More Regiments Like the 442nd in WW2

So what I'm understanding is that an Innuit, native American, and Japanese unit are the only possible ethnic-based units due to the whole "melting pot" idea. Am I understanding the whole thing correctly?

I guess if we continue to do this odd charade of ignoring the very glaring OTL example of black units/formations, which constitute the largest single array of American ethnic-based units/formations of the war with multiple divisions and a number of non-divisional units formed...
 
So what I'm understanding is that an Innuit, native American, and Japanese unit are the only possible ethnic-based units due to the whole "melting pot" idea. Am I understanding the whole thing correctly?

An Innuit IS a Native American. Nisei are a special case because of the "racial" component of the Pacific War. The problem was as bad as the African American troops, and can be traced directly to that "gentleman", Woodrow Wilson, whose vile racist policies set back American civil rights for all citizens "equal before the law" more than a century.

Would special forces then be more plausible?

As a matter of fact, if you lump the code talkers, Innuit Scouts, the Tuskegee air men, and the combat engineers of the AlCan and the Red Ballers of Normandie, together, that is about what happened.

Alternatively, what if the 442nd was not formed, but instead the US armed forces allowed Nisei into the army via normal channels instead of creating a special unit for them? Or am I underestimated the level of anti-Japanese sentiment?

You are underestimating the social problems still left in the United States. (Refer to Wilson, and his racist policies that set the tone for the American federal government for half a century.) This was a huge problem in WW I and WW II for the US Army when it came to deliberate segregation of troops along lines of "color" because "blacks" could not fight. What the heck was the evidence of the US civil war? Exactly the opposite as it turns out.

Also, is the possibility of Axis-nationality US soldiers defecting to the enemy side really that huge of a risk? I don't recall there being more than a few cases of such events.

Not really as it turns out. Though the Axis propagandists tried.
 
How about enlisting Japanese-Americans in the military as opposed to putting them in concentration camps?

Also, Norway is not an Axis or Axis-allied nation.

I doubt that Norway was an Axis puppet state. I actually do not understand why anyone would think it was. As for concentration camps, THIS predates them by half a century assuming we date the concept from the Boer War.

Trust me, it was and is a sad state of affairs. However, if you want to improve things, you have to own the terrible past to strive for a better future.
 

Deleted member 94680

I doubt that Norway was an Axis puppet state. I actually do not understand why anyone would think it was. As for concentration camps, THIS predates them by half a century assuming we date the concept from the Boer War.

Trust me, it was and is a sad state of affairs. However, if you want to improve things, you have to own the terrible past to strive for a better future.

Err, ok? But I’m missing the point, I assume. Are you agreeing with me, or challenging what you assume are my beliefs? Also, what does referencing Indian Reservations have to do with the thread?
 
Err, ok? But I’m missing the point, I assume. Are you agreeing with me, or challenging what you assume are my beliefs? Also, what does referencing Indian Reservations have to do with the thread?

The point is that you confused me about Norway, so I replied with a confuser of my own. As for the jibe about concentration camps (internment camps is the technical term), the American experience with internment starts with rounding up the Native Americans and "interning" them on "reservations".

And this thread is about "racism" when one asks about "segregated" troops or units in the American army. UGLY as it is, that was the reason for all the separate units based on skin color or perceived national or ethnic origin in that army. ^^^^^^^^^ And we have Woodrow Wilson largely to blame for it in modern times.
 
Apparently there were four other such units.

There was the 1st Filipino Infantry Batallion, which was the cadre for two Filipino infantry regiments. (Why they didn't revive the regiments of the Philippine Scouts I have no idea.)

There was the 99th Infantry Battalion, of Norwegian-Americans, which presumably was expected to serve in Norway (like the 1st Special Service Force). At one point during the Normandy campaign it was the entire reserve of the 12th Army Group.

There was the 101st Infantry Battalion, composed of people from what had been Austria-Hungary, including three Habsburg archdukes and a son of Georg von Trapp. It was somewhat controversial and was disbanded without seeing action.

There was the 122nd Infantry Battalion, which was formed out of Greek-Americans.
 

Deleted member 94680

The point is that you confused me about Norway, so I replied with a confuser of my own.

Oh right, I mentioned Norway as other posters had mentioned Norwegian units, whilst this thread is about Axis or Axis-Allied nations. I was contending that Norway shouldn’t apply. Fair enough that you’re confused, but it’s not your thread, so why should we sidetrack it?

As for the jibe about concentration camps (internment camps is the technical term), the American experience with internment starts with rounding up the Native Americans and "interning" them on "reservations".

It’s not a jibe, there was nothing humorous about it. It was a criticism. You can use whatever technical term you want (and the terms ran to Civilian Asembly Centre, Relocation Centre, Internment Camp and Detention Camp) but they were concentration camps. I don’t believe the government running them should get to decide the label civilised society gives them.

And this thread is about "racism" when one asks about "segregated" troops or units in the American army. UGLY as it is, that was the reason for all the separate units based on skin color or perceived national or ethnic origin in that army. ^^^^^^^^^ And we have Woodrow Wilson largely to blame for it in modern times.

That’s as maybe, as to the ‘underlying’ reason for the situation. But specifically this thread is about units in the alt-American Army being made up of Axis or Axis-aligned nationals. Last time I checked, Native Americans don’t fit that criteria.
 
Oh right, I mentioned Norway as other posters had mentioned Norwegian units, whilst this thread is about Axis or Axis-Allied nations. I was contending that Norway shouldn’t apply. Fair enough that you’re confused, but it’s not your thread, so why should we sidetrack it?

It is not my thread, but it is my nation discussed, so I have the primary interest here. My nation raised a "Norwegian American" unit in the mistaken and lunatic belief that Norwegian-Americans were somehow "natural skiers" because they were of "Norwegian" ancestry. That is a form of racism.

It’s not a jibe, there was nothing humorous about it. It was a criticism. You can use whatever technical term you want (and the terms ran to Civilian Asembly Centre, Relocation Centre, Internment Camp and Detention Camp) but they were concentration camps. I don’t believe the government running them should get to decide the label civilised society gives them.

Not correct usage or understanding. If I wanted to use gibe, I think I would have spelled it that way. In neither case is humor involved. And since we are defining with precision...

Internment.

That’s as maybe, as to the ‘underlying’ reason for the situation. But specifically this thread is about units in the alt-American Army being made up of Axis or Axis-aligned nationals. Last time I checked, Native Americans don’t fit that criteria.

Last time I checked, the Native Americans in this country were legally treated to having rights as an intra-national body of tribes, nations, and communities. And as we are discussing "Americans" by their ethnic, national, or cultural origin, that kind of includes Native Americans, who are just as intensely patriotic as any other citizens of this republic.
 
So basically, due to the societal problems going on with the US at the time and other factors:
  • Native Americans are regular-military integrated and also have their own special forces unit(s)
  • Japanese were the only axis-nationality units that got their own unit (and any related special forces); all other nationalities were regular-military
  • African Americans fell into an odd mix between regular-military integrated and their own units due to racial tensions
  • Even if there were all-German or whatnot units, they would be sent to the other front (Japanese to Europe, Germans to the Pacific, etc.) to prevent the possibility of betrayal
Given all these factors, for my timeline, perhaps I should just try making the divergence from OTL in my potential TL to be just that the US special forces gain a tradition of using troops from opposing-nationality countries? Are there any additional possibilities?
 
During the American Civil War there were ethnic regiments in the Union Army. Specifically quite a number of German-American units where the language of drill was German, at least one Norwegian-American unit from Wisconsin using Norwegian for drill, and various others which had to some extent a certain ethnic identity. This was to entice fresh immigrants in to the military. By WWII the number of "new" immigrants of military age was much smaller. Sure a lot of first or even second generation "hyphenated" Americans had a strong identification with their heritage, and also good to native language skills. OTOH as far back as TR there had been a big push to do away with "hyphenated" Americans under the rubric of we all are "Americans". This was pushed during WWI where there was a good bit of publicity of the Rainbow Division with a mix of men from many states and many ethnicities.

In 1940 the divisions were much less on national origin, or religion and much more on the basis of skin color for separation. Thus you had the separation of segregated black units and job categories. Where you had significant Japanese communities, like California and Hawaii you had Japanese in the National Guard units, especially a high number in Hawaii. Japanese-Americans were in ROTC in various universities - they were not separated out until after Pearl Harbor because of fears about divided loyalties. As others have noted, German refugees from Nazism, including Jews, were viewed with suspicion by US authorities when they attempted to join the military.

Refugees and various ethnic minorities were used by the US military more for specific skills rather than in "segregated" units. Yes some units, like Alaska Scouts, were very ethnic (in that case Inuit) but otherwise you did see Japanese used in the Pacific as language specialists, like wise others with language skills either in regular army detachments in Europe or with the OSS. In fact, any Americans with heritage from an Axis power tried very hard to NOT be identified by that and rather to be "American".
 
During the American Civil War there were ethnic regiments in the Union Army. Specifically quite a number of German-American units where the language of drill was German, at least one Norwegian-American unit from Wisconsin using Norwegian for drill, and various others which had to some extent a certain ethnic identity. This was to entice fresh immigrants in to the military. By WWII the number of "new" immigrants of military age was much smaller. Sure a lot of first or even second generation "hyphenated" Americans had a strong identification with their heritage, and also good to native language skills. OTOH as far back as TR there had been a big push to do away with "hyphenated" Americans under the rubric of we all are "Americans". This was pushed during WWI where there was a good bit of publicity of the Rainbow Division with a mix of men from many states and many ethnicities.

In 1940 the divisions were much less on national origin, or religion and much more on the basis of skin color for separation. Thus you had the separation of segregated black units and job categories. Where you had significant Japanese communities, like California and Hawaii you had Japanese in the National Guard units, especially a high number in Hawaii. Japanese-Americans were in ROTC in various universities - they were not separated out until after Pearl Harbor because of fears about divided loyalties. As others have noted, German refugees from Nazism, including Jews, were viewed with suspicion by US authorities when they attempted to join the military.

Refugees and various ethnic minorities were used by the US military more for specific skills rather than in "segregated" units. Yes some units, like Alaska Scouts, were very ethnic (in that case Inuit) but otherwise you did see Japanese used in the Pacific as language specialists, like wise others with language skills either in regular army detachments in Europe or with the OSS. In fact, any Americans with heritage from an Axis power tried very hard to NOT be identified by that and rather to be "American".
In that case, I guess I'll have to shelf any potential timeline involving the aforementioned Axis-nationality units then.

Sigh, back to the drawing board.
 
Top