• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Interracial violence between US troops (WW2)

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Not really looking for debate, but this seems like the right place for this.
I was just reading the linked article (The Conversation is a site I regularly flick through) as I have a particular interest in WW2.

Black troops were welcome in Britain, but Jim Crow wasn't: the race riot of one night in June 1943

I don't remember ever hearing about this type of incident to this degree.
Broadly I was aware of some mild tensions due to the difference in integration/segregation in the UK compared to the US. But this article speaks on more than 'mild tensions'.

Anyone know much about this, or have strong thoughts?
Was this surprising to those of you who have a background in WW2 history?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Not really looking for debate, but this seems like the right place for this.
I was just reading the linked article (The Conversation is a site I regularly flick through) as I have a particular interest in WW2.

Black troops were welcome in Britain, but Jim Crow wasn't: the race riot of one night in June 1943

I don't remember ever hearing about this type of incident to this degree.
Broadly I was aware of some mild tensions due to the difference in integration/segregation in the UK compared to the US. But this article speaks on more than 'mild tensions'.

Anyone know much about this, or have strong thoughts?
Was this surprising to those of you who have a background in WW2 history?
I knew that the US troops were segregated from an anecdote my grandmother told. Soldiers were quartered in her house and she had to serve food in the dining room for the whites while the blacks had to eat in the kitchen. While the Nazies were pretty racist and she only knew the propaganda, never having seen a live African herself, she couldn't understand why soldiers who did the same work were segregated by race (segregation by rank would have been perfectly fine). She made sure the blacks got more and better food (while getting that for herself and her children, too).
 

Viker

Häxan
Not really looking for debate, but this seems like the right place for this.
I was just reading the linked article (The Conversation is a site I regularly flick through) as I have a particular interest in WW2.

Black troops were welcome in Britain, but Jim Crow wasn't: the race riot of one night in June 1943

I don't remember ever hearing about this type of incident to this degree.
Broadly I was aware of some mild tensions due to the difference in integration/segregation in the UK compared to the US. But this article speaks on more than 'mild tensions'.

Anyone know much about this, or have strong thoughts?
Was this surprising to those of you who have a background in WW2 history?
Not surprising at all. Jim Crow laws in the US and in our military were in full march back then. So white US troops were not ready or pleased when they possibly had to share areas in theaters, or anywhere, with blacks. In many US states at that time there were separate white/black theaters, stores, etc. Instead of just segregated areas in on place.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I knew that the US troops were segregated from an anecdote my grandmother told. Soldiers were quartered in her house and she had to serve food in the dining room for the whites while the blacks had to eat in the kitchen. While the Nazies were pretty racist and she only knew the propaganda, never having seen a live African herself, she couldn't understand why soldiers who did the same work were segregated by race (segregation by rank would have been perfectly fine). She made sure the blacks got more and better food (while getting that for herself and her children, too).

I laughed when reading the linked article at this...

According to the author Anthony Burgess, who spent time in Bamber Bridge during the war, when US military authorities demanded that the town’s pubs impose a colour bar, the landlords responded with signs that read: “Black Troops Only”.

It's times like these I remember where a lot of Aussie humour originated from.
Not that we didn't have our own racial issues...we absolutely did and still do. But this response is pretty much what would happen here if foreign troops made that sort of demand.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Not surprising at all. Jim Crow laws in the US and in our military were in full march back then. So white US troops were not ready or pleased when they possibly had to share areas in theaters, or anywhere, with blacks. In many US states at that time there were separate white/black theaters, stores, etc. Instead of just segregated areas in on place.

I had mistakenly assumed there was some level of exception to fighting men.
I've heard Aboriginal men discuss their experience with the Australian Army, and one of the things they found hardest was;

1) treated like crap by society.
2) go and fight, and suddenly get treated fairly, whilst risking your life.
3) come back to Australia and get treated like crap again.

I know the US was next level due to Jim Crow, but I'd assumed (wrongly it seems) that in a general sense that experience for black soldiers would be somewhat universal.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Not surprised. And we definitely are not taught stuff like that in school here.
In his essays George Orwell alluded to the oft-quoted assertion that American GIs were “oversexed, overpaid and over here”. But he qualified this with the observation that: “the general consensus of opinion is that the only American soldiers with decent manners are Negroes.”
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not really looking for debate, but this seems like the right place for this.
I was just reading the linked article (The Conversation is a site I regularly flick through) as I have a particular interest in WW2.

Black troops were welcome in Britain, but Jim Crow wasn't: the race riot of one night in June 1943

I don't remember ever hearing about this type of incident to this degree.
Broadly I was aware of some mild tensions due to the difference in integration/segregation in the UK compared to the US. But this article speaks on more than 'mild tensions'.

Anyone know much about this, or have strong thoughts?
Was this surprising to those of you who have a background in WW2 history?

I had read about this many years ago, but it seemed played down. The article seemed more detailed.

Truman ordered the military to be de-segregated after WW2, although I've read that there were instances of US black and white troops fighting side by side in WW2 before it was officially proclaimed.

Of course, there was a great deal of racism within the U.S., so it's no surprise that this would have been reflected in the attitudes of the government and military at the time. But not everyone held that view. Things were changing, and WW2 itself was a major impetus for most of the social changes which would take place in the ensuing decades (although progress halted somewhere in the 70s and we've been in a bit of a stagnant phase ever since).

The article did come across as a bit lopsided. Not everyone in the U.S. military was a racist, and I find it difficult to believe that everyone in Britain was as tolerant and open-minded as presented in the article.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
“oversexed, overpaid and over here”

In response to this, someone wrote about the British troops: "Undersexed, underpaid, and under Eisenhower."
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
In response to this, someone wrote about the British troops: "Undersexed, underpaid, and under Eisenhower."

A fair response, but having US troops on domestic soil to help with a war we'd been fighting for years is kinda different.

And speaking for Australia, at least, the US got a HUGE amount of goodwill from their involvement in WW2 and their presence in Australia.

The entire basis of our defence policy swung from a UK to a US sphere, and the general attitude of the public towards America was positive as a result.

It was a bit of a culture clash though.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I had read about this many years ago, but it seemed played down. The article seemed more detailed.

Truman ordered the military to be de-segregated after WW2, although I've read that there were instances of US black and white troops fighting side by side in WW2 before it was officially proclaimed.

Of course, there was a great deal of racism within the U.S., so it's no surprise that this would have been reflected in the attitudes of the government and military at the time. But not everyone held that view. Things were changing, and WW2 itself was a major impetus for most of the social changes which would take place in the ensuing decades (although progress halted somewhere in the 70s and we've been in a bit of a stagnant phase ever since).

The article did come across as a bit lopsided. Not everyone in the U.S. military was a racist, and I find it difficult to believe that everyone in Britain was as tolerant and open-minded as presented in the article.

Well...again if I use Australia as an analogue...

Our society was...and still is...racist in many ways. And lots of people are racist.

I think the point of the article was more around the impact of putting US men with varied backgrounds into a non-segregated society, and the impact that had.

British attitudes varied of course. But British laws were less restrictive towards coloured people.
 
Top