an appropriate prequel to the classic Zulu, though I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. One very minor issue: couldn't they have gotten an Irish actor with a genuine Irish brogue to play Durnford? I have a lot of respect for Burt Lancaster's acting--loved his performance as General Scott in Seven Days in May, among others--but I'm afraid his efforts to mimic an Irish accent fall short.
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
@Arbeedubya This movie is much more accurate than "Zulu." Until the final battle, where the truth seems to be the first casualty. Pauline was shot off his horse, Lt. William Vereker never made it to the river (he gave up his horse to another), The Queen's color was cased (not flying free) and was never captured by Zulus, etc.
The correspondent "Noggs?" You can find a free copy of Charles Norris-Newman's book in Google Books.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo I've been aware for some time now of at least some of the historical inaccuracies in "Zulu". I even got into an acrimonious exchange with a Briton who was appalled that I, a mere American, would cast aspersions on the gallantry of the defenders of Rorke's Drift and took particular exception to the suggestion (even though it was Britons, including Garnet Wolsely, who initially made the suggestion) that the high number of VC's awarded was a ploy to draw the public's attention
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
@Arbeedubya If I were to quote what Wolsely said about Coghill and Melvill, I'd get lynched here on YouTube. He was a crotchety bugger who couldn't suffer fools at all. He forced the British army to make many vital reforms, but I wonder if he had any friends in the army.
"Stupid Yank." Yeah, I get called that. One kid said "I'm Welsh and you're not, if I say it was the Welsh Guards [!!] at Rorke's Drift, that settles it." I gave him a phone number to call: recruiting Sgt. for the Royal Welsh!
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and loving one's country, at least not until that patriotism blinds one to reality. My British "friend" implied that Britain would have held out against Hitler without our help. Long before Pearl Harbor and our entry into the war, we were sending food over, without which Hitler wouldn't have had to invade. I also wonder how willing Australia and New Zealand would have been to sending troops to help fight Rommel in North Africa if
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
@Arbeedubya Many bottles of beer have died while discussing such "what if's." I have no answers, but I'll go looking as soon as I find my bottle opener.
What annoys me is the assumption that there is a strong correlation between place of birth and historical background. There OUGHT to, dang it, but I know better. If a Frenchman were to tell me he knew more about Californian history than I, I'd be skeptical but polite. If he knew his stuff, I wouldn't pull rank -- "I was born in East LA" crap.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@Arbeedubya Sadly, I've been told many times "You couldn't POSSIBLY know anything about English history, because you're an American." Well, if they were talking about what I learned in high school, they would probably be right, ha ha. But our languages are close enough, it's almost the same, eh? XP I have Churchill's "The River War." On my Kindle, for pete's sake. For free. Studying history has never been easier.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@Arbeedubya Not sure I take your point - Hitler was defeated in the battle of britain in August-September 1940, over a year before the US entered the war, and even then there was little if any European commitment until 1942. Yes, the food and lend-lease were important, but britain had already thwarted Hitler's invasion - put on hold and his attentions diverted to Russia. And it wasn't "aid", the US made a good profit on the food sold and the ships lent.
THthefirst 7 months ago
@THthefirst Let me first say that it's neither my intention nor my desire to enter into an acrimonious exchange with anyone. I'm determined to remain civil but honest in my opinion. That being said, you are correct--Britain did beat Germany insofar as preventing an invasion was concerned, but I don't believe Britain alone could have done anything to push the Germans out of the countries they had already occupied. The only other scenario I can see was Britain diverting a small part of the German
Arbeedubya 7 months ago
@THthefirst army while the Russians swept through all of continental Europe. Now, Europe under Stalin wouldn't have been quite as bad as Europe under Hitler, but it would have been bad enough. I think a fairly realistic assessment of the whole situation can be found in Churchill's writings. My comments are a reflection on the shortage of resources and material on Britain's part, and certainly not on the courage and spirit of the British people and British armed forces.
Arbeedubya 7 months ago
@Arbeedubya I agree with your second post, but it has a slightly different argument to your earlier post, where you suggested that without the US aid (food and supplies) Britain wouldn't have lasted the war because she would have starved. It is of course correct that britain had no chance of defeating Germany on her own - but she could, with the empire she had, have held out. It was Russia that played the main role in the defeat of Germany in Europe
THthefirst 7 months ago
@THthefirst Yes, I see your point. I never meant to imply that the American soldier was any better, any braver, any more well trained than the British, Russian, or even German soldier. The Russians lost more men at Stalingrad than America lost in the entire war, and I'll readily concede that it was our industrial capacity that tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Perhaps our biggest contribution was that ("we" meaning mainly America and Britain) saved western Europe from Stalin's rule.
Arbeedubya 7 months ago
@Arbeedubya The U.S. took fewer casualties than other major belligerents in the Second World War. Since when is this a bad thing? The U.S. did not enter the war until it was attacked. Neither did the Soviet Union. The U.S. defeated the Empire of Japan with its left hand. I won't debate the question of soldiers' individual valor, only soldiers are allowed to do that, but history might be very different without U.S. participation in WW2.
deriter64 5 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo we hadn't shown through our victories at Coral Sea, Midway (in which, incidentally, the Royal Navy refused the loan of a couple of carriers), and Guadalcanal that we had the situation in the Pacific well in hand.
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo away from the screwup that resulted in the disaster at Isandhlwana.
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
Comment removed
Arbeedubya 8 months ago
bad quilty
wana1923 9 months ago
Awsome Movie if you got this think you could post 55 Days at Peking Next?
Irish39100 10 months ago
@Irish39100 Sorry, I Haven't Got That Film.
TheMgallacher 10 months ago
@Irish39100 55 Days At Peking is already on YouTube. It's one of my favourites, too.
absue 7 months ago
can u do higher quality? nice vid btw :)
ktockly 11 months ago
Thanks for uploading!
AmericanWarrior1776 11 months ago 5
@AmericanWarrior1776 Its Ok!!!!
TheMgallacher 11 months ago
What rifles were the British using in this period?
solidsnake117100 1 year ago
@solidsnake117100 the Martini-Henry rifle
cockneyrebel9 1 year ago
@cockneyrebel9 Ah cool thanks.
solidsnake117100 1 year ago
@solidsnake117100 martini henry rifles. Though in this movie I think they are using the cavalry carbine variant, which is likely an inaccuracy as they troops probably would have used the full length version
rocknrolla12992 9 months ago
Wow, I love this scene with all these topless women dancing - it's better than any chorus line I ever saw.
CaneFu 1 year ago
thanks for the upload =D awesome movie! sorta wish it ended different xD
chidoriookami 1 year ago
@chidoriookami Its Ok! And I Agree With You.
TheMgallacher 1 year ago
@chidoriookami na mate,unfortunately,movies based on true stories usually try to put at least some kind of emphasis on the truth (even if they fuck about with it a little )
davor1873 10 months ago
@davor1873 lol yeah, i guess i should have wished instead that history turned out differently, for this battle xD idk
chidoriookami 10 months ago