Of course building a complete and convincing history independent of actual history is desirable in some regards; it gives greater creative freedom. At the same time, writers often tend to get, well, interesting ideas about probable paths of development, and go wild with harebrained notions that are overly simplistic or shaded by their own biases. Consider TonyG's reading of Caldari culture vs. the prior lore for an example.
In this case, drawing from a reasonable real-world relation (German militant nationalism; Finnish efficiency and hardiness (an entire division of salvaged Soviet gear? wha? Winter War? wha? Jesus! Well done, Finns!); the Japanese zaibatsu) gives an effective way of providing a sketch of the analogous structures, but is deficient in that it is likely to break down under intense scrutiny, as we hold stereotypes of real-world structures against fictional structures described by a myriad of individuals. This is to be expected. Hell, even your list of influences could be short-handed as the Warring States period, the opening of Japan due to outside intervention, the Meiji Restoration, leading to Japanese imperialism in the interwar period-- but, of course, it breaks down under scrutiny.
And this is where RP, player fiction and prime fiction come in. We flesh out the world, we try to reconcile the contradictions in the material or in the shorthands we operate with, but prime fiction is the closest we have to actual knowledge of the world. We can't contradict it-- well, we can, but it sort of defeats the purpose of roleplaying in EVE Online. The issue with PF is always knowing the intent of the writer; we can only infer from the text, and go from there.
Fortunately, Harðarson is one of CCP's founders, and is a creative director. While a single sentence isn't enough to draw much actual information from, it is absolutely enough to inform our reading of prime fiction.