The role that colonial subjects in Africa played in World War II was critical. Preceding World War Two “Africans’ claims to citizenship were rejected” and would continue to struggle against the powers they themselves fought for for decades to come (Cooper 197). Cooper highlights the fact that Britain and France both recognized that former imperial holdings in Asia like Japan affirmed themselves as capable and a threat to the stability of maintaining an Empire. Therefore they redirected their focus upon a new region of of their holdings. As one British official stated, “Africa is now the core of our colonial position; the only continental space from which we can still hope to draw reserves of economic and military strength” (Cooper 199). As a result, many Africans were then brought into the French fighting forces or worked as laborers and subjected to harsh conditions.
As Schmidt introduces in Popular Resistance and Anti-Colonial Mobilization the efforts of African subjects as laborers or soldiers fighting for their imperial nation. The importance of their participation whether willing or otherwise cannot be denied, “imperial subjects made enormous contributions to the French war effort serving both Vichy and the Free French” (Schmidt 441). In our blogpost topic #2 of Veterans the United States recognized the importance of veterans and sought to compensate them for their selfless service during the war. However, unlike their American counterparts, they did not receive the compensation or rights for their service. As a result, “after the war, they demanded compensation for their sacrifices, which they translated into political, economic, and social terms…labor conscripts and military veterans agitated for rights, wages, and benefits resulting from their wartime services” (Schmidt 444). Despite their protest the rights they sought would not be delivered until much later. To avoid giving these veterans all of what they demanded, there was the decision for “building an inclusive empire but not quite of equals…” and as a result “The French Empire was renamed French Union” (Cooper 200). Despite this renaming “In French west Africa, the war began in 1939, but it did not end in 1945, It continued for another decade” and not until 1955 that the veterans received what was deserved (Schmidt 444).
After reading through these articles, a similarity that immediately jumped into my mind was that between French African troops and African American/Japanese American troops. All of these groups faced immense difficulties including the struggle of serving their home or imperial nation, fighting in divisions primarily of the same ethnicity and having white officers, and sent on some of the most dangerous missions that were deemed too dangerous for divisions of white solders. It seems the mindset of non-white solders were disposable as “Africans were often on the front lines and covered the retreat of French Soldiers,” despite this disgusting view of how human life could be considered disposable all of these groups fought valiantly despite overwhelming odds (Cooper 446).
Cooper’s question of “could an imperial regime adopt a more democratic form of governance, a more nuanced view of sovereignty, and still remain imperial?” I feel would be absolutely not, at least not how the French tried to withhold the rights and citizenship of those who fought for them for almost two decades. Hoping for a society that is nearly equal but not entirely egalitarian in a democratic manner is bound to fail in my opinion.
I thought it was interesting to see this process start in Asia. The loss of colonies there seemed to cause France and Britain to focus more on holding Africa. Your post did a great job of covering this topic and I liked how you tied it back to an earlier one we covered.
Do you think there are any societies that are entirely egalitarian? I think some inequality is naturally bound to happen, even in the modern U.S.
I think it is interesting that there is always a struggle for veterans receiving compensation for their service. Why can’t the government recognize their sacrifice regardless of how they feel towards them and the conflict?
I thought that your comment regarding the treatment of Africans during the war effort as disposable was a powerful point. Why would these men have loyalty to a government that didn’t even respect their lives.
Im glad you added the point about how the imperial nation saw the native African people as disposable. This also explains how the French could ideally promise inclusivity but also execute policies and actions that contrasted to the privileges they were promised. With knowing this, do you think the French genuinely wished to provide an inclusive empire or was it an act of appeasement?
You compared French African troops and African American/Japanese American troops however I don’t think they should be compared because of the type of governments were in control, or if you do compare them you should also show how the American minority groups had achieved more earlier than the French troops. Yes, both had less rights than citizens however African American and Japanese troops were living in a country that were not controlled by another country unlike the French African troops. The French were fighting for independence.
First, I want to congratulate you on putting forth double effort on this blog post! I felt that the other post was truly inspirational into helping me better understand this topic. Onto this post, your comparison between Japan and Africa was helpful, but I feel somewhat leaves out the differences in their struggles. Japan had surpassed mere independence and had fought for aspirations of empire, which came crumbling down in atomic fire. Altogether a great post though.