Hi John,
Well... as one of the few historians on this list who makes a living off
of studying these very same topics...
>1) Why Germany and Japan never really co-operated, the same way the
>Allies did
Unlike the Allies, there was very little the two had in common, besides
both being tyranical, military based, racist, murdering, brutal, and
power hungry governments. They were on opposite ends of the Earth is
probably the biggest factor for the impossibility of a close working
relationship. Germany's navy was not capable of supporting a strong link
between the two, and neither was Japan's since it was 100% engaged in the
Pacific. Both nations lacked the same natural resources, so even if they
COULD transport stuff between each other's nations (naval power and sheer
distance made that impossible) they didn't have what the other one was
desperately missing. Plus, the each thought the other was beneath
themselves racially and culturally.
Japan's interests did not lie with the Soviet Union's territory, so there
was NO incentive to mess with the Soviets there. And that was
practically the ONLY direct help that could have been offered since each
was already at war with the Allies on their own front. In any case, the
Japanese were completely incapable of significant military action against
the Soviet Union because Japan was not a land based force and the Soviets
were. As was proven even in Manchuria (in 1938-39, two years before
Germany invaded the SU) the Japanese just weren't up to it.
Basically... they couldn't have cooperated much more than they did. In
fact, many historians will argue that Germany's declaration of war
against the US after Pearl Harbor was more than foolish and harmed (long
term) both Axis partner's long term best interests. The US probably
wouldn't have declared war on Germany, baring some sort of major incident
(besides losing destroyers and merchant marines) for maybe another year.
>2) Why England didn't see ( and the U.S, as far as that goes) that
>her/our national interests were more closely alinged with Germany than
>with the USSR.
You don't understand the English foreign policy for about the last
200-300 years :-) England was, and to some extent still is, deathly
afraid of two things:
1. That a single power will take over control of the European mainland,
either economically, politically, or (worse) both.
2. Any potentially hostile nation that has a navy capable of threatening
its own. Without the navy, the British Empire would cease to exist as
such.
Germany hit both of these marks in the early part of the 1900s as well as
the 1930s. Germany was the nation to fear, not France, not Italy, not
the Russia/Soviet Union. And although #2 really isn't an issue today, #1
has been behind the UK's long standing antagonism towards the European
unification. But after France and Germany started to bury the hatchet in
the 1960s Great Britain had no choice but to work with it instead of
against it. Although one could argue that they still are working against
it some of the time even today.
>The Germans were thinking all through the war that
>England and Germany were natural allies, and that any day England would
>wake up and come to her senses.
Hitler was delusional even in his more sane days. England and a PEACEFUL
Germany were natural allies, but Germany was anything but that. Germany
was an aggressive, militaristic, power hungry, oppressive regime which
would put its blade in the back of anybody that turned around long
enough. It would also put in right through the front of the chest too if
that were the only option. After Chamerlain's disastrous attempts to
treat Germany as a responsible nation, few in Great Britain doubted that
peace with Hitler was not worth the price. Proud nations don't willingly
ally themselves with such a power unless, like the Soviet Union, it was
in their short term best interests. The pact with the Soviet Union was
done simply to defeat Germany..
>Please don't give me the stuff about Hitler killing the Jews.
The British never thought of the Jews as a reason to fight Germany
instead of the Soviet Union. It wasn't even an issue, except as and
indicator of how vicious the Third Reich really was. In fact, officially
the British government (and the US as well) denied the reality of what
was happening inside the Third Reich's territory until it drove its tanks
into the camps themselves. Since Germany of 1940 was in a position to
threaten the same treatment on the UK, obviously Germany's internal
actions were more relevant than the Soviet Union's. Plus, few Westerners
really knew what was going on inside the Soviet Union at the time. The
pretty much didn't care.
>Stalin
>made Hitler look like a rank amateur in killing Jews; then he took up on
>his own countrymen. I want logical arguements please.
This is not correct, no matter how you define "amateur". There are a few
things that the Third Reich set all time records for, and one of them was
the directed killing of the most number of people in the shortest space
of time. All told the Third Reich probably murdered, directly or through
starvation, somewhere in the neighborhood 18-20,000,000 people in about
3.5 years. Remember, the Germans murdered far more non-Jews than Jews in
terms of numbers (but percentage wise Jews were most likely the worst
hit). Soviet civilians and their POWs made up the bulk of the dead.
Stalin's butcher's bill is damned high as well, but probably not quite as
high and it took him decades to do it. And the Soviet Union never had
the organized death camps that the Germans did. Never. Both had
concentration camps, but death in them was more an incidental (and
welcomed) by product as opposed to the US' concentration camps for its
Japanese-American citizens where simple "humane" imprisonment was the
main goal. I don't call someone with the most efficeint means of killing
human beings an "amateur". Rather, I call them an "expert".
>3) Why the Japanese couldn't get it right on The Greater East Asia
>Co-prosperity Sphere, and Asia for the Asians, instead of whacking away
>at all the native populations they had under their control. Their
>propaganda makes a whole lot more sense than Asia as a European Colony.
Because like the Third Reich, they were arrogant racists. Everybody was
beneath them. The argument that the Germans lost the war because of
their treatment of native populations is a very sound position to take.
You can't go murdering people in broad daylight and expect to not piss
off the majority. And when you have a small population controlling a
much larger one over a great expanse of land... this is a VERY unwise
thing to do. It is only a matter of time before the pot of anger boils
over to direct counter action. This is why the US actions in Vietnam
against civilian populations (besides being deplorable) was
counter-productive. You can't bomb, burn, and murder a strong willed
people into submission. Funny how people do not like to learn from the
mistakes of others...
>War is hell, I hope neither I nor my family or friends ever have to
>fight another. There were heros and cowards on all sides, and history
>is written by the winners. To get the facts, you have to read between
>the lines, and only by understanding history will we have the slim
>chance to avoid repeating it.
Very slim I am afraid to say.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 05 2001 - 00:40:35 PDT