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

[Guest Madmatt]

Alright, it is time everyone back off the trigger some on this issue.

One thing that ALWAYS ticks me off is when people start cutting and pasting fragments of email here on the forum.

Keep the agendas to yourselves people, they have no place here. You want to talk about the various contributions of specific units here fine, then do that. But when one person relates a story which he thinks is relevant, stop jumping down his throat.

I am not particularly fond of people who post anonymously either, it is an abuse of the agreement that you are ALL bound to while you are here. RascistsSuck may have had the best intentions in the world, but he is abusing the forum to do it and I won't stand for it. Threats are also frowned upon, and I have had seen my fill of those coming from you Lewis, so I would advise you to drop the dimestore diagnosis of Slapdragons perceived condition and the idle threats to beat someone's face in.

So, while this can serve to be a very enlightened and rational discussion I don't like the path it is beginning to take. Keep it mature and on the up and up or else this thread and more than likely a few posters will be locked down.

Madmatt

[:USERNAME:]

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

RascistsSuck may have had the best intentions in the world, but he is abusing the forum to do it and I won't stand for it. Threats are also frowned upon, and I have had seen my fill of those coming from you Lewis, so I would advise you to drop the dimestore diagnosis of Slapdragons perceived condition and the idle threats to beat someone's face in.

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best intentions? The guy threatens to shoot me and spews some tired racist based comments in my email and doesnt have the balls to identify himself? His email name is Lewisshoulddie? He's scared of being Flamed yet commits a criminal act? You think he is abusing the board?

Matt. You are just taking his side because I found your glitter rock website.

Lewis

[Major Tom]

Lewis,

RacistsSuck posted...

"I think this kind of rascist **** should be punished quickly and severely."

I don't see anything about shooting, just punished like 'a warning', 'banning' etc... Maybe you received an e-mail from him directly with something to do with shooting, but, WE haven't seen any of it. What Madmatt basically stated, he disagrees with the 'means' but likes the 'ends'. If you can't understand this then I suggest you go and take some basic English classes.

Anyway, what you posted about your friends father was totally uncalled for. You posted in a hostile, rude, and unprofessional manner. There was no reason to post this jerk's opinions on black people. You can't qualify what he says to be the truth, but, you post like it is.

Madmatt was also very kind to you. He reprimanded EVERYONE for their dumb-doings, not just yours. Frankly, I think your remarks to Slapdragon were very childish, rude and pathetic. He was VERY kind to you in these posts and you just respond in a tone like a 6 year old.

Racistsuck's actions are uncalled for and extreme as well and Madmatt stated that it WON'T be tolerated. No matter what the cause. What more do you want?

[Guest Madmatt]

Lewis, I am well aware of the email name attached to RasisctSuck and I can guarantee that particular account will no longer be posting here.

You may not be winning friends and influencing people Lewis but I will not tolerate threats, perceived or otherwise on this board and that account was banned this morning as soon as I saw the email name along with it.

Now, everyone has a decision to make. They can either move on with this topic like rational adults or they can continue to dredge up peripheral elements that have no bearing on the discussion. In one case everyone might come away a little more enlightened, in the other you will surely get yourself banned for abuse of the forum rules.

Don't think for one second I play favorites here either. Watching over the forum is a job which already takes far to much time for all of us, and my patience, such that it is, is running low. Second chances were all played out some time ago and if topics spiral out of control they will get locked down and the people involved dealt with.

This forum is a privilege not a right and is a means for newcomers and forum old hands to come together and discuss Combat Mission and related issues. But remember that it is a service WE provide to you, and all we ask is a modicum of manners while you are here.

Now then, carry on.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Sorry, didn't see what he put as his e-mail address. You do have a right to be miffed at R-S, but, not Madmatt or Slappy-D.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I guess I am one of the few scenarios designers who has done a scenario on African Americans in WW2, called "Buffalo Soldiers." It was done for SPWAW.

It is about the 92 Infantry Division during its service in Italy. I have not been able to do it in CM, though I wanted to do it.

I'm somewhat stunned by some of these posts.

I shouldn't be. I've been around these halls long enough to expect these sort of reactions.

Black men served well generally speaking in the war, when they were given opportunity and had proper leadership.

And I think I saw a name here I recognize. Theron, are you the same young man who visited my home during the old SSI Tanks and Novastar days, when SP was still a beta disk?

That was over six years ago.

If so, I'm thrilled to see you involved in CM and still involved in gaming.

You know, I still wonder about folks on a forum who threaten all sort of violence, such as beating someone's face in.

Some of you have some real problems, lack of maturity being one of them.

Wild Bill

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Slapdragon]

I did a lot of work on three scenarios, one of which is "Come Out Fighting" and was surprised by how hard it was to find information on black fighting men, and how much trouble it stirs up. The other difficulty is identifying moral issues to be modelled in the game. Some white officers choose to join black units because they felt they were safe, never likely to be assigned to combat, and when they reached combat things hit the fan. In "Come Out Fighting" the Battalion XO Major Wingo fled combat before they were within 25km of the fighting.

I am now writing the next scenario "Black Panther Revenge" and waiting for the play tests on Come Out Fighting to finish.

One interesting topic I am reading is Jackie Robinson, to understand why some black units had moral problems. I am going to post a discussion of Robinson tomorrow with regards to designing scenarios around black units.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Anyway, what you posted about your friends father was totally uncalled for. You posted in a hostile, rude, and unprofessional manner. There was no reason to post this jerk's opinions on black people. You can't qualify what he says to be the truth, but, you post like it is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg your pardon but I posted in my usual manner.

I never once expressed an agreement with the opinions of mark's father (I never even related opinions BTW, just stories). He was a vet from dday till sometime after the battle of the bulge. His experiences with black troops only included truck drivers (remf), the black unit that was supposed to support them and the black intel officer (percieved as an uppitty new yorker). So thats his sampling of WWII black troops.

You read into what you want. Race is a loaded subject and it clouds up issues. Everyone here probably assumes I am white. That makes you all pre-judgers or prejudiced against me.

Banning someones yahoo address is fine but he admits he is in the forum anyway. Can I forward someone his email? I imagine its a kid or a really pathetic loser of sorts.

Lewis

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am now writing the next scenario "Black Panther Revenge" and waiting for the play tests on Come Out Fighting to finish.

One interesting topic I am reading is Jackie Robinson, to understand why some black units had moral problems. I am going to post a discussion of Robinson tomorrow with regards to designing scenarios around black units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah come on, this is patronising stuff!!

Black people can defend or speak for themselves. Please don't post another discussion on race tomorrow. There are bound to be political insults and disguised accusations of racism.

[Slapdragon]

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

I beg your pardon but I posted in my usual manner.

I never once expressed an agreement with the opinions of mark's father (I never even related opinions BTW, just stories). He was a vet from dday till sometime after the battle of the bulge. His experiences with black troops only included truck drivers (remf), the black unit that was supposed to support them and the black intel officer (percieved as an uppitty new yorker). So thats his sampling of WWII black troops.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis's friend's father's story is the same as a single, unconfirmed oral history account. I have done about 40 oral history accounts of WW2 veterans, more of Korea and Vietnam veterans, and I have learned -- don't place to much faith in a single retelling of a friends account.

The problem with oral history is that there is a great deal of pressure to bill yourself and tell amazing stories of frontline combat experience. A former president of a company who was in Europe told me at the start of an interview that he was in combat with the 16th Infantry Division as an infantryman, but I also knew from doing his background that he got his start at the company by learning machine shop work, and another employee had mentioned in the "old days" that he had been the best welder in the shop from his world war two days.

The two stories did not match perfectly. And infantryman COULD be a welder that was handed a rifle and sent to the front, or an infantryman that was sent to the rear, but both are not all that common. So instead, I began asking him about rear area stuff. He knew a lot about how MPs behaved, about the behavior of the French in Paris, and other stuff. Soon I was able to diplomatically mention that the rear area types were serving their country just like the infantry, and he admitted he was 7th Army with a mechanical organization.

So, the best thing to do with Lewis's story is to decode it. His comment about a tank unit is easy to check -- there was only one and it is very tightly accounted for since it was kept in companies to retain segregation. Lewis's friend's father did not meet this tank unit. We have a few TD units, but they are the same way. That leaves rear area soldiers, a towed AT unit, and nothing else in ETO.

Violence between blacks and whites at the front was something I studied extensively, and it was so rare as to be almost unheard of in some armies. Yank Magazine letters to the editor show some of this, but unit histories tell use more -- it was more dangerous to be black in the US and a soldier than to be black in the front lines.

Where violence did occur, and were I even have accounts that mirror Lewis's friends claims, is in rear areas. Black supply drivers would sometimes follow orders to the letter, and the French / English women were not shy about dating black soldiers. White rear area types did not have the "bond of combat" mentioned in the May 1944 Yank article.

So, the best thing to do is to place Lewis's friend's comment into context.

1) The man in question was more than likely a rear area type because his story does not wash any other way. This would make the story true, but make it an altercation bewteen rear area types and other rear area types which has good support.

2) Lewis could have been hoaxed and be recounting an event that is flat out untrue.

So, no need to even get upset about it really. The story was just that, a story, and is not even a good one since it lacks a unit number and some sort of dating. That is the reason I paid so little attention to it because, in the scheme of designing scenarios about black soldiers or discussing their performance, it has so close to zero weight that it is just a bit of added noise to an otherwise interesting subject.

BTW-- If I had posted a discussion of the huge number of Irish soldiers in the 79th Infantry and their performance, this all would have never happened Wild Bill, but I thank your input on the subject.

Now - back to the main discussion, I am still writing a peice on Jackie Robinson and low morale.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Ah come on, this is patronising stuff!!

Black people can defend or speak for themselves. Please don't post another discussion on race tomorrow. There are bound to be political insults and disguised accusations of racism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Black Panther Revenge" ? I agree. Slapdragon is too much. In fact, I bet that blacks kind of cringe when they read a dumb scenario title like that. Its goofy really.

How about Martin Luther King Tiger II's? Jesse Jackson M36's?

Im going to work.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

Well, since the 761st Tank Battalion was the "Panthers" and referred to themselves as the "Black Panthers" it is not an issue. The act of revenge was in reference to a severe defeat at a roadblock.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Well, since the 761st Tank Battalion was the "Panthers" and referred to themselves as the "Black Panthers" it is not an issue. The act of revenge was in reference to a severe defeat at a roadblock. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the Penguin book '20th Century Speeches' there are two addresses (rabble-rousers more like it) by Patton to his troops. One of them is to this batallion, and I am very much certain they are being referred to as 'Black Panthers'. It is typical Patton, with him telling them that he does not give a flying eff about the colour of their skin, as long as they go out and kill Krauts. Rousing stuff, if not quite Shakespearian. So I would not really see this scenario title as patronising. A bit naff maybe, but many scenario titles are, and YMMV.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Spook]

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

One interesting topic I am reading is Jackie Robinson, to understand why some black units had moral problems. I am going to post a discussion of Robinson tomorrow with regards to designing scenarios around black units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Jackie Robinson aside, I am curious as to how you think unit design in CM should be done to account for black combat units, or what factors you consider to apply here. Not a dig----I'm just curious.

It's a shame that the CM "face" files are shared between the nationalities. Otherwise, I've gained enough experience with my graphics program that I think I can generate "black" faces from existing ones.

[Slapdragon]

Actually, CM design is not the issue, but scenario design is. Three issues:

1) Black units often entered battled with the worst leadership of any unit, because of a number of reasons, which I will discuss later, making some green units green with no leadership bonuses at all. Only those units with a black or mixed race leadership were the leaders were not choosen to "handle" blacks entered combat in good shape.

2) Oddly enough, black units that derive from the buffalo soldiers were considered green by their leaders, but actually were not. The black buffalo soldiers were on the average 10 years older than white soldiers, had a higher chance of serving under fire, and had a much higher percentage of WW1 vets. Many of these units are at lowest Vets.

3) Some units had "something to prove" and are fanatics.

Jackie Robinson was an important issue because he was treated very poorly, and it resulted in ripples throughout the black military units.

[Slapdragon]

The only change my cstudy seems to have indicated for CM was the desire to be able to mix unit capabilities with regard to morale. In one case, I had elite fanatic tankers mixed with veteran non fanatic infantry and no way to simulate it except to split the difference.

[Slapdragon]

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

Well, Jackie Robinson aside<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, the court martial and trail of Jackie Robinson during World War Two effected the moral of black units because, as the only person ever to win 4 letters at UCLA. he was one of the most famous black officers serving in the Armed Forces, as well known as Wilson, or more so. When Jackie was court martialed a lot of white officers in black units said, "see, even the nest is uppity" and the blacks said, "see, even the best can get punished by a corrupt system. That is why Jacki Robinson is so important (although most people do not know he was an officer in WW2 or was court martialled).

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

That is why Jacki Robinson is so important (although most people do not know he was an officer in WW2 or was court martialled).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You learn s.t. new every day. What were the charges and what was the verdict?

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

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[Slapdragon]

Jackie Robinson was a Lieutenant in the 761st Tank Battalion, in charge of a combat platoon, and was highly respected by his men. In 1944, he was coming back from town dressed in uniform. The bus drivers of the area he was based would play a trick on black soldiers, who had to stand at the back of the bus if there were no seats, by stopping several miles from camp and telling the soldiers they would have to walk into town because the bus was "overloaded". Jackie and a number of officers did not like this.

One day, it happened, and some of the passengers noticed that Jackie Robinson, and a woman were not only refusing to get off the bus, but were sitting in the middle of the bus (technically in an area blacks could sit, but it seemed uppity to the whites). They complained to the bus driver, who came back to Jackie Robinson and said -- get off my bus. Jackie said, "I am an officer in the United States Military and I do not get off of buses at the orders of no bus driver."

The bus driver called the MPs. The MPs arrived, a Captain and a squad of infantry, and one of the MP Sergeants said, "Get off the bus n----r". Jackie said, "if you ever call another United States Army Officer n----r in my hearing I will break you in two. So the Captian ordered Jackie off. Jackie refused, and was arrested without a struggle.

The MP Captain went to the Colonel in charge of 761 and requested charges be brought. The Colonel refused. A sympathetic personnel clerk had Jackie transferred to another unit whose commander immediaty pressed charges. Officially, the charges were threatening an officer in the united states military with bodily harm and refusing to obey orders.

At the court case, 16 witnesses (5 who later recanted surprisingly) went up and and told an odd story -- Jackie was violent and abusive, the MPs tried to get him off the bus, he refused and threatened violence, then was escorted off the bus (calmly at this point).

One of the judges, a colonel, was curious about this, since it did not fit. To the sergeant, he asked, "what exactly did Lt Robinson say to you that you construed as a threat." The Sergeant said, "well, the n----r said if I ever called an officer a n----r again, he would break me in two." At which point the officers immediately had charges against Robinson dropped.

Trying to hush it up a bit, Jackie, who had missed shipping with 761, was placed into inactive reserve liable for recall, and was actually never recalled, dieing officially a 2nd LT in the US Army.

[Spook]

That's all very interesting, Slap, where a bit of it (the bus part) I had known before.

But in all due respect, I think that you are overreaching to assess a "Jackie Robinson effect" to the black military in WW2. Not that the incident (and likely many others, like the Port of Chicago mutiny) wasn't in the minds of these soldiers, but rather that when the fighting got close & personal, I don't think that concern over Robinson was foremost in a black soldier's mind at that very moment. And this is the realm of CM.

Now take the 761st Tank Battalion. It should be recognized at first that Patton was racist in his views on black soldiers (like many other US Army officers including Beddell Smith, Ike's chief of staff) and didn't want the 761st assigned to him. Patton so much as post-war expressed that "coloreds could be good soldiers individually, but I believe that they can't think fast enough to fight in armored units." Regardless, when Patton got the 761st beyond his complaints, he still wanted them to to fight and to fight hard. His speech to the 761st on 2 Nov '44 (per D.S. Parker, "Battle of the Bulge"):

Men, you are the first Negro tankers to fight in the American army. I would never had asked for you if you weren't any good. I have nothing but the best in my army. I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches. Everyone has their eyes on you and expects great things from you. Most of your race is looking forward to you. Don't let them down, and damn you, don't let me down!

As you've noted, Slap, Jackie Robinson was in the 761st while it was still in the USA. And you can further note that the record of the 761st was definitely one of hard fighting. In its first month of battle (Nov '44), it lost 24 dead & 81 wounded while attached to 26th ID. One MIGHT thus draw the inference that Patton had more impact on the 761st than Jackie Robinson, regardless of Patton's racist views.

Furthermore, what effect would the treatment of Jackie Robinson had been to the "Tuskegee Airmen" that made up the 99th Fighter Squadron, and then later the 332nd Fighter Group (assigned to 15th AAF)? The "Black Red-tailed Angels" of the 332nd certainly did as much as the 761st to disprove Patton in that "coloreds can't think fast", given all that it took to fly P-51's on long range escort missions. The 332nd wasn't one of the high-scoring outfits of the 15th AAF (compared to others like the 31st or 325th), but they carried the claim that "not a bomber under our escort was ever lost to enemy fighters".

Again, Slap, it's a bit much to presume, and similarly difficult to qualify, that Jackie Robinson alone had that much effect on the black military when it was engaged in combat, ground or air. And I've known for ages about black combat units in WW2, as with the ACW or the Plains Indians wars or even with WW1. Heck, the 92nd Division was "all-black" also in the WW1 trenches, long before WW2.

What I conclude from the WW2 experience is that black US soldiers showed what they showed in the previous wars---that they could fight as well as white US soldiers with "all other things being equal." No one person, not even Jackie, had the influence to sway combat experience one way or the other; the black soldiers who fought had to do so in their own individual ways. But as we can also note from history, even WW2 didn't yet settle the matter of the "segregated military" because segregation was permitted as an institution within the USA (at least part of it) until the 1960's. The efforts of the black units, however, were enough this time to "set the stage" for an integrated US military. The first integrated military unit (a small one) was created in 1947 as an experiment to see if it could work. And in Korea, this happened again in the field when the third (black) battalion of a 2nd ID's regiment was reformed with the other two battalions.

From there, Jim Crow's days in the military were numbered; and sooner than for the civil sector.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

That's all very interesting, Slap, where a bit of it (the bus part) I had known before.

But in all due respect, I think that you are overreaching to assess a "Jackie Robinson effect" to the black military in WW2. Not that the incident (and likely many others, like the Port of Chicago mutiny) wasn't in the minds of these soldiers, but rather that when the fighting got close & personal, I don't think that concern over Robinson was foremost in a black soldier's mind at that very moment. And this is the realm of CM.

Now take the 761st Tank Battalion. It should be recognized at first that Patton was racist in his views on black soldiers (like many other US Army officers including Beddell Smith, Ike's chief of staff) and didn't want the 761st assigned to him. Patton so much as post-war expressed that "coloreds could be good soldiers individually, but I believe that they can't think fast enough to fight in armored units." Regardless, when Patton got the 761st beyond his complaints, he still wanted them to to fight and to fight hard. His speech to the 761st on 2 Nov '44 (per D.S. Parker, "Battle of the Bulge"):

Men, you are the first Negro tankers to fight in the American army. I would never had asked for you if you weren't any good. I have nothing but the best in my army. I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches. Everyone has their eyes on you and expects great things from you. Most of your race is looking forward to you. Don't let them down, and damn you, don't let me down!

As you've noted, Slap, Jackie Robinson was in the 761st while it was still in the USA. And you can further note that the record of the 761st was definitely one of hard fighting. In its first month of battle (Nov '44), it lost 24 dead & 81 wounded while attached to 26th ID. One MIGHT thus draw the inference that Patton had more impact on the 761st than Jackie Robinson, regardless of Patton's racist views.

Furthermore, what effect would the treatment of Jackie Robinson had been to the "Tuskegee Airmen" that made up the 99th Fighter Squadron, and then later the 332nd Fighter Group (assigned to 15th AAF)? The "Black Red-tailed Angels" of the 332nd certainly did as much as the 761st to disprove Patton in that "coloreds can't think fast", given all that it took to fly P-51's on long range escort missions. The 332nd wasn't one of the high-scoring outfits of the 15th AAF (compared to others like the 31st or 325th), but they carried the claim that "not a bomber under our escort was ever lost to enemy fighters".

Again, Slap, it's a bit much to presume, and similarly difficult to qualify, that Jackie Robinson alone had that much effect on the black military when it was engaged in combat, ground or air. And I've known for ages about black combat units in WW2, as with the ACW or the Plains Indians wars or even with WW1. Heck, the 92nd Division was "all-black" also in the WW1 trenches, long before WW2.

What I conclude from the WW2 experience is that black US soldiers showed what they showed in the previous wars---that they could fight as well as white US soldiers with "all other things being equal." No one person, not even Jackie, had the influence to sway combat experience one way or the other; the black soldiers who fought had to do so in their own individual ways. But as we can also note from history, even WW2 didn't yet settle the matter of the "segregated military" because segregation was permitted as an institution within the USA (at least part of it) until the 1960's. The efforts of the black units, however, were enough this time to "set the stage" for an integrated US military. The first integrated military unit (a small one) was created in 1947 as an experiment to see if it could work. And in Korea, this happened again in the field when the third (black) battalion of a 2nd ID's regiment was reformed with the other two battalions.

From there, Jim Crow's days in the military were numbered; and sooner than for the civil sector.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 11-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I do not think the Robinson effect as you call it (good name) is the end all, but we have two incidents of black divisions and numerous incidents of black battalions breaking in combat, and a number of Army studies on Black morale. Robinson's effect is more a class problems that caused difficulty with black units first sent into battle except those that were very special.

The breaking of the 92nd and 93rd in battle was tracked to leadership (poor officers) and men who had their will to fight sapped by a removal of hero figures. Jodie Peeler, in her study of black papers, found that blacks in the era of the worst discrimination would create and idolize certain figures whose ability to overcome and prosper acted as psychological support. At the same time, it is interesting that white officers of the black units sometimes joined those units figuring that they would never be called on to fight. Even 761, one of the best of the black units, had a white officer (Major Wingo) run away hours before the battle for Chateau Salins. Long service black NCOs were potentially a powerful addition to the black units, but when these white officers took over the units they would choose a "bad negro" to boss the unit as a second through force, often relegating the long serving buffalo soldiers to secondary positions.

Thus, weakness in black units when they were first deployed (with the notable exceptions of 761 and the tuskegee airmen) stems from poor leadership, poor treatment at home, and a removal of the traditional NCO glue. The 92nd and 93rd, each of which had initial problems but got better very quickly, got better because bad white officers were replaced with good white and black officers. bad black NCOs chosen for the wrong reasons died and were replaced by long service buffalo soldiers, and combat increased group cohesion, never established or maintained by previous commanders.

[Spook]

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

Thank God we have slappy here to tell us whats what and how things wash. If the Negro troops were all volunteers then I would expect them to be better in combat than draftees. Has that crossed your mind? Has it crossed your mind how difficult every platoon action is to record when you are in constant battle? You seem so knowledgable, you must be a vet huh?

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all in fairness that you be allowed to make your counterpoints, Lewis. But is it at all possible that you can do so without taking personal "digs" at Slapdragon?

Now quoting from your latest post, Slap:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The breaking of the 92nd and 93rd in battle was tracked to leadership (poor officers) and men who had their will to fight sapped by a removal of hero figures. Jodie Peeler, in her study of black papers, found that blacks in the era of the worst discrimination would create and idolize certain figures whose ability to overcome and prosper acted as psychological support. At the same time, it is interesting that white officers of the black units sometimes joined those units figuring that they would never be called on to fight. Even 761, one of the best of the black units, had a white officer (Major Wingo) run away hours before the battle for Chateau Salins. Long service black NCOs were potentially a powerful addition to the black units, but when these white officers took over the units they would choose a "bad negro" to boss the unit as a second through force, often relegating the long serving buffalo soldiers to secondary positions.

Thus, weakness in black units when they were first deployed (with the notable exceptions of 761 and the tuskegee airmen) stems from poor leadership, poor treatment at home, and a removal of the traditional NCO glue. The 92nd and 93rd, each of which had initial problems but got better very quickly, got better because bad white officers were replaced with good white and black officers. bad black NCOs chosen for the wrong reasons died and were replaced by long service buffalo soldiers, and combat increased group cohesion, never established or maintained by previous commanders.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, the last paragraph does better to delineate the factors to your reasoning: the lousy white officers & black NCO's rigged in initially, poor treatment within the USA, and the treatment of "hero figures" like Jackie Robinson.

But there is one thing missing from your reasonings that connects the dots sufficiently for the "Jackie Robinson effect": Try to provide a case example of a black unit that was initially commanded by GOOD officers & NCO's. Then try to establish that such a unit still performed poorly in its initial battle. THEN---you have the basis to try to connect the "Jackie effect" (reduced morale due to the treatment of "hero figures" back home) to a WW2 black unit and COMBAT PERFORMANCE.

Jodie Peeler can provide an interesting point about how a discriminated people can latch onto "hero figures" so to boost "morale" on a day-by-day basis. But was her survey of letters based strictly on those written by black COMBAT VETERANS, or also included black servicemen in rear echelons? And does any other author or historian correlate her points?

I'm not dismissing this "Jackie effect" completely out of hand. But I am a bit skeptical that THIS factor had as much weight on a WW2 black unit's performance as did the other factors you've noted---the comprehensive discrimination against blacks at the time, and the lousy white officers & black NCO's initially in charge.

My contention is as before. Once the shooting & shellfire started, you would worry a LOT less about events and people back home than you would worry about if you can trust the leaders right there with you, giving their orders. Thus again, I state my view that this "Jackie effect", by itself, is too elusive to qualify to a WW2 black unit's combat performance.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis's friend's father's story is the same as a single, unconfirmed oral history account.

So, the best thing to do with Lewis's story is to decode it. His comment about a tank unit is easy to check -- there was only one and it is very tightly accounted for since it was kept in companies to retain segregation. Lewis's friend's father did not meet this tank unit. We have a few TD units, but they are the same way. That leaves rear area soldiers, a towed AT unit, and nothing else in ETO.

So, the best thing to do is to place Lewis's friend's comment into context.

1) The man in question was more than likely a rear area type because his story does not wash any other way. This would make the story true, but make it an altercation bewteen rear area types and other rear area types which has good support.

So, no need to even get upset about it really. The story was just that, a story, and is not even a good one since it lacks a unit number and some sort of dating. That is the reason I paid so little attention to it because, in the scheme of designing scenarios about black soldiers or discussing their performance, it has so close to zero weight that it is just a bit of added noise to an otherwise interesting subject.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My friends father won the silver star and was in a mech recon outfit. He servesd in Pattons army. I saw his training papers (armored infantry and recon training) and he fought in Normandy through early 1945. No need to decode it in a condescending revisionist liberal way.

"Those skills came in handy when the battalion was attached to Patton's Third Army in October 1944. What followed was a nonstop campaign across six nations. Literally nonstop, because as an independent battalion as well as a Negro unit, the 761st was constantly shifted from division to division, with a company here and a platoon there. "

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com/html/wilson.html

This seems to contradict your company only policy. Could you contact them and make them see everything in your context?

Thank God we have slappy here to tell us whats what and how things wash. If the Negro troops were all volunteers then I would expect them to be better in combat than draftees. Has that crossed your mind? Has it crossed your mind how difficult every platoon action is to record when you are in constant battle? You seem so knowledgable, you must be a vet huh?

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Those skills came in handy when the battalion was attached to Patton's Third Army in October 1944. What followed was a nonstop campaign across six nations. Literally nonstop, because as an independent battalion as well as a Negro unit, the 761st was constantly shifted from division to division, with a company here and a platoon there. "

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com/html/wilson.html

This seems to contradict your company only policy. Could you contact them and make them see everything in your context?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except I have actually read Wilson rather than an Internet account of it and know what it contains, and have a copy sitting three meters from me. I also have read Anderson, Williams and a number of others (like The Invisible Soldier, The History of African Americans in the Military etc). Each one states quite plainly that 761 never had problems from front line units, was attached as a battalion to divisions but had companies parted out (companies usually staying together in approach but in many actions splitting up to do the fighting).

761 only had problems in the States, or a few problems in the rear. Once they were blooded they had no problems of that sort, since they most likely would have just used their M3s and pistols on anyone stupid enough to try and beat up a tanker near the front lines.

I am not saying your lying, quite the opposite, I assume you heard the story. Your friend''s story has problems which I have already mentioned. I do not even say he is lying, just he did not participate in beating up a member of the 761st Tank Battalion, and that the story does not fit with the 761st AARs, especially when Wilson, who you quote by proxy, plainly states that 761 combat units suffered no violence at the hands of US soldiers in ETO (plenty at camp Clairborne and some at camp hood).

So, to make the story fit your friend's father has to be something else than he claims, or the particulars that he recounts has to change. That does not make it completely useless -- just from the point of view of serious consideration not really worth getting upset about by either of us.

If you get the chance though to actually read Wilson, I would advise it. It has some problems, namely it relies sometimes to much on eyewitness and was never checked for some basic errors, but it is a good clean book with a nice discussion of 761. Maybe not as good as Anderson or even Williams (which is a narrative), but it has a lot of cited facts.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 11-07-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

But there is one thing missing from your reasonings that connects the dots sufficiently for the "Jackie Robinson effect": Try to provide a case example of a black unit that was initially commanded by GOOD officers & NCO's. Then try to establish that such a unit still performed poorly in its initial battle. THEN---you have the basis to try to connect the "Jackie effect" (reduced morale due to the treatment of "hero figures" back home) to a WW2 black unit and COMBAT PERFORMANCE.

Jodie Peeler can provide an interesting point about how a discriminated people can latch onto "hero figures" so to boost "morale" on a day-by-day basis. But was her survey of letters based strictly on those written by black COMBAT VETERANS, or also included black servicemen in rear echelons? And does any other author or historian correlate her points?

I'm not dismissing this "Jackie effect" completely out of hand. But I am a bit skeptical that THIS factor had as much weight on a WW2 black unit's performance as did the other factors you've noted---the comprehensive discrimination against blacks at the time, and the lousy white officers & black NCO's initially in charge.

My contention is as before. Once the shooting & shellfire started, you would worry a LOT less about events and people back home than you would worry about if you can trust the leaders right there with you, giving their orders. Thus again, I state my view that this "Jackie effect", by itself, is too elusive to qualify to a WW2 black unit's combat performance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, here I am applying Peeler to this case since her scholarship is so new as to be considered "out there". She worked under Joseph Campell and really brought out the hero factor in the civil rights movement, she never studied the military aspect except that military figures served as heroes. So Peeler is not a weak point per se, but you do hit on a good point, I am applying scholarship from one area to another. Jodie's work was a finding that in communities

Another good point of yours is that the units the entered with good officers and were almost "Veteran" before they ever fired a shot were not affected. It is obvious that the Jackie Effect may not have had as much an effect in black fighting power as other factors, my original thesis is based on letters of the soldiers but may not have taken everything into account when weighed against each other.

Obviously, with your well thought argument, I have to rethink the Jackie factor. Letters in Yank Magazine and other evidence of that sort is certainly not as powerful as a more consistant finding.