So what happens if the US only goes for Japan?

[Secret Master]

Why would the US completely stop Lend-Lease to Britain to pursue a Japan-only strategy? Cash and Carry was passed in November of 1939, before the US embargoed Japan. And Lend Lease was passed in March of 1941, well before FDR freezes Japan's assets in July of 41.

I could understand no formal involvement in Europe (no DOW, no planes, no troops), but I don't see the US having no Lend-Lease or Cash and Carry to support the British and French even when pursuing a purely Japanese strategy.

 

[BBBD316]

This would only happen if somehow William Borah wins the Republican primaries and pulls a magic rabbit out off his butt and beats FDR.

Then an isolanist America would just trade with all nations and perhaps this would mean less favourable terms to the UK. Not sure if this would even be possible unless you played as the US.

 

[Secret Master]

This would only happen if somehow William Borah wins the Republican primaries and pulls a magic rabbit out off his butt and beats FDR.

Then an isolanist America would just trade with all nations and perhaps this would mean less favourable terms to the UK. Not sure if this would even be possible unless you played as the US.

Actually, I disagree.

A truly isolationist America will roll back to the Neutrality Acts and put substantial embargoes on everyone in the war, not just trade with everyone. Depending on how the new version of these acts were worded, there might be little or no US resources flowing to Europe at all.

If the 1936 or 1935 versions are in play, then there's nothing significant heading to Europe. If its the 1937 version of the Neutrality Acts, there might be Cash and Carry provisions in place. This might mean that France and Britain can at least buy US stuff while they still have gold/hard currency, but with no credit in the mix (they wouldn't be allowed to buy arms on credit under Cash and Carry), they aren't getting a lot compared to the historical amounts.

Germany and Italy can't buy anything, since they can't get to the US to buy it under Cash and Carry.

However, the real question is whether an isolationist US would sell anything to foreign belligerents when actually in a war against Japan regardless of the law. I know if I were an isolationist Republican, I'd just tell the Europeans no and hog all those things for my war against Japan, even if I need to time to build the navy up before significant offensive operations.

 

[PanosB3]

War continues until UK finishes Nuclear weapon so until 1950s

Pretty sure Germany would be able to reach nuclear weapons more easily than the UK alone.

 

[Shatterfury]

A German victory, not necessary a total one, is still in the cards if USA doesn`t help UK and USSR at all.

One needs to put into consideration not only the Lend Lease but also the USAF that started bombing Germany and hampering their industry, one also needs to take into account the shift in manufacturing planes to counter the huge number of USAF planes.

We could also factor in the US Army in Africa and why not even the sheer morale boost.

I`m not saying it`s a certainty but it is possibility.

One needs to realise the Soviets were becoming starved of manpower, they lost a bigger pecent of their population than anyone else.
With no D-Day, invasion of Italy and USAF constant bombardment I don`t see the Soviets getting much German territory if at all.

 

[Gqarz]

If the US gives nothing to the UK and USSR, I think the Germans win in Russia. If the UK is not getting lend-lease from the US, they can do very little against Germany thus freeing a great deal of resources for Germany to use in Russia. The Russians, furthermore, lose hundreds of thousands of trucks, tens of thousands of planes, and billions of dollars in other materials. Yes, the USSR built most of their own tanks and planes, but not as much of their transport assets like trains and trucks. Without the transport items, they would have had to redirect massive resources to ensure their troops didn't run out of food, fuel and ammo. I think this would result in far fewer planes and tanks being produced, making things vastly easier for the German army. Do I think the Germans win total victory? No. I think that Stalin ends up suing for peace on very favorable terms for Hitler and the Reich. Also, without active US involvement there IS NO second front. The British could never have launched an invasion of mainland Europe by themselves.

 

[Denkt]

UK and USSR was to strong for the axis. UK dominated in both the seas and in the air and USSR could eventually dominate at the land.

UK did half or even more of the bombings in Europe and was also the ones that used bombs like tallboy and such.

 

[CrasherZZ]

An isolationist US would not have been attacked by Japan in the first place - no reason for it. If the US had turned its back on the Allies in Europe then, logically speaking, there would've been no reason for Japan to expect the US to join Allies in a war in Asia. At best, the US would've increased Lend Lease to the Allies on better terms. So instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, Tora Tora Tora would've been at Singapore. It's in Japan's best interest to keep the US out of the war until it has defeated the UK/France/Netherlands in Asia.

In HOI3 the the optimum strategy for a Japan win is:

1. Keep the US out of the Allies and avoid war with them as long as possible.
2. Eliminate the Allies in Asia and Australia.
3. Help Germany defeat the Soviet Union, if it's struggling
4. If #2 and #3 are done quickly enough by 1943, Tora Tora Tora the US.
5. Conquer the rest of China, and get ready to fight off the Allies is Germany has been defeated

A US that is so extremely isolationist that it doesn't help the Allies at all at some point in the war is not plausible because a Japan at war with the US is also at war with the Allies. Unless HOI4 allows the US to attack Japan, the suggested scenario doesn't make sense.

 

[Skyhascheese]

A German victory, not necessary a total one, is still in the cards if USA doesn`t help UK and USSR at all.

One needs to put into consideration not only the Lend Lease but also the USAF that started bombing Germany and hampering their industry, one also needs to take into account the shift in manufacturing planes to counter the huge number of USAF planes.

We could also factor in the US Army in Africa and why not even the sheer morale boost.

I`m not saying it`s a certainty but it is possibility.

One needs to realise the Soviets were becoming starved of manpower, they lost a bigger pecent of their population than anyone else.
With no D-Day, invasion of Italy and USAF constant bombardment I don`t see the Soviets getting much German territory if at all.

whilst the soviets lost a lot of manpower, they still had a load more than germany had, more than enough to take care of germany.
i say the soviets would win and most likely cut much deeper. heck, maybe even italy would be communist.

 

[BBBD316]

Well I wonder if an isolanist US president doesn't support the Chinese government as it did historcially what effect this would have on the Chinese fight on mentality? Could Japan push the League of Nations to create a peace around 1938 after Wuhan was taken.

As for the German-Soviet battles, I still think it depends on German production, if it can produce enough planes, tanks, etc to keep up as the war progresses then I think it becomes a closer thing as they aren't suffering such huge losses.

 

[mercboy123]

Pretty sure Germany would be able to reach nuclear weapons more easily than the UK alone.

I would argue differently, the Tube Alloys project was the UK's nuclear weapons project that started before the Manhattan project (and which was absorbed into the Manhattan project.. sort of... the politics gets a bit complicated). The UK was ahead of Germany in terms of actually making a nuclear device (before the Manhattan project) although with most of the theory work coming from escaping German scientists .

I would says this was more down to focuses the German regime , they choose to either half ass the research of nuclear weapons or no bother with it tell after the war (if they had won) and focused on there rocket technology and V weapons (amongst other things they deemed more important).

Although both nations would have issues trying to create a functional device as there industry base is a lot small than the USA and under constant attack from one another. So they have less stuff free the throw at it and more pressing concerns, whilst both the UK and Germany are concerned about the next year the USA has enough freedom in its geopolitical situation and resource independence to give projects that, at the time , where seen as highly theoretical and prone to being a money well if it did turn out impossible.

 

[Shatterfury]

whilst the soviets lost a lot of manpower, they still had a load more than germany had, more than enough to take care of germany.
i say the soviets would win and most likely cut much deeper. heck, maybe even italy would be communist.

The more I think about it the more I think that a stalemate that favours Germany will ensure.
You will also have to take into consideration the huge amount of resources put into the atlantic wall.

The Soviet Union had more population, sure, like two times more but the thing is that the Soviets needed a lot more than two times to take on the Germans and win.
Let`s say the Germans don`t build the atlantic wall, if you pay close attention to East Europe there many rivers that could be used to augment a fortification line.

Sure, the SU never stopped, it looked like an unstoppable juggernaut but let me tell you a little secret, when the SU entered in Romania the Soviet soldiers spoke Ukrainian, not Russian, actually of the 3 main fronts that pushed into Nazi controlled Europe, only one was Russian.

Of the 40 divisions that were on the western front, let`s say that 30 were on the eastern front, all the resources consumed on the Atlantic wall would be shifted to fortify Dnister and Vistula on the Soviet - Polish border. Add to this the number of fighters that wouldn`t be fighting the USAF also add that that the RAF itself would be much weaker without lend-lease.
Don`t forget the Italian front, with the war far from Italy itself we might have italian divisions on the western front, as pathetic as they were, under German control they can perform adequately.

To be honest, if a long stalemate ensures, both Stalin and Hitler might have..."unfortunate" accidents.

It`s a "what if" , no one can be sure.

 

[Death's toe]

Soviet forces "liberate" Paris Christmas day 1945, and the Iron Curtain extends to Brest.

 

[Skyhascheese]

The more I think about it the more I think that a stalemate that favours Germany will ensure.
You will also have to take into consideration the huge amount of resources put into the atlantic wall.

The Soviet Union had more population, sure, like two times more but the thing is that the Soviets needed a lot more than two times to take on the Germans and win.
Let`s say the Germans don`t build the atlantic wall, if you pay close attention to East Europe there many rivers that could be used to augment a fortification line.

Sure, the SU never stopped, it looked like an unstoppable juggernaut but let me tell you a little secret, when the SU entered in Romania the Soviet soldiers spoke Ukrainian, not Russian, actually of the 3 main fronts that pushed into Nazi controlled Europe, only one was Russian.

Of the 40 divisions that were on the western front, let`s say that 30 were on the eastern front, all the resources consumed on the Atlantic wall would be shifted to fortify Dnister and Vistula on the Soviet - Polish border. Add to this the number of fighters that wouldn`t be fighting the USAF also add that that the RAF itself would be much weaker without lend-lease.
Don`t forget the Italian front, with the war far fron Italy itself we might have italian divisions on the western front, as pathetic as they were, under German control they can perform adequately.

To be honest, if a long stalemate ensures, both Stalin and Hitler might have..."unfortunate" accidents.

It`s a "what if" , no one can be sure.

You are ignoring the fact that Hitler is not as intellegent to even think aboutmaking such a wall.
they still have to deal with france, poland, greece etc.
further more Hitler was blinded by the fact that he thought that the soviet union would fall apart swiftly.
Hitler feared the british more than the soviets.
And dont bring up anything about himmler or goerring because hitler was too charismatic.
he was a stupid charismatic idiot.

Most likely this would end with soviets dominating europe.
without the british and american nuclear scientist, the nuclear bomb could easily have been postponed for years, if not several decades. No bombs to stop the soviets from attacking.


also, false, two of the fronts where russians.
what does the fact that a front is ukrainian matter?
they where all the same to him, hitler wanted to exterminate the slavs.

 

[teamgene]

I don't see this as a real possibility since the leadership of USA was already planning for war with Germany. But had the US completely turned away from Europe, we would have a communist world today, including in the US of A.

 

[Porkman]

Well I wonder if an isolanist US president doesn't support the Chinese government as it did historcially what effect this would have on the Chinese fight on mentality? Could Japan push the League of Nations to create a peace around 1938 after Wuhan was taken.

As for the German-Soviet battles, I still think it depends on German production, if it can produce enough planes, tanks, etc to keep up as the war progresses then I think it becomes a closer thing as they aren't suffering such huge losses.

This is unlikely. An isolationist Republican US would be far more pro China. Look at the post war composition of the John Birch Society, the attitude of Wendell Wilkie, the massive penetration of missionary activity... The US would probably have put pressure on Japan earlier (since there isn't a worry about needing to keep the powder dry for Europe). The Burma Front would probably go a lot faster and the US plans for China (the invasion of Taiwan and landings in Guangdong) would probably have happened before the end of the war due to nukes.

I don't see this as a real possibility since the leadership of USA was already planning for war with Germany. But had the US completely turned away from Europe, we would have a communist world today, including in the US of A.

No we wouldn't. A US that prioritized Japan would have led to a stronger USSR in Europe but a non communist China. So, kind of a wash.

 

[Secret Master]

I don't see this as a real possibility since the leadership of USA was already planning for war with Germany. But had the US completely turned away from Europe, we would have a communist world today, including in the US of A.

Why would a Communist Europe result in a Communist USA?