Liverpool FC Forum

Top · by **tubby** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:46 pm

I believe there were even a few brits who fought for the Nazis towards the end when the Russians entered Germany. They were deserters made up of British POWS's.

Top · by **tubby** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:47 pm

heimdall wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
JBG wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Madmax wrote:I quite liked how jack straw and that indian lady stated how other ethnics joined forces and died for this country in WW2. Griffins response was my daddy was there where was yours (jacks) loool..

Unfortunately, Straw and that "Indian lady" need to go back and read up on both wars just to find out how absurd their efforts were at trying to fool a modern audience into thinking that the makeup of Allied forces were a multiracial boiling pot of harmony fighting for the good of everyone.

It's absolute bollox.

Both the British and American forces in WWII were incredibly racist institutions and practiced segregation. Even white Quebecer French suffered racial abuse when they were stationed in England with Bomber Command.

My dad was based in Aldershot during the war at a Canadian camp and said that French Canadians were treated very differently than other Canadians...and you wouldn't have seen a black face for miles.

I have to say, I am truely sick of this false impression of the Second World War that's bounced around these days, whenever race is mentioned.

NO Allied Nations went into that war on a platform of fighting for racial harmony.

The ONLY Allied Nation that didn't have strict regualtions on its racial and sexual makeup was the U.S.S.R.

...And to see Jack Straw, a man instumental in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on absolute lies, try to highjack the Second World War for his own grubby little political ends was sickening.

Correct and well said, although the French had north and west African troops, although I agree with your point 100%.

And by and large, the Armée de Terre treated those colonial troops like merde.

Apart from the famous "French Foreign Legion", which in fact was made up of mostly whites, the Colonials were very much second line bullet fodder for the most part. Ill equipped and segregated.

Besides, ALL of the major combatant Nations made use of Colonial troops during the war. There was nothing "honourable" about it, or racially harmonious either. Nazi Germany raised Foreign divisions that made use of coloured soldiers too.

The Nazi army had coloured soldiers! I find that very hard to beleive as it would go very much against the Nazi ideology, do you have any facts on that.

In any case you are missing the point a bit i think. The BNP is hijacking WW2 to claim that it was only the whites against the Nazis when there were many many coloured troops also fighting the Nazis, whether they were treated the same as "inigenous" troops is kind of irrelevant. Back in those days racisim was far more widespread, and thank goodness we have come a long way since then, in part due to victory in WW2.

Not sure about colored but they had some from asia I think and from Africa too, in the Wermacht anyway.

Top · by **woof woof !** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:41 pm

Not sure about colored but they had some from asia I think and from Africa too, in the Wermacht anyway

When they were running short of manpower the Nazis raised a Muslim SS division"

from Wiki
The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) was one of the thirty-eight divisions fielded as part of the Waffen-SS during World War II. The majority of its recruits were Bosniaks (90%) and Croats (10%). Handschar (Bosnian/Croatian: Handžar) was the local word for the Turkish scimitar a historical symbol of Bosnia and Islam. An image of the Handschar adorned the division's flag and coat of arms.

The Handschar division was a mountain infantry formation, the equivalent of the German "Gebirgsjäger" (Mountain troops) units. It was used to conduct operations against Yugoslav Partisans in the Independent State of Croatia from February to September 1944.

"Himmler convinced himself that Balkan Muslims were neither Slavs nor Turks, but were really Aryans who had adopted Islam." (Source: "SS: Hell on the Western Front. The Waffen SS in Europe 1940-1945", 2003. p. 70). He believed the Muslims of Bosnia to be the same, racially, as the Croatians, and saw the Croatians as descended of Gothic and Persian stock. See also Iranian theory about descent of Croats

SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and SS Brigadefuhrer Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig during an inspection of Waffen SS Division Handschar (Handzar) aka. Scimitar, Sarajevo, 1943

Top · by **woof woof !** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:51 pm

tonyeh wrote:the French had north and west African troops, ........
.......And by and large, the Armée de Terre treated those colonial troops like merde.

An interesting perspective on this is a french movie that came out a year or so ago called "Days of Glory". It's focus is the experience of north africans (algerian and moroccan) who volunteered to fight for France in WW2, they were indeed treated like sh'it.

ps, history lesson aside , it's a pretty good war movie .

Top · by **JBG** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:10 pm

I appreciate what Bav and others have said about colonial troops but the reality is that colonial troops played a tiny part - at best - in bringing down Hitler. The majority of colonial troops were deployed in North Africa and Italy and many, particularly the Australians, acquited themselves extremely well. However, the bulk of the British troops in those theatres were from the British homelands and the Mediterranean theatre was a side show in the real battle against Hitler which was on the Eastern Front and in the West after D-Day.

Top · by **Reg** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:10 pm

Germany had 800,000 'other' nationality soldiers in the Soviet campaign alone - Romanian, Italian etc.. they considered them totally useless.

Top · by **JBG** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:15 pm

Reg wrote:Germany had 800,000 'other' nationality soldiers in the Soviet campaign alone - Romanian, Italian etc.. they considered them totally useless.

Those were still nominally under their own command, not part of the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS.

As Woof mentioned earlier the Germans, particularly after 1943, started to recruit from occupied countries, such as Norway, France, Belgium, Holland and Denmark and even Bosnia. Most joined the SS, such as the SS Viking Division, and many were fanatical fighters as many volunteered for idealogical reasons. Some of the last defenders in Berlin - and among the most fanatical, were a group of French SS.

Top · by **Reg** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:39 pm

Fair enough but those overseas German units would have been fairly insignificant in number compared to the 800,000 fighting alongside zee germans. The russians focused their drive breaking out of Stalingrad through the Romanian and Italian sectors that ultimately encircled the germans. The Germans were totally :censored:

off having to constantly reinforce those lines and repell soviet breakthroughs.

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:10 am

heimdall wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
JBG wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Madmax wrote:I quite liked how jack straw and that indian lady stated how other ethnics joined forces and died for this country in WW2. Griffins response was my daddy was there where was yours (jacks) loool..

Unfortunately, Straw and that "Indian lady" need to go back and read up on both wars just to find out how absurd their efforts were at trying to fool a modern audience into thinking that the makeup of Allied forces were a multiracial boiling pot of harmony fighting for the good of everyone.

It's absolute bollox.

Both the British and American forces in WWII were incredibly racist institutions and practiced segregation. Even white Quebecer French suffered racial abuse when they were stationed in England with Bomber Command.

My dad was based in Aldershot during the war at a Canadian camp and said that French Canadians were treated very differently than other Canadians...and you wouldn't have seen a black face for miles.

I have to say, I am truely sick of this false impression of the Second World War that's bounced around these days, whenever race is mentioned.

NO Allied Nations went into that war on a platform of fighting for racial harmony.

The ONLY Allied Nation that didn't have strict regualtions on its racial and sexual makeup was the U.S.S.R.

...And to see Jack Straw, a man instumental in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on absolute lies, try to highjack the Second World War for his own grubby little political ends was sickening.

Correct and well said, although the French had north and west African troops, although I agree with your point 100%.

And by and large, the Armée de Terre treated those colonial troops like merde.

Apart from the famous "French Foreign Legion", which in fact was made up of mostly whites, the Colonials were very much second line bullet fodder for the most part. Ill equipped and segregated.

Besides, ALL of the major combatant Nations made use of Colonial troops during the war. There was nothing "honourable" about it, or racially harmonious either. Nazi Germany raised Foreign divisions that made use of coloured soldiers too.

The Nazi army had coloured soldiers! I find that very hard to beleive as it would go very much against the Nazi ideology, do you have any facts on that.

In any case you are missing the point a bit i think. The BNP is hijacking WW2 to claim that it was only the whites against the Nazis when there were many many coloured troops also fighting the Nazis, whether they were treated the same as "inigenous" troops is kind of irrelevant. Back in those days racisim was far more widespread, and thank goodness we have come a long way since then, in part due to victory in WW2.

There was no firm "Nazi ideology" regarding blacks.

The racial ideology of the National Socialists was generally confined to the Eastern Nations (Jews aside).

In fact there were about 200.000 black Germans living in Germany during the Nazi era. Many of which suffered no ill treatment because of their race.

In fact, quite a few recieved call up papers.

Many blacks served in the Freies Arabien Korps.

That's not to say of course that the general view of blacks was any different to other nations at the time. They were viewed as second class citizens because of their colour. But no more so than if they were walking down Picadilly Circus or Times Square.

Hans Joachim Marseilles, who flew for JG27 in North Africa had a friend of his called Mathias, who was Black and was Marseille's "batman". He became a good luck mascot of the Geschwader (Squadron). Wnen Marseilles was killed and JG27 returned to Germany, Mathias returned with them and remained there until he died.

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:12 am

bavlondon wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Madmax wrote:I quite liked how jack straw and that indian lady stated how other ethnics joined forces and died for this country in WW2. Griffins response was my daddy was there where was yours (jacks) loool..

Unfortunately, Straw and that "Indian lady" need to go back and read up on both wars just to find out how absurd their efforts were at trying to fool a modern audience into thinking that the makeup of Allied forces were a multiracial boiling pot of harmony fighting for the good of everyone.

It's absolute bollox.

Both the British and American forces in WWII were incredibly racist institutions and practiced segregation. Even white Quebecer French suffered racial abuse when they were stationed in England with Bomber Command.

My dad was based in Aldershot during the war at a Canadian camp and said that French Canadians were treated very differently than other Canadians...and you wouldn't have seen a black face for miles.

I have to say, I am truely sick of this false impression of the Second World War that's bounced around these days, whenever race is mentioned.

NO Allied Nations went into that war on a platform of fighting for racial harmony.

The ONLY Allied Nation that didn't have strict regualtions on its racial and sexual makeup was the U.S.S.R.

...And to see Jack Straw, a man instumental in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on absolute lies, try to highjack the Second World War for his own grubby little political ends was sickening.

I think your the one who needs to maybe do some homework.

Guess again...

:;):

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:16 am

bavlondon wrote:I believe there were even a few brits who fought for the Nazis towards the end when the Russians entered Germany. They were deserters made up of British POWS's.

Yes, they were called the Britisches Freikorps (British Free Corps). But they amounted to little more than a publicity stunt.

Either way the war was over by the time they actually did anything.

John Amery, it's head, was executed after the war.

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:19 am

woof woof ! wrote:
tonyeh wrote:the French had north and west African troops, ........
.......And by and large, the Armée de Terre treated those colonial troops like merde.

An interesting perspective on this is a french movie that came out a year or so ago called "Days of Glory". It's focus is the experience of north africans (algerian and moroccan) who volunteered to fight for France in WW2, they were indeed treated like sh'it.

ps, history lesson aside , it's a pretty good war movie .

I've seen Woof, but I thought it was quite boring in too many places and it ended with the obligatory Hollywood shootout, where the heroes take on larger numbers of German troops...and (shock horror) win!

Plus, that title...ugh.

It's not bad, but it would have been far better if it had abandoned the Hollywood take on things.

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:26 am

Reg wrote:Germany had 800,000 'other' nationality soldiers in the Soviet campaign alone - Romanian, Italian etc.. they considered them totally useless.

That's not 100% correct Reg. The Germans considered the Romanians to be good troops, but they were very ineffectually led. Likewise, the Italians were considered to be good fighting stock too, but woefully ill equipped (and badly led too).

In fact, it's the British view of the bungling "Ities" in North Africa that has condemned the Italian Army of WWII to the stereotype we have today.

But the Hungarians, Finns, Norwiegians, Danes, Croats, Serbs and Spanish were considered by the Germans to be top class fighting men, as were the Don Cossacks and the Asiatic troops who fought alongside the Germans against Russia.

Top · by **tubby** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:13 am

tonyeh wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Madmax wrote:I quite liked how jack straw and that indian lady stated how other ethnics joined forces and died for this country in WW2. Griffins response was my daddy was there where was yours (jacks) loool..

Unfortunately, Straw and that "Indian lady" need to go back and read up on both wars just to find out how absurd their efforts were at trying to fool a modern audience into thinking that the makeup of Allied forces were a multiracial boiling pot of harmony fighting for the good of everyone.

It's absolute bollox.

Both the British and American forces in WWII were incredibly racist institutions and practiced segregation. Even white Quebecer French suffered racial abuse when they were stationed in England with Bomber Command.

My dad was based in Aldershot during the war at a Canadian camp and said that French Canadians were treated very differently than other Canadians...and you wouldn't have seen a black face for miles.

I have to say, I am truely sick of this false impression of the Second World War that's bounced around these days, whenever race is mentioned.

NO Allied Nations went into that war on a platform of fighting for racial harmony.

The ONLY Allied Nation that didn't have strict regualtions on its racial and sexual makeup was the U.S.S.R.

...And to see Jack Straw, a man instumental in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on absolute lies, try to highjack the Second World War for his own grubby little political ends was sickening.

I think your the one who needs to maybe do some homework.

Guess again...

Even if there were some racial tensions with that many troops fighting for them surley there must have been some level of harmony? Jack Straw was not insinuating that they shared fecking foxholes or anything, he was commenting on how they fought with them and died with them. That is the important point and on that he is correct.

Top · by **tonyeh** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:52 pm

bavlondon wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Madmax wrote:I quite liked how jack straw and that indian lady stated how other ethnics joined forces and died for this country in WW2. Griffins response was my daddy was there where was yours (jacks) loool..

Unfortunately, Straw and that "Indian lady" need to go back and read up on both wars just to find out how absurd their efforts were at trying to fool a modern audience into thinking that the makeup of Allied forces were a multiracial boiling pot of harmony fighting for the good of everyone.

It's absolute bollox.

Both the British and American forces in WWII were incredibly racist institutions and practiced segregation. Even white Quebecer French suffered racial abuse when they were stationed in England with Bomber Command.

My dad was based in Aldershot during the war at a Canadian camp and said that French Canadians were treated very differently than other Canadians...and you wouldn't have seen a black face for miles.

I have to say, I am truely sick of this false impression of the Second World War that's bounced around these days, whenever race is mentioned.

NO Allied Nations went into that war on a platform of fighting for racial harmony.

The ONLY Allied Nation that didn't have strict regualtions on its racial and sexual makeup was the U.S.S.R.

...And to see Jack Straw, a man instumental in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on absolute lies, try to highjack the Second World War for his own grubby little political ends was sickening.

I think your the one who needs to maybe do some homework.

Guess again...

Even if there were some racial tensions with that many troops fighting for them surley there must have been some level of harmony? Jack Straw was not insinuating that they shared fecking foxholes or anything, he was commenting on how they fought with them and died with them. That is the important point and on that he is correct.

Jack Straw was talking aload of bollox.

At the times, all institutions of the so-called Western democracies were incredibly racist and the armed forces were no different. There was no racial harmony in any shape or form in general terms.

Straws comments were deceitful and he damn well knows it into the bargain. He was trying to suggest that lots of different races came together to defeat an enemy in a war about race.

That's simply a lie, on all accounts and a lie used to get one up on Nick Griffin is still a lie none-the-less.

To look at India for example, despite the fact that Indans fought in a British uniform, many of them did for a multitude of reasons, least of which was the British Empire (and her political concerns at the time) and many who did so, were viewed as traitors by their own Countrymen. They considered (quite rightly) that the Army of the British Raj fought the war for British interests, not Indian interests. Britain had, after all, declared war on behalf of India without consulting any of the nonimal Indian "leaders".

Many Musilm Indian's joined up because their local leaders felt that if they supported the British, they might get some level of autonomy at a later date. They knew they wouldn't have it if the British gave India any real control over her affairs. A "promise" that had been dangled in front of India for some time in return for co-operation on numerous levels. But both were deluding themselves.

In the end, most Indians joined up up because service offered a way to feed their families.

There's a great interview with a Bengali chap who enlisted (he so for a regular wage) in 1942. He was shipped off to the Middle East and didn't return until 1945. When he got back, he found that his entire family had been wiped out in the Bengal famine of 1943, which was larely caused and compounded by the British adminstration syphoning off rice production for the army.

When he tried to move to Britain in the early 50's, he was refused despite having served in the British army on active duty for three years.

He said during his time in the army, the treatment of non-whites was appaling, especially when working alongside other "proper" white British army personnel. All the officers were white and the chance to rise in the ranks, to any real degree, was practically nil. There were some KCIO's, but they were few and far between.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bnp - Forced to accept non-white members

Who is online