To make the scenario realistic, you need some changes. Suppose Japan continues its attack on Pearl Harbor and invades the island. .
A better Japanese military from after a Russo-Japanese or Sino-Japanese War defeat wouldn't even consider such an invasion. Not until way after the island had been cut-off for years.
They weaken US defenses, but know full well it would be suicide to try to invade the mainland. They may symbolically send a regiment to the west coast, knowing they would be quickly defeated.
They don't need to consider invading the mainland or sending any regiment to do so (
possible they might use small units of raiders and saboteurs dropped off the coast by submarine, however - in out, cause some panic then leave if they can). The practical trouble is the US Navy, not the mainland or it's industry. They only need to make if extremely difficult for the US Navy to have decent force to the Pacific. Taking out the Panama Canal & Pearl Harbor simultaneously would cause huge problems for the US Navy putting them on the back foot for years if the Japanese had waited until better prepared. IOTL, this would be impossible to prepare for any time after the late 1930's AFAIK. I've been researching it a lot, and gone over heaps of threads related to this in this forum.
However, a POD like a defeat or
near-defeat in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, or similar, would change the way the Japanese military operates - gets rid of the
Victory Disease thinking - and results in better planning the next time.
But the fact that it might take days to defeat them would be a demoralizing factor, especially if they took control of an eastbound train.
There's really no necessity in invading the mainland, just submarines that actually sink the USA's merchant ships instead of ignoring them as IOTL would be frightening enough - and more effective in the long run - combined with sinking most of the US Pacific Fleet...and keeping it weak. The Japanese have radar in 1943, and in this timeline their pilots don't remove their radios. The Japanese in such a timeline could keep sinking the US Navy vessels in the Pacific, and effectively hamper coastal port operations on the West Coast. In 1944, they have jet-fighters, and in another year they could have heavy long-range jet bombers that can bomb the West Coast ports like San Diego. Long before the USA has their P-80 Shooting Star jet-fighters ready to stop those high flying, fast moving jet-bombers (which would be escorted, most likely).
Eventually later in the war (1944-1945), perhaps the USA's ASW techniques are up to the job of catching some of those IJN submarines. There could be delays in that, because of the later entry of the USA into the war.
The USA would have to bring ships from the Atlantic, without the Panama Canal. That takes pressure off the Germans, and allows Germany to sink more of the merchant shipping, supplies, and Allied transportation of troops/material.
Meanwhile, in Europe, the Nazis know when to stop. With France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., they stop short of trying to invade Russia.
Or they invade Russia with better preparation and/or better timing. If they somehow kill/capture Stalin they cause chaos for awhile, taking Moscow does that too but less so. If they go to that point and use the opportunity to consolidate what they have instead of advancing further, then they've got a chance at winning. Especially if the Japanese are starting to seriously cause problems for the USA in the Pacific. Recall in what I mentioned before, the USA gets into the war much later than IOTL because without the Japanese attacking, war is a hard sell to the American public - so getting into a war footing in the economy is later than IOTL too.
Let's say there is no Holocaust;
In such a world, the people in the West probably wouldn't know if there was, or wasn't. There'd be no way to confirm it either way. There'd be rumours, but no pictures of American soldiers finding starving sick people at some German-run camp.
Let's say there is no Holocaust; you would need to remove Hitler at some point, but the details are not the focus of this thread.
Yes, Hitler needs to be removed. The 3rd Reich can turn him into a martyr for the cause. There were enough assassination attempts, it's almost absurd how he survived until 1945 with so many lucky misses. The public need not "know" that Hitler was killed until the internal government power-struggle is over though.
Stalin has no need to build the Red Army to invade Germany
Not to same extent, although apparently Stalin would've tried to invade Germany at some point. He was just as much into betrayal as Hitler was. It wouldn't be easy to butterfly away a conflict between Germany and Russia with either one in charge.
but he has real concern over Japan, .
Stalin would have more concerns over the German 3rd Reich - they're right on his doorstep. Fighting Germany would have to come first. If Japan isn't doing anything against the USA until after 1943 because they're entirely focused on grabbing and developing that southern resource area - then sit and developing it further for 2-3 years, the USA doesn't get into the war until the Japanese Empire finally attacks Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal.
The Pacific war is abbreviated, with the US losing the Philippines to Japan before accepting a treaty that takes Japan out of Hawaii, etc.
The Pacific War is abbreviated because the USA starts late, but Japan could develop A-bombs by the end of August 1945 with their "F-Go" project. I've studied this; they could have six A-bombs ready by April 1946. The USA could have an A-bomb by then anyway, but very unlikely before the end of 1945 if there's no wartime economy until 1943, and no actual Manhattan Project assistance from the British because of there being no Churchill.
The result is shorter Pacific War, which makes it a lot easier for Japan. It doesn't matter who uses the first A-bomb if both sides have them; perhaps the USA uses the A-bomb first, perhaps the Japanese reply only days later with their own on San Francisco or San Diego. or visa-versa. The point is that neither the USA nor Japan know how many nuclear bombs the other side has, just that they have them and are willing to use them. Both sides can bluff and pretend to have more.
Since it's really a waste of time and resources trying to invade Hawaii, the Japanese can just lift their blockade and even pull back a bit at the end of the war. Perhaps in peace negotiations, Hawaii becomes some kind of "free port" and a neutral zone (wonderful idea for espionage stories).
There is no time for the A-bomb
IMHO, the Japanese need an A-bomb to stop the USA pushing the war further. There's no way that the USA would stop otherwise, because the USA had it's own "victory disease" and over-confidence from previous military victories. In this ATL, there'd be time for an A-bomb but the war doesn't end until April 1946 most likely.
as the world settles into an Orwellian three-way cold war
Well, a 3-way cold war would be even colder and scarier with the threat of nuclear bombs.
The USSR would try to catch-up as quickly as possible and gain the capability probably in the same way as IOTL; spying.
with the USSR in limbo without its OTL war machine
I suspect that the USSR would have it's war machine either way; they couldn't just sit there with the heavily armed 3rd Reich next door.
Losing/nearly-losing in WW2 could make them a much nastier military in many ways, as they'd have more anxiety to improve their training and preparedness.
and German rocket scientists.
Now that is going to be problematic for the USSR, but only at first. The USA wouldn't have those German rocket scientists either.
The German 3rd Reich and Imperial Japan would be ahead in many critical technologies at first. Rocketry and jet aircraft being among them. The first orbital satellite is launched by the Axis, they'd also have the first man in Space.
In the fifties, each of three blocs get The Bomb; Germany is the first to launch satellites, etc.
Germany would be late to get The Bomb anyway.
Honestly, even if the Japanese get the A-bomb first, the USA would get the H-bomb first.
Hopefully this takes the scenario out of ASB.
It wouldn't necessarily be ASB really anyway, like I said before it just requires a POD in the early 1900's. There are many ways that such an ATL could develop without any ASB. In truth, many events in OTL would be ASB from a subjective POV as it was nutty that the Japanese won the Russo-Japanese War, or that someone like Hitler could rise to power.
It would be ASB if there was any successful "sea lion", successful invasion of Hawaii, or successful invasion of Australia.
Speaking of which, in such an ATL, with Australia cut-off during the war, they'd probably have gone ahead and developed a large armaments industry and their own AFVs.
Now, what about the counter-culture of the sixties? First, the Baby Boom after WWII is subdued.
It would still occur though. War ends, soldiers go home and everyone has lots of kids.
The taste of defeat would be like the end of the Vietnam War in some ways. There also wouldn't be such a thriving economy as IOTL without easy access to Asia and Europe for trade/resources.
Second, there are no Nuremberg trials. Many think the counter-culture was directly linked to the inability of the American education system to reconcile these trials with the principles against ex post facto laws.
But there was a counter-culture movement even before WW2, just much smaller and not so familiar to most of us raised on seeing hippies and sex-cult gurus in films.
The introduction of the contraceptive pill would have a major effect too, much like what happened IOTL. That has to lead to social change.
How does the USA public reconcile their previous self-image of being a great powerful nation of destiny, and the persistent (at that time) idea that "whites" are somehow superior when the nation gets beaten in the Pacific by a bunch of Asians from a nation which they previously looked down upon as backward? Again, some echoes of the Vietnam War, but closer to home.
But none of this happens. The solution is simple: there is no counter-culture.
But there are other major changes that attack the self-image of society and make it difficult to reconcile. I don't believe the whole "counter-culture" can be just pinned on doubts about the dodgy war-crime trials. Although without those, there's less of the scepticism among intellectuals about post-war "justice".
There will indeed be changes in music, owing to emerging recording technology. But they will blend into society, much as cell phones and the Internet did in more recent decades.
Somehow, I don't believe that the American people could just go on in the same way taking it all in their stride if their nation lost a major war with far more casualties than the Vietnam War and the nuking of one of their cities even if they aren't invaded by troops at any point. The national humiliation has to have some effect.
