Morally none. Our troops, supplies, and help says we can, might makes right which I don't agree with it is true. Can you have any idea what would happen to the war effort in the US at that time if a picture or newsreel showed soldiers of color? It would take a hefty blow "why should our boys, white of course die for those coloreds, it would be worse then coloreds".
WI Liberation of Paris Not "Whites Only"
- Thread starter Clandango
- Start date
Morally none. Our troops, supplies, and help says we can, might makes right which I don't agree with it is true. Can you have any idea what would happen to the war effort in the US at that time if a picture or newsreel showed soldiers of color? It would take a hefty blow "why should our boys, white of course die for those coloreds, it would be worse then coloreds".
I'd have thought that by 1944 Joe Public would have wanted to see the job done no matter who their allies used as soldiers.
I also think it's tragically hilarious that the democratic, anti-colonialist USA comes off as infinitely more racist than the European nations who became world powers by ruling over large colonial populations...
The French made up for it by how they treated the African veterans they relied so much upon. Though it was mostly North Africans. Well, the French leadership. They were dumping the colonies around the time they froze pensions for African veterans, I believe.
I was speaking comparatively, of course
No western nation comes across well in terms of race relations back then, to out it mildly. But there were definite degrees.The U.S. pissed away a great source of wartime manpower by it's attitude towards blacks. Could have still kept it's Jim Crow sensibilities alive and helped to speed the end for the Axis if they'd cadre'd the 2 Cav and formed an entire Corps of black divisions for service in the Pacific. And some additional fighter groups, as well. Scandalous...
plenka
Banned
I must ask, why is there so much hatred towards de Gaulle both on this thread and on the forum in general? Yes, he was hard to work with, but he was a prideful man, from a prideful nation that has been terribly humbled. And postwar, he tried to keep his battered, ruined country, up there with the big boys, and was somewhat succesfull. So, why the hate?
longsword14
Banned
Was not grateful enough? Blocking UK from the EEC (almost reducing Macmillan to tears!), repeatedly taking stances in the two power world that differed from the norm? Canadians: 24/07/1967, Montreal.
CdG is in the unique position that was an ally but had no real 'liking' from his own allies. So, it is cool to hate him. He never seemed the kind of person to care about other nation's opinion too much either, after all nations are not people, and their 'liking' for other people and nations is strictly utilitarian.
Such scholarly consensus is incredibly interesting.
Lots of people have criticised the UK's approach to Europe as too transactional. It seems that De Gaulle was way ahead of the UK on that score.
CdG's opposition to the UK joining the EU was not because they had a fundamentally different economic view to the first six members. It was that they had an economic view at odds with France. And, moreover, as your quotation says, had the clout, when allied with the Germans, to push this opposing view. I'm not sure how you can say that the UK were "fundamentally unsuited" to being part of Europe politically and economically, when De Gaulle vetoed entry because he feared that they might help shape Europe in a different way. "Fundamentally unsuited" to being part of a Europe designed and moulded by France? That's different.
Looking at all of the plans mentioned, all of the decisions cited, the Empty Chair crisis, the vetoes, the pushing of the CAP above all other concerns, none of them are for Europe. They are for France in Europe.
Maybe if CdG had not vetoed the UK's accession until the EU was forming in the way he and France desired, there would have been a Europe slightly less palatable to France, but one in which the UK were suited to take part.
'France has no friends, only interests'.
To be honest: that's the way every country operates, de Gaulle just said it out loud.
I'm reminded of the story about the Loud-Mouthed Stereotypical Southern Sergeant who marched into my Grandmother's Café, in Kent during WW2, and complained about her serving Black Soldiers in the same place as White Boys.
(Her response was to threaten to ban his men instead)
Last edited:
That quote is attributed to Palmerston and was paraphrased by de Gaulle.
"For France's West African Tirailleurs Senegalais, however, there was little to celebrate.
Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes' welcome in Paris."
I'll be happy to believe that two-thirds of the forces of the Free French were Senegalese in 1944, or in any year of WWII, when I see that in an order of battle from a reliable source. I guess somebody mixed up "African" or "native" troops (which would include the very substantial contribution by Moroccans and others) into "Senegalese".
This stuff has already made it into the wiki English-language article about Free France, and the BBC text is quoted as a "source". Meh.
Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes' welcome in Paris."
I'll be happy to believe that two-thirds of the forces of the Free French were Senegalese in 1944, or in any year of WWII, when I see that in an order of battle from a reliable source. I guess somebody mixed up "African" or "native" troops (which would include the very substantial contribution by Moroccans and others) into "Senegalese".
This stuff has already made it into the wiki English-language article about Free France, and the BBC text is quoted as a "source". Meh.
French called all their "native" African troops "tirailleurs sénégalais" so it is French which create this confusion. They are not just Senegalese but from all French Africa.
In sumer 1944 in the 2nd DB the only non "european" troops were the 1st regiment of spahis marocain (that was made from "indigenious" north african troops) and maye the 40eme regiment regiment d'afrique du nord (here also north africa) so no black troop with the 2nd DB maybe some north african one and not the majority. So little need to make it whithe it was allready
This was not the case for the remaining of the french army
1st DFL (free french divison) depending of the time period it had about 50% of indigenious (north africa) troops (and foreign legion) about 6 000 indigenious troops were replaced by FFI in automn 44
2nd division 60% north african and 40% european + some troops from indochina
3rd algerian divison 60% north african and 40% european (mainly in "cavalry" units)
4th montain morrocan division 65 to 70% north african and 30 to 35% european
9th coonial infantry divison about 50% tirailleur senegalais and 50% infantry colonial(european) all the black were replaced in october 44 by european coilonial infantry regiments (with the staff and the cavalry about 45% african troops the remaining european
1er Divison Blindée about 75% european and 25% from north africa
5eme Divison Blindée mostly european (with a large foreign legion input)
Morocan Goumier 4 GTM making 12 000 men all from Moroco except some NCO and officers
The will oter french troops created latter mainly with european (FFI + conscription) troops
Two small and personal stories about conscription in France in 1944: my grand father was called to join as a dentist (NCO) but was not found and so was considered as a desertor in july 1945 he was arrested by french gendarmery for desertion because he did not reach its unit in october 44, well he could not at this time he was being held by the Nazy in Neuengame concentration camp. One of his friends had a simila story in 1941 he joins the free france via spain served as an officers in a M4 equiped unit that landed in Procence but was arrested as a desertor in 1945 (funny for a man that have took place to El Alamein, part of the italian campaign, the Anvill operation and so on). In both case the desertion charge was dropped in the hours.
NB black men from martinique, guadeloupe, reunion or with french nationality were part of the "European" troops
This was not the case for the remaining of the french army
1st DFL (free french divison) depending of the time period it had about 50% of indigenious (north africa) troops (and foreign legion) about 6 000 indigenious troops were replaced by FFI in automn 44
2nd division 60% north african and 40% european + some troops from indochina
3rd algerian divison 60% north african and 40% european (mainly in "cavalry" units)
4th montain morrocan division 65 to 70% north african and 30 to 35% european
9th coonial infantry divison about 50% tirailleur senegalais and 50% infantry colonial(european) all the black were replaced in october 44 by european coilonial infantry regiments (with the staff and the cavalry about 45% african troops the remaining european
1er Divison Blindée about 75% european and 25% from north africa
5eme Divison Blindée mostly european (with a large foreign legion input)
Morocan Goumier 4 GTM making 12 000 men all from Moroco except some NCO and officers
The will oter french troops created latter mainly with european (FFI + conscription) troops
Two small and personal stories about conscription in France in 1944: my grand father was called to join as a dentist (NCO) but was not found and so was considered as a desertor in july 1945 he was arrested by french gendarmery for desertion because he did not reach its unit in october 44, well he could not at this time he was being held by the Nazy in Neuengame concentration camp. One of his friends had a simila story in 1941 he joins the free france via spain served as an officers in a M4 equiped unit that landed in Procence but was arrested as a desertor in 1945 (funny for a man that have took place to El Alamein, part of the italian campaign, the Anvill operation and so on). In both case the desertion charge was dropped in the hours.
NB black men from martinique, guadeloupe, reunion or with french nationality were part of the "European" troops
In theory and with french troops in ww2 theory maybe far from the true:
When a unit got the word "tirailleurs" in it is mean "native", the tirailleurs could be Sénégalais (ie all black african) Malgache (Madagascar) Marocain, Tunisien, Algerien or Indochinois
Spahi unit are native cavalry unit (can have or not a geographical specification)
Tabor our Goumier are "native" Morrocan mountain infantry
Zouave are by the mid 19th century european troops (but it can be mixed with tirailleurs)
Colonial troops are in theory european troops that serve in the colony so whithes
So are african troops
Most of the officers (but not all) and a large percentage of the NCO are non native so can be some specialised troops within the units
To makes thinks more complexe france in the 20th century do not segregate on the skin color so a french citizen that is black could serve in a standard infantry regiment.
Also it was not uncomon (mainly in ww1) to have a regiment made of battaillon from others unit so we can imagine the case of the regiment of colonial infantry having for a period of time one battailon of colonial infantry and two of tirraileur
In the first French army during the dragoon landing of th 260 000 men there was about 50% native north african 32% european men from north africa, 10% men from black africa and 8% free french from continental france
During winter 44-45 about 137 000 FFI have joined the 1st army
The first army suffered over 9 000 killed in europe (including 40% from north arica)
What I meant was that when it is written that "Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces" for the French Senegalese, it did not mean that they were all from Senegal, but more that colonial troops represented 65% of the free French troops. And that mistake is due to French denomination, which commonly uses "tirailleurs sénégalais" for all non French-citizen African soldiers.
No.
The French recruited most of the Central African servicemen into the "Senegalese" light infantry regiments. Meanwhile, Morocco and Algeria are still in Africa, and the French recruited servicemen from those places, and from Tunisia, and they sent them in Moroccan and Algerian infantry divisions.
Even De Gaulle, for all his real or perceived shortcomings, wouldn't demand that Arabs from those countries, most of whom weren't drafted but enlisted of their own will, to join a unit named "Senegalese". He was wiser than that.
And yes, I highlighted regiments and divisions with good reason. For a handful of Senegalese regiments in the order of battle as of mid 1944, you also have a half-dozen Moroccan and Algerian divisions. So, all in all, if the Senegalese were 65% of the Free French troops in mid-1944, then another 200% or so must have been Arab. Something wrong with that math, n'est ce pas?
Now, as mentioned, if you put all colonial servicemen together - or at least all African servicemen, where by "African" you include Moroccans, Algerians, and Tunisians - then maybe you can reach that 65% figure. Senegalese alone, or even all Central Africans alone? Nah.
Sorry but I have hardly never see "tirailleurs sénégalais" used for non central africa (read black) troop
The word tirailleurs is used for all non european troops but sénégalais is only for central africa troops
for north africa (and north africa was the bulk of teh french army in 44) it is never senegalais
Tirailleur only made for a few regiment of the french army while tabor, tirailleur algerien marocain made for most of it.
So no black but north african
We can't say, since what is quoted are extremely short snippets of documents - documents in which a reason may well be provided, but if so it was expunged from the version provided.
However, we can guess. There might have been a pretty solid propaganda reason not to have non-European troops in the newsreels of the victory parade in Paris (as opposed to actually having them fight for it). And that's racism, yes - the racism of the Axis countries, however, not the racism in the USA.
Think about how the enemy soldiers were depicted at this time by German and RSI Italian propaganda. The American servicemen are represented by a black brute, the British by a turbaned, bearded tribesman, and the Soviet by a squinty-eyed jellow-skinned Mongol. Distributing newsreels displaying the Champs-Élysées trampled over by Moroccans and Central Africans would have been a confirmation of the fears of the Axis public, once those newsreels reached neutral countries.