Hello Andy,
The French unit involved is the 25e RTS. The regiment contains Europeans and Senegalese troops, it should theoretically not contain Morrocans.
On this webstite in French you can see small maps and a small photo of the monastry :
http://www.farac.org/php/article.php3?id_article=70
Regards,
David
German warcrimes in France in 1940
Bonjour à tousDavid Lehmann wrote:Hello Andy,
The French unit involved is the 25e RTS. The regiment contains Europeans and Senegalese troops, it should theoretically not contain Morrocans.
On this webstite in French you can see small maps and a small photo of the monastry :
http://www.farac.org/php/article.php3?id_article=70
Regards,
David
In fact ,France was ,sometimes , not very grateful for Black soldiers who fought and died bravely for her.
Here is abrief translation of that event :
Liberated France slaughters senegalese soldiers at Thiaroye (Senegal)
(sorry for my laborious english )
" in November 45 , Senegalese soldiers recently repatriated from ETO or freed from POW camps are gathered in barracks near Dakar (at that time Senegal was a french colony ) ,they hold a angry demonstration for their outstanding pay. Afternight , French army bombs and machineguns the camp causing more than 100 deads. Survivors and wounded are jailed for sedition....................
La France libérée massacre les tirailleurs sénégalais à Thiaroye
En novembre 1945, des tirailleurs africains démobilisés, certains libérés des camps de prisonniers allemands, débarquent à Dakar et sont rassemblés au camp de Thiaroye à quelques kilomètres de la capitale. Mais ils attendent de recevoir les arriérés de leur solde et de pouvoir échanger les Mark allemands touchés pendant la captivité. En France, malgré leurs réclamations, on le leur avait refusé sous divers prétextes, et on leur avait promis que tout se ferait au Sénégal.
Ne voyant rien venir, les tirailleurs manifestent dans le camp et obligent un gradé à signer une déclaration promettant de leur payer leur solde. Le général est relaché et l’agitation se calme. La nuit suivante, le 1er décembre 1945, l’armée française bombarde et mitraille le camp faisant plus de cent morts parmi les anciens soldats. Les survivants et blessés sont jetés en prison, certains seront jugés et emprisonnés pour sédition. En France personne, mis à part Léopold Sedar Senghor et Lamine Gueye, ne dénoncera ce massacre.
À
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
David Lehmann appears to be saying that the prejudice against the use of non-European colonial troops in Europe aggainst European enemies was somehow peculiar to the Germans.
That is a distortion of history.
All the major colonial powers, Britain, France, the Netherlands, maintained large colonial forces recruited from the native populations of their colonies. Germany also had its "Askaris" in its African colonies Tanganyika and Cameroon.
Britain in particular had a very large Indian Army recruited from some of the most warlike races on the face of the Earth, such as the Sikhs, Rajputs, Pathans and Gurkhas.
However, the convention maintained by all the colonial powers was that their colonial forces were only to be used in the colonies and against non-White enemies. The idea of bringing non-European colonial troops to Europe to fight against other White men was considered absolutely anathema, and an affront to the superiority of the European peoples and their civilisation, which at that time was believed in by all Europeans, not only Germans.
An example of the working of the convention is provided by the Boer War. Although the war was not going well for the British, and huge casualties were being inflicted by Boer mobile forces, the British Government did not consider deploying its huge Indian Army in South Africa in order to achieve victory. Such a move was deemed unthinkable.
The war in South Africa, by tacit agreement by both sides, was to remain a "White Man's war", without the use of non-White troops. Britain used colonial troops, but only those drawn from the European populations of colonies like Australia.
France was the first colonial power to break the tacit convention by bringing non-White colonial troops into Europe in the First World War to fight against another European people. That was considered absolutely outrageous by the Germans, and regarded as a betrayal of the concept of the superiority of the European peoples.
Even the British considered it "not cricket", even though under the circumstances they did not criticise their French ally. Britain, for example, did not bring its Indian Army into Europe in a combat role; it only used it against Ottoman forces in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Non-Europeans were only used in Europe by Britain in a non-combat role, eg the Chinese labourers from Hong Kong.
As a matter of fact, Germany did deploy its African askaris in Tanganyika against an invading South African force, which was also considered "not cricket" by the British. However, that was in a colonial location, not in Europe.
After the First World War, German opinion was further outraged by the French use of non-European colonial troops in its occupation of the Ruhr in 1923. That move caused disquiet among Europeans generally.
At the beginning of the Second World War, Britain maintained the convention against bringing non-White troops into Europe. It did bring some units of the Indian Army into France in 1940, but they were non-combat troops, muleteers.
France however continued to break the convention, again shipping in native troops from Africa to use in combat against the Germans.
It is noteworthy that the United States maintained the convention well into the Second World War. Its large numbers of coloured troops were used primarily in a non-combat, auxiliary role; indeed the great majority of the personnel of the supply corps was coloured.
To be sure some coloured combat formations were established, such as fighter squadrons, but they were only agreed to after extensive lobbying, and were very much the exception to the rule.
That is a distortion of history.
All the major colonial powers, Britain, France, the Netherlands, maintained large colonial forces recruited from the native populations of their colonies. Germany also had its "Askaris" in its African colonies Tanganyika and Cameroon.
Britain in particular had a very large Indian Army recruited from some of the most warlike races on the face of the Earth, such as the Sikhs, Rajputs, Pathans and Gurkhas.
However, the convention maintained by all the colonial powers was that their colonial forces were only to be used in the colonies and against non-White enemies. The idea of bringing non-European colonial troops to Europe to fight against other White men was considered absolutely anathema, and an affront to the superiority of the European peoples and their civilisation, which at that time was believed in by all Europeans, not only Germans.
An example of the working of the convention is provided by the Boer War. Although the war was not going well for the British, and huge casualties were being inflicted by Boer mobile forces, the British Government did not consider deploying its huge Indian Army in South Africa in order to achieve victory. Such a move was deemed unthinkable.
The war in South Africa, by tacit agreement by both sides, was to remain a "White Man's war", without the use of non-White troops. Britain used colonial troops, but only those drawn from the European populations of colonies like Australia.
France was the first colonial power to break the tacit convention by bringing non-White colonial troops into Europe in the First World War to fight against another European people. That was considered absolutely outrageous by the Germans, and regarded as a betrayal of the concept of the superiority of the European peoples.
Even the British considered it "not cricket", even though under the circumstances they did not criticise their French ally. Britain, for example, did not bring its Indian Army into Europe in a combat role; it only used it against Ottoman forces in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Non-Europeans were only used in Europe by Britain in a non-combat role, eg the Chinese labourers from Hong Kong.
As a matter of fact, Germany did deploy its African askaris in Tanganyika against an invading South African force, which was also considered "not cricket" by the British. However, that was in a colonial location, not in Europe.
After the First World War, German opinion was further outraged by the French use of non-European colonial troops in its occupation of the Ruhr in 1923. That move caused disquiet among Europeans generally.
At the beginning of the Second World War, Britain maintained the convention against bringing non-White troops into Europe. It did bring some units of the Indian Army into France in 1940, but they were non-combat troops, muleteers.
France however continued to break the convention, again shipping in native troops from Africa to use in combat against the Germans.
It is noteworthy that the United States maintained the convention well into the Second World War. Its large numbers of coloured troops were used primarily in a non-combat, auxiliary role; indeed the great majority of the personnel of the supply corps was coloured.
To be sure some coloured combat formations were established, such as fighter squadrons, but they were only agreed to after extensive lobbying, and were very much the exception to the rule.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
The French text contains an item regarding the clash between the Grossdeutschland Division and French troops at Montluzin on 19 June 1940 that may explain some of the German savagery:
That shows that there was no German policy of killing African POWs.
Another point. The passage posted by Lavella shows that Senegalese troops had returned from German POW camps, ie they had survived five years of captivity in German hands.L’officier allemand, agitant un drapeau blanc sur l’automitrailleuse de tête, est abattu par l’adjudant Requier.
A German officer, waving a white flag on the armoured car at the head, is shot down by Adjutant Requier.
That shows that there was no German policy of killing African POWs.
michael mills wrote: Even the British considered it "not cricket", even though under the circumstances they did not criticise their French ally. Britain, for example, did not bring its Indian Army into Europe in a combat role; it only used it against Ottoman forces in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Non-Europeans were only used in Europe by Britain in a non-combat role, eg the Chinese labourers from Hong Kong.
Refer here for the Indian Corps in France:the high level of illness due to the colder climate meant its withdrawal from the Western Front by 1916.
http://www.indiaman.com/book_details/4214.htm
The supposed conventionyou refer to was overtaken by the reality of total war.
More rascism in 1914--how dare they use Russian Mongols against the centre of European civilisation.From mockery in 1914 to excessive hatred in 1940.
- Attachments
-
- Mongol.jpg (29.34 KiB) Viewed 2172 times
-
David Lehmann
- Member
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 11:50
- Location: France
David Lehmann tries to remain on the topic "German war crimes in France in 1940" and tried to give several documented examples of executions of colonial POWs. Nothing more, nothing less, without political agenda or other aims.David Lehmann appears to be saying that the prejudice against the use of non-European colonial troops in Europe aggainst European enemies was somehow peculiar to the Germans.
Ignoring the German propaganda during WW1, the 20's and in 1940 would be ignoring part of the facts.
Of course and it lasted in 1940 ...That was considered absolutely outrageous by the Germans, and regarded as a betrayal of the concept of the superiority of the European peoples.
Sure, this has IMHO nothing to do with a so-called convention but with the racial segregation in the USA at that time. There were already "coloured" NCOs and officers in the French army in 1939/1940, in combat units. There were also mixed regiments not 100% white and in other units 100% "coloured".It is noteworthy that the United States maintained the convention well into the Second World War. Its large numbers of coloured troops were used primarily in a non-combat, auxiliary role; indeed the great majority of the personnel of the supply corps was coloured. To be sure some coloured combat formations were established, such as fighter squadrons, but they were only agreed to after extensive lobbying, and were very much the exception to the rule.
Yes there were black POWs who came back for sure ! There were also Jews surviving to the death camps, in no way such an example is an evidence that there were no murders. I did not write that there was a holocaust against black POWs in the camps !That shows that there was no German policy of killing African POWs.
Again, there was apparently a policy of being "harsh" with the black troops and they were not considered as ordinary troops and sometimes not as human beings, according to what I can read and the sources I mentioned.
There were more than 1000 KIA in the 25e RTS, including more than 100 POWs executed.
The episode with the "white flag" would eventually explain a very local reaction, probably not the hunt for black troops in many villages in the area and the murder of more than 100 POWs.
The French troops were perhaps also not prone to be confident in the Germans waving white flags. Of course the 25e RTS was probably not aware of that, but in several occasions German soldiers used white flags before opening fire like on 15th June against remnants of the 41e BCC (war diary of the 41e BCC), they used also POWs pushed in front of them to force other French troops to surrender (can be red in Roger Bruge's books at least in 1 or 2 examples). There were Germans wearing civilian clothes sometimes mixed in the refugees columns (ex : 2 Germans, armed with pistols and with a radio in Saumur mentioned by Patrick de Gmeline - it was not ONLY a paranoia) or Germans wearing French uniforms like for example in the area of Sedan (see the books of Bernard Horen, Berben & Iselin, Montherlant, Guillemin etc.). These men were used to seize bridges or to give false informations (ex : the bridge at Omicourt on 14th May : 20 men are ordered to move to the bridge to defend it. An "French" colonel of an engineer unit is on the bridge, telling them that he is in charge of the bridge. Suddenly the man disappeared in the German lines and was replaced by German armored cars attacking the bridge.). In that case it may be only a German from the AA endorsing a French unirform. One possibility is also that these men in French uniforms were more generally from the 3rd battalion of the GD (Garsky), who previously took part in operation Niwy. It seems the battalion contained many former students who spoke well French ... but of course that's going off topic and about German special operations in 1940, sorry.
David
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
It appears that I was mistaken about the British use of the Indian Army during the First World War.
But that simply means that Britain also broke the tacit convention on not using non-European colonial troops in Europe against a European enemy, which it had maintained during the Boer War.
It may well be that the veil of silence drawn over the fate of the captured Senegalese during and after the Second World War resulted from the residual operation of the convention. There may have been a feeling that the French had done something a bit naughty in bringing non-European troops to Europe to fight against Germans, and therefore the less said about it the better.
But that simply means that Britain also broke the tacit convention on not using non-European colonial troops in Europe against a European enemy, which it had maintained during the Boer War.
It may well be that the veil of silence drawn over the fate of the captured Senegalese during and after the Second World War resulted from the residual operation of the convention. There may have been a feeling that the French had done something a bit naughty in bringing non-European troops to Europe to fight against Germans, and therefore the less said about it the better.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Fear of the "Yellow Peril" was by no means limited to Germany, as I am sure PeterH well knows.More rascism in 1914--how dare they use Russian Mongols against the centre of European civilisation.From mockery in 1914 to excessive hatred in 1940.
The contemporary Australian fear of Japanese was at least as great, and lives on in some of the attitudes of some of the posters in this forum.
That statement does not make sense.michael mills wrote:But that simply means that Britain also broke the tacit convention on not using non-European colonial troops in Europe against a European enemy, which it had maintained during the Boer War.
If it were to make sense, it would simply mean that the Germans broke the 'tacit convention on not using non-European colonial troops in Europe against a European enemy' first by using Askaris in East Africa against British forces, since both East Africa and South Africa are equal in their relation to Europe.
More likely it means there was no such tacit convention, and therefore nobody broke anything. Do you have any references for the existence of such a convention?
The British also used Indian Army formations in North Africa, East Africa (IIRC) and Italy in WW2.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Andreas,
During the First World War, German East Africa (= modern Tanzania) was invaded by British troops, consisting of European settlers from South Africa (and perhaps also Kenya).
The German administration opposed the invasion with native African Askaris, since it did not have a force of German soldiers at its disposal.
The German use of native soldiers against the White soldiers of its British opponent was considered bad form by the British, particularly as they scored victories against the invading South African force.
When I use the term "European", I include settlers of European descent (ie "Whites") in places like South Africa, Kenya and Australia.
Nevertheless, Germany had abided by the convention that non-European troops should only be used in colonial wars, against native peoples, and not brought to Europe to be used against European opponents.
It should be noted that all the European imperialist powers took the tacit position that the accepted rules of war applicable to European opponents did not apply in colonial warfare against native peoples. For that reason, any methods could be used in such warfare, including for example the use of dum-dum ammunition.
As an example, after the battle of Omdurman in 1898, parties of British troops scoured the battlefield summarily executing wounded Mahdists. Such behaviour would have been considered inexusable against a European opponent.
The behaviour of German forces in 1940 against non-European troops in the French forces appears to mirror the general attitude to warfare outside Europe against non-European peoples.
During the First World War, German East Africa (= modern Tanzania) was invaded by British troops, consisting of European settlers from South Africa (and perhaps also Kenya).
The German administration opposed the invasion with native African Askaris, since it did not have a force of German soldiers at its disposal.
The German use of native soldiers against the White soldiers of its British opponent was considered bad form by the British, particularly as they scored victories against the invading South African force.
When I use the term "European", I include settlers of European descent (ie "Whites") in places like South Africa, Kenya and Australia.
Nevertheless, Germany had abided by the convention that non-European troops should only be used in colonial wars, against native peoples, and not brought to Europe to be used against European opponents.
It should be noted that all the European imperialist powers took the tacit position that the accepted rules of war applicable to European opponents did not apply in colonial warfare against native peoples. For that reason, any methods could be used in such warfare, including for example the use of dum-dum ammunition.
As an example, after the battle of Omdurman in 1898, parties of British troops scoured the battlefield summarily executing wounded Mahdists. Such behaviour would have been considered inexusable against a European opponent.
The behaviour of German forces in 1940 against non-European troops in the French forces appears to mirror the general attitude to warfare outside Europe against non-European peoples.
In the first year of operations Indian troops were mainly deployed by the British.Their failures at Tanga etc meant a South African response in 1916.The high toll from disease(on both men and horses) then meant the main role was taken over by the newly expanded King's African Rifles(black troops) in 1917/18.michael mills wrote:Andreas,
During the First World War, German East Africa (= modern Tanzania) was invaded by British troops, consisting of European settlers from South Africa (and perhaps also Kenya).
The German administration opposed the invasion with native African Askaris, since it did not have a force of German soldiers at its disposal.
The German use of native soldiers against the White soldiers of its British opponent was considered bad form by the British, particularly as they scored victories against the invading South African force.
When I use the term "European", I include settlers of European descent (ie "Whites") in places like South Africa, Kenya and Australia.
Unless you can provide documentary proof,sources on the supposed convention then this can be considered as an opinion post.Nevertheless, Germany had abided by the convention that non-European troops should only be used in colonial wars, against native peoples, and not brought to Europe to be used against European opponents.
It should be noted that all the European imperialist powers took the tacit position that the accepted rules of war applicable to European opponents did not apply in colonial warfare against native peoples. For that reason, any methods could be used in such warfare, including for example the use of dum-dum ammunition.
As an example, after the battle of Omdurman in 1898, parties of British troops scoured the battlefield summarily executing wounded Mahdists. Such behaviour would have been considered inexusable against a European opponent.
The behaviour of German forces in 1940 against non-European troops in the French forces appears to mirror the general attitude to warfare outside Europe against non-European peoples.
Non 'white' troops were not used in previous European wars because either they did not exist at the time(the Franco-Prussian War,the Crimean War) or their equipment levels and training while idea for colonial actions were not adequate against an European equipped opponent(Tanga 1914 showed the inadequacies of the Indian Office army in terms of firepower/skills).
Another example in history when rascist elements of an army are opposed by those they consider of an inferior race:
http://www.answers.com/topic/fort-pillow
-
Loïc
- Member
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
- Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
- Contact:
Re: German warcrimes in France in 1940 Chasselay
Update concerning the Chasselay massacre 19th june 1940 after Julien Fargettas's last book
ordering 48 Senegalese Tirailleurs to flee, the machine guns opened fire and shoot them in the back.
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr ... 43848.html
https://information.tv5monde.com/afriqu ... lay-392370
Until now, the precise circumstances of the Chasselay massacre were rather poorly understood by specialists. And in the absence of compelling evidence, some historians attributed the slaughter to the infamous SS-Totenkopf division. Today, the book by Julien Fargettas, in which the private collector Baptiste Garin collaborated, lifts a corner of the veil on these events thanks in particular to the discovery of the photo album of a German soldier.
The eight pictures contained in the old album bought by Baptiste Garin are to date the only ones known of this tragic episode. In one of these shots, we see a group of Tirailleurs marching along a road with their arms raised, closely followed by armed German soldiers and a tank from the 8th Panzer Regiment. In the foreground, one of the soldiers gives the impression of shouting orders.
The most chilling is undoubtedly this other picture on which we can see the terrified faces of the Senegalese Tirailleurs. And when a corporal in a black panzer uniform orders them to proceed to the field that is just nearby, they are sure to understand that they are going to be shot.
Two other photos showing smoke billowing from the front of the German tanks prove that they fired on the group of Tirailleurs. In fact, all of the bodies, around 40 in total, can be seen in two other photographs.
an album of pictures taken by a german soldier has been discovered recently where 8 pictures have revealed that the both units usually incriminated were not concerned if not the 2 tanks of the 2nd platoon 3rd company 8th regiment of the 10.Panzer-DivisionThe Germans units involved were from the Grossdeutschland regiment and the SS Totenkopf division
ordering 48 Senegalese Tirailleurs to flee, the machine guns opened fire and shoot them in the back.
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr ... 43848.html
https://information.tv5monde.com/afriqu ... lay-392370
Until now, the precise circumstances of the Chasselay massacre were rather poorly understood by specialists. And in the absence of compelling evidence, some historians attributed the slaughter to the infamous SS-Totenkopf division. Today, the book by Julien Fargettas, in which the private collector Baptiste Garin collaborated, lifts a corner of the veil on these events thanks in particular to the discovery of the photo album of a German soldier.
The eight pictures contained in the old album bought by Baptiste Garin are to date the only ones known of this tragic episode. In one of these shots, we see a group of Tirailleurs marching along a road with their arms raised, closely followed by armed German soldiers and a tank from the 8th Panzer Regiment. In the foreground, one of the soldiers gives the impression of shouting orders.
The most chilling is undoubtedly this other picture on which we can see the terrified faces of the Senegalese Tirailleurs. And when a corporal in a black panzer uniform orders them to proceed to the field that is just nearby, they are sure to understand that they are going to be shot.
Two other photos showing smoke billowing from the front of the German tanks prove that they fired on the group of Tirailleurs. In fact, all of the bodies, around 40 in total, can be seen in two other photographs.