Oh dear of dear. I shall have to address all this nonsense individually.
They would have fought the germans?
Yes. They already, in fact, did.
This will probably sound unkind, or racist, but colonial troops, except for those of European ancestry, could not be expected to fight effectively against the Germans in France. They probably could have matched blow for blow against the Italians in war 2, provided that they had good British officers with them. Colonials were certainly capable of fighting effectively when they were fighting to defend their homeland, look how well Von Lettow's force did in Tanganyika. For that matter, how well did the Portugese do on the wesern front? British tommies had to be ordered to stop referring to them as 'the bloody Portugese'. When you are forced to fight someone else's fight, you don't do as well.
How unkind, not to mention racist! After all, Indian colonial troops did well in France, so the only logical backing for your argument is that whites are better than browns are better than blacks.
Ironically, however, you also spout the PC nonsense that that there was any sense of Tanganyikan patriotism in the the WW1 period. A soldier from the south of German East would not have considered the people from the north his countrymen even if they shared a common language, which was not always. After all, there were many ancient tribal rivalries. Von Lettow-Vorbeck's force did well because they were well-trained, well-equipped, and above all well-led. The British KAR were not defending their homes (come to that, nor when the Indians or the British), but they were acknowledged as splendid troops, equal to the Askari. They were just not used so effectively.
I live not so much closer to the Front than the average Portuguese chap, but the British forces did fine in France. The Portuguese did poorly because of how ill-equipped and ill-officered they were.
Chill. He is right for the most part. Africans would have been more reluctant to die in Europe than they would in Africa. This is rather common sense, wouldn't you agree?
No. There was no sense of African identity or consciousness, so while a Senegalese in France may have been a long way from home, so was a Kenyan in southern Tangyika.
What about the Aussies, New Zealanders and other commonwealth forces? they established heroic reputations as fighters in both wars and the fought in places distant from their homes. the Maori divisions were particularly feared by the germans, and they certainly had no loyalty to britain.
the fact is properly trained, well armed and skillfully led soldiers of any nationality would be able to take on the germans and win, no matter how far from home they were.
I broadly agree, but the Maori aren't really a valid comparison. By this time I'd imagine they'd have a strong sense of loyalty to NZ at least and NZ in turn had a sense of loyalty to Britain. That goes doubly for white ANZAC troops. A much better example is the Ghurkas and the Indian troops.
You're all missing the point. These people were fighting to help their allies. The US had war declared on it by Germany in WWII, and considered itself to have been attacked by Germany in WWI. The Africans on the other hand would be dragged from their homes and forced to fight for people who were exploiting them and their homelands. It's a completely different situation!
Wow, you have a funny idea of "all-volunteer".
Because the KAR and Askari and Senegalese and so on were all, in face, volunteers. However, I'm going to humour you and pretend that Britain was in fact dragging people from their homes.
So, why did the Indians perform so well? We were exploiting them, too.
Ahhhh yes, common sense. Common sense is the God posters appeal to when the historical evidence fails them.
British Colonial troops were used more in Africa because they were more resistant to heat and deseases, but they did fight the Germans, as did Indian troops. They performed as well as anybody. French Africans fought even more widely, and were excellent troops.
Stalin's Organs: Politically Correct is a term invented by right wingers who are upset they can't call the shoe shine BOY a darkie. I'm upset because certain posters here are trying to pass off racist historical fallacies as truth, that has nothing to do with "political correctness".
All true facts and solid opinions, but in my opinion Political Correctness Gone Made exists and is not purely a far right invention.
Landshark, Calgacus, Macauley, couldn't agree with you chaps more.