World War II was not just a war but the effort of Berlin and Tokyo to bring about a grand change in the world order as seen from both perspectives. For Germany and Japan, the war was largely motivated by the perception that national honor needed to be regained, resources secured, and dominance over regions these entities consider rightfully theirs must be established. However, while the world castigated the Axis Powers, Berlin and Tokyo perceived themselves as champions of change, challenging the beneficial rights of Western powers and capable of visioning a new world order.
From Berlin's point of view, the Versailles Treaty was the source of most grievances Germany harbored. Created after World War I, Versailles laid upon Germany such pitiless terms that it remained economically devastated and politically humiliated. Thus, reversing the injustices against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime was, both politically and morally, of the essence. These territorial losses and military restraints were, therefore perceived to be purposeful attempts at derailing Germany from its place in Europe. Domestically, Berlin's expansionist efforts were framed within annexation and integration of lost territory and German reunification.
The motivations of war for Tokyo are rooted within self-sufficiency and regional supremacy. Japan, modernizing at a fantastic pace in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, became a power to be reckoned with, but its lack of natural resources continued to be one of its vulnerabilities. The embargo on oil and other materials from the United States in 1941 was, therefore, considered an existential threat to the Japanese economy and its military. For Tokyo, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not an impulsive act of aggression but a preemptive move to ensure its survival and escape the straitjacket of Western economic controls.
Both Berlin and Tokyo considered the Western powers hypocritical in their criticism of Axis expansion. Germany and Japan argued that their actions were a reflection of the actions of Britain, France, and the United States at the height of their imperialist ambition. From Berlin's point of view, the invasion of Poland, France, and the Low Countries was not a new act of aggression but rather a strategic maneuver to regain superiority in a Europe long dominated by rival empires. Similarly, Tokyo framed its expansion into Manchuria, China, and Southeast Asia as part of a larger mission to free Asia from Western colonialism and establish a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
The major misconception was how the Allied Powers portrayed Axis intentions as an unprovoked, purely destructive plan. In the eyes of Berlin, policies adopted by the Nazi regime were extreme but still necessary, considering that the people of Germany required "living space" or Lebensraum for their very prosperity. For example, the invasion of the Soviet Union was portrayed as a necessary clash with communism-an existential threat to the German lifestyle- rather than an act of conquest. Similarly, Tokyo could legitimize its action by stating the need to protect resources and lead a disintegrated Asia. Both capitals regarded the reaction from the West as hypocritical and not seriously interested in their ideals.
Another area of misconception on the part of the Allies was the alliance between Berlin and Tokyo. While the Axis shared enemies, it did not mean that the objective was the same. For Berlin, the emphasis was European hegemony, whereas for Tokyo, the objective lay in the Pacific and Asia. Often, direct coordination between Germany and Japan was not observed on the part of the Allies who treated the Axis as a single unit. From the point of view of Berlin and Tokyo, this oversimplification under estimated the peculiar set of challenges and motivations that characterised their particular campaigns.
In addition, their response to allied policies was in dispute. According to Berlin, the appeasement policies during the 1930s translated to an acquiescence into its expansionary ambitions. Hitler's government viewed the fact that there had not been firm resistance to moves like the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the annexation of Czechoslovakia as proof of weakness and emboldened Germany to proceed further. In the case of Tokyo, for instance, US embargoes and American military power deployed to the Pacific are viewed as provocative measures against which Japan could only act resolutely.
A critical misapprehension arose regarding the notion of occupied territories:. While the Allies presented Axis occupations as brutal and oppressive, Berlin and Tokyo often legitimized their actions as necessary to maintain order and advance their goals. The Nazi administration's policies in occupied Europe were portrayed domestically as efforts to stabilize the region and integrate it into a new German-led order. Similarly, Japan's rule over Southeast Asian territories was interpreted as a form of liberation for Asian nations that had been subjugated for decades by Western powers.
After the war, the end would reveal deep disparities in how it was perceived: for Berlin, the fall of the Nazi regime and the division of Germany was the ultimate betrayal of its vision of European supremacy. This perceived victors' justice, directed at delegitimizing rather than explaining the aspirations of the Germans, took the form of the Nuremberg Trials and the process of denazification. Some Japanese saw a similar attempt in Tokyo, both in the U.S. postwar occupation and the war crimes trials, to establish Western values, to erase from memory Japan's wartime sacrifices and losses.
From the perspective of Berlin and Tokyo, the legacy of World War II is that of ambition frustrated by miscalculation and misunderstanding. Both capitals felt their actions were justified by the needs and aspirations of their nations, even as they recognized the implications of their choices. In the eyes of the world, the Axis Powers are remembered as aggressors, but the narratives of Berlin and Tokyo underscore the pressures and challenges that framed their decisions. These views, despite their controversiality, form the integral parts in the comprehension of the war complexity and its history impact globally.