Abstract
This paper offers insights into both the history of colonial militaries in Cameroon, and how the British and the French who scrambled for and failed to annex the territory were busy observing and comparing Germanmilitary strategies from the time of German annexation on 12 July 1884. In 1914, they jointly attacked and defeated the Germans and successfully administered Cameroon till reunification in 1961. This paper sets outto examine the pre-First World War British-French evaluations of German strength, strategies of colonial militaries, methods of observation, comparison of German, French and British approaches during the inter-war period and finally the influence of colonial militaries on the modern Cameroon. The article argues that, despite historically rooted pathologies from colonialism that continue to hamper military development, postcolonial military practices and reforms have not been able to address Cameroon’s crises. Based on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, the article looks in-depth at the means and practices of observing and comparing colonial militaries in Cameroon, concluding that, any military that does notobserve and compare the strategies, tactics and boundaries of its rival, is bound to be defeated.
Publisher
Universe Publishing Group - UniversePG
Reference41 articles.
1. Assensoh, A.B. & Yvett Alex-Assensoh, (2002). African Military History and Policies: Ideological Coups and Incursions1900 - Present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Azad MJ. (2022). The Colonized Fall Apart: A Postcolonial Analysis of Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Br. J. Arts Humanit., 4(4), 116-122. https://doi.org/10.34104/bjah.02201160122
3. Berghe, Pierre L. Van den, (1970). ‘The Military and Political Change in Africa’. In Welch, Claude (ed.) Soldier and State in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Military Intervention and Political Change. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
4. Chem-Langhëë, Bongfen,(1990). ‘The Road to the Unitary State of Cameroon 1959-1972’. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences, VI, 2.
5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40341689