AHC: European defeat, Pacific victory.

You need to make it so that the European theatre of WW2 ends in an Allied victory, but the Pacific theatre ends in stalemate.
 
Basically what you're after is an impossibility. The IJA/IJN were hugely outnumbered and on the short end of every possible stick in terms of economics you can imagine.
 
The USA and the USSR have stronger tensions, the USSR is more aggressive. Some part of the USA decides to support Japan against the USSR.

Chinese commies do way way better.

USA supports Japan, Japan declares on USSR. Japan doesn't sign official alliance with Germany. Japan still takes French indochina/maybe war on rest of allies. USA supports allies in Europe but doesn't fight against Japanese.

Basically USA only joins European war and doesn't join Pacific war. Make them not officially connected and red scare worse.
 
Last edited:
I suppose with the right amount of diversion, the Japanese could actually win the war in China. They came close to a knockout blow in 1944 while getting thoroughly pasted just abput everywhere else. Had they adopted the idea for the sweeping encirclement style attack a few years earlier, and the Allies had to deploy a lot more men to Europe, a Chinese front where they don't need to deploy as many troops opens up some options for them.

The keys are to keep the Soviets out somehow and find a way to trigger open rebellion in India.
 

DougM

Donor
You would have to change one or more of the following extensively
Pacific war (who is fighting whom)
The US to produce a much smaller Navy/economy
Japan. To produce a muncher bigger population/economy/military
England to reduce its ability to fight in the pacific

In fact you would have to change these so drastically that you would not recognize the end result. For instance you would have to make the US a radically poorer country, or give Japan more territory to start with.
These changes would be so radical that you may as well reinvent everything from the start. Thier is no small POD that could result in this outcome.
I know Wars are great POD as you have those chancy outcome from battles but Japan was crazy to try this war and never had a chance because the size of the US and it’s Econ and military was so large that Japan was doomed from the start. And the only chance they could have had was to convince the YS it was not worth the fight so the US would agree to a treaty was never going to happen if Japan attacks the US on day one. That just made the chance of the US not being willing to finish the fight utterly impossible.

So to get the desired outcome you have to change things so much that you don’t realy get the outcome desired.

It is like if I wanted an alternative world where I hook up with some supermodel. I would either have to change the supermodel so much that she would no longer be a supper model in order for her to be willing to go out with me or I would have to change me so much that I am no longer me. Either results in a change that negates the whole point. Unfortunately a lot of Alternative timelines are like this. By the time you change enough to get the desired outcome you have changed so much that you can’t truly get the outcome you desire.

This is why Alt History works better in fiction stories then in logical discussions like on this forum.
 
Top