In the "real" war, the Allies concentrated on, and defeated Germany before Japan. That might not have been the case if Hitler had not declared war on the United States in 1941, and the U.S. had concentrated on fighting Japan.
The "Japan first" strategy might be better for the revised edition, with four Pacific "victory cities," but mine is the earliest edition.
Reasons for concentrating on Japan might be the following:
- Japan is weaker than Germany, hence easier to beat.
- In "real life," Japan occupied (or threatened to occupy), the more populous part of the world in Asia. The revised edition clearly reflects that.
- If the "Japan" player is better than the "Germany" player, it might be wise to give priority to containing "Japan."
My plan for a "Japan first" strategy would be to have the U.S. fleet engage the Japanese fleet in the Pacific, to keep Japanese air power way from "Asia."
Then BOTH Britain and the U.S. build "factories" in India and Sinkiang, respectively. (The idea would be that Japan then could't capture both.) Russia would move forces east to protect India, and Sinkiang and ultimately to capture Manchuria. Each turn, the Americans would spend 10 of their IPCs manufacturing armored units in Sinkiang, while using their remaining 26 IPCs to neutralize Japan's 25 IPCs in the Pacific.
The armor manufactured in Sinkiang (and Britain's India) would recapture Kwantung and Indochina. Together, the Allies would capture nine IPCs and kick Japan off the mainland. The downside is that the Germans would probably capture most of Africa (10 IPCs) in the meantime. But both sides would have "consolidated," the Germans in Europe-Africa, and the Allies in Asia.
Does the above, or any other plan, represent a viable "Japan first" strategy?