Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-7431988-20130903205525/@comment-32656-20130911061647

No, they were not that anti-communist. Just didn't forgive/forget financial issues very easily.

But, that's not the issue - they aren't going to intervene against anyone without a reason.

The USSR would be able to push pretty far, though I think they would get stopped eventually, at somewhere in Germany/the Alps/Italy/Greece/eastern Anatolia/Kurdistan. Some sort of pan-European alliance, combined with very lengthy supply lines, would do it.

To the USA, they would not be a threat - they'd simply be "over there." Virtually all of the things that kept them out of WWII until Pearl Harbor still apply.

It would take either something like Pearl, or provocations like in WWI, for the US to outright intervene. Though I can say without question that they'd have done some sort of lend-lease quite early.

At a guess, you'd see some sort of actions like WWI, leading the the Soviets doing something foolish in the US itself - communists setting off bombs or some such idiot thing.

Yes, Kaiser Wilhelm II lost the support of the army - with good reason. But, that does not mean that the military quit supporting the concept of a monarch. The high-ups definitely still did, as did the nobility. Wilhelm's son would get the crown in this context.

The Japanese launched the first full-on attacks that went out of Manchuria in the summer of 1937, with troops landing in Shanghai a couple months after that.

Makes so sense whatsoever for the US to annex Kamchatka.