British use African, West Indian colonial troops in Europe in both WWI, WIII

[Corbell Mark IV]

So then what if these troops were used?

I don't have historical knowledge of the state of colonial troops at the time, but I must admitt the discussion of their effectiveness makes me wonder

What effect would they have?

 

[I Blame Communism]

So then what if these troops were used?

I don't have historical knowledge of the state of colonial troops at the time, but I must admitt the discussion of their effectiveness makes me wonder

What effect would they have?

Not much, since it wouldn't be a change.

As stated earlier, in both wars Indian troops served on the western front. In WW1 colonial troops from across Africa and the West Indies fought in German East, and in WW2 there were further African campaigns to tie them up, while in both wars the Senegalese were considered some of France's best.

 

[Landshark]

Not much, since it wouldn't be a change.

Perhaps there'd be a better crop of native leaders post independence. Amin largely owed his position to having been an officer in the KAR, however he didn't join until 1946. If there'd been a group of native officers who'd seen combat in Europe during the war though, they would have been much more likely to have been in positions of authority in Uganda at the time of independence.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Perhaps there'd be a better crop of native leaders post independence. Amin largely owed his position to having been an officer in the KAR, however he didn't join until 1946. If there'd been a group of native officers who'd seen combat in Europe during the war though, they would have been much more likely to have been in positions of authority in Uganda at the time of independence.

Amin was a NCO AFAIK.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Not much, since it wouldn't be a change.

As stated earlier, in both wars Indian troops served on the western front. In WW1 colonial troops from across Africa and the West Indies fought in German East, and in WW2 there were further African campaigns to tie them up, while in both wars the Senegalese were considered some of France's best.

Well then in the spirit of the OP, what if the number serving was increased by an order of magnitude? To the point that even people like myself and/or the poster would be well aware of the important role these troops played in WWI and II?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Perhaps there'd be a better crop of native leaders post independence. Amin largely owed his position to having been an officer in the KAR, however he didn't join until 1946. If there'd been a group of native officers who'd seen combat in Europe during the war though, they would have been much more likely to have been in positions of authority in Uganda at the time of independence.

The impact this would have on the native populations occurred to me also. Although I was thinking more of India and South Africa.


POD: Large scale deployment of colonial troops seen as instrumental in balancing Germans troops freed up from Russia's withdrawl.

Colonial troops stationed as part of post war occupation of Germany become institutialized into training and garrison duty on border with Germany during late interwar period.

10s of thousands of said troops captured and poorly treated during WWII.

Resentment from colonial homelands, with large numbers of the local elites with blood connections to current or former vets, lead to popular involvement of native populations in WWII.

Post war, combination of more postive perception of colonies at home, plus far greater native military capacity due to war experiances and service lead to smoother and freindlier independance.

Independance with a Commonwealth status that quickly becomes enfolded in the Cold War senerio, leading to Indian and South African troops (others?) being stationed in West Germany as British Commonwealth members.

Said involvement quickly requiring greater military cooperation and aid between the US, the UK and former colonial allies.


Comments?

 

[Deleted member 5719]

Well then in the spirit of the OP, what if the number serving was increased by an order of magnitude? To the point that even people like myself and/or the poster would be well aware of the important role these troops played in WWI and II?

Do you have the wikipedia on your internet?


"Tirailleurs from North and Central Africa fought with distinction in Europe during World War II, notably in the Italian campaign. The Indo-Chinese tirailleur regiments were disbanded following the Japanese coups against the French colonial administration in March 1945. "

The thing to remember is that there were a lot less Africans in those days, and those there were were a lot more spread out. There was a lot less infrastrucure to get them from the bush to the battlefield then. As it was, my Grandad fought with Indians and West Africans in North Africa, and Burma was defended by a massive number of Indian troops.

I just don't get what some people are asking:

"Why weren't there any colonial troops in WWI and II?"
"Errrr... there were loads."
"Yeah, but why weren't there any?"
"I just said, there were loads, honest, there's books and war memorials and stuff."
"Yeah, obviously, but apart from them, why weren't there any?"

This thread wants staking.

 

[MrP]

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

Aye, the British (if anyone wants a source, I can leaf through Haig's diary when both he and some divisional or corps commander weren't wholly trusting of the Indian component of the division/corps - as opposed to the white component) didn't trust the Indian troops as much as the white ones. Doubtless paternalistic/racist beliefs played a part here. It's interesting to note that the War Office refused the formation of a Welsh Corps - note that would have been a white unit - and one of the reasons was that Kitchener (? or some other senior chap) felt that the Welsh were too flighty on their own, and needed "leavening" with English or Scottish troops (yes, I think "Irish" was omitted in the original I read of that).

There was a racist component on the other side, too. Several German units felt it a calculated insult that they were faced by non-white units (I honestly can't recall where I read this - possibly in Doughty). Didn't stop the non-white units being bloody effective. The aggression of the numerous African units in the French Army is a matter of record on both the German and French sides. We should recall these were units in the French Army, whose tactical doctrine called for preventing German outflanking manoeuvres by launching sustained heavy frontal assaults. So even in an army who did this in most battles of the early war, the African units stood out for their courage and indefatigability in the face of heavy losses.

Well then in the spirit of the OP, what if the number serving was increased by an order of magnitude? To the point that even people like myself and/or the poster would be well aware of the important role these troops played in WWI and II?

I'll concentrate on WWI. Tricky to see how that could be done. One of the first things one learns when one looks at the role of the marine Nationale in WWI is that she handed over defence of the Channel coast to the RN, and concerned herself with control and defence of the divisions being transported from North Africa. Granted, this is usually covered in school lessons in a few sentences, but there's so much detail in the Great War that many important facts simply cannot be crammed into the available lesson time. The only obvious way of increasing awareness of African units' distinguished military service is to eliminate the Germans in Africa within about a year, allowing the Entente to redeploy the troops freed up by such a victory to the European fronts.

In short, as boynamedsue says, there are a fair few massive historical misconceptions being banded about here!

 

[Bill Cameron]

Getting back to the original question.

What would have happened is what usually happens in nearly all of Mr. Loh's many What Ifs: Nothing Much At All.

 

[MrP]

Getting back to the original question.

What would have happened is what usually happens in nearly all of Mr. Loh's many What Ifs: Nothing Much At All.

Ah, now, be fair. As I said above, the best way to get them to the Western Front is to have the Germans in Africa knocked out in short order, thus leaving the Entente with a pool of trained soldiers twiddling their thumbs and contributing nowt. in such circumstances they'll be used for something!

The chaps will need new kit if they trundle off to Belgium. One of the big problems the Tirailleurs Sénégalais had in France, I recall, was that their uniforms were designed for warm climes, so that even bad rain could prove a grave inconvenience, and the winter was jolly nasty for chaps accustomed to said warmer climes. Given the effect warm weather has on me, I can well appreciate that it could be equally awful the other way round.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Ah, now, be fair. As I said above, the best way to get them to the Western Front is to have the Germans in Africa knocked out in short order, thus leaving the Entente with a pool of trained soldiers twiddling their thumbs and contributing nowt. in such circumstances they'll be used for something!

MrP.,

And that something they'll be used for is to act as artillery and machinegun fodder.

Seriously, what are another division or three going to do for the Entente before 1918? Or even another corps? Until the tanks and tactics, plus all the other technologies and techniques arrive, all they'll do is die. Nothing more.

This question in akin to the recent concerning the ANZACs and Gallipoli. It was asked what the ANZACs would have done is the Gallipoli campaign didn't occur and the answer to that one was: Die on the Western Front instead at Gallipoli.


Bill

 

[MrP]

MrP.,

And that something they'll be used for is to act as artillery and machinegun fodder.

Seriously, what are another division or three going to do for the Entente before 1918? Or even another corps? Until the tanks and tactics, plus all the other technologies and techniques arrive, all they'll do is die. Nothing more.

This question in akin to the recent concerning the ANZACs and Gallipoli. It was asked what the ANZACs would have done is the Gallipoli campaign didn't occur and the answer to that one was: Die on the Western Front instead at Gallipoli.


Bill

They'll inflict casualties even as they die. Even if they speed up the war by a week, that's AH. And the Gallipoli thing consumed about 600,000 troops at its height, didn't it? Add them to Belgium, and while - I agree with you - we probably still wouldn't see a breakthrough - that's still a fair whack of extra offensive power.

 

[Calgacus]

They'll inflict casualties even as they die. Even if they speed up the war by a week, that's AH. And the Gallipoli thing consumed about 600,000 troops at its height, didn't it? Add them to Belgium, and while - I agree with you - we probably still wouldn't see a breakthrough - that's still a fair whack of extra offensive power.

Is it possible that in the case of swift victory in SW, C and E Africa the African troops would have been used more in the Palestine front?

 

[MrP]

Is it possible that in the case of swift victory in SW, C and E Africa the African troops would have been used more in the Palestine front?

Aye, I don't see why not. I didn't mean to say that they must wind up in Belgium. I would imagine that Haig et al would prefer white troops for the Western Front, but I might well be doing the man a terrible disservice (cue cries that this is impossible! ) in ascribing such an attitude to him. Haig certainly had more time for Indian troops than other officers, since he had spent several years there, and this might well be reflected in following a British > Indian > African hierarchy. But I honestly don't know. He definitely felt that sending troops elsewhere than the Western Front was a pointless diversion of resources, so he'd probably take whatever he could get.

It just struck me that it's going to be pretty hard to get people to be more aware of the use of African units on the Western Front IATL for one very important reason. IOTL the French Army was happy to accept black units palmed off on them by the US Army in part because the battle performance of their own black units was so well-regarded. If it was so significant IOTL that it altered the fundamental unwillingness of Pershing to see American troops serve under non-American command, and yet is unknown to most people, I really can't see a TL in which the high esteem in which the French, at least, held black soldiery becomes more obvious.

One would need an improbable series of battles in which colonial forces perform a pivotal role again and again and again, always making white troops look bad, both those attacking them and defending alongside them. To a far greater degree than IOTL. To such a degree, in fact, that it was the subject of a truly vast degree of historiographical analysis by a wide range of scholars even unto the present day. I can't say that it strikes me as terribly probable first for a statistical unlikelihood to occur and then for the racism of the era to be so thoroughly swept away.

 

[Mark Ford]

The biggest problem with sending Indian or African troops to Europe in WWI is the death toll amoung the British officers serving in these formations. It may take several months to turn a civilian into a soldier but it takes considerably longer to learn the nessecesary Indian or African languages required to command such troops. That is why Indian divisions sent to France were eventually redeployed elsewhere. As for how many troops could have been sent to the middle east if German East Africa fell in late 1914 or early 1915 I would say the number could be the equivilent of two or three divisions at least. While the war in Africa was largely ignored by history it saw huge numbers die, official figures don't seem to exist but factoring in the number of people involved and anicdotal evidence I would guess that somewhere between half and one million people died. If only a fraction of these people were avalable in combat and transport roles then the impact would have been significant if used outside Europe. If used against the Ottomans there would have been more returning veterans in 1919 and a larger proportion of the native population with a claim to having a say in how they were governed. And in both world wars the expectation of greater rights and freedoms was the largest factor in induceing volunteers from Africa.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Anyone got any figures on non White participation in the South African/Rhodesian WW2 war effort? I assume that they would be non combat.

 

[Mr Stereo1]

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.

Well, they were part of the empire, although Britain wasn't theirs', they were Britain's. Empire is a mainly one way street..... sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that...

Maybe a Gurkha like force though...

 

[MrP]

Excellent point about languages, Mark. That quite slipped my mind!

Anyone got any figures on non White participation in the South African/Rhodesian WW2 war effort? I assume that they would be non combat.

p.245 of The WWI Databook gives the following stats for S. Africa alone (Rhodesia is not listed separately, unlike Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand, so might well be included in these figures for all I know):
Population: 6,000,000
Strength on entering war: 57,000 (Inc. 7,000 British. South African ACF were part-timers.)
Strength after mobilisation: 50,000 [presumably the 7k Brits decamped to Egypt or Belgium]
Strength November 1918: 9,000 (Overseas. Includes 3,000 blacks in France. Does not include unspecified number blacks in E. Africa.)
Total Mobilised: 231,000 (Of whom 85,000 black)

If anyone wants the figures for India, they're as follows:
Population: 316,000,000
Strength on entering war: 223,700 (Of whom 74,600 British.)
Strength after mobilisation: Not given
Strength November 1918: 654,000 (Of whom 260,000 overseas)
Total Mobilised: 1,680,000

 

[MacCaulay]

MrP, you're awesome. Nothing makes me prouder than to see people actually citing sources! I'm giving you a big virtual pat on the back.

 

[ddtim]

so, whats the POD? i'm guessing that the commander of the german forces in africa in WWI dies of some disease or other would do it, or a tactical draw becoming a success for the british, resulting in their commander dieing of a stray bullet/shell