Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corporatemumbojumbo t1_ivbyyvd wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Kaleidoscope1630 in They fled persecution in Nazi Germany. Then the British put them behind barbed wire by lanzkron

German POWs were treated better by the Americans than the African American soldiers.

101

MortimerGraves t1_ivcb978 wrote

I can't remember which of Ambrose's books it's in, but an African American Soldier recounts how he was being shipped somewhere (to/from training probably) and stopped to get food. There were German POWs eating in the store but he and his fellow black soldiers were taken around the back and fed out the back door because of the color bar.

76

arran-reddit t1_ivcipb9 wrote

You might dis/like this - though it's worth noting there was segregation on the USA bases in the UK and they requested that business impose segregation, though that request was generally met with negative response both from government and locals.

https://youtu.be/SyYSBBE1DFw?t=1518

34

MortimerGraves t1_ivco1qf wrote

> it's worth noting there was segregation on the USA bases in the UK and they requested that business impose segregation

Yeah, that didn't go well in other countries where US forces were either. :)

"American servicemen... objected to Māori soldiers also using the Club, and on 3 April 1943 began stopping Māori soldiers from entering." Battle of Manners Street (Wellington, NZ).

(Edited: typo)

29

DaddyCatALSO t1_ivd50i3 wrote

The tendency of Americans to interpret issues in other countries in American terms.

27

MortimerGraves t1_ivdbwrd wrote

Partially, and partially simply expecting that things worked (or should work) the same in those other countries, I should think.

While not wanting to downplay or ignore racial issues outside of the US, by the time the Americans arrived on British shores the UK army was desegregated, and volunteers of all colours from all over the Empire had already been involved in fighting.

The New Zealand army was also desegregated, (and the Māori Battalion had an excellent reputation from service in Crete and North Africa) and while I've little doubt there were a fair number of racists and bigots among the white Kiwis, a colour bar in Wellington was a step too far. And while there were a number of scuffles and brawls, the NZ Government also put considerable effort into reducing tensions, arranging for US servicement to visit Marae and Māori cultural events.

9

NopeNotTrue t1_ivexzb9 wrote

The Army was desegregated but they had a Maori battalion?

4

MortimerGraves t1_ivgi4ky wrote

Yeah... it's complicated. :)

(As far as I know) there were no restrictions on anyone who was Māori or part-Māori (which would have been a fair few people) from serving in the NZ Army by 1939 (and there were certainly Māori veterans of WWI). Some Māori politicians and community leaders however wanted to raise the profile of Māori as subjects of the British Empire and pushed the NZ Government to create a dedicated Māori Battalion. (The 28th.) Initially many of the officers were European, (though the first 2ic of the 28th was a part-Māori WWI veteran), but these were replaced over time as Māori officers gained experience.

The 28th initially shipped out with the 2nd Echelon of the 2NZEF (the 5th Brigade) and was involved in anti-invasion duties in the UK, but once the brigade was reunited with the rest of the Division in Egypt the 28th became an additional battalion that could be moved between the Division's three brigades to provide extra infantry oomph where it was needed, and ended up fighting in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and Italy - receiving more individual bravery decorations than any of the other NZ battalions. (One private even won a US Silver Star.) :)

The difference (I guess) is that the unit wasn't there to keep "them" separate (and "in their place"), but rather at the insistence of Māori leaders to provide a opportunity to "prove the worth of Maoridom...and even secure the long-term goal of Maori autonomy". (NZ Historian Claudia Orange).

3

mursilissilisrum t1_ivezq2l wrote

I think that had more to do with not wanting foreigners to tell them what to do. It wasn't a matter of domestic policy (in Britain anyway), but the Brits definitely imposed segregation for no other reason than they felt like it.

−1

DaddyCatALSO t1_ivd4ttl wrote

I mean, Britain had its own "colour bar" but that was nothing compared to Jim Crow. (I really only know of it because sports writer Reg Gutteridge mentioned d it in the Randolph Turpin chapter of his book *Masters Of Boxing.*)

−5

arran-reddit t1_ivda4ft wrote

There was definitely racism, though at that point in time, there wasn't any racism enshrined in law (though some laws did come about over a decade later regarding immigration from non-white parts of the commonwealth) however there was no protections from racism. Racism in Britain was very much on a case by case basis and while I don't want to diminish how it was in the early 40s, it was considerably worse come the 50s as a reaction to several large waves off immigration (which were also spread across more cities than previous waves) which also turned racism into a domestic political issue.

9

Sun_Devilish t1_ivemkqj wrote

America is always and forever bad. The virtues of our forebears must never be highlighted. Only their sins and shortcomings should be pointed out.

−5