Revealed: How Britons welcomed black soldiers during WWII, fought alongside them against racist GIs

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 6 Dec 2015 | Patrick Sawer

[kearnyirish2]

When the Americans landed in French North Africa in Operation Torch, they were shot down by French troops (and not just one officer, as the myth is pushed in “The Big Red One”). The US was going to drag France into the war whether they wanted it or not.

After 1941, when the US was allied with Stalin, all illusions disappeared for Europeans; two devils were at war (Stalin & Hitler), and the US happened to support the former. To get a real picture of WWII, speak to the people that lived there. In the end, the reason France & Britain declared war (Poland’s independence) was thrown by the wayside, and Churchill seemed to be the only one incensed by it - his troops had died for nothing.

[Mollypitcher1]

Hold on there! Let’s get a few facts straight. The Americans under Patton landed in Casablanca and the Brits went ashore in Algeria. Operation Torch was a two prong invasion. Neither army walked ashore, but due to extensive efforts made by the Allies prior to Torch, there was some cooperation from the French which avoided a bloodbath on either side. I would suggest you read up on Operation Flagpole in which Mark Clark(2nd to Eisenhower)and a mall group of his officers, was put ashore from a Btitish submarine not far from Algiers to have a secret meeting with important French officers and civilians prior to operation Torch. At that meeting the Allies received a great deal of very useful information, possible landing sites, defenses, etc. The U.S. certainly did not drag France into the war because France had signed an Armistice with Hitler on June 22, 1940. Operation Torch (November 8, 1942) was the result of an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt (against the advice of Gen. Marshall who wanted to land on the coast of France)to strike North Africa first, thereby enabling the future strike against— as Churchill put it,— “The Soft Underbelly of Europe.” (Sicily, and on to Italy).
Operation Torch was the answer to Stalin’s pleading with the Allies to open a Second Front which would force Hitler to fight two wars at the same time. The Ribbentrop - Molotov Agreement which was a pact between Hitler and Stalin to not attack each other (signed in August, 1939) which Hitler had broken when he invaded Russia, (Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941)changed the name of the game for Russia. From being a non aggressor to Hitler, they became an Ally. Take a strong look at the timeline and you should see that your statement that “all illusions disappeared for Europeans” is totally unfounded.

I have a real picture of World War II, both personally and educationally. YOU seem to have a lopsided anti-American view which is not only ill-founded, but smacks of propaganda. I’d suggest you do a lot of research.

[kearnyirish2]

I don’t have an anti-American view; I just refuse to pretend France was an “ally”. They did learn from the “Great War” (the war to end all wars); it was a waste of millions of lives. For all of your facts and figures, you don’t dispute the fact that French troops machine-gunned American soldiers landing in North Africa - because you can’t.

To this day European pacifism is rooted more in WWI than in WWII (which was just a continuation of the same). France was executing soldiers in 1917 because the soldiers knew their lives were being thrown away; WWII vindicated them. Again, in the end, the goal of France/Britain (preserving Polish independence) was never realized. For our part, we saved Stalin so we could fight wars later in Korea and Vietnam with the seeds he sowed.

[PotatoHeadMick]

“He had one creed, do not move until you have overwhelming odds in your favor. His pursuit of Rommel was a perfect example of his fear to engage the enemy in a running battle.”

I agree with a lot of what you say about Montgomery but in the circumstances of the time I don’t think the above statement, which is correct, is necessarily a criticism.

Too often in the past the Brits had gone haring off on some half-assed wild expedition, that was badly prepared and poorly planned, and invariably they got seven shades of excrement knocked out of them. Norway, Greece and Crete showed what happened when you hadn’t got all your ducks in a row before you start shooting.

Montgomery recognised that and absolutely refused, despite Churchill’s increasing exasperation, to move until he had amassed an overwhelming advantage (as you rightly point out a lot of the credit for setting this in train is due to his able predecessors who were treated shabbily). This was the correct course of action given the standard of troops Monty had at his disposal.

This is no criticism of the British Army but by the middle of the war the British infantry was definitely suckling at the hind teat when it came to manpower. The brightest and the best were in the Navy and Air Force and this is shown by the relative aggression and success of those two arms, while the poor bloody infantry was making do with whatever was left. I remember reading somewhere that at the time of crisis in North Africa there was something like 10,000 RAF ground crew alone in Cairo, given how thin the British line was stretched this gives you an idea of the relative merit the army was receiving.

Blitzkrieg suited the Germans, their tail was up, they figured they were the best, they could whup anybody and the facts supported that. The British Army on the other hand had suffered a never-ending line of disasters and defeats and seemed to lack confidence in its abilities.

Montgomery went some way to changing that by boosting morale, that is where the British affection for him comes from, but he knew they hadn’t the heart for the fast-paced Blitzkrieg style fighting the Germans were masters of. He knew that unless he went in swinging with a ponderous great sledgehammer at the enemy’s front door he wasn’t going to get anywhere because he knew what the materials were that he had to work with.

It is no surprise that when Monty did need speed and aggression he relied on the Aussies, New Zealanders and South Africans who were a breed apart from the regular British infantry.