Shaby said:

You may not be so far wrong.

Also depressingly inept U.S., British, & Dutch diplomacy.
Shaby said:
the Pacific War was a trainwreck of accidents, coincidences and misperceptions all pointing in one direction.
That's a fact.
Shaby said:
the cruelty of Japanese conquest of China that precluded making any reasonable peace between the two
That, I'm not so sure of. I've seen it claimed (can't recall where offhand) Chiang would have cut a deal, because he considered Mao & the CCP more of a threat than Japan. It's also true, AIUI, the U.S. was willing to grant Japan control of Manchuria if she was willing to give up claims on the rest of China...& Japan was willing.
So, with better diplomacy, the U.S. & Britain get a deal where Japan keeps Manchuria, ends the war in China, & never allies with Germany & Italy, before the oil embargo is placed.
Does Japan end up at war with the SU in Siberia in '41?
Shaby said:
A textbook of what happens when civilian authorities of a country lose control over their military. Quite aside from the fact that military commanders often found their subordinates operating at several levels above their heads. And no one dared called anyone on it, for the fear of exposing their own weakness.
True, to a point. Thing is, Bix makes a case (& I think he's right) Hirohito
wanted it this way: he believed Japan could get away with it. If he didn't want it, it would seem he could've put a stop to it pretty easily--& didn't.
Carl Schwamberger said:
More important is the savings in cargo ships. Not delivering across the vast Pacific distances is a considerable savings in days moving each ton of cargo.
Those savings are pretty huge.

Not only the distances, either: the amount of time they spent swinging at anchor waiting to unload, or be loaded for transshipment.

There was an awful lot of waste.
Carl Schwamberger said:
Assuming Hitler throws a fit & declares war against the US in June 1942
While I can believe he'd do it

(him
not doing it is the ASB thing

), I'm less sure about the timing. It looks a bit convenient. Not outrageous, but I'd want to see the conditions leading up to it, first.
Carl Schwamberger said:
there would be the material and ships available to execute a operation like Torch much sooner rather than later.
Not just Torch: Neptune. (Or Avalanche, first, if Winston still gets his way; with more shipping, & so a faster build-up in Britain, maybe he doesn't...

)
It also means Neptune & Anvil go off simultaneously,

since there are more LCs available.
Carl Schwamberger said:
With no South & Central Pacific campaigns in 1943 & 44 the US can devote another large armys worth of combat power to the ETO. In terms of airpower it makes a big difference in 1943. In 1944 the B29s would be configured for bombing Germany rather than Japan...
Also means more CVs in the Atlantic & lower losses to U-boats. And more friendly submarines in the Atlantic, Med, & Indian Oceans. (Which also means more chance of blue-on-blue accidents.
Seawolf was bad enough...

)
All things considered, I'd bet the war is over before the B-29 reaches squadron service. Also before the Bomb is ready.
If that's true, do we get nuclear war in the '50s?


Since Stalin isn't convinced the West would actually use it on civilians?