But at the same time, they both lie for a living.
Spoiler: They are the same. Because as I will always state, Rome was right about actors.
Honestly, most of Aydin's video essays are worth a watch. She is really good at what she does and breaking it down, to the point I will even overlook her being an unironic Monarchist in the year of our lord 2024.
Just to help with some of it:
(The KMT? Gah, it's been a while)
You actually have it backward. The KMT were the Nationalist under Chiang Kai-shek. Mao's forces were the Red Army (shortened from "Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army", although I cant find the acronym for them).
You... MIGHT have seen instances where the Germans sided with Mao to fight the Japanese
As far as I am aware, the Germans never gave aid to the Red Army (that was almost all the Soviets doing). In fact, many of the Nazi party members who were pushing for a Chinese alliance did so on the grounds of helping the Nationalist to defeat the Red Army. To that end, they did give a surprising amount of aid to the Nationalist in the form of officer training, rifles, machine guns, and even a reasonable amount of anti-tank guns. But only ever enough to show the Chinese they were serious, since they were afraid giving too much would turn the Japanese against them.
China and American might have been allied during WW1 and best buds at the time, but by WW2 China had basically undergone... uh... SEVERAL political revolutions, so the ruling political faction really had no correlation between then and now.
The bigger problem between the US and China was more the lack of a strong central government to do anything meaningful with. Kai-shek (the "official" leader of China at the time) was generally on fairly good terms with the US, and even if he had some issues with Gen. Stilwell was still appreciative of American supplies and backup (especially in the form of the Flying Tigers when that was finally set up). However, the central government under Kai-shek controlled very little in the way of true territory, and between them the rest of the country was under the control of various warlords because, truly, there is nothing new under the sun. And many of those warlords ranged from lukewarm to America to outright hostile. IIRC, that incident you cited of the American and Chinese troops "joking" about shooting each other was actually troops from one of the warlords rather than KMT troops.
Then there's the added fun that the entire conflict between China and Japan started in, what, 1938? 1939? When was that stupid conflict on the bridge - bah, whatever. Too tired to do the research.
1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
Conversely, America would get stuck in a two-way war between Germany/China and Japan... then again, would America even be fighting Germany by this point?
It does actually cause quite the butterfly effect. Germany thought it was inevitable they would have to fight the US because of Lend Lease aid to Britain, but at the same time Hitler was always hesitant and didnt actually declare war until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he only did that because it was obliged by treaty. So there is a solid case to be made the little cold war between the Germans and the US would continue until Hitler thought it better.
I am also skeptical about how much a Chinese/German alliance would really do to the US. Most of the Chinese leadership that mattered for overseas relations were friendly with both the Germans and the US, so they would likely try to find a way to square that circle and just not get involved. On top of that, China lacked any real ability to project power, as their navy was virtually nonexistent as was their air force. But you may see a shadow war start up in China between German and American advisors similar to any number of US vs. Soviet proxy wars in the Cold War, and perhaps even go so far as trying to fight over those warlords I mentioned previously. This does probably mean that the Red Army gets a pretty significant setback though, as they will lose out on Soviet supplies when the Germans invade and this time they are unlikely to get American supplies like they did IRL.
If I am honest though, it is probably the Japanese who get hosed in this situation. They are not going to avoid war with the US (since they considered it their destiny to fight the US), BUT their industry was only at the point it was even in 1941 because they had a lot of German advisors improve their industrial capabilities in preparation for war. In this alternate timeline, that probably doesnt happen, and Japanese industry remains notoriously inefficient to an even greater degree than we know IRL. It would still be a hard war, but there would probably be less aircraft and some ships would take longer to complete (if they complete at all), so it could change the outcome of the war and cause the collapse of Japanese forces faster than the 6 months proposed by Yamamoto (a prediction he was right almost to the dot about, by the by).
It is honestly probably one of the more interesting alternative histories that doesnt get as much looks at it because not a lot of people in the West know about the war between Japan and China (kind of like how the Pacific front itself is surprisingly sparse in pop media).
To that end, I wonder if they do anything for him in Taiwan. Considering they are the descendants of the Nationalist government who would have worked with him.
Right now, flipping around between Company of Heroes 3, Railroader, Anno 1800, and WARNO. Although I am about to give another shot to Terminator Dark Fate: Defiance. It just takes some getting used to because it plays very differently than a lot of RTS games out there. I may also go an actually finish Last Train Home since I was so close to Vladivostok when I fell off of playing it.
Yeah, they did. At least from the things I remember reading, there was actually a pretty heavy split in the Nazi leadership over if they should side with China or Japan (to the point they were actively arming and training both sides before 1939). A lot of the pro-China ones wanted to do it because they felt it was an ancient nation of strong people that would fit greatly with their beliefs around Aryanism, as well as many of them being drawn to Chinese Legalism thought. But Hitler and his pro-Japan faction knew that China was also on friendly relations with the US, and they had long since realized they would need to go to war with America at some point and so wanted the "also growing hostile to America" Japan as an ally.
The first reports of the Rape of Nanking, came from the victims who fled the city, and Japanese officers who admitted that they had lost all control of their own men, and were unable to restore order.
The Nazi German ambassador also had reports, since he was there trying to get closer ties with the Chinese and used his power as an ambassador to shelter as many people as he could stuff into his quarters.
You know you done fucked up when a Nazi is writing to Hitler telling him to break off relations with the Japanese because [paraphrased] "It would be a stain on our reputation to be associated with such barbarians."
Also worth pointing out that the researchers went in with a bias and wanting the answer of "They hate sexy video game characters", and then had to torture the hell out of the data just to even get this result. If you actually read the study, it turns out that they just put words in a lot of their mouths of "Well, it is just because they think it is feminine to be sexy and they are being drawn to the feminine representation." And of course, saying this is more proof you must change media.
I don't agree and my example is the problem. That tribe has been doing that for as long as anyone in their tribe can remember.
I wasnt speaking in the case of that tribe specifically, and I would argue it continues only because they dont really have any solid contact with outsiders that test their way of life through direct means like you would have seen among tribes on continental masses (where constant fighting means only the strong survive). The same I would argue applies to Native Americans, just because of how spread out they were from each other.
I feel the need to interject on this because yes the Vikings made steel. Shit steel.
To be fair, I wasnt trying to imply it was some sort of extremely high-quality steel. Just that when they were going up against the various Anglo-Saxon and Celtic kingdoms of the British Isles even their shitty steel was better than their crude iron. But there is a reason the Vikings struggled more against the French (as well as their better fortifications) and why the Vikings who took on French methods (the Normans) became the ultimate winners.
Traditions may solve problems, or they could be completely wrong.
And you can usually tell which was which because the ones with traditions that solved a problem usually became extremely powerful.
For two I know off the top of my head, the Jews cleaning rituals compared to most Medieval Christians kept lice at bay, which is why there is a random dead zone in Poland where there were minimal deaths to the Black Plague (which was spread by lice). And the Vikings had a tradition of taking the ash of their ancestors when they were burned on a pyre and adding the ash to their weapon so that they could carry their ancestors into battle. Ash is carbon. Congratulations, you just reinvented steel when everyone else is using iron.
Another thing that I feel gets left out with France in 1940 is how much they had deliberately nerfed their own army for political reasons between the World Wars. Mostly because France was in a politically unstable situation for pretty much the entire inter-war period, and many of their Leftist governments were more concerned about a coup by their own military than German aggression (as they felt their military officers were too conservative, monarchist, and Catholic). This is a large part of the reason they favored the Maginot Line, since a static defense cant march on Paris.
Hell, they almost got rid of all of their tanks (and some called for getting rid of the entire army itself) because some unknown general named Charles De Gaulle wrote a paper about doctrine for tank warfare calling for a professional instead of conscript army, and calling for dedicated armored divisions as the tank was such that it could set the pace of battle through shock and the power of the attack (as well as combined arms with air force units). He was crushed down on by army officials who told him they would absolutely not publish his paper, De Gaulle went and did it privately, and a French Socialist minister found his book and used it as proof that the French army clearly had ulterior motives to create an army loyal to French officers and sweep a new Napoleon into power by overthrowing the Socialist government.
What is more shocking is that the British were blindsided by this rather than the idea that the French army would collapse under such circumstances.
Having watch the video, it is a quote from some Japanese people who watched one of their previous videos talking about the problems of these third-world immigrants coming to Japan, but the Japanese government deciding to ignore it. So Japanese people were asking why these foreigners seem to care more about them than their own government.
And if anything, it is currently following the past trajectory of being people screwed with rigged elections in US history (at least for national level offices): You screw them out of the presidency once, you try and force through the things you want but there is too much of the stink of illegitimacy to actually enforce your will across the fruited plains as states start giving the Feds the cold shoulder, and then next time around the guy you screwed comes back and clocks you in the jaw.
Just to go with two prominent examples: John Quincy Adams got a close election and conspired with Henry Clay to take the election even though most of the public will (by plurality of the vote) was with Andrew Jackson. And in what is perhaps one of the few disgraces against the otherwise fantastic Clay name (especially Cassius and Henry), Henry helped to make sure Quincy won in exchange for a cabinet position. But Adams never really got to do a whole lot because he was hamstrung by an enraged Jackson and his supporters, who then won the midterm and then Jackson came in screaming mad and won a landslide in the next election.
And for a more modern example, it is well known that Kennedy stole the 1960 election from Nixon (yet another reason I dont understand the "Kennedy was so anti-establishment, that is why the CIA killed him" types). True, he probably had the popularity he could have won again in 1964, but LBJ did a lot of the same things Kennedy was talking about doing and ruined the image of the Dems on the domestic front come 1968. And the entire time, Nixon had been biding his time, and was able to win in a landslide. Why? Well, the Democrats thought they had the entire culture on lock and planned on running even further to the Left and even openly embracing more socialist policies. Only for the "We thought we had ruined you" Nixon to disabuse them of the idea that Americans are actually on board with such ideas.
So we may well be getting "Little of A, Little of B" in the case of Trump having his second go around.
It is especially "funny" because a tornado that hit Topeka in the 1960's is still one of the most destructive tornado's in history (luckily low death count, but hundreds injured and caused what would now be $1B in damage). But apparently they think "No, that was a fluke. It will never happen again, so we dont need to prepare." Like I said, the legislature had to drag them kicking and screaming into sanity.
Although worth pointing out is that skyscrapers are actually built to handle a tornado just by the nature of the things that have to go into building them in the first place. Although obviously you will want to get into the interior away from the outside glass facades.
What kind of idiot do you have to be to not invest in a tornado shelter in fucking Kansas. It seems like places like that should be investing a lot more in deeper homes and protective earthen mounds.
People in the country and smaller towns understand that. It was mostly about, what else, but dealing with the terminal retards in the bigger cities like Topeka, Lawrence, and Overland Park. Where they wouldnt build shelters on new houses because "Tornado's dont hit big cities, it is a waste of money" and everyone else in the state had to drag them kicking and screaming going "No, you retards, that is a great way to get people killed for what is only a few thousand extra dollars to a new house". Also, the eternal menace known as "The HOA" is responsible for earth berms not being built in cities even though you can just use fill dirt from other job sites to create the berm needed.
But I do see earth berms out in the country and they are becoming more common. If I ever came into money and could build my own dream home, I would certainly want to build one. The main downside I have heard for them though for why they are not more common is that once they are built they cant get any bigger (as opposed to expansions added for traditional homes).
I have started seeing some of these types think that any German name is Jewish. So when you have the likes of Grosskreutz in the Rittenhouse trial, a name that literally translates as "Big Cross", there were people claiming it was the Jewish Connection for everything.
It gets a lot better when you do like what is done with many a franchise and remember there are only 4 mainline games (1-3+Reach) and three spinoffs (ODST, Wars 1+2). Plus the expanded lore from things like the books naturally.
Much like how there is only 2 Terminator movies, only 1 Matrix movie, only 1 Pacific Rim, only 7 Star Wars, etc.
But you see, by not supporting their company and reinforcing their stature as an art-tist, you are literally killing them! Dont you know you need to subsidize their works to prove they are cultured? I bet you just hate art!
See also: why the director made Joker 2 what it was
over a thousand missing
And lets make it even more blunt the scale of the disaster. As I was told by my dad the retired firefighter (when we were talking about that whole situation), "If they are still missing after about a week, 'missing' usually means 'so much of them burned there may not even be bones left.'"
Also, as he got particularly angry over, it is worth pointing out that the Maui fire departments were ready to roll and contain it in an early phase when it was still possible to actually fight it and not just do the wildfire equivalent of a fighting retreat. But they were denied and told to wait. Why? Because the water sources they had preplanned to use had supposedly been claimed by a local Native American tribe, and there were rituals that had to be performed before they could be allowed to use it. It took hours before these were actually done and they could start getting tankers filled and running up to the fire line, and by then it was already too late.
Malicious actions of the local government lying? Or true facts from an activist and hating whitey local tribe? Honestly, either is a likely answer.
And since it is always brought up as an example (including by Trump himself) let me tell you what happened here in Kansas.
A large amount of the state wanted to move it back from the current 24 week limit to closer to 14-16 weeks. Because despite what a lot of people think we are actually fairly reasonable around here and the Evangelical types dont actually hold as much power statewide as you would think. Legislation doing exactly that move was drawn up, but then the handful of Evangelicals that do have power used it to gradually turn it into an attempt to completely ban the practice in the state.
This then went up to a vote, and in the same election where we kept a fairly conservative State House with a veto-proof majority over the governor, and elected conservatives to every executive position except governor, the law regarding abortion flopped hard with 60-40 split. Driven largely on people like me and my family voting it down despite voting Republican for everything else. If they had just been more reasonable, they probably would have gotten what they wanted.
Which is why even as much as I listen to Ben Shapiro, him dinging Vance for "dodging the issue" at the debate is another example of Ben not seeming to realize the situation has changed (along with his "100% free trade, no tariffs ever" stance). Sorry Ben, you and other hardcore Pro-Lifers can be pissed all you want, but you have lost on the issue, and you need to fix a hell of a lot more about the culture before you can even think about banning it.
However, I would argue that Trump will probably mitigate the effect by loosening regulations so that it's simply easier to start a new business in the US
For what it is worth, he has already signaled going down that route. Not only has he talked about cutting down regulations in general, he also has said he has such ideas as a significant corporate tax cut if and only if the factory set up is in the US. Which would arguably benefit smaller startups or regional/national builders over multinationals, since they will by default be entirely US based.
Oh, I am not denying that would have hurt him once it got out. But Shapiro had a reputation (even if it is a lie) of being a "moderate" governor who did have actual popularity in PA. Unlike Walz who brings literally nothing to the table other than doubling down on the radical wing of the party.
I will admit I thought there were better picks among the field. But as soon as he started laying into the media with precise fire (I guess what do you expect from a Marine?), I immediately realized what the point was and that it was indeed a wise choice. Unlike the Dems who are now finding out that maybe rejecting Shapiro because "Der Juden" in favor of one of the most radical governors in the country was one of the worst mistakes they could have made.
At least from what has been the case with most of them I have seen (including Aydin and one of her cohost Aristocratic Utensil), it is because they think that democracy is a scam and something that will only ever lead to tyranny, and that an absolute monarch will take away the "chaos" of a system by making all of the choices for their citizens. And they will inevitably have the best interest of their citizens at heart since they dont have to worry about being popular enough for an election.
I dont think I have to point to the many examples in history where that is almost exactly the opposite of what actually happened. And more than that they seem to ignore that pretty much every monarch currently in Europe are the ones pushing woke and are usually wildly more woke than any government (you give King Charles unlimited power and the Brits would be begging for parliament back within the week), and ironically I have found many of them dont know history like they claim. Like when Utensil tried to make the case for an American monarchy, and made the argument that the Founding Fathers were just uppity aristocrats who lead the colonials astray and put false ideas of "freedom" into their heads, and that if they had an enemy it was Parliament and they should have appealed to the King if they felt they were being oppressed.
Pretending that, you know, we didnt try that. And that it didnt have decidedly...negative results.