You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
18 points
*

European fascism was directed at Europeans in the process of attempting to enslave the Slavs. It’s ultimate goal was to destroy the USSR because the ideology that led to the world’s first workers’ state was a threat to the entirety of the European project. Everyone in Western Europe and America was onboard for this.

The first problem came when the Third Reich showed it would apply it’s brutality to white people. This had never been done before and it was a major moral affront to the West. The second problem was when it became evident that, in order to win, the Third Reich would need to consolidate much of the European economies under its control. The US needed that economy in order to sell its goods.

The final problem, however, was that the Third Reich was losing to the USSR. Had the US not intervened when it did, the USSR would have marched all the way across Europe instead of stopping at Berlin. The USA had to intervene to stop the entire continent from becoming part of the workers’ state movement.

Why did it intervene in Japan? Mostly because it gave the US access to the Pacific border of the USSR. Japan occupied Korea at the time, so defeating Japan gave the US legal and physical capability to occupy Korea in their wake, which they needed to do since the USSR had a long history with Korea and indeed arrived to secure it as a socialist society.

There’s also the issue of China. China was beyond valuable to the Western Europeans. So much of White action in the Pacific is related to dominance over China for profit. Japan was fighting in China and the Chinese communists were fighting alongside the Chinese nationalists in a temporary alliance. The West wanted the nationalists to win the civil war in order to secure their dominance over the region. Pushing Japan into a full submissive surrender created room for the West to operate in the region, taking on roles and relationships and positions that used to be in the Japanese sphere of influence.

Just because two people are fascist doesn’t mean they share goals. It just means they share ideologies. Fascists have no ideological framework for cooperating with other fascists. There may be some benefit to that cooperation. But that benefit cannot outweigh the problem of one fascist power eating another power’s lunch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

Japan attacked the US first, and they did that because Japan wanted an empire and the US empire was taking up a bunch of the space in the pacific already

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Who attacked first is irrelevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I mean, it’s relevant to why the USA was on the correct side of the conflict - because they were forced to be by Japan who wanted their pacific territories. It was Japan and Germany that declared war on the USA, not the other way around. The USA was on the “good side” by pure happenstance and conflicting imperialist interests, they would have preferred to sit back and be isolationist while the Nazis and the Commies killed each other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

this is the kind of analysis you get when you start from a cold war perspective and work backwards to explain ww2.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Anti-communism was already a major component of what the US and Western Europe were doing before WW2. To ignore it and attempt to artificially divide motivations between WW2 motivations and cold war motivations is to be idealistically ahistorical

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

the problem is not ignoring anti-communist motivations from 1917, it’s you not understanding that those interests got contradicted and disrupted by ww2.

the US arming, assisting, and requesting the Soviet entry against Japan makes no sense when you’re trying to analyze this through the lense of future Korean war. why the fuck would they do that? why did the US give the Soviets any resources at any point if the goal of them fighting the nazis was entirely because they were losing to the Soviets? if these stated motivations exist, why would these events have taken place?

permalink
report
parent
reply

GenZedong

!genzedong@lemmygrad.ml

Create post

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

  • No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
  • We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
  • If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
  • Unless it’s an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
  • For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
  • Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

Community stats

  • 805

    Monthly active users

  • 3.9K

    Posts

  • 33K

    Comments