What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Estro Felino]

Plus, our economic and strategic interests had become inextricably tied to that of the British Empire. Especially after the US Civil War, both the US and Britain were cooperating and both had a shared interest in maintain safe, secure, and free seas across the globe. We were both sea powers at that point, and we saw eye-to-eye on many issues. Our information on what was happening in Europe was also heavily based on English-language sources.
As for American views of WW2 history, that can sometimes be a source for humor, especially when I look back at some of the things I remember being said when I was a kid. A lot of Americans were raised with the notion that America saved the world single-handedly and that our role was absolutely indispensable, while Britain "helped a little bit," and the Soviet contribution was non-existent. A side issue which is also often told is how the British said (of all the American servicemen stationed in Britain during the buildup towards D-Day) they're "overpaid, oversexed, and over here." The counter to that was the British troops were "underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower." I've even read that in Australia, there was a riot that broke out between American and Australian troops, because the Australians were upset that the Americans were stealing their girls. I guess they just couldn't resist that Yankee charm.

I don't know whether you know the Neapolitan song Tammurriata Nera. It's one of the most captivating tunes of Italian popular music...
yet its content is very racist.
Its lyrics say that during 1945, some Neapolitan girls delivered mulattoes as babies, and that provoked a huge scandal among the monoethnic Naples of that time, that had never seen black or mulatto babies before. But, since there were lots of American soldiers staying in Naples, the Neapolitan bigots put two and two together. You know, in 1943 Americans had landed in Sicily, conquering all Southern Italy and making Naples their headquarters to conquer Rome and Northern Italy. So lots of American soldiers and officials, some of whom were blacks lived there.
But the kingdom was in ashes and poverty and misery pushed lots of Neapolitan girls to sleep with American soldiers in exchange for a couple of bucks. So they would get many Neapolitan women pregnant. Whenever the father was a white American, there was no scandal since the father could have been a Neapolitan guy. But whenever the father was an African American...well...the scandal broke out, also because the mothers would name them Neapolitan names. And the refrain says: "even if you named him Peppe or Ciro, that doesn't change the fact that the baby is black, black, black, like who?"

By the way... one of these mulatto babies became a great musician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Senese

 

[lewisnotmiller]

With all due respect... Anglo-Saxons and Americans do have lots of misconceptions about Europe. Especially about what we are like, Italians.
And also about Germans, as far as I know.
For instance, many Anglo-Saxons think Mussolini was a rightist dictator, whereas he was one of the staunchest socialists in history.
And he did socialistic things in economy.

With all due respect...that really speaks nothing to our conversation here in this thread, and on this topic. It's a high-level hand wave.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've also read that if the Japanese had hit the fuel tank farm, that would have been an enormous logistical setback, as it would have forced them back to the West Coast for refueling.



The first six months were pretty dicey, at least until the Battle of Midway, which at least gave the U.S. some breathing room in the Pacific. The buildup in naval forces was already ongoing before the war, but they still had a lot of building to do. The U.S. wasn't really prepared and took time to build up all those industries. That's where the genius of FDR and economic leaders like John Kenneth Galbraith marshaled the country's resources and built up the huge industrial machine that was needed for victory. (I don't think we could have done that if we stuck to the rules of laissez-faire economics.)

Here's my analogy...it's a bad one, but I'm rolling with it.
The Japanese were a sprinter. They knew in advance a race was coming, and they knew it might be over a longer distance than they liked, so they'd been training hard. They also got to sneak into the US locker room and take something away from the Americans. They could have taken their shoes (the carrier's). They could have nicked their asthma pump (fuel). Instead, they stole their uniforms (battleships).

The Americans were marathon runners, who were training...but not really training. Maybe they wouldn't have to run. Oh, bugger...turns out they're racing the Japanese. No idea how long the race was going to be, so they start preparing. Wait...where's their uniform? They gotta run naked? Wow...embarrassing. not breaking a world record without adequate support. But at least they have shoes and an asthma pump.

Race starts.
Man, the Japanese are quick. If this is a sprint, they look unbeatable.
It no...no finish line.
If it's middle distance it's gonna get pretty tight, because the US are long striders and are starting to hit their rhythm.
And who is this running up alongside with a brand new uniform, much more high tech than the old one. Man, now we have a fully dressed and long striding US marathon runner locked in a battle with a Japanese sprinter who is fast running out of breath. The guy is clearly putting everything into it, but when the finish line is finally spotted, it's 10km ahead.

At some point it gets predictable.

Please note, this filled in my lunch break, and is basically useless...lol

 

[Stevicus]

Here's my analogy...it's a bad one, but I'm rolling with it.
The Japanese were a sprinter. They knew in advance a race was coming, and they knew it might be over a longer distance than they liked, so they'd been training hard. They also got to sneak into the US locker room and take something away from the Americans. They could have taken their shoes (the carrier's). They could have nicked their asthma pump (fuel). Instead, they stole their uniforms (battleships).

The Americans were marathon runners, who were training...but not really training. Maybe they wouldn't have to run. Oh, bugger...turns out they're racing the Japanese. No idea how long the race was going to be, so they start preparing. Wait...where's their uniform? They gotta run naked? Wow...embarrassing. not breaking a world record without adequate support. But at least they have shoes and an asthma pump.

Race starts.
Man, the Japanese are quick. If this is a sprint, they look unbeatable.
It no...no finish line.
If it's middle distance it's gonna get pretty tight, because the US are long striders and are starting to hit their rhythm.
And who is this running up alongside with a brand new uniform, much more high tech than the old one. Man, now we have a fully dressed and long striding US marathon runner locked in a battle with a Japanese sprinter who is fast running out of breath. The guy is clearly putting everything into it, but when the finish line is finally spotted, it's 10km ahead.

At some point it gets predictable.

Please note, this filled in my lunch break, and is basically useless...lol

That analogy works - more or less. Or at least, if we're using sports analogies, the Japanese might be like the up-and-coming expansion team, thinking that they're just as good as the established clubs.

They were determined not to fall under the thumb of European powers, as most of the rest of Asia did, and they strove to gain respectability among the European powers and be treated as equals. But that didn't really happen. Even after defeating the Russians in the 1904-05 war, the U.S. mediated the Treaty of Portsmouth, but the Japanese were angry because they felt the U.S. gave the Russians too much, considering they were defeated. There were even angry protests at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo over that. Little by little, the US was becoming more and more on Japan's crap list.

I think they might have also felt cheated out of the spoils of WW1, since they were on the Allied side and might have expected more. Also, anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly against Japanese-Americans, had started to increase in the early 20s. That clearly didn't set well with the Japanese either. But they were also in an unfortunate position of being dependent on the U.S. for the bulk of its oil, copper, and other vital resources.

So, they weren't really prepared for the race either, though their plan depended on stealing the supplies they needed to keep going. But that also was a tenuous plan, since the Dutch East Indies weren't exactly across the street. US submarines were just as devastating to the Japanese shipping as German U-Boats were to the Allies in the Atlantic (probably even more so in the later years).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

.

As for American views of WW2 history, that can sometimes be a source for humor, especially when I look back at some of the things I remember being said when I was a kid. A lot of Americans were raised with the notion that America saved the world single-handedly and that our role was absolutely indispensable, while Britain "helped a little bit," and the Soviet contribution was non-existent.

Hey, you should try being a smaller country, and getting overlooked by the UK, who is then in turn overlooked by the US...lol

I've even read that in Australia, there was a riot that broke out between American and Australian troops, because the Australians were upset that the Americans were stealing their girls. I guess they just couldn't resist that Yankee charm.

Ha! Made chuckle. But in more seriousness, That sounds like a US version of events, as I assume you're talking about the Battle of Brisbane.

In case you're interested in any detail...

1. There was absolutely jealousy about servicemen stealing Aussie girls. It was a major point of contention. Main reasons?
- The Americans were exotic by Aussie standards of the time. Particularly African Americans.
- US soldiers were apparently better dressed (better and more stylish uniforms...obviously subjective but seemed common view)
- US servicemen were better paid
- US servicemen had access to all sorts of stuff that was heavily rationed for Australians (troops and citizens) including alcohol, soda and stockings.

2. The Australians hated US military police with a passion. Avoiding ours or thumbing a nose at them was almost a national sport. But US military police were armed, and were strict (and seen as arrogant, and eager to use physical force). Having these foreigners enforcing the law in certain areas of Brisbane was problematic.

3. The segregation of black American soldiers was not looked at kindly by Australians, and was a common bone of contention between Australians wanting bars, restaurants and cafes de-segregated, and white American servicemen enforcing segregation. To be clear, there was fault on both sides. We treated our Aboriginals like crap until the war, treated them better when they were in uniform, and then treated them like crap again after the war. Complete hypocrisy. Still, American servicemen trying to implement US segregation on Australian soil was not well accepted.

The actual riot started when Australian soldiers tried to protect a US serviceman who was hit by US military police, incidentally. But then all these issues beneath the surface exploded.

Anecdotally, some US servicemen (including plenty not involved) were worried the riot would mark a major long term problem in relations, but it probably had the opposite effect, and cleared the air a bit.

Apart from daily points of tension, Australians were happy the Americans were here. People outside Australia probably aren't aware of Japanese preparations for an invasion (weird but real plans) and one of our major cities was bombed on 64 separate occasions, with other smaller locations hit 30+ times. With US help, we were screwed, and it makes a shift in our key alliances from the UK to the US, which holds to the present day. Still, I doubt there are many Americans, then or now, who understands what battles like Milne Bay or Kokoda means to Australians.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no proof he was a Christian.
In his Mein Kampf there is so much hatred towards Christianity. Explicit hatred towards Christianity.
You should read it.

As I recall from long ago, his criticism of
Christianity was that it wasn't quite what
he wanted it to be. This isn't the same
as rejection. Consider that I criticize our
government, yet I'm still an Ameistanian,
& would rather live here than any **** hole
country in Europe or other hemisphere.
Gott mit uns was his slogan. That's the
Christian "God" who is with him.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I recall from long ago, his criticism of
Christianity was that it wasn't quite what
he wanted it to be. This isn't the same
as rejection. Consider that I criticize our
government, yet I'm still an Ameistanian,
& would rather live here than any **** hole
country in Europe or other hemisphere.
Gott mit uns was his slogan. That's the
Christian "God" who is with him.

Hitler was not a Christian. I have never watched him take the Communion.
Mussolini rolled red carpets at the Vatican; it was Mussolini that gave the Vatican statehood, but he was one of the staunchest atheist leaders in world history.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd rather live in some Siberia, in some poor village than in the United States.

I approve.

At least in the Russia there is free universal healthcare, since medicine is not a business.

And as a female, you needn't worry
about being sent to die in Ukraine.

 

[Estro Felino]

And as a female, you needn't worry
about being sent to die in Ukraine.

I'd go there as a nurse. Larisa Antipova met her Zhivago, while she was healing the wounded in Ukraine.
So I can too

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd go there as a nurse. Larisa Antipova met her Zhivago, while she was healing the wounded in Ukraine.
So I can too

Russian health care.....
First, send soldiers to be maimed or killed
when invading a neighbor. Then give
the survivors free prosthetic legs & arms.
Oh, the Ukrainians get beaten, raped, &
tortured for free too.

 

[Stevicus]

Hey, you should try being a smaller country, and getting overlooked by the UK, who is then in turn overlooked by the US...lol

Yeah, although I've seen more and more Americans acknowledging the participation of other countries, at least more than I recall from when I was a kid. The general theme was that the U.S. role was absolutely vital, that we needed to be involved, which fed in to the central Cold War dogma of containment and interventionism. All those peaceniks were seen as appeasers and communist sympathizers, so in order to counter them, US politicians and other leaders had to paint the US as the leader of the free world, with an indispensable role to make the world safe for democracy and capitalism.

Ha! Made chuckle. But in more seriousness, That sounds like a US version of events, as I assume you're talking about the Battle of Brisbane.

In case you're interested in any detail...

1. There was absolutely jealousy about servicemen stealing Aussie girls. It was a major point of contention. Main reasons?
- The Americans were exotic by Aussie standards of the time. Particularly African Americans.
- US soldiers were apparently better dressed (better and more stylish uniforms...obviously subjective but seemed common view)
- US servicemen were better paid
- US servicemen had access to all sorts of stuff that was heavily rationed for Australians (troops and citizens) including alcohol, soda and stockings.

2. The Australians hated US military police with a passion. Avoiding ours or thumbing a nose at them was almost a national sport. But US military police were armed, and were strict (and seen as arrogant, and eager to use physical force). Having these foreigners enforcing the law in certain areas of Brisbane was problematic.

3. The segregation of black American soldiers was not looked at kindly by Australians, and was a common bone of contention between Australians wanting bars, restaurants and cafes de-segregated, and white American servicemen enforcing segregation. To be clear, there was fault on both sides. We treated our Aboriginals like crap until the war, treated them better when they were in uniform, and then treated them like crap again after the war. Complete hypocrisy. Still, American servicemen trying to implement US segregation on Australian soil was not well accepted.

The actual riot started when Australian soldiers tried to protect a US serviceman who was hit by US military police, incidentally. But then all these issues beneath the surface exploded.

Anecdotally, some US servicemen (including plenty not involved) were worried the riot would mark a major long term problem in relations, but it probably had the opposite effect, and cleared the air a bit.

Apart from daily points of tension, Australians were happy the Americans were here. People outside Australia probably aren't aware of Japanese preparations for an invasion (weird but real plans) and one of our major cities was bombed on 64 separate occasions, with other smaller locations hit 30+ times. With US help, we were screwed, and it makes a shift in our key alliances from the UK to the US, which holds to the present day. Still, I doubt there are many Americans, then or now, who understands what battles like Milne Bay or Kokoda means to Australians.

Ultimately, I think both sides realized that they were on the same side, unified against a common enemy. Sure, there may have been some tension and fights breaking out. It wasn't exactly a happy time, and they weren't there as tourists. But I think the top brass from both countries would have wanted the lower ranks to behave themselves. I also read that these incidents were largely suppressed, since it would be bad for civilian morale if stories like this got out.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, although I've seen more and more Americans acknowledging the participation of other countries, at least more than I recall from when I was a kid. The general theme was that the U.S. role was absolutely vital, that we needed to be involved, which fed in to the central Cold War dogma of containment and interventionism. All those peaceniks were seen as appeasers and communist sympathizers, so in order to counter them, US politicians and other leaders had to paint the US as the leader of the free world, with an indispensable role to make the world safe for democracy and capitalism.

Honestly, I believe WW2 was nothing to the American history, as far as their American history.

To us, WW2 is the tag that separates darkness from light. Oldness from modernity.
WW2 marks before and after, for Europe.
I am not speaking of Italy and Germany only. I am speaking of the entire Europe.

After WW2 the notion of war was banned from our constitution. All that was racial or gender discrimination, it was all gone...after WW2.

That's the reason why I shared nothing with my grandparents, who were the product of an era which I still consider medieval and light years away from me.

On the contrary, I don't think WW2 was significant for the US history. US was modern before and after the fourties.

 

[Stevicus]

Honestly, I believe WW2 was nothing to the American history, as far as their American history.

To us, WW2 is the tag that separates darkness from light. Oldness from modernity.
WW2 marks before and after, for Europe.
I am not speaking of Italy and Germany only. I am speaking of the entire Europe.

After WW2 the notion of war was banned from our constitution. All that was racial or gender discrimination, it was all gone...after WW2.

That's the reason why I shared nothing with my grandparents, who were the product of an era which I still consider medieval and light years away from me.

On the contrary, I don't think WW2 was significant for the US history. US was modern before and after the fourties.

I disagree, WW2 was definitely a major, significant historical event from a U.S. point of view, as we went from a quasi-isolationist regional power which mostly minded its own business, transforming to an aggressive, militaristic interventionist power operating all over the planet.

100 years ago, we never would have dreamed of involving ourselves in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia - or any number of other places we've stuck our noses. And we certainly didn't have a permanent military establishment in Italy, Germany, or other European countries. There was no NATO, and the U.S. didn't even want to be a part of the League of Nations.

World War II changed all that. It turned a sleeping giant into a ravenous monster.

 

[Estro Felino]

I disagree, WW2 was definitely a major, significant historical event from a U.S. point of view, as we went from a quasi-isolationist regional power which mostly minded its own business, transforming to an aggressive, militaristic interventionist power operating all over the planet.

100 years ago, we never would have dreamed of involving ourselves in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia - or any number of other places we've stuck our noses. And we certainly didn't have a permanent military establishment in Italy, Germany, or other European countries. There was no NATO, and the U.S. didn't even want to be a part of the League of Nations.

World War II changed all that. It turned a sleeping giant into a ravenous monster.

That's very admirable that you as an American can see that.
But...unfortunately it's the banking and financial élites who have always benefitted from these wars. They were safe and warm sending American soldiers to die.
I believe commoners both in Europe and in the US are on the same boat.
Driven by madmen who want to conquer the world. To conquer it all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That analogy works - more or less. Or at least, if we're using sports analogies, the Japanese might be like the up-and-coming expansion team, thinking that they're just as good as the established clubs.

They were determined not to fall under the thumb of European powers, as most of the rest of Asia did, and they strove to gain respectability among the European powers and be treated as equals. But that didn't really happen. Even after defeating the Russians in the 1904-05 war, the U.S. mediated the Treaty of Portsmouth, but the Japanese were angry because they felt the U.S. gave the Russians too much, considering they were defeated. There were even angry protests at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo over that. Little by little, the US was becoming more and more on Japan's crap list.

I think they might have also felt cheated out of the spoils of WW1, since they were on the Allied side and might have expected more. Also, anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly against Japanese-Americans, had started to increase in the early 20s. That clearly didn't set well with the Japanese either. But they were also in an unfortunate position of being dependent on the U.S. for the bulk of its oil, copper, and other vital resources.

So, they weren't really prepared for the race either, though their plan depended on stealing the supplies they needed to keep going. But that also was a tenuous plan, since the Dutch East Indies weren't exactly across the street. US submarines were just as devastating to the Japanese shipping as German U-Boats were to the Allies in the Atlantic (probably even more so in the later years).

Yup, agree with all that. Some of the most important lessons of WW1 were how not to plant the seeds of WW2. I don't think Japan fely cheated in the way Italy did, but I think they were determined to be stronger owners of their own destiny moving forwards.

For all that Germany and Japan were strange bedfellows in some ways, if Japan had have pursued the strategy preferred by the Imperial Army, and concentrated on Northern operations (Hokushin-ron), and Hitler had been able to stick to the east (Lebensraurm)...it might have been a more natural collaboration. People forget how many important figures in Japan studied in Germany in the 20s.

 

[Stevicus]

Yup, agree with all that. Some of the most important lessons of WW1 were how not to plant the seeds of WW2. I don't think Japan fely cheated in the way Italy did, but I think they were determined to be stronger owners of their own destiny moving forwards.

For all that Germany and Japan were strange bedfellows in some ways, if Japan had have pursued the strategy preferred by the Imperial Army, and concentrated on Northern operations (Hokushin-ron), and Hitler had been able to stick to the east (Lebensraurm)...it might have been a more natural collaboration. People forget how many important figures in Japan studied in Germany in the 20s.

I think most historical accounts tend to portray both Hitler and Tojo as utter madmen, ultra-right wing fascists and nationalists to the core. Tojo was restrained somewhat by the Emperor, but his faction seemed hellbent on war. Both regimes were characterized by warmongering, expansionism, and some of the most horrific atrocities in the modern era.

However, I've noted that fascism oftentimes latches on to the past, particularly from the standpoint of ardent nationalists relating to a glorious national history. Hitler and his devotion to Wagner. It may have been more complicated with the Japanese under their Emperor, but they also seemed to rely on a similar martial philosophy. But they were taking on too much and never could look at things in realistic terms.

They were both doomed from the start. They had no business starting any wars, because they were resource-poor, which turned out to be the very reason they started the war. Apart from Hitler's and Tojo's evil lunacy, they might have felt they would be second-rate powers if they didn't secure a reliable flow of resources to be able to feed their industries and build their war machines. They tried a gamble, and a few early lucky breaks gave them some early victories which only made the war much longer than it otherwise would have been.

I think WW2 is what gives many people pause to think about the ramifications and consequences of war. Many call it the "Good War," and it's certainly good that the Axis leaders and their contemptible regimes were overcome and defeated.

But the nature of war itself also changed - the mechanization, the technological advancements, the weaponry which got more and more devastating, up to and including the atomic bomb. It appeared to some that we were going too far and that we needed to rein that in somewhat, but that's where it became a problem, since there were those who wanted more and more weapons. I don't believe that anyone planned the outcome in just this way. But it seems the evil of WW2 led to the evil of the Cold War, which has led us to this post-Cold War (or maybe Cold War Part 2) era that we're in.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yup, agree with all that. Some of the most important lessons of WW1 were how not to plant the seeds of WW2. I don't think Japan fely cheated in the way Italy did, but I think they were determined to be stronger owners of their own destiny moving forwards.

For all that Germany and Japan were strange bedfellows in some ways, if Japan had have pursued the strategy preferred by the Imperial Army, and concentrated on Northern operations (Hokushin-ron), and Hitler had been able to stick to the east (Lebensraurm)...it might have been a more natural collaboration. People forget how many important figures in Japan studied in Germany in the 20s.

I think the only reason why Berlin allied itself with Tokyo was the delusional project to defeat China and the Soviet Union.
Was that doable? No...it was very delusional.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think most historical accounts tend to portray both Hitler and Tojo as utter madmen, ultra-right wing fascists and nationalists to the core. Tojo was restrained somewhat by the Emperor, but his faction seemed hellbent on war. Both regimes were characterized by warmongering, expansionism, and some of the most horrific atrocities in the modern era.

However, I've noted that fascism oftentimes latches on to the past, particularly from the standpoint of ardent nationalists relating to a glorious national history. Hitler and his devotion to Wagner. It may have been more complicated with the Japanese under their Emperor, but they also seemed to rely on a similar martial philosophy. But they were taking on too much and never could look at things in realistic terms.

They were both doomed from the start. They had no business starting any wars, because they were resource-poor, which turned out to be the very reason they started the war. Apart from Hitler's and Tojo's evil lunacy, they might have felt they would be second-rate powers if they didn't secure a reliable flow of resources to be able to feed their industries and build their war machines. They tried a gamble, and a few early lucky breaks gave them some early victories which only made the war much longer than it otherwise would have been.

I think WW2 is what gives many people pause to think about the ramifications and consequences of war. Many call it the "Good War," and it's certainly good that the Axis leaders and their contemptible regimes were overcome and defeated.

But the nature of war itself also changed - the mechanization, the technological advancements, the weaponry which got more and more devastating, up to and including the atomic bomb. It appeared to some that we were going too far and that we needed to rein that in somewhat, but that's where it became a problem, since there were those who wanted more and more weapons. I don't believe that anyone planned the outcome in just this way. But it seems the evil of WW2 led to the evil of the Cold War, which has led us to this post-Cold War (or maybe Cold War Part 2) era that we're in.

I think the common feature of Germany and Japan is that they saw it reasonable to pursue aggressive foreign policy, including war, to pursue goals they believed would provide stronger long term economics for their countries, including better resource access and space for their people beyond existing borders.

They both saw opportunity, although in Japan's case it rightly identified it's ability to take over from Britain as the key naval power in the East...and wrongly identified whether it would be able to avoid conflict with the US.

As time went on, and it became somewhat obvious that a general war would need to include fighting the Americans, Japan tried to land a heavy blow, so they'd have time to secure that they needed, have a strongly defensible position, and then negotiate from a position of relative strength. They were encouraged in this by a German High Command who'd tried to avoid confrontation with the US, but now realised that whether it was official or not, US economic power was having a major impact on the war. Better for them if the focus for America turned from supporting the Allies to direct conflict with Japan.

But the big punch didn't do enough damage, the Japanese (like the Germans) overestimated their ability to strengthen their economy during an active war by strategic conquests, and they had no wiggle room when they lost (or even drew) key battles.

You're right, though. The very nature of war changed through this period, and it's almost unthinkable now to have a series of major players simultaneously pursuing aggressive programs of forceful acquisition. Wars are generally fought over other matters.

Indeed, Ukraine is somewhat of a throwback, and clearly a number of countries have taken the approach of providing direct material and economic support...but not boots on the ground.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the only reason why Berlin allied itself with Tokyo was the delusional project to defeat China and the Soviet Union.
Was that doable? No...it was very delusional.

Not China, no. Berlin was actually quite close to China (saw them as staunchly anti-communist, and well placed to provide support against Russia). But with the ongoing tension between China and Japan, it wasn't really possible to pursue an alliance with China and Japan, and decisions had to be made.

The whole situation in China was actually a lot more fractured then many seem to understand, with there being many more players than the Nationalists and the Communists, and with foreign backing being both fickle and very impactful at different times, and in different regions.

You may find this informative...

That One Time the Nazis Helped China Fight Japan

How a bunch of German soldiers found themselves in a war in Asia in the 1930s

medium.com

 

[Estro Felino]

Not China, no. Berlin was actually quite close to China (saw them as staunchly anti-communist, and well placed to provide support against Russia). But with the ongoing tension between China and Japan, it wasn't really possible to pursue an alliance with China and Japan, and decisions had to be made.

The whole situation in China was actually a lot more fractured then many seem to understand, with there being many more players than the Nationalists and the Communists, and with foreign backing being both fickle and very impactful at different times, and in different regions.

You may find this informative...

That One Time the Nazis Helped China Fight Japan

How a bunch of German soldiers found themselves in a war in Asia in the 1930s

medium.com

Japan was very westernized at that time.
Honestly I think the alliance with Tokyo confirms the fact that Nazis used to work for banking powers that had nothing to do with Europe.

The Duce, in his speeches believed Europe should be all united and shield itself against globalization.
Against non-European cultures' influence.
In a way, the Duce and Hitler actually laid the foundations of the European Union.

You should listen to De Gaulle here. The French were not any different from the Germans or from the Italians. That war broke out because of non-European banking dynasties.