I recently learned that this idea had been floated and ultimately rejected, and also about the speculation surrounding it. (Specifically, on the effects it might have on the Eastern Front. Because Youtube.)
The thing is, I think in and of itself this will be of minimal help to the Nazis. The Soviets have more land than Japan has men to hold it down, and so while the loss of these resources (and access to the Pacific) will be a loss, they can afford to concentrate on Germany first and then turn their attention to Japan.
What this does mean, however, is that it becomes a lot harder to justify an attack on Pearl Harbor. America is a lot less of a direct threat to Japan's ambitions in this scenario, and they ought to be weary of taking on two massive, powerful nations at once. And so America stays, on paper, neutral (...for a while; Hitler's still peeved about all this "lend-lease" stuff and would love to goad someone into distracting us).
Let's say America stays out of the war. With that, and a weakened USSR (both because of the losses to Japan and because it's not like Harry Ford is going to be flying to the Soviet Union to help them make tanks ITTL), could it be enough to turn the tide of war in the Nazi's favor?
Probably not. But it will be a hell of a slough. And afterward, the world will look completely different.
The Soviets still have Japan to deal with at this point. Do the British help? I doubt it; they're exhausted at this point, and don't actually like Stalin to begin with--a pox on both their houses. Then again, the Japanese navy wouldn't have been cooling their heels this entire time--well, probably; I don't know how big the Navy's loss of face that caused the Japanese to choose the northern strategy in the first place would have been or what the incident that caused it was--and turning a blind eye to them sinking shipping caravans or whatever would not look good. Still, a "temporary" ceasefire could at least be floated in a war-weary Britain (and would piss Stalin off to no end should it actually happen).
Then again, I don't think Britain wants Stalin to conquer Japan--especially not if Churchill has anything to say about it. On the other other hand, this is well before the advent of domino theory--this could just be read as the logical conclusion of Russia's history of eastward expansion and not be seen as all that significant. To counter that counter, however, Japan is very clearly not Siberia, I don't care how racist you are or about the fact that this is pre-post-war economic miracle.
In conclusion, idunno.
If the British are still in the war, however, it because a race to see whether they can defeat Japan's navy before Russia can defeat Japan's army. So what does Japan do in this case? I think the Japanese army stays in Russia; they view the Soviets as the bigger threat (I mean, existentially speaking), they've had years to fortify their positions at this point, and the Japanese army absolutely does not want to lose face. It becomes a slough.
But is the war at sea much better? The RN is the biggest in the world, but it's exhausted, and unless the Japanese navy has been doing some heinous shit to Australia and the like (unlikely, because again, northern strategy) the public at home are increasingly wondering why they should care about Japan. Meanwhile, the Japanese navy has basically had to sit in a corner for several years and watch the army hog all the glory (presumably), and is fresh and eager to prove what they can do. Of course, arguably the better the navy does, the worse things will be for Japan, but I don't think that's a factor in their thinking.
If the RN get into a position to do their own version of Operation Downfall (they won't have nukes) before the public get tired of Churchill's shit, can they pull it off? Fuck if I know.
Say the British decide to allow the Russians and Japanese kill each other off, though. What's America's position on this? We haven't exactly been friendly with Japan up until this point, but do we really want to let them get conquered by a bunch of godless commies? I'm not suggesting that we'd enter the war on their side or anything, but without Britain in the picture, the sudden lifting of a whole lot of sanctions and embargoes could easily happen. I don't think we'd go as far as doing lend-lease, because the Japanese are doing a lot of objectively heinous shit in their conquered lands (also, the risk of acute irony poisoning), but we' turned a blind eye to (and committed) a lot of objectively heinous shit during OTL's cold war.
One way or another, the great powers are all exhausted, and America may have the strength to become a superpower, but does it have the will? Does it have the sense of having earned it? It doesn't have the military-industrial complex to goad it into wars for oil. More darkly, the American Nazi movement was never discredited the way it was OTL. That's gonna be a problem during the civil rights era. The world is...changed.
The thing is, I think in and of itself this will be of minimal help to the Nazis. The Soviets have more land than Japan has men to hold it down, and so while the loss of these resources (and access to the Pacific) will be a loss, they can afford to concentrate on Germany first and then turn their attention to Japan.
What this does mean, however, is that it becomes a lot harder to justify an attack on Pearl Harbor. America is a lot less of a direct threat to Japan's ambitions in this scenario, and they ought to be weary of taking on two massive, powerful nations at once. And so America stays, on paper, neutral (...for a while; Hitler's still peeved about all this "lend-lease" stuff and would love to goad someone into distracting us).
Let's say America stays out of the war. With that, and a weakened USSR (both because of the losses to Japan and because it's not like Harry Ford is going to be flying to the Soviet Union to help them make tanks ITTL), could it be enough to turn the tide of war in the Nazi's favor?
Probably not. But it will be a hell of a slough. And afterward, the world will look completely different.
The Soviets still have Japan to deal with at this point. Do the British help? I doubt it; they're exhausted at this point, and don't actually like Stalin to begin with--a pox on both their houses. Then again, the Japanese navy wouldn't have been cooling their heels this entire time--well, probably; I don't know how big the Navy's loss of face that caused the Japanese to choose the northern strategy in the first place would have been or what the incident that caused it was--and turning a blind eye to them sinking shipping caravans or whatever would not look good. Still, a "temporary" ceasefire could at least be floated in a war-weary Britain (and would piss Stalin off to no end should it actually happen).
Then again, I don't think Britain wants Stalin to conquer Japan--especially not if Churchill has anything to say about it. On the other other hand, this is well before the advent of domino theory--this could just be read as the logical conclusion of Russia's history of eastward expansion and not be seen as all that significant. To counter that counter, however, Japan is very clearly not Siberia, I don't care how racist you are or about the fact that this is pre-post-war economic miracle.
In conclusion, idunno.
If the British are still in the war, however, it because a race to see whether they can defeat Japan's navy before Russia can defeat Japan's army. So what does Japan do in this case? I think the Japanese army stays in Russia; they view the Soviets as the bigger threat (I mean, existentially speaking), they've had years to fortify their positions at this point, and the Japanese army absolutely does not want to lose face. It becomes a slough.
But is the war at sea much better? The RN is the biggest in the world, but it's exhausted, and unless the Japanese navy has been doing some heinous shit to Australia and the like (unlikely, because again, northern strategy) the public at home are increasingly wondering why they should care about Japan. Meanwhile, the Japanese navy has basically had to sit in a corner for several years and watch the army hog all the glory (presumably), and is fresh and eager to prove what they can do. Of course, arguably the better the navy does, the worse things will be for Japan, but I don't think that's a factor in their thinking.
If the RN get into a position to do their own version of Operation Downfall (they won't have nukes) before the public get tired of Churchill's shit, can they pull it off? Fuck if I know.
Say the British decide to allow the Russians and Japanese kill each other off, though. What's America's position on this? We haven't exactly been friendly with Japan up until this point, but do we really want to let them get conquered by a bunch of godless commies? I'm not suggesting that we'd enter the war on their side or anything, but without Britain in the picture, the sudden lifting of a whole lot of sanctions and embargoes could easily happen. I don't think we'd go as far as doing lend-lease, because the Japanese are doing a lot of objectively heinous shit in their conquered lands (also, the risk of acute irony poisoning), but we' turned a blind eye to (and committed) a lot of objectively heinous shit during OTL's cold war.
One way or another, the great powers are all exhausted, and America may have the strength to become a superpower, but does it have the will? Does it have the sense of having earned it? It doesn't have the military-industrial complex to goad it into wars for oil. More darkly, the American Nazi movement was never discredited the way it was OTL. That's gonna be a problem during the civil rights era. The world is...changed.
