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.
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.