What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How many African-Americans were killed in WWI?

OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..

 
Last edited:

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
41,150
Reaction score
11,039
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..

If our allies are about to be overrun, and the need men, it is usually done. The idea that an entire command structure would be sent is counter-productive. The command, supply, and support structures were already in place.

But my question is, do you think other countries troops should be put under US command?
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..

If our allies are about to be overrun, and the need men, it is usually done. The idea that an entire command structure would be sent is counter-productive. The command, supply, and support structures were already in place.

But my question is, do you think other countries troops should be put under US command?
Whatever is in the best interests of America should be the golden rule.

The American Command Structure is far superior to other nations.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
41,150
Reaction score
11,039
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..

If our allies are about to be overrun, and the need men, it is usually done. The idea that an entire command structure would be sent is counter-productive. The command, supply, and support structures were already in place.

But my question is, do you think other countries troops should be put under US command?
Whatever is in the best interests of America should be the golden rule.

The American Command Structure is far superior to other nations.

The fighting in question was in France. I think they would know better how to use the troops. And expecting them to give up command in their own country is some serious audacity.

How about we let the top experts in our military determine whether our troops are put under another's command, rather than making false patriotism the method?
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..

If our allies are about to be overrun, and the need men, it is usually done. The idea that an entire command structure would be sent is counter-productive. The command, supply, and support structures were already in place.

But my question is, do you think other countries troops should be put under US command?
Whatever is in the best interests of America should be the golden rule.

The American Command Structure is far superior to other nations.

The fighting in question was in France. I think they would know better how to use the troops. And expecting them to give up command in their own country is some serious audacity.

How about we let the top experts in our military determine whether our troops are put under another's command, rather than making false patriotism the method?

The French Command structure was severely lacking.....you seem not to have read the link explaining all that.....Perspectives on foreign command of U. S. forces

Not even to mention all those American blacks killed under french command.....would I am sure ----not have agreed with your shallow asssessment.

Although troops from other nations have served under U.S. commanders,some Members of Congress are troubled by several issues raised by ceding even some level of control over U.S. troops to foreign commanders. These revolve around questions about whether placing U.S.soldiers under a foreign commander in any way impinges on U.S. sovereignty, and whether U.S. troops face greater danger under a foreign commander. Those who favor such placement put forth various procedures and arrangements that are taken to avoid such problems, for instance, U.S. troops are placed under a foreign commander only for a specified time and a specific mission. The foreign commander’s authority over U.S. troops is limited to the authority necessary to organize, coordinate, and direct the mission-related tasks of those units provided to him, in order to accomplish the assigned mission. In addition a variety of safeguards are recognized as needed to protect U.S. troops, many of which were spelled out in former President William Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25 of May 1994. In particular, the United States participates actively in the policymaking bodies that oversee the military operation, seeks the clear delineation of operational missions in governing agreements, and limits the authority of foreign commanders.
 
Last edited:

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
92,694
Reaction score
24,572
Points
2,180
Location
in between
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?

Yes. Like many multinational military units, the command was given to one nation. The men were still serving in the US Army.

What do you mean by the term multinational military units?

In this case, the French were in desperate need of men. The US sent members of the US Army to give them relief. But the overall area was under French command.

From the article Coyote posted and I posted:
"The situation was desperate in France, and with exhausted and dwindling armies, the French begged the United States for men. GEN John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, promised them four American regiments."

From what I am seeing posted on here it appears the only deaths of Black American Soldiers were those under French command.....interesting but not the topic or an answer to my question.....but as it stands it appears there were more American Black Soldiers killed in WWI than in WWII.

In WWII there were approx. 800 American Black Soldiers killed.....why are the stats available for WWII but not for WWI?

The number of American Black soldiers killed in WWI must be out there somewhere???

It is not just "Black Soldiers". There were also Latino and Asian soldiers. The military was simply not obsessed about "Racial Demographics" yet. Nobody was.

You also had American blacks who died when fighting with the Communists in Spain, nobody tracked those either. And the same in the Spanish-American War, or the Indian Wars. This obsession with how many of what race died is a rather recent thing.
Yet....there are available statistics regarding the number of Black deaths in WWII

Perhaps WWI is just not that significant to the statisticians.

Well, tell you what then, bubba.

I already gave you a reference to a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI. Or you can go to the VA Archives and sift through hundreds of thousands of records yourself and compile the data that way.

Why don't you do it? Or have the UL, NAACP, BLM, or some other organization go to the cost and time to figure this out?

Myself, I find it rather lazy and silly that you are screaming that it has not been done yet. Well, if this is so important to you, do it yourself. All the records are public information, I gave you a link to a book that had lots of them, just not put in the format you want. Not my problem, if it is that important to you, do the research yourself.

And yes, I might have a curiosity as to how many American Indians died in that war. But ultimately, it is not that important to me. Because I do not classify levels of sacrifice by the color of somebodies skin.
a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI?

That must be one big book....do you know how many millions died in WWI?

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians.

It appears that of all that approx 2 thousand black soldiers were also killed.

Also....approx a little over 50,000 white American soldiers were killed.

I have no idea how many of them were white supremacists.....maybe joe could tell you.


Also....one other thing comes to mind here......the term 'stolen valor'.....I really hate to mention it....but if you add up the total number of whites killed in all of our wars and then add up the total number of blacks killed in all our wars.....whilst keeping in mind the current attitude in the biden's regime's attitude towards White Soldiers then that term 'stolen valour' jumps up screaming in my mind.


American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?

Yes. Like many multinational military units, the command was given to one nation. The men were still serving in the US Army.

What do you mean by the term multinational military units?

In this case, the French were in desperate need of men. The US sent members of the US Army to give them relief. But the overall area was under French command.

From the article Coyote posted and I posted:
"The situation was desperate in France, and with exhausted and dwindling armies, the French begged the United States for men. GEN John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, promised them four American regiments."

From what I am seeing posted on here it appears the only deaths of Black American Soldiers were those under French command.....interesting but not the topic or an answer to my question.....but as it stands it appears there were more American Black Soldiers killed in WWI than in WWII.

In WWII there were approx. 800 American Black Soldiers killed.....why are the stats available for WWII but not for WWI?

The number of American Black soldiers killed in WWI must be out there somewhere???

It is not just "Black Soldiers". There were also Latino and Asian soldiers. The military was simply not obsessed about "Racial Demographics" yet. Nobody was.

You also had American blacks who died when fighting with the Communists in Spain, nobody tracked those either. And the same in the Spanish-American War, or the Indian Wars. This obsession with how many of what race died is a rather recent thing.
Yet....there are available statistics regarding the number of Black deaths in WWII

Perhaps WWI is just not that significant to the statisticians.

Well, tell you what then, bubba.

I already gave you a reference to a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI. Or you can go to the VA Archives and sift through hundreds of thousands of records yourself and compile the data that way.

Why don't you do it? Or have the UL, NAACP, BLM, or some other organization go to the cost and time to figure this out?

Myself, I find it rather lazy and silly that you are screaming that it has not been done yet. Well, if this is so important to you, do it yourself. All the records are public information, I gave you a link to a book that had lots of them, just not put in the format you want. Not my problem, if it is that important to you, do the research yourself.

And yes, I might have a curiosity as to how many American Indians died in that war. But ultimately, it is not that important to me. Because I do not classify levels of sacrifice by the color of somebodies skin.
a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI?

That must be one big book....do you know how many millions died in WWI?

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians.

It appears that of all that approx 2 thousand black soldiers were also killed.

Also....approx a little over 50,000 white American soldiers were killed.

I have no idea how many of them were white supremacists.....maybe joe could tell you.


Also....one other thing comes to mind here......the term 'stolen valor'.....I really hate to mention it....but if you add up the total number of whites killed in all of our wars and then add up the total number of blacks killed in all our wars.....whilst keeping in mind the current attitude in the biden's regime's attitude towards White Soldiers then that term 'stolen valour' jumps up screaming in my mind.



Stolen Valor is about people claiming to have served when they did not. It has nothing to do with the number of dead.

In WWI there were around 50,000 US casualties from the war itself. Another 63,000 died from other causes, most notably from the Spanish Flu epidemic.

If there were significantly fewer black soldiers killed in WWI it can be traced to two facts.
#1 - Blacks were not allowed in the US Marine Corp in WWI, and only served in labor or service positions in the US Navy.
#2 - Blacks were mostly used in labor and service in the US Army as well. Most never saw combat.

Stolen Valor is about people claiming to have served when they did not. It has nothing to do with the number of dead.

In WWI there were around 50,000 US casualties from the war itself. Another 63,000 died from other causes, most notably from the Spanish Flu epidemic.

If there were significantly fewer black soldiers killed in WWI it can be traced to two facts.
#1 - Blacks were not allowed in the US Marine Corp in WWI, and only served in labor or service positions in the US Navy.
#2 - Blacks were mostly used in labor and service in the US Army as well. Most never saw combat.
I am well aware of all of that but I am not referring specifically to the stolen valor act.

Stolen Valor has broader applications than the narrow confines of the particular law addressing the issue.

My contention is that Joe Biden has dishonored all white veterans by his accusations of White Supremacy....which essentially in practical terms equates with stolen valor.

Whilst at the same time he and his party particuarly honors all the minority members of the military at every opportunity....this amounts to stealing the valor of White Soldiers who have overwhelmingly contributed more to the defense of America than any other group yet biden attempts to not only steal their rightful honor but to transfer it to those who did far less.

Thus by his words and actions he has denigrated and dis-honored all white servicemen by attempting to steal their rightful honor and valor and give it to others.

Absolutely disgraceful.

I served 3 years and I have talked with lots of other veterans....I never saw any evidence whatsoever of white supremacy in the military nor has any other veteran I have talked with.

I am not saying there has never been a particular instance of it but it is certainly not a major issue in the military as biden infers.

Congress needs to reprimand him at least for his reprehensible comments on this matter which has become a major fallacious theme of his despicable regime......designed at least to further divide the nation and create more racial problems at a time we are already undergoing extremely high levels of racial tension whilst our foreign threats are higher than at any time in our history and increasing.

Not even to mention how hypocritical he is ----having campaigned on a promise of unity.

Do you have a link to what he said?

And wasn't there a Pentagon report on the issue? If I recall, they found some disturbing things.
You need to understand the big picture...............Bishop Garrison: Biden’s Racist Tool for a Military Purge - Frontpagemag
The big picture is that extremism should not be part of out military.

Absolutely no evidence that it is.....just a red herring tossed out by radical democrats to allow them to purge the military of patriotic Americans and replace them with politically correct pawns of the democratic party.

I find it amusing that you reported 6 different posts for being off topic when they discussed various things about black serving in WWI. You even reported one that you said you didn't want it politicized.

And now you are way off topic and talking politics. I guess you have rules for you and rules for everyone else.
you missed the post where I said I was opening it up to all comments since no one could post a statistic showing how many blacks died in WWI
Why does it matter?

How many died in Vietnam?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
92,694
Reaction score
24,572
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Then what is the point of this comnent you made?

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?

Yes. Like many multinational military units, the command was given to one nation. The men were still serving in the US Army.

What do you mean by the term multinational military units?

In this case, the French were in desperate need of men. The US sent members of the US Army to give them relief. But the overall area was under French command.

From the article Coyote posted and I posted:
"The situation was desperate in France, and with exhausted and dwindling armies, the French begged the United States for men. GEN John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, promised them four American regiments."

From what I am seeing posted on here it appears the only deaths of Black American Soldiers were those under French command.....interesting but not the topic or an answer to my question.....but as it stands it appears there were more American Black Soldiers killed in WWI than in WWII.

In WWII there were approx. 800 American Black Soldiers killed.....why are the stats available for WWII but not for WWI?

The number of American Black soldiers killed in WWI must be out there somewhere???

It is not just "Black Soldiers". There were also Latino and Asian soldiers. The military was simply not obsessed about "Racial Demographics" yet. Nobody was.

You also had American blacks who died when fighting with the Communists in Spain, nobody tracked those either. And the same in the Spanish-American War, or the Indian Wars. This obsession with how many of what race died is a rather recent thing.
Yet....there are available statistics regarding the number of Black deaths in WWII

Perhaps WWI is just not that significant to the statisticians.

Well, tell you what then, bubba.

I already gave you a reference to a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI. Or you can go to the VA Archives and sift through hundreds of thousands of records yourself and compile the data that way.

Why don't you do it? Or have the UL, NAACP, BLM, or some other organization go to the cost and time to figure this out?

Myself, I find it rather lazy and silly that you are screaming that it has not been done yet. Well, if this is so important to you, do it yourself. All the records are public information, I gave you a link to a book that had lots of them, just not put in the format you want. Not my problem, if it is that important to you, do the research yourself.

And yes, I might have a curiosity as to how many American Indians died in that war. But ultimately, it is not that important to me. Because I do not classify levels of sacrifice by the color of somebodies skin.
a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI?

That must be one big book....do you know how many millions died in WWI?

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians.

It appears that of all that approx 2 thousand black soldiers were also killed.

Also....approx a little over 50,000 white American soldiers were killed.

I have no idea how many of them were white supremacists.....maybe joe could tell you.


Also....one other thing comes to mind here......the term 'stolen valor'.....I really hate to mention it....but if you add up the total number of whites killed in all of our wars and then add up the total number of blacks killed in all our wars.....whilst keeping in mind the current attitude in the biden's regime's attitude towards White Soldiers then that term 'stolen valour' jumps up screaming in my mind.


American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?

Yes. Like many multinational military units, the command was given to one nation. The men were still serving in the US Army.

What do you mean by the term multinational military units?

In this case, the French were in desperate need of men. The US sent members of the US Army to give them relief. But the overall area was under French command.

From the article Coyote posted and I posted:
"The situation was desperate in France, and with exhausted and dwindling armies, the French begged the United States for men. GEN John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, promised them four American regiments."

From what I am seeing posted on here it appears the only deaths of Black American Soldiers were those under French command.....interesting but not the topic or an answer to my question.....but as it stands it appears there were more American Black Soldiers killed in WWI than in WWII.

In WWII there were approx. 800 American Black Soldiers killed.....why are the stats available for WWII but not for WWI?

The number of American Black soldiers killed in WWI must be out there somewhere???

It is not just "Black Soldiers". There were also Latino and Asian soldiers. The military was simply not obsessed about "Racial Demographics" yet. Nobody was.

You also had American blacks who died when fighting with the Communists in Spain, nobody tracked those either. And the same in the Spanish-American War, or the Indian Wars. This obsession with how many of what race died is a rather recent thing.
Yet....there are available statistics regarding the number of Black deaths in WWII

Perhaps WWI is just not that significant to the statisticians.

Well, tell you what then, bubba.

I already gave you a reference to a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI. Or you can go to the VA Archives and sift through hundreds of thousands of records yourself and compile the data that way.

Why don't you do it? Or have the UL, NAACP, BLM, or some other organization go to the cost and time to figure this out?

Myself, I find it rather lazy and silly that you are screaming that it has not been done yet. Well, if this is so important to you, do it yourself. All the records are public information, I gave you a link to a book that had lots of them, just not put in the format you want. Not my problem, if it is that important to you, do the research yourself.

And yes, I might have a curiosity as to how many American Indians died in that war. But ultimately, it is not that important to me. Because I do not classify levels of sacrifice by the color of somebodies skin.
a book that has the photographs of every soldier killed in WWI?

That must be one big book....do you know how many millions died in WWI?

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians.

It appears that of all that approx 2 thousand black soldiers were also killed.

Also....approx a little over 50,000 white American soldiers were killed.

I have no idea how many of them were white supremacists.....maybe joe could tell you.


Also....one other thing comes to mind here......the term 'stolen valor'.....I really hate to mention it....but if you add up the total number of whites killed in all of our wars and then add up the total number of blacks killed in all our wars.....whilst keeping in mind the current attitude in the biden's regime's attitude towards White Soldiers then that term 'stolen valour' jumps up screaming in my mind.



Stolen Valor is about people claiming to have served when they did not. It has nothing to do with the number of dead.

In WWI there were around 50,000 US casualties from the war itself. Another 63,000 died from other causes, most notably from the Spanish Flu epidemic.

If there were significantly fewer black soldiers killed in WWI it can be traced to two facts.
#1 - Blacks were not allowed in the US Marine Corp in WWI, and only served in labor or service positions in the US Navy.
#2 - Blacks were mostly used in labor and service in the US Army as well. Most never saw combat.

Stolen Valor is about people claiming to have served when they did not. It has nothing to do with the number of dead.

In WWI there were around 50,000 US casualties from the war itself. Another 63,000 died from other causes, most notably from the Spanish Flu epidemic.

If there were significantly fewer black soldiers killed in WWI it can be traced to two facts.
#1 - Blacks were not allowed in the US Marine Corp in WWI, and only served in labor or service positions in the US Navy.
#2 - Blacks were mostly used in labor and service in the US Army as well. Most never saw combat.
I am well aware of all of that but I am not referring specifically to the stolen valor act.

Stolen Valor has broader applications than the narrow confines of the particular law addressing the issue.

My contention is that Joe Biden has dishonored all white veterans by his accusations of White Supremacy....which essentially in practical terms equates with stolen valor.

Whilst at the same time he and his party particuarly honors all the minority members of the military at every opportunity....this amounts to stealing the valor of White Soldiers who have overwhelmingly contributed more to the defense of America than any other group yet biden attempts to not only steal their rightful honor but to transfer it to those who did far less.

Thus by his words and actions he has denigrated and dis-honored all white servicemen by attempting to steal their rightful honor and valor and give it to others.

Absolutely disgraceful.

I served 3 years and I have talked with lots of other veterans....I never saw any evidence whatsoever of white supremacy in the military nor has any other veteran I have talked with.

I am not saying there has never been a particular instance of it but it is certainly not a major issue in the military as biden infers.

Congress needs to reprimand him at least for his reprehensible comments on this matter which has become a major fallacious theme of his despicable regime......designed at least to further divide the nation and create more racial problems at a time we are already undergoing extremely high levels of racial tension whilst our foreign threats are higher than at any time in our history and increasing.

Not even to mention how hypocritical he is ----having campaigned on a promise of unity.

Do you have a link to what he said?

And wasn't there a Pentagon report on the issue? If I recall, they found some disturbing things.
You need to understand the big picture...............Bishop Garrison: Biden’s Racist Tool for a Military Purge - Frontpagemag
The big picture is that extremism should not be part of out military.

Absolutely no evidence that it is.....just a red herring tossed out by radical democrats to allow them to purge the military of patriotic Americans and replace them with politically correct pawns of the democratic party.

I find it amusing that you reported 6 different posts for being off topic when they discussed various things about black serving in WWI. You even reported one that you said you didn't want it politicized.

And now you are way off topic and talking politics. I guess you have rules for you and rules for everyone else.
you missed the post where I said I was opening it up to all comments since no one could post a statistic showing how many blacks died in WWI
Why does it matter?

How many died in Vietnam?

That is easily found.

The reason I asked about WWI....I could not find the statistics on the total number of American blacks killed in WWI....even after several searches....not even to mention---no one else has been able to find any stats on that....the best that anyone has come up with is the number of American blacks killed who were serving under French command.
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
Then what is the point of this comnent you made?

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.
that was not my comment.
 

Mushroom

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
302
Points
98
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Jeez dude, you certainly want a very narrow idea of the topic, don't you?

You asked for me to post the relevant part of the article Coyote posted. I posted the entire article. The number of deaths of blacks in 2 divisions is listed near the bottom.
Actually the OP didn't specify Americans; the aricle I linked to claims 2 million Africans.
you got a link for 2 million Africans killed in WWI?

posted it already.
Well....they were certainly not African-Americans.....and my question was how many African-Americans were killed in WWI.

Also....being suspicious of the claim that 2 million African soldiers were killed in WWI....i searched for more info....here is what i found.

In all, about 2,350,000 Africans were mobilized between 1914 and 1918 to secure these respective ends, while over 250,000 soldiers and carriers, as well as approximately 750,000 civilians perished in this effort.

Thus we see the great majority of those African deaths were civilians....probably died from starvation.

Those who died from non-combat related issues were probably killed by the Spanish flu epidemic.

Not really, far to many and not in keeping with other conflicts of the period.

Plus the highest death toll from that pandemic was after the war was over.
 

Mushroom

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
302
Points
98
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..


We often are, especially in UN operations.

Or do you insist that the US be placed in charge of each and every single UN mission it works on?
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918
Jeez dude, you certainly want a very narrow idea of the topic, don't you?

You asked for me to post the relevant part of the article Coyote posted. I posted the entire article. The number of deaths of blacks in 2 divisions is listed near the bottom.
Actually the OP didn't specify Americans; the aricle I linked to claims 2 million Africans.
you got a link for 2 million Africans killed in WWI?

posted it already.
Well....they were certainly not African-Americans.....and my question was how many African-Americans were killed in WWI.

Also....being suspicious of the claim that 2 million African soldiers were killed in WWI....i searched for more info....here is what i found.

In all, about 2,350,000 Africans were mobilized between 1914 and 1918 to secure these respective ends, while over 250,000 soldiers and carriers, as well as approximately 750,000 civilians perished in this effort.

Thus we see the great majority of those African deaths were civilians....probably died from starvation.
Your OP doesn't specify black American soldiers, just 'black soldiers'.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.

Sorry, this is pure BS. I served for 15 years in Combat Arms, and saw more than my share of minorities in it, including Blacks.
Yes, well you're always 'special' and claiming knowledge nobody else ever has, including the military itself.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918
I have done several seeches on the subject but unable to obtain the official stats on the death of Black Soldiers in WWI.......I found several articles on black particiption in the Greart war....their units etc. but unable to find how many died in combat?

The only black combatants I know of are some French colonial units that served commendably in several key battles. The Brits had some too, Nigerians.


Just ignore the bullshit editorializing and spin at the link; most Africans were better off under European administration than under their own corrupt dictators. A couple of exceptions don't disprove that fact.
Here is the post where I linked to African casualties; the other side would have had more casualties. Some 50,000 died from the influenza epidemic, a lot but not most of the casualties. Deaths related to the wars all count, whether 'support' troops or not, civilian or not. The Nazis tore down a monument to the black soldiers lost in WW I in Rheims, when they invaded France in WW II. It wasn't rebuilt after the war.
 
Last edited:

Mushroom

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
302
Points
98
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.

Sorry, this is pure BS. I served for 15 years in Combat Arms, and saw more than my share of minorities in it, including Blacks.
Yes, well you're always 'special' and claiming knowledge nobody else ever has, including the military itself.

*laughs in incredulity*

Well, feel free to ask all of the other Veterans in here if they agree with me or not, how about that? Other than your remarks seem to be very racist, and I really have no use or tolerance for racists.

And trust me, I have little doubt that almost all of them would agree with what I said. Having served for over 2 decades, I have quite a good idea what I am talking about.

How long have you served, which gives you the basis to question my service?

But before I leave, some facts. In the US, blacks make up just under 12% of the population (18% in the report I am about to reference). Yet, in "Operations" (that is "Combat Arms", the segment that actually fights) they make up 21% of the force. If what you said as true, there would be a much lower percent in that area.

 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.

Sorry, this is pure BS. I served for 15 years in Combat Arms, and saw more than my share of minorities in it, including Blacks.
Yes, well you're always 'special' and claiming knowledge nobody else ever has, including the military itself.

*laughs in incredulity*

Well, feel free to ask all of the other Veterans in here if they agree with me or not, how about that? Other than your remarks seem to be very racist, and I really have no use or tolerance for racists.

And trust me, I have little doubt that almost all of them would agree with what I said. Having served for over 2 decades, I have quite a good idea what I am talking about.

How long have you served, which gives you the basis to question my service?

But before I leave, some facts. In the US, blacks make up just under 12% of the population (18% in the report I am about to reference). Yet, in "Operations" (that is "Combat Arms", the segment that actually fights) they make up 21% of the force. If what you said as true, there would be a much lower percent in that area.










projections as usual. Your personal anecdotes are just your fantasies, not facts. The majority of higher level promotions come from the combat arms, whether you like that or not isn't relevant, nor is your personal experience loading trucks and cleaning heads for 20 years as a grunt.
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..


We often are, especially in UN operations.

Or do you insist that the US be placed in charge of each and every single UN mission it works on?
Fuck the U.N. we should have gotten out of it long ago.

The U.N. is not a Nation dumbass
 
OP
TheGreenHornet

TheGreenHornet

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,942
Points
940

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.

Sorry, this is pure BS. I served for 15 years in Combat Arms, and saw more than my share of minorities in it, including Blacks.
Yes, well you're always 'special' and claiming knowledge nobody else ever has, including the military itself.

*laughs in incredulity*

Well, feel free to ask all of the other Veterans in here if they agree with me or not, how about that? Other than your remarks seem to be very racist, and I really have no use or tolerance for racists.

And trust me, I have little doubt that almost all of them would agree with what I said. Having served for over 2 decades, I have quite a good idea what I am talking about.

How long have you served, which gives you the basis to question my service?

But before I leave, some facts. In the US, blacks make up just under 12% of the population (18% in the report I am about to reference). Yet, in "Operations" (that is "Combat Arms", the segment that actually fights) they make up 21% of the force. If what you said as true, there would be a much lower percent in that area.










projections as usual. Your personal anecdotes are just your fantasies, not facts. The majority of higher level promotions come from the combat arms, whether you like that or not isn't relevant, nor is your personal experience loading trucks and cleaning heads for 20 years as a grunt.
'The US Armed Forces officially desegregated in 1948. Over the following 70 years, the military has made great strides in promoting racial integration. We find evidence, however, that Black soldiers’ experience of military service still differs significantly from that of other racial and ethnic groups. Exploiting a database of administrative records for 100,000 Army personnel serving during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we find that Blacks were less likely than other service members to have deployed, or to face intense combat if deployed, during the early phases of the campaigns.'


Ethnicity
It is wrong to say that minorities are disproportionately bearing the burden. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.
Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.
The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.

During the initial invasion of Iraq, the minority-heavy support units were strung out along poorly secured supply lines. That made them vulnerable to irregulars such as Saddam's Fedayeen -- as the capture of Jessica Lynch and the death of her American Indian comrade, Lori Piestewa, illustrated. Ironically, said Segal, even as the fighting in Iraq moved into anti-guerrilla warfare, support units moved into more-secure base areas, shifting the burden of casualties back onto the combat units actively hunting the insurgents. The pattern is even more pronounced in Afghanistan, where white-dominated elite units lead the hunt and take the heaviest losses. Helicopter pilots make up 6.4 percent of Army deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom but only 3.2 percent of Army deaths in Iraq; Special Forces make up 15.4 percent of Army dead in Enduring Freedom but only 1 percent in Iraq. Thus, the percentage of white casualties is highest, and that of blacks lowest, in Afghanistan and related operations; the percentage of blacks was highest, and that of whites lowest, during the initial invasion of Iraq. The ethnic mix for the current counterinsurgency in Iraq falls between those two extremes. In other words, the dead have gotten whiter as the insurgency has persisted.
The pattern for Hispanics is similar to that for blacks, although the differences are less extreme. The highest proportion of Hispanic dead came during the initial invasion of Iraq, the lowest in Afghanistan, with the Iraq insurgency's numbers falling in between. Overall, unlike blacks, Hispanics are significantly under-represented in the ranks of the military's living and -- to a lesser degree -- of its war dead. Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the U.S. population but just 9 percent of the active-duty military (9.9 percent of the Army). They account for 11.1 percent of those killed worldwide. Hispanics' socioeconomic disadvantages help keep them out of uniform and out of danger: They are much more likely than other racial groups in the U.S. to drop out of high school and hence lack the diploma required to enlist.
The great exception, interestingly, is the Marine Corps, the service with the most aggressive warrior culture. Hispanics are slightly over-represented among living Marines, at 13 percent, and startlingly over-represented among the ones who have died, at 18.6 percent. If the archetypal casualty of this war is a white Army GI, a Hispanic Marine Corps rifleman lies close by his side.

How does all this compare with Vietnam? For blacks, the percentages are virtually identical: 12.4 percent of the dead in the war since 9/11 are listed as African-American, whereas 12.5 percent of the dead in Vietnam were then listed as "Negro."

But the terminology of the time is problematic in more ways than one. Most important, the category "Hispanic" did not exist in official forms or in most people's minds until the 1970s. As a result, the Hispanic death toll during Vietnam is hidden among the "Caucasian" and, to a lesser extent, the "Negro" figures. Attempts to reconstruct the Hispanic share of the Vietnam era give some high figures -- a quarter of those killed in action were Latino, by one estimate -- but rely on shaky methodologies, like guessing whether individual names sound Spanish. Academic sociologists such as Segal and the Defense Department's own official record-keepers agree that all racial and ethnic data from Vietnam (let alone Korea) are inherently suspect and dangerous to compare with current categories.
 
Last edited:

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918

They go in for job training now and avoid the combat arms, then whine about being under-represented in command positions. They're never happy, always sniveling for no reason.

Sorry, this is pure BS. I served for 15 years in Combat Arms, and saw more than my share of minorities in it, including Blacks.
Yes, well you're always 'special' and claiming knowledge nobody else ever has, including the military itself.

*laughs in incredulity*

Well, feel free to ask all of the other Veterans in here if they agree with me or not, how about that? Other than your remarks seem to be very racist, and I really have no use or tolerance for racists.

And trust me, I have little doubt that almost all of them would agree with what I said. Having served for over 2 decades, I have quite a good idea what I am talking about.

How long have you served, which gives you the basis to question my service?

But before I leave, some facts. In the US, blacks make up just under 12% of the population (18% in the report I am about to reference). Yet, in "Operations" (that is "Combat Arms", the segment that actually fights) they make up 21% of the force. If what you said as true, there would be a much lower percent in that area.










projections as usual. Your personal anecdotes are just your fantasies, not facts. The majority of higher level promotions come from the combat arms, whether you like that or not isn't relevant, nor is your personal experience loading trucks and cleaning heads for 20 years as a grunt.
'The US Armed Forces officially desegregated in 1948. Over the following 70 years, the military has made great strides in promoting racial integration. We find evidence, however, that Black soldiers’ experience of military service still differs significantly from that of other racial and ethnic groups. Exploiting a database of administrative records for 100,000 Army personnel serving during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we find that Blacks were less likely than other service members to have deployed, or to face intense combat if deployed, during the early phases of the campaigns.'

Like the study I linked to said, they make up some 30% of the military overall, but less than 20% of the combat arms, and because they're under-represented in the combat arms they in turn don't get 30% of the higher level promotions, where some 79% of those promotions originate. Even dumbass Mushhead's own post verifies what I said, but I guess he was too busy trying to suck up to a couple of mod trolls to bother reading posts.

In other news, black street gangs encourage members and wanabees to volunteer, and then choose career paths that provide the most opportunities to steal weapons and gear useful to their homies, no doubt another factor in why they choose other career paths in the military. The military of course always makes a big effort to cover that up. They like to snivel about 'white supremacists' and biker gangs to take attention away from the giant black elephants in the room.
 
Last edited:

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1,562
Points
918
American black soldiers were used for support and logistics during WWi
They mainly were used as manual labor, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks. Only a tiny number, if any, were assigned to combat units. ... :cool:

There were 2 divisions that were totally black. They lost 1,647 and 3,547 men in combat, respectively.

And the men serving in manual labor jobs, such as unloading cargo off ships, building projects, and driving supply trucks were still in the US Army and still serving in the war.

Were they serving under French command?
The vast majority of U.S. black soldiers mainly served in supply and logistics under the American flag and commanded by white U.S. Army.
officers.
But there were two divisions of black U.S. Army combat soldiers that were given to the French, commanded by French officers, wore French helmets and used French weapons, and fought under the French flag during WWl. ... :cool:
American troops should never be put under the command of any other nation..


We often are, especially in UN operations.

Or do you insist that the US be placed in charge of each and every single UN mission it works on?
Fuck the U.N. we should have gotten out of it long ago.

The U.N. is not a Nation dumbass
The UN is a bad joke. Its membership is two thirds nothing but assorted crime families and gangsters.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top