Magpie_Oz

Ok that is logical. So the segregation extended mainly from the "Jim Crow Laws" ? Is it the legacy of these laws that the US has been particularly outspoken on the race issue and especially so in regards of apartheid in South Africa?

Your right ! From a certain angle the child looks distinctly Filipino and the lad is a dead ringer for Obama

This thread has nothing to do with internment, but rather the service of African Americans in the US Army in WW2. I was wondering as well why it was that Afro-Americans served in segregated units but native Americans served in integrated units?

I was really asking the question in regards of segregation purely as a curiosity as to why it was done rather than to single out any particular country as being racist or not. I have always though that segregating units to be racist in the extreme and to claim that "allowing" Afro-Americans to serve in their own units was not racist as being just silly. That is why I was asking as to the reasons for the segregation. The Australian policy was the usual road to hell being paid with good intention with a good dose of racism thrown in. Despite the "ban" on Aboriginal enlistment and the that fact that until 1966 Aboriginal Australians were not Australian citizens somewhere around 3000 Aboriginal Australians served with the regular forces. Despite their numbers however they were not placed in segregated units. The "ban" on enlistment though it did have a taint of racism was based officially on not requiring those without representation in Australia being required to take up the defence of Australia. There was also concern that Aboriginals in regular units would cause disharmony, something which did not occur. The lot of the Aboriginal Servicemen when they returned home however was a different story entirely. The NZ case has nothing to do with segregation. I have always held the embracing of the Maori culture by the wider population in NZ as something of an example. The Maori battalion was raised by motivations from the Maori themselves and came to be lead by Maori Officers and NCO's. My understanding is that the Maori Bn came into being mainly from the fact that the Maori peoples have been able to maintain a distinct independent culture within the wider framework of the New Zealand nation and not from a desire from either party to be segregated along the lines of race.

Sorry? Are you suggesting there is something wrong in my head?

If not here then where?

Yes, best way to solve a problem is to point fingers at each other and sweep any discussion under the carpet.

Why was it that African Americans/Japanese (were there others?) served in segregated units? I have always thought that to be a racist thing in itself. And comments like: " The battalion commander concluded: I know I did not receive a superior representation of the colored race as the average AGCT was Class IV. I do know, however, that in courage, coolness, dependability and pride, they are on a par with any white troops I have ever had occasion to work with. In addition, they were, during combat, possessed with a fierce desire to meet with and kill the enemy, the equal of which I have never witnessed in white troops." maybe just a little condescending? Were there any Afro-American Officers or NCO's? I note the link that Goz provided talks about only OR's being recruited for the front and NCO's could take a demotion if they wanted.

Page 2 morons

It really had little to do with bureaucracy and administration but rather a number of factors coming into play. From various sources the reasons for Britian's lagging in armour development were 1. Total loss of equipment after Dunkirk requiring emphasis on rebuilding over redesigning. 2. Dispersion of design effort by designing tanks for tasks, Infantry, Cruiser etc (similar to the US idea of tanks and tank destroyers) 3. Emphasis on mechanical reliability over other tank factors. After the maligning of designs such as the Crusader efforts into mobility overshadowed armour and firepower. 4. Experience from North Africa putting the notion that the killer of tanks were AT Guns and hence high HE shell performance and rate of fire were more important than AntiTank capability. (Much like the US idea of Tanks for the infantry and TD's for the enemy tanks.) 5. The British rail system limiting the width of their tanks and therefore the size of the turret ring and therefore the gun. 5. There was some confusion on the part of the Tank board etc but for the most part it was due to a lack of focused direction, i.e. what was a better tank. The Cromwell, which was in reality a 1942 era tank, was fielded with a 75mm Gun largely to fit in with the US supplied tanks and for it's superior HE capability over the better AT capability of the 6lbr. The Cromwell was developed into the Comet, by adding extra armour and a better gun much like the M4 development program. It entered service in Dec44 and was considered by some the equal of the Panther.

Not really. It was vaunted because it was able to deal with the German AT guns, the main tank killer in the desert, because it had a highly effective HE round, something the 8th Army had not really had up to that point and with good armour could sit back out of range of the German guns and shell them. Tank v Tank was not really the thing in North Africa, largely because Rommel knew he would lose out pretty quick as his Panzers would trade 1 for 1 with the Brits and the Brits had more tanks. In Normandy however it was found that the main tank killer was other tanks and a scramble to up gun ensued.

Well playing sober should be considered bad form at the very least.

Saucepans it is then Goz !

Maybe, 'specially if it is a 'schrek that took him out, it damaged the controls as well? Not sure how easy it would be to get the poor fellows bod out either without lifting him out through the hatch.

From the land where keeping beer cool has greater importance than ..... anything http://www.engelaustralia.com.au/ Our gift to Europe

OK but I am still taking hostages to ensure obedience until the problem is fixed.

Sad as it is, there is only one way for a warbird to "go". Better than corroding in a field or being chopped up for saucepans.

I have suspected for some time that this thread is a load of old cobblers by a load of old cobblers.

It is not about whether we decided to leave defending your home and go to look after ours second time around, UK numbers are a similar if not worse tale of woe. WW1 : 6 600 000 Mobilised 885000 Dead 1 600 000 wounded WW2 : 5 900 000 Mobilised 383000 Dead 284000 wounded About 15% more served in WW1 than 2 for the UK but more than twice the deaths and nearly 6 times the wounded and in WW1 a far greater percentage of casualties were within the Army as the other forces were not as large or involved as they were in WW2. Australia had 3 times as many serve in WW2 but incurred less than half the number of deaths and a sixth the number of wounded, same for us as a large number of our casualties were from POW's and RAAF in bomber command. "Originally Posted by dan/california In BFC's defense, Haig's tactics didn't work all that well for Haig either. They were positively unpleasant for the people asked to carry them out." Pretty much sums it up for me

You mean we'd suggest something like ummmm "Imanoobletmein22"? Nah we wouldn't do that

No problems Shirley

What makes you think he was attempting Spanish? If you seek to judge within your own frame of reference, those who do not share it will always be amiss in your eyes.

Don't care who "is to blame " or what or why but the stats are simple: WW1 : 330000 Australians out of 4 000 000 served overseas in 4 years. 60000 died 137 000 were wounded WW2 : 1 000 000 Australians out of 7 000 000 served in 6 years. 27000 Died 23 000 wounded So I/we don't find much silly about the "bad press" for WW1

Yep, that's what I reckon too

Here's a butt load of training manuals http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/index.html Pay particular attention to this one: * FM 25-6 Dog Team Transportation