So, keep a weak English PM in power for two more years, be helping the Chinese in their war with Japan which might push Soviet Russia into Japan's camp and ramping up help to the Chinese as that war escalates gets you the opportunity to get German forces on Russia's Eastern border...
It's all a bit too many if this, if that, with enough ifs you could fit Paris in a bottle

Get Poland to be attacked by Russia ?

WWII was won by scientists, not soldiers. If a couple of key German scientists would have gotten there before the allies, we would all learn about what a great man Hitler was in school.

It was close. Crazy close.

@Supersteve, how many german scientists (particularily jewish ones, but not exclusively) defected to the USA?

How many physicists did the Japabese have? And when dd germany surrender compared to when the first nuclear weapon was used?

The biggest mistake in WW2 was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor dragging the US into the war. Followed closely by the German offensive against Russia (who at the time was allied to Germany)

Germany should of stayed allied to Russia until England was taken. That would have limited the US ability to land forces and stage an effective offensive.

Yes, it's possible the Axis could've won, but with a whole lotta "if they hads"
Re: Pearl Harbor, Japan had agreed with Germany to attack Russia soon after Germany did. They changed tack because the area around Vladivostok didn't have enough oil, so they thought. But it would've tied up Russian forces and helped Germany. They hit Pearl Harbor because the next nearest region that had some oil was the Singapore region that was in with the British. They wanted it, but knew taking it would bring in the US. So, they attacked pearl harbor to get the strike in. This thinking was one of the biggest mistakes on the Axis' part.

Keeping the US out was their best bet, but doing that meant a weak Japan. Japan also wanted to expand because they needed to surpass Germany in resources and wealth. They had to get ready for the eventual Germany vs. Japan war. Both of them really never wanted to share the world with the other.

Japan felt they had no choice but to attack the US in 1941. They were under a trade embargo at the time (due to their earlier actions in China and French Indochina) and they were running out of oil.

They hoped that by inflicting a devastating blow on the US, they would then be able to negotiate a treaty with the US, allowing them to annex the Dutch East Indies and gain the oil supplies there.

There was a precedent for this which heavily influenced Japanese strategic thinking - namely the Russo-Japanese war. In 1904 Japan was threatened by Russia's expansionist interests in Manchuria and Korea. They didn't think they had the resources to win a prolonged war with Russia (and they probably didn't). But they did think they could give Russia a bloody nose early enough to achieve favourable peace terms.

Naval victories by Japan in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and, more decisively, the Battle of Tsushima gave Russia that bloody nose, and the resulting Treaty of Portsmouth was very favourable to Japan.

In 1941 Japan, deeply committed to a racist, imperialist regional expansion plan, but becoming desperate for oil, hoped that the attack on Pearl Harbour would draw the battered US Navy to retaliate, giving the Imperial Japanese Navy (in which Japan had supreme confidence) another Tsushima. On this occasion their strategy failed.

The problem with keeping the US out was that FDR was always sympathetic to the British. Early in the war there was actually some sentiment for Germany because we didn't know things we learned later, plus some US citizens were of German descent(coupled with the first reason), and many, many Americans were very, very isolationist: "It's their war! Stay out of it" So, another big if is that if FDR had not been president, then maybe.

Eh, the US provoked Pearl Harbour, so they could join a war which, until they were attacked, was deeply unpopular until pearl harbour.

So then the question is how did they provoke Japan. Refusal to trade? economic warfare stuff which made it clear that the US had control of resources that htey didn't want the Japanese getting their hands on.

"When Japan seized Indochina (now Vietnam) in 1940-41, the United States, along with Australia, Britain and the Dutch government in exile, boycotted Japan via a trade embargo. They cut off 90% of Japan's oil supply, and Japan had to either withdraw from China or go to war with the US and Britain as well as China to get the oil."

To quote wikipedia. Also: "It was dependent at 90% on imports, 80% of it coming from the United States. Furthermore, the vast majority of this oil import was oriented towards the Navy and the military." (also a more detailed discussion here: https://mises.org/library/us-japanese-relations-wwii )

Japan wanted to establish a Asian empire run by Asians; at this point some were already seeing a decline of European power (with the US and Asian rising up to become rivals to Europe) And Japan felt it had a natural right to become the leader among Asians.

This would never come to be...

Revising history to suit your point of view is really fun, isn't it ora? The US didn't coerce Pearl Harbor. The US gave Japan a big ass break after they bombed the USS Panay a few years before. Japan also signed the pact with Germany and Italy and *then* agreed to neutrality with the USSR, basically signifying that they wanted exclusive control in East Asia and wanted the US (and thereby US interests) out of it. The US cut Japan off economically, but how could you criticize the US for that? Japan was giving the US the finger time and time again.

Germany's supporting declaration of war against the US after Pearl Harbor was the mistake. It gave the US cause to actively fight against Germany when they might have only attacked Japan. There was enough groups in the US from America First and the like that would have avoided involvement in Europe.

Even with all of the US resources fighting Japan it wouldn't have dramatically sped up the war there. Ships were needed and the ones on the East Coast would have taken time sailing through Panama if they didn't stay to protect the East Coast. Extra men still need to land and fight through fortified Pacific islands. Tanks wouldn't have helped and most of the airplanes were land based.

Japan wanted an Asian empire run by the Japanese. They viewed other Asians as racially inferior in the same way the Nazis viewed slavs as racially inferior.

Japan provoked the US into levying economic sanctions, which then provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. An act of economic sanctions to comepell an agressor to stop the slaughter in Asia is hardly justification for bombing said country.

Short answers:

In Europe, yes. Possibly.

In East Asia/the Pacific, no.

In Europe, I think two things key factors in 1940-41 may have changed the results of the war had they gone the other way. They are:
1) The failure of Hitler to persuade Franco to enter the war in late 1940 (unbeknownst to him, Hitler had been diplomatically knee-capped by the head of the Abwehr, Wilhelm Canaris, who had been dissuading Franco and his generals from intervening). Spanish involvement in the war would've meant the fall of Gibraltar and with it the permanent closure of the Mediterranean, Portugal likely joining the Axis, and a bunch of new bases in Africa for U-boats to cut off Britain's supply to and from India and the Middle East as it transited the South Atlantic.
2) The 5-7 week delay of Barbarossa due to the unscheduled detours to Greece and Yugoslavia in the Spring of 1941. An earlier start would've given more time to take Moscow before winter set in. And the Axis effort definitely would've been helped by the addition of a dozen or two battle-tested and motivated Spanish divisions, as well as the Afrika Korps had #1 gone the other way.

In East Asia/the Pacific, Japan was in trouble even before Pearl Harbor. The war in China had already come to a stalemate by then, and the Japanese government had even had to resort to rationing in 1940. Japan's early victories against superior enemies were somewhat impressive in early '42, but there was no way it was going to win against a country that was commissioning a new fleet carrier (plus the planes and pilots to go with it) every month by the close of 1944. If the Japanese had decisively won Coral Sea, Midway, or Guadalcanal, all it would've done is draw the war out longer - maybe another 12 or 18 months at most - and may perhaps have resulted in a conditional surrender in late '46 or early '47, but there was no way Japan was going to walk away with a win.

"Japan provoked the US into levying economic sanctions, which then provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor."

In 1941, The Japanese needed oil. They didn't really care where it came from. The Dutch East Indies had oil which the Japanese could (and did) take in '42. The DEI would've provided more than enough oil for Japan's needs. The only problem is, grabbing the DEI by itself would almost certainly provoke an American and British response. Why was that a problem? Because The US and Britain controlled the Philipines and Singapore respectively, from which either one could completely cut off the flow of that newly acquired oil. Hence Japan's attacks on the Philipines, Malaya, Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Brunei, and a half dozen other British and American bases before actually grabbing the DEI oil fields.

Japan's attacks were designed to secure their line of supply... and eliminate the threats that would challenge that source of supply had it been taken on its own. To pin the war on the economic sanctions is a bit one-dimensional - it is essentially the CliffsNotes answer.

"They viewed other Asians as racially inferior in the same way the Nazis viewed slavs as racially inferior."

Much the way Americans and Britons viewed everyone else - particularly their enemies, but especially their colonial subjects - as racially inferior.

"Germany's supporting declaration of war against the US after Pearl Harbor was the mistake. It gave the US cause to actively fight against Germany when they might have only attacked Japan."

Germany and America were already at war on the high seas, with American ships escorting British convoys and sinking German U-boats. As well, America was actively arming and supplying both Britain and the Soviet Union. The war with America had already been on for months, Hitler just made it official.

Ora has always believed that the united states had the obligation to provide Japan with the fuel it needed to kill innocent Chinese. Not supplying Japan the needed resources for Genocide and not going against the US clear interests means that FDR was attempting to "provoke" Japan. This view does, of course, reek of a racist belief that the Japanese essentially lack any agency whatsoever, but ora is just that kind of racist.

"Japan was giving the US the finger time and time again."

Erm... actually, the US was giving Japan the middle finger time and again. From pressuring Britain not to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance, to the Naval Treaties which declared Japan only 3/5 of a great power, and America's incessant meddling in China (what was an American warship doing in Chinese waters, anyways, 6,000 miles from the US?), Japan had more than enough justification to be annoyed with the US well before any economic sanctions.

@Tolstoy

1. your statement
2. ???
3. kill tons of Chinese
4. ???
5. profit

Once one power gives the other the finger, they're both giving each other the finger. I'm not saying the US wasn't complicit in leading up to battle. Rather, my point to ora is that this isn't a one-sided ordeal wherein the United States forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan made their own choices. Being annoyed is justifiable.

^Don't forget the treatment of Japanese Americans in California, which nearly led to war on several occasions.

That being said, the war in China was a direct provocation to the US whose policy dating back nearly 100 years was an open door in China.

true about the America v Germany already going on though.

Yes, that's a good point to bring up Santa.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they felt they could beat the US Fleet. That is it. The idea was to

1. Knock out the Pacific Fleet
2. Take the Philippines
3. Force the remaining+rebuilt US flet to cross the Pacific to relieve the Philippines
4. Whittle down the US force with night attacks and submarine attacks
5. Destroy the US fleet in a traditional Grand Battle ala battle of Tsushima
6 US Forced to sue for peace

The American people wanted no part of WWII. The US levied sanctions as a deterrent to continue the war against China/SE Asia. If Japan doesn't start a war, then attacks a militarily neutral country as a means to continue the war, the American people don't let the US enter WWII. I'm pinning the war on Japan being a war monger, not the US for sanctioning Japan, Tolstoy.

/@Santa

also there were massive oil refineries or SOMETHING at/near Pearl Harbor that the Japanese messed up on and didn't eliminate, that they meant to. It was also pretty crucial

JamesYanik, I'm sure your post had some kind of point, but unfortunately I'm unable to decipher it.