Doughboys

[myrionomos]

This is not about cooking!

I have used the term Doughboy in a story set between 1914 and 1920, but would this term be recognized in modern America?

I have also been told that if an American joins the forces of a foreign nation this is a criminal offence. However, I know that many American fliers volunteered to fight for the FInns against the Russians in 1940, and the ones that didn't get there in time joined the Eagle squadron of the RAF to fight the Germans. So did the US authorities just turn a blind eye?

The Eagle squadron was then (I think) absorbed into the USAAF in 1942.

 

[oggbashan]

It is not a crime, and has not been since 1896.

US Citizens fought for the UK during WW1 before the US declared war; in Spain during their Civil War; in WW2 in Europe before the US declared war; and in China as flyers for the Chinese repelling the Japanese.

In the UK the Americans flying for the British resented being compulsorily included into US forces after Pearl Harbor. They wanted to retain their uniforms and ranks as RAF personnel - which recognised that they had volunteered to help fight for democracy. The US higher command were arbitary and didn't understand that those flyers valued their special status.

The official advice is here:

http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html

Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, in America the designation "Doughboy" would recognized, by anyone that had been in the military. The average young citizen, probably not. The education system in the US is lacking in some areas.

 

[ishtat]

It is not a crime, and has not been since 1896.

US Citizens fought for the UK during WW1 before the US declared war; in Spain during their Civil War; in WW2 in Europe before the US declared war; and in China as flyers for the Chinese repelling the Japanese.

In the UK the Americans flying for the British resented being compulsorily included into US forces after Pearl Harbor. They wanted to retain their uniforms and ranks as RAF personnel - which recognised that they had volunteered to help fight for democracy. The US higher command were arbitary and didn't understand that those flyers valued their special status.

The official advice is here:

http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html

Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.

I had an uncle who flew during the war and he told me years ago that there were in fact 3 full squadrons of American fliers who were initially in the RAF. He, (uncle) said the Americans had no real objection to changing over to the USAAF in 1942, mainly because the USAAF pilots were much better paid; what they objected to (successfully), was having their squadrons broken up. The Brass wanted to split these experienced men over a large number of squadrons to maximise their experience, but the original Eagle Squadrons men wanted to stick together.

The Clayton - Knight committee that recruited the American volunteers did so within the US which was technically illegal, thus Congress pardoned the volunteers en mass in 1944.

My uncle told me that in the almost two and a half years before the USA joined in, there was occasional resentment against the US for what some saw as their tardiness, however, this was outweighed completely by the favourable view of this relatively small but very effective group of volunteers.

Apparently they were an exceptional bunch of pilots because none were raw recruits, they all had significant flying experience before the war.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Apparently they were an exceptional bunch of pilots because none were raw recruits, they all had significant flying experience before the war.

The Polish Squadrons were the most successful in the Battle of Britain. They were former Polish Air Force pilots and their fierce desire to be revenged for the occupation of their country made them deadly opponents for the Luftwaffe.

The Polish contribution took many years to be recognised, unlike the US pilots who were considered heroes at the time.

 

[3113]

I have used the term Doughboy in a story set between 1914 and 1920, but would this term be recognized in modern America?

Most modern Americans would not recognize it. However, your reader will either (1) be a history buff--which is why they decided to read your story rather than one taking place in modern times--and thus, may know the term or (2) will hopefully like the story enough to google the term and find out what it means (and/or get the gist of it from the context).

And, actually, given the success of shows like Boardwalk Empire and Downtown Abby, modern readers may be more savvy about the times you're writing about than you anticipate. And as those shows prove, audiences won't run from a good story just because the slang is odd to them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Most people buy the sanitized bull shit PC Perfessers offer up as history, and the official history is rarely like the real history.

 

[ishtat]

The Polish Squadrons were the most successful in the Battle of Britain. They were former Polish Air Force pilots and their fierce desire to be revenged for the occupation of their country made them deadly opponents for the Luftwaffe.

The Polish contribution took many years to be recognised, unlike the US pilots who were considered heroes at the time.

Hmm Og, I don't think I can agree with that, not completely anyway. No Polish pilots had any involvement at all in the Battle of Britain until the third phase from late August 1940.

Whilst the men in the air frontline did a fantastic job the performance of the RAF bureaucracy was a disgrace. They held up the acceptance of foreign pilots for months unnecessarily, simply because the senior brass was so sniffy about foreign pilots. The Committee recruiting American pilots was driven to distraction by the obstacles put in the way of their volunteers.

The nation which did have a disproportionate impact was New Zealand, They supplied for example 4 times as many pilots as Australia from a population of only 2 million (one quarter that of Australia). 135 NZedders, 10 less than Poland but they were there from the start.

New Zealand also provided the Commander of RAF 11 group Keith Park, the man responsible for the defence of London and the South East. Park was described by Air Chief Marshall Tedder as "the man who could have lost the war in an afternoon."

The Brits showed their gratitude to Park by shunting him out of a senior role in Europe straight after the Battle (He was no politician) and it was only the Americans who recognised his value and used him in the Pacific in the latter stages of the war.

After the war the Brits "took ownership" of the B of B to the extent that Park was more or less forgotten for 70 years when eventually in 2010 a statue was erected in his honour: even then London Mayor Boris Johnson suggested that maybe they wouldn't be able to find a permanent spot for Park!

Eventually the bureaucrats got their act together sufficiently that almost 7,000 American volunteers were serving in Britain before the USA declared war in December 1941.

JBJ's comments about history is pretty accurate. The best example is how little credit is given by British and American writers to the Russians.

 

[oggbashan]

Hmm Og, I don't think I can agree with that, not completely anyway. No Polish pilots had any involvement at all in the Battle of Britain until the third phase from late August 1940.

...

Their numbers were significant compared with the possible 11 US citizens who fought in the Battle of Britain.

The Polish impact was substantial at the critical point when pilots were scarce:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain

Poland

Following the German invasion of Poland, many Polish pilots escaped and made their way to France and Britain. During the German invasion of France in May 1940, of the 1,600 Polish pilots available to the Armee de l'Air it is estimated that only about 150 took an active part in combat. Many of these personnel escaped to the UK around the time of the fall of France. By mid-1940 some 35,000 Polish airmen, soldiers and sailors had made their way to Britain, making up the largest foreign military force in the country; of these some 8,500 were airmen. Many were members of the Polish Air Force which had fought the Luftwaffe. However, the Air Ministry and the RAF underestimated their potential value in fighting against the Luftwaffe. Most of the Poles were posted either to RAF bomber squadrons or the RAF Volunteer Reserve.

On 11 June 1940, the Polish Government in Exile signed an agreement with the British Government to form a Polish Air Force in the UK. Finally, in July 1940 the RAF announced that it would form two Polish fighter squadrons: 302 "Poznański" Squadron and 303 "Kościuszko" Squadron were composed of Polish pilots and ground crews, although their flight commanders and commanding officers were British.

The two fighter squadrons went into action in August, with 89 Polish pilots. Another 50 Poles took part in the Battle, in RAF squadrons.

Polish pilots were among the most experienced in the Battle; most had hundreds of hours of pre-war flying experience and had fought in the September Campaign and/or the Battle of France. The Polish pilots had been well trained in formation flying and had learned from combat experience to fire from close range. By comparison, one Polish pilot referred to the close formation flying and set-piece attacks practised in the RAF as "simply suicidal".

The 147 Polish pilots claimed 201 aircraft shot down. 303 Squadron claimed the highest number of kills (126) of all Allied squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain. Witold Urbanowicz of 303 Squadron was the top Polish scorer with 15 claims. Sgt Tony Glowacki was one of two Allied pilots in the Battle to shoot down five German aircraft in one day, on 24 August (the other being New Zealander Brian Carbury). One Polish veteran, Stanislaw Skalski, became the top-scoring Polish fighter ace of the Second World War.

There continues to be a perception that "fanatical" Polish pilots, inspired by hatred caused by the German invasion of Poland, often rammed enemy aircraft. However, with their combat experience, Polish pilots would have known that the quickest and most efficient way to destroy an enemy aircraft was to fire from close range. For instance:

"After firing a brief opening burst at 150 to 200 yards, just to get on the enemy's nerves, the Poles would close almost to point-blank range. That was where they did their real work. "When they go tearing into enemy bombers and fighters they get so close you would think they were going to collide," observed Athol Forbes.

In all, 30 Polish airmen were killed during the Battle. One of them died at the hands of an angry crowd in east London. He had baled out of his fighter and landed, injured in Wapping. His incoherent rambling was mistaken for German and he was set-upon by the people who had gathered round him. They were incensed by recent Nazi raids on civilian targets, but he was a member of the RAF.

The close range tactics used by the Poles led to suggestions of recklessness, but there is little evidence for this view. For example, the death rate in 303 Squadron was almost 70 percent lower than the rate for other RAF squadrons, despite the squadron having been the highest-scoring Allied squadron during the Battle.

The Polish War Memorial on the outskirts of RAF Northolt was dedicated in 1948 as a commemoration of the Polish contribution to Allied arms.