WI Liberation of Paris Not "Whites Only"

[CRCV]

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

Hey, I am not saying that it is right, I am just saying it is a common mistake in French.

Indeed, the proper use is "tirailleur sénégalais" for central africa. However, if you read old newspapers such as "Le Temps" or read novels set in the colonial era, you can read "tirailleur sénégalais" being used for ALL "tirailleur", and for Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians too. It is a misuse of this expression which can lead to error such as the one we are talking about.

There are even a few speech in the French assembly in which the politician do this mistake.

There are also errors in english sources due to some translation mistakes. For example, some thought that soldiers from "régiment d'infanterie coloniale du Maroc" were Moroccan soldiers instead of French soldiers from Morocco. Other systematically use tirailleurs sénégalais instead of just tirailleur due to that common mistake in French.

That happens a lot. It is just a denomination error which is quite frankly fairly common even today.

 

[bgregoire]

Ok I understand but if we look at official publication army orbat or serious book we always have the same figure
for the french 1st army in summer 44
50% native north african
32% european men from north africa,
10% men from black africa
8% free french from continental france (european)

For Leclerc 2nd DB not a single central african unit and less than 20% north african
If we go back to the whithes only liberation of Paris that only imply one regiment out of a division
No when the unit is send to the UK in 1943 it was made free french and of armee d'afrique troops and was about 50% not european, it was asked to have it whitened before being send to england (one year before its arrival in Paris). At this time the only non white unit as the Regiment de Spahis Marocain that was on M10 wolfverine
In the 2nd DB that landed in france the only black soldier was Claude Mademba Sy he was a french citizen.
One exemple of that whitening was the Regiment de marche du Tchad: this unit was made by taking all the white personal (mainly officer and NCO) from the regiment de tirailleur senegalais du tchad (you see they are tirailleur senegalais but they come from Tchad ;-)) and replace the indigenious by european (either living in north africa or from other unit)

So yes the divison was whitened on US order (but it was a fully US equiped division, part of US corps, part of US army part of ...) with no real independance (oposit to the 1st french army)

About Claude Mademba Sy is father was the first black chef de bataillon (he get its promotion in october 1917 for his action in Verdun). Living in north africa as a French Citizen he joined the Regiment de marche du Tchad when this one was whitened (yes a black guy join afrench regiment in order to remove all the black guys) he served as an NCO; took place to all the fight against germany up to eagle nest (according to him he wen there). After the war he went to Saint Cyr, served (well) in Algeria and leave the french army as a Lt Col, he was then Colonel in the newly created Senegalese army, then ambasador of senegal in variou countries an UN and died in france in 2014
In his last year he was fighting for the pension of the former tirailleur senegalais (most of them were from Mali)
I met him a couple of time.

If an holliwood producer want to make a movies about a black war hero that fought for black people

 

[Geordie]

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)

Well done Granny. That was indeed the correct answer to such a complaint.

Pity there weren't more like her.

 

[CalBear]

Yes and that was wrong. On the other hand did you want integration that is going to severely hamper our ability to make war. By today's standard FDR does not live up to being a social liberal that was then this is now. Though segregated I haven't seen any great evidence showing that minorities were mistreated during the war just segregated. In general reasonably well treated for the time. By today's standards not so much.

Depends on how you define mistreated.

The Military allowed Jim Crow to flourish near military bases, had the War and Navy Departments put their foot down on the issue (by declaring any business that was segregated "off limits") it would have utterly shattered Jim Crow across the South. African American troops were, in general, denied combat assignment which meant they had fewer points when the time came to demobilize, were denied combat pay, even though supply dumps and especially the Red Ball Express (which was almost entirely Black manned) were well within the combat zone, so they had all the negatives of being shelled, shot at, and occasionally strafed without the extra pay.

 

[fscott]

Depends on how you define mistreated.

The Military allowed Jim Crow to flourish near military bases, had the War and Navy Departments put their foot down on the issue (by declaring any business that was segregated "off limits") it would have utterly shattered Jim Crow across the South. African American troops were, in general, denied combat assignment which meant they had fewer points when the time came to demobilize, were denied combat pay, even though supply dumps and especially the Red Ball Express (which was almost entirely Black manned) were well within the combat zone, so they had all the negatives of being shelled, shot at, and occasionally strafed without the extra pay.

A friend of mine was born in Charleston SC in 1941. His father often said the Jim Crow laws showed the small mind people that put them in pace and enforced them. The "colored" only meant blacks so when Chinese, Japanese, Indians from India, plus any other color could use the "White" facilities because they were not Colored by definition. It did not make a lot of people happy but if they changed the law to cover everyone but White during the war they were afraid the Feds wold come in.

 

[dmg86]

Part of the problem about putting your foot down is the politicians who had control in congress where Southerners and many officers in the army where too.