Im pretty impressed this is from a TV-series, must have had a huge budget since this is full-length film stuff. Its good to see some good WW1 material out there, WW1 is neglected by the film making community for the most part.
Mann, wie lächerlich. Hätten die Engländer, Australier, Südafrikaner, Inder und wer sonst noch gegen Lettow-Vorbecks kleine Truppe losgelassen wurde, auch nur einmal so gekämpft wie hier...dann wäre die Schutztruppe sicherlich schon 1916 am Ende gewesen. Aber dummerweise sah es für die ach so tollen Ententemächte gaaaaanz anders aus. Die Schutztruppe Ostafrikas hielt länger durch als das Kaiserreich selbst. Hahahahahahahaha
I still love how they manage to paint the Imperial Germans in such a bad light in the young Indy series, especially in Africa. I mean obviously colonialism has its basic faults and was a stain on the history of humanity, but compared to the so-called "good guys" in these films, the Brits and the Belgians, the Germans were like the peace corps. In German East Africa the German Asarkis were paid more than twice their British and Belgian counterparts wages, and actually given a pension.
The german commander in east africa was paul van leetow worbeck.worbeck had learnt his tactics from the east africans who had tied down a far superior german colonial force for many years.during ww1 he led an african army against a largely british led indian army.worbeck was so succesful that when germany surrendered,the african troops wondered why they were surrendering after they had won.
OK, try to think above the 4th grade level here. It wasn't about RACE, it was about EMPIRE. Black soldiers fought with pride and valor on both sides of the conflict.
Good film making! Never saw a made for TV war movie with that kind of grit and excitement.
@ThePimpycat Belgians fighting Germans and no Zulu's were involved. That's why the German officer shouts his orders in German and the Belgians wear little crowned Belgian lions on their caps.
@ttobing1234 Those aren't Zulu's, it's like said, there are no Zulu's involved. Zulu's lived in the British colony of Natal, which is over a thousand miles from there.
In the Belgian Congo there were other tribes, but since we don't know where these units were drafted it's impossible to say what ethnicity they are.
@ttobing1234 I was making clear to you that I knew about whom he was talking. When you said 'I think he's talking about (...) [t]he guys carrying the shields and spears' that can only mean that you think that a) I'm wrong when I say those aren't Zulus b) you think I'm talking about the uniformed soldiers and c) that those natives are Zulus.
PS: at that time, people would refer to the colonials the simple way: with the name of the colonisator.
Whatever small differences in their uniforms you wish to point out, in the heat of battle it would make discrimination between friend and foe pretty hard.
Brits: High, tapered red Tarboush, often worn without badge. Puttees & ankle boots. Canvas webbing.
Germans: short, untapered khaki Tarboush with unit badge. Black leather webbing.
There was a lot of variation in the uniforms, but this is reasonably accurate. Only blooper I noticed was the German Askaris in jackboots - they should have black cloth puttees & ankle boots.
@OnkelMickwald Yes, both have same uniform but different badge and uniform designs - In this clips you will notice that they are not British troops but Belgian colonial troops which probably comes from Belgian Conga.
Yes you do, they won certain battles, but with times times more losses than the british and they had much more manpower 100 zulus vs 100 brits = 100 dead zulus and maybe 5 dead brits since zulus dont even had mordern equipment
hate how england can have so many colonies but when any other nation has some shit hits the fan and england god forbid must invade they r pathetic people
Thanks YoungIndy Fan for putting these clips on. I was and still am a great fan of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and Sean Patrick Flanery. I remember watching these episodes each Friday evening in early 1990s and imagining I am travelling around the world with young Indy , he he he... Oh, good old times... They SURE don't make anymore such TV series these days.
@Hellcatpilot: This battle is taking place around summer 1916, just before the fall of Tabora in German East Africa (today Tanzania). After this battle Indy and his men are being sent on a crazy mission to French Gabon and by the time they arrived there they found out that Tabora has already fallen. The Belgian colonial troops under General Tombeur captured Tabora on 19 September 1916 ..... I hope this answers your question. :-)
@Hellcatpilot: I am not quite sure if I understand you, Hellcatpilot. What do you mean by "the German Schutztruppe shouldn't have their uniforms in 1916"? German Askari were wearing their uniforms throughout the war.
@cruchot555 I mean like, not many German askaris didn't have thier uniforms. Many of them improvised with British and other allied gear and weapons because a German Zepplin had supplies, but it never came. In 1918 they almost looked like British askaris.
@Hellcatpilot: Not necessarly. The battle for Tabora took place in mid-1916, when most askaris were still wearing their German uniforms. Only in 1917 with the capture of Tabora, Dodoma, Tanga, Bagomoyo, Dar-el-Salaam, Arusha and Usambara did the Germans finally loose the ability to domestically re-supply their troops and started to live off land and war booty. The German Zeppelin episode only occurred in late 1917, when Lettow-Vorbeck and his men were pushed south towards Mozambique.
@flosshatt14 Germans had the black ammo pouches and a eagle on thier hats. and thier hats are more cylinder chape. they were also the ones that got thier asses kicked. the Belgians ( ass kcikers) had a more cone- shaped hats. the Belgians also had brownish-tan ammo pouches and the tribal warriors
Very interesing. There is a music track played during this battle that is heard in Lego Indiana Jones that I had not heard in the movies so I didn't know where it came from. It appears this is where.
BTW, cool fighting scene. Coulda used some blood, but otherwise, nice and violent! I like it!
I don't get why they took the blood and gore that defined WWI out of this scene. And how indy survived a direct bullet to the chest. Pathetically sanitized for the kiddies, perhaps?
@AspiringPotato I've got a hunch you'll roll your eyes just as I did, but Indy survived that shot by virtue of the locket he was wearing around his neck.
Besides, why don't the British try to outflank the German position, instead of charging in open ground, with little to no cover available at all ? :-/
Those WW1 tactics ... I'll never quite understand it ...
@105km The Askaris in the German colonial troops were 100% loyal to Germany, had undergone the same training and received the same payment then their white comrades. Killing one of them was completely interchangeable with killing a German soldier.
@105km well back then most of the african continent was controlled by the british empire. The only reason Indy is fighting is because he was and still is a mercenary.
@2210ethan That too, but most of the things he's done that didn't have to do with rescuing his friends and family or the museums interests was all about as he quoted "Fortune and glory."
What British soldiers? They're Belgian askaris, from the Belgian Congo. They've just been "dubbed" into English for sake of convenience for the American filmmaker.
i know what happens to a soldier if he tries to retread without permission. but i don't know what the charge is for doing the complete opposite without permission
I can't beleive a movie has never been made about this campaign. I think it would make a great movie. But, as alwways, Fucking liberals in Hollywood don't want to be racist by making a movie about WW1 africa!
Kiss my ass hollywood! If i make it as a movie director, mark my words, one of my projects will be a WW1 movie set in east Africa. It's about bloody time somebody did one, I'm so disapointed that no one has.
@keithtetrault123 Um it's not the liberals in Hollywood it's just no one really cares for WW1. It has nothing to do with racism at all. I do agree with you though that there should be more ww1 movies to show how brutal the war truely was
@ImperialGuard9001 well. America didn't really participated militarily. but there were civilians who join up on both sides of the war. for an example. Indiana Jones joined the Belgian foreign legion
Young Indy is a bit of a cowardly nasty-pasty....He machine-gunned a few of those black chappies who were running away, in the back........What an absolute cad !!!!....Bad show all round.......then he bummed the dead.
Well the Prussian concept of mass manuovere wasnt exactly operational at Ypres where they were fighting a defensive battle,trench warfare was a relatively fresh concept,so your arguments a little flawed.You dont win wars by defense
And at the Battle of Mons 1914,Von Klucks columns were shot to bits by British regulars,they only pulled back to the Marne because the French(as usual:L) retreated under Fochs orders
1st Ypres was a German offensive battle, as they attempted to breakthrough and seize the Channel Ports. The BEF did demonstrate its superb quality at Mons. It was however driven back at Le Cateau and afterwards went into retreat and had little impact on the war until the Race to the Sea.
only on the Western Front of Europe was trench warfare widely used. Even on the Eastern front it was much more mobile. In Africa, the landscape and lack of manpower and large weapons (machine guns, cannons) lead to much more mobile hit and run tactics... was too the Boers used in the Boer War of the Transval and Orange Free State just a few years before.
Firstly,what everyones missing is the fact that this is a tv show
And Duke?These are Belgian Askari's:,not British,presumably from the Congo,I forget the details of the episode but Belgium did have a colony there
AND the Prussian school of warfare didnt work in practice.The war of manovure failed,resulting in stagnant trench warfare.The Germans believed that a large conscript army could succeed while the British took the opposite view of a small professional army with marksmanship
To say that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice is like saying that the Roman legionary system didn't work in practice. Failure was due to poor senior leadership, not a flaw in the system itself. You forget that German conscripts almost destroyed the British prewar army at the First Ypres.
It was a British and French victory because they managed to hold Ypres. However the British pre-war Army was pushed to the very walls of Ypres and almost wiped out by the end of the battle. It was the Territorial and New Army, as well as Commonwealth troops who would carry on the war. Comparing casualty statistics is not an indicator of victor and vanquished. You clearly have no idea of how near run the battle was anyway. My point still stands.
Umm, actually I know how near -run the battle was, and I appreciate the impact that Belgian flooding, Indian and territorial units made, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest. Comparing casualty statistics is merely one indicator of victor and vanquished, not always the most important one. Lots of decisive battles (Waterloo, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Hook) were ALMOST won by the losing side. Oh and the Prussian/Roman analogy is rather odd.
You missed the point of my first post in response to the contention that the British system of a small professional army was superior to the Prussian system. A statement was made that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice, which is ludicrous and totally out of step with military history. German conscript regiments still effectively destroyed the pre-war British Army at First Ypres, leaving it a pyrrhic allied victory. That is something that you apparently dispute.
Well yes, I would dispute that a casualty ratio of 1:1.08 constitutes a phyrric victory. If it was not for First Ypres, the whole war might have been different, the Germans might have swept all before them. As for conscripts destroying anything, German 6th army was a pre-war formation wasn't it? And the BEF was mauled in battles well before first Ypres. As for Prussian military prowess, the Prussians were an important part of the Imperial German army.
Again it is incorrect and frankly amateur of you to judge a battle on simple casualty statistics or ratios. The loss of the entire well-trained British pre-war army in a single major clash was by and standards a pyrrhic victory for the British Empire. The BEF had not suffered heavy casualties in any previous clashes of the campaign. Armies were not prewar organizations like Corps, and it was called Kindermord bei Ypern because many of the divisions were of ill-trained college student volunteers.
Well, I am an amateur, if I was professional I doubt I'd be posting on youtube!
A phyrric victory, to my mind, is a victory where the objective gained is essentially, not worth the blood that has been spilled to get it.
First Ypres does not count. If the Germans had broken through, who knows how far they might have got? I am not judging the battle solely on casualties, but if you are calling something a phyrric victory, casualty ratios can show that it was. Or, in this case, wasn't.
Not quite; a pyrrhic victory is one that the victor can not afford another one of. The loss of the entire pre-war British regular army was a grievous loss. First Ypres was not a pyrrhic victory for the Allies or even the British Empire. But it was for the British Regular Army. I initially made the point in reference to a post which contended that a small British regular army was superior to a German nation-in-arms army raised by mass conscription.
Yes, that is also a fair interpretation of a Phyrric victory. The Pre-war regular army was certainly pretty well annihilated in the early years of war, but they stopped the Central Powers advance, meaning the war would go on, denying the quick victory that the Germans needed.
Exactly, so the pyrrhic victory was worth the cost operationally and strategically, but it was still a military loss of lasting proportions; comparable to the Austro-Hungarians huge losses in Galicia: by the end of 1914 the bulk of both armies pre-war NCO corps had been killed, wounded or captured.
A victory could still be worth the cost and be pyrrhic. An army could win a war-winning victory and still take such heavy losses that another such battle would destroy it. Whether it was worth the cost or not is irrelevant, and is as dependent on what the victor does in the aftermath of the battle as before.
Then you don't know what a pyrrhic battle actually is. The term came from a quote from Pyrrhus of Epirus after fighting the Romans at Asculum; 'If I win another victory like this I am beaten.' Whether it was worth the cost is irrelevant, the point is that the casualties incurred almost broke the back of the victorious army.
Wasn't that comment attributed to one of his generals? Just as it was attributed to one of Santa Anna's Generals, and Ike after Market Garden? There is no one concrete definition of the term, though imho a 'war-winning victory with heavy losses isn't it at all.
You may find the analogy somewhat unorthodox. However it is substantially true. Saying that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice because of a failure to take Paris in 1914 is akin to saying that the Roman legionary system didn't work because they were defeated at Carrhae. It uses isolated examples without qualifying the actual factors involved and the course of events to leap to bald and patently false conclusions.
Hey again. Analogy is just odd. Roman army lasted well over half a millenium and conquered most of the known world. Prussians did neither.
I never said that the Prussian army (one part of the Imperial army of 1914) didn't work, that was the other chap. It's just that your analogy is misplaced. Und es ist Cannae, nein?
I know what you are getting at but you are reading too much into it. The fact is that Fox4Kerrang's statement is saying that an outstandingly successful military system didn't work because of an isolated incident which was the result of a set of circumstances, leadership and otherwise that does not actually indicate a flaw in the art of warfare. I was describing Carrhae, Mesopotamia 53 B.C. Cannae took place before the Marius reforms and was not fought by the Roman legions proper.
I think comparing the Roman and Prussian military systems is overly generous to the Prussian one though. And "leadership, circumstances and otherwise" is a pretty big part of "the art of warfare". Or so I believe to be true.
Over generous to the Prussian one? Military history may not be your strong point. Frankly I would say that it may be over-generous to the Roman one! Leadership and circumstances have a huge bearing on the art of war. They are however variable circumstances, and can not be controlled by a country's military system, as they change with every different leader, set of enemies and campaign, while the military system generally stays unchanging.
Leadership can be controlled by a country's military system, even-to an extent- in the 19th century, where meritocratic promotion was certainly not unheard of. Circumstances- well some can be controlled to an extent (battleground, relations with allies) some (weather, harvest) cannot.
The Roman army lasted for what- two millennia? and conquered (almost) the whole known world at the height of it's power. The Prussian army didn't.
Generally stays unchanging within the time frame of a given conflict. Use your head! The system of producing officers can be regulated and the actual caliber of officers can be improved but the plans that they will produce in the fog of war can not. Neither length of existence nor territory conquered determines the military quality of the army. You fail to take into account the different enemies and odds each army faced and the actual nature of their military organizations and art of war.
Enemies and odds are apt to change a lot over 2000 years dude. Rome encountered pretty much everyone. Prussia fought other Europeans, plus boxer and Herero.
And it's the other way around isn't it? Length of existence and territory conquered (through victories, key point that) are pretty good indicators of the quality of the army.
Its an army's actual performance on campaign, the demonstration of its military qualities that tell the quality of an army. European enemies were the only ones capable of fighting meaningfully in 1914 except Japan (U.S. a European power). The Romans fought roughly comparable foes in the Punic Wars and when fighting the Hellenistic Kingdoms, as well as the Sassanids. Most of their wars were fought with enemies who lacked the organization, discipline and unified command of civilized armies.
Army's performance on campaign is important, but it is one of many factors, Napoleon's army was pretty great, but that didn't matter in the long run as it was defeated, as was the Imperial German Army.
The Romans fought 'comparable' foes like Hannibal, but also fought 'savages' who could and did beat them on occasion, and who sacked Rome. I think you can make a good case for a great army being one that wins victories, serves its state and survives.
In which case you could claim that the Macedonian Army of Philip and Alexander was not a great army because it existed for less time than the Imperial German Army, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most admirable armies in history. Victories can be won by simple mass or due to the particular circumstances even when the victor's forces are not militarily superior. Comte de Saxe's French beat the British Army at Fontenoy even though the units of the British Army were tactically superior.
It won victories (never beaten under Alexander?), conquered much of the (known) world, served the state, I'd say that qualifies it. Plus didn't it only end because of its leader's untimely death and the subsequent quarrelling? Rather than being beaten, disarmed and disbanded.
Macedonian warfare was pretty easily outclassed by that of Rome when they came into contact in the 2nd century B.C. The Macedonians also won fewer major battles than the Germans and never fought a coalition of major enemies in a multi-front war. Although you have therefore undermined the longevity clause you introduced as a factor.
Longevity is one of several factors mentioned, and Alexander's veterans ended up (mostly) fighting for one faction or another, staying in their jobs, the Kaiser's men were sent home.
and didn't Rome conquer Alexander's possessions in the 2cnd macedonian war?
War is an extension of politics by other means, and a war's outcome is not entirely determined in its military sphere so one can not jump to the conclusion that a defeated army was militarily inferior simply because it was in the end defeated. The Kaiser's men actually stayed under arms in Freikorps that fought Communism throughout Central Europe. The German Army did not cease to exist after 1918, as it did in 1945. Yes the Romans did conquer all of Alexander's successor kingdoms.
I agree you cannot jump to that conclusion, and I certainly wouldn't.
As for Clausewitz, his quotation was "extension of policy' by other means, or is that a translation thing?
I understand that the German army did not cease to exist after 1918, although the vast majority of its men were disbanded. It was several different tiny armies in quick succession fighting communists and Hitler variously if I remember my GCSE's.
Policy is determined in general by the political ruling classes so it is practically the same thing. The German Army was a conscript army so the vast majority of its men would have been demobilized at the conclusion of the war anyway. The Reichswehr and various Freikorps fought the Communists simultaneously, not in succession.
Definitely not. I think that quotation, and the way it is used, is very interesting though, and often true.
I think wars are started sometimes because diplomacy has failed (hesitate to give an uncontroversial example but maybe Falklands or Chechnya?) But I don't know how wars of conquest really come within the scope of Von's quote. I mean, if your policy is to conquer everything, then for at least a set time, your policy IS war. It's a tricky one.
The US is a European power in that it is derived from and recognizably falls within western european civilization. In 1914 its entire voting population was of European descent, its official language was European and its culture and social and military organization are derived from Western Europe's. The greatness of Napoleon's army actually did matter as it revolutionized warfare by its organization and military thinking. General Winter destroyed the Grande Armee.
No way. US in 1914 was still pretty isolationist, its armed forces had their own traditions and had fought in their own wars, lots of them. The voting population since 1870 (in some states before) included people of Chinese and African descent (how fairly this was conducted is another debate entirely). Western-yes. European- not so much. Currency, weights and measures, laws and overseas territories all of it's own. Winter played its part, but Napoleon was beaten in the field, as was the Kaiser.
Western is European! Every European country had its own currency, and the U.S. frankly uses the imperial system of weights and measures. Every Army has its own traditions as well. It was and is still organized like European armies around Napoleonic brigade-division-corps lines. America was as Western European as Australia in 1914. Saying that its isolationist is like saying that Tokugawan Japan wasn't Asian because it was isolationist. You are willfully ignoring the bigger picture.
Neither Turkey nor Russia is part of Western Europe. Western civilization is European, centered on the pillar of Western Christianity. America developed as part of the English world as Australia did. Claiming that Australia and the U.S. are not part of european civilization is like claiming that the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia in the central and western Mediterranean weren't Greek, even though they in every way fall within the bounds of their parent civilization.
But America didn't fall within the bounds of British civilization! They were different countries with different laws. Are you arguing that any country which embraces "Western Christianity" (though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that) can be classed as European?
Every country has different laws. That is irrelevant minutiae. The values upon which western civilization is built derive from western christianity (catholicism and its protestant offshoots). If the United States is not its own civilization then it must fall within the bounds of a different one, namely of the nations who colonized it in the 16-18th centuries. America of course falls within the bounds of British civilization, it was British colonists that founded it.
I wanted the guys in khaki to win
buttercremehonda 1 month ago 2
@buttercremehonda Don't worry, they did! xD
Folk1994 1 month ago
does anyone know where I could find the clip where he meets a doctor on some island and persuades him to go to college?
8peregrint8 1 month ago
I love it how this series takes you to all these countries, and there cultures. And how he meets all these famous people from back then.
These series is a combination between history and adventure.
83UtrechtNL 1 month ago
Beautiful to see them use genuine Maxim MG.08 and Granatwerfer 16!!!
Verdunveteran 1 month ago
@Jagertal Wahre Worte. Aber man weis ja, wie das mit diesen Produktionen ist....
datadesk100 2 months ago
Im pretty impressed this is from a TV-series, must have had a huge budget since this is full-length film stuff. Its good to see some good WW1 material out there, WW1 is neglected by the film making community for the most part.
fireguy789 2 months ago
Mann, wie lächerlich. Hätten die Engländer, Australier, Südafrikaner, Inder und wer sonst noch gegen Lettow-Vorbecks kleine Truppe losgelassen wurde, auch nur einmal so gekämpft wie hier...dann wäre die Schutztruppe sicherlich schon 1916 am Ende gewesen. Aber dummerweise sah es für die ach so tollen Ententemächte gaaaaanz anders aus. Die Schutztruppe Ostafrikas hielt länger durch als das Kaiserreich selbst. Hahahahahahahaha
Jagertal 2 months ago
This show must have had a pretty big budget. The battle scenes look pretty impressive for television.
TheAdam159 3 months ago
I still love how they manage to paint the Imperial Germans in such a bad light in the young Indy series, especially in Africa. I mean obviously colonialism has its basic faults and was a stain on the history of humanity, but compared to the so-called "good guys" in these films, the Brits and the Belgians, the Germans were like the peace corps. In German East Africa the German Asarkis were paid more than twice their British and Belgian counterparts wages, and actually given a pension.
asmodeon 3 months ago 2
Why are they all wearing the same uniforms?
ttobing1234 3 months ago
@ttobing1234 they are not, the white bands on the helmets of the officers are German and the non-white Belgian
krystalmanor 3 months ago
is this WW1 or WW2 ?
paulemann1999 3 months ago in playlist Young Indiana Jones
@paulemann1999 ww1
krystalmanor 3 months ago
africa is creepy 0_0
baileybushey 3 months ago
who the hell are those weird ppl jumping with like flowers on their heads?
ThePimpycat 4 months ago
sorry,the name is lettow vorbeck
bedstuyrover 4 months ago
The german commander in east africa was paul van leetow worbeck.worbeck had learnt his tactics from the east africans who had tied down a far superior german colonial force for many years.during ww1 he led an african army against a largely british led indian army.worbeck was so succesful that when germany surrendered,the african troops wondered why they were surrendering after they had won.
bedstuyrover 4 months ago
OK, try to think above the 4th grade level here. It wasn't about RACE, it was about EMPIRE. Black soldiers fought with pride and valor on both sides of the conflict.
Good film making! Never saw a made for TV war movie with that kind of grit and excitement.
rmcnabb 4 months ago 2
Are zulu's fighitng zulu's and brits fighting brits?
ThePimpycat 4 months ago
@ThePimpycat Belgians fighting Germans and no Zulu's were involved. That's why the German officer shouts his orders in German and the Belgians wear little crowned Belgian lions on their caps.
MebefromBelgium 4 months ago
@MebefromBelgium I think he's talking about the natives. The guys carrying the shields and spears at 0:33
ttobing1234 3 months ago
@ttobing1234 Those aren't Zulu's, it's like said, there are no Zulu's involved. Zulu's lived in the British colony of Natal, which is over a thousand miles from there.
In the Belgian Congo there were other tribes, but since we don't know where these units were drafted it's impossible to say what ethnicity they are.
MebefromBelgium 3 months ago
@MebefromBelgium I didn`t say there were Zulus I called them the natives.
ttobing1234 3 months ago
@ttobing1234 I was making clear to you that I knew about whom he was talking. When you said 'I think he's talking about (...) [t]he guys carrying the shields and spears' that can only mean that you think that a) I'm wrong when I say those aren't Zulus b) you think I'm talking about the uniformed soldiers and c) that those natives are Zulus.
PS: at that time, people would refer to the colonials the simple way: with the name of the colonisator.
MebefromBelgium 3 months ago
@MebefromBelgium And also at 6:05 and other parts of the movies.
ttobing1234 3 months ago
this indiana jones bloke gets around
yiannis562 5 months ago
i wish you had the rest of this episode it's a good one. thanks for this
carringtonc79 5 months ago
5:32 rubber bounce bayonet
BlackMasterRoshi 5 months ago
Fake; no way a white man can outrun all those guys, even if he is indiana
tyroneemail 6 months ago
Theyre all in the same khaki uniforms, how cna they tell friend from foe?
CarlVonNirgendwo 6 months ago
Whatever small differences in their uniforms you wish to point out, in the heat of battle it would make discrimination between friend and foe pretty hard.
NickCampbellSoup 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5:58 Indiana cheats death again with a locket stopping a rifle round!
ManwiththeXL2 6 months ago
Comment removed
ManwiththeXL2 6 months ago
ZULU!
TheOnlinevideopun1 6 months ago
I love the older fat British guy just like completely owning everyone he fights !!lol
mtpj9654 7 months ago
3:59 black man dodges bullet
Snooperking 7 months ago
The most war glorifieng scene ever!
SanctumNecare 7 months ago
BANZAI CHARGE
bobotrucnhi 7 months ago
Those spear guys with African costume are awesome!
BALEnaVICO 7 months ago
they are retreating to the wrong direction!
xTheGerbilx 7 months ago 2
Did native African British troops and German askaris really have IDENTICAL uniforms!?:S
OnkelMickwald 8 months ago
@OnkelMickwald They're similar, but not identical.
Brits: High, tapered red Tarboush, often worn without badge. Puttees & ankle boots. Canvas webbing.
Germans: short, untapered khaki Tarboush with unit badge. Black leather webbing.
There was a lot of variation in the uniforms, but this is reasonably accurate. Only blooper I noticed was the German Askaris in jackboots - they should have black cloth puttees & ankle boots.
0bverse 8 months ago
@OnkelMickwald Yes, both have same uniform but different badge and uniform designs - In this clips you will notice that they are not British troops but Belgian colonial troops which probably comes from Belgian Conga.
DavBlc7 7 months ago
Make GOOD WW1 movies like All quiet on western front (1930) or All quiet on western front (1979)
BigMek456 8 months ago
You dont fuck with the zulu!
lox12 9 months ago
Yes you do, they won certain battles, but with times times more losses than the british and they had much more manpower 100 zulus vs 100 brits = 100 dead zulus and maybe 5 dead brits since zulus dont even had mordern equipment
JSLegoMaster 9 months ago
@JSLegoMaster I know i know, but they look fun, nevermind their fighting tactics and weapons...
lox12 9 months ago
hate how england can have so many colonies but when any other nation has some shit hits the fan and england god forbid must invade they r pathetic people
GuyPennebaker 9 months ago
why is it that germans always have machine guns and allies always advance
guywith3 10 months ago
@guywith3 Cause we're epic. C=
indydude100 7 months ago
it's a African American civil war lol
guywith3 10 months ago
Lettow-Vorbeck was the last german officier, who capitulated? Or?
Bluecher1813 10 months ago
I swear there should be friendly fire, because both sides were wearing the exact type of uniforms with similar colors!
ibrohiem 1 year ago
I swear there should be friendly fire, because both sides were wearing the exact type of uniforms with similar colors!
ibrohiem 1 year ago
Thanks YoungIndy Fan for putting these clips on. I was and still am a great fan of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and Sean Patrick Flanery. I remember watching these episodes each Friday evening in early 1990s and imagining I am travelling around the world with young Indy , he he he... Oh, good old times... They SURE don't make anymore such TV series these days.
cruchot555 1 year ago 9
LOL! "We're retreating in the wrong direction!" Most classic line yet!!!
lordchickenhawk 1 year ago
kee
kokirovich 1 year ago
what year is this battle?
Hellcatpilot 1 year ago
@Hellcatpilot: This battle is taking place around summer 1916, just before the fall of Tabora in German East Africa (today Tanzania). After this battle Indy and his men are being sent on a crazy mission to French Gabon and by the time they arrived there they found out that Tabora has already fallen. The Belgian colonial troops under General Tombeur captured Tabora on 19 September 1916 ..... I hope this answers your question. :-)
cruchot555 1 year ago 5
@cruchot555 Thanks, it did answer my question. I was asking it because The German Schutztruppe shouldn't have thier uniforms at all..
Hellcatpilot 1 year ago
@Hellcatpilot: I am not quite sure if I understand you, Hellcatpilot. What do you mean by "the German Schutztruppe shouldn't have their uniforms in 1916"? German Askari were wearing their uniforms throughout the war.
cruchot555 1 year ago
@cruchot555 I mean like, not many German askaris didn't have thier uniforms. Many of them improvised with British and other allied gear and weapons because a German Zepplin had supplies, but it never came. In 1918 they almost looked like British askaris.
Hellcatpilot 11 months ago
@Hellcatpilot: Not necessarly. The battle for Tabora took place in mid-1916, when most askaris were still wearing their German uniforms. Only in 1917 with the capture of Tabora, Dodoma, Tanga, Bagomoyo, Dar-el-Salaam, Arusha and Usambara did the Germans finally loose the ability to domestically re-supply their troops and started to live off land and war booty. The German Zeppelin episode only occurred in late 1917, when Lettow-Vorbeck and his men were pushed south towards Mozambique.
cruchot555 11 months ago
Super Weapons: Modern Era Stealth Bombers, Cold War Nuclear Submarines, WWII Nuclear Bomb + Heavy Bomber, First World War: Machine Gun. hehe
Luminahawke 1 year ago
@Luminahawke nah, more like tanks are the super weapon of ww1. :P
Osiwaw 1 year ago
they are no scoping for 50 points
netflixfilms 1 year ago
how can they tell the differnce?! the uniforms look exactly the same
flosshatt14 1 year ago 2
@flosshatt14 Germans had the black ammo pouches and a eagle on thier hats. and thier hats are more cylinder chape. they were also the ones that got thier asses kicked. the Belgians ( ass kcikers) had a more cone- shaped hats. the Belgians also had brownish-tan ammo pouches and the tribal warriors
Hellcatpilot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ABSOLUTE CLASSIC
muddafuckPhD 1 year ago
ABSOLUTE CLASSIC!!!!!
muddafuckPhD 1 year ago
Don't take the Hollywood crap too serious...
Smalbop 1 year ago
I thought Schutztrupep woulda won
Hellcatpilot 1 year ago
Very interesing. There is a music track played during this battle that is heard in Lego Indiana Jones that I had not heard in the movies so I didn't know where it came from. It appears this is where.
BTW, cool fighting scene. Coulda used some blood, but otherwise, nice and violent! I like it!
TheeTy294 1 year ago
Indiana Jones should have used his whip against that MG nest. Whip em in the back of the head to the Indiana Jones theme song.
ThirstenHowel3 1 year ago
I don't get why they took the blood and gore that defined WWI out of this scene. And how indy survived a direct bullet to the chest. Pathetically sanitized for the kiddies, perhaps?
AspiringPotato 1 year ago
@AspiringPotato I've got a hunch you'll roll your eyes just as I did, but Indy survived that shot by virtue of the locket he was wearing around his neck.
cvala632 1 year ago
well well, when you look to the black soldiers you dont really know who is german and who not!! you have to look at the officers
xyvvz 1 year ago
03:41 : What the hell is that for aiming ?! Where did you learn how to shoot, buddy ?
Briselance 1 year ago
Besides, why don't the British try to outflank the German position, instead of charging in open ground, with little to no cover available at all ? :-/
Those WW1 tactics ... I'll never quite understand it ...
Briselance 1 year ago
@Briselance The British might have tried that but the Belgian army had not that much experience.
If you want to understand WWI tactics study how armies and rifles were during the Napoleonic era.
MebefromBelgium 1 year ago
What are the black sergeant and the white officer speaking about, at the very beginning ?
Briselance 1 year ago
Sucks, 105km. They got passports and bred with the German people. Ruining Germany.
PcRussia 1 year ago
Comment removed
105km 1 year ago
@105km The Askaris in the German colonial troops were 100% loyal to Germany, had undergone the same training and received the same payment then their white comrades. Killing one of them was completely interchangeable with killing a German soldier.
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@105km
The machine gunner shot them because if he didn't do so, they would have shot him dead without hesitation or regret. Kill or be killed. That's war.
Briselance 1 year ago
i like how one revoler shoots one shot hits 3 black rifle men i dont use n word
davvvvo 1 year ago
lol black and white people fighting eachother together ... for white people :D
105km 1 year ago 23
@105km well back then most of the african continent was controlled by the british empire. The only reason Indy is fighting is because he was and still is a mercenary.
Shanethefilmmaker 4 months ago
@Shanethefilmmaker
A mercenary? No duder, he's on the Allied side.
2210ethan 4 months ago
@2210ethan That too, but most of the things he's done that didn't have to do with rescuing his friends and family or the museums interests was all about as he quoted "Fortune and glory."
Shanethefilmmaker 4 months ago
@105km ur racest
baileybushey 3 months ago
I loved this series when i was a kid.
Augments 1 year ago
whos who because they both have the same uniform?
lmanor4 1 year ago
@lmanor4 The ones with the African colonials are British and the ones with the African colonials are the Germans ;-)
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa
BELGIANS.
Not British.
Defuret 1 year ago
@lmanor4
Well, the black German soldiers have an almost perfectly cylindric fez-like hat.
Whereas the British black soldiers have a hat more cone-shaped.
Briselance 1 year ago
@Briselance
What British soldiers? They're Belgian askaris, from the Belgian Congo. They've just been "dubbed" into English for sake of convenience for the American filmmaker.
Defuret 1 year ago
Sean Connery should still come back in some way if an Indiana Jones 5 ever happens.
Roadracer987654321 1 year ago
i know what happens to a soldier if he tries to retread without permission. but i don't know what the charge is for doing the complete opposite without permission
edmund94232 1 year ago
ZULU!!!!!!!!
manutdr8 1 year ago 16
@manutdr8
what zulu? aint no Zulus in East Africa
CarlVonNirgendwo 6 months ago
My fingers smell like syrup.
MajBlood 1 year ago
have this movie on vhs
strikecommando01 1 year ago
What battle is this ?
The British-South-African-Indian, hugely superior in number, never completely defeated the Germans in East Africa in WWI...
zozottine 1 year ago
@zozottine This was offensive from Congo to capture German outer capital of Tabora, a real operation taken by the Belgian Congo Force Publique.
belgie81 1 year ago
Der Kommandant spricht sogar sehr gut Deutsch, echt gut gemacht.
The Commander speaks fluent German, as far as I can tell from his 2 words. But reakky good. Makes it more intense to me (and yeah I am from Germany).
Verhoeven1980 1 year ago
this makes mew mad I had 6or7 relivives who fought for germany in ww1
isp148 1 year ago
this makes mew mad I had 6or7 relivives who fought for germany in ww1
isp148 1 year ago
Well that was unrealistic XD
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
In 4:10 the gun is diferent what 4:14 jejejej
;)
libertoamaro 1 year ago
THIS IS AWSOME.
Hellcatpilot 1 year ago
I can't beleive a movie has never been made about this campaign. I think it would make a great movie. But, as alwways, Fucking liberals in Hollywood don't want to be racist by making a movie about WW1 africa!
Kiss my ass hollywood! If i make it as a movie director, mark my words, one of my projects will be a WW1 movie set in east Africa. It's about bloody time somebody did one, I'm so disapointed that no one has.
keithtetrault123 1 year ago
@keithtetrault123 Um it's not the liberals in Hollywood it's just no one really cares for WW1. It has nothing to do with racism at all. I do agree with you though that there should be more ww1 movies to show how brutal the war truely was
RyanKeehn949 1 year ago 3
If America didnt participed then Hollywood doesnt care
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 well. America didn't really participated militarily. but there were civilians who join up on both sides of the war. for an example. Indiana Jones joined the Belgian foreign legion
edmund94232 1 year ago
indianna jones as well
8000jk 1 year ago
lold hard at 4:35
MeisterSchnitter 2 years ago
Young Indy is a bit of a cowardly nasty-pasty....He machine-gunned a few of those black chappies who were running away, in the back........What an absolute cad !!!!....Bad show all round.......then he bummed the dead.
cro499 2 years ago
what movie is this?
nooby411 2 years ago
@nooby411
Oldish TV show, YOUNG INDIANA JONES
2210ethan 2 years ago
i like this young indy series:)
granskare 2 years ago
does indiana talk engleish or something
davvvvo 2 years ago
WHO CARES THIS AINT SPELLING CLASS
Panicandjordan 2 years ago
Well the Prussian concept of mass manuovere wasnt exactly operational at Ypres where they were fighting a defensive battle,trench warfare was a relatively fresh concept,so your arguments a little flawed.You dont win wars by defense
And at the Battle of Mons 1914,Von Klucks columns were shot to bits by British regulars,they only pulled back to the Marne because the French(as usual:L) retreated under Fochs orders
Fox4Kerrang 2 years ago
1st Ypres was a German offensive battle, as they attempted to breakthrough and seize the Channel Ports. The BEF did demonstrate its superb quality at Mons. It was however driven back at Le Cateau and afterwards went into retreat and had little impact on the war until the Race to the Sea.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Dobrý video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Landsturm97 2 years ago
in 3:59 when the british african gets hit in the eye it was pretty funny
rommel2222224 2 years ago
so did the germans won or what
SHEGO117DBEST 2 years ago
only on the Western Front of Europe was trench warfare widely used. Even on the Eastern front it was much more mobile. In Africa, the landscape and lack of manpower and large weapons (machine guns, cannons) lead to much more mobile hit and run tactics... was too the Boers used in the Boer War of the Transval and Orange Free State just a few years before.
DukeofPutnam 2 years ago 2
Firstly,what everyones missing is the fact that this is a tv show
And Duke?These are Belgian Askari's:,not British,presumably from the Congo,I forget the details of the episode but Belgium did have a colony there
AND the Prussian school of warfare didnt work in practice.The war of manovure failed,resulting in stagnant trench warfare.The Germans believed that a large conscript army could succeed while the British took the opposite view of a small professional army with marksmanship
Fox4Kerrang 2 years ago
The Prussian school worked wonders up to this point though.
methenium 2 years ago 2
To say that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice is like saying that the Roman legionary system didn't work in practice. Failure was due to poor senior leadership, not a flaw in the system itself. You forget that German conscripts almost destroyed the British prewar army at the First Ypres.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Um, I think you have that the wrong way round, it was called Kindermord bei Ypern, wasn't it?
And it was a British/French victory, with casualties roughly even, 108 000 to 100 000.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
It was a British and French victory because they managed to hold Ypres. However the British pre-war Army was pushed to the very walls of Ypres and almost wiped out by the end of the battle. It was the Territorial and New Army, as well as Commonwealth troops who would carry on the war. Comparing casualty statistics is not an indicator of victor and vanquished. You clearly have no idea of how near run the battle was anyway. My point still stands.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Umm, actually I know how near -run the battle was, and I appreciate the impact that Belgian flooding, Indian and territorial units made, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest. Comparing casualty statistics is merely one indicator of victor and vanquished, not always the most important one. Lots of decisive battles (Waterloo, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Hook) were ALMOST won by the losing side. Oh and the Prussian/Roman analogy is rather odd.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
You missed the point of my first post in response to the contention that the British system of a small professional army was superior to the Prussian system. A statement was made that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice, which is ludicrous and totally out of step with military history. German conscript regiments still effectively destroyed the pre-war British Army at First Ypres, leaving it a pyrrhic allied victory. That is something that you apparently dispute.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Well yes, I would dispute that a casualty ratio of 1:1.08 constitutes a phyrric victory. If it was not for First Ypres, the whole war might have been different, the Germans might have swept all before them. As for conscripts destroying anything, German 6th army was a pre-war formation wasn't it? And the BEF was mauled in battles well before first Ypres. As for Prussian military prowess, the Prussians were an important part of the Imperial German army.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Again it is incorrect and frankly amateur of you to judge a battle on simple casualty statistics or ratios. The loss of the entire well-trained British pre-war army in a single major clash was by and standards a pyrrhic victory for the British Empire. The BEF had not suffered heavy casualties in any previous clashes of the campaign. Armies were not prewar organizations like Corps, and it was called Kindermord bei Ypern because many of the divisions were of ill-trained college student volunteers.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Well, I am an amateur, if I was professional I doubt I'd be posting on youtube!
A phyrric victory, to my mind, is a victory where the objective gained is essentially, not worth the blood that has been spilled to get it.
First Ypres does not count. If the Germans had broken through, who knows how far they might have got? I am not judging the battle solely on casualties, but if you are calling something a phyrric victory, casualty ratios can show that it was. Or, in this case, wasn't.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Not quite; a pyrrhic victory is one that the victor can not afford another one of. The loss of the entire pre-war British regular army was a grievous loss. First Ypres was not a pyrrhic victory for the Allies or even the British Empire. But it was for the British Regular Army. I initially made the point in reference to a post which contended that a small British regular army was superior to a German nation-in-arms army raised by mass conscription.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Yes, that is also a fair interpretation of a Phyrric victory. The Pre-war regular army was certainly pretty well annihilated in the early years of war, but they stopped the Central Powers advance, meaning the war would go on, denying the quick victory that the Germans needed.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Exactly, so the pyrrhic victory was worth the cost operationally and strategically, but it was still a military loss of lasting proportions; comparable to the Austro-Hungarians huge losses in Galicia: by the end of 1914 the bulk of both armies pre-war NCO corps had been killed, wounded or captured.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Well, if it's definitely worth the cost, I would say that it's not Phyrric.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
A victory could still be worth the cost and be pyrrhic. An army could win a war-winning victory and still take such heavy losses that another such battle would destroy it. Whether it was worth the cost or not is irrelevant, and is as dependent on what the victor does in the aftermath of the battle as before.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
I disagree.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Then you don't know what a pyrrhic battle actually is. The term came from a quote from Pyrrhus of Epirus after fighting the Romans at Asculum; 'If I win another victory like this I am beaten.' Whether it was worth the cost is irrelevant, the point is that the casualties incurred almost broke the back of the victorious army.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Wasn't that comment attributed to one of his generals? Just as it was attributed to one of Santa Anna's Generals, and Ike after Market Garden? There is no one concrete definition of the term, though imho a 'war-winning victory with heavy losses isn't it at all.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
You may find the analogy somewhat unorthodox. However it is substantially true. Saying that the Prussian school of warfare didn't work in practice because of a failure to take Paris in 1914 is akin to saying that the Roman legionary system didn't work because they were defeated at Carrhae. It uses isolated examples without qualifying the actual factors involved and the course of events to leap to bald and patently false conclusions.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Hey again. Analogy is just odd. Roman army lasted well over half a millenium and conquered most of the known world. Prussians did neither.
I never said that the Prussian army (one part of the Imperial army of 1914) didn't work, that was the other chap. It's just that your analogy is misplaced. Und es ist Cannae, nein?
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
I know what you are getting at but you are reading too much into it. The fact is that Fox4Kerrang's statement is saying that an outstandingly successful military system didn't work because of an isolated incident which was the result of a set of circumstances, leadership and otherwise that does not actually indicate a flaw in the art of warfare. I was describing Carrhae, Mesopotamia 53 B.C. Cannae took place before the Marius reforms and was not fought by the Roman legions proper.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Carrhae? Ok, that's my mistake.
I think comparing the Roman and Prussian military systems is overly generous to the Prussian one though. And "leadership, circumstances and otherwise" is a pretty big part of "the art of warfare". Or so I believe to be true.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Over generous to the Prussian one? Military history may not be your strong point. Frankly I would say that it may be over-generous to the Roman one! Leadership and circumstances have a huge bearing on the art of war. They are however variable circumstances, and can not be controlled by a country's military system, as they change with every different leader, set of enemies and campaign, while the military system generally stays unchanging.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
"generally stays unchanging"? really?
Leadership can be controlled by a country's military system, even-to an extent- in the 19th century, where meritocratic promotion was certainly not unheard of. Circumstances- well some can be controlled to an extent (battleground, relations with allies) some (weather, harvest) cannot.
The Roman army lasted for what- two millennia? and conquered (almost) the whole known world at the height of it's power. The Prussian army didn't.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Generally stays unchanging within the time frame of a given conflict. Use your head! The system of producing officers can be regulated and the actual caliber of officers can be improved but the plans that they will produce in the fog of war can not. Neither length of existence nor territory conquered determines the military quality of the army. You fail to take into account the different enemies and odds each army faced and the actual nature of their military organizations and art of war.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Enemies and odds are apt to change a lot over 2000 years dude. Rome encountered pretty much everyone. Prussia fought other Europeans, plus boxer and Herero.
And it's the other way around isn't it? Length of existence and territory conquered (through victories, key point that) are pretty good indicators of the quality of the army.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Its an army's actual performance on campaign, the demonstration of its military qualities that tell the quality of an army. European enemies were the only ones capable of fighting meaningfully in 1914 except Japan (U.S. a European power). The Romans fought roughly comparable foes in the Punic Wars and when fighting the Hellenistic Kingdoms, as well as the Sassanids. Most of their wars were fought with enemies who lacked the organization, discipline and unified command of civilized armies.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
How is/was the US a European power?
Army's performance on campaign is important, but it is one of many factors, Napoleon's army was pretty great, but that didn't matter in the long run as it was defeated, as was the Imperial German Army.
The Romans fought 'comparable' foes like Hannibal, but also fought 'savages' who could and did beat them on occasion, and who sacked Rome. I think you can make a good case for a great army being one that wins victories, serves its state and survives.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
In which case you could claim that the Macedonian Army of Philip and Alexander was not a great army because it existed for less time than the Imperial German Army, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most admirable armies in history. Victories can be won by simple mass or due to the particular circumstances even when the victor's forces are not militarily superior. Comte de Saxe's French beat the British Army at Fontenoy even though the units of the British Army were tactically superior.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
It won victories (never beaten under Alexander?), conquered much of the (known) world, served the state, I'd say that qualifies it. Plus didn't it only end because of its leader's untimely death and the subsequent quarrelling? Rather than being beaten, disarmed and disbanded.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Macedonian warfare was pretty easily outclassed by that of Rome when they came into contact in the 2nd century B.C. The Macedonians also won fewer major battles than the Germans and never fought a coalition of major enemies in a multi-front war. Although you have therefore undermined the longevity clause you introduced as a factor.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Longevity is one of several factors mentioned, and Alexander's veterans ended up (mostly) fighting for one faction or another, staying in their jobs, the Kaiser's men were sent home.
and didn't Rome conquer Alexander's possessions in the 2cnd macedonian war?
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
War is an extension of politics by other means, and a war's outcome is not entirely determined in its military sphere so one can not jump to the conclusion that a defeated army was militarily inferior simply because it was in the end defeated. The Kaiser's men actually stayed under arms in Freikorps that fought Communism throughout Central Europe. The German Army did not cease to exist after 1918, as it did in 1945. Yes the Romans did conquer all of Alexander's successor kingdoms.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
I agree you cannot jump to that conclusion, and I certainly wouldn't.
As for Clausewitz, his quotation was "extension of policy' by other means, or is that a translation thing?
I understand that the German army did not cease to exist after 1918, although the vast majority of its men were disbanded. It was several different tiny armies in quick succession fighting communists and Hitler variously if I remember my GCSE's.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Policy is determined in general by the political ruling classes so it is practically the same thing. The German Army was a conscript army so the vast majority of its men would have been demobilized at the conclusion of the war anyway. The Reichswehr and various Freikorps fought the Communists simultaneously, not in succession.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
So the quote should be "War is the ruling classes getting what they want by other means?
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
If you want to put a marxist spin on it, then that might make sense.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Definitely not. I think that quotation, and the way it is used, is very interesting though, and often true.
I think wars are started sometimes because diplomacy has failed (hesitate to give an uncontroversial example but maybe Falklands or Chechnya?) But I don't know how wars of conquest really come within the scope of Von's quote. I mean, if your policy is to conquer everything, then for at least a set time, your policy IS war. It's a tricky one.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
I agree with that.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
The US is a European power in that it is derived from and recognizably falls within western european civilization. In 1914 its entire voting population was of European descent, its official language was European and its culture and social and military organization are derived from Western Europe's. The greatness of Napoleon's army actually did matter as it revolutionized warfare by its organization and military thinking. General Winter destroyed the Grande Armee.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
No way. US in 1914 was still pretty isolationist, its armed forces had their own traditions and had fought in their own wars, lots of them. The voting population since 1870 (in some states before) included people of Chinese and African descent (how fairly this was conducted is another debate entirely). Western-yes. European- not so much. Currency, weights and measures, laws and overseas territories all of it's own. Winter played its part, but Napoleon was beaten in the field, as was the Kaiser.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Western is European! Every European country had its own currency, and the U.S. frankly uses the imperial system of weights and measures. Every Army has its own traditions as well. It was and is still organized like European armies around Napoleonic brigade-division-corps lines. America was as Western European as Australia in 1914. Saying that its isolationist is like saying that Tokugawan Japan wasn't Asian because it was isolationist. You are willfully ignoring the bigger picture.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Western is not European. American usage of the imperial system was and is different to the way the UK uses it. Australia wasn't either.
Saying that New Zealand is culturally the same as Turkey or England is the same as Russia is not looking at the bigger picture.
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Neither Turkey nor Russia is part of Western Europe. Western civilization is European, centered on the pillar of Western Christianity. America developed as part of the English world as Australia did. Claiming that Australia and the U.S. are not part of european civilization is like claiming that the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia in the central and western Mediterranean weren't Greek, even though they in every way fall within the bounds of their parent civilization.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
But America didn't fall within the bounds of British civilization! They were different countries with different laws. Are you arguing that any country which embraces "Western Christianity" (though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that) can be classed as European?
Jodybeeching 2 years ago
Every country has different laws. That is irrelevant minutiae. The values upon which western civilization is built derive from western christianity (catholicism and its protestant offshoots). If the United States is not its own civilization then it must fall within the bounds of a different one, namely of the nations who colonized it in the 16-18th centuries. America of course falls within the bounds of British civilization, it was British colonists that founded it.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago