We either shouldn't have gone(America First) or kept pushing to Moscow. There is also no reason for the US to industrialize the Soviets, especially not for free.
I had a political science professor who liked to discuss these sorts of alternate history theories, and he had an interesting take.
Basically his argument was that the war was justified, because of Germany subjugating most other countries in Europe. BUT he thinks the Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was a bad idea, because a) it led to much greater destruction on both sides that could have been avoided, b) in the long term, a strong, unified, self ruling Germany was a better deterrent to the Soviets, and c), if they were open to a truce or conditional surrender, Europe could ultimately be better off and more unified today, as opposed to half of it being oppressed under Communism for 50 years and all the resulting inequality from that.
Also without the need to completely rebuild Germany, that puts Western Europe, and America, in a much better economic position, allowing them to recover more quickly.
That was his thinking, my addition to that is, in a scenario where the Axis and Allies teamed up on Russia as opposed to fighting each other to the death, the European powers would likely have been able to hold onto their colonial empires. Probably not indefinitely, but at least been able to afford them for a few more decades. That would have completely changed the timeline of decolonization (if it ever happened), so Africa and Asia would look different today.
Probably yes. FDR was aware of the Japanese threat, (which was part of his motivation for cutting off oil) but he was personally more oriented towards the European theater.
Also, keep in mind that while Germany and Japan were technically in an alliance, it wasn't a close one, partly because of differing goals and partly because of the sheer distance between Europe and East Asia. So while they were on the same "side" (mostly because of having common enemies) and had diplomatic relations, they didn't share much intelligence or really coordinate. Which makes sense, because neither was much interested in things happening on the oppposite side of the world, far beyond their respective spheres of influence or desired conquests.
So in a scenario where the Allies push the Germans back to Germany but come to a mutual anti-Russian truce, the Japanese would not be part of such a truce, and would continue fighting. Assuming that Pearl Harbor plays out similarly, America would still fight and win the Pacific War again. Realistically, the only scenario where the Japanese maintain their massive empire is one where they don't start a war with the U.S.
Australia would be a bit of a wild card- in our timeline they also fought the Japanese in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, but with aid and intelligence sharing from the U.S. Japan would never be able to conquer Australia, but could theoretically bomb it or attempt an invasion. And Australia might be able to make significant inroads into Japanese holdings without American help. That brings in way too many new variables so I don't know how a Japan-Australia war would ultimately play out.
FDR was an authoritarian just like all the ones springing up in Europe and Asia. He was just curtailed by the republicans and the outrage generated by his court stacking plan.
Had he been given a little more power he would have been a dictator.
There were quite a few top officials that were confirmed at the time of being communists, and there were a fuckload that were accused of being communists. The VENONA release showed that a lot of those accused were soviet agents. It is safe to assume it was far worse than either of us think, like China is now.
I'm too lazy to source it. Look at the treasury department in particular.
We wouldn't have been able to continue fighting a global two front war in this manner. The soviets at the time had numbers on their side which would bog down a lot of resources and slow down efforts fighting in the Pacific Theater of War. You also have to take into account the general public wouldn't easily accept war with the soviets without some valid justification. The only reason the US joined WW2 and it being accepted by the public was because Japan attacked the US. Should that have not happened, the US would have continued only providing materiel support through lend lease agreements.
We didn't lend or lease anything to the Soviets. They got everything for free, including Eastern Europe. The red army never makes it pass memel the without all the food, trucks, steel, and tooling. After they get repeatedly decimated against the nazi meat grinder without support, the US army can watlz over the soviet corpses on the way to Moscow.
I'm assuming the American public backs war with Russia because the media declares wars. Germany was never going to cross the Atlantic in either world war, but both times the American public believed they were coming to kill all the things. The media can use the same propaganda with Ivan instead of Jerry.
Well... Patton meant the western Allies should have fought the Soviets. In the 1940s it made sense, but keep in mind eastern European nations were the first victims of the same thing that's being attempted in the West now, or rather, victims of the same people.
Patton was right. We fought the wrong enemy.
We either shouldn't have gone(America First) or kept pushing to Moscow. There is also no reason for the US to industrialize the Soviets, especially not for free.
I had a political science professor who liked to discuss these sorts of alternate history theories, and he had an interesting take.
Basically his argument was that the war was justified, because of Germany subjugating most other countries in Europe. BUT he thinks the Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was a bad idea, because a) it led to much greater destruction on both sides that could have been avoided, b) in the long term, a strong, unified, self ruling Germany was a better deterrent to the Soviets, and c), if they were open to a truce or conditional surrender, Europe could ultimately be better off and more unified today, as opposed to half of it being oppressed under Communism for 50 years and all the resulting inequality from that.
Also without the need to completely rebuild Germany, that puts Western Europe, and America, in a much better economic position, allowing them to recover more quickly.
That was his thinking, my addition to that is, in a scenario where the Axis and Allies teamed up on Russia as opposed to fighting each other to the death, the European powers would likely have been able to hold onto their colonial empires. Probably not indefinitely, but at least been able to afford them for a few more decades. That would have completely changed the timeline of decolonization (if it ever happened), so Africa and Asia would look different today.
Not sure how Japan fits into all this, though.
Does Japan still get their oil squeezed by FDR to get the casus belli for war in Europe?
Probably yes. FDR was aware of the Japanese threat, (which was part of his motivation for cutting off oil) but he was personally more oriented towards the European theater.
Also, keep in mind that while Germany and Japan were technically in an alliance, it wasn't a close one, partly because of differing goals and partly because of the sheer distance between Europe and East Asia. So while they were on the same "side" (mostly because of having common enemies) and had diplomatic relations, they didn't share much intelligence or really coordinate. Which makes sense, because neither was much interested in things happening on the oppposite side of the world, far beyond their respective spheres of influence or desired conquests.
So in a scenario where the Allies push the Germans back to Germany but come to a mutual anti-Russian truce, the Japanese would not be part of such a truce, and would continue fighting. Assuming that Pearl Harbor plays out similarly, America would still fight and win the Pacific War again. Realistically, the only scenario where the Japanese maintain their massive empire is one where they don't start a war with the U.S.
Australia would be a bit of a wild card- in our timeline they also fought the Japanese in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, but with aid and intelligence sharing from the U.S. Japan would never be able to conquer Australia, but could theoretically bomb it or attempt an invasion. And Australia might be able to make significant inroads into Japanese holdings without American help. That brings in way too many new variables so I don't know how a Japan-Australia war would ultimately play out.
Pretty sure they stil get nuked. Absolutely no fucking way the samurai is backing down until he fears total annihilation.
My personal theory is that the FDR administration was thoroughly infiltrated. I don't have meaningful evidence but that explains so much.
FDR was an authoritarian just like all the ones springing up in Europe and Asia. He was just curtailed by the republicans and the outrage generated by his court stacking plan.
Had he been given a little more power he would have been a dictator.
There were quite a few top officials that were confirmed at the time of being communists, and there were a fuckload that were accused of being communists. The VENONA release showed that a lot of those accused were soviet agents. It is safe to assume it was far worse than either of us think, like China is now.
I'm too lazy to source it. Look at the treasury department in particular.
We wouldn't have been able to continue fighting a global two front war in this manner. The soviets at the time had numbers on their side which would bog down a lot of resources and slow down efforts fighting in the Pacific Theater of War. You also have to take into account the general public wouldn't easily accept war with the soviets without some valid justification. The only reason the US joined WW2 and it being accepted by the public was because Japan attacked the US. Should that have not happened, the US would have continued only providing materiel support through lend lease agreements.
We didn't lend or lease anything to the Soviets. They got everything for free, including Eastern Europe. The red army never makes it pass memel the without all the food, trucks, steel, and tooling. After they get repeatedly decimated against the nazi meat grinder without support, the US army can watlz over the soviet corpses on the way to Moscow.
I'm assuming the American public backs war with Russia because the media declares wars. Germany was never going to cross the Atlantic in either world war, but both times the American public believed they were coming to kill all the things. The media can use the same propaganda with Ivan instead of Jerry.
We could have also did what the soviets did to the polish resistance and allow Nazi Germany to kill the soviet government.
Well... Patton meant the western Allies should have fought the Soviets. In the 1940s it made sense, but keep in mind eastern European nations were the first victims of the same thing that's being attempted in the West now, or rather, victims of the same people.