Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Senegalese experience of World War I


Tom W.

Recommended Posts

Interesting German photo showing a German doctor who is carrying a wounded "Senegalese" to a medical facility for treatment, Reims, June of 1918. The African soldier has tribal scars on his face, meaning he's a Dahomean (currently the country of Benin) instead of an actual Senegalese. Now, the question is whether or not this is a staged propaganda photo, or does it show a genuine act of human kindness accidentally captured on film? If it's propaganda (notice how handsome the doctor is), is it intended to show the difference between the Teutons and the "lesser" races?

The net effect of this photo is to elicit sympathy for the African. If the colonials were such savages who took no prisoners and committed atrocities as a matter of course, why would the Germans publish this photo? Was it a way to rob the colonials of their fearsome reputation?

Or is this photo actually what it purports to be?

post-7020-0-04495700-1324694327.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be a take on the saying " The White Man's Burden" ?

A benign and gentle, civilised white man tenderly carries his child like charge, despite the fact that the black warrior was his foe.

A good advert for German imperial rule .

I suspect propaganda. Why would the soldier still be wearing his helmet ? No one else is.

I get the impression that the picture is saying :

Look how decent we Germans are to our wounded foes, even if they are recruited from among black savages !

But, of course, this might be an excess of cynicism on my part .

I would be happy if my suggestion was groundless.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A benign and gentle, civilised white man tenderly carries his child like charge, despite the fact that the black warrior was his foe.

I get the impression that the picture is saying :

Look how decent we Germans are to our wounded foes, even if they are recruited from among black savages !

I thought of both ideas. The question is, would the average person of the day (for whom this possible propaganda was intended) agree with your impressions?

It could be that I'm much more a product of my era than I realize, because for me this image humanizes the colonial soldier more than anything else. To me, it makes him an equal to the white man, as the white man is portrayed as being concerned about his welfare and is extending to him all the help he would extend to a fellow European or white American. He treats the African with dignity.

I perceive no contempt, distaste, or patronization in the German, even though he is literally cheek-to-cheek with the colonial soldier, while the African elicits in me a sense of empathy for his suffering.

But as I said, that may be how a person of the present day sees this image. You may be entirely correct about the intent you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were recruited from all over Africa, but were called "Tirailleurs Sénégalais" because Senegal was where the first such unit was raised.

Thanks, Tom — I'm glad to hear that my memory was not deceiving me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture, Tom, it's almost tailor made for :

Take up the White Man's Burden -

Send forth the best ye breed -

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need ;

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild -

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child

(Kipling 1899)

It would be far fetched, of course, to contend that this picture was staged by Germans with that British poem in mind, but doesn't it show harmony with the imperial notions expressed ?

The handsome German doctor - the best ye breed ; he's certainly serving his captive's needs.

As for his charge :

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All over the south west part of West Africa to be rather more precise: Gambia, Senegal, French Guinea, Ivory Coast, French Sudan (now Mali and originally known, i.e. when formed in 1880, as Upper Senegal), a few from Mauritania and the 'preferred' 'warrior' races were the Wolof, Serer, Toucouleur and Bambara. North Africans went into other units and I see no mention of significant recruiting from Benin, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic or the Republic of Congo into these units. Is there any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 369th--the "Harlem Hellfighters"--spent the most time under combat of any American regiment and was the most highly decorated. Pvt. Henry Lincoln Johnson was the first American soldier to be awarded the Croix de Guerre,

Thanks Tom,

That's the regiment I was alluding to. Although he didn't get it at the time, wasn't there/isn't there a campaign for Johnson to be awarded the Medal of Honor ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom,

That's the regiment I was alluding to. Although he didn't get it at the time, wasn't there/isn't there a campaign for Johnson to be awarded the Medal of Honor ?

In June 1996 he was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart, and in February 2003 the Distinguished Service Cross was presented to his son Herman A. Johnson, one of the Tuskegee Airmen, on behalf of his father. Several groups are still working on upgrading Johnson the father's Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor. In March of this year, a memo by General Pershing was discovered praising Johnson by name:

http://theskanner.com/article/VIDEO-Breakthrough-For-Campaign-to-Honor-Henry-Lincoln-Johnson-with-the-Medal-of-Honor-2011-03-25

This memo is expected to make it more likely that Johnson will eventually be awarded the MOH. In June of this year, Senator Schumer said he'd built an "iron-clad case" for Johnson to receive the award.

http://welcometoharlem.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/%E2%80%9Ca-black-world-war-i-hero-may-finally-receive-the-medal-of-honor%E2%80%9D/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Africans went into other units and I see no mention of significant recruiting from Benin, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic or the Republic of Congo into these units. Is there any?

Yes, there are photos of Dahomeans (Benin) with tribal scars in the units. The French recruited from all over west and central Africa, I should have said. Scroll down here and you'll see a period photo of a Tirailleur Senegalais from Congo.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Tirailleur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Africans served only as combat infantrymen, so the only casualties you can compare them to are the casualties of white combat infantrymen. All other branches of service or military occupations don't apply. Over the same number of days under fire, African casualties were roughly twice those of white combat infantrymen. The overall casualty rate between white and black combat infantrymen was comparable, but since the Africans only fought in large numbers for half as long as the whites, their casualty rate is much higher.

[/quote/]

Not sure I understand these statistics. I have not read that book (yet) and it looks thought provoking.

But you say over-all White and Black troops casualty rates were comparable and then say due to certain durations Senegalais were were much higher. Seems to be an apples to grapefruit comparison.

There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Seems that if only certain periods were looked with the Senegalais, then we need to look at the French White casualities rates in the same fashion, under the same circumstances.

TS Battalions were rotated out of French Coloniale Regiments usually at a rate of 2 Bns of White to 1 of Senegalais per RIC. What were the casualty rates of that RIC (or Metropolitan Units in same Battle circumstance) given the same time frame.

If the RIC Rates and in particular the Senegalais rates are the same--then to say the Senegalais rates were much higher is meaningless. The real statistics is the French Colonial Army suffered Higher rates than the Metropitan Army at certain periods--I suspect this is the case.

I have not read the book so have not seen the detail. But I would say the only conclusion I can draw from this exchange is the Over-all rates were comparable with periods of higher rates for Senegalais--If you take the whole French forces (both Colonial and Metropolitan).

Len S article is good but I must caution he does confuse Colonial Army (Senegalais were part of) with Metropolitan Army and with Africans in the Metropolitan Army. In French Context African usually refered to troops of the 19th Army Corps stationed in Algeria and Tunisia and part of the Metropolitan Army--this included Tir Algerians and Tunisians. His reference to the Tir breaking during the first gas attack in April 15 is actually a reference to the Tir Alg/Tun and not Senegalais. Actually I believe the right flank unit of the 45th Div (I believe the 3r Tir Alg du Marche but not 100% sure) actually did not break but instead refused their flank allowing the Canadians to bring-up troops on their left flank.

Joe Sweeney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you say over-all White and Black troops casualty rates were comparable and then say due to certain durations Senegalais were were much higher. Seems to be an apples to grapefruit comparison.

Casualty rates--percentages--were comparable for black and white infantrymen over the entire war. A similar percentage were killed over a four-year period. But since the Senegalese served in significant numbers as combat infantrymen for only half the time that white combat infantrymen served, it means that Senegalese casualty rates were roughly double those of the whites.

Let's say 100 white men fought for two weeks and suffered 25 dead. Let's also say 100 black men fought for one week and suffered 25 dead. What would happen to that black casualty rate if you extrapolated time in combat out to two weeks to match that of the whites?

The colonial troops served only as combat infantrymen, and mainly as assault troops. This is what Joe Lunn is talking about. When you match up the missions--combat infantrymen serving as assault troops--the blacks had a comparable casualty rate even though they served in combat only half the time as the whites. This indicates to Lunn that blacks were given the hardest missions, likely in order to spare white lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This indicates to Lunn that blacks were given the hardest missions, likely in order to spare white lives.

The other angle would be that they were the most effective; the enemy was certainly frightened of them (their reputation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that 's an important thing to remember : high casualty rate does not necessarily entail callous exploitation....it might be the result of exceptional ardour for combat and a determination to close with the enemy.

Perhaps the black soldiers were keen to prove a point.

Again, I would like to find out if the white officers who led them suffered disproportionate casualties.

Perhaps these points are addressed in the book.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other angle would be that they were the most effective; the enemy was certainly frightened of them (their reputation).

Yes, that 's an important thing to remember : high casualty rate does not necessarily entail callous exploitation....it might be the result of exceptional ardour for combat and a determination to close with the enemy.

Perhaps the black soldiers were keen to prove a point.

Again, I would like to find out if the white officers who led them suffered disproportionate casualties.

Perhaps these points are addressed in the book.

Phil (PJA)

Joe Lunn states that the official French view of the fighting ability of black colonial troops was variable. Some ethnic groups--the Wolof, Serer, and Tukulor--were considered "warrior races" and were placed in assault formations. In 1918, when French losses began to peak, Senegalese troops were distributed more widely to French units and used more frequently than ever before. Fully 40 percent of all African fatalities occurred in 1918. On January 5, 1918, the commander of the Senegalese training camp at Fréjus, Colonel Eugene Petitdemange, wrote to Petain about how the Africans could "best serve the country" in the spring:

"My aim is to seek the increasing use of the Senegalese... in order to spare the blood of French servicemen, France having already paid a heavy tribute during this war. It is essential to try by all means possible to diminish their future losses through the enhanced use of our brave Senegalese."

The same day, he wrote Note sur l'utilisation des Sénégalais:

"The Senegalese have been recruited to replace the French, to be used as cannon fodder (chair à canon) to spare the whites. It is essential then to use them in an intensive fashion and not in small groups."

In both of these communiques, Petitdemange referred to the "combative spirit of men born to make war." Therefore the argument has been made that the French weren't using blacks out of racism but because the Senegalese were better fighters. Men were going to die anyway, so why not try to reduce losses by using soldiers "born to make war"? By 1918, according to Lunn, African infantrymen were two-and-a-half times more likely to die in combat than white infantrymen.

George Clemenceau himself said on February 18, 1918:

"Although I have infinite respect for these brave blacks, I would much prefer to have ten blacks killed than a single Frenchman, because I think that enough Frenchmen have been killed and that it is necessary to sacrifice them as little as possible."

Lunn also states that casualties among whites serving in Senegalese battalions as officers, NCOs, and machine gunners were about 25 percent lower than those of the black infantrymen. The blacks were used as shock troops to "deliver the heavy blow," while the whites in the unit and in the following battalions were to hold back in order to provide a "rational" exploitation of the brute success brought about by the blacks.

All of this is discussed on pages 139-146 of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes uncomfortable reading, doesn't it ?

Does the book refer to any inducements that were made to these black shock troops ?

Were they offered some form of citizenship that elevated them from the rest of the black people under French rule ? Or were they already entitled to the status of French citizenship ?

Edit : most will recoil from the openly admitted plan to use black troops as cannon fodder in order to save white Frenchmen.

Before we judge, we must remember that, by the beginning of 1918, well over one million white French soldiers had already been killed, the majority of them in 1914 and 1915. This is why I alluded to those years when I replied to bmac's post. There had already been awareness of declining birth rate in Metropolitan France before the war, and a sense of demographic fragility. It was not as if there had been an endorsement of an attempt to make the conflict a" white man's war and a black man's fight ".....more than enough white blood had been spilled to repudiate that. But, heck, what am I doing pontificating like this ? ! I must buy the book and learn something.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the book refer to any inducements that were made to these black shock troops ?

Were they offered some form of citizenship that elevated them from the rest of the black people under French rule ? Or were they already entitled to the status of French citizenship ?

It's confusing, so bear with me.

The African colonies had been demanding more rights for some time before the war. The Senegalese politician Blaise Diagne won 40 percent of the popular vote in the elections that the Senegalese had forced the French to hold in 1914. He went to Paris as the Senegalese Deputy from the Four Communes and Commisioner for the Republic on Mission. Senegal had four Communes, where 85 percent of the whites lived. The African residents of these communes were called originaires and were granted the right to vote and were given access to French courts. The rest of Senegal was called the Protectorate; the Africans who lived there were sujects and were not allowed the rights of the originaires in the Communes.

Diagne pushed for Senegalese originaires to be allowed to serve in the French metropolitan army instead of in tirailleur units, which would then force the French to grant Senegalese originaires full French citizenship. Diagne calculated that this would ultimately lead to a waning of French power over the Senegalese, which would then lead to full independence. Diagne--a brilliant orator who was able to run rhetorical rings around his French opponents--was successful in passing a law as a followup to a law he had gotten passed in 1915. This 1916 law said that Senegalese originaires were full French citizens subject to military obligations.

Thus the originaires became liable for conscription, while the sujects of the Protectorate were recruited voluntarily. About 13 percent of the entire African population of the four Communes were conscripted into the French army; 10 percent of the African population of the Communes served overseas. The end result was that the efforts of Diagne paid off in that the Africans of the Communes became highly politicized, and many veterans of the war were later instrumental in achieving the independence of Senegal.

The originaires--the conscripts--served in battalions of the Colonial Army, designated as "white" or "nonwhite" units. The sujects--the recruits from Senegal and other colonies--served in tiraillieur battalions.

In order to recruit sujects, Blaise Diagne emphasized the fact that he had gotten originaires full rights as French citizens, and he was sure that he could do the same for sujects if they were willing to fight. He also pointed out that tirailleurs serving in France were accorded much more respect by the French than they were in their home colonies. In France, they could ride in first-class railroad cars, for instance, and had many more rights than they had at home.

The African recruits were enticed to serve by a promise of future benefits and better treatment. The French agreed to much of what Diagne demanded because they needed the men and because he could out-debate anyone, apparently.

As a practical matter, there wasn't much difference between the use of the Africans in the Colonial Army or the tirailleur battalions. Both were employed as shock troops, and both suffered extremely heavy casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that rendition, Tom ; that was kind of you.

My interest has been deeply aroused.

I suppose in part this is because I cherish a rather caricatured image of the Senegalese : I see then in my mind's eye as brave, tall and athletic fishermen who deal with very rough coastal waters in rather odd shaped boats. I'm sure I've seen film footage of them doing this. I've done a bit of trade with some of them too, and found them infinitely gracious and attractive people. In this respect thay seemed to me far more pleasant than some of their Nigerian neighbours. I've often wondered whether this reflects a more enlightened form of colonial rule by the French than that excercised by the British. It's interesting to contemplate that Senegal has done much better than most African nations in the control of AIDS.

But maybe I've just been lucky in the few Senegalese that I've met.

Anyway, I'm going on to Amazon now, to reconnoiter and click !

Edit : Just bought it ! Not cheap, and temporarilly out of stock, but what the heck ! Cheaper than a bottle of champagne, and much better for me. Thank you, Tom !

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest has been deeply aroused.

I suppose in part this is because I cherish a rather caricatured image of the Senegalese : I see then in my mind's eye as brave, tall and athletic fishermen who deal with very rough coastal waters in rather odd shaped boats.

It's the only book so far written about the topic, and it's extensively footnoted and sourced. I would say it's a worthy investment.

Interesting point about the French versus the German use of assault troops: The French assault troops--especially the Africans--were taught to fire only on orders of their officers, while the Germans left much of what the assault troops did up to the individual initiative of the men. This is why the Germans targeted officers during French assaults. The doctrine was based on a pamphlet written by Lt. André Laffargue. A Senegalese soldier describes fighting this way:

In Champagne we were shooting our rifles as we advanced, and the next moment we were so close to the Germans that our officers told us to stop shooting and to take out our coupe-coupe (machetes). And we were as near to the Germans as you and I--so close that we were obliged to fight them with knives. And from time to time, I saw a soldier who was fighting with a German and another German came from behind him and shot him or stabbed him with a knife... I thought I was going to die. I never considered that I would be wounded. I thought I was going to be killed.

Lunn, p. 132.

In this photo you can see the soldier on the far right holding his coupe-coupe. The officer on the left is wearing a short tunic instead of a greatcoat, making him an easy target. I know that the Germans and British allowed their officers to wear enlisted uniforms during assaults, but apparently the French thought it was beneath their dignity.

post-7020-0-61823100-1325028782.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also a few reasonably priced second-hand copies available through the Marketplace or on abebooks. I went ahead and ordered a copy--something that I was going to do some time back as a result of another discussion--although I skeptical about just how complete and accurate the discussion will be.

Anyway, I'm going on to Amazon now, to reconnoiter and click !

Edit : Just bought it ! Not cheap, and temporarilly out of stock, but what the heck ! Cheaper than a bottle of champagne, and much better for me. Thank you, Tom !

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also a few reasonably priced second-hand copies available through the Marketplace or on abebooks. I went ahead and ordered a copy--something that I was going to do some time back as a result of another discussion--although I skeptical about just how complete and accurate the discussion will be.

So far nobody has debunked Lunn's conclusions. As for completeness, there really aren't any other sources for this topic. Lunn's book is pretty much the only one. I can promise you that after you read the book cover to cover, you'll feel differently about the Senegalese soldiers who fought in the Great War than you do today.

As Lunn said, many of these soldiers had never seen two-story buildings, cars, airplanes, electric lights, trains...

Men with such a background were thrown into a modern war and faced violent death by means they initially couldn't comprehend, in a climate that caused them to suffer horribly from the cold, yet for the most part they did their duty, and for the most part they fought well. It's quite an amazing accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men with such a background were thrown into a modern war and faced violent death by means they initially couldn't comprehend, in a climate that caused them to suffer horribly from the cold, yet for the most part they did their duty, and for the most part they fought well. It's quite an amazing accomplishment.

What motivated them to do this ?

My book is being shipped, according to Amazon, so I should get it soon.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What motivated them to do this ?

My book is being shipped, according to Amazon, so I should get it soon.

Phil (PJA)

Some volunteered because they believed Blaise Diagne and thought it would be in the best long-term interests of Senegal.

Village chieftains--long used to complying with French demands--also ordered young men to enlist. Marabouts (Muslims elders) decreed it was the will of Allah, thus playing on the religious beliefs of the young men.

And, harkening back to centuries earlier, some men were simply kidnapped in armed raids by Africans in the direct pay of the French. They were brought to the recruiting stations in chains and with ropes around their necks.

Rural Africans had a great sense of duty to the village, so they reluctantly sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the collective. The French also instilled fear of retribution among the tribal elders for not supplying young men. Tribal elders were imprisoned, family members of the young man in question were held hostage, crops and livestock were destroyed, and houses razed. Sometimes there were even mass executions of villagers whose young men had fled into hiding.

The French used similar and worse methods in Algeria to achieve compliance during the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962), but it didn't work, because by that time so many Africans and Muslims had fought for France in two world wars that they were no longer willing to submit to colonial status. Blaise Diagne's long-term strategy was ultimately vindicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got it to hand (I'm in work at the moment) but in "Fix Bayonets", by John Thomason, he states that the Senagalese had no understanding of the word 'cover'. They would charge head on through murderous fire and suffer horrendous casualties in the process. There only aim was to get up close to the enemy as quick as possible and once upon them they would slaughter them. - Or words to that effect.

It's well worth a read.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in knowing instances when they actually managed to inflict serious casualties against the Germans. Am I correct in suggesting that nobody has actually bothered to try and determine casualties among German units facing Senegalese regiments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in knowing instances when they actually managed to inflict serious casualties against the Germans. Am I correct in suggesting that nobody has actually bothered to try and determine casualties among German units facing Senegalese regiments?

According to Lunn, the problem was that the French didn't think Africans were intellectually capable of being trained on the same level as white men, so it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. They didn't receive the same tactical training, therefore some units performed much more poorly than others, particularly when the men had not been prepared for the devastation that could be wrought upon them by modern weapons.

Many of the Africans did not speak French; therefore orders were given through white NCOs acting as interpreters, or by sign language or pidgin French. Part of the mixed performance of African soldiers is that they were used as shock troops, whose tactics were rigidly defined by the notions of André Laffargue.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jn0aAAAAYAAJ&dq=Andre%20Laffargue&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Andre%20Laffargue&f=false

Compared to German, British, and Canadian assault troops, the French were much more tied to doctrine. Yet they didn't bother explaining their tactics to the Africans who were expected to carry out the assault! The Africans were simply told to follow orders. When their officers were killed, they didn't know what to do, because they hadn't been trained in taking the initiative. Alvin York was only a corporal when he performed his heroics, and there are many cases of German enlisted men being awarded the Iron Cross First Class for showing individual initiative.

Lunn also says that most Africans had no idea why they were in Europe fighting, except that the Germans were "wicked" and the French need their help in defeating them. Nobody bothered to explain what was going on, so they were in a state of almost incomprehensible confusion.

I couldn't tell you casualty numbers of German units facing Africans, but I've read that Africans broke German resistance at Douaumont. In the German book Verdun: das große Gericht, author-soldier P. C. Ettighoffer describes the massive explosion that occurred in Fort Douaumont on May 8, 1916, due to stores of flamethrowers, hand grenades, and shells all going up. When the German survivors made their way to the surface, their faces were blackened with smoke. The panicked alarm went out, "The Africans have entered the fort!" and the Germans on the walls and in the courtyard opened fire and threw hand grenades, killing many of the survivors of the explosion. That's how much Germans feared Africans.

The American war correspondent Maude Radford Warren, writing for the Saturday Evening Post, interviewed a French colonel who told her that the Germans would often surrender without a fight when facing Africans. They would happily march unaccompanied by guards into captivity, smiling and relieved at having avoided combat with Africans.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gweAc89gnmkC&dq=senegalese%20attack%20Germans&pg=PA343#v=onepage&q=senegalese%20attack%20Germans&f=false

The Germans were also terrified of American Indians. As a result, Indians such as the Choctaw code talkers would go into battle doing that "woo-woo-woo" war cry; some even wore feathered war bonnets. The Germans would often throw down their rifles and scream their hysterical surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...