By
early 1942 it was agreed that the United States would join Britain in an
invasion of Europe to end the
tyranny of the Nazis. This meant that there would be a huge influx of American
troops into Britain to carry out the invasion. There was considerable concern
in Government circles when it was indicated that 10% of these troops would be
black.
12th August 1942
Sir
Ronald Ian Campbell was Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
(deputy head of mission) at Washington, D.C from 1941. He had obviously been
asked about the planned sending of American coloured troops to Britain. He
sent a telegram to the Foreign Office from Washington. He explained that Field
Marshal Sir John Greer Dill, GCB, CMG, DSO,
Chief of the British Joint Staff Mission in Washington had been told by the
Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshal that he would look into the
“the problem” and let them know how many American coloured troops
were going to come to Britain. He had people looking at the
“difficult problem” from the British viewpoint.
It
was in this telegram that the Foreign Office first learnt that 60% of United
States Army Engineers were coloured and that they provided most of the dock
labour. Campbell pointed out that for political reasons the United States Army
had to accept coloured men on equality with white men. Campbell also stated
that “coloured men were “quite unsuitable for combatant duties”. Quite
what evidence he had for this is unclear. He also somewhat outrageously stated
that “Engineers, fighting units of which have to be included in field
formations are in serious danger of being overdarkened”. General
George C. Marshal had received quite strong representation from Australia
through General McArthur and from every country to which American troops had
been sent including Liberia.
General
George C. Marshal had told Campbell that he intended to send a General to
Britain who had been very successful in handling American coloured troops.
Coloured A.T.S. units were also being readied for despatch to Britain ,
largely in order to ease the situation by giving American coloured troops
women of their own race with whom they could associate.
Cambell
had spoken to Harry Hopkins (Roosevelt's chief emissary to British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill) who had told him he would look into the matter and
would see what could be done. Hopkins had told Campbell that the mentioned
figure of 100,000 American coloured troops was “fantastic” but would
confirm the number of American coloured troops the United States contemplated
sending.
Hopkins
also told Campbell that it would be a “bad thing” if the matter were to be
treated formally between United States Government and His Majesty’s
Government.
American
coloured troops
He
then indicated that it was very confidential, but John Gilbert Winant.
Ambassador to the Court of St. James's had mentioned the “difficult
problem” to Campbell and indicated that he thought the issue had been
started by United States officers from the Southern States who had been
talking to British officers. Winant knew that Churchill and the Foreign Office
were genuinely concerned about the matter. Campbell had emphasised that the
problem was a genuinely serious and difficult one and by no means a mere
matter of sympathy with possible Southern preferemces.
Ref FO-954-30A-151
A
letter was sent to Anthony Eden on 16th December from Maurice
Petherick a Conservative Member of
Parliament for Penryn & Falmouth
Aug
16 1942
Dear
Eden,
I
am extremely sorry to see the Americans are sending coloured troops to this
country. I can see no conceivable argument in favour of doing so and vet many
against. The Americans have plenty of men why can’t they send white? The
arguments against are obvious.
1.
They will quite obviously consort with white girls and there will be a number
of half-caste babies about when they have gone- a bad thing for any country.
2.
Not knowing that the girls who go with them are the lowest of the low it will
give them a poor impression of English women.
3.
It will frighten those men from those parts that are serving abroad as it did
with Frenchmen in the last war.
Why
not send them to other parts where they will be much more suitable, say the
Solomon Islands or Egypt? Did you make no effort tom stop this? It has alarmed
and horrified many people in this country. Does the Foreign Office accept with
tears of gratitude everything the Americans choose to give or send us?
I
hope you will stop any more black men being sent to these islands!
Maurice
Petherick M.P.
FO-954-30A-153
Anthony
Eden in the Foreign Office expressed concern in an “off the record”
discussion with the American Ambassador, Viscount Halifax. He explained that
the Government were anxious about the possibility of American black soldiers
described in official papers as “negroes” coming to Britain and that he
knew that the American Engineer units were often 60% black.
On
1st September 1942 he tried to argue that in the 1914-18 war black
soldiers from the West Indies had not fared well in the British winter
climate, and that the American black soldiers from the Southern States would
find it equally hard. The American Ambassador to his credit refuted this
argument on the basis that there were as many white soldiers from the Southern
States who would tolerate the British winter. Anthony Eden tried to argue that
it was more the dampness of the climate than the cold that was the problem.
Ref:
FO-954-29B-540
On
2nd October Cabinet Papers stated that the presence of a large number of
coloured American troops in the United Kingdom presented the Colonial Office
and War Office with a difficult
problem. They considered the
position of British coloured persons in the United Kingdom and in the
Colonies, who were extremely sensitive to colour discrimination and the
government wanted to ensure equality of treatment for all races
Britain
had brought over to this country many technicians from the West Indies and
there were considerable number of coloured persons serving in the British
Armed Services brought over to Britain under special schemes and serving
alongside white men. Britain had
done everything it could to try and secure good relations and Britain has had
a large measure of success.
It
was felt that the American attitude towards coloured persons was very largely
different from the attitude adopted in this country towards their own coloured
people. The Colonial Office felt that the American authorities should be made
fully aware of this attitude by the British and also the fact that there were
numbers of our own coloured people in the Kingdom and they should be asked to
respect our attitude towards these people.
The
Secretary of State for the Colonies considered that any lead given to the
British people in his country asking them to adopt the attitude to the
American Army towards coloured people, whether Americans or others was likely
to cause serious resentment amongst our coloured people in this country and in
the Colonies and also to cause confusion (If not indeed a reaction gravely
prejudicial to Anglo American relations.) in the minds of the public here who
have been asked repeatedly to accept British coloured Colonial persons on
equal terms and to extend to them hospitality and friendliness. The Secretary
was in full agreement with the proposal made by the War Office that all ranks
in the services should be given a knowledge of the past history of the colour
question in the United States and in the United States Army. But he considered
it was going too far to attempt to ask the British Army or the A.T.S., to
adopt the attitude the American army towards American coloured people. It
should be impressed upon our service personnel that this is an American and
not a British problem. He suggested it should be left to the Americans to
decide on their own behaviour on the matter and it should
be a question of good manners and conduct on the part of our troops and the
ATS to avoid giving offence to the United States Army and their attitude to
American coloured persons. He could not believe that thinking Americans would
wish us to adopt their ideas and prejudices any more than they would ours. If
the Americans propose to treat their coloured people in certain way, we should
to some extent conform by not interfering. But we should not take any positive
action to imitate their administrative or other arrangements.
In
summary, the Colonial Office asked for agreement by the Government that there
should be no interference with American Administrator arrangements for
segregation within the United States Army, but in the absence of such
arrangements, the British authorities should not attempt to provide special
arrangements on the lines of racial discrimination.
The
historical and social reasons for the American attitude should be fully and
fairly explained to the British services so as to encourage a proper
understanding of the American problem.
Similarly,
the reasons which differentiated the British problem from that of the
Americans, and which have led to a different attitude towards the question on
the part of our own people, should be explained the Americans and to the
American Army. The American Army should be asked to respect our attitude
toward British coloured Colonial people in this country and to avoid any
interference with them that may lead to bad relations. British servicemen and
women and civilians should be left to draw their own conclusions as to their
behaviour towards coloured Americans, without official directions as to their
conduct in this matter.
Ref:
CAB-66-29-22
Brendan
Bracken had written in the Sunday Express an article wherein he had expressed
the attitude which the Government felt the British public to take towards our
own coloured people. This was also emphasised in a Broadcast made by Mr
MacMillan earlier in July 1942.
4th
September 1942
Frank
Aubrey Newsam was Deputy Under-Secretary of State.
He was the second most senior civil servant in the Home Office.
He wrote a confidential note for Chief Constables entitled American Coloured
Troops.
He
explained that he had been directed by the Secretary of State to say that, as
you are no doubt aware, the American troops who are now coming to this country
in increasing numbers include a certain number of coloured troops.
From
reports received by the Secretary of State from various parts of the country
it appears there are grounds for thinking that difficulties may be caused by
the presence among the civil population of coloured troops
and by their association both with other troops
and with British women.
It
is not the policy of His Majesty’s Government that any discrimination as
regards the treatment of coloured troops should be made by the British
Authorities. T the Secretary of State, therefore, would be glad if you would
be good enough to take steps to ensure that the police do not make any
approach to the proprietors of public houses, restaurants, cinemas, or other
places of entertainment with a view to discriminating against coloured troops.
If
the American Service authorities decide to
put certain places out of bounds for their coloured troops, such prohibition
can be effected only by means of an Order issued by the appropriate American
Army and Naval Authorities. The police should not make themselves in any way
responsible for the enforcement of such orders.
Ref
CAB-66-29-36
On
the 3rd of October the Secretary of State for War, Percy James
Grigg, reported that there were around 12,000 troops here and that their
numbers were likely to rise. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in
August 1942 had with the approval of the Cabinet pressed the American
government to reduce the number of coloured troops sent over but had met with
little success.
The
American policy on dealing with coloured troops in the United Kingdom was
based on the existing American policy. This was segregation between the white
and coloured troops. Coloured troops live in separate camps and have their own
canteens, recreation rooms and entertainments. Separate Hostels were being
provided and it was intended to send over a coloured A.T.S. units to do work
normally done by white troops. This policy of segregation in the United States
is generally not known by the British population and as we have little
experience of a colour problem at home the population will naturally make no
distinction between the treatment of white and coloured troops but may
consider the imposition of such distinctions as undemocratic.
The
War Office was faced with two issues and any disregarding was going to have
serious consequences. The average white American soldier does not understand
the normal British attitude to the colour problem and his respect for the
United Kingdom may suffer of he saw British Troops and British Women’s
Services drawing no distinction between white and coloured troops. Already
there had been cases where American white troops have walked out of canteens
and public house on seeing coloured American soldiers being served in such
places, this difference of attitude had and was going to cause a degree of
friction. Moreover it was expressed that the coloured troops themselves
probably expected to be treated in this country as in the United States and a
different treatment here might well cause political difficulties in America
post-war. The Cabinet also expressed an opinion that to maintain the morale of
British troops in this country and abroad that it was “undesirable” that
there should be any unnecessary association between American coloured troops
and British women. This suggested that the War Office attitude towards
American coloured troops should be based on the view of the American Army
Authorities.
However
it was pointed out that there was evidence in the Press and from Members of
Parliament that any difference of treatment between white and coloured troops
might be regarded as racial discrimination and cause bitter resentment.
There
was an attack in the Sunday Pictorial on the wife of the Vicar of Worle,
Weston-Super-Mare over quite shocking advice she had given to other women in
the village.
The
Reverend Frederick May (b. 1st August 1888) lived at the Vicarage,
Church Road, Weston- Super-Mare with his wife Annie G. May (Nee Bond) (b. 8th
February 1st August 1890). In September 1942 she decided to share
with other ladies in the village a set of rules that she thought all should
adopt when coming into contact with coloured American soldiers. This was
reported in the Sunday Mirror on Sunday 6th September 1942.
“The
women of Worle, Weston-Super-Mare, are amazed by Mrs May, wife of their vicar.
She called them together and attempted to lay down a six-point code which
would result in the ostracism of American coloured troops if they ever go to
the village. The women of the village have come to the angry conclusion that
this code amounts to an insult to the troops of our Ally. These (in her own
words) were the rules Mrs May laid down:
1
—lf a local woman keeps a shop and a coloured soldier enters, she must serve
him, but she must do it as quickly as possible, and indicate that she does not
desire him to come there again.
2—lf
she is in a cinema and notices a coloured soldier next to her she moves to
another seat immediately.
3
—lf she is walking on the pavement, and a coloured soldier is coming towards
her, she crosses to the other pavement.
4
—lf she is in a shop and a coloured soldier enters, she leaves as soon as
she has made her purchase or before that if she is in a queue.
5—White
women, of course, must have no social relationship with coloured troops.
6
—On no account must coloured troops be invited into the homes of white
women.
Mrs.
May forbade her hearers to mention her " talk " to the newspapers.
But they were so astonished that they told their husbands.
One of the husbands, a local councillor, is preparing a full statement
to be sent to the Ministry of Information. He said: " If the woman is
talking like this in the name of the Church, I should be interested to know
what her husband's Bishop thinks of it." Mrs. May's reason for not making
her code public, she said, was that " it might hurt the coloured troops
if they heard of it." Feeling is so high in the district that it Is more
likely to hurt Mrs. May. A local woman who attended the meeting told the
Sunday Pictorial last night : " I was disgusted, and so were most of the
women there. We have no intention of agreeing to her decree. Any coloured
soldier who reads this may rest assured that there is no colour bar in this
country and that he is as welcome as any other Allied soldier. He will find
that the vast majority of people here have nothing but repugnance for the
narrow-minded, uninformed prejudices expressed by the vicar's wife. There is,
and will be no persecution of coloured people in Britain.”
Many
in the village were up in arms over her racist rules.
The
Secretary of State for the Colonies told Grigg that he was unhappy about the
possible repercussions of the policy of the American Army on West Indian
opinion and that of our Colonies. In September the Minister of Information had
written an article in the Sunday Express entitled “The Colour Bar Must
Go.”, it was felt that some readers may have connected this article with
American coloured troops. The Home Office had sent a circular out to Chief
Constables about the attitude of the police towards American coloured troops.
It emphasised that it was not the policy of H.M. Government that there was to
be any discrimination as regards the treatment of coloured troops by the
British authorities.
The
War Office was on a Razor’s Edge trying to find a balance between the
various views on the race issue. Trying to avoid any difficulties over the
administrative arrangements made by Americans for the segregation of coloured
troops from the white troops it had taken no steps to discriminate coloured
troops in cases where the American administrative arrangements did not cover
the case. In railway canteens there was no attempt to exclude the coloured
American soldier. While there was no discrimination by the British Army for
coloured troops, the War Office was keen that British troops, particularly the
British A.T.S. to understand the
American background on the segregation issue and to modify their conduct so as
not cause offence to white or coloured troops. It was undesirable to have any
misunderstanding as these might affect the efficiency of the Allied forces.
It
was the view of Grigg that within the limits that were necessarily imposed on
Britain and subject to local Britain should follow the general lead of the
American authorities.
With
typical Civil Service of neutrality the War Office had decided that no written
instructions should be issued.
However
in August the Major-General who was in charge of administration in the
Southern Command, where it was intended to station a large number of American
coloured troops, decided based on difficulties that were already
occurring to issue confidential written guidance to District Commanders and
local Regional Commissioners. He issued a document – “Notes on relations
with Coloured Troops”, to all District Commanders and Regional
Commissioners. It was sent as a personal letter stating that the notes had
been prepared to provide material for officers, including A.T.S., when talking
with their men and women on this subject, emphasising that the notes were not
to be distributed in writing, unless sent to selected officers for the above
purposes. The notes were issued after close consultation with local American
Commanders, and set out the historical background to the American policy. Some
welcomed the Notes as they gave guidance for a uniform policy. It was claimed
that since the notes had gone out relations between British and American
troops had improved but it was uncertain if the notes were in fact the main
factor in this perceived change in relations. No figures were given as to the
improved relations so the claim to improved relations must be taken as
anecdotal.
Grigg
felt that some general statement of fact should be issued to the Army. Grigg
supported the view of the Bolero Combined Committee in August 1942 which
recommended that an article be published by the Army Bureau of Current
Affairs, after consultation with the Foreign Office. This was to set out the
history and facts of the Griggs supported the relations between white and
coloured communities in America and between white and coloured American
troops. Grigg did not want any instructions or written advice based on
these facts to be issued after such an article. He felt the problem was more
than an Army one and any authorised statement that took sides must not be
restricted to the Armed Forces in its application. As far as the Army was
concerned he did not want to make a statement. It was to be left to Army
Officers to deal with incidents as they arose and they should interpret the
facts orally to those in their command. This policy would result in the
possibility of varying interpretation and misunderstanding but it was a risk
that had to be acceptable. This was the lesser evil due to the objection to
the issue of written instructions
being unacceptable.
Grigg
summed up by asking the War Cabinet to endorse his proposals for the Army.
1.
To
make full use of the American administrative
arrangements for the segregation of coloured troops, but where those
fail to make no official discrimination against them.
2.
To
give the Army through A.B.C.A. a knowledge of the facts and history of the
coloured question in the U.S.A. and the U.S.A. Army.
3.
To
allow Army officers without the issue of overt or written instructions
to interpret those facts to the personnel of the Army including the A.T.S. and
to educate them to adopt towards the U.S.A. coloured troops the attitude of
the U.S.A. Army authorities.
Ref
CAB-66-29-21
October
9th
The
Lord Chancellor, John
Allsebrook Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, weighed
in his opinion of what was now known as the “difficult subject” question.
He said that the British attitude to coloured people was widely different to
that of the Americans. This was due to social and historic reasons. Anyone
acquainted with the Southern States would know how the Whites treated the
Blacks. The British would never accept the “Jim Crow” situation where the
Blacks had to travel in specific vehicles, use specific seats, or not be
allowed in White only premises. To adopt the American attitude to colour as it
would be setting aside the British Tradition.
The
War Office officially recognised Service Clubs run by voluntary organisations
and none of these operated a colour bar. In St. Stephen’s Club both white
and coloured British soldiers in
uniform were served in the club. A few coloured American troops have used it.
It would be inconsistent with British principles and traditions if British
Authorities tried to say that such a place was one where coloured American
troops could not enter. It would be equally difficult to get the Salvation
Army canteens or the Y.M.C.A. and Church Army to impose a colour bar. It is
the policy of the British Service Clubs to admit coloured troops and he felt
that the British Government ought not to change that policy.
He
felt a publican could not as a licensee have the right to refuse to admit and
serve coloured men. His house was
licensed as a “public “ house.
The
British Empire was on the whole a coloured Empire and to implement a colour
bar would cause repercussions from that Empire.
To
attempt to ask the British Army or the A.T.S. to adopt the attitude of the
American Army towards coloured American people. We should impress on our
Service personnel that this is an American and not a British problem.
To
issue orders that involve the British Government in the practice of
segregation would be a mistake and would raise a greater storm than may be
realised in some quarters. There is a British conviction that if a coloured
man behaves himself he is entitled to the same treatment as a white man.
Instead
of urging our own people to adopt American practices of segregation we should
explain to the American Army Authorities that we, too, have traditional
methods in connection with coloured people and that we can take no action
which would be a departure from them.
As
for the allegation that there are some white women in this country who feel
that American coloured troops are particularly attractive and who run after
them, that is not a difficulty that will not be cured be keeping American
coloured troops out of canteens or clubs at all. The great mass of white women
certainly have no such feelings and I believe that the great mass of American
coloured men are perfectly well conducted. By barring American coloured troops
from canteens will not only reduce the risk of association with white women in
the least but will cause the opposite effect.
Ref:
CAB-66-29-35
10
Oct
The Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, a Labour M.P., wrote a Memorandum on 10th
October 1942. He explained that the Home Office had sent a circular letter
giving advice to Chief Constables in England and Wales on the attitude which
they should adopt towards American coloured troops in Britain. A similar
circular was also sent by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish
police.
He
continued saying that this circular was issued after consultation with the
Foreign Office, the Ministry of
Information and the Chairman of the Bolero Committee. General Eisenhower had
seen an advance copy of the draft circular and said he was in complete accord
with the instructions in the Home Office circular.
In his letter to the Home Office he said this policy of
non-discrimination is exactly the policy which has always been followed by the
United States Army. Subordinate United States Army Commanders in the European
Theatre of Operations are being informed of the proposals of the Home Office.
With reference to the question of placing
certain places out of bounds we do not make any restrictions of that
kind on the basis of colour. The policy followed by the United States Army
Authorities is that places put out of bounds for United States soldiers are
out of bounds to all United States Army personnel.”
So
far as the attitude to be adopted by the police is concerned it will be seen
that they have been advised not themselves to exercise any discrimination
against United States coloured troops in this country, and not to encourage
such discrimination by licensees of cinemas, public houses. Restaurants or
other places of public entertainment.
Reports
received by the Home Office from Chief Officers of Police show that on the
whole the American coloured troops in this country have behaved well and that
apart from isolated incidents there have been no difficulties created by the
association of American coloured troops with the civil population.
On
the other hand some of the Regional Commissioners have expressed considerable
apprehension as to the difficulties likely to be created in their Regions by
the presence of American coloured troops and their association with the civil
population, and particularly with British women. Some Regional Commissioners
have informed me that, in their experience, some British women appear to find
a peculiar fascination in associating with men of colour and that this
association is resented by American white soldiers and is likely to give rise
to difficult social problems in their Regions. They have also urged that the
morale of British troops is likely to be upset by rumours that their wives and
daughters are being debauched by American coloured troops.
He said the question for the Cabinet was to decide if the Government should
give advice as to the attitude that should be adopted towards American
coloured soldiers and if so, to whom such advice should be given and in what
terms.
The
war office proposes that service personnel should be informed of facts and the
history of the colour question in the United States of America and in the
United States Army and should be lectured in private by their officers to
educate these men and for them to adopt towards American coloured soldiers
what is supposed to be the attitude of United States Army Authorities. If
however it was decided to give such advice to Service personnel, would the
matter End there? If for example in any area Civil Defence workers were found
to be fraternising unduly with coloured troops, would it not be the duty of
the Minister of Home Security to give some advice to these persons? Would it
not ultimately be necessary to gibe some advice to the police as to Government
policy on this. Serviced personnel would invariably inform the police and
licensees of Public Houses, for example the nature of the advice which they
had received, however confidentially, and the advice given to Service
personnel would soon percolate throughout the rest of the community, possibly
in an exaggerated and distorted form. Any advice which goes beyond the mere
imparting to Service personnel of information as to the colour problem in the
United States is bound to give rise to this type of difficulty and the mere
imparting of such information may itself give rise to a demand for advice as
to the correct behaviour to be used toward American coloured troops having
regard to the various attitudes adopted towards the colour problem in
different parts of the United States.
The
proposal that British Service personnel should adopt towards the United States
coloured troops the attitude of the United States Army Authorities seems to
assume that the Americans do in fact wish to maintain a policy of segregation
similar to that followed in the United States or parts of the United States.
General Eisenhower’s letter, however, states categorically that it is
not part of the policy of the United States Army to place out of bounds to
coloured troops places which are not out of bounds to other members of the
United States forces; and in this country where separate canteens, public
houses, cinemas, or places of entertainment are not available for coloured
people it is difficult to see how effect could be given to a policy of
segregation. Moreover, there would be a large body of opinion in this country
which would strongly resent a policy under which British citizens were advised
to treat coloured persons in the same way as the United States Army
Authorities are supposed to treat them.
It
appears that from General Eisenhower’s letter
that there is some reason for thinking that the American Army
Headquarters take a broader and more tolerant view of the question than local
American Commanders. Is the explanation that the official American policy has
not yet been fully understood by subordinate commanders in this country?
Moreover the American troops have not yet been in this country sufficiently
long enough to enable them to appreciate the British attitude towards the
delicate question of colour prejudice, while the British people them selves
have not had sufficient experience to appreciate the American point of view.
I
am fully conscious that a difficult social problem might be created if there
were a substantial number of cases of sex relations between white women and
coloured troops and the procreation of half-caste children : but I am doubtful
whether the policy suggested by the War Office would have any effect in
checking this danger. The educative methods suggested by the War Office
memorandum are unlikely to have any influence on the class of women who are
attracted by coloured men. Although there is some concern about this danger, I
have no information to suggest that it is serious at the present time; but I
propose that a careful watch be kept om this aspect of the problem.
There
is also no doubt a risk that respectable English girls may not realise that if
they show to coloured men from the United States the same friendliness as they
commonly show to our own Service men the coloured man from America is likely
to misunderstand their intentions
and their character; and the creation of such misunderstanding is unfair to
him and may be dangerous to girls. I can therefore see a case for giving some
warning to the members of the
A.T.S. and the other women’s Services on this subject.
As
regards however, educating the personnel of the Army “ to adopt towards the
United States coloured troops the attitude of the United States Army
Authorities”. I am doubtful whether any such practical advantages would
ensue from such a course as to outweigh the disadvantages which are likely to
arise when the men and women concerned attempt to follow in practise the
instruction which have been given to them and from the controversy which will
arise when as must almost invariably there is some public disclosure possibly
in a distorted form, pf the nature of those instructions.
Ref
CAB-66-29-36
On
12th October 1942, Brendan Bracken the Minister of Information
wrote a memorandum to the Cabinet Office. He explained that as he was
responsible for co-ordination the civilian hospitality to American troops in
Britain, he had been involved with the problem of defining what attitude the
Cabinet wanted which would be adopted by the British people to American
coloured troops. In view of the varieties of opinion being expressed he felt
that it might help the Cabinet if he repeated the advice he has been offering
on the subject. The basis of the advice was in a letter he had sent to the
Secretary of State for War, Percy J.Grigg, on 16th September 1942.
He quoted the relevant passages.
He
felt that the Americans had exported to Britain a local problem which was not
one that had been made by Britain. The problem was one for which there was no
conceivable prospect of it being satisfactorily solved in Britain. Therefore
he deprecated general discussions of the problem which tended to give more
diagnosis than cure.
He was convinced that the Amrican policy of segregation was the right one to
avoid trouble and that Britain should second it in every way. Such a policy
was not always achievable and was often incapable of being achieved. In such
circumstances the public was was aware of a divided allegiance: their sense of
sympathy and protectiveness towards the black troops conflicts with the wish
to respect the feelings of the white American troops amongst us. The Cabinet
should not by any process that was visible or invisble to try to lead our own
people to to adopt as their ownn the American social attitude to the American
Negro: nor should the Cabinet succeed. But he thought that they should do what
they could to make those who will be brought into contact with both black and
white Americans
1.
aware
of the problem
2.
the
attitude of both sides
3.
of
the social background in which the Americans have grown up.
The
public should be encouraged to use all their tact to avoid offending or
insulting the white American in their relations wih the black. He felt the
Service Departments could tackle this subject among their own personnel owing
to the peculiar arrangements between oficers and men, especially in the
Women’s Services. The use of written documents was to be avoided as well as
use of the didactic approach
(influencing moral).
He
thought that they should not approach the mass of the civilian population
ought to be approached at with any propaganda on the subject. A wrong step
would be disasterous, and there was not sufficient possibilty of any real
success. Incidentally, he felt the essential agents of national hospitality
were the Voluntary Societies, with whom the Ministry of Information were
working closely. Their fundamental principles are involved in the doctrine of
no racial discrimination.
Ref
CAB-66-29-39
On
12th October the Cabinet Secretary, Edward
Ettingdere Bridges, published a note on “United States Coloured Troops in
the United Kingdom” for the War Cabinet. It was a suggested revision of the
Notes on Relations with Coloured Troops by the Lord Privy Seal and embodied
his main comments on the Draft prepare by the Secretary of State for War.
It
omitted the recommendation that British men and women should adopt the
American attitude but recommends that they should recognise the problem and
take account of the attitude of the White American citizen.
It
omitted the analysis of the negro character set out in paragraph 5 of the
original draft. Certain changes are made in the practical suggestions at the
end of the note.
The
revised draft Notes, which have been shown to the Secretaries of State for War
and for the Colonies
are circulated for consideration in connection with the other papers on
this subject.
CAB-66-29-40
On
17th October the Lord Privy Seal,
Sir Richard Stafford Cripps reported to the Cabinet that he had
consulted with the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary and they
had agreed on the text for a document to be circulated which addressed the
question of the American Negro Troops.
The
Secretary of State for War and the Lord Privy Seal had discussed the question
of its circulation in the forces and made the following recommendations. The
document was to be circulated as “Private & Confidential” within the
Army and the Air Force. It was not
considered necessary to circulate it in the Royal Navy or Civil Defence
Services (He does not say why). It should be communicated to such senior
officers in the two Services as may be liable to be asked questions on the
point, since it is important that the same attitude should be adopted in all
the Services.
In
the Army the document should be circulated to all General officers and
Brigadiers, Colonels in Command of Troops and Lieutenant-Colonels in Command
of Units, and to all A.T.S. officers of the rank of Controller and above and
Group Commanders. In the R.A.F. the distribution should be to officers of
equivalent rank and status.
They
had passed the article, with minor alterations, for publication by the A.B.C.A.
(Army Bureau of Current Affairs), as being in full accord with the policy of
the document they could see in Appendix A.
He
pointed out that the A.B.C.A. publication would come to the notice of the
Press and almost certainly the article in Appendix A would eventually find its
way into the hands of the national Press, they planned for the Minister of
Information to hold a Press Conference at
which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for
Air and the Lord privy Seal could put
the matter before the Press with a request that they should not “feature” the
A.B.C.A. publication or make any reference to the document in Appendix A. The
Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State for War believed that, subject to
the opinion of the Minister of Information, that on the whole this will be the
best chance of avoiding bad publicity and indeed all publicity is what we
wish.
Appendix
A
Ref
CAB-66-30-3
On
17th July 1943 A letter was sent to Anthony Eden on 4th
December from Maurice Petherick a Conservative
Member of Parliament for Penryn & Falmouth.
It
read:- Dear Eden,
When
I first heard of the threatened arrival of black American troops in this
country I wrote and gave a number of reasons why this should not be allowed.
They
have now been here for some time ( and I believe have behaved pretty well).
I
have recently had some complaints from up near the middle East coast
Surely
there is no conceivable reason any longer why they should be kept in this
country?
Cannot
you now arrange with the American Government to send them to North Africa or
to fertilise the Italians who are used to it anyhow?
Yours
sincerely
Maurice
Petherick M.P.
4th
December 1943
A
letter was sent to Anthony Eden on 4th December from Maurice
Petherick a Conservative Member of
Parliament for Penryn & Falmouth.
It
read:-
“Dear
Eden,
I
have written to you before about the inadvisability of allowing coloured
American troops to be billeted in this country, I hope it was not deliberate
but a considerable number have been sent to the Duchy of Cornwall! There have
been several unpleasant rows between white and black Americans and there will
probably be more. In addition to this as in other parts of England women of
the lowest order are consorting with the black Americans.
There
is a very strong feeling about this here, as in other counties. Now I always
thought that the original excuse given me by you, which the American
Government handed out was devilish thin, namely that they could not complete a
division for service in Europe. If it was thin then it was arrogant nonsense
now.
Surely
we are in a strong enough position to stand up to the U.S.A. (they respect us
when we do) and tell them we will not have any more black troops here and to
send those we have to North Africa where, poor devils, they would be much more
happy and warm. I know that there are many more people who feel strongly about
this and it is the soundest and most loyal element not the people who screech
blue murder about Second Fronts and Mosley’s, but those that are anxious to
be and remain friends with America & who will put up with such for their
country’s sake.”
Maurice
Petherick
Ref
FO 954/30A/204
It
is clear that he was a racist and saw the problem was with black soldiers, not
whites and in his view removing the black ones would solve the problem.
Fortunately, Eden ignored the letter.
John
James Lawson, Secretary
of State for War
Ref
CAB-129-11-21
The Americans came
and without them it is unlikely that Europe would have been freed from Nazi
Tyranny.
In
January 1942 it was announced that the Americans were coming" to Britain.
“American
Land, Air and Sea forces will take stations in the British Isles, which
constitute an essential fortress in this world struggle," declared
President Roosevelt in his historic message to the U.S. Congress on the 'State
of the Union yesterday. Even before announcing this, the first public
statement in “World War No. 2“ that " the Yankees are coming,"
the President outlined a staggering arms programme.
The
plan for 1943 called for 125,000 planes, 75,000 tanks, 35,000 anti-aircraft
guns, and 10,000,000 tons of shipping. In 1942, he said, " we shall
produce 60,000 planes—l0,000 more than the goal set a year and half ago.”
The United States would also produce in the present year 45,000 tanks, 20,000
anti-aircraft guns, and 8,000,000 deadweight tons of merchant vessels.
Speaking of the employment of American forces overseas in addition to his
reference to the Land, Air and Sea forces 'which would be stationed in
Britain, the President said: "The American armed forces must be used
anywhere in the world where it seems advisable to engage the enemy forces.
"In some cases, these operations will be defensive, in order to protect
key positions. In other cases, the operations will be offensive, in order to
strike at the common enemy with a view to his complete encirclement and
eventual total defeat." The militarists of Berlin and Tokio started this
war, but the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it, the
President declared.
"No compromise can end this war. There has never been and never can be a
successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory can reward the
champions of tolerance, freedom end faith," was the President's
conclusion.
The
President said that he and Mr Churchill understood one another fully, and had
been working on concerted economic and military plans for more than a year.
Conferences would continue, and the United Nations act not as twenty-six
separate units but in true unity to secure victory and peace with security.
Berlin
Radio was quick to scaremonger the future American involvement claiming that
Roosevelt sending American troops to Britain was really the first step in
America's plans to planning to annexe Britain and the Dominions. The British
found it amusing and agreed they would rather be annexed by America than by
the Axis.
Click
for Site Directory
