Liberation of Paris in WWII was made a 'whites only' event by Brits/Americans

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
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.

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
General Frederick Morgan

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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm

I mean how petty do you have to be that you need to preserve the white man's heroic image and not let anyone of color that happens to be dying for your cause in on the action.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.

This guy was telling OT today how every white man just tries to hold blacks down.

He's probably in the New Black Panther Party.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,032
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.

Exactly. I'm not sure how this is either politics or news.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Historically, educational. I never heard about this.

And so much progress has been made since, with Obama in charge.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,440
101
91
Horrible crap happened between many people groups in methodical, institutionalized ways. This is a petty little way that just underscored the more horrific monstrosities and de-humanization. Hallelujah that the organized racism has ended and now we're chasing down individual and smaller groups of bigotry and ridiculing and legislating them into extinction.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.

all racism against blacks is meaningless to you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Just as it is to the Democrats
The Solid South

Of course the difference is that the Democrats used their position to keep blacks in their "proper place."

:laugh: yeah, the 'liberal' southern democrats kept the blacks down back in the day :laugh:, i think you forgot to read the latter half of the wikipedia entry
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
It's really interesting how this policy in the 1940s is so similar to today's European policies which try to restrict those they deem to be "undesirables" from the cities and into the slums around the city. I used to think that the Europeans were perhaps on the level of the 1950s or 1960s when it comes to basic minority rights & issues, but it looks like that would have to be re-evaluated to the 1940s.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.

all racism against blacks is meaningless to you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Just as it is to the Democrats
The Solid South

Of course the difference is that the Democrats used their position to keep blacks in their "proper place."

OOOOOH, OOOOOOH! Dixiecrats then = Republicans now. OOOOOOH, OOOOOH!
Right Strawjohn?
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
I wonder how it looks to those who hav been around for 90 years... have seen all of the changes, the technology, the capabilities, the integration... it would be phenomenal to just hear everything from one of them.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,777
837
126
Zomg... something no one cares about that happened over 60 years ago.

Good stuff.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This happened 60+ years ago. Interesting from a historical point of view, but otherwise meaningless.

all racism against blacks is meaningless to you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Just as it is to the Democrats
The Solid South

Of course the difference is that the Democrats used their position to keep blacks in their "proper place."

so you both show southerners are idiots that can be manipulated. I'm glad we could find common ground on this issue :)
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
The image of a soldier is that of a white man, and we often forget the millions of people of color who fought in our wars. When you see photographs of heroic veterans, they are always white. This is not unique to the military; literature, film and advertising are often whitewashed, with PoC relegated to minor or stereotypical roles. Consider all of the TV series set in cities with populations in the millions. Anyone who has lived in a city knows you cannot avoid people of color, yet we do not see them on our televisions or movie screens. This cannot be an accident.

I do not think Phokus is demanding you to be guilty. Rather, he is informing you of a history you may never have learned. This may sound obvious, but unfortunately it is not well known: non-white soldiers fought and died in wars between white governments. They were ignored by the press of the time, but we should not ignore them now.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,518
6,950
136
Let us not forget the 100th Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team made up of Japanese Americans that fought the Germans in Italy and France and was one of the most highly decorated U.S. Combat Units to fight in WWII.

There are still a few survivors from that Unit that hold reunions in France and Italy with those French and Italian citizens that still honor them to this very day.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
I'm as shocked about this "new development" as I am that someone standing in the rain will get wet.

Next can we have a shocking story about japs, germanics, and italians being persecuted in the US during the war.

Or maybe a good read that the poles received less than favorable accommodations from the russians.
 

SilentRunning

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,493
0
76
So let me get this straight. France surrenders to Germany and disbands their military. The allies come to liberate them from Germany and someone is now PO'd that the allies didn't want a military that surrendered fighting beside them.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus

I mean how petty do you have to be that you need to preserve the white man's heroic image and not let anyone of color that happens to be dying for your cause in on the action.

You should know.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Originally posted by: n yusef
This may sound obvious, but unfortunately it is not well known: non-white soldiers fought and died in wars between white governments. They were ignored by the press of the time, but we should not ignore them now.
What are the plans for the descendants of the whites that fought in the civil war? A war that resulted in the abolishment of slavery? Are they being ignored? I would say so. We should not ignore them now.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Same thing happened in the Vatican, except it was the pope and his men saying they didn't want any blacks around.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
WWII is a fascinating subject when you get past the Nazi's are evil argument. For instance was WWII a victory from oppression when the Allies left half of Europe under an equally brutal ideology in Communism?

Do we hold the moral high ground in the following situations. When we gutted German cities past the point of recognition? When we allowed the Soviets to run through Eastern Germany enacting their revenge on the populace? Or implementation of the Morgenthau plan that cost upto an estimated 1 million German POW's their lives in slave labor camps across europe and thousands of civilians via deliberate starvation post war?