Fact of the day: only whites contributed to Nazi defeat

[Kane Starkiller]

BBC

Paris liberation made 'whites only'


By Mike Thomson
Presenter, Document, BBC Radio 4

Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a "whites only" victory.
Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead.
Yet the BBC's Document programme has seen evidence that black colonial soldiers - who made up around two-thirds of Free French forces - were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital.
By the time France fell in June 1940, 17,000 of its black, mainly West African colonial troops, known as the Tirailleurs Senegalais, lay dead.
Many of them were simply shot where they stood soon after surrendering to German troops who often regarded them as sub-human savages.
Their chance for revenge came in August 1944 as Allied troops prepared to retake Paris. But despite their overwhelming numbers, they were not to get it.

'More desirable'
The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris.
Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers.
In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel.
"This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white."
At the time America segregated its own troops along racial lines and did not allow black GIs to fight alongside their white comrades until the late stages of the war.

Morocco division
Given the fact that Britain did not segregate its forces and had a large and valued Indian army, one might have expected London to object to such a racist policy.
Yet this does not appear to have been the case.
A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco.
"Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."
Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts.
So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units.
When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead.

Pensions cut
In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish.
The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian.
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.
After the liberation of the French capital many were simply stripped of their uniforms and sent home. To make matters even worse, in 1959 their pensions were frozen.
Former French colonial soldier, Issa Cisse from Senegal, who is now 87 years-old, looks back on it all with sadness and evident resentment.
"We, the Senegalese, were commanded by the white French chiefs," he said.
"We were colonised by the French. We were forced to go to war. Forced to follow the orders that said, do this, do that, and we did. France has not been grateful. Not at all."

Classy, real classy. Allies really need to thank Hitler whose actions served to make the rampant racism in their nations pretty much unnoticed.

[Broomstick]

Look, I hate to break it to you, but that was how the early 20th Century was - virtually nobody of European background considered those with origins from other regions to be anything but below them, and blacks were on the bottom. I would have been more surprised if they hadn't made the final victory "whites only". That's how it used to be. Very sad. Very true. History can be ugly.

[Mr Bean]

Pulling people out of the victory parades is nothing new. The Allies also yanked the Polish out of the victory parade because Stalin was allowed to retain Poland post WWII. Jim Crow alive and well during the 40s. We sit less than six decades from legal enshrined racism and blatant nationalism. People forget that far to often and treat the current state of affairs as if they have always been instead of something that only emerged with the last twenty years.

[thejester]

Wait, you're telling me that a brutal colonial empire didn't want to acknowledge that its brutally oppressed subjects had helped liberate its capital city?

Stone the fucking crows.

[bobalot]

Wait, you're telling me that a brutal colonial empire didn't want to acknowledge that its brutally oppressed subjects had helped liberate its capital city?

Stone the fucking crows.

Looking at article, it looks like the yanks had the biggest problem with black troops entering Paris.

[Big Phil]

1. This is hardly news... while it might not be common knowledge, historians have been aware of this fact pretty much since it ocurred.
2. I sincerely doubt the French had any particular desire to see Paris liberated by a bunch of darkies, so blaming this on the Americans is more than a bit unreasonable. Also, while the article claims the English army was integrated, while Indian divisions and Indian soldiers may have been valued, how many Indian officers were assigned to British army divisions? Conversely, how many white officers were assigned to Indian divisions. Lip service is one thing, but the reality was something slightly different.

[thejester]

I took this bit:

"Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."

to mean it was de Chevene (presumably French, acting for de Gaulle) that had requested it; but on re-reading it could just as easily mean that the French have requested the parade and SHAEF said 'whites only'.

[thejester]

1. This is hardly news... while it might not be common knowledge, historians have been aware of this fact pretty much since it ocurred.
2. I sincerely doubt the French had any particular desire to see Paris liberated by a bunch of darkies, so blaming this on the Americans is more than a bit unreasonable. Also, while the article claims the English army was integrated, while Indian divisions and Indian soldiers may have been valued, how many Indian officers were assigned to British army divisions? Conversely, how many white officers were assigned to Indian divisions. Lip service is one thing, but the reality was something slightly different.

A large number of British officers served in the 'Indian Army'; Claude Auchinleck, who commanded at 1st Alamein, was an Indian Army officer. The OoB of Indian divisions also included white British battalions though that practice may have discontinued as the war went on. The British also raised a large number of black African units, which I presume were largely commanded by whites.

[Kane Starkiller]

Obviously that white supremacism was widespread until very recently is not news. After all it wasn't until sixties that blacks in US south finally got their rights. So while I was perfectly aware that there was a general discrimination against black people in place the fact that the Allies actively went out of their way to remove all dark people from a victory parade just after many of them laid their lives for them struck me as particularly disgusting. And we are not just talking about politicians but the generals of the very armies these people fought for.

[Broomstick]

Obviously that white supremacism was widespread until very recently is not news. After all it wasn't until sixties that blacks in US south finally got their rights.

They got them on paper. Realistically, they got their rights later still.

So while I was perfectly aware that there was a general discrimination against black people in place the fact that the Allies actively went out of their way to remove all dark people from a victory parade just after many of them laid their lives for them struck me as particularly disgusting.

At the time, many would have thought it disgusting to include them. It's hard to grasp emotionally how much the world has changed. And not even that much - witness the frothing and foaming at the mouth having a black man in the White House can generate among some people these days.

And we are not just talking about politicians but the generals of the very armies these people fought for.

What makes you think the generals were any less bigoted than the rank and file?

[CmdrWilkens]

Generally speaking no matter that the North African units of the French Army were generally its best units in both WWI and WWII and that most of the British Indian Army performed superbly there was a huge bias in favor of proper European (or white in the case of US) units. Much as Hitler regarded Russians and Slavs as genetically inferior (as position held by many in Germany) so too did most of the Allied supreme command regard black, colonial, or other minority units to be inferior to regulars no matter what their combat record. I know certianly in the Korean War one of the question marks about Gen Almond both in his role as CoS to MacArthur and then as X Corps commander was that he had only led a "negro division" in Italy during WWII.

[thejester]

The units excluded were West African (Senegalese), not North African. Not sure the French recognised North African units as 'inferior' but certainly in WW1 the Senegalese units gained a reputation not only for ferocity but outright barbarism on both sides of the line - simply refused to take prisoners and would do some nasty things to live Germans who fell in their hands.

[Posner]

The units excluded were West African (Senegalese), not North African. Not sure the French recognised North African units as 'inferior' but certainly in WW1 the Senegalese units gained a reputation not only for ferocity but outright barbarism on both sides of the line - simply refused to take prisoners and would do some nasty things to live Germans who fell in their hands.

Sounds interesting, have any sources to point me to? Thanks.

[thejester]

I remember reading it in Price of Glory by Alistair Horne, about the Verdun battles. It'd be interesting to see his source and if it appears in other works on the French Army, because there was extreme resentment of colonial troops in the French Army in WW1 (one of the contributing factors to the 1917 mutinies) and the whole 'primitive African savages' angle could have been overblown.

[Falkenhayn]

I remember reading it in Price of Glory by Alistair Horne, about the Verdun battles. It'd be interesting to see his source and if it appears in other works on the French Army, because there was extreme resentment of colonial troops in the French Army in WW1 (one of the contributing factors to the 1917 mutinies) and the whole 'primitive African savages' angle could have been overblown.

You're in the right region, but I believe you mean the Moroccans (specifically the Goumiers in WWII).

Then again, an assault on a fortified position which offers resistance is an age-old circumstance wherein any soldier from any army is at his least likely to give quarter. This is, however, a very specific set of circumstances and dosen't offer exoneration. I've seen a very poignant photograph of a British machine gunner from the Spring offensive, stuck up against a wall with multiple, very obvious stab wounds to his chest. Ought to be in the Illustrated hardcover of John Keegan's The First World War.

[thejester]

Thinking we're getting our wires crossed here mate.

Going off memory, but the Senegalese were specifically mentioned as being primitively brutal in and around Verdun - it wasn't that they chose not to take prisoners, it was that they didn't understand the concept. I'm back at Uni tomorrow so I'll look it up, and check Horne's sources, because it sounds suspiciously like 'lol primitive natives'. I'm not sure how vicious the North African regiments were in the Second World War.

Worth noting at these points that these units were organised in entirely separate branches of the armies. The North African regiments were part of the metropolitan army - these included regiments recruited from the local population (Goumiers, Spahis, Tirailleur) and 'white' regiments like the Zouaves and Foreign Legion. Central and West African units were considered part of the Colonial Army.

[Falkenhayn]

Thinking we're getting our wires crossed here mate.

Going off memory, but the Senegalese were specifically mentioned as being primitively brutal in and around Verdun - it wasn't that they chose not to take prisoners, it was that they didn't understand the concept. I'm back at Uni tomorrow so I'll look it up, and check Horne's sources, because it sounds suspiciously like 'lol primitive natives'. I'm not sure how vicious the North African regiments were in the Second World War.

Worth noting at these points that these units were organised in entirely separate branches of the armies. The North African regiments were part of the metropolitan army - these included regiments recruited from the local population (Goumiers, Spahis, Tirailleur) and 'white' regiments like the Zouaves and Foreign Legion. Central and West African units were considered part of the Colonial Army.

Ok, no problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

TheJester is correct, though how much of that was German propaganda (and I'm a pro-Central Powers type) is certainly a valid charge; I don't think they were quite so savage as is sometimes claimed, such as cannibalism. The Tirailleurs Senegalais were nonetheless renowned as incredible fighting troops, just like the Tirailleurs Moroccains. Both countries fielded incredible men for France, and I have read accounts of units pressing home the attack with bayonet even after taking 75% casualties against fortified German positions on the Western Front. They stand among the ranks of the most courageous and gallant men who have ever lived.

[Broomstick]

As far as savagery, barbarism, and even cannibalism - it's not the Europeans didn't do those things, they just excused themselves for it being "exceptional circumstances" or some such.

[Kanastrous]

Sad that the same French who are lauded for welcoming Jospehine Baker through the front door while in the US she had to enter at the back, screwed over African troops who fought for them. Sad, but alas not a huge surprise.

[Coyote]

Well, there is the embarrassment that the dark-skinned Colonial troops fought on four years of war while the 'superior' white homelanders took all of two weeks to become willing Nazi lapdogs...

[thejester]

Well, there is the embarrassment that the dark-skinned Colonial troops fought on four years of war while the 'superior' white homelanders took all of two weeks to become willing Nazi lapdogs...

You do realise that most colonial troops, certainly those in North Africa, actually served the Vichy? In Madagascar, Lebanon, Syria and North Africa they resisted Allied invasions up until the point they'd become fait accompli, when they then switched sides.

[Big Orange]

The Russians pulled off something similarily pathetic around the same time when they marched into Warsaw, with Soviet soldiers dressed up in Polish military uniforms, trying to pass off as Polish!

What was also pathetic, Chang Kai Shek (one of history's losers) didn't want the logistically vital military roads to be built by black Americans, but I'm not surprised that narrow minded and authoritarian East Asians would buy into Western racism (like the Japanese military bought into racist imperialism).

[PainRack]

Is it me or are people still arguing that the French didn't want blacks to liberate Paris? That's not what the article or history says. What it wanted was a FRENCH division to liberate Paris, and the Allied Commanders said if you want that, you're going to have to produce a white division to do so.

[Big Phil]

Is it me or are people still arguing that the French didn't want blacks to liberate Paris? That's not what the article or history says. What it wanted was a FRENCH division to liberate Paris, and the Allied Commanders said if you want that, you're going to have to produce a white division to do so.

That's what the article says, but the article manages to omit that the French themselves almost certainly didn't want a bunch of darkies liberating Paris (i.e., no black savages kissing virtuous white Frenchwomen). I question the validity of this program, myself, given the whitewashing of British treatment of its Indian soldiers and the blame being placed entirely on the US.