During World War I, more than 600,000 ‘native' soldiers fought on European battlefields on the Entente powers' side, the main contingents coming from Algeria, India and French West Africa. After the war up to 40,000 colonial soldiers from West and North Africa, Indochina and Madagascar served in the French army of occupation in the Rhineland. This policy caused intensive discussions all over Europe and North America in military, colonial and political circles and generated a press and propaganda ‘war'. Discussion focused on whether the colonial troops' deployment in Europe would tighten their ties to the colonial powers or revolutionise them. This monograph analyses comparatively the construction of concepts of otherness deployed in these discussions (especially in Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States). The book analyses two German towns in the Rhineland occupied by French colonial troops in the 1920s (Wiesbaden and Worms) as a case study of how far this discourse permeated popular behaviour. In Germany, throughout this period, colonial soldiers were represented as bloodthirsty, uncivilized and uncivilizable barbarians with unrestrained sexual drives. In Britain and even more in France, impressions of colonial soldiers were mainly reactions to German allegations. The bloodthirsty savages of the pre-war period were portrayed as infantile people during the war, and even mutated into noble savages after 1918. In the United States, debates on colonial troops reflected positions relating to the own country's “race question”. The study shows that under the surface of propagandistic antagonism, common racist stereotypes can be seen, notwithstanding whether a country (or its allies) made use of colonial troops itself or had to fight against them.