One of the benefits of being a publisher and coordinating the Great War in Africa Association is early access to some material. One of these has been Chiwaya War Voices by Melvin E Page published in March 2020 by the Great War in Africa Association.
In discussion with Mel about what best to do with the hundreds of interviews he’d conducted back in the 1970s and some later in the 1990s, we decided it would be helpful to future researchers for these to be printed and made generally available. I hadn’t seen the full scope of the interviews at this stage but was fully aware of the quality and range of interviews through my thesis work on the Great War in Africa.
Rather than use Mel’s Chiwaya War book or KAR: A history of the King’s African Rifles , I had chanced upon his thesis and what a treasure trove as it contained transcriptions of the interviews as opposed to their essence being integrated into a monograph. Now, we have access to over 140 interview transcripts in a two-volume book with no commentary other than Mel setting out in how he conducted his research and the structure of the material. The Index at the back of the book is a table rather than the traditional-style index. This was done purposefully to assist researchers in identifying the the broad type of material they are after – KAR, askari, carrier, male/female, WW1 or WW2. Mentioning WW2, there is some reference to that in Chiwaya War Voices as comparative to WW1 experiences with some fascinating insights although the main World War Two interviews will be made available in a future publication which Mel is currently working on: Chiwaya War Echoes.
Chiwaya War Voices is a valuable addition to the published primary source material on the war in East Africa. To date, most researchers have quoted Geoffrey Hodges’ interviews for black African experiences. Having looked at the Hodges collection at the Bodleian Library, there is no comparison between the two collections. Chiwaya War Voices is wider reaching in terms of people interviewed, quantity and topic covered. For anyone interested in war burials you will find numerous mentions in Chiwaya War Voices, but not one in any of Hodge’s interviews, However, this is not to discount Hodges’ work but rather to encourage researchers to consider their material carefully within the regional context. Hodges’ interviews were Kenya based whilst Mel’s are Malawi based. Hodges had an interest in the political repercussions whilst Mel’s is more social, The differences continue to echo – relationships appear far more egalitarian between different cultural groups based on the interviews Mel conducted than those by Hodges.
And for anyone questioning some of the experiences in Distinguished Conduct, Mel’s constructed history of Juma Chimwere, Chiwaya War Voices is a good place to look (and then the KAR records at TNA).
The Road of Donkey Bones: Captain Llewellyn Wynne Jones MC, A diary from Britain’s WW1 East Africa Campaign was researched and compiled by his granddaughter Alison Cornell.
While the diary and the photographs are of great interest, I cannot say this was a book which grabbed me. Alison has entered into a conversation with her grandfather in relation to his diary entries. There is little context set for his time in East Africa which was focused on the Turkana expedition rather than the main military engagement against the Germans.
Wynne Jones provides an insight into the 5 and 6 KAR – he was to serve with 6 KAR and worked alongside 5 KAR. The diary covers from January 1918 when he left for East Africa and runs through to November 1918 when he was evacuated with an injury. The text is supplemented with early family history and some events leading to Wynne Jones’ death on 10 August 1922 following a riding accident with the Territorial Army in Wales. Between East Africa and death, he served with the British forces in Russia where he obtained a bar to his MC, the MC having been awarded for action in France before he left for East Africa.
What is striking about the diary is the almost haphazard approach to the campaign, the challenge of porters and moving herds of cattle, camels and mules across desert terrain. The issue of rations lasting is another theme.
On the issue of registering porters he wrote (p135): “I was busy today registering all the porters. I wish they would only get decent names instead of these awful substitutes they have. How they can ever say them beats me.” It took him all day to register 125 of 250 names. We don’t hear complaints about names on day 2 or for any other occasions when new porters are enlisted, although there are issues around using new porters as opposed to seasoned porters. This is an enlightening little statement. Porters recruited on route were generally recorded for administrative reasons. The challenge was spelling or recording the names in a manner they would be understood by others. The vowel sounds are different and the consonant combinations irregular when it comes to British English – one just needs to see the bilingual dictionaries of the day which missionaries and doctors were compiling. And even if Wynne Jones had passed his Kiswahili test (something he doesn’t record) not everyone would have spoken Kiswahili, making life a little challenging to say the least.
My other little spot of interest was his diary entry noting “dinner at Muhoroni” on 10 October 1918 on his way home. Muhoroni was the place where Lord Kitchener had bought his farm back in 1911 and had turned into a limited company the weekend before he lost his life on 5 June 1916. His brother, HEC Kitchener who was serving in East Africa at the time, responsible for railway aspects, had taken the title of Lord Kitchener (K2 as I refer to him). I wonder if he was at Muhoroni at the time and entertained Wynne Jones at dinner… we’ll probably never know.
For anyone interested in finding out more about the King’s African Rifles with whom Wynne Jones served:
Moyse-Bartlett in his mammoth The King’s African Rifles has a section (pp419-452) although there is no mention of Wynne Jones. 5 KAR was formed in early 1917 from units of 2 KAR and 3 KAR operating on the northern border of British East Africa. 1/6 KAR had been formed at the end of April 1917 from ex-German askaris and other recruits (p354). It therefore made sense to send them north where they would not have to fight against their former units.
Per Finsted has provided an overview of the Sudanese involved in the Turkana expedition and a history in an 18 page article.
Following the talk I gave to the year 8s and some work they did with their teachers, here are some of the questions the young people came up with regarding the First World War in Africa. As with all such things, there are some I’m amazed have been asked – I know the point was addressed in the talk and in class. But I’m also aware there was so much new information that sometimes the message is lost. What is rewarding is that they’re asking the questions and some are absolutely brilliant. Thank you. So here are some brief answers for now, others I might come back to later on.
What did the Africans do in the war?
The short answer is the same as what people in Britain and Europe did.
Some men fought. In Africa the idea was that only white men would fight in what was hoped to be a ‘white man’s war’. France recruited black soldiers to fight in Europe – for example from Senegal. However, there were black soldiers such as the West African Frontier Force (today’s Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia).
Others worked as porters or carriers and others as labourers. There was much work which had to be done such as clearing away bush for camps, roads, airfields. Cooking and cleaning of camps and hospitals, washing of clothes and so on. It is estimated that there were over 1 million porters alone in East Africa during the war – they were local but also from West Africa, Seychelles, China and Southern Africa.
The women carried on looking after the farms and houses, helped with carrying and doing other tasks where they could.
How much did the war cost in Africa?
We know the figure for Britain’s involvement – £72 million or the equivalent of four years war budget in 1914.
What was the population of Africa before and after the war?
This is a difficult question to answer and we will never know exactly because there was no accurate data kept and the systems were not developed enough to undertake a census. The size of the countries meant that those living in remote places might never see a government official.
Why is Africa not so well known for fighting in the war? Why don’t people remember them as much? How do Africans remember the Africans that have died in the war? Do they at all?
The African campaigns were seen as secondary. They had no direct impact on what was happening on the Western Front, which for Britain was the most important theatre. If Britain lost there, it would lose everything in the same way Germany did in 1918. The fighting in Africa was a distraction for those running the war except that the territories could be used as bargaining chips at the peace negotiations if needed. In addition, very few men from Britain fought in Africa compared to in the European theatres and the Dardanelles. Further, there were few reporters and people able to get messages to Europe for publication and when they were able the stories were often too depressing to publish when things were not going too well in Europe. It was therefore decided to keep the stories, unless they were about victories, out of the press to keep the Home Front morale up.
When the British men who had fought in Africa got back to Britain, they did not tend to talk about the war because family and friends assumed they had been on holiday and had it easy compared to those in Europe. This was because of the idea of Africa being a place of fun and adventure such as hunting. It was also not as exciting or heroic to tell people that you spent much of your time in hospital or sick because of malaria and other illnesses when they were talking of being shot or caught in a bombardment.
For all these reasons the war in Africa was not remembered.
For the people in Africa, the war was just another of many wars they were involved in and because life was already a struggle to survive, they carried on doing what they could. It wasn’t their war, they got involved because their masters asked/told them to. There is also a very different way of remembering in Africa to that in Britain. This is due to the mainly oral traditions which are found in Africa rather than a written one. People told stories and eventually the stories disappear because new ones take over.
Were there African generals? Why weren’t African soldiers treated the same as European soldiers? Who led the Africans? Who commanded the Africans?
There were white African generals such as Jan Smuts and Jaap van Deventer from South Africa who commanded the forces in East Africa after 1916. Although there black, Indian and Arab soldiers fighting in Africa, there were no generals from among them. This was because Britain controlled the Empire and preferred having its own people, who were white, manage things. This was part of the belief at the time that whites were more intelligent and able than people of other backgrounds. The war helped the white imperialists to see that people of colour were as able and intelligent so that in World War 2, there were officers of different races. Some of the leaders of African independence had served during the First World War and learnt from their roles about how to organise and manage people to bring about change.
Who looked after the injured Africans?
There were Field Ambulances which consisted of stretcher bearers and dressers who collected the injured soldiers from the field. An ambulance in World War 1 was not a vehicle but a group of people. From the front, the injured went to a Clearing Station where it was decided if they needed to go to hospital or be treated on the spot before returning to their regiment. From the Clearing Station they went to Stationary and General Hospitals for more specialised and long term treatment. There were hospitals for Europeans (whites), Black Soldiers (King’s African Rifles) and Carriers. The Pike Report into the medical conditions in East Africa in 1917 noted that the Carrier hospitals were some of the best they had seen which was a great improvement on how the situation was in the early years of the war. For those from other countries such as South Africa and Seychelles, they were sent home on Hospital Ships before going into a hospital at home to recuperate or be sent home.
Before a soldier or carrier was discharged for medical reasons they attended a medical board which decided what happened to them and if they received a pension pay out. According to the Medical Boards for the Cape Corps (Coloured or Mixed race force from South Africa) many of them were given three months R&R (rest and recuperation) before being discharged. This allowed them to get an additional three months’ pay without having to do any work. They also received free accommodation and food for those three months. This was one way the white doctors could help people who were discriminated against by law because of their colour and position.
Were there any sea battles in Africa?
There was only one real ‘sea’ battle in Africa which was on Lake Tanganyika. However, there were a number of naval engagements.
In the Indian Ocean, the German cruiser the Konigsberg had disrupted shipping from the start of the war, sinking the first British Merchant ship of the war (carrying tea). The Konigsberg eventually went into hiding in the Rufiji Delta where it took a hunter and aeroplanes to find the ship. Because the delta was so narrow, special monitors had to be sent out from Britain which could navigate the narrow streams to bomb the Konigsberg with help from spotter planes.
It is said that the Hedwig von Wissmann was the first German ship to be captured by the British in the war. The Hedwig von Wissmann was on Lake Nyasa at the southern end of Tanzania. It was captured by the Captain of the British boat Gwendolyn. The two captains used to meet every year for a drink when their boats passed each other, so when the Gwendolyn came alongside the Hedwig which was in dry dock being repaired, the German captain didn’t realise he was going to be arrested. The German captain hadn’t been told that war had broken out.
On Lake Victoria the British boats were bombarded by the Germans from the coast line as they were trying to transport troops across the lake to Bukoba to participate in a land battle in early 1915.
The most famous of the ship encounters were those on Lake Tanganyika where two boats, HMS Mimi and Toutou were transported overland from Cape Town to Lukuga in the Belgian Congo. On 26 December 1915, the boats captured the German boat the Kingani which was renamed HMS Fifi. Not long after the Hermann von Wissmann was sunk. The black stoker from the Kingani survived and continued to serve on Fifi once he had recovered from his injuries. The Germans then sank their newly built ship the Gotzen so that it did not fall into British hands. The Gotzen was later restored and still sails today on the Lake as MV Liemba(the local name for the lake).
In West Africa, ships were used to transport troops along the rivers in Cameroon and Togoland.
Ships were also used for blockading the coast to prevent German goods from getting to the armed forces. In East Africa, two blockade runners were able to get through and resupply the German forces.
Where possible, the British Navy bombed the German radio stations along the coastline. This happened in Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania) and Luderitzbucht (Namibia).
What side was Africa on? Where did the troops come from in Africa?
Africans fought on both sides. This was determined by the country which controlled them. The African countries had been divided amongst the European Imperial powers in 1884. The Imperial powers were Britain, Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal. Each had colonies in Africa:
Portugal: Mozambique and Angola
Germany: Namibia, Togo, Cameroon and Tanzania
Britain and France had the rest between them, most of West Africa was controlled by France whilst East and Southern Africa was controlled by Britain.
Italy had a tiny piece called Jubaland.
Neutral Spain had Equatorial Guinea and Fernando Po which accepted German refugees from Cameroon and Togoland.
The French used soldiers from their colonies in Europe whilst Britain refused to do so.
Was Africa also controlled by European countries in WW2? Yes, most of the continent was controlled by European powers. France, Britain, Belgium, Portugal, Italy and Spain had the main share. It was after World War 2 that African territories fought for their independence. Many of the leaders at independence had either been been alive during WW1 or were born soon after so experienced the devastation of the land and the struggles parents and others had to rebuild their lives. A list of African leaders who were influenced by World War 1 can be found here.
What guns did they have? What weapons did they use?
There was a mix of guns. The Germans used black smoke guns from 1871, there were machine guns, Mausers and Lee Enfields. Different size canons were used, some having had to be restored as they had been ornaments for many years. The 10 and 6 pound guns from the ships Konigsberg and the Pegasus were converted for land use.
Although the Germans started off with their own guns which differed to the British ones as described by Peter Abbott, by the end of the war the Germans were using a mix of weapons having replaced their with British and Portuguese supplies. Gregg Adams provides a good comparison of the two sides –
Some potentially useful history of the different weapons used throughout WW1 – not just Africa.
Who made the materials? How did they get the weapons? Who supplied materials?
The materials were made in European factories or in America for the British territories. Most supplies for Africa came from India which was the traditional supplier of material for the armed forces in Africa. South Africa also supplied some material. Very little was made in Africa. The Germans in East Africa experimented with making what they could out of local material rather than relying on imports.
Some of the weapons were already in the different countries because of the slave trade and hunting expeditions. Weapons had also come in with the colonial wars and African communities had their own weapons too. During the war, weapons were sent from Europe, America and India. Portugal gave South Africa 10,000 mauser rifles at the start of the war and Malta sent them two canons because South Africa had said the British Imperial Garrison which was in South Africa could leave for the Western Front. They took all their weapons with them which meant the new country (only formed in 1910) and its army (formed 1912) had no weapons of its own.
Who had more weapons?
The allies (Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium) had more weapons because they could import them into the African territories. The Germans had to use what they already had in their colonies. In 1918 the Germans replaced their weapons with Portuguese guns they were able to obtain when they invaded Mozambique.
How much was a single rifle to make? How much did artillery cost?
This will need some research into the budget and treasury files. It doesn’t look as though an historian has written about the specific costs yet. Weapons were also bought in large quantities which would have affected the price. See here for an idea of the number of rifles ordered.
Is there an unknown soldier grave in Africa?
Some countries have tombs for the unknown soldier. Wikipedia has a list:
The South African one is not in South Africa but at the South African cemetery at Delville Wood in France.
Are there any statues to African soldiers in England?
Yes, there are. One was recently unveiled in Brixton, London.
There are memorials to Africans and Indians in the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire
A memorial to the King’s African Rifles was unveiled at Sandhurst in 2015
Does Africa have a remembrance day?
Today, Africa is a continent made up of 54 different countries. Countries like Rwanda and Burundi only came into being after the First World War (as part of the Versailles peace discussions). Each country has its own remembrance day although most whites across Africa will recognise 11 November.
In South Africa, there are 4 Remembrance Days connected with World War 1:
21 February – Mendi Day
19 September – Square Hill, Palestine
11 November – Delville Wood and the war in general
16 December – Jopie Fourie (1914 Afrikaans rebels) as part of Day of the Vow/Dingaan’s Day. Today it’s the Day of Reconciliation
Remembrance Day is a particularly British commemoration. The two minute silence was suggested by a South African, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, as a way to remember everyone: different religions, those who survived and were damaged by the war, those who died and those who weren’t able to serve for various reasons.
Why are there not many records of Africa during the war?
The main issue is that the records are in different places. Depending on who recruited the soldiers and others, determines where the records are kept. In addition to the records at the British National Archive, there are records in Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa. The Indian records are at the British Library.
Some documents were destroyed during World War 2 when a German bomb fell on the archive. The bits that remain are called the ‘Burnt documents’. The records include men who served in Africa.
A lack of infrastructure at the start of the war in 1914 meant that there was poor record keeping. This improved in 1916 when the War Office sent out a staff to East Africa. They kept better records. In West Africa, the officers had better record keeping as they had been working with the system for many years. Some records which were sent back to Britain were destroyed when ships were torpedoed and if there was a supply issue, reports and records could not always be kept. We know there was a shortage because some British letters and records are written on German headed paper.
Where were the battles?
There were not many battles in Africa during World War 1. There were mainly skirmishes.
Some of the places which are best known for fighting include:
Sandfontein (southern Africa), Duala (West Africa), Tanga (East Africa), Kilimanjaro (East Africa), Mahiwa (East Africa), Kasama (Northern Rhodesia), Tabora (East Africa)
How many landmarks were destroyed in Africa?
The answer to this question depends on what you define as a landmark. There were no big buildings as there are in Britain. Houses, factories and radio stations were destroyed along the coast when the naval ships bombarded the areas. Sometimes hospitals were hit accidentally because they happened to be in the path. One soldier complained that ‘the most important building had been destroyed in Dar-es-Salaam’ before the British arrived and that was the brewery.
Of more consequence than landmarks, was the number of farms destroyed. This meant that the local people suffered from starvation because little was imported for them. Most imports were to help the war effort.
Who ended the war in Africa?
There were different endings to the war in Africa.
The first German colony to surrender was Togo on 24 August 1914. The German commander realised his men did not stand a chance and decided it was better to end the conflict early.
German South West Africa (Namibia) was the second to surrender. This happened on 9 July 1915 after the South African commander and Prime Minister General Louis Botha gave the Germans an ultimatum which the German Governor, Seitz accepted. Most of the German forces in South West Africa had been defeated or captured by this time.
Cameroon was the next to fall – in March 1916 after the German forces there had been defeated by a joint British and French attack.
In East Africa, the war came to an end because the war in Europe came to an end. When the armistice was agreed in Europe it gave a month’s notice for the instruction to stop fighting to get to the German Commander Paul von Lettow Vorbeck. He eventually got the notice on 13 November (the day they fought a battle) but didn’t believe the Germans had surrendered in Europe. He was eventually convinced on 18 November that the Kaiser had abdicated and Germany had lost. The Germans in Africa, around 3,000 in total officially surrendered on 25 November 1918 in Abercorn, Northern Rhodesia (today Mbala in Zambia).
Which country was the strongest in Africa?
A tough question to answer. There were different aspects at play in the different theatres which determined how well they coped with the war. For example, in Togoland, the German commander did not see the point in wasting lives to prolong what would be an obvious eventual defeat because he was outnumbered. One could say he was strong in character making this decision so early in the war.
In German South West Africa, the German army officers did not want to prolong the war because they too knew it would end in defeat but the Governor, Seitz, insisted they do so to help the German fatherland. In East Africa, it was the other way round where the Governor, Schnee, wanted to protect his people and their economy but the commander, Paul von Lettow Vorbeck refused to listen to him and pushed for the army to override the Governor (who was technically in charge of the army).
The stamina of the soldiers could be another way of looking at who was strongest. Nigerian and Ghanaian troops served throughout the war first in West and then East Africa, some white soldiers, and especially doctors from Britain served throughout the war with very little break as did Indian soldiers. The German soldiers (askari) in all the colonies showed lots of stamina too. Ten percent of the force which served with von Lettow Vorbeck surrendered with him at the end.
Another factor to consider is the number of local rebellions which broke out during the war in the different colonies. Some of the more well-known rebellions included the Makonde in southern East Africa 1917 (Mozambique and Tanzania), Chilembwe uprising in Nyasaland 1915 (Malawi), and in Nigeria after 1915 there were various rebellions against taxes and other legislation. In 1914 some white South African Afrikaners objected to going to war with Germany in support of Britain. The Senusi in Eritrea and in Egypt also took the opportunity of Britain’s attention being occupied elsewhere to continue their struggle for independence.
When did they go in to the war?
Officially the different territories went to war when their controlling Imperial power did. This was because of the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised. In reality, each territory entered the war as a result of local conditions. The first shot of the war in Africa was fired on 7 August 1914 in Togoland, the second against Dar-es-Salaam on 8 August. Between 15 and 22 August, German forces in East Africa raided into British East Africa where they occupied British territory (Taveta), Belgian Congo at Kivu, Nyasaland (Malawi) and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). In South West Africa the campaign officially stared on 14 September when South Africa sent troops across the German border in response to Germans having been spotted in South African territory in August (there is some dispute over whether this really happened).
Is the mud that Dr Samson was talking about still there?
The mud comes and goes depending on the rain. It’s the same as in Europe. The challenge with the mud in Africa is the soil. In the clay areas, the rain runs over the soil making it very slippery to walk on. In other areas where there is black cotton soil, the mud becomes very sticky stopping all movement. Vehicles have to be dug and pulled out of it.
How did Africa deal with their problems during the war when it was really muddy and they couldn’t move.
Life slowed down. This was the time to regroup, try and fix supply lines and move food as best one could. All sides were affected by the rains, but they persisted in carrying on as best they could. An hour’s journey sometimes took eight hours or more to do in the rain.
Where did they sleep in the war and how did they stay awake?
It depends on where they were and what was available. In the worst cases, the men slept under the stars and if they were lucky had a blanket. Others slept in tents either with or without mosquito nets. Where there were camps, bandas or more permanent wooden and mud houses were built for the men to share. Some soldiers wrote about spending nights in trees to keep away from wild animals.
Staying awake was probably easier than falling asleep as the noise of the wild animals kept people awake especially when they weren’t used to the noises. However, lack of food, malaria and walking the long distances meant people were exhausted so slept through everything. One soldier got into trouble because he had rigged tin cans to a wire so that if anybody crossed into the area whilst he was on guard duty (picquet) he would be woken up if he had accidentally fallen asleep. The problem for him was that it was his commanding officer who walked into the cans.
When the men were on piquet this was usually for about two hours at a time and in pairs which helped keep them awake. They would also walk around. Talking was difficult/banned because sound carried very easily and they would miss hearing the enemy creep up.
What flowers grew in the battlefields of Africa?
Local plants grew which varied depending on where you were. In South West Africa it was mainly desert. In northern German East Africa there were lots of thorn trees, in West Africa, there were forests and all through what is known as savanna – large open spaces where grass grows to 6 feet tall.
Do poppies grow on African battlefields?
Poppies do not grow in Africa. This flower is particular to Europe.
What flower symbolises war in Africa?
There isn’t one. Although wearing the poppy and laying poppy wreaths has become the norm for remembrance services in the old British colonies
Looking out my window, I’m fascinated at the order in which birds come to the feeder and how they arrange themselves to access food on the ground. There is a definite pecking order and from what I can see, it’s not always the big birds who get preference.
I’m currently helping a heritage group with some research into the West African Frontier Force (WAFF) during World War 1* and was struck by correspondence highlighting the differences between the various contingents making up the WAFF – the pecking order persists. The issue of martial race has been discussed by many authors and until recently has been taken as read when selecting micro-nations for military service. The correspondence in @UKNationalarchives CO 445 shows how wide-ranging the pecking order was and the reasons for it.
Understandably to some extent, the needs of the Western Front dominated what was happening in the peripheral theatres of war. So, when on 3 December 1914, Lord Lugard (Gov Gen Nigeria) let the Colonial Office know that 6 maxim guns and two 2.75 / 2.95in guns had been lost in the Cameroons campaign and needed replacing, he didn’t stand much chance. The discussion in the CO papers (CO 445/34 48111) notes:
It is quite impossible to replace them at once. I understand that it has not yet been found possible to arm the Canadian Contingent with machine guns. We can of course send a copy of this to WO and ask them what they can do… say [to Gen Dobell] that there is much difficulty and delay in procuring war like stores for Colonies and ask whether he considers the matter urgent.
The Canadian Contingent was headed to the Western Front. There was also some question regarding the request for replacement guns as it had been noted that on the outbreak of war there were 51 maxim guns in Nigeria (1 with each of the 34 Companies and 17 in reserve), 14 2.95inch guns (6 with No 1 battery and 4 with No 2 battery and 2 with each reserve battery). (CO 445/34 48111) What had happened to these?
The issue of weapons to the Western Front was not a ‘white’ versus ‘black’ issue which could be inferred by Canada getting preference over the WAFF, South Africa sufferened similar shortages of weapons and had to scrounge from Malta, Australia and Portugal (forthcoming publications).
However, race did play its part in who fought where. As noted in October 1916, the War Office wanted white men in subsidiary theatres moved to Western Front asap and to be replaced by locally raised black troops including from South Africa. (CO 445/37 55218)
Closer to home, in Africa that is, the pecking order persisted as seen in the discussions over which troops were to serve in East Africa from 1916 onwards. In CO 445/37 48999 men from Sierra Leone were preferred over the West African Regiment, whilst the recruitment drive undertaken by Colonel Haywood clearly showd the military prefernce for troops from Gold Coast and then Nigeria. (CO 445/37 56748)
More specifically, in December 1916, following the WO request for 4,000 carriers to be recruited in West Africa for service with the Nigerian battalion in East Africa, the CO dsiscussion contained the following statements: The WO see Hausas being needed in Nigeria and that ‘the Sierra Leone Carrier is greatly to be preferred and is the only stamp fit for service with combatant troops.’ If carriers could not be obtained from Sierra Leone, then they should be raised from Nigeria but not from areas used for recruiting ‘combatant material’. ‘The Ibos should also be able to furnish large numbers of men of excellent physique who should make good labourers in Base Ports, and Lines of Communication releasing others who may be more suitable for employment with troops.’ (CO 445/37 62587)
What has also been striking about this correspondence is the clear understanding that the CO officials had of the different territories under their control and how this compared with the WO officials who saw no difference between the micro-nationalities comprising East and West Africa. It was nothing to the WO to suggest that King’s African Rifles (KAR) recruits be used to bring the Nigerian and Gold Coast Regiments up to establishment if men could not be found and trained quickly enough in West Africa. (CO 455/37 42406).
Another area where differences were seen was in the application of the King’s Regulations for the British Army to the African forces. Officers seconded from the British Army to the WAFF recommended that conditions for serving African rank and file be the same as for those serving in the British Army. Whilst this principle of equality was generally accepted for the WAFF, there were local conditions which had to be taken into account which mitigated against the King’s Regulations – notably the payment of separation allowances to families who had no knowledge of, or need for, money.
The above are snippets I extracted from my rapid trawl through the series, anyone wanting to delve more deeply into aspects can see the full catalogue listing for the WAFF during WW1 CO 445 on the GWAA site.
* The African Heritage and Education Centre (AHEC) is looking for records and accounts of West Africans who were involved in the war during World War 1 – soldiers, carriers, garrison forces, home front etc. If you are able to help, please get in touch either with Christine or myself.
This is an interesting (genuinely) collection of articles around the theme of information: How information was transmitted in the field, between the war front and home front, propaganda through the use of photos and posters.
Unfortunately the book has been poorly edited – most chapters have been written by non-English writers and most are well-written. However, the introduction and a few others apear to have been translated using something like Google Translate. This makes for difficult reading and reduced clarity of expression especially around abstract topics such as knowledge and information transfer.
For someone interested in the areas described above, I encourage you to persevere as the content is stimulating and, was for me, eye-opening. I can only identify the areas I found fascinating from the other chapters as my knowldege of the theatres covered is limited: how the term ‘hate’ differed depending on whether you were a soldier or at home, the origin and impact of the term ‘Hun’, how the same photo was used in different contexts with different titles and the development of technology are the aspects which stand out.
As I have a fair knowledge of Marika’s topic, I can say a lot more. As someone who has worked on the African theatres of World War 1 for 18 years now, Marika’s article was both a pleasure and a frustration to read. On the positive side, Marika has tried to reconcile the various numbers given by different researchers of black soldiers and carriers involved in the East and West African campaigns as well as give reason for the lack of information in the press at the time and why it is that we historians cannot agree on the numbers. She also touches on the Boer rebellion of 1914.
The areas I found frustrating and which I’ll detail below, might appear ‘picky’ but I think it’s important to raise these in relation to the historiography (history of history) of the theatre and my own learning curve in the hope that it will help other scholars ‘new’ to the World War 1 African fronts consider their approach and assumptions. Marika’s chapter is the case study bringing together concerns from a number of articles, conference papers and reflecting back on my early years of engaging with the war.
My biggest concern, brought about by the centenary and increased interest, is the reliance on secondary material, and particularly the internet for compiling accounts of the campaigns. This information, that is secondary source (not internet) was credible and compiled by recognised experts in the field but, as I noted in an article for the 1914-1918 Enclyclopedia, there has been a revolution in information available on the theatres which challenges the previously accepted accounts. It is imperative that historians of all kinds consult primary material as much as possible as so much more has been opened to the public since the 1970s and 1980s.
Another frustration is the assumption that the war in Africa was fought along the same lines as that in Europe. It was not – whereas the Western Front was overseen by the War Office, in Africa, the War Office, Colonial Office, India Office and local administrators all had their own agendas concerning the war. The fact that so many departments were involved – based on pre-war responsibilities – has resulted in information being scattered between archives and across different series within archives. To compile accurate numbers is a challenge – who recruited the individual? who paid the individual? in what capacity were they employed? The answers to these questions will determine who created and maintained the records, so military service records in London can be found in WO, CO and ADM files, but one also needs to consult the CWGC for deaths as those who died during the war were not necessarily issued with a medal. For all the African campaigns, the records in London are not enough. Local records need to be consulted especially for the recruitment of labour – there might be mention of labourers in the War Diaries but this is not consistent.
Application of World War 2 practices to World War 1 is another common practice. Things had moved on. World War 1 saw a major change from early colonial military practices which evolved further after the war and then changed again as World War 2 approached. The organisation structures imposed during the First World War allowed for closer management of the colonial territories and there was increased mixing between the settled and the settlers. This lead to opportunities being seen and taken by all concerned with the result that local inhabitants were more confident, more Western literate and more politically involved than during World War 1.
My final major point concerns using how we see the world today to judge how things were in the past. This is a natural human tendancy but it does an injustice to all those who served (willingly or otherwise). Times were different, so were beliefs and these impacted on actions and decisions of the day. What happened then should be looked at in the context of the day – without judgement.
Baring the above in mind, and the limited sources Marika used, it is good to see others grappling with some of the issues of the campaigns in Africa and bringing the little remembered theatre to light. It helps those of us immersed in the theatres to take stock of how the world still sees the campaigns and to realise how much work with primary source material still needs to be done (and published).