If all you want is a Cold War between the US and Germany, President Robert Taft in 1940 should do the trick. Don't even need a big POD for that one. Taft very well could have beaten Wilkie out for the GOP Nomination, and he'd have been campaigning on a pro-peace platform in that case. Wilkie was the only Republican candidite for President that was "pro-war"
He doesn't embargo Japan, they don't attack the US, instead having only to deal with the British Empire and Commonwealth and whatever the Dutch have in the Far East.
Britain continues resisting Germany as per OTL, though without Lend-Lease, they're going to have a hard time just holding on to the Suez and maintaining air power over Britain. No amphibious sea mammals, though when Russia is attacked, there isn't going to be any Lend-Lease help.
Would that spell the difference for the Soviets? Hard to say. Stalin was the type prepared to put a gun in every man and child's hand if that's what it took. Though feeding and clothing those people is just as hard as arming it and Lend-lease went a long way toward that. Germany's going to have the advantage of having a singular front to concentrate all her forces on as well.
Britain may well sign a peace treaty with no allies left except the Soviets, who have their own load of problems. They'd lose the Far East, and possibly Egypt and the Middle East, though should retain most of their Empire.
Another Wild Card is the election of 1944. The Dems are going to have a lot of valid points at this madness needing to stop. The Republicans will rebuttal with the concept of allying with Communist Russia, so that election could get pretty ugly. Especially as someone like Wallace or Garner would seem likely to get the nod. Though FDR could very well run again.
This would be a close one, assuming Britain and the Russians are still afloat mind you. If Germany has already beaten both, then you have your US vs Germany cold war scenario. Both sides probably go nuclear around 1950(I don't see Taft putting much money into it) and Germany likely would end up winning the space race.
He doesn't embargo Japan, they don't attack the US, instead having only to deal with the British Empire and Commonwealth and whatever the Dutch have in the Far East.
Britain continues resisting Germany as per OTL, though without Lend-Lease, they're going to have a hard time just holding on to the Suez and maintaining air power over Britain. No amphibious sea mammals, though when Russia is attacked, there isn't going to be any Lend-Lease help.
Would that spell the difference for the Soviets? Hard to say. Stalin was the type prepared to put a gun in every man and child's hand if that's what it took. Though feeding and clothing those people is just as hard as arming it and Lend-lease went a long way toward that. Germany's going to have the advantage of having a singular front to concentrate all her forces on as well.
Britain may well sign a peace treaty with no allies left except the Soviets, who have their own load of problems. They'd lose the Far East, and possibly Egypt and the Middle East, though should retain most of their Empire.
Another Wild Card is the election of 1944. The Dems are going to have a lot of valid points at this madness needing to stop. The Republicans will rebuttal with the concept of allying with Communist Russia, so that election could get pretty ugly. Especially as someone like Wallace or Garner would seem likely to get the nod. Though FDR could very well run again.
This would be a close one, assuming Britain and the Russians are still afloat mind you. If Germany has already beaten both, then you have your US vs Germany cold war scenario. Both sides probably go nuclear around 1950(I don't see Taft putting much money into it) and Germany likely would end up winning the space race.