The end of World War II resulted in unfamiliarity for many citizens across the globe. There were many senses of loss. Where would people turn? Where would their national identity lie? Throughout these readings, we learn that the conversation of creating your own nation state did not only lie within the Israeli-Palestine conflict. With the British and French claims to Africa, the conversation for a nation state was a commonality. The post war factors of decolonization ranged from veteran affairs, economic and political reconstruction amongst others. Many people were in pain, physically, mentally and emotionally. The war effort had inspired the notion of an anticolonial movement in the postwar era.
In Elizabeth Schmidt’s chapter, Popular Resistance and Anticolonial Mobilization: The War Efforts in French Guinea, Schmidt tells us about the impact of World War II on the French West African Territory, specifically in Guinea. With Guinea and other portions of Africa being claimed by the French, soldiers were drafted from these territories to fight on the French lines. This led to a few different proponents. The soldiers who went to fight in the war had an experienced a completely different aspect of the war than did the people on the home front back in the French West African territory. This played into a large role of the anticolonial movement post war. With the passage of the Conscription Law of 1919, all males of the French empire were to serve three years in the military. During the Great War, close to 60,000 men from Guinea suited up to fight with the French. Overall, there were 250,000 to 350,000 “Tirailleurs Senegalais” fighting for the French. The majority of the African soldiers were placed on the front lines of battle (Schmidt, 446). The Africans had been welcomed rather nicely by their French counterparts. The French treated them as their own, providing them with food, water, shelter, clothing and entertainment (Schmidt, 449). They socialized with the French; some even found their lovers to be French. The African veterans fought for a cause and were met with gracious gratitude from the citizens of France. However, in their native lands in Africa, these soldiers were met with a form of disgust. The veterans became the main topic of colonial conversation and a hot topic in the political realm.
Life in Africa was much like it was everywhere else during the war. Life changed for everyone dramatically. In rural areas, the young, stout men who had been farmhands and helped grow the crops and tend to the cattle were now, due to conscription, fighting in a war. Some would come back to their former jobs, some would return injured and unable to provide the physical labor needed to tend to such needs, some never returned—period. These conditions led to things such as lack of food, water and shelter (Schmidt, 448). With the deaths of many Africans, this also put a damper on replenishing society. The French West African shift from Vichy to Free French also did not bring the relief they were looking for (Schmidt, 450). With a shortage of food already, when food rationing was implemented, famine increased. With all these shortages, forced labor became instituted. Men cut and hauled timber to help out the railway while both men and women helped build roads, grow crops, etc. (Schmidt, 451). These people were stout though. 600 people transported a ton of rice for 300 kilometers—wow (Schmidt, 452).
The folks within the homeland in Africa were already opposed to the colonial states during the war. With the results that took place in the post war period afterwards, it was a solidified opposition. Working conditions were less than ideal, wages were low and the food supply was very low, leading to poor health in some cases. This became a worry to public officials that it would eventually cause a fuss in the political realm (Schmidt, 452-53). African workers and veterans both felt the struggles of the war. With the turmoil the veterans faced from both sides, how would they respond? How would they been seen in the broad perspective of nationalism? They were used as a main variable in the political realm for years leading up to the 1950s. If you were taken out of your homeland to fight for the “owner” of your territory and you returned to see the homeland in the shape it is in, what would you think? How would you lean? These soldiers had been treated wonderfully by the French citizens and armed forces, but returned to their homeland, in this case, Guinea to see the struggles on the homeland. They sought out, like the veterans mentioned in the second blog post, to be rewarded for their sacrifices. After they received better treatment than the regular citizen, some were satisfied. Some of the soldiers would eventually relocate and stay with the French army; some retreated back into their former life. Schmidt’s article makes us take a step back and look how the war is reperiodized and how veterans became privileged in postwar nationalist movements.
Veterans played the largest role in the anticolonial movement. Both Schmidt’s chapter and Frederick Cooper’s Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa give a detail of how the emotions were high and feelings on both sides were strong. Going back to the most recent paragraph, how would these events affect your views if you were a veteran? After seeing the way the French treated you as a soldier, would you want to side with them forever? Or would you be pissed off that while they took care of you, and you fought for their country, your wife, daughter, cousins and mother struggled heartily. It is easy to see why the African territories wanted their own nation state. This is a question I believe brings a great discussion to the table. It would be interesting to look at the statistics and see who went where. It reminds me of the WPA narratives of the South. I would like to see something of that nature with some of these people. They had to feel a sense of displacement when they returned home. The French treated them well, but in the meantime their home territory suffered. What made these people different than the displaced persons that have been a main topic of postwar discussion? Perhaps they were also displaced, but in another way.
The need for reconstruction after World War II was tremendous, however, the reconstruction in many places needed to create new cultures in some places. The conditions that the war caused made a dislike for colonialism in Africa even stronger.
Do you think that the French soldiers who treated the African soldiers kindly really believed that they were equal or that it was just a necessity of war to view everyone as equals?
I liked how you focused on the veterans, and talked about the disconnect between how the French treated them in different situations. Fighting alongside the French and then being treated by them as lessers must have been a discouraging and upsetting situation, and I agree that this experience drove many Africans to fight for independence.
There is always an issue when veterans who have fought in a war return home. The people back home often have different viewpoints regarding the conflict, and often experienced different hardships than the soldiers.
I agree with Caroline, I think this to be an important question. Motivations behind actions are always fascinating and in this instance I believe that the French were simply attempting to pacify their colonial soldiers. Would you agree?
Its true that the way veterans were treated varied depending on the time and place. If the French saw that the veterans could be useful politically they would allow them to take positions of power such as chiefs in Africa. In reality, they could be seen as pawns that the French used to their advantage whenever they could.
I think its interesting how the harsh environment that the native people were forced to work in impacted anti-colonial sentiment. I wonder if the French considered this when they began to reconstruct their political system to be more inclusive. At this point, I think it was too late.
One thing that I read that was interesting was that through all of this, some people in the French holdings wanted to stay under French rule. Was it because they felt a sense of security from a world power?
While soldiers in general received good treatment by the French in the war and immediately after, I think that it is important to remember that there was significant racial discrimination in the Free French forces even during the war let alone after.
You did a great job of focusing on veterans in you blog post. You said that veterans played the largest role in the anti-colonial movement. I know that you suggested that they were displaced persons as well. I would agree with that statement because they did not have that same since of identity of when they belonged to the service.