Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Racism in the Army (Read 663 times)
Apr 12th, 2005 at 4:25am
Flt.Lt.Andrew   Ex Member

 
I've realised that racism is a pretty big factor in the morale and success of an army.

It can boost morale and/or increase complacency.

E.gs

1) Gallipoli: soldiers beleived that the Turks were inferior beings and fighters...result: Allies are masticated.

2) Pacific War:
    Allied soliders beleive that the Japs are racially inferior and are sub human.
Ruthless fighting....
Result: Japs are smashed.


A.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Apr 12th, 2005 at 7:43am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Not sure what it's like now but I think you'll find that this has always been the case. The Turkish & Japanese soldiers in your examples probably believed the same thing about the Australians & Americans. The enemy was always presented as inferior & sometimes subhuman by governments & top brass of both sides in a conflict to encourage the ordinary soldier to fight.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Apr 12th, 2005 at 7:48am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
I think racism is too strong a word. Propeganda would be better. It sometimes has been racially motivated. but in general its not. Just remember as Doug said, to the Germans/ Japanese we were the evil enemy. Your hardly gonna want to kill your enemy if your being told their a bunch of nice guys who dont have anything against you.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Apr 12th, 2005 at 7:55am
Flt.Lt.Andrew   Ex Member

 
mmm true.....


A.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Apr 15th, 2005 at 1:48am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
I'd have to disagree with you on the Gallipoli front there Andrew.  The truth of the matter is that the Turkish forces in the peninsula were (initially at least) very low quality troops.  The Brit's invaded with some of the finest troops that we had.  A large quantity were regulars in addition to several battalions of Royal Marines and of course the ANZAC contingent.

Gallipoli failed because it was badly planned and badly lead.  If you look at the terrain that was fought over it is clear that a 90 year old granny with a blunt tooth pick could have defended it.

Gallipoli is a stain on British high command that will never be wiped clean.
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Apr 15th, 2005 at 6:11am
Flt.Lt.Andrew   Ex Member

 
True, however, I've heard and seen many pre action accounts, many ANZAC solider making comment on the beleived Turkish fighting ability.
I have to say, that even though an "old granny could defend the territory"(or thereabouts) that it was NOT well defended in someplaces, the ANZAC forces easily overcoming the opposition....

A.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Apr 15th, 2005 at 6:37am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
Good point Andrew.  Most of the peninsula was not defended at all until one or two days after the landings.

The troops came ashore and stopped as they had no orders to continue.  If high command had taken their collective fingers out from their bottoms it would have been a different story.

The story of the Gallipoli landings has always fascinated me.  Bleedin' depressing tho'

Will
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Apr 15th, 2005 at 6:47am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
I was recently reading an account of the Allied landings in Italy in WWII. Basically the same thing happened there & the opportunity for an early victory was lost. This was a decision by the local C in C which turned out to be wrong.

I'm not trying to defend anyone, including Winston Churchill, for the tragic events at Gallipoli but things in wartime are not always as simple as they might appear in hindsight. More so when the orders are coming from long distance with poor communications.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Apr 15th, 2005 at 4:56pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
The thing you have to remember about WWI is that generals who had learnt their trade in a time when infantry fought with muskets and at best single shot rifles were planning battles with machine guns, artillery and tanks. They simply didn't know how these weapons worked and how effective they were so in a way it isn't exactly fair to blame the generals entirely for what happened.

Just remember, intill the first world war no two armies equipped with machineguns and repeating rifles had met on the battlefield. Up intill then Germany hadn't really had a chance to fight anyone while the british could only use their machineguns on tribes that were armed at best with muskets. Basically no one knew how to fight a war against modern weapons and it's just a damn shame it took them over three years to learn. Tongue
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 3:57am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
I don't think that it's as simplistic as that Woody.  Granted it was the first time that modern armies had met but our generals didn't learn from lessons that they had in the Boer War.  Read about Modder River (28/11/1899) and the assault on the Boer Trenches.

It was slaughter of our Infantry, much of it Guardsman, 15 years before the start of WW1 when they attempted to assault trenches held by men with repeating rifles.

The junior officers at this battle were the senior officers during WW1.
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 8:18am

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
Maybe so. But I'm not suprised that no changes in tactics came about through that battle. One bloody defeat doesn't always mean that your fighting in the wrong manner. Cause if that was so then think about what reforms would have been made to the army after Isandhlwana. Tongue
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 8:51am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
We've often commented before that very few military commanders appear to learn anything from history, even recent history. Almost every time there's a new conflict they have to start learning all over again. There are many examples of this, one being the RAF Fighter Command tactics in the early days of WWII. Another thing they seem to overlook. People will always fight the hardest when defending their homeland.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 9:01am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
We did learn after Isandlwana.  We learnt that Zulu armies can cover "impossible" terrain and then chew up a couple of thousand British troops.

One of the Generals involved in WW1 was one of the survivors of Isandlwana.  I forget which one though Roll Eyes  Sir John French dumped on him from a great height.
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 9:13am

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
Quote:
One of the Generals involved in WW1 was one of the survivors of Isandlwana.  I forget which one though Roll Eyes  Sir John French dumped on him from a great height.

So there we go. This first world war General was one of those who got completely wiped out by a bunch of Zulu's with cowhide sheilds and spears while the british army was armed with cannon and rifles.

So if Zulu's can wipe out a regiment with spears after a full frontal assault then he could easily be forgiven for thinking that a modern army armed with modern weapons could have just the same effect. Surely?
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 9:24am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
Quote:
This first world war General was one of those who got completely wiped out by a bunch of Zulu's with cowhide sheilds and spears


Not quite, he survived.  It was unlikely that he would have been promoted so high had he been a festering corpse.

The first time it can be forgiven Wink.

My point was more to do with Gallipoli than the Western Front.  Andrew was asking if we felt there was a degree of rascism behind the failure in Turkey and I don't think that there was.  The western front was acknowledged by the general staff to be a battle of attrition, it didn't matter if an assault took four months to take a mile of German line at the cost of 5000 lives because the Germans lost 7500 men so we won the battle.

Will Tongue
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 10:15am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
After reading a few articles on Gallipoli to refresh my memory I can see Andrew's point. I wouldn't call it racism which is a comparatively recent word. It's actually much worse than that. Even a few years ago there was a superior attitude by western, mainly white, races towards all others. They were considered inferior in every way, including their intelligence & ability to fight. I'm sure this attitude is still held in some quarters now.

When I first saw this topic I thought it was about racial discrimination in the armed forces which is another subject altogether.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Apr 16th, 2005 at 10:43am

Smoke2much   Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879
*****
 
I don't doubt for a second that the attitude at the time was that the Turkish troops were inferior on racial grounds.  My point was that we didn't lose that fight because we doubted the abillity of Johnny Turk to fight but rather that the planning and execution of the plan was so bad.

I hate the attitude that seems to prevail that the British had a low opinion of the native troops that they fought.  If anyone reads the diaries of the troops on the ground you can see the respect that they held for them.  They certainly felt superior but but it was edged with acknowledgement of the fighting qualities of those they opposed.

My Great Grandfather spent 15 years in the Army and left in 1905.  He fought at Omdurman and once beat the stuffing out of my Grandfather (Who was 7th Division Light Middleweight Boxing champion 1916,17 and 18) for suggesting that the Sudanese were easy compared to the Germans.  His view was that anyone willing to charge at a man armed with only a spear was as hard as nails and bloody dangerous at close quarters.

If it was Racism then it is the same racism that makes modern armis call the Iraqis "Ragheads" and the Viet Cong "Gooks". 

I quote Doug:

Quote:
The enemy was always presented as inferior & sometimes subhuman by governments & top brass of both sides in a conflict to encourage the ordinary soldier to fight.


This sums it up nicely.

Will
 

Who switched the lights off?  I can't see a thing.......  Hold on, my eyes were closed.  Oops, my bad...............&&...
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print