Actions
(39.81 KB, 892x674)
According to Szálasi, the Germany-Italy-Japan alliance is a real alliance, it's for victory, for defeat, based on common values, common goals, while the American-British-Soviet one, which is a kinda fair-weather friendship, based on temporary interests.
I want to comment on this, before moving on. We know how things turned out after the war, and the factors behind the events can be traced back to ideological differences, even the authoritarian nature of the Soviet (and the exclusive nature of the absolute power, besides Stalin's probable megalomania, psychopathy, or whatever else he had). But what about the other guys? They weren't internationalist, their own interest should have came first, all were authoritarian; would have this led to final confrontation or a Cold War-like stand off between them? Or similis simili gaudet and living happily ever after?
Szálasi says their common goal - their "life goal" - was to form and build a National Socialist world order, which secures the just reallocation of the moral, spiritual, and material wealth of the globe, providing welfare and safety.
They have to do this out of imperative necessity, break the old order around the whole globe, against an enemy who is well aware of this and will commit everything its strength allows.