I've heard that, during the world wars, many British and/or French were aghast at how white Americans treated their Black soldiers. How did French or British militaries treat their non-white soldiers (ex.: was segregation in units de jure or de facto)?

by IncredibleAnnoyance5
Bernardito

For the purpose of this question, I will focus on the First World War and the British Empire. In Great Britain, the 1907 Manual of Military Law allowed men of non-European ancestry to enlist in the British Army. This meant that during the First and Second World War, non-white men were not only accepted but integrated into otherwise all-white regiments. Simultaneously, however, Great Britain made sure that black soldiers from colonial regiments were forbidden from fighting on the Western front.

For the British Empire, there were two main arguments against the inclusion of racial minorities from British colonies in active combat roles. First, and perhaps most importantly, was the protection of the racial hierarchy which was at the very core of British imperialism. By allowing men of color from the colonies, in particularly of African descent, to fight against and even kill white men would upset the status quo which in turn might have larger consequences. The second argument revolves around racial prejudice and the idea that men of color simply did not have the intellectual or emotional capability to be good soldiers and were inferior to white soldiers. The result of this thinking meant that although colonial soldiers of African descent were allowed to serve in uniform, they were not allowed to fight on the Western front against white Germans and were instead given other roles working with different non-combat tasks. Outside of the Western front, however, the use of soldiers of color in combat roles were far more widespread. For pragmatic reasons and since the enemy was considered "less white" than western Europeans, soldiers from the British West Indies fought against Ottoman soldiers in the Middle East. The largest exception of them all were soldiers from British India that served on the Western front, the Middle East, and in Africa. The inclusion of racial minorities from British colonies as combat soldiers on the Western front during the First World War is therefore a long and complicated process which expressed itself in various and contradictory forms from one imperial army to the other.

In that sense, segregation was something that both existed and did not exist at the same time. If anything, it is a testament to the contradictory and illogical racism that was widespread in Great Britain at the time. Racial ideas, such as the 'martial races' concept so readily attached to soldiers from the British Indian Army (in particularly the Gurkhas), was used to both encourage and glorify the participation of non-white soldiers, while the racial notion of black inferiority guaranteed that soldiers of African descent serving in British colonial regiments were effectively barred from fighting against white men.

This institutional racism should be considered alongside the personal racism that non-white soldiers faced. It is difficult to give a general picture of what racism towards non-white soldiers looked like amongst soldiers themselves. One black British soldier, Norman Manley, wrote in his post-war memoir that as "far back as 1914 after the start of the first World War it was impossible to be in England and not be aware of the problem of colour. You were immediately aware in a thousand ways that you belonged elsewhere but not there." This was a shared experience by non-white British citizens at the time. Despite the fact that your family had lived in London, Edinburgh, or Manchester for generations, you were still singled out for your race. You became even more visible if you were wearing a uniform. The Liverpool Echo, for example, made sure to let its readership know in June 29, 1915, that the "stipendiary magistrate made it clear today that black men in Liverpool must not be insulted whilst they are wearing the King’s uniform." Black British men who tried to enlist were sometimes rejected by recruiters who saw their race as a disability, likely referring to the idea of black men being incapable of being soldiers.

Yet once in uniform and fighting, some black British soldiers found themselves gaining the trust of their white comrades and being defended against racist attitudes. Manley discovered that his fellow white soldiers could show "an innate courtesy, I suppose because we liked each other, and soon found out that I did not like being called “Darkie” as came natural to them, and I have heard a real tough guy get a hold of a new arrival, a casualty replacement, who automatically called me “Darkie”, and take him aside and say, “Don’t call him that – he doesn’t like it. We call him Bill and we like him!"

Due to the considerably few surviving sources written by black British soldiers, we are unable to confirm or deny whether Manley's experience was universal, but it does provide us an insight into how things looked like from the perspective of a black British soldier. Racial prejudice was present, but there were also ways of breaking through it. Some men might have not experienced any personal racism throughout their participation in the war, only to face racism upon returning home. The anti-black collective violence that took place throughout Great Britain in 1919 shows how complex this subject really is.

In conclusion, racism was very much present in the black British experience -- from whether or not they were even considered soldiers, to if they would be allowed to wear a British uniform, to the reactions from their white comrades.

keloyd

Army of Empire: The Untold Story of the Indian Army in World War I by George Morton-Jack does a thorough job addressing your question (only WW1 of course.) It lines up with Bernardito's very good response, but here are a few extra details that I recall -

  • While Indians who lived in Britain were ultimately allowed to sign up in the British army, most who wore a uniform joined the colonial service. Their officers received a colonial army commission, not the same as a British army commission. One result is the Indian officer with a colonial rank could not give orders to the English enlisted man and expect to be obeyed, only other colonial service members who he outranked.
  • A rough analogy could be made between the British-Indian colonial military and US segregated Black soldiers in WW1 or 2...except the British version is orders of magnitude more people and lasted centuries.
  • Pay was sharply lower, something like ½ what an Englishman of similar (enlisted) rank would have gotten, IIRC. (I am using 'English' in its ethnic sense as a convenience for this post.) Housing, quality of food and medical care was also not as good.
  • Even so, there was a long tradition of career enlisted soldiers retiring with a pension + a nice plot of land to farm that they actually owned and passed to their kids to keep the family solidly somewhat middle class-ish. British colonial laws also prevented local debt collectors/loan sharks from taking this land - something that sounds close to the US homestead exemption. The material quality of life for Indian colonial soldiers was considered to be quite good by local standards.
  • The British recruited only from the 'martial races' on the Indian subcontinent. I can't recall which ethnicities were on or off that list, but the British took it seriously, and the Indians were proud of their martial local history independent of what the British thought.
  • English officers over native men - this gave highly variable results. Some officers were incompetent + racist and failed miserably. Most were good - acting as "anthropologists" (the author's choice of word) and learning local customs, being scrupulous about diet issues, and allowing ample leave so that his "natives" can sort out home village obligations like planting season when possible. A somewhat parental relationship was typical.
  • Some areas of the Indian subcontinent (currently located in current Pakistan or Afghanistan) were outside of English control and yet contributed fighting men to the Colonial army. If Pashtun (this author called them Pakhtuns I think, I'm relistening to the audio version) volunteers were mistreated by ridiculous English officers, they just deserted and went home and there's not a **** thing the English could do about it. BUT they also had a reputation for being fierce if they could only be kept in line...sort of like real life Klingons the way the English described them. Some English officers were afraid of this group of people; others went out of their way to choose them. The Lawrence of Arabia + Hemingway machismo of some British officers matched right up with a team of bloodthirsty Vikings/Klingons who had a reputation to live up to.
  • India is big and diverse. A direct quote, "A Punjabi might bite his tongue at a racial insult from a White man. A Puktun [Pashtun] might murder." The British sometimes had to be competent and respectful to remain alive and keep order. Other times, this diversity allowed them to divide and rule. Rural northern Indians may not especially identify with urban English speaking Indian elites who agitate for independence, so the English officer who commands his men to fire on a crowd of fellow Indians will be obeyed. The innocent crowd is 'them' and not 'us' to the provincial soldier.
  • "Prestige" had a specific and disturbing definition - referring to something akin to US segregation or Apartheid level allocation of buildings, resources, food, etc. Even the Indian officers were not allowed in private Whites-only officers clubs in India in social circumstances.
  • When possible, during much of WW1, the English didn't want Indians shooting at White people, even when they were Germans. High priority was given to allocating Indian troops to other colonies or maybe Turkey to free up English soldiers to fight Germans in the trenches in WW1. (Sounds like the Indians got the long end of the stick, says KELoyd.)
  • Eventually, lots of Indians made it to the European theater during WW1. They were especially well treated by French civilians.
  • Respect for title and royalty seems to outrank racism. The Indian princes who had military status sort of like the British royal family in 2022, and lots of medals, but I'm not sure how much any of them really fought or were ever in danger in the last century, the Indians got the same treatment. Lots of anecdotes were in the book about prince Someone-or-other who was Indian but still was sort of playing at war and given light, plum jobs to do.