That is not a typo: I am interested in the abject historical neglect of the extent to which WWII was a war fought by words as well as by weapons .
No popular audiences wanted the war, so every leading nation at
war had to woo a large number of audiences.
First it had to deal with the concerns of its domestic population - civilians at home and their 'boys' under arms overseas.
Then your allies - their governments and their restless domestic audiences.
The neutrals - you hoped to move them to allies or away from your opponents to at least true neutrality.
Your opponents' domestic population and maybe even their military and elite.
The occupied people and one's colonial populations were extremely important.
A moment's attention would lead one to quickly see the need to divide all these big populations into many subsets, each with their own unique concerns and need for unique messaging.
I tend to think very "election-ly" about everything , so I tend to see the war as a six year long election campaign fought between three major political parties (and a lot of lesser ones) for the hearts and minds of the world's electorate.
Each party laid forth its claims of virtue and attacked the others' shortfall between their virtues claimed and their very sorry failings in practice.
The three parties?
The ANGLO SAXON Atlantic Charter (Four Freedoms) Party , the GERMAN SAXON New Order Party and the JAPANESE SAXON Co-Prosperity Sphere Party....