african-americans n the second world war

the second world war n aacr - overview:

  • for:

    • The war was pivotal in terms of AACR. Evidence for this from things like war aims, Double V campaign, greater intervention of the federal government, increased government spending, migration, changing employment patterns, impact of service overseas etc.

  • against:

    • The war certainly opened some opportunities for AAs but did little to change the attitudes of white racial conservatives. Evidence for this from things like continuing white opposition, riots when white service personnel returned home to find changes, the perceived political value of ‘racial conservatism’, the lack of tangible change in terms of voting or education.​

us involvement in the war:

  • 1940-41:​

    • Roosevelt supportive of Britain but restricted by isolationism etc in the US. See here Ambassador Kennedy.​

    • Lend-Lease from 1941 – US support in terms of materiel; Roosevelt paving the way for war?​

  • December 1941:​

    • Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Declarations of war all round…​

  • 1942:​

    • US deployments to Britain; US and British attacks in North Africa; USAAF in Britain.​

    • The Pacific war gets going.​

  • 1943-4:​

    • Further deployments in Britain up to D Day (6th June 1944) when US troops formed a significant part of the invasion forces.​

    • Serious war efforts in the Pacific Theatre.​

  • 1944-5:​

    • The liberation of France, the Rhine crossings and the eventual defeat of Germany.​

    • The atomic bombs and the defeat of Japan.​

aacr and the war:

  • “double V” - victory against fascism abroad n racism at home; link to growing resentment at military segregation n the conflict between avowed US war aims n the realities of (esp southern) life in the USA

  • military segregation esp notable in the Army; in the Navy n USAAF, AAs did begin to access more, a wider variety of roles eg Tuskagee Airmen

  • some believe that service overseas in non-segregated countries helped AAs grow in confidence » danger here of painting too generous a picture of European n esp British race relations, but some truth in this idea

wartime employment:

  • huge labour demands of industrial expansion as the US economy moved onto a war footing

  • migration to either 1. northern urban area, 2. west coast as war industries expanded to serve the Pacific war effort or 3. growing industrial/urban areas in the South. easily discoverable records

  • employment opportunities for AA women developed - decline in the number working in domestic roles from 75% in 1941 to 50% in 1945

  • continuing issue of widespread belief that AAs would/should work for less and/or take on work that was less attractive

  • trade union leaders, foremen n remaining white workers were often not wild about AAs n feared they would depress wages or take jobs

  • especial resentment if/when AAs were promoted to positions of authority over whites

  • asa philip randolph n the march on washington movement challenged the FG to do more to make employment fairer where the taxpayer was footing the bill - eg defence contracts

  • only 10% of defence contractors employed AAs in 1940

  • roosevelt’s fair employment practices commission (fepc) of 1941, set up under Executive Order 8802 banned discriminatory practices in employment by federal contractors.​

  • Had some effect on employment of AAs, eg 25% increase in those working in iron and steel and quadrupling of numbers employed (50K to 200K).​

  • Also important as a precedent – the FG taking action which was directly intended to improve AA lives.

war - society:

  • Neither in the north or the south was the war transformative of society.​

  • The problems of continuing segregation in the south and de facto segregation in the north – the urban problems of poor housing, poor education and the poverty trap.​

  • See here race riots during the war and in its immediate aftermath.​

  • However, see also James Farmer and CORE (1942); the originators of the tactics of sit ins.