Bigotry in war

[herakles]

In writing this post, I am not laying blame, I am not being critical, I am not pointing the finger. Rather I hope that other members will find it useful and share their thoughts on this complex matter.

Races and tribes have always regarded themselves as superior to others I guess. It's on-going today. Attitudes change over time and hopefully for the better. To have a black man aiming to be President of the USA will to us older members be quite remarkable as we all remember the status of the black in the USA in the 60's. The attitude of some English to the EU has this tribal component in it.

Feeling superior is one thing. Damaging those others who don't belong is quite another. There are so many examples of this in recent history to do with warfare. I mention a few.

In Australia at the outbreak of WW1, all people of German descent (and there were many) were rounded up and interned despite many of them being citizens. People killed Dachshund dogs in the street. Yet some Australian Aborigines served in the Australian army with distinction.

At Gallipoli, the French used Algerian troops. This was regarded as acceptable as the enemy was the Turk. Dark coloured troops were not used on the Western Front at first as it was regarded as bad form to have them fighting white men. Again at Gallipoli, almost no mention is made of the Indian troops despite their considerable contribution.

This later changed. About 400,000 blacks were part of the American force. Yet they were rarely used as fighting troops.

And WW1 saw the rise of women to take their rightful place in society. They supplied a huge amount of labour for the war effort and their role in society changed forever.

In WW1, Britain brought in huge numbers of Chinese to help with the war effort. None of them were allowed to enlist, only to work as coolies. They were all removed at the end of the war despite making a very big contribution.

In Britain at the start of WW2, Commonwealth and Polish fighter pilots were not allowed to be officers and their sleeping accommodation was segregated. Even during the Battle of Britain.

In early WW2 in the USA, black men and women were not allowed to have positions of authority in their gigantic war factories despite many of them being well qualified. Black men were not allowed to join the armed forces at first. All this changed as the war progressed. It had to. Later, Black battalions were formed. The USS Mason was entirely staffed by black sailors - except for the commander. By war's end there were about 1 million black troops - about 10% of their armed forces - except in the Marines. But 90% always kept in the rear.

Large numbers of Americans of Japanese descent were rounded up soon after Pearl Harbor and interned despite many of them being American citizens. Many wanted to enlist but couldn't. Later an American Japanese battle group was formed that performed admirably.

That will suffice for now. One point I am making is that necessity caused a considerable change in attitude. For the better.

I invite you to share your thoughts.

[Harley]

I agree with the sentiment of the thread Herakles - sometimes things have to change and it is for the better.

However, some comments.

I had no idea that persons of German extraction were interned in Australia in WWI. Since technically everyone was technically a British subject, it doesn't reflect very well, although in Britain there were many instances of Teutonic-named shops being sacked.

To be perfectly honest the French weren't too keen on using many coloured troops on the Western Front as in many instances due to their poor backgrounds very were poorly trained, and also had a habit of being very harsh with captured Germans. Charles Mangin was a notable French general who had great faith in the fighting qualities of his Sengalese troops, thoguh they suffered heavy casualties at Verdun because of it.

The French also used a large pool of Foreign Labour from Indochina. And basically the black men in the United States Army in WWI effectively ranked the same as labour corps used by Britain and France.

As to the Indian Army at Gallipoli, that is just shoddy history on the part of modern historians. There are many contemporary books which at the least mention the Indian Army contribution if not describe it in detail.

As to WWII air forces, Empire air crew matters would have been dealt with by the air force concerned. RCAF, RNZAF, RAAF, RSAAF, RIAF for the dominions, and then the air contingents of the smaller colonies, which let us not forget were segregated. As to the question of rank, there were still a great many Britons throughout WWII who were not commissioned despite serving as pilots, and I haven't read too many complaints about their not being able to enter the officer's mess.

The Polish contingent in the Royal Air Force was governed by an agreement between the Polish Government in Exile and the British Government.

Harley

[herakles]

Harley,

Thanks for these pertinent comments.

There was and still is a significant proportion of German Australians. The people in question arrived there in the 19th Century. They are mostly centred in South Australia around the town of Hahndorf and to a large extent founded the Australian wine industry. Which they still run today.

It is my understanding that the Algerians fought extremely well at Gallipoli usually on the British right flank.

Certainly the memorials at Gallipoli count the Indian dead (as they also count those from Newfoundland) but it is only the Turks who recognise their presence during the annual memorial services. Strange considering the totally inadequate artillery was almost entirely run by them.

Of course not everyone can be an officer but in the campaigns to protect Britain in the darkest days, not one Commonwealth or Polish pilot was ranked above Flight Sergeant.

[John Brown]

Herakles

'Of course not everyone can be an officer but in the campaigns to protect Britain in the darkest days, not one Commonwealth or Polish pilot was ranked above Flight Sergeant'.


Perhaps I am not grasping exactly what you mean here but I think there were men from these groups that did reach higher rank than Flight Sergeant in the RAF.

Stanislaw Skalski for example:confused:

[astraltrader]

Absolutely John. There were other Polish pilot-officers as well. The Czechs also had two full squadrons - from memory 310 and 312 - which although did have many sergeant-pilots also had pilot-officers.
There were also lots of Commonwealth pilot-officers. Sailor Malan and Stapme Stapleton from South Africa. Pat Hughes from Australia. Upton and Hewitt from Canada. Al Deere, Colin Grey and Brian Carbury from New Zealand to name just a few.
Bigotry can work in many different ways. Anti-British bigotry being one of them...

[herakles]

The point I made in my original post was that the appointing or not appointing pilots as officers happened early in WW2 and was later changed.

It's the major point I made in my post - that bigotry can change when conditions change.

I didn't make up any of my points.

[astraltrader]

It was just the point "not one Commonwealth or Polish pilot was ranked above Flight Sergeant" which obviously is not true.

[herakles]

In Britain at the start of WW2, Commonwealth and Polish fighter pilots ... ...

[astraltrader]

Pity you didn`t say that in the first place. Even so there were hardly any overseas pilots in the RAF until 1940. When the first Czech and Polish pilots joined up and the first RAF squadrons were formed with those enrolled there were both segeant-pilots and officer pilots. So I dont see there ever was a time when the level of rank was made strictly non-officer during WW2.

[Odin]

In WWII it was assumed that all Fascists were supporters of Germany and many were rounded up and imprisioned without trial under Regulation 18b. However other members of the BUF went on to serve for the UK in the war and died serving in the forces. There is even a role of honour on the following site listing some of these people.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/rollofhonour.html

However the politicians at that time did what they thought was the right thing to ensure the safety of the nation.

There was a terrible and senseless waste of life in the First World War, particularly with the concept of trench warfare. We cannot change that now but all I hope is that we learn from these mistakes and don't repeat them

But I think we should not make the big mistake of applying what we consider as the correct values of today, to things that happened in the past.

[astraltrader]

I am with you on that last sentiment Odin.

[herakles]

Pity you didn`t say that in the first place.

I did! It was always there for you to read.

Odin, your point is completely valid. Things happened at the time because people thought they were doing the right thing.

It's not for us to judge their actions now with hindsight on our side.

The senseless carnage of WW1 was caused because those in command had no other way of handling the situation. The Allies didn't understand the role of the machine gun for instance. At the start of the Gallipoli campaign as on the Western Front at the time our side had no machine guns of any note. The ever reliable Vickers was only then being perfected. Similarly, the Germans had heavy guns that worked well as howitzers. Our side had guns with a flat trajectory.

Of course we can call their actions bigoted today but the people concerned at the time wouldn't have regarded their actions as being bigoted.

[astraltrader]

Whatever - I leave what you wrote to be the judge of that.

[herakles]

Whatever - I leave what you wrote to be the judge of that.

Here's another quote: In writing this post, I am not laying blame, I am not being critical, I am not pointing the finger.

[John Odom]

There is a great deal of bigotry in all of us, even those of us who have tried to evict it from our souls. When I went back to school as a teacher after many years of other employment, the teachers were sent on an overnight educational activity. I knew none of the teachers. When I got my roommate assignment, I asked "and who is he?" When the clerk pointed to a huge black man with one eye, I was suddenly afraid. It lasted only a few seconds, but I was afraid because he wasn't like me. I had black friends, and didn't realize until that moment that I was prejudiced. That man became one of my closest friends and colleagues.

When in Japan in 2000 and 2004 I was priveliged to meet several Japanese Veterans. They told me how they were indoctrinated with the superiority of the "Yamato Race", and how they were destined to rule the world, and how all other races, particularly other asian races were almost subhuman. One dear old man told me how they slaughtered and bayonet parcticed on Chinese POWs in Manchuria. He said he then felt no different killing a Chinese than killing a rat. He said that now he knows it was wrong, and has nightmares about it.

We all have some evil in ourselves and war brings out the very worst, and the very best in each of us. We must not judge what they did then, by what we would do now.

[astraltrader]

Wise words indeed John. I agree with every word.

[historydavid]

I think that it is most unfortunate that this very serious topic has led to acrimony.

If members read a post and find they object to something included in it then I think it is wise to re-read the whole post before raising an objection.

I have fallen into this trap in the past and jumped in with my objection/correction only to find that the statement I was objecting to had been qualified by the writer.

When the red mist rises, good sense goes out of the window.

As a general comment on this topic I am with those that genuinely believe that todays ideas/standards cannot be applied to events or actions in the past.