Is there a viable "Japan First" strategy for the Allies in Axis and Allies?

Question

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:

1. Japan is weaker than Germany, hence easier to beat.
2. In "real life," Japan occupied (or threatened to occupy), the more populous part of the world in Asia. The revised edition clearly reflects that.
3. 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?

Answer 1

This response for Japan First is based on the 1986 Second Edition version and assumes No Russia Attack first round house rule.

• The allies should under no circumstance look to divert SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES (i.e. more than U.K.'s dollars to an India IC/tanks thereafter).
• If you send more dollars (U.S. IC, Russia support, etc), you are weakening the Shuck-Shuck which ultimately means a delay to round 4 assuming a smart Axis German player will suicide his fighters on a weakened initial shuck-shuck attempt. ORRR you are needlessly increasing Germany's short initial window to attack Russia by not placing all Russia defense troops possible of reaching Karelia as defense.
• Allies should concentrate their initial 90 IPCs as much as possible towards Germany's 32 IPC's, this tilts the ground war in their favor the quickest as Germany starts out with an IPC advantage day 1 which must be overcome via Infantry-push tactics.

Answer 2

It can be done, but it requires such a level of cooperation among the allies that I wouldn't recommend it unless you are playing all 3 allies. Any Indian factory is a gift to Japan. 'Nuff said. The UK needs to build up it's Atlantic fleet strength (a prerequisite for the over-all strategy to work). US must split their forces and fight a two-front war (never a pleasant prospect). Russia must grit her teeth and eat such infantry casualties as it takes to hold the Germans (also not a pleasant prospect, especially from a game enjoyment level; who likes defend, defend, defend?) UK and US should invest just enough in warships to draw out and destroy the Luftwaffe, on the way to building an infantry push across north Africa and into asia across the Suez (thanks Don!). In the meantime US must build it's poor scattered remnants into something resembling a battle fleet. This is the most delicate and precise part of this strategy. US must spend just enough to support UK in the atlantic, while retaining enough resources to build a war machine cabable of defeating The Imperial High Seas Fleets. By sacrifing 3 IPCs in India, UK will be able to retain 10 IPCs in Africa. The UK transport fleet keeps the Axis jumping because they can hit anywhere on the coast of Europe or Africa. Between them UK and Russia start with 54 IPCs to Germany's 32. If Us spends as much as Japan in the pacifc (25 IPCs per turn) this leaves US several IPCs per turn to devote to the battle of the atlantic. UK and Russia will have to contain Germany long enough to balance Japan's initially overwhelming military power. It makes for a long and bloody war.

Answer 3

I think the Japan first strategy is the only viable method for taking out the Axis. The US doesn't even need to fully dedicate themselves to the Japan-first mission.

Common first turn movements:

Russia

• Russia builds up defense to try to hold off on the German onslaught
• Send two tanks down to India for some backup

England

• England's fighters/bomber fly from England into Russia so that the next time around the board they can fly into India (sink a few German boats on the way).
• England sends their transport down to pick up two infantry men on Australia.
• England buys 1 Industrial Complex and saves their remaining 15 IPCs for their second round (so they could buy and place whatever they'd like)

US

• Don't build IC in Asia
• Not super necessary to weaken naval fleet.
• Move guys into Africa to fight Germany there

Turn 2

Russia

• Defense

England

• buy planes/armor with the extra 15 IPCs
• Keeping a strong defense, start attacking Japan
• Move two infantry men up from Australasia, use them as either offense or defense