Brutality in the Desert

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

There was also "blacks" in the British Army who fought the German Army.

I am (quite genuinely) interested in these troops. Simply because they are unknown. We had a thread a few years ago here at BFC trying to unearth any facts about black British British troops (i.e. not merely black troops in British service), but we weren't able to find much (not from lack of serious attempt). Even had some help at the time from an expert on the topic of black US troops but still we couldn't come up with much.

As you use quotation marks around "black", I am starting to suspect I am insulting somebody by referring to people as such? What I mean is of course people with some sort of visible origin in Africa, however near or far in time.

I dont really see why if they didnt fight the Germans it appears not to count.

Is fighting the Vichy French, the Italians or the Japanese not as worthy as fighting the German?

Well no it isn't. In the sense relevant here.

Your not understanding this is because you are not racist, which can only serve to further your honour. Myself I am regrettably now familiar enough with this line of thought (from study, not from practice) and to me it makes perfect sense that they opted to not use troops conceived as black against troops conceived as white. It is not a matter of being worthy.

Fighting (all white, largely Saxon) Germans is conceptually the same as fighting the (all white, largely Saxon) British themslves, and what colonial power would encourage surpressed natives to slay whites? In an age when every colonial power did everything and anything it could to further the notion of white superiority and invincibility? Hence the huge, not to say revolutionary, effects of the Japanese victories at Mukden and later Singapore and Indochina etc.

The Vichy French troops in the Levant as indeed the Italian army in East Africa were both colonial armies. Structured as such, few whites to be found in either army and those to be found were "colonials", i.e. professionals. So they didn't count. It was not a matter of being worthy, many of these fought like h-ll - especially the French colonials displayed qualities second to drastically few European units. It is instead the matter of returning after the war, retaining a system of racially based discrimination and oppression in the colonies, and having those colonies filled with men who have slain whites, seen the cities and nations of the whites ruined and humiliated. Simply doesn't work. And indeed it didn't. Look at what happened in Indochina and Algeria (France arguably being the major power least hesitant to use colonial troops on European soil).

The Japanese were not conceived as white and quite regardless of the extent of their achievements, they were not and would not be regarded as equals ("could not pass for white", to quote a US professor). The proximity of the Japanese forces to four million whites in Australia had quite a decisive influence on US and allied planning and strategy, whereas their actual presence among millions of non-white Chinese created no sense of urgency at all. The notion of Japanese soldiers in white societies, occupying a white nation, was simply intolerable, even to the US (which was not directly affected).

At any rate there was enough "white" civillians around in India, Burma, Egypt, East Africa and the Middle East...

I beg to differ. These were not white societies, there were no white cities. There was a white presence, but in all places you mention except India this presence was extremely scarce (in India, it was scarce). The typical colonial presence of a handful of civil servicemen, tradesmen, clergy, industrialists and exploiters, surrounded by a body of armed troops. Typically to be found in defined, limited areas of the host nations (larger port cities) while the vast majority of the population was unlikely to ever meet a European. They did not form a society as such, being far too few, merely living and acting within the native societies. It is simply not comparable to European soil, from a racist point of view. When the morroccans of the RMSM marched through the charred cities of Germany, witnessing the desperate fugutives, slain civilians and defeated and humiliated German troops, they knew, and could never be untaught, that Europeans were just like themselves, in every way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to point my finger at the British in particular, nor would I in any sense call them fascist of totalitarian (the whole notion being rather amusing actually). Like so many Germans, I'm embarassingly anglophile. But the British of course were children of the times and racial biology was a widespread ideology, even among them. The British were stake-holders. They had in the short perspective a lot to loose.

And they lost it all.

Probably the best thing that ever happened to them too. You know how Machiavelli wrote that it is preferrable to be feared, rather than to be loved, since these two values are not compatible? Well he was wrong.

Cheers

D

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Remember there were 2 different armies in India - there was teh British Army in India, and the British Indian Army. The former was "normal" British troops stationed in India, the later was the army of eth sub-continent itself.

On another note - being as ever completely incapable of sticking to a subject - this reminds me of the situation in Indochina in the 1950's. The French army was a fantastic construction, perhaps the most drastic organisational chaos I have ever seen, even worse than the Third Reich (no other comparison intended).

- There was the French Metropolitan army, i.e. French regular troops. These were beefed up by scores of locally recruited native Vietnamese.

- There was the French Colonial Army, i.e. frenchmen recruited in France for service overseas. These were beefed substantially by the same type of local recruits, plus a large number of similarly locally recruited men from all corners of the world where the colonial army served, including primarily Senegalsese and Micronesians.

- There was the French North African Army, i.e. a mix of Frenchmen recruited in France or in North Africa for service in North Africa (many of the "French" in North Africa in fact being Italian, or native Jewish minorities at the time), with a (majority) body of North Africans recruited for service in North Africa, but doing service in Indochina. This Army was beefed by local Vietnamese, plus a number of Senegalese troops (who should rightfully belong to the Colonial department).

- There was the French Union Army, composed of troops from all of Indochina, largely officered by the French and consisting of men from the Indochinese nations of the time.

- There was a small contingent of Marines (nowadays the Colonial Army is wholly incorporated into the marines and they are one, but not in those days), also beefing numbers by locally recruited Vietnamese.

- Finally, there were the local national armies (Vietnamese, Latian and Cambodian), largely officered by the French as well.

- On a final note, there were eventually UN troops as well, a French battallion formally belonging to the UN forces. Also using local recruits to beef numbers.

And whenever "local recruits" are mentioned, one must consider the bewildering ethnic composition of Indochina to realise just how confusing this mix was.

That's ground forces. I'll leave the sea and air forces aside.

Now that is chaos.

Having studied the subject, one cannot help to wonder how on earth they managed the supply system. I mean, there's no way of using a stabdardised C-ration here...

Chop chop

D

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

[snips]

Fighting (all white, largely Saxon) Germans is conceptually the same as fighting the (all white, largely Saxon) British themslves, and what colonial power would encourage surpressed natives to slay whites?

I expect that most would do so if necessary; you don't get to be a successful colonial power by neglecting the military potential of your subject populations.

Assuming that Indians qualify in the category of "suppressed natives", the British Empire had no difficulty in employing them against the Germans on the Western Front in WW1. You have already noted the French use of colonial infantry, many units of which fought in the defence of France in 1940. The Spanish Fascists had no compunction about shipping Moorish infantry across the Med to fight in mainland Spain during the Civil War, and the Italian Fascists were happy to use native spahis against the Brits in the WW2 East African campaign. The Germans themselves in WW1 had no difficulty in employing Askaris against British forces in von Lettow-Borbeck's campaign.

All the best,

John.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by highliner:

the fabled Gurkas were not allowed to bring there wives, let alone guns,

I bet no one asked them to hand over there little knives though did they

As for the London but Highlander, i didnt think troops on leave took there weapons with them did they?

As you use quotation marks around "black", I am starting to suspect I am insulting somebody by referring to people as such?

Nope, am not insulted at all.

Whenever i have researched or talked about WW2 when it has came down to talking about the troops i have only ever used nationailty as a divider as i have seen race (in most respects) illrelevant.

I guess am starting to understand a little of what you talk about in regards to the peoples of Africa etc

As you have said, am not racist (although am not going to be standing on any corner anytime soon bashing people who are) so its probably that, i just cant really comprehend the attitute of that time (i have family born in the 40s and have worked with people who were born then and there attitute is just like that and it boggles my mind).

I am (quite genuinely) interested in these troops. Simply because they are unknown. We had a thread a few years ago here at BFC trying to unearth any facts about black British British troops (i.e. not merely black troops in British service), but we weren't able to find much (not from lack of serious attempt). Even had some help at the time from an expert on the topic of black US troops but still we couldn't come up with much.

In the Battle of Britain there were at least two blacks flying with the RAF, according to the website one from Rhodesia and one from Jamaica (who died).

Yes i know thats a very small percentage of the force. However i know from some documentries ive watched, which interviewed at least one Jamaican RAF pilot so more must have came since the guy they interviewed ended up there (ive seen sources which have stated the number in the thousands, as pilots and ground crew).

What i also remember from his intreview was that he stated when he was outside of the base in the local town people use to look at and kids run up to him to see if his skin was real. Which he said at the time they all thought it was funny but when he thinks about it isnt as quite lol.

As for the British Army, there was at least one black guy with the Ox and Bucks on D-Day landing with the Coup De Main party. I believe this was mentioned in Pegasus Bridge by Stephen E Ambrose and am sure he mentioned there was more then one dude as well. (i will try to find the quote).

I have also seen mention of simlar with other units elsewhere but cannot currently find any sources. But it would appear they did serve in front line positions as well as behind the lines.

An example of the latter would be the Caribbean Regiment which ive just seen talk of on the net and looked it up on the wiki, which states it guarded POWs, provided other rear area duties in Italy and then went off to do mine clearnace around Suez. The reason it states it didnt do front line duty was because of the "political impact in the British West Indies if it had incurred heavy casualties."

So it isnt really much but it appears to be a case of they were deffiently there.

As just pointed out by John, if we count the Indian Divisions, who were made up of many different cultures and relgions they fought agaisnt all foes of Britain and we had no problem giving them a rifle.

For WW1 there seems to much more examples of black troops fighting in the trenches mixed in with white troops.

For the Indochina French army it seems you may have missed out the Legionnaires, which if i recall was packed full of ex Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers, or so ive read somewhere.

[ June 30, 2007, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[highliner]

originally posted by the_enigma As for the London but Highlander, i didnt think troops on leave took there weapons with them did they?

Och! noo! mebbies not,

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

D., send me an email please?

Jon

Sure thing. It's in yar ebox.

Cheers

D </font>

[Sergei]

And Russians, Imperial or Soviet, had no qualms about sending natives drafted from their Asian and Caucasian colonies to fight in European wars.

(Although Siberia and Caucasus are generally not seen as colonies because of not being separate from Russia by sea.)

[Guest Mike]

Enigma wrote about West Indian troops -

The reason it states it didnt do front line duty was because of the "political impact in the British West Indies if it had incurred heavy casualties."

Yeah - they were a fairly large proportion of the population, and if something went badly wrong the loss of a battalion or a brigade might be their entire army gone in one fell swoop.

We had a similar sort of problem in NZ - with only 1 (large) field division, and a few smaller units around the PAcific, we jsut didnt' have hte manpower to take losses - the loss of 1 division to hte US or UK would be bad, but for NZ it would be a national disaster.

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by JonS:

Slim and Montgomery were Indian Army, and they seem to have gotten on well enough.

Slim was (British) Indian Army - he had to resign his commission in the British Army to be appointed a Captain in the Gurkha Rifles (1st Bn 6th Gurkha Rifles).

Montgomery was British Army.

What they had in common was Royal Warwickshire Regiment (both were commissioned into it - Slim in World War One, Montgomery in 1908).

Monty had served in India 1908-1913 (with the Warwicks) and again when he was an instructor at Quetta in the 1930s - well after Slim had been through.

Edward

[DesertMouse]

Ok but enough of the nonsense.

It was a tough theatre. Men died when they could have been let go as suggested, but they werent. Quarter was not given. As stated, if you saw men in the wire at Tobruk, you can guarantee they were shot at. They were not allowed to go home and report intelligence - that just does not make sense and it did not happen.

Horace Suckling, Private in the Rifle Brigade at El Alamein, recounts in the BBC Documentary on El Alamein about the morning in October 1942 near the German counterattack stopped by 6 pounders that "If the crews bailed out of the tanks, if they ever survived, we were shooting them down like rabbits".

Doesnt sound so noble to me.

[ July 27, 2007, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: CousinPeePee ]

[Andreas]

All the best

Andreas

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Ok but enough of the nonsense.

Everybody else had enough of your nonsense a long time ago. Please stop it.

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Quarter was not given.

Utter drivel. I suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "quarter", which you clearly do not understand. Quarter was given by both sides as a matter of routine. Shooting at men who have not surrendered is not refusing to give quarter, and your attempt to misrepresent it as such is fooling nobody but yourself.

Twit.

John.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dandelion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

D., send me an email please?

Jon

Sure thing. It's in yar ebox.

Cheers

D </font>

[Andreas]

Got it now... No idea what happened there.

Stand by for a reply!

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Sent!

All the best

Andreas

[JonS]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

D., send me an email please?

Jon

Sure thing. It's in yar ebox.

Cheers

D </font>

[Dandelion]

Hi Jon

Yes I certainly did, and the article did actually alter my understanding of the UK-Empire-Commonwealth relation on this issue quite considerably. The fundamental issue of white dominance conspired against the UK use of "black" troops as I had believed, but I had not quite understood how the issue of dominance had become a separate interest of the (white dominated) dominions alone, and that the UK herself seems to have displayed no such concerns at all. The sole inhibiting factor in UK policy of deploying "black" troops seems to have been the ferocious protests of South Africa and Rhodesia et al. Strikes me as strange. But in a positive way.

All the best

D

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Sent!

All the best

Andreas

Ah, got it, I'll get to work on it

[sand digger]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

The "positive" comments are related to inter-human relationships and refer to events where enemy soldiers could have been treated more or less brutal.

Examples are not shooting enemy soldiers burying their friends, few sniping, recon units not necessarily seeking mutual destruction, not shooting prisoners that you couldn't take (let them go instead).

The non-human factors such as weapon impacts and environment were more brutal, and not made better by the lack of cover.

That pretty well sums it up except that sniping was all go. As well the recovery of dead and wounded from no mans land was sometimes mutually arranged.

The sand storms were unbelievable, not a fun place to be at all. Unless you were beside the sea

[DesertMouse]

Interesting. Look, I am not saying that there was not some exchanges, letting prisoners go etc. But the terrain, the amount of HE used, the weapons with little or no cover, the dust etc looked brutal. And I think that that must have had an effect on the men.

Do any of you knowledgeable gentlemen know about machine gunning of the crews bailing out of tanks? Surely Monty didnt want Rommel to have experienced tank crews.

Thats just one example.