Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 16th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Melvin Loh Melvin Loh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 1000 or more
British use African, West Indian colonial troops in Europe in both WWI, WIII

OK, during both WWI & WWII, Britain raised & used black African & West Indian troops in action in the colonies, such as Gallipoli, East Africa & Mesopotamia during WWI, together with Abyssinia & Burma during WWII- but for the most part these black British troops- such as the King's African Rifles, the Royal West African Frontier Force, the West Indies Regt- were never, unlike Indian Army troops, sent to fight in Europe against the Germans. Now, WI they had been ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 16th, 2009, 02:55 PM
ARoadWarrior ARoadWarrior is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 13
They would have fought the germans?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 16th, 2009, 06:30 PM
oudi14 oudi14 is offline
oudi14
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 415
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 16th, 2009, 11:50 PM
boynamedsue boynamedsue is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hy Breasil
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudi14 View Post
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.
You're right, it does sound racist. Particularly given hundreds of Arabs and Africans died fighting for the Free French to liberate the South of France from the fascist scum. You dishonour their memory.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:18 AM
SeanB SeanB is offline
World's Greatest Serial Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by boynamedsue View Post
You're right, it does sound racist. Particularly given hundreds of Arabs and Africans died fighting for the Free French to liberate the South of France from the fascist scum. You dishonour their memory.
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?
__________________
SeanB's First Law: If you Wank either Germany or Russia, the result is a Polescrew.

CtP: Critique this Poster!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:23 AM
Stalin's Pipe Organs Stalin's Pipe Organs is offline
Banished from AH
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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?
Yes, but it is not very politically correct to say...
__________________
I've come back as a refugee from the world of slash fanfiction.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:28 AM
SeanB SeanB is offline
World's Greatest Serial Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalin's Pipe Organs View Post
Yes, but it is not very politically correct to say...
I share your eye roll at the words politically correct. But you shouldn't distort historical facts for the sake of political correctness. That's a firm belief of mine.
__________________
SeanB's First Law: If you Wank either Germany or Russia, the result is a Polescrew.

CtP: Critique this Poster!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:29 AM
Calgacus Calgacus is offline
Emperor of the North Pole
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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?
But North African troops did alright fighting for the French. In fact they were particularly feared by the Germans, much like the Spanish Moroccan troops in the SCW. I see no reason why they wouldn't have done well, assuming they were well trained/equipped. I'm not sure where "motivation" comes into it - the Foreign Legion have always done well, and like them, the West Indian/African troops would be volunteers. More than could be said for European troops.

The Portuguese troops performed poorly due to their training and equipment, just like the Italians and Romanians in Barbarossa. It doesn't really come down to motivation, I don't think.
__________________
The leaves are falling back east; that's where I'm going to stay.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:34 AM
Landshark Landshark is offline
The Falcon!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Kingdom of the Rocket Men
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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 I wouldn't.

Considering British African troops fought in North Africa and Burma why would they be any more reluctant to fight in Europe.

By your logic British soldiers wouldn't be prepared to fight outside Europe nor Canadian ones outside North America.
__________________
"No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Looseheadprop Looseheadprop is offline
Tongasaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Liverpool, Kingdom of Australia
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:56 AM
Landshark Landshark is offline
The Falcon!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Kingdom of the Rocket Men
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looseheadprop View Post
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.
And what about the Ghurkas? Nepal wasn't even part of the Empire so why were they so keen to fight for it?
__________________
"No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 17th, 2009, 03:29 AM
MacCaulay MacCaulay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1000 or more
In World War I, the British didn't have the ability to bring any colonial African troops in because they were fighting in Africa against Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck's Colonial German force.

They managed to tie Allied troops down to the point where they actually sent in whole divisions from India, and the South African Army in 1916, led by Jan Smuts (of Boer War fame) who finally wore him down.

Had the British, for whatever reason, shipped their colonial units out of Africa and to the western front at any time during the African campaign, they would've been in a much tougher position vis a vis Vorbeck's force in the inland jungle.

The British simply ate men up by the bushel chasing him and his Askaris, and if they had less people, it would've just made the job tougher. There's no way that (barring a German victory) Vorbeck could've brought around a German hold on the colonies, but the British seemed to be very good at finding ways to run their colonial war worse. Vorbeck was very good at finding ways to exploit it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 17th, 2009, 04:10 AM
SeanB SeanB is offline
World's Greatest Serial Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looseheadprop View Post
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.
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!
__________________
SeanB's First Law: If you Wank either Germany or Russia, the result is a Polescrew.

CtP: Critique this Poster!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 17th, 2009, 04:13 AM
Metro Metro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 313
I checked and it seems the UK. did not really send African troops to Europe during both wars but the French did.

Seems the French conscripted more than 180000 Senagalese and many fought on the Western Front.

In WW II French had 141000 African fighting and many fought in France.

This is where I got the info.:
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=...I+europe&hl=en
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 17th, 2009, 04:24 AM
Calgacus Calgacus is offline
Emperor of the North Pole
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro View Post
I checked and it seems the UK. did not really send African troops to Europe during both wars but the French did.

Seems the French conscripted more than 180000 Senagalese and many fought on the Western Front.

In WW II French had 141000 African fighting and many fought in France.

This is where I got the info.:
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=...I+europe&hl=en
Indeed, Senegalese sharpshooters were some of the most effective troops of WW1. I'm not sure why the effectiveness of Colonial Troops was ever doubted.
__________________
The leaves are falling back east; that's where I'm going to stay.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old May 17th, 2009, 09:40 AM
boynamedsue boynamedsue is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hy Breasil
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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?

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".
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 17th, 2009, 10:49 AM
Looseheadprop Looseheadprop is offline
Tongasaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Liverpool, Kingdom of Australia
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgacus View Post
Indeed, Senegalese sharpshooters were some of the most effective troops of WW1. I'm not sure why the effectiveness of Colonial Troops was ever doubted.
the germans played the defenders of lille out to their regimental tune (one of the higher honours one can pay to a surrendering force) only to discover most of them were black

the last troops to hold out in northern france were the vietnamese machine gunners on the maginot line
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 17th, 2009, 01:22 PM
I Blame Communism I Blame Communism is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Class-*khachoo!*
Posts: 1000 or more
Oh dear of dear. I shall have to address all this nonsense individually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARoadWarrior View Post
They would have fought the germans?
Yes. They already, in fact, did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oudi14 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looseheadprop View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSB View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boynamedsue View Post
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.

Last edited by I Blame Communism; May 17th, 2009 at 01:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old May 17th, 2009, 05:09 PM
bm79 bm79 is offline
Citoyen Louisianais
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Posts: 828
Send a message via Yahoo to bm79
As others have stated in this thread, Moroccan, Senegalese and Indochinese forces served with distinction in the French army during both wars. In fact, the African forces in WWI were considered the élite of the French army, given their experience in fighting in colonial conflicts and the quality of their officer corps and the volunteer troops. They were usually in the first wave of any French offensive and suffered horrendous casualties, yet recruitment never lagged.

I think that the main, if not the sole, reason the Brits didn't employ black troops on the Western Front was that they didn't have to. The populations of British possessions in the Caribbean and Africa paled in comparison to India and the White dominions.
__________________
French Revolutionary Calendar:

Wheezy, Sneezy and Freezy; Slippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; Wheaty, Heaty and Sweety
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old May 17th, 2009, 05:49 PM
stevep stevep is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm79 View Post
As others have stated in this thread, Moroccan, Senegalese and Indochinese forces served with distinction in the French army during both wars. In fact, the African forces in WWI were considered the élite of the French army, given their experience in fighting in colonial conflicts and the quality of their officer corps and the volunteer troops. They were usually in the first wave of any French offensive and suffered horrendous casualties, yet recruitment never lagged.

I think that the main, if not the sole, reason the Brits didn't employ black troops on the Western Front was that they didn't have to. The populations of British possessions in the Caribbean and Africa paled in comparison to India and the White dominions.
bm79

Might have been also that Britain was more dominated by a more paternalistic view of the empire. Or possibly racist in the Kipling rather than the BNP manner. I.e. thinking of the Africans as too primitive/childlike to be up to modern high intensity warfare. As other posters have said the behaviour of the French African troops showed that African troops could perform in Europe doesn’t mean that others accepted this.

Steve
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.