You forgot India/Pakistan, Turkey/Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan’s, Argentina, Bahrain, Bolivia, Columbia, Chile, Aruba, Bahamas... well... most of the freaking world. Hence... world war... either directly fought in the war, fought ancillary conflicts or defense actions, or declared war and acted to furnish supplies, and, personnel, and support to direct combatants.
Now- if you wanted to intelligently discuss race in WW2- a great majority of non “white nations” were drawn into the conflict because they were colonies or territories of white combatants or their allies- or because they had resources or territory needed by “white” countries or out of fear that if they didn’t “volunteer” they’d be taken by force.
Now- when we discuss the pacific theater and the Japanese war machine that changes a bit. The Japanese are generally classified racially as “Asian” and much of their conflict was in Asia or the surrounding areas save for where their conflict with the United States brought foreign allies into conflict with japan.
So while most of the world was somehow involved in WW2- for many it wasn’t their choice to be involved so much as they were drawn into the war by geography or association or conquest. With exception of the Imperial Japanese- the conquering and occupational forces of the war were largely “white” as well-
And when we examine the War on the whole- and the Japanese we can also connect the causes to “white” nations- Japan having become infatuated with westernization after their isolationism was broken by European and “Western” powers such as Commodore Perry. On the international stage of trade and diplomacy Japan has been mocked and struggled to westernize to acclimate and be seen as equal,
And as was (arguably still IS) common- as an Asian nation Japan was treated as less of a country and its people as less of a people- unilateral trade deals and colonial ambitions and exploitive measures abounded- and Japan didn’t want to be “just an Asian nation” and didn’t want to be used by great western powers.
Following the example of how world powers behaved given and sold and shown to them in the Industrial Age- japan determined that like other “small” nations that to become more it would need to set up colonies, gain land, resources, and labor for industry. Since by and large Asia proper was an outsider and mostly just used for what could be gained from it- and geography being what it is- Japan set its sights on Mainland Asia and the South Pacific to gain territory, resources, workers, and establish strategic borders that would give them legitimacy and allow them to project force where diplomacy failed instead of having to capitulate to one sided diplomacy at gun point.
Only one South American country sent its own military to fight- but many volunteered to fight do the allies from all over (and some for the Axis-) but most had started neutral as the conflict didn’t largely directly affect or involve them- pressure from the US and other allies led to declarations of war which were in many cases largely symbolic.
The same is true elsewhere- where colonies or territories were drawn in to the fighting. The Turkish support for the allies was in large part due to British promises of an independent Turkish state (of course most Turks didn’t realize they meant- independent colony of Britain until after the war...)
So their involvement in the actual war as opposed to their war of independence was largely to combat Nazi claims to territory they sought to keep- and to gain British support for their own war.
When we examine many of the other combatants in Africa, the Persian Gulf, South America, etc etc- we can see the bulk of the “non white” forces not involved in conflict with the Japanese was to defend against or prevent incursion from white combatants.
In fact- the Japanese war against Asia etc. is itself technically the Sino-Japanese war- it’s somewhat western centric to frame it as “WW2” beyond the fact that the US was in direct conflict with Japan, Japan was part of the Axis pact, and by association the allied forces and axis forces were at war.
South Pacific conflict against Japan can be framed as part of Japans efforts for conquest- and their desire for freedom from Japan. American involvement on those islands was primarily tactical- to deny the enemy key territory- so the conflict of the Allies and European Axis- America and the Axis, Japan and territorial neighbors, America and Japan- all overlapped but weren’t necessarily directly correlated. For instance- US interest in south Pacific islands was primarily to control a tactical staging area- so Lon as said islands were controlled by allies- or where said islands had no tactical value- Japanese claim need it be contested.
So all in all.... there are a lot of ways we can look at this and a lot of details we can split. There isn’t a definitive answer for when the war started- there isn’t a definitive answer for when it ended- and if we define it ending as all combatants having withdrawn states of war AND resolved all remaining disputes- WW2 STILL has never ended.
It’s a big- complex- monster. There were internal revolutions, civil wars, countries not fighting but still supporting forces in one way or another- the politics and the causes and the preceding factors and the fact that combatants tried to gain strategically important points for defending against or attack enemies thousands of miles away... the games of sorting territories for labor or resources or economic ends and then the need to counter attack those territories to deny the enemy those advantages.... “WW2” can be divided into many wars between many people, wats and revolutions and uprisings and secessions and schisms and puppet states and.. it was “total war.”
So it gets so complex and messy- and most of the entire world was in some way involved or affected and so... we just call it “World War.” Was it a “white” war? Not by any means. Can we trace many of the causes and much of the conflict to “white nations” and the direct and indirect factors their foreign policies and ambitions set in to motion? Certainly yes. The history of Japan with “white nations” especially Americans and British- and the history of those countries dealings in China and Asia directly contributed to the Japanese desire for expansion and conquest. A desire to be self sufficient and able to defend against powers who had abused them. That doesn’t excuse it- and NOTHING excuses the specifics of how they conducted themselves in their conquests and war- but it’s just a fact.
When Japan saw and experienced what western cannons could do they shook with fear and knew they needed that power or they’d become slaves. When Japan saw the force of western Nuclear weapons they shook and knew that power shouldn’t be on the hands of any human. Of course- while not perfect by far- out foreign policy and diplomacy- especially towards Japan- also improved post war and into today.
The way we treat other countries can impact history- can lead to or prevent wars like WW2. Funny enough that there have been some bully posts lately. Japan was bullied and it snapped. Germany was bullied and it snapped. Showing a “strong position” in diplomacy only goes so far before you create someone who someday plans to break your arm when they snap.
Tl:dr- it’s ironically a very Anglo-centric view to say the world wars were “only a bunch of white countries.” The world wars are complex things that actually contain within them many smaller wars and revolutions and civil wars etc etc. Conflict on that scale brings both danger and opportunity on an unprecedented scale- so even those not directly involved in the combat either get drawn in or join up in attempts to protect what they have or to benefit from being on what they hope is the right side of history. Borders move, governments can change, public sentiments shift and where people see they have a chance to change something they’ve wanted to- they will try.
Don't ruin someone's narrative with facts