Rereading Churchill's "The Gathering Storm". Somehow, it is only this second reading that registers for me that what drove Mussolini into the arms of Hitler was the British and French condemnation of Italy's seizing Abyssinia [Ethiopia]. Churchill baldly states that what was OK in the 19th century, for European nations to carve up Africa, was NG in the 20th century, too bad for latecomer Italy, seizing one of the last independent areas. Was this the height of hypocrisy?
Many of the hypocritical acts of the British and French were cause of concern for this point in history. Their treatment of Asian nations and the subjugation by force of colonies were one of the reasons Japan was as brutal and ruthless as they were. Many upper class British and French were Nazi/Fascist sympathizers and anti-communist as well.
And if this policy of giving back territories to the previous owners and administrators was not instigated (or at least amended where self rule is concerned) the Vietnam war would never have happened...think of the US lives and money that would not have been expended... One could ask what would have happened instead and whether that would have been just as bad...I don't think so IMO.
The League of Nations condemned the aggression by Italy. The Age of Colonialist Expansion had passed, but Benito wanted a New Rome. Italy would have survived with her colonies if the Fascists hadn't sought approval from somebody, anybody.
Was it being hypocritical or was it changing with the times? Armed aggression had pretty much gotten everyone nowhere in 1914-18, serving only to waste blood & treasure.
That, my friend, is a steaming load of crap. Despite hundreds of years of European "subjugation by force", the Japanese treated their WW1 & Soviet Civil War prisoners extremely well. It is only after the rise of Japanese ultranationalism during the early 30s, do you see the Japanese becoming brutal & ruthless. The Japanese have no one to blame but themselves.
The Japanese were brutal and ruthless with any and all non-Japanese because they were untermenschen. As for sympathizers, I think you overstate the case.
In memoirs by FDR's son, he said to him "Don't think for a second that American boys would be dying in the Pacific if it wasn't for the (I forgot the descriptive words he used, but they weren't good) of the British, French, and Dutch."
Elliot was a better mystery writer than a historian. American boys would have died in the Pacific with or without the British, French, & Dutch.
Could these three countries have done more in the Pacific? Taking some of the responsibility off the US's shoulders? I say bloody oath they could of. There existed (perhaps still does) a degree of disdain from Europe in terms of the Pacific and Asia (including Australia) - Historians have been lenient on these countries in terms of meeting obligations - spending lives and money - leaving the US and Australia to clean up their messes they want to walk away from...