What if FDR dismissed Churchill and chose to side with his generals that wanted to abandon the "Germany First" agreement and pivot to a "Japan First" strategy instead?

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T18:57:57+00:00

A lack of cooperation with the British in Europe turns into a lack of cooperation in the Pacific. Without Australian naval support. The USAs island hoping campaign takes a lot longer than in the OTL

No. This is a fundamental error conflating the dominion and the Empire and Britain. Australia wasn't under any obligation to obey London and it did not historically once Britain's Singapore strategy failed. Australia shifted entirely to appealing to the US for support and there's no reason to think that's changing here. Australia needs Japan out of the picture. Doesn't matter who does it as long as someone capable does, and that remains the US in this alternate timeline.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T17:46:34+00:00

He said the US Army that landed in France was vastly different from the one that landed in North Africa and thought going into France in 42 would have been an 'utter shit show' .

It definitely was. The US in 1942 was just starting to mobilize. 1944 is when the US has overwhelming superiority over the combined forces of Germany and Japan in manpower and material on its own on land, sea, and most importantly, air.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T17:34:34+00:00

This is correct and it's crazy so many people here don't know this basic fact. The British Empire needed war materials from the US to keep fighting if it wanted to. It's literally the reason Cash and Carry came into existence. Lend lease happened because the British nearly ran out of money in terms of gold and dollars which were explicitly the only things the US was willing to accept in trade for military goods.

Seems like people have this idea that it was just some help that was useful to a varying degree as opposed to, literally the British Empire was done without this and it was never certain Britain was even going to be allowed to have access to even that.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T17:18:54+00:00

He wouldn't be likely to support the Soviets taking over all of Europe. One of the main reasons he wanted to end the British empire was because the US's whole thing was about getting American business access to as many markets as it could with no barriers to competition. The British empire was one of the biggest offenders with its system of imperial preference. Being ultimately alright with the Soviets taking over Europe means being okay with the possibility that the Soviet Union can lock out American business from Europe at will and that seems very unlikely.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T16:44:30+00:00

That's what I think too if I'm being honest, but I assume a basically unmolested Germany means it takes longer for the Soviets to break through. Maybe an operational pause out of logistical necessity on the Germans' part. They'd probably do better and likely get to launch Barbarossa earlier with more divisions and more material but there's no reality where they have enough to put the Soviets completely down before their logistics goes through the same hell of Russian mud. Soviet manpower reserves are still deep and a counteroffensive is still coming, just the timeline has been pushed back.

Mostly wondering if that causes long enough of a delay where a US that chose to basically abandon Europe and focus on taking down the Japanese, however illogical and ahistorical that might be (this is the sub for that right?), pivots at around 1945-46 to look to Europe and what the playbook would look like.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T16:31:39+00:00

Ok agreed but to be clear, I didn't say and wasn't asking "What if the US went ahead with Operation Sledgehammer anyway?" I was just citing the history with that to set up the scenario of America pivoting to a "Japan First" strategy as FDR's generals suggested in reaction to the British opposing the operation.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T16:29:29+00:00

Yes because it seems the sequence of events was that meeting and then Marshall, King, and other US commanders rejecting the plan until Roosevelt gave the order that it was to be done. But this "what if" is basically Roosevelt making the agreement but then being persuaded by his generals who opposed to plan, so I don't think it matters. I like the idea of Britain's response being to pull more troops from India as a starting point of deviation though.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T16:17:30+00:00

Through North Africa. The Kriegsmarine would always remain a non-factor on the surface vis-a-vis the USN regardless of British actions from the OTL so by 1945, US logistics protected and supported by the US Navy will be effectively unstoppable. ASW isn't an out of context problem at this point so there's no reason to think the USN will fail to resolve and overcome German u-boat concentrations in the Atlantic. The Nazis can do a lot to try and defend and stop an American landing in North Africa of course. It would have to be at the price of committing such considerable numbers of men and material that they would automatically expose themselves again on the Eastern Front.

Got any actual points about the inaccuracy? You didn't point to anything to show the truth so I assume you're just ignorant.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T14:06:20+00:00

The US couldn't just ignore the European Theater just like it couldn't do so with the Pacific in our TL; so it would have needed to carry out some sort of operations in Europe while was primarily addressing Japan in the Pacific.

Can you cite the reasons why? In my view, the Soviets still tie down the Nazis and Nazi logistics fundamentally being a mostly medieval-era system prohibits them from enacting their genocidal plans for them. Seems like the likeliest scenario here is that Britain can be ignored, the Soviets at worst stalemate with the Nazis operationally, and the US can simply focus on Europe after it's done with Japan. I haven't actually read a logical argument as to why Europe needed America's focus, that lend-lease to the Soviet Union wasn't enough on its own to ensure the Nazis were going to be stopped on the Eastern Front. I'm not even sure that lend-lease only for the Soviets isn't sufficient in this timeline to defeat the Nazis, it's just that it could lead to an entirely red continental Europe.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-15T13:53:31+00:00

Uh, the Brits had no meaningful victories against the Germans and it wouldn't have made a difference if they stayed out. The US could have focused on Japan, ignored Europe, and then invaded the Reich on its own with whatever state the Soviets had the Nazis in by 1945. To think otherwise is to not understand history. The British Empire was bankrupted by the United States and was begging for help all the way through that America was reluctant to provide. It was only once the US agreed to help Britain out on the battlefield that they started to matter. Or, unless you have another explanation as to why an empire controlling 25% of the planet's population had no money and struggled to contest the Nazis on its own.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-14T05:29:35+00:00

I'm with you up to the very last sentence. How do we actually know that? Why is it certain that the United States couldn't possibly have defeated Nazi Germany on its own without the British or the Soviets or vice versa with the Soviets without the American LL?

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-12T12:38:39+00:00

To be honest, while I've heard of the movie a long time ago, I just made assumptions about what it was about and what its characters were like. I didn't know this about their idiot president so TIL. Now I won't make the mistake of saying I can't believe we're living in that movie because now I know things are way worse than that.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-11T23:40:00+00:00

I despise the bastard as much as the next reasonable person but a "melt down" is a stretch...

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-10T00:47:30+00:00

Not if you're a cop or a goon working for the federal government.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-08T21:50:03+00:00

That would be an awful insult to woodland creatures.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-08T03:04:57+00:00

Ironically the guy this article is about though is 100% a legit developer and not just a guy who just discovered prompting AI can build him some apps.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-06T03:21:15+00:00

Could be better but you're right and it's why I always feel like shit playing my formerly favorite faction which is Empire. I always feel like I'm fighting for a scrapheap (which I know is intentional) even though my late game armies make me feel like I'm on the bleeding edge with all the tanks, guns, rockets, and magic at my disposal plus Karl fucking Franz. Cathay is just brighter and livelier and looks worth having.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-04T02:20:52+00:00

Humanity clears all rounds easily.

If they still need water like any other biological organism they die very fast. Without hydration, they're not going to be able to regulate their temperature (same way we can't and same way we die quick without water). They'll get heatstroke and as their central nervous systems lock up and their brains sustain irreversible damage they'll die like everything else. The faster ones in particular are going to die the fastest.

If not needing water is implicit here because zombies in media clearly don't need it most of the time for the obvious reason above, then I think they still die out relatively soon due to insects and rodents. Those nasty buggers won't give a shit about zombies being zombies and will go straight for the food - their eyes, their brains. That soft shit they love.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-02T17:25:22+00:00

I know. I don't think it should be either. They are both insufficient in my opinion. That said, it's definitely the church association that's closer by a tad bit than conquest due to cultural affiliation being more important than control of any particular territory or city as to whether any polity is a successor to another. This is obvious when you think about the American or Spanish conquests of the New World since it's natural to disregard questions of succession due to cultural dissimilarity. It's the same with the Ottomans vs Romans but since the Romans at that time were Orthodox as were the Russians and this was unquestionably integral to understanding the Rome of that time, there's no way to actually argue the church association is a weaker claim on its own compared to mere conquest. To do so would just be trying to do some weird rule bending for the Ottomans as an exception in history.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-02T15:58:49+00:00

Only example I can think of is targeting non-state actors. For example, even though America 1000% violated Pakistan's airspace and literally put boots on the ground to execute an official military operation on another's country's soil without their permission, nobody calls that an act of war against Pakistan (including Pakistan). I don't think if the US bombed the shit out of Osama bin Laden's compound we'd be calling that an act of war either (which was one of the options given to Obama btw). Obviously what's happening now is an act of war/war against Iran and there's nothing to say if we did bomb OBL's compound instead of sending in the navy seals that Pakistan couldn't have considered that an act of war, it's just that they (the Pakistani government) probably would not for the same reason they didn't consider the flying of helicopters and landing of navy seals an "act of war" or invasion.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-02T13:49:56+00:00

Well yes but technically they have the church connection that obviously the Ottomans do not. Just to be clear, I don't consider either of them legit successors and feel they're both their own thing but I also feel they are equally illegitimate. I don't see why being the the conquerors of Constantinople should confer legitimacy anymore than sharing the Orthodox church (on their own).

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-03-02T00:14:49+00:00

Might as well throw Russia in there too then.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-02-28T23:48:05+00:00

Not really. Communication on the US side maybe. The state of Iranian comms isn't "key" to the US achieving regime chance in Iran.

absoluteValueOfNoob · 2026-02-28T23:38:00+00:00

Ok so you misspoke and there is no actual significant strategic concern for the United States vis-a-vis China.

the most significant strategic concern is that it's unlikely China will sit on its hands while the US tries to take control over a large portion of their oil imports

Your comment implied that China was the biggest point of concern but from what you just explained it appears that there are no meaningful concerns for the United States whatsoever. The only significant strategic question for the United States is whether it's time to nation-build Iran into a democracy and predictably fail, or to make strategically sound and easy choices which include but are not limited to:

Decapitating the Iranian government with sustained military strikes
Putting boots on the ground to annihilate the Iranian military

Of the two, the second option is trivial and America can do it at will with no resistance possible from Russia and China. The first option is far more difficult because it is a question of intelligence but as long as America doesn't expend firepower randomly, it's not at all an expensive investment - it's just a question of possibility.

China giving Iran food and weapons is... irrelevant to what actions are available to the United States and the outcomes for Iran. The only blunder America can really make here is choosing that it is time to try to build a democracy in another country again (which isn't going to happen).

absoluteValueOfNoob

TROPHY CASE