Blacks Served on the Front Lines in WW2: lets dispell the myth they did not.

[Slapdragon]

First off, my bibliography to support my claim.

Ansel, (Colonel) Raymond. (1990). From Segregation to Desegregation: Blacks In the U.S. Army 1703-1954. (Thesis), U.S. Army War College, Carlisle.

Brown, Robert A. (1981). Oral History Interview, October 28. Moorland-Springarn Research Center, Howard University.

Buchanan, A. Russell. (1977). Black Americans in World War II. ABC-CLIO.

Byers, Jean. (1947). A Study of the Negro in Military Service. Department of the Navy.

Bykofsky, Joseph and Harold Larson. (1957). The Transportation Corps, Operations Overeas: The United States Army In World War II. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cooney, H.A. (1945). Memorandum for General White dated January 1, 1945 and February 28, 1945. G-1 Personnel, Entry - 43, 291.2 (Colored Troops), (Record Group 165), Records of the Military Intelligence Division, National Archives National Records Center. (I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THIS, AND HAVE ONLY BEEN READ IT!!!)

Donaldson, Gary A. (1991). The History of African-Americans in the Military. Krieger Publishing Co.

Motley, Mary P. (1975) The Invisible Soldier: The Experience of the Black Soldier in World War II. Wayne State University Press. (I LIKE THIS ONE A GREAT DEAL, AND NOTE THE TITLE AS COMPARED TO THE DISCUSSION ON THIS LIST).

Mullen, Robert F. (1974) Blacks in America’s Wars: The Shift in Attitudes from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. Monad Press.

Palmer, Robert R., Bell I. Wiley, and William R. Keast. (1948). The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops. United States Army in World War II, Army Ground Forces Series, Historical Division, Department of the Army.

Potter, Lou, William Miles and Nina Rosenblum. (1992). Liberators: fighting on two fronts in World War II. Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. BE CAREFUL WITH THIS ONE -- IT HAS LOTS OF INACCURACIES IN ONE SECTION.

Reddick, L.D. (1949). The Negro Policy of the United States Army, 1775-1945. Journal of Negro History 34:9-29.

Rose, Arnold M 1947 Army Policies Toward Negro Soldiers--A Report on a Success and a Failure. Journal of Social Issues (Fall) 3:26-31.

--------------

Here is an online site to help. P.64 of this document

"General Patton's call for black volunteers to staff an experimental desegregated fighting force was answered by many blacks who served so well that the integrated fighting force became a reality in the American military." This was not 5th Platoon, there were only like 50 platoons formed in this case, but it led to it.

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ftw/files/defense.txt

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Teamski]

Hell, one of the best personal accounts of tank warefare in WWII was from a platoon commander of a black Sherman tank unit. The book is called "Hit Hard". I have the paper back. It does a great job in showing just how hard it was for these men with all of the BS they had to go through and still fight as Americans. They fought with the best of them......

-Ski

------------------

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Slapdragon]

How did they serve?

1) In independent Battalions. These include the decorated 969th Field Artillery and the 761st Tank Battalion. These independent battalions were always attached to white divisions and served closely with them.

2) In independent Divisons. Two divisions of black calvary served for a short time in North Africa before being disbanded. One black infantry divisions served in the pacific, mostly in rear areas but did get up front in 1945, and one independent division in Italy that started rough and got better later (the 92nd and 93rd).

3) In rear areas. The famous "Red Ball Express" was mostly run by black service soldiers.

4) In independent "5th Platoons" when manpower losses forced the Army to train black service troops as infantry and use them to increase troop strength in depleted divisions.

5) Side by side with white soldiers, when some commanders dumped their "5th Platoons" unofficially and used the soldiers to round out depleted companies. This was unnofficial but its success was widely known and written about.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

IIRC, there was a "reserve" black AT unit that was accidentlly put into combat in the early days of the Bulge. I mean accidentally because, as with many black units, there was strong opposition to getting them into action far too often. They were in an area that wasn't supposed to be in a combat zone, but the sudden German offensive changed that. When the Germans showed up they got a serious bloody nose and had to pull back.

The irony of this battle was that this unit was kept in the rear because of racist attitudes about them being inferior to white combat units. But when it came to running in that sector, the color of skin going to the rear matched that of the snow

Steve

[Slapdragon]

Opps on my part, both the 92 and 93rd saw combat. My notes were screwy.

[Guest Madmatt]

Err ok, pardon my asking, but where was it ever said that they DIDN'T serve?!? This is not news to me, I would have thought it was pretty common knowledge...

In many book (especially concerning the Bulge) there are mentions of such troops and I just figured they were right there all along, or at least enough to not think anything of it.

Madmatt

[Slapdragon]

Nope, it started as a question of the less well known "5th Platoon" system (ie doubting its existence) and a disagreement that they served side by side with white troops on an unrelated thread, so I moved it over here.

[jdl]

There were still all black units in Korea. So the total integration took about 10 years from the beginnings in WW2.

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Nope, it started as a question of the less well known "5th Platoon" system (ie doubting its existence) and a disagreement that they served side by side with white troops on an unrelated thread, so I moved it over here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa, I was the one who was shocked to learn of the existence of 5th platoons (Initially discussed in the Wow, Squad Leader Sucks post). However, I was amazed at the existence of integrated units in WWII, not blacks fighting in WWII. I, and I'm pretty sure everyone else, am familiar with the black airmen, soldiers and medal of honor winners from WWII.

------------------

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Classic example of misinterpretations and misconceptions, if not misunderstandings. No one ever said, alluded to, nor alleged that blacks "did not" serve on the front lines in WWII. And starting this thread simply multiplies the topic over to yet another thread, since the entire affair began over SL including black troopers with white troopers.

The issue was, and still is, whether or not, and to what extent, and whether as an act of emergency (such as during the Battle of the Bulge), or as a fully accepted organized practice, that black troops were co-mingled with white troops in front line combat units. That is generally what one puts into historical simulations, not the rare oddity or isolated circumstance. If they choose to do so, then they are being historically inaccurate. Which takes us back to what was being asserted about SL.

However, the train left the tracks at that point, and all sorts of assertions began to be made. One being there weren't any black officers, (which no one at any point made), and now apparently another that blacks didn't serve on the front in combat, (which again, no one asserted). Someone else did question your assertion about the 5th platoon business. Which on the surface of things, is still harboring a mode of segregation, albeit modified.

While you've compiled a library of sources, you did not indicate which, if any, provide specific examples of a this 5th platoon, or a generally accepted and approved practice of the US Army desegregating it's front line combat units during the war. I believe, if one is going to take issue with what has generally been accepted as truth for sixty years, and make an announcement, then one should provide more than assertions and a picture or two. Certainly, one should not take other folks out of context or make it appear as if they were talking about something they were not. My point all along was, (5th platoon or no), that segregation was what was common, not desegregation and based upon that fact, that SL was being historically odd at best, if not inaccurate.

Nothing you've said so far has indicated that the general practice of segregation was not fully alive and well throughout the war. Rather, you've provided some examples of what one might call rare, or isolated events where some blacks were placed with some whites for whatever reason. That was not what the entire issue of discussion was about. It was about the commonality of desegregation, and whether or not SL was lame for attempting to include something that was not common. Though some others were questioning this 5th platoon practice.

One might find a picture of a pink submarine (as in the movie with Cary Grant), that for lack of paint had to be painted with whatever they had, were the story true, but that does not prove that the US Navy painted it's submarines pink.

Yes yes, blacks served in combat, served with distinction, served bravely, served their country in most all capacities, and on occasion served co-mingled with whites. Back to the issue. What evidence exists that it was common practice that blacks were allowed to serve in desegregated combat units with whites?

Pzkpfw1 provided the most clear source yet:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*By the fall of 1944, the manpower cupboard of the American army was almost totally bare. The U.S. Army had been reduced to "stripping" existing U.S. divisions awaiting shipment to Europe in order to obtain rifle replacements. At the same time that the Supreme Commander desperately needed combat infantrymen, Eisenhower was unable to tap the large reserve of "colored" servicemen.

The U.S. Army of 1944 was still strapped with a policy of racial segregation. Ike weighed a proposal to offer blacks, serving in segregated service battalions, the opportunity to volunteer for front line combat duty, a course which he approved.

However, both Maj. Gen. Bedell Smith, Eisenhower's chief of staff and Gen. John C. H. Lee in charge of supply and the communication zone, disapproved of such a radical plan. Faced with a potential flap, their boss acquiesced. To prevent further embarrassment Eisenhower decreed, that all available black volunteers continue to go to the existing black combat battalions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*See: Parker Danny S. Battle of the Bulge p.215

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Stephen's original post questioned if it happenned. I never said that itr was common. Less than 15 divisions and maybe 4-8 thousand black soldiers plus 15 tousand in independent battalions tasked right to divisions. I was in the process of coming up with popular level article that could be read and understood by anyone that I was forced to rush out my list of sources.

All of these sources hace some mention of the 5th Platoon and integration at operational levels, but here is the catch -- you need to read them all or the major ones on this list.

BUT -- lets just repeat one of the sources that you can read.

"General Patton's call for black volunteers to staff an experimental desegregated fighting force was answered by many blacks who served so well that the integrated fighting force became a reality in the American military."

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ftw/files/defense.txt

Note that this is a USMC server in the MIL area, and it was an experimental fighting force of 50 or so platoons used in an emergency and sanctioned by Patton. If that is good enough then perhaps you need to define desegregated, because likely even today's military does not meet your criteria for that definition.

[Slapdragon]

What I think to be perfectly fair is that Bruno did not read some of the previous posts and thinks we are claiming that the whole army was desegragated. Here is the first comment I made:

Black soldiers were segregated in World War Two, but the hug casualty rate for US infantry meant that in late 1944 a "5th Platoon" process was implemented where black soldiers were added in segregated platoons to most white divisions in Europe. Many division commanders promptly disolved the 5th platoons as a waste of manpower and used the soldiers to bring the regular TO and E up to snuff. From November on black soldiers were common in 9 divisions and occasional in another 8 divisions, plus a half a dozen black combat battalions which were attached as a whole to white divisions.

this was a reply to Cheng.

Tens of thousands of black soldiers worked in logistics, the "Red Ball Express" was a set of black transport battalions. But, the US Army in Europe had group of independent black battalions, 3 very good ones noted for valor and one which ran away three times in battle. The US Army though lost so many soldiers that by November 1944 a call for volunteers was sent out to put black platoons into white units, a call that was increased after Bulge. It worked so well that by March 1945 some divisions had unofficially just abolished these "5th Platoons".

Note that this does not imply every division had black soldiers tightly integrated, just that it could and did happen at an operational level.

[Bruno Weiss]

Actually, I think we are all reading different things into this, and possibly interpreting or misinterpreting things written at different times by different people. And that is where the confusion is coming in. On account of each writer has his/her own idea of what it is they are writing, and what it is they are reading.

If I was too gruff, or too obscure, as more likely, in what I wrote, then you have my apologies.

My entire point was, and solely was, that SL (among other reasons), sucked on account of the fact that they were apparently attempting to make something that was not common look as if it were. It had nothing to do with whether or not there were black officers, or whether or not blacks did on isolated occasion serve along side whites. If I didn't come across clearly with that, then it's my fault. I was the writer.

Which maybe will teach me to write less words, and make the ones I do write more clear. Now, I'm outa this. I don't care if there was a 5th platoon, a 5th column, or a 55,000 black officers. I wish em all well.

Back to CM! I've got battles to win.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 10-31-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Black soldiers were segregated in World War Two, but the hug casualty rate for US infantry meant that in late 1944 a "5th Platoon" process was implemented where black soldiers were added in segregated platoons to most white divisions in Europe. Many division commanders promptly disolved the 5th platoons as a waste of manpower and used the soldiers to bring the regular TO and E up to snuff. From November on black soldiers were common in 9 divisions and occasional in another 8 divisions, plus a half a dozen black combat battalions which were attached as a whole to white divisions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So to make sure I understand this correctly, basicly Eisenhower couldn't get this implemented when he attempted to in November 1944, so in secret? the U.S. Army in November begins useing, this black '5th' Platoon as intergrated replacements in Infantry Divisions.

& Smith looked the other way as did Lee, whom the bulk of black troops in the ETO were under his command in the supply & communication feilds, and any manpower would for the most part come from his sphere of influence & they allowed this to occur despite, their original objections that were so vehement, that Eisenhower backed down rather then attempt to initiate this, and even officialy ordered that all black volunteers 'continue to go to the existing black combat battalions'.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

So to make sure I understand this correctly, basicly Eisenhower couldn't get this implemented when he attempted to in November 1944, so in secret? the U.S. Army in November begins useing, this black '5th' Platoon as intergrated replacements in Infantry Divisions.

& Smith looked the other way as did Lee, whom the bulk of black troops in the ETO were under his command in the supply & communication feilds, and any manpower would for the most part come from his sphere of influence & they allowed this to occur despite, their original objections that were so vehement, that Eisenhower backed down rather then attempt to initiate this, and even officialy ordered that all black volunteers 'continue to go to the existing black combat battalions'.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I am not sure exactly what you are saying. You may need to restate it because it makes no sense as you have outlined, but I could be misunderstanding. I am not aware of any conspiracy to get black soldiers into combat at least in the ETO nor does the literature support it. I would have to see you literature that supports this "giant conspiracy" view.

To restate: Black Battalions (and in Italy / North Africa / the Pacific whole divisions) served under black and white officers, as did line of communication troops and a number of special troops attached to white divisions.

During Bulge Patton, desperate for men, formed 50 or so individual platoons of black soldiers and spread them out around various divisions. This was very successful. At the same time, ETO leaders, lead of course by Ike, were worried about replacements for the higher than expected ETO casualties, began to toy with the idea of a "5th Platoon" or segregated black platoons in the most needy divisions in the central armies.

Patton's desperate measure was followed by a request for volunteers from the rear areas, and maybe 4000, maybe 8000 troops (different numbers may represent who made it to the front and who did not) were truned into "Fifth Platoons" for 12-16 divisions, again it seems to have been suspended on VE Day.

In battle, as happened during Bulge, platoons that were understrength were collapsed, as a matter of conveneince, and white soldiers served in the same units as blacks. This service resulted in letters to Yank magazine, several Army studies, and later books and information.

You theory of a grand conspiracy is not, to what I know, supported, and is unlikely. Simply put -- manpower shortages led to it all, and the less the people knew at home, the better the Army felt about the whole thing, which is about as close to a conspiracy as you can get.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> General Patton's call for black volunteers to staff an experimental

desegregated fighting force was answered by many blacks who served so well that the integrated fighting force became a reality in the American military. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where can we we find the details of Patton's experimental unit?. The URL only contains the above snip, I tried to find a bibliography for the article.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Actually, I am not sure exactly what you are saying. You may need to restate it because it makes no sense as you have outlined, but I could be misunderstanding. I am not aware of any conspiracy to get black soldiers into combat at least in the ETO nor does the literature support it. I would have to see you literature that supports this "giant conspiracy" view.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err what conspiracy theory? did you read the post?. As you can read the passage & the source, in Bruno's post, it quite clearly states Eisenhower attempted to implement the use of colored volunteers into Infantry Div's as replacements in Nov 1944 after the heavy losses incurred to that date in the Infantry Div's & was disuaded from persuing it by Bedell Smith & John Lee, & then issued an order that blacks went to black combat battalions.

Their is no 'conspiracy' I don't even know how you infered their was one what your sources state is the direct oposite of Eisenhower's 'official' policy concerning this issue as stated in the aformentioned source and my post was to that end, as for intergration to occur implies someone at the top changed their opinion or looked the other way.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Grisha]

I still recall that story of a African American Arty spotter unit in Italy that held up German mountain troops. They finally called FFE on their position as they were terribly outnumbered. Very few got out alive. They were only recently given recognition by the Army for their selfless action.

And don't forget about the 'Red Tails', the Tuskegee Airmen who flew P-51 fighters. Not a single bomber under their escort was ever lost to enemy air activity. Not a one.

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Have no idea about the conspiracy. ( the first time I heard anyone mention a conspiracy was your comment:

(quote) So to make sure I understand this correctly, basicly Eisenhower couldn't get this implemented when he attempted to in November 1944, so in secret? the U.S. Army in November begins useing, this black '5th' Platoon as intergrated replacements in Infantry Divisions. (/quote)

First I read about it was in your post. I was unaware that their was one and thought possibly you meant that low profile of this subject.

First I would read Ansel which mentions ETO in brief and the struggle over the whole issue. Ansel is better for his discussion of the Civil War in some ways, and he is a bit hard to read (very academic) but the man is very erudite. I got to read it only after speaking to an officer at Fort Jackson taking a course here, but it is on some official Army reading lists (of which I do not have access but would kill to get - if we have any soldiers here).

Another one I want an actual copy of is Cooney. The gist was that African American soldiers serving with white soldiers were seen as "good" or "very good" and that they were useful to white formations.

Avoid liberators, it is a video tape with a supplement book. It makes two big errors and thus I do not trust, but I include it because out library has it and it talks about segregated battalions.

Motely has an extenisve discussion of blacks in combat, I am buying a copy since it was always my favorite and it has been republished.

Finally others have mentioned Hit Hard, which mentions the 5th Platoon in passing.

The sliver you read on the USMC cite is a photo caption, unfortunately without its photo, but I included it since it is a start in the request by others for photo proof of blacks at the front.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

I still recall that story of a African American Arty spotter unit in Italy that held up German mountain troops. They finally called FFE on their position as they were terribly outnumbered. Very few got out alive. They were only recently given recognition by the Army for their selfless action.

And don't forget about the 'Red Tails', the Tuskegee Airmen who flew P-51 fighters. Not a single bomber under their escort was ever lost to enemy air activity. Not a one.

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-01-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

His name was First Lieutenant John R. Fox and he directed artillery onto his own position to destroy a German attack. He was awarded the CMH for it in 1997. I do not have the cite for this but he is officially listed on the CMH web site.

[Slapdragon]

Two new cites that I unfortunately cannoy vouch for, but both are replies to my request for "popular cites" that are easier going than my main bib. The first one is Dirty Little Secrets of World War II by Dunnigan. I cannot vouch for it being in here, but I was told that it is. Dunnigan is better known for his book "How to Make War" and for his studies on Wargaming and Combat Simulation for the Military.

Second, the Army has a cite on Black Military history but I cannot find it on any search engines. If anyone finds this I would be very happy.

Finally I was warned: "Be careful since the whole 5th Platoon concept was kept quiet to avoid a back lash by southern congressmen after the war." I have absoultely no cite on this and it sounds like another conspiracy theory to me.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Finally I was warned: "Be careful since the whole 5th Platoon concept was kept quiet to avoid a back lash by southern congressmen after the war." I have absoultely no cite on this and it sounds like another conspiracy theory to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My question is since Eisenhower was unable to

utilize black troops as replacements in white Infantry Div's, despite the dire need for replacements, in the Inf Div's & his clout, who authorised the use of black replacements from these 5th plts?.

Where do we read the written orders authorising desegragation of these units & the use of black personell as replacements in white Infantry Div's, & who authorized it in the high command.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

My question is since Eisenhower was unable to

utilize black troops as replacements in white Infantry Div's, despite the dire need for replacements, in the Inf Div's & his clout, who authorised the use of black replacements from these 5th plts?.

Where do we read the written orders authorising desegragation of these units & the use of black personell as replacements in white Infantry Div's, & who authorized it in the high command.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 5th Platoon was not a desegregation order -- it was intended that platoons remain segregated in their parent units. The first true Army desegregation order was 1948 by Truman, although Navy and Marine units had started the move earlier. If you mean Eisenhower told some Battalion commander to allow troops to mix, I do not think that sort of order was generated or exists except the 5th Platoon or the company level mixing that occured with attached units.

[RMC]

I had the opportunity to hear a black 1 ID veteran, Russel Means, speak one day when he came to Germany to visit the modern 1 ID. He served originally in a Port Battalion unloading ships. In late 44 he and others in his unit were offered the opportunity to join the infantry. He volunteered and joined the 18th infantry. He stated that they were organized officially as the 5th platoon but that they were broken down to fill up the other platoons once they got up to the line. When asked he stated that there was no racism in the foxholes because bullets don't discriminate. He was an old man at the time and his memory amy not fully reflect reality in 44-45, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

[Shep]

So how about it, modmakers of the CM world? Anyone interested in putting together a face mod with the appropriate racial characteristics?

One for the 442nd RCT could also be made.

This is not a suggestion to be politically correct... ick. But if anyone wanted to sim the aforementioned battles which involved colored troops (the term of the day), it would be great to have the CM troops look like the men in the actual battles.

------------------

Scouts Out!