Attention, anticommies: just because you make shit up when you try to describe history does not mean that everybody else does, too. I can only presume that that is your reason for yelling at us to ‘READ A HISTORY BOOK’ or whatnot when we talk about phenomena about which you know nothing.

You are also blockheaded for recommending the U.S.’s history classes as sources of information. I’ve taken its classes before and I can safely say that you won’t learn about the Polar Bear Expedition, Eritrea under Fascism, the riot at Christie Pits, U.S. support for Ukrainian Axis collaborators, and thousands of other important phenomena in those.

Anyway, the conclusion that ‘the united states is built upon the same ideals as nazism’ is only a mild exaggeration. It is a fact that the German Fascists saw American colonialism as a laudable source of inspiration, and the reasons should be easy to see: the colonists exterminated millions of Native Americans through direct means, and tens of millions more died indirectly because colonialism stole or obstructed their resources, screwing up the ecology and aggravating diseases. (It would be very naïve to assume that indigenous people simply had no conception of either diseases or health management before the 1490s.) Other than maybe the British Empire, the colonisation of the Americas was the most successful colonial endeavour of all time. It is no wonder that the German Fascists took note of it.

No doubt many Fascists disliked Imperial America when it was under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s rule, but most of their vitriol was reserved for us:

An alternative explanation emerges when one considers the fact that the war to the West remained ‘a political struggle’ (MacKenzie, 1995: 97), while to the East it was all‐out war. From the beginning, Hitler had regarded the war to the East not as ‘a formal battle between two states, to be waged in accordance with the rules of International Law, but as a conflict between two philosophies’ (Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel’s Nuremberg testimony, quoted in MacKenzie, 1994: 505). Accordingly, [Fascist] propaganda described the conflict with the Soviet Union as one between two mutually exclusive worldviews, the Soviet one being branded ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ (Schulte, 1988: 228).

(Emphasis added. Source.)

It is absolutely false that the Fascists fought Imperial America earlier than they fought us, and I doubt that they felt compelled to try before 1941 either. (Maybe somebody once thought that it would have been a good idea, but any expert could tell him that it would be a logistical nightmare.) Quoting Jacques R. Pauwels’s The Myth of the Good War, page 71:

On […] December 11, 1941 — four days after Pearl Harbor — the German dictator suddenly declared war on the U.S. This seemingly irrational decision must be understood in light of the [Axis] predicament in the Soviet Union. Hitler almost certainly speculated that this entirely gratuitous gesture of solidarity would induce his Far Eastern ally to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the enemy of [the Third Reich], the Soviet Union, and this would have forced the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war. (The bulk of the [IJA] was stationed in northern China and would therefore have been able to immediately attack the Soviet Union in the Vladivostok area.)

Hitler appears to have believed that he could exorcize the spectre of defeat in the Soviet Union, and in the war in general, by summoning a sort of [Imperial] deus ex machina to the Soviet Union’s vulnerable Siberian frontier. According to the German historian Hans W. Gatzke, the Führer was convinced that “if Germany failed to join Japan [in the war against the United States], it would […] end all hope for Japanese help against the Soviet Union.”²⁵ But Japan did not take Hitler’s bait.

The likeliest reasons that Imperial America accepted the Third Reich’s challenge are 1. to secure access to European markets, and 2. to secure the dictatorships of the bourgeoisie so that we would not replace them, as we did in most of Eastern Europe. (Note that these two reasons are closely related.) Communists overthrowing the Axis governments in Western Europe looked like a serious possibility. Page 128:

Another perceived threat to American interests was that the communist and other leftist partisans of France aimed to cultivate friendly relations with the Soviet Union. From an American intelligence station in Berne, Switzerland, which monitored developments in [Axis]-occupied Europe, came urgent warnings that the non-Gaullist National Committee of Liberation “had a dangerous tendency to strengthen pro-Russian senti­ment among the French.”

Someone was needed, observes Kolko, “who could save France from the Left,” someone who was “qualified to con­trol” the influential communists within the Resistance, and the disagreeable de Gaulle revealed himself to be the only one who could and would take on this mission. Kolko dryly concludes: “If the Americans did not like de Gaulle they preferred [French] Bolsheviks even less.”¹⁰

Adam Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy:

Britain and France did not appease Germany because they expected to be defeated by the Wehrmacht, but because, in the words of France’s right-wing Prime Minister Daladier, another European war would mean the ‘utter destruction of European civilization’, creating a vacuum that could only be filled by ‘Cossack and Mongol hordes’ and their ‘culture’ of Soviet Communism.

Of course, I am sure that the chumps in the screenshot would have no interest in reading any of this, but responding to their cluelessness is good exercise.

Oh, and I would link to the original context, but, uh… I might get in trouble with the administrators here if they saw the content therein. Hopefully you understand.