An interesting snippet, I don't know if has been posted before...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm
Bad stuff isn't it.
Printable View
An interesting snippet, I don't know if has been posted before...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm
Bad stuff isn't it.
Yeah, that's pretty sad, but who here would argue in favour of such a decision? :shrug:
Disgusting, I'd like to write something about British diplomacy in the face of an uncivilised American Leadership, but to be honest I expect the British were "not bothered" at best.
Ouch. Just.. ouch.
:shame:
Shameful.
I've seen that before. Shameful, but not altogether surprising that they did it considering the appalling treatment blacks were given in the Allied armies.
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically. Besides it's not like the British Indian Army wasn't white officers leading brown squadies. In most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And from other things I've read about segregation in the US military. Walter Bedell Smith was one of it's biggest proponents. Big time rascist that guy.
The better question would be what the hell where those coloured troops were doing in Europe in the first place.
Just a thought.
I have a personal belief that the (comparative) lack of racism in the British Forces had to do with being under a King, and the belief that anyone outside the Home Counties was uncivilised.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Not so much a lack of prejudice as prejudice evenly applied.
It may have had something to do with A. Hitler of 1 Voßstraße, Berlin. Just a suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
the british indian forces had an indian officer corp for quite some time, but basically you are right; don't make a fuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
what is a greater shame to me then whitey french divisions marching into paris is that so few british people realise how many people from outside the UK fought in colonial forces against the axis.
~6.0m brits as well as ~5.1m colonials fought for 'queen-and-country' in WW2, and yet history has forgotten the latter group with the exception of the ANZACS.
I don’t know where the author took his knowledge but he should go back to his books:
The Allies never agreed with de Gaulle.
If yes, why the 2nd French Armoured Division, fully equipped, wasn’t employed during the D-Day? Why only a handful of French Navy Commando was use during the D-Day?
For political reason Churchill and Roosevelt decided to deprive de Gaulle to any political gain, so the French shouldn’t participate in any action de prestige.
Paris was liberated because a rebellion of the Parisians (and lead by Rol Tanguy, Communist) was in danger to be crashed by the Germans and it took a man like Patton who authorised Leclerc (who was under his command) to push forward.
By the way, the tirailleurs (from Tunisia, Chad and Gabon) who were part of the 2eme DB didn’t participate to the liberation of Paris. They were engaged in the Vosges, Franches Comté and Alsace then Germany and Austria.
Then after the liberation of Paris, they were stripped of their uniforms and sent back home? Er, in 1944, August, the war wasn’t over. :beam:
So who fought in December 1944 in Strasbourg? And as said before they were in the run to Germany…
In fact the Tirailleurs were in the 1st Army (Operation Anvil) fighting in the south of France…
:book:
as for non whitey's in the british army i submit the King's Commissioned Indian Officer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27...Indian_Officer
i even have a family photograph of my grandfather and great-grandfathers regiment in india which has an indian officer in the photograph.
and the indian army in WW1 and WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II
I fully agree with Furunculus' sentiment above. Which serves to show why the EU is such a splendid institution for Europe andQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
...wait, conditioned reflex there. I mean:
France has not shown the coloured troops the respect they were due. For example, Félix Éboué was crucial for the development of the Free French in the colonies, for swaying Africa over to the camp of De Gaulle. Which led to such enormities as Black troops fighting white Vichy collaborators in Africa. And, almost as bad, after the war the former not receiving veteran pensions. :wall:
The British and American treatment of their coloured troops I shall leave for others to discuss. Save for bringing up the famous guidelines the Americans spread in WWI, warning the French citizenry not to mingle or seek contact with American Negro soldiers. :smash:
About the BBC article: Mike Thompson, the author, does not get it quite right*. Too many factual errors, too much pushing his story in the direction he wants it too. Thompson bases his article on the findings of Olivier Wieviorka, a French historian, who was apparantly not pleased with how it was presented on the BBC.
Perhaps the full program on the radio gives a better account, I don't know. It is easy for a difficult subject to get sensationalised a bit in an short article that serves to both give a quick, simplified account and to create a bit of controversy to draw listeners.
*Which I gather from sources written, alas, in French, which will not be conducive to further debate here. For example:
Link
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independant nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
May I suggest this?
I quite liked it and it definitely deals exactly with what this topic is about.
Well, even today in Sweden immigrants are very very rare in the elite regiments.
The psychologists doing the tests often rule them out as not being disciplined enough. If this is right or not I don't know... I can't believe all immigrants are undisciplined, but then again I understand that the army generally want elite soldiers with, say, a hockey background rather than a criminal background.
I'm not saying all immigrants are criminals, just that they statisticly are over represented... However, this STILL dont quite explain the low number of immigrants in the elite regiments.
That link only serves to highlight how but I am with Metropolitan French. :no:
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independant nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Not really, When General Hawes was expectimng his first batch of Black troops to his command in britain he asked for Britain to enforce segregation, they told him to get stuffed.Quote:
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically.
Sir James Grigg did support segregation but he too was told to get stuffed.
The British home office issued a decree that any attempts to enforce segragation by the US authorities in Britain would result in a withdrawel of co-operation.
It didn't stop some politicians like the conservative Maurice Petherick suggesting that all Black troops should be sent to Italy to fertilise the Italians as the Italians were used to it anyhow, but hey he was just a small town Tory and they never really change do they.
Fine. So what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the black French troops were immigrants (which they weren't) or that they really don't deserve posthumous mentioning, even though they contributed to your freedom, because, well, because certain minorities rarely make it into certain Swedish units? Excuse my 1337 speak, but wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
That's what I said. They were going to ignore it. They'd let the US do what they wanted on their bases. Off said bases it was Britains way, but try and get along.
Look at it this way Adrian , they found they had that problem across the water .Quote:
Fine. So what has that got to do with anything?
Segments of the population were completely unrepresented in many regiments, notably the British Guards regiments.
They did an investigation into it and found it was due to what they termed institutionalised racism within those organisations.
Very well, I'll look at it your way - if only I can find my darn glasses... :brood:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I mean, that post just didn't smell right in this context, like when a dog craps under the table during a dinner party..
Well, a combination of factors does. You need citizenship - recent immigrants often don't have it. You need to want to serve the country - if you still have a connection to the old country, you may not want to fight for the new one. You might have a business - do you want to give that up to join the military?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Would we agree that the British SAS might be just classified as a quasi-pseudo-elite formation?
How many of them are sourced from outside of Britain? Say Fiji?
Any Nepalese in Sweden?
Institutionalised racism has never seemed to be an issue with that regiment, they select their soldiers on a strict basis of the individuals capabilities.Quote:
Would we agree that the British SAS might be just classified as a quasi-pseudo-elite formation?
Primarily their ability not to die during selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well, as I said, anyone outside the Home Counties...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I wonder if they checked the demographics of the Officers to try to see how many came from outside the Aristocracy and the Gentry.
We (US) didn't fully integrate our armed forces until 1963, despite Executive Orders and DoD Directives to do so - an extremely regrettable delay given the sacrifices and contributions made since even before our Revolution. Shameful. :embarassed:
That the Brits & French followed the american lead during WWII - clearly racist in hindsight; seen as "accomodating sensitivities" at the time - is understandable, if less than forgiveable. IMO.
How do you make up for that? I guess you don't, except to restore pensions denied to the few remaining hundreds of survivors, and officially acknowledge service rendered honourably.
If I may enlighten you, I think he was trying to say that in some countries, in his example Sweden, the situation has not improved a whole lot. Not entirely on topic but certainly related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
He said elite regiments, since when does elite regiments mean the army in general? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I know there are some trends in that direction, like in the US the Rangers are elite, the airbornes are elite, the marines are elite, delta force are elite and the others call themselves mountain division or something to sound more elite. ~;)
Though the way I understand Kadagar he meant elite regiments as in a small and very well-trained minority which apparently has less immigrants(in %) than the normal army in Sweden.
OK, fair enough. I'm sure there's still room to find an adequate reason for this before we immediately jump to racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar