Was Fascism popular in pre-Pearl Harbor America?

Pretty sure this might be deleted or not but I found an interesting film one day.
It's called "Gabriel Over the White House", made and released in 1933 when a certain man, well, yknow.
Because the movie came out on March 31st, 1933. Two months after Hitler's ascension to power but that's not all.
Plot basically is about the President of the United States seizing power and instituting a Fascist dictatorship and it's all portrayed in
a positive light
Not only is his disillusionment of Congress hailed as a great positive to the nation, but he instantly gets rid of all crime, all corruption, purges all Jewish and big business lobbyists, purges all Communists and that's just the first act:

This film was being made way before either Hitler or Roosevelt gained power so the odds of this movie being a positive portrayal of a Fascist take over of America made me wonder if Fascism was a popular front in the United States, enough that people actually made a movie glorifying it.

The following scene is one where the President dissolves Congress.

Other urls found in this thread:


Fascism was picking up after politicians in the the United States and Europe sold out there countries entirely to the banks. During the 70s and 80s there was a rise again but it was destroyed with mass imports of drugs, music, Hollywood, and Desert Storm.

Whenever the banks start feeling pressure they will throw the United States into conflict internally and internationally. The Iran war is their cover atm. If they get the war they get rest. European blood will be shed, Israel benefits, people are focused on confusing international conflicts, and politicians protect the banks.

You mean Schindler's List and the rise of Holocaust films/docs?



Mussolini was a pretty popular figure here, pre war.
A large number of people here saw his government as a sort of roman revival, akin to the early United States. (see Ezra Pound's Jefferson and Mussolini)
National socialism also had its adherents, but it wasn't that strong of a tendency here.
even though it should have been, a variation of national socialism could have solved a great deal of the US's problems before they metastasized into the form they have become today

Are you implying Japs killed Fascism?


They did sneak attack and slaughtered an entire naval base of young American soldiers.
Most of America was against war until that happened.

Japan wasn't even fascist in a ideological sense.
They were just plain old militaristic imperialists.

Roosevelt was also baiting them left and right, his conduct was incredibly dishonorable as well.
He knew he had to stampede the masses through a direct attack, ala Remember The Maine.
our isolationist streak, bred into us by the security of having two oceans and two vassals as our neighbors, was quite strong, even at that late date

Well there was William Dudley and the Silver Legion

Attached: download (1).jpeg (474x379 30.29 KB, 26.7K)

Both your points are true. Obviously Japan was not fascist and the US (as usual) was not behaving honourably.
However, my point is that it was foolish of the Japanese to attack the US.
Niggerishly foolish.

Attached: Jersey Boys.jpg (900x660, 258.78K)

I still don't know why they underestimated American power and retaliatory capabilities so badly.

Did they think that since Hawaii was only a US territory that there would be only limited retaliation?
Or that the US was only a paper tiger, incapable of counterattacking?

I honestly still don't understand the rationale.
I mean, Asians are supposed to be ultramethodical thinkers, why would they engage a geographically massive state with over a hundred million people without considering the potential for war?

Despite Jewish control of the media, Germany was looked kindly upon by many Americans prior to our contrived entrance into the (((British…))) war against them. When America was finally moved to war, it was a herculean effort to convince people that waging war was the 'right thing to do'. The 'Buy War Bonds' and 'Enlist' posters we as much about just convincing America to go to war as it was about materially supporting the war efforts. TBH, the Jews almost didn't pull it off.

Even after the war, there were still many closet Nazi's in America.

Sorry about double posting, but I forgot to mention that even Hitler knew that US intervention (even in the materiel sphere) would lead to the axis defeat, as it was in the first world war, and tried extremely hard to keep it out of the war.

The reasoning was a severe underestimation of America's economic and military potential. The Japanese command believed that they could conduct a limited war of about a year or so against America and win several decisive battles, thus dazzling the pathetic Whites into submission. They believed that Westerners had no stomach for war and would negotiate after a few decisive battles.
Already you can see the strategic mistakes. They had this grandiose idea without any specific goals beyond resource acquisition.
After seizing several strategic points, the entire Japanese war-plan was summed up as Sit tight and wait for the enemy to surrender!

I disagree. If he wanted to keep Germany out of the war, he shouldn't have declared war on America. All he needed to do was nothing. Japan was a worthless ally.

Power fantasies aren’t new; fascists can’t tell truth from fiction. C’est la vie.

By the way, since it got “someone else” banned, have a blast from what’s too politically incorrect to say on this forum:
I love seeing this one at the top. The far right is totally submissive to this guy. He converted to Islam and now the pedofascists suck his cock forever.

That’s about Tarrant, you broken weaklings who can’t live in peace.

The U.S. declared war on Germany. It may have been through Jewish efforts to get the U.S. into a war, yes, but the fact is America went to war against Germany. And finally Germany reciprocated. Had Germany restrained themselves as the Russians have done, they might have lost the all battles, yet won the war.

War was defacto declared already after PH, the defense pacts and anti-comintern pacts ensured that Germany would be dragged in no matter what.
The US government had already showed their anti-german tendancies by lend lease shipments and attacking German shipping.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Despite their signing of the anticomintern pact, they did absolutely nothing against communism, and provided a convenient casus belli.

*before PH

Definitely this. I see a lot of hot air from their culture, when whites are way more lethal than them.

Yes if by U.S. you mean Germany and by Germany you mean America

Yet Japan did not become drawn into war with the USSR after Germany attacked in 1941. Japan was such a treacherous ally. Hitler might have had more success had Japan shouldered their part. They didn't.
Instead these dumbasses ensured Germany's defeat by attacking the most powerful state on the planet.

As for war being declared before PH, that's not true. There is a difference between engaging in a tit for tat naval conflict and fully mobilizing the most powerful state on earth to land 4 million men on the coast of France and bomb your entire nation into the stone age.

Attached: No.jpg (632x480, 71.62K)

Who was Time magazine Man of the Year, 1938?

Attached: 999e6e32433384d0c168cea4196fd99f.jpg (400x526, 49.43K)

The tripartide pact was defensive in nature, Japan was bogged down in China and simply didn't have the manpower. In addition have you seen how empty south east Russia is, they'd be depriving the Russians of literally nothing but miles of empty lad.

"The contemporary investigations in both the United Kingdom and the United States into the precise causes of the ship's loss were obstructed by the needs of wartime secrecy and a propaganda campaign to ensure all blame fell upon Germany.[1] Argument over whether the ship was a legitimate military target raged back and forth throughout the war as both sides made misleading claims about the ship. At the time she was sunk, she was carrying over 4 million rounds of small-arms ammunition (.303 caliber), almost 5,000 shrapnel shell casings (for a total of some 50 tons), and 3,240 brass percussion fuses, in addition to 1,266 passengers and a crew of 696.[3][4] Several attempts have been made over the years since the sinking to dive to the wreck seeking information about precisely how the ship sank, and argument continues to the present day."

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania

Breakfast really started in World War 1. World War 2 was a light lunch, an echo.
If they can get it started, World War 3 will be the main course.

I agree with you. It is true that the TP was defensive (which is why Germany was not obliged to defend her aggressive ally) and yes, the USSR was "empty" in the east.
However an offensive into the USSR would have drawn vital troops away from the west and allowed Germany more chance to strike a decisive blow.
Am I arguing that a Japanese offensive into the USSR absolutely would lead to a German (Japanese) victory?
Well, no. That's a bit of a stretch.
But I am arguing that it would have helped.

But yes, Japan was bogged down in China and would not have faired well in a war against an industrialized opponent. Which is why it was stupid of them to create one. What they should have done was entered into negotiations with the Chinese from a position of strength and exited the war.
Had they done this, Japan would have emerged from "ww2" as one of the strongest nations in the world rather than a burnt out husk

Yeah. This kind of revisionism is cool and all, but not really that helpful.
I could also argue that WW2 began in 1870 with the invasion of France (which led to WW1).
And I could then argue that the Franco Prussian War was a result of the Unification of Germany which was itself a result of Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion in 1806. Thus Napoleon Bonaparte started WW2.
But is that really fair? Is Napoleon really to blame?
I say NO!
Indeed, Napoleon wouldn't have invaded Germany had he not come to power. So the true beginning of WW2 was in 1789 with the French Revolution. And the French Revolution was caused by France aiding America in the War of American Independence. Which was itself a result of Britain imposing taxes to pay for the 7 Years War.
So WW2 began on 17 May 1756. And George Washington is to blame!

But are we really going deep enough? While General Braddock's campaign into New France was the opening move in the war, it became a global war only after Frederick the Great invaded Saxony. So it's his fault.
But Frederick the Great only did so because he feared that Austria would invade Prussia to retake Silesia. Why would they do that? Because Prussia had earlier invaded and stolen Silesia from Austria in 1740 in the War of Austrian Succession. Now this war was nominally fought over whether a woman could succeed the Hapsburg thrown. So the Hapsburgs are responsible for WW2!

Oh yes. I can go back 2000 years if you like. Do you know who is really to blame for WW2? Gaius Julius Caesar.

That's a blatant lie.

It's the Jews, stupid.

Zig Forums: welcome to the Western Front.

I'm on the opinion that war between Nazi Germany and the US was inevitable but Nazi Germany very clearly declared war on the US first.

Germany may have made the first official declaration, through official channels, and documented in triplicate, in keeping with the German character and sense of fair play,
but the U.S. (Roosevelt…) had already defacto waged war on the Axis.
In point of fact, Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor for no reason, and Roosevelt didn't let it happen for no reason. The intention was there, the actions were there, Germany just officially stated what was already obvious.


If Prussia started the war over whether a woman could succeed a thrown, aren't they responsible and not the hapsburgs?>>13509549

I'm not minimizing the attack on Pearl Harbor, not at all. But we goaded Japan into attacking us, no easy task. And we could have stopped it before it happened. So who's really responsible for pulling America into the war?

Personally I don't believe a woman should rule a nation. But that is neither here nor there. Blame who you will.

True… however
So could they.
The ball ultimately came from Japan's court. They could have sought to peacefully disengage from China at any time but instead they chose the dumbest fucking response they could choose. Literally, committing national Boshido.
Thus, I blame them.

Any recommended reading concerning pro-fascist/national socialist entities in the US during that era?

I wouldn't say so no, the US and Germany were not really of good character when they attacked each other. Germany didn't notify the Dutch nor the Danish of his invasion neither did he even declare war on them. I think it gives Germany too much credit for what was a very violent, chaotic war.

You make a good argument there, user.

The Axis had other options which remain unexplored even today. Japan chose nuclear power, ultimately leading to Fukushima. That's something for which I cannot easily forgive them.

There's a few groups you can look into for reading material:
The Militant Black Legion who were split off from the KKK
The more well known Silver Legion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America
Then the Germanic-peoples Fascist legions in America that sought to make the US an extension of the German Reich:

The Friends of New Germany, btw, were officially sponsored by Nazi Germany

Oh, and an Italian variant too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_League_of_North_America

Okay Satan,
but by the time Germany went into its neighbors, it was already fighting for its geopolitical life. Everyone around Germany was taking sides: either the Axis or the Allies.

It's not that Nazi Germany was a pristine paladin, but neither were they the sole arbiter doling out death and destruction. Hell, Britain was indiscriminately bombing the Continental countryside, killing anything that moved. V-2's were a reluctant response to that.

Look up Huey Long. He was supported by the Fascist Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin and almost ran for President against FDR before he was assassinated by (surprise!) a kike who (((did it for no apparent reason)))
He was a Southern Democrat in the Great Depression so modern democrats get to pretend that he was a "leftist". Study him a little closer and his Third Positionism begins to become apparent.

True. I view Japan as a great tragedy because, unlike Germany, they could have actually managed to pull out of their war even as late as 1941 (or later if they didn't go do PH) and kept almost everything. They had achieved their strategic goals against China already so the war was basically pointless by this point.
Japan's problem was it's dysfunctional government that was controlled by the Nanshin-ron military faction and these schizos forced her into the war. They literally could have had everything but they pissed it away and now are dying from too much anime!

Look-up the Silver Legion. They were a Christian group, but were highly-critical of Jews and were de facto white nationalist.

Huey Long was a governor of Louisiana and he said many positive things about Hitler and had a similar philosophy of using "populist strongman" leaders to cleanse corruption. There's also many hints of evidence that Long was assassinated by kikes.

Attached: Hearts of Iron 4 Kaiserreich Silver Legion political tree America First Party.png (1920x1080, 2.05M)

Huey Long - our fave governor.
"Yea, he's a crook, but he's our crook."
Folks here know (((who))) took him out.

Built in 1920. Look beneath his hands.

Attached: 15_23_0110_lincoln.jpg (2048x1349, 1.08M)

Interesting that Walter Huston is the main character of this movie. He also played Cecil Rhodes.

Attached: 70700ac6a22bcacb839eee64cff894c190f0fef465bd4c6d6d838422f44a0da8.webm (640x480, 10.78M)

Asians aren't as intelligent as you think they are, or as intelligent as Hollywood Jew propaganda insists. The nips are not excluded from this. They genuinely believed that they could flex in a few naval battles, wow the small penis white man with their amazing nipponese prowess, and then accept our unconditional surrender inside the year which would naturally include ceding huge portions of the western American continent and it's resources to them.

Imperialist Japan was all the arrogance and ambition of the Roman Empire with all the intelligence and ability to back up their boasts of a starving nigger Communist in darkest Africa. They actually, genuinely believed that they could bulldoze an entire continent into submission by sinking a few ships and acting cocky.

The Japanese are just as much a bunch of retarded and oversold bug people as the Chinese, the Vietnamese, or the Koreans. The only reason anyone thinks anything positive about them at all is 100% because of weeb and gamer culture. And they didn't even invent that, because all anime is a ripoff of early Walt Disney-era Disney and Betty Boop, and video games are an American creation. The thing they are famous for, they don't even own and are not responsible for creating. It's like an Englishman bragging about how his neighborhood makes the best kebab in the world.

Would you happen to be able to speak more on the neurological peculiarities of southeast Asians, in general? If not, that’s fine. I’m just looking for an expansion to a section of my book. Philippines, SEA, and Indonesia are basically a mystery to me in terms of social behavior, trust systems, etc. I figure they’re fairly chinky, but I just have no citations or references.

Holy shit, that's not the HoI I remember. What the hell happened?

Attached: ww2 japan.jpg (4968x2600, 3.1M)


You are all acting like if Japan hadn't done that, the US wouldn't have entered the war, but that is not true.
Yea it was foolish by the japs but your ZOG-goverment just needed a reason to enter the war to burn more lifes, to spill more european blood and to strike down any resistance against their agenda. Just look at how easily they brought you into ww1. There was nothing short of a real holocaust, that would have cleaned your country, that would have kept you out of the war.

I am a fucking nigger pls no booly

Attached: e020c7d3193b1f80a13c545139922ee45f143509e52296ef8e2edb242b5e70af.jpg (700x491, 43.96K)

Where do you think you are.

That's a lot of speculation without much attention paid to American internal politics at the time. Without the attack on PH, the vast vast majority of Americans were isolationist and unconcerned with a far off war. You mention WW1 as if the US just randomly declared war but that's untrue. The declairation was in retaliation to several German actions, namely the idiotic Zimmerman telegram.
As if Mexico was in any position to declare war on the USA.

Am I saying that the US entry into WW1 was just and righteous?
No. I'm merely explaining why it happened. Newfaggot niggers like like to ignore history and scream KIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIE!!!!! at anyone who understands that history is a tad more complex than his victimhood narrative.
But I am just interested in the truth.
The USA did not enter into the war until 1941 because the American public would never have accepted it. But after America was attacked, this galvanized the American public behind the war-effort.

FIltered for excessive faggotry and sub-nigger IQ.


leftypol spam confirmed

People are right when they said the Japanese underestimated the USA, but they underestimated how willing we were to fight the war, not out industrial capacity- their whole idea was to knock out the pacific fleet and seize as much territory as possible in order to convince the US that the war would be too costly to wage and negotiate a peace with them.

The thing is the Russians probably wouldn't bother with a defensive line until the nips started reaching an actual industrialised area, the logistics alone would have probably crippled the nips.

I agree that the Zimmerman telegram was foolish, I guess there are niggers sitting everywhere. Yet that still wasn't nearly enough to plunge an entire nation, on of the greatest at that, into war. There was no real reason for America to enter ww1 every opertunity of German agression was ruthelessly used and blown up and your kiked newspapers allready printed gruel propaganda against germany as soon as the british faggots promised the promised land to them.
Here if you didn't allready hear that one. Keep in mind it is (or was) a jew so he does still play it nice for the jewish site. If you dig deeper into this mud you will see how vile (((these))) creatures are.

Shut the fuck up kike. Jews had full control of the US government. The US was already selling arms to everyone (which mattered more than their military involvement.) They embargoed Japan, putting them in an existential position, and then knew PH was coming and did nothing. They were 100% committed to defending the kikes at any cost. Saying "muh grey area" is mental masturbation. There were clear dividing lines between good and evil in ww2. The US is a Masonic kike empire and needs to be destroyed.

I disagree in small part. You are correct that the east was economically insignificant. However it is not in line with Stalin's character to just surrender land like that. There is a modern-day myth that Stalin was a military genius who employed the Fabian Strategy of trading land for time. This is completely false. Stalin ordered counter-offensives almost immediately after Germany invaded because he didn't like losing land. Remember that dumb thing that the Germans began doing late in the war with the "Not an inch backwards" strategy? Well Stalin ordered his men to do the same thing. This, coupled with numerous poorly planned counter-offensives is in large part why the Germans captured so many men.

Anyway, my point is that Stalin probably would act emotionally and order his men to hold positions at all costs.

Indeed. The jews obviously played a large role in not only the US entry into WW1 but WW2 as well. My point is that Germany walked right into that trap. Though I will caveat this with the fact that the German U-boat strategy was actually more effective in WW1 than in WW2. The problem is that it took 5 years for the British blockade to starve Germany out. Expecting to starve Britain out through U-boats alone is expecting too much.
I have always enjoyed Benjamin Freedman. It's been a long time since I listened to him, thankyou. The last time I listened to him was just after I finished TGSNT.

You don't deserve a response, woman.
People who don't know anything about history should not be allowed to speak.

I already debunked and addressed your 70 IQ level arguments anyway. Learn to lurk and learn to read.


Attached: The American Dream.webm (800x450, 14.72M)

That's an old Jonestein talking point. The "man of the year" thing isn't a sign of approval, the article was actually very anti-Hitler.

So the US didnt embargo Japan, putting Japan into an existential crisis? The US hadnt enacted lend-lease with all of Germany's enemies? The US government wasnt fully stacked with pawns of global Jewish finance (this had been the case since ww2 actually)? You're pseudo-sohpisticated "I'm giving both sides a fair shake in order to ofscuate the US's complete subservience to ZOG" schtick doesnt actually make you any more Intelligent.

Lurk. I addressed that already.

You haven't addressed anything. You downplayed the US's actions and tried to paint it as if the axis has any other choice than to come into conflict with the US.

Attached: ww1 uboot.jpg (6888x6184, 9.52M)

I did and they did. I even explained how Japan could have exited "WW2" as one of the strongest nations in the world and the most powerful Asian state.

Yes? And?
The conclusion that you appear to be trying to reach is that Britain played unfair and that this somehow rebuts my pointing out that America became involved after Germany foolishly solicited Mexico to declare war on the USA, thus violating Washington's precious "Monroe Doctrine" that Americans get so hot and heavy over.
To that I say, well duh!
Britain played unfair. Everyone knows this. Can anyone recall even one way in which Britain played fairly?
At least within recent memory? I can't.
My point stands though. Mexico was a third world shithole nation that was in zero position to conduct a war against the US. Even the Ottoman Empire was better prepared to wage war than Mexico. And given the diplomatic costs of interfering with America's precious Monroe Doctrine, the costs of trying to woe them outweigh even the most optimistic potential benefits. Do you disagree with this?

Stalin would have to ship troops out there first, he also got into the groove of letting his generals do their own thing when he realised how much damage purging everyone that was competent and not a political crony was costing Russia.Didn't stop him purging post war but again this is all conjecture I think more than likely they simply couldn't get troops and equipment out there so it's be more viable to mount a defence closer to home. You have to remember that the Russians didn't invade Korea till the very end of the war for this exact reason.

What are you talking about the U-boat strategy? It was very effective and would have starved the Brits before Germany would have , they )brits ZOG) deliberatly removed the escort ships from ships with Americans on board, the germans just did the rest.
sounds familiar doesn't it? PH
Just look at who the only party in these wars was that came out of them with very low casualties yet with the biggest gains. These people are fucking lunatics I have no idea how you can defend them.
If you are talking ww2. Germany had no option not to fight ever. (((Communism))) was from the start primed at world domination, through violence, if germany wouldn't have stood up and threw her everything against the red front. God knows where we would be right now.

The zimmerman telegraph is extremely suspect.

Even when they buttfucked France so bad that Britain was panicking on what the fuck to do and it was only when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and the Japs attacked America did he finally stop shitting himself?
Fucking Tor user.

Your post is incoherent

Maybe try learning English?

Attached: 5nr2y3ma_2810.jpg (280x240, 11.42K)

Mostly because he had withdrawn troops from the east to fight Germany. Indeed, a large factor in his successful Winter Offensive of 1941 was due to the Siberian divisions he had withdrawn from the east. His spies in Japan had convinced him that the Japanese did not intend an invasion.
Would he have been able to defeat the German advance without them? We cannot say. Though we can say that it would not have hurt Germany to have some forces pinned down in the east.

Maybe, maybe. But I have always doubted this. Germany was able to keep fighting even whilst experiencing virtual famine. At no point during the unrestricted phase of the war did Britain experience this. But even if they had, they could have continued fighting like the Germans did.
Though, it would have helped them reach a reasonable peace settlement. It's tough to say because both sides had such ridiculous peace settlement goals that I wonder if it would have even been possible. However, the Germans (unusually) had the most reasonable demands.

I'm not. I'm concerned with history here. I talk about my political opinions all the time. But I don't mix historical discussion with my hatreds.

Again, not true. At least not true in the sense that you think it is. Stalin may have tried to invade Europe. However, declaring war on Poland was an option that Hitler chose.
I'm just going to filter that shit for now.

Maybe it was a British forgery. Yet the telegram was originally transmitted through an American diplomat in Germany and he never denied sending it for them. Maybe he was in on the conspiracy too.

Yes. Just look at the Fasces' occurrence in many American symbols.
Also research William Dudley Pelley's Silver Legion of Fascists.

It was starting to get more popular with Pelley's Silver Legion and the German American Bund. Once ww2 reached the American public it's support disappeared and fascist supporters were arrested just like the BUF in Britain.

Those divisions really weren't a game changer and attacking 3 or 4 division would just be pushed back and again a defensive line inside Russia would have to be made. All the same Japan would have gained nothing from marching the majority of their forces through Korea because they were after resources. Fighting Russia when you don't have the capacity just so Germany can maybe get a breakthrough on the eastern front is just bad strategy and it doesn't take a spy to tell you that. You have to remember that Russia was basically conscripting everyone that could hold a rifle at the time so even then you're basically invading a pointless strip of land just so the Russians can come back in force. It really can't be overstated how vast Russia is and how many people used to live there or just how resource dependent the Nips were given that they come from an island with almost no resources and an industry to feed.

I mean if the nips could not got peace on anything but their terms with the five different governments in China at the time they'd still be bogged down there anyway.

It is pretty much a semantic quibble at this point.
There was obviously aggressive intent towards germany for the aforementioned reasons.
The American government had a massive hate boner for them, and they were determined going to get the war no matter what.
The plutocratic United States government saw what happened in germany as a threat to their system (which it was).
Even if pearl harbor had never happened, war would have came eventually, the US power elite had far too much to lose.

The rest of your posts seem to think that having a isolationist population means jack s**t when your leaders and elites want to get into a war for the survival of their system.

I just read Hank Messick's Lansky and supposedly Lansky was on the periphery of the scheme.

We were basically proto-NatSoc up until the 1960's when the Jews, New England elite, and other assorted traitors really dealt their death-blow. Even into the '70s we still had a very 'problematic' mindset. People really underestimate how quickly things went downhill in the United States. The truth is that we've had Presidents who wrote entire books against Freemasons, and wrote letters about the illuminati. We thought about war only from the perspective of national interest. We had racial and eugenic programs that Hitler admired. In fact, to this very day there are Fasces hanging in the chamber of the House of Representatives. We were certainly Fascists.

They didn't. Japan was well aware that if the war lasted a long time they would lose. Their hope was to pull off something similar to the Russian-Japanese war, where they pull off some effective military victories early on and the enemy decides to back off and maybe cede some small backwater islands. They knew full well if the war dragged out a long time they would lose. And, if America's government had been uninterested in war, this probably would have worked - but if America's government was uninterested in war, they wouldn't have embargoed Japan in the first place, nor would they have been sinking German merchant ships. On the contrary America's government wanted war, and the Roosevelt regime was happy to send hundreds of thousands of other people's sons to their deaths to win it.

It was vital that Japan did get America to back off in the pacific, because without being able to trade with the Americans they had to turn to the Allied slavemasters' plantations in southeast asia, particularly the Dutch. They couldn't trade with them either, which meant war. It would be hard enough fighting the Allies without America involved as well, and America would get involved.

Japan simply needed resources to continue operating an industrial economy. It wasn't "preferable" like it was for Germany (which at least had an abundance of coal and iron and had a lot of experience from WW1 at resource substitution and operating in a total war mindset) for Japan it was actually mandatory. Embargo forced them into a binary "go to war or have your industrial base collapse and your nation fall back to pre-industrial conditions" choice. The outcome after WW2 was not ideal, but it was far better than if they had not fought at all.

Invading China was Japan's real mistake, because it had little of value to offer, was extremely difficult to control from the sheer population, and basically just wasted a ton of manpower and materiel that could have been spent fighting the Allies. If they had for example taken all the forces they would have sent to China and instead sent them to India to drive out the British and support a Hindu nationalist rebellion they would have severely hurt Britain and created a valuable ally in Asia, one with manpower comparable to China but friendly with them instead of neutral or hostile. India had already developed a fair amount of industrialization and modern infrastructure under British rule, so it would have been much more useful than a Chinese client state.

Obviously. I never argued that America (and Britain) were not behaving aggressively towards Germany. My argument is that Japan and Germany participated in the aggression as well. For instance, the oil embargo that everyone loves to take out of context was a direct response to Japan's decision to occupy French colonial outposts.
Am I arguing that it's immoral for an Asian nation to steal colonies from a European nation? No though I personally don't believe that Japan should rule over Vietnamese and Khmers What I am saying is that this encroachment was seen as a direct geopolitical threat by those in power in America because Japan was openly indicating that they wanted to occupy American colonial possessions.
What would you have done if you were in charge of protecting American colonial interests and an expansionist foreign power suddenly occupied a colony literally right next to your own?
War was not inevitable. It only became inevitable when Japan decided to attack America and steal their colonial possessions.

Maybe not. But they did have more experience in winter fighting and served as a trained core for Stalin's largely conscrip army. They also had more combat experience than many of the newly trained divisions.

I agree. However Germany gained nothing from declaring war on America. Yet they did it anyway out of misplaced loyalty to a treacherous ally.

I agree with you though. Japan was not capable of sustaining a total war against a large industrialized opponent. Which is why they should not have chosen to do so against the other Russia; America.

True if big

Your post is formatted poorly. Even I had to read it a couple times to understand what you were trying to say. Perhaps try learning more grammar so that your posts aren't such a shit show.

Attached: 1f707269a9a54110aab8022f1ce378095a3896df14089f3922ce7a4ccff5d93e.png (500x446, 125.36K)

You need to get the infographic of differences between nationalist socialism and fascism. Fascism honestly was shit and not truly embraced by the people of Italy, I think the fascists didnt really do much to make Italy like Rome, culturally. On the other hand, natsocs made Germany have a cultural revival and the people fully embraced it. People say there are only nuances but we are talking about a widescale implementation on society, so nuances have tremendous effects that we see when comparatively viewing these two nations.

So yes, America was always a white fascist ethnostate, if you mean fascist by the umbrella term or loosely used term to also mean natsoc and traditionalist.

1. Hay's Code: couldn't have profanity in movies and tv shows, jesus christ that's against 1st amendment and they still had it! But this was a vital law of legal paternalism against the propaganda of the jew. There were lots of other things Hay's code prohibited, I think.

2. Racial Laws: like Jim Crow laws, 3/5ths law, anti-racemixing law, segregation, etc.

3. American Eugenics: These laws or social programs were generally made against the alcholics and the "feeble-minded".

4. JFK was an obvious nationalist socialist and claimed Hitler was "the stuff of which legends are made"…that he would soon not be regarded as evil but as a widely respected individual. Look at the youtube video of his diary, that's where they found this, when it was given to the public by some relative of his or friend or something.

There are tons of fascist-like laws and social programs in America's history but they are not openly fascist.

Attached: a5a58743196a8c3a36ca068424e29b743ff812408e9b10dc291a6ff09e8abe66.png (664x688, 234.92K)

US performance since 1945 hasn't exactly been stellar. In addition they had just seen how the world's most powerful navy was a paper tiger that couldn't protect its most valuable colonies.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (326x634, 116.06K)

Yes, eugenics and Nazism started in America and Britain.

Germans adopted these ideas.

In reality, Hitler was popular in America and Britain.

That's why they did absolutely nothing against his rise to power between 1923 and 1940.


They didnt have a choice. The US was systematically seperating them from all of their resources and allies.
As time went on they would become weaker and weaker so the only sensible thing is to attack immediately.

Bear in mind the Japs were allied with Britain not too long before the war and the US broke up that alliance.
At the time of Pearl Harbour all the Japanese ships were built with British technology and had British men on board in an engineering capacity.

I wouldn't know about that
Have you read the article?
Time gave it up to Hitler in 1938 because he was a total boss that year. Of course they took the opportunity to smear meanie fascism for muh democratic masses, condemn antisemitism, and rally militaries to beat him in the arms race.

Attached: SmartSelect_20190719-151614_Brave.jpg (1419x2401, 839.47K)

Because Imperial Japan and the 4rd Reich had a joint nuclear program. First test, October 11-12 1944.

A little too late, huh?

You know you shills and calling all of these countries Jewish is just fucking annoying.

Which is odd considering the early stories of the Mass Genocides states that the murderous campaign of rounding people up and sending them to camps started in 1936, right after the Olympics were held there.

Don't you mean August 6 and 9?

Going to war is the only reason Japan isn't as fucked today as Germany is. Since they fought to the end and were prepared to die or commit suicide they didn't get occupied as hard. Why do you think they were allowed to keep the Emperor as a traditional figurehead?

Are you trying to say that the British and the Americans were not directly influenced and/or controlled by kikes?
Look into the banking institutes of the British and the Americans, look into the art and culture pushers of the British and the Americans, look into who controlled the narrative regarding Germans in places like Britain.
The Murphy translation, which was used to convince British politicians that Germany was vile and evil, was literally constructed and produced by kike communists and handed over to British government officials.

The United States fired the first shot of Pearl Harbor. The USS Ward fired on a Japanese submarine more than an hour before Jap planes descended on Pearl Harbor.

Upper portions of the US government belayed Commanders of Pearl Harbor from doing any kind of defense knowing that the American Public would be more ready to get involved in WWII if they were seen as the US being "innocently" attacked.