The Motivations

[gustavowizard]

I think would be fun to discuss each country different motivations and major charactheristics for the WW2, see if u guys agree/disagree or add stuff,

USA - Good Nationalism; Necessity (both politic, strategic and eminent - Pear Harbor), Huge Amphibius Operations (D-Day, Mariners), Airforce support, Anti-Nazi Feeling (good number of americans soldiers were Jews)
RUSSIA - Stalinism; Extreme Nationalism but most by Fear, No-Retreat Policy, Big Tank Production, Huge Manpower, Dirty Play (Pact of Non-Agression with Germany and Invasion of Poland)
ENGLAND - Moderate Nationalism; Extreme Necessity (Defend the Country), Inovations that turned the War (Radar), Big Airforce Plans (RAF),
JAPAN - Extreme Imperial Nationalism; Die for the Emperor, Honor, Sacrifice, Expansion, Empire, Strategic Inovations (shallow-water air-water torpedos, etc) and Strategic Assault, Suicidal Defence
GERMANY- Nanizsm, Extreme Left-Wing Nationalism; Blindness Obedience, Crazzyness, Crudelty, Robotic and Precise Strategic, Coldness, Bliztrieg, Luffwaffe (dont know if i typed right lol - my english is not 100% imagine my german lloooool
ITALY - Facism; Fear, Excess of Confidence, Bad Strategy, Tired and Old Leader (the glory of Mussolini was years before the ww2), not good internal support
FRANCE - LoL; pure necessity; they got invaded and crushed fast, Blitzrieg was to fast for them


BRASIL (lol dont leaf its just cause its my country) - Necessity; Public Pressure (Germany sunked a bunch of our cargo ships; one by one, until we declared war on them); Very Small but efficient troops ; FEB (Força Expedicionaria Brasileira); Brasil sent about 25.000 man (just 1 division then) to Italy to fight the Germans (at that moment Italy was already surrended) but the FEB was under command of the 5th US Army, but we fought bravelly there with the few we could sent! ehehhe

[UeArtemis]

USA - Good Nationalism;
RUSSIA - Extreme Nationalism

First, in terms of my language: the Americans aren't not a nation (нация), but the people/folk (народ). Because they do not have their own language, culture and so on. There are Afro-Americans, there are Jewish-Americans, Italian-Americans. American is a citizenship. What can be nationalism without a nation? Nationalism in the Soviet Union was considered a bad thing. Until now, many people in the east think that Nationalism = Nazism.
There will be more correct to speak about patriotism.

[8doczzz1]

the Americans aren't not a nation (нация), but the people/folk (народ). Because they do not have their own language, culture and so on.

In political science a "nation" is a people, a "country" is a land, a "state" is people + land.

Nationalism is regarded as a more extreme form of patriotism.

Additionally, you'll find many people telling you to go f&^& yourself for the "America has no culture" line.  Especially given that the entire world listens to American music, watches American movies, wears American clothes.  Do some research on the melting pot concept.  I'm not sure what they've taught you over there, but it's far more than just a 'citizenship.'

[luz777]

Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all.

America is a nation, it has a defined set of borders and shares a common language and culture for the most part.

Just because there a alot of ethnic and religious minorities in somewhat larger quantities than most other countries does not mean that it isn't a nation.

Like the above poster has said, look at the list of American culture that is taken in by the rest of the world...whether thats a good or bad thing isn't the point.

To the OP, just wondering what the difference between "USA: good nationalism" and "Britian: morderate nationalism" is? 

Also alot of those German ones a pretty stereotypical, plus "Extreme Left-Wing Nationalism"...not really.

Interesting post though, I imagine it'll decend into heated political shouting fairly soon though 

[UeArtemis]

I meant that American culture exist, but not in the classic sense. Only modern culture. Well, or tell me folk tale of Americans. In fact, I do not care. A nation or not, but in my language there is a distinction between the terms (in rus. "nation" is partially a synonym of "ethnos"). Many people accentuate this. The USSR had a lot of nations. Nationalism would tear him to pieces. Nationalism was considered as a bad thing, and patriotism to the country regardless of nation - as good. That is why many socialist republic called "people" rather than "national". More than one nation live in many countries.
So it will be correct to write about patriotism. For example, a British nationalism is... is it a English or Scottish nationalism?

[thebomb]

OP, your list of caricatures of each country in the war has nothing to do with motivations - you just listed a bunch of stereotypes. 

[Cartoon Boy]

OP, your list of caricatures of each country in the war has nothing to do with motivations - you just listed a bunch of stereotypes.

Not to mention false ones.

[spanishfly]

Probably the most stupid topic ever...

[hgghg4]

I meant that American culture exist, but not in the classic sense. Only modern culture. Well, or tell me folk tale of Americans. In fact, I do not care.

Paul Bunyen... There is truth to this but Lewis and Clark, and many of our westward explorers of our early days....btw



WE ARE A NATION and I love my nation ... we fought for our nation and just because we are a young nation does not mean we are not a nation... take that "America is not a nation" crap and shove it where the sun don't shine....

[WillyWurm]

Well guys,

i don't know whether you understand the first post.
This topic is made to solve these stereotypes and misunderstandings, nevertheless it is an important and difficult issue.
You just say that this is wrong and that is wrong but I think our Brazilian mate wants to discuss it, and you should discuss as well, otherwise you mustn't comment.
 You are starting to be annoyed, instead of explaining the American culture
There are other ones in the world, which probably don't understand yours, so explain it...

Just be kind and talk to each other 

[comrade_daelin]

The motivations for WW2 (I'm assuming that's what the OP was talking about) cannot be put into simply categories of answers. Not every American citizen believed in the same reason for going to war, just as how not every American believes the US is in the Middle East for the same reasons.

For Hitler though, WW2 was Germany's fight to get back to the top. Hitler grew up a fanatical believer in the German empire. Like many people of his time Hitler also disliked Jews and saw many non-Germans as unsuitable for co-existence alongside Germans. When WW1 ended abruptly in the Allies' favour, Hitler was shocked along with other Germans that a seemingly winning war was signed away by cowardly politicians. Germany was reduced to a shadow of its glorious self. Hitler's ambitions as national leader was to undo all this.

Technically WW2's occurence was at an unfavourable time- the gambit was that Poland's takeover would also lead to the Allies hitching a fit instead of declaring war. German re-armament was scheduled to be completed by the mid-to-late 40s, as numerous programs had differing dates. The declaration of war by the Allies forced Hitler and the German army to face westward and deal with colonial powers as opposed to seizing the dream turf of Eastern European states and Russia. The Battles of France and Britain were waged only because the French and British went to war- they were purely military and political objectives imposed on Germany (though it would be unreasonable for anyone to think that Germany would never face them).

Britain and France had alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland. Though the Allies more or less allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland via the Munich agreement, they were furious when Hitler ignored the treaty and siezed the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain made it clear that if Germany tries to pull the stunt on Poland, its war. Britain and France went to war on political obligations.

The US went to war only after Pearl Harbour and Hitler's declaration of war on the US soon after. However its important to note that the US supplied Germany's enemies and German attacks on US ships in the Atlantic were more or less ideal pretexts to enter the war on the Allies side, though Hitler's declaration or more less made it a reaction.

Also note the fact that the Poland campaign was a forcible, hostile invasion as opposed to the relatively bloodless occupation of Czechoslovakia.

[stryker]

JAPAN - Extreme Imperial Nationalism; Die for the Emperor, Honor, Sacrifice, Expansion, Empire, Strategic Inovations (shallow-water air-water torpedos, etc) and Strategic Assault, Suicidal Defence

I'm obviously not a historian, so can only speak from things I've read about this.  There was a belief from Japanese leadership that their country was under threat, that their supplies would be cut off, and therefore one way to protect against this was to create a so-called  "co-prosperity sphere" which was certainly imperialism and the goal of building an empire that essentially ran asia.

I do not know if you would classify Japanese motivation as a people as patriotism as they were fighting for a god in human form - their Emperor.  I find it difficult to understand that perspective, so apologies in advance if I've not explained it well.

[comrade_daelin]

Japan at the time of WW2 was invading China and in the process lsot favour from international reactions, particularly from the oil embargo. This forced Japan to seek- quite forcibly- other resource-rich lands, the South-East. Problem is, those lands are owned by powers that oppose Japan's expansion. One of Japan's reasons for Pearl Harbour was to destroy the US pacific fleet to rpevent retaliation and hope they settle for peace concessions as they leap-frog all over Asian colonies, or at least if the Allies fight back they have the time and resources to render them defensible. Obviosuly this gamble did't work; the US simply rebuilt and came back with a vengeance, and the Japanese defeat at Midway was an unrecoverable defeat. Not to mention Japanese designs like the Zero were becoming antiquidated as the US introduced newer, toughter aircraft.

Its all about one nation's power and control of resources.

[Paciat]

Japan wasnt that inovative. Its the british that made the first airstrike on a port (1940, Taranto Italy), Japan learned much from that attack.
(1/5) Dangerous Missions - Taranto - World War II
Even Zero Fighters werent that innovative, they just had no armor and allies needed a new tactic to fight them.
Japan had no radar, no A-Bomb, their navy codes vere decripted by US, no modern tanks, no modern firearms, no radio proximity fuses...
The Radio Proximity Fuse
Many older ships of Japanese Navy were build in UK!

[BurroDiablo]

GERMANY- Extreme Left-Wing Nationalism

I'm sorry, but you really need to learn the meaning of Left and Right.