@midnight_reaper
Interesting point-I don’t think Japan would have went as far as Krasonyarsk, but maybe Japan could have taken Vladivostok (like the ports in southern China). I’m not sure how much help American aid would have come without a war with the US, so it certainly wouldn’t have been as helpful as it historically was. I wonder how Stalin would have reacted to this-he seemed to already be in a mental crisis after Operation Barbarossa. How would he have handled an attack in the east just days after? He would have recovered for sure, but maybe a few more days of shock during Operation Barbarossa were decisive-who knows?
Perhaps the main change in the war is actually the US not entering the war, which would have made lend-lease far lower than historically was, the Second Battle Of El Alamein could not have been won by the British without the Sherman and Grant tanks not coming from the US, the Battle Of The Atlantic would have been harder for the Allies, and no Operation Torch would have enabled Rommel to stay in Egypt for several weeks or months longer. The strategic bombing campaign against Germany would have been less damaging too. The loss of lend-lease for the Soviet Union would have been especially damaging, as much as Russia downplays it. Huge amounts of high quality air fuel that the Soviets could not make were given by the US, as were a lot of food and and supply trucks. Whilst lend-lease aircraft and tanks were not a important, every piece of equipment helps. Most likely the war against the Soviet Union would have stopped at a stalemate until either the Soviets make a peace treaty or the US enters the war-either way, the war would have been much longer with Germany and Japan able to more successfully consolidate their conquests over a longer period of time. It would have especially been hard to convince the US public to declare war on Japan, which would have made for a reduction in the massive increase of industry historically made after Pearl Harbour.