This is one of the key impacts the war has on the US the experience of black service personal in the UK were there isn’t segregation and the economic empowerment of black workers on the home front seem to be key catalysts to kick starting the civil rights movement.
Incidents like the battle of Bamber Bridge I think are particularly interesting to that wider historical narrative.
I’ve covered that a few times earlier this year 
:
On Bamber Bridge:
I am a bit concerned by your post as you seem to be attempting to minimise or deny the racism that was rampant in the US military.
Also your comment that the local Brits shouldn’t of got involved seems odd as it was their country after all. If they want to side with black americans over racist military police surely that is there right in their country?
Refer to what I wrote here:
Pointing out what happened in reality isn’t minimizing racism. In fact, you would know this if you analyze my posts and especially the sources a little carefully. I even point out instances of genuine racism (through the sources and accounts of Hispanics in the U.S. military). Proper evidence is key. The Isaac Woodard incident was a national story in 1946 for a reason.
If it involves the U.S. military, it is solely the U.S. military’s job to handle any horrid situation involving its own men. It’s still the case today. As an example: Ed Leonski wasn’t hanged by Australians for being a killer – the U.S. military did that – because Australians understood that legally, considering the murderer was a U.S. Army soldier, the matter was best left to the U.S. military.
This also applies to every nation’s military.
You have to consider if the same actions would of been taken by the MPs if the soldiers were white. The problem Black history is often minimised or hidden. So things like official accounts must be considered by who the authors are and what their bias were. The US Army was not only systemic racist in WW2 it was overtly racist.
This is a good article
Not really unless someone has diplomatic immunity they are bound by the laws of the host nation, That’s why the US Army couldn’t enforce its own racist segregation (Jim Crow laws) in the UK.
They’d have done the same thing. Read up old newspaper stories of white soldiers getting into trouble with MPs.
Let’s say those reports were written by, say, a white military official who opposed racial segregation. Would you dismiss it? The doctrines I posted in my earlier replies should give you a hint.
This article did a much better job at detailing the events (even with its flaws):
That’s a non sequitur. It’s not the U.S. Army imposing laws on other countries, it’s the U.S. Army maintaining exclusive jurisdiction over its own soldiers. Also, as I have already noted, not every state had Jim Crow laws and even in the ones that did, the laws varied.