Part 1: Sources in part 2

The treatment of Colonial troop veterans following WWII is a mixed bag and often tangled with the process of decolonization that followed in the late 20th century.

​

France recruited 179,000 Senegalese to fight, and fought in almost every theater from North Africa, to the Vosges Mountains and the Maginot Line.Even before the war was over, in 1944, Charles de Gaulle conducted the “blanchiment” [whitening]  of the French Army as the combined Allied armies pushed into Europe.  He replaced the 20.000 Africans that were serving as part of the French Liberation army for mainland French men, citing poor Allied logistic support and the cold weather as justification for the switch. This has been a very controversial statement, and historians argue about the validity of such arguments as opposed to more racial motivations. Regardless, this move heightened tensions between France and its colonies, where it all ended in tragedy.

Before the war, Senegalese troops were promised equal pension to French soldiers, but when they returned home after the war, French authorities refused to pay them an equal amount and offered them much less arguing that their pensions would be given based on living costs arguing that the cost of living in the colonies was much lower than mainland France. Not only that, the Senegalese troops protested the denial of benefits to African POWs, while French units captured by Germans were given benefits. At Camp Thiaroye,-on November 20th 1944- 1,500 Senegalese Tirailleurs mutinied and held the French commander hostage demanding equal pay. The next day, French soldiers opened fire, killing 35 Senegalese, while some of the survivors were sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Later in December 26, 1959, effective on January 1, 1961, that officially replaced the pensions due to the now foreign veterans with an indemnity, as shown below: 

 Loi de finances no 59-1454 du 26 décembre 1959

Pensions servies à certains anciens ressortissants des territoires d'outre-mer.

Art. 71— I. A compter du 1er janvier 1961, les pensions, rentes ou allocations viagères imputées sur le budget de l'Etat ou d'établissements publics, dont sont titulaires les nationaux des pays ou territoires ayant appartenu à l'Union française ou à la Communauté ou ayant été placés sous le protectorat ou sous la tutelle de la France, seront remplacées […] par des indemnités annuelles en francs, calculées sur la base des tarifs en vigueur pour lesdites pensions ou allocations, à la date de leur transformation. » 

Finance law # 59-1454 of December 26, 1959

Pensions allocated to a certain number of former inhabitants of the overseas territories.

Art.71- I. Effective January 1, 1961, the pensions, annuity or allowance for life, deducted from the State’s budget or that of public establishments, received by the nationals of countries or territories that used to be part of the French Union or the Community or that used to be protectorates or under the tutelage of France, will be replaced…by annual indemnities paid in francs, established on the basis of the current rates applied to the afore mentioned pensions or allowances, at the date of their transformation.

Basically,  their pensions were frozen at 1959 rates while their French compatriots still received the benefits based on the annual cost of living in France. In 1989, a minor victory happened when a few Senegalese veterans obtained from the Court of Human Rights at the UN an acknowledgment of unfair treatment by France. In December 2002, the indemnities were modified to the country of residence of the veteran.  But this new law was a half-measure, in an article by the NYT, they reported that the retirement pension for a Senegalese soldier was 159.00 euro a month, a Moroccan was 70.00 euro a month while a French solider enjoys 600.00 a month. Only recently (2006-2017), has there been a consistent push for better recognition and treatment of colonial troop veterans. But considering their age, and how many are left, I think it is safe to say that it is rather “too little, too late”.

There are very few WW2 monuments in Africa compared to in Europe or North America, and even John Keegan’s The Second World War only dedicates a single chapter to the fighting in North and East Africa, while basically ignoring the African perspective. For many Africans, WWII also gets associated with WWI as a colonial war, fought at the expense of Africans for the benefit of European powers. Not only that, it highlights the hypocrisy of the Allied Powers fighting a “good war” for self-determination, equal rights, freedom and democracy while at the same time holding vast colonial possessions. In a good article by Timothy Parsons he says

“At best, Britain, France, and Belgium could make the case for the Allied cause by arguing, with considerable validity, that they were better imperial masters than the Germans, Japanese, and Italians.

But this paternalism was based on the assumption that colonized people were less advanced, if not inherently inferior, and African participation in the Second World War produced some decidedly awkward realities that fit poorly within comforting narratives of the good war. At various times during the conflict, different groups of conscripted African soldiers had to fight each other for the sole reason that they were wearing the uniforms of rival imperial powers. This was the case when the Allies drove the Italians out of Ethiopia in 1941 and one year later when they seized the island of Madagascar from the Vichy French regime. Even more problematically, the waring Vichy and Free French factions unapologetically used units of the West African Tirailleurs Senegalais against each other during their struggle for Syria.”

​

For the British, almost 2.5 million soldiers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh served in the British armed forces. But it has left a very controversial legacy in India, and it also involves the issue of post-colonial politics. Tensions were already high between colonial authorities and Indians because of the aftermath on WWI, where Indians argued for self-governance and independence due to their service in the Great War. With the outbreak of WWII the Indian National Congress (largest political party) demanded independence before it would help Britain. The UK refused, and when Congress replied with a "Quit India" campaign in August 1942, tens of thousands of its leaders were imprisoned by the British for the duration of the war.

The 1943 Bengal famine (which many argue was caused by Winston Churchill), and the fact that Indian POWs captured by the Japanese switched sides and fought against the British for an independent India further tarnishes the glorious war narrative that the West really enjoys.

After the war, with an independent India many were folded into the regular Indian army and received pensions as prescribed by their new government. Unfortunately, I don’t have much information about pensions besides some news articles about widows recently getting pensions after 75 years of no government assistance. So I cannot say much about it, but it seems like many Indian veterans and their dependent were denied pensions for their service in the war.

Even recently, there have been tepid attempts at bringing WWII veterans into the spotlight, but WWI and WWII are inexplicably associated with India’s colonial past, and to many, something to move beyond as Indians look to the future.

​