That's because I am still looking for my copies of these books. However, I did read them, which is more than you can honestly say.
Both your estimates and sources are vague and unspecific.
We'll get back to this point later.
Your extreme reluctance to provide better numbers also suggests that you are using this vagueness to hide something.
Or it suggests that I can't find the books in question. But if you want to be a jerk about it, I could say that your reluctance to check the citations I gave you suggests that you don't care about the truth.
Even with the fall of Vichy, the largest and most important FFL African forces were already formed. They came from the aforementioned non-Muslim colonies where De Gualle based his operations.
Since you're making claims about the number of troops recruited from specific colonies, you must have some sources about the FFL's African troop strength. What are they?
You are correct that they are from 60 years later, but they nonetheless indicate the approximate breakdowns of the countries in question.
I gave a citation and an approximate breakdown and you derided both as "vague and unspecific". I can say the same thing about your use of contemporary CIA Factbook data in a discussion of WW2. In addition to being a "vague and unspecific" source and estimate with regards to demographics two generations past, your "approximate breakdown" is also ahistorical.
As several of my prior posts indicated, I chose the term "voodoo" to signify the hundreds of small tribal and pagan religions that are practiced in sub-saharan west africa. There isn't really any single name that fits them all,
The CIA Factbook uses "animist" or "indigenous beliefs" and you use the CIA Factbook's numbers. Why are the numbers good enough for you (ahistorical as they are) but the categories they describe aren't? You're playing fast and loose with the facts.
You're also playing fast and loose with the numbers. In your post #200 you said that Cameroon's Muslim population "is in the 15% range" -- a phrase that you don't use in any other citations from the CIA Factbook. Why is that? Well, perhaps it's because the CIA Factbook doesn't give those numbers it puts the number of Cameroonian Muslims at 20% of the total population. You've got some 'splainin to do.
The voodoo designation itself derives from the fact that modern Voodoo proper - if it can even be called such a thing - of the type they practice in Haiti derived directly from the various practices of those same tribal and pagan religions in west Africa, where the slave ships to Haiti originated.
All the more reason why you shouldn't use the term to describe non-Vodoun (or "voodoo," if you insist) faiths that are not in West Africa. Just because you would prefer that a word have different meaning doesn't mean it does. I believe we went over this issue before and you have yet to produce any sources that are "reliable by any academic standard" that agree with your definition of the term in question being a religious slur but not a racial one.
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
Or it suggests that I can't find the books in question.
If you conducted yourself more honestly in other parts of this discussion I might be inclined to believe your excuse. But you already have a track record.
Not really. My copy (1995 ed) lists Cameroon's muslim population at 15.8%. Are you saying in a more recent edition that they've grown to 20%? If so, fine by me. Use 20% for all I care, which also demonstrates my previous point about muslim populations in those countries growing right now, meaning they were likely LOWER during WWII. Of course the point is that Cameroon is nowhere even remotely near a muslim-majority nation, and thus would not have supplied predominantly muslim toops to the FFL.