You are confusing non interventionism with pacifism, moreover if you are not poking other nations in the eyes and deliberately not scaling up your armed forces as to goat them into attacking you as FDR did, how can it NOT result in war?maltesefalcon wrote: ↑11 Nov 2019, 18:55The US was caught with its pants down, both militarily and industrially in WW2; so (another?) isolationist in the White House would not greatly alter the probability of direct attacks on the USA, or its ability to fight back. However, the distances involved from both Japan and Germany would be the same; so geographic "armour" would exist for the foreseeable future.
Lindbergh opposed Lend-Lease, so the UK would likely be reliant more on its Dominions for supplies prior to Pearl Harbor. Whether Britain would survive is another story. The US would not likely provide supplies or convoy escorts, so the proxy war the US Navy engaged in the Atlantic in 1941 was just as unlikely. Since these convoys were the main origin of Hitler's scorn vs USA; it is also not likely Hitler would declare war on America on Dec 10, 1941.
Let's assume Pearl Harbor does occur as IRL. Once the USA had been dragged into war, Lindbergh would energetically organize his nation; but only vs Japan. He was a committed anti-Bolshevik and I don't think he would openly help the USSR. So In this case, I predict an Axis victory in Europe but still a defeat for Japan.
Stop selling oil to Japan, sure, but do not freeze their accounts. More over no reason NOT to have the jewel of the pacific so vastly undefended expect if you wanted to bait an attack and get a nation into a war you wish to join but the people are justly opposed to as they gain NOTHING but injury and death.
I honestly think of Heiss landed in the right place and cut a deal with the English faction he was going to meet England could have been avoided and the USSR left to its fate.
Seeing the long term damage caused by the communists via the frankfurt school "refugees" who can blame Lindy for his stance?