I would suggest this is HEAVILY variable by where you are, where you grew up, and thus what you were exposed to in school. Frankly the vast majority of the US, and Reddit's user base finds European history both more accessible, more immediate, and perhaps more connected due to family history than Asian or Pacific history. While other factors such as language barriers can make things such as primary sources out of reach to most as there are simply more options in the US for European languages than Asian ones in most schools.

This isnt restricted to the hoi polloi though! But impacts even serious historical study of the Pacific War too. From the early 80's onward for instance our understanding of Japanese Carrier Aviation has more or less exponentially expanded and in key areas flipped on its head. That is because several key researchers either developed the right contacts, learned the language, or Japanese writers got translated. And it allowed the US historical debates to catch up to a degree to Japanese academia where for instance Mitsuo Fuchida had been more or less relegated to hack garbage status or close to it for credibility. But for years in the US because he was one of the few IJN officers who both learned English, spent a lot of time in the US, and was willing to write and talk about the war he was often taken as gospel because he had been an important player in major events. His conversion to and live as an Evangelical Christian also played a larger than 0 role in his appeal in the US we can say. But in the end he was dangerously close to bullshit artist to be taken at his word now without corroboration.

But to get back to the question at hand I would suggest like I started it is in large part a matter of location. Certainly many in Korea, China, the Philippines, and SE Asia remember the Japanese far more profoundly and immediately for their brutality and the savage nature of the war than Hitler and his legions half a world away. And it is the cause of simmering political debates and tensions today, unhelped by a thread of apologists or revisionism within Japanese politics itself. While for them the Nazi's are just another "thing" almost and to skirt the 20 year rule there is even some infatuation with them to a degree. And we can sort of look on it as the problem of distance and no real deeper conceptualisation or internalization beyond "hey these are history guys who had trendy uniforms". Hell "Nazi Chic" is an uncomfortable thing in many Asian nations that pops up every few years.

And I think this quote from a recent VICE piece actually sums it up pretty well, you attach more meaning to the history you are taught early and often, and that is often a function of location and regional ethnicity.

"There's no ill intent," Shoham told to the Jerusalem Post in 2012. "Let's be realistic: Thais just don't know about history, including their own."

In the same piece, a Jerusalem Post reporter asked a university student who had just bought a führer-chic shirt, what he knew about Hitler. This was his response:

"Hitler looks cool because he seems like an interesting character. Actually, I don't know much about him. In school we only learn Thai history. But I know he was a communist leader."

Full piece for reference, lots of good links included too tracing some other occurrences of the trend from a Korean Nazi bar 20 years ago to more recent instances : https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nazis-chic-is-asias-offensive-fashion-craze-456