staying put

[stevep]

Apr 20, 2017 17:21:56 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 20, 2017 17:13:09 GMT stevep said:

  I dion't know.  Britain can't defend the region while also fighting the European Axis as OTL showed and as I point out a rampant Japan raiding westward from Malaya and potentially threatening Australia would be very worrying for both London and Canberra.  [True I doubt the Japanese had the logistical capacity to seriously invade Australia but that's unlikely to be that clear at this point].  If there's no sign of Washington getting directly involved I can see a lot of comments about the US being willing to fight to the last drop of British blood and a desire to find as acceptable a settlement as possible with either Japan or Germany or possibly both.  Japan is very likely to get the raw materials it needs to keep its empire staggering on for a few more years at least.  Also the Burma road to China will be cut isolating the KMT while US prestige will take a hit.

  Even if the US does declare war fairly quickly they might not be able to do more than OTL and without the attack on Pearl the US is going to be a lot more divided about the conflict.  Also a US dow immediately exposes the Philippines, Guam and Wake to attack and the former two at least will definitely still fall.  Which leaves FDR open to criticism for opening a war and then doing nothing.

It would be berry dangerous for Japan to attack the British and Dutch as they have to move their troops past neutral Philippines.

  Not really as the US is unlikely to do anything while its formally neutral.  Plus the bulk of the forces that were involved in the drive south were already based south of the Philippines. 

  Once the US declares war then the Japanese can attack the Philippines from their bases, which pretty much encircle it.  The limited defending a/c can be quickly worn down even if you don't have the OTL disaster.  Once their gone the relatively light naval forces in the islands aren't a great threat to Japanese supply lines, especially given the problems with the US torpedoes, albeit the Japanese don't know about it.  Similarly once the Japanese start landing, unless someone orders otherwise MacArthur will withdraw to Bataan and the battle for the islands will be pretty much over.  Don't forget also that without the attack on Pearl Harbour the Japanese will have their full carrier forces available to support such options.

  As I say above the only thing the US could do to change this and its widely accepted it would be a bloody stupid thing to do, would be to send the fleet to try and relieve the islands, if they can find transports, men and equipment to reinforce the islands.  [Unless they try and send the fleet to Singapore or the DEI, which even if the US would agree to this I doubt there would be the time, especially if its coming from California].

  Steve

[lordroel]

Apr 20, 2017 18:08:37 GMT stevep said:

Apr 20, 2017 17:21:56 GMT lordroel said:

It would be berry dangerous for Japan to attack the British and Dutch as they have to move their troops past neutral Philippines.

  Not really as the US is unlikely to do anything while its formally neutral.  Plus the bulk of the forces that were involved in the drive south were already based south of the Philippines. 

  Once the US declares war then the Japanese can attack the Philippines from their bases, which pretty much encircle it.  The limited defending a/c can be quickly worn down even if you don't have the OTL disaster.  Once their gone the relatively light naval forces in the islands aren't a great threat to Japanese supply lines, especially given the problems with the US torpedoes, albeit the Japanese don't know about it.  Similarly once the Japanese start landing, unless someone orders otherwise MacArthur will withdraw to Bataan and the battle for the islands will be pretty much over.  Don't forget also that without the attack on Pearl Harbour the Japanese will have their full carrier forces available to support such options.

  As I say above the only thing the US could do to change this and its widely accepted it would be a bloody stupid thing to do, would be to send the fleet to try and relieve the islands, if they can find transports, men and equipment to reinforce the islands.  [Unless they try and send the fleet to Singapore or the DEI, which even if the US would agree to this I doubt there would be the time, especially if its coming from California].

  Steve

I wonder if we will see a Battle of Hawaii (which is closer to the United States) instead of a OTL Battle of Midway in this universe.

[stevep]

Apr 20, 2017 20:31:36 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 20, 2017 18:08:37 GMT stevep said:

  Not really as the US is unlikely to do anything while its formally neutral.  Plus the bulk of the forces that were involved in the drive south were already based south of the Philippines. 

  Once the US declares war then the Japanese can attack the Philippines from their bases, which pretty much encircle it.  The limited defending a/c can be quickly worn down even if you don't have the OTL disaster.  Once their gone the relatively light naval forces in the islands aren't a great threat to Japanese supply lines, especially given the problems with the US torpedoes, albeit the Japanese don't know about it.  Similarly once the Japanese start landing, unless someone orders otherwise MacArthur will withdraw to Bataan and the battle for the islands will be pretty much over.  Don't forget also that without the attack on Pearl Harbour the Japanese will have their full carrier forces available to support such options.

  As I say above the only thing the US could do to change this and its widely accepted it would be a bloody stupid thing to do, would be to send the fleet to try and relieve the islands, if they can find transports, men and equipment to reinforce the islands.  [Unless they try and send the fleet to Singapore or the DEI, which even if the US would agree to this I doubt there would be the time, especially if its coming from California].

  Steve

I wonder if we will see a Battle of Hawaii (which is closer to the United States) instead of a OTL Battle of Midway in this universe.

  I would suspect not, unless things go really bad for the US.  Since the Japanese are likely to gain their primary territorial aims before the US can do anything to block them and the USN has more ships available I doubt the Japanese would go anywhere near Midway, let alone Hawaii. 

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2017 15:32:33 GMT stevep said:

Apr 20, 2017 20:31:36 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder if we will see a Battle of Hawaii (which is closer to the United States) instead of a OTL Battle of Midway in this universe.

  I would suspect not, unless things go really bad for the US.  Since the Japanese are likely to gain their primary territorial aims before the US can do anything to block them and the USN has more ships available I doubt the Japanese would go anywhere near Midway, let alone Hawaii. 

That would be very dangerous for Japan as it will have to face a United States that did not suffer OTL Pearl Harbor ore OTL Battle of Midway losses.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2017 15:42:39 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2017 15:32:33 GMT stevep said:

  I would suspect not, unless things go really bad for the US.  Since the Japanese are likely to gain their primary territorial aims before the US can do anything to block them and the USN has more ships available I doubt the Japanese would go anywhere near Midway, let alone Hawaii. 

That would be very dangerous for Japan as it will have to face a United States that did not suffer OTL Pearl Harbor ore OTL Battle of Midway losses.

  Undoubtedly Japan will lose if there is a long war with the US.  However with the US being the 'aggressor' in this case how strong will public support for the war be?  Especially if the US suffers a serious military defeat early on, due to what's seen as an error by either political or high level military leaders.

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2017 15:47:07 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2017 15:42:39 GMT lordroel said:

That would be very dangerous for Japan as it will have to face a United States that did not suffer OTL Pearl Harbor ore OTL Battle of Midway losses.

  Undoubtedly Japan will lose if there is a long war with the US.  However with the US being the 'aggressor' in this case how strong will public support for the war be?  Especially if the US suffers a serious military defeat early on, due to what's seen as an error by either political or high level military leaders.

How do you mean being the aggressor, if Japan attacks the Philippines it will not be the United states being the aggressor but Japan being it.

[doug181]

I thought the war was not against the US, Japanese only attack British and Dutch.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2017 18:25:47 GMT doug181 said:

I thought the war was not against the US, Japanese only attack British and Dutch.

  That's what I meant Lordroel.  The Japanese only attack the Europeans so technically the US would be the aggressor against Japan if/when it declared war on Japan.

  As I say if the US is going to fight to the bitter end it will win.  However if its not been attacked and no sneak attack on Pearl then there is going to be less motivation for support of the war.  Not just isolationist and opponents of Roosevelt but possibly some who opposed distractions from the 'real' threat of Nazi Germany.  If this was coupled with the US, having a large Pacific fleet in existence, feeling obliged to use it and if this resulted in a disastrous defeat there is at least a chance that Japan would get the negotiated peace they desired.  [Their totally unrealistic view of the world and delusions about Japanese power could still well prevent that].  However Japan is still better prepared to avoid total crushing defeat than OTL.  If nothing else, the fear of the costs of an invasion might mean a compromise peace that avoids occupation or the overthrow of the regime say.

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2017 20:41:12 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2017 18:25:47 GMT doug181 said:

I thought the war was not against the US, Japanese only attack British and Dutch.

  That's what I meant Lordroel.  The Japanese only attack the Europeans so technically the US would be the aggressor against Japan if/when it declared war on Japan.

  As I say if the US is going to fight to the bitter end it will win.  However if its not been attacked and no sneak attack on Pearl then there is going to be less motivation for support of the war.  Not just isolationist and opponents of Roosevelt but possibly some who opposed distractions from the 'real' threat of Nazi Germany.  If this was coupled with the US, having a large Pacific fleet in existence, feeling obliged to use it and if this resulted in a disastrous defeat there is at least a chance that Japan would get the negotiated peace they desired.  [Their totally unrealistic view of the world and delusions about Japanese power could still well prevent that].  However Japan is still better prepared to avoid total crushing defeat than OTL.  If nothing else, the fear of the costs of an invasion might mean a compromise peace that avoids occupation or the overthrow of the regime say.

But what about the United States embargo against Japan, that is going to hurt Japan, also Japan in OTL knew that expansion into the Netherlands East Indies would mean that Malaya and the Philippines had to have been cleared in order for the Japanese to secure the area. This meant inevitable United States intervention.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2017 20:46:58 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2017 20:41:12 GMT stevep said:

  That's what I meant Lordroel.  The Japanese only attack the Europeans so technically the US would be the aggressor against Japan if/when it declared war on Japan.

  As I say if the US is going to fight to the bitter end it will win.  However if its not been attacked and no sneak attack on Pearl then there is going to be less motivation for support of the war.  Not just isolationist and opponents of Roosevelt but possibly some who opposed distractions from the 'real' threat of Nazi Germany.  If this was coupled with the US, having a large Pacific fleet in existence, feeling obliged to use it and if this resulted in a disastrous defeat there is at least a chance that Japan would get the negotiated peace they desired.  [Their totally unrealistic view of the world and delusions about Japanese power could still well prevent that].  However Japan is still better prepared to avoid total crushing defeat than OTL.  If nothing else, the fear of the costs of an invasion might mean a compromise peace that avoids occupation or the overthrow of the regime say.

But what about the United States embargo against Japan, that is going to hurt Japan, also Japan in OTL knew that expansion into the Netherlands East Indies would mean that Malaya and the Philippines had to have been cleared in order for the Japanese to secure the area. This meant inevitable United States intervention.

  They have to fight Britain anyway.  The Philippines wouldn't be a threat unless the US became hostile and had enough strength there to pose a serious prolonged threat to Japanese SLOC.  If they have refused to go to war to support the British and Dutch when the Japanese attack them many [not just in Japan] will view the US as a 'paper tiger' who are unwilling to commit their troops to a shooting war.  Also while the US is building up their forces in the Philippines they are at least 6 months from being in a position to withstand Japanese invasion and pose a prolonged threat to the Japanese supply lines.  Its very likely that by that time Britain could have been forced to make peace and also that the Japanese can strengthen the forces on their controlled territory that surrounds the islands.  Or if their insane enough, which is possible, they might having gained all their desired territories in the south and then attack the Philippines before the US build-up is complete.  [Which is likely to anger the US population but still poses a serious problem for the US.

  In terms of the embargo that is hurting and a major reason why Japan is expanding the war.  However if they gain the territories they took OTL, i.e. the DEI, Malaysia and Burma, even if nothing else, they gain virtually all resources they will need to maintain their war in China.  As well as cutting off aid to China via Burma.  There might be some problems with steel production according to some sources but then Japan managed to fight to Sep 45 anyway.

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2017 21:04:37 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2017 20:46:58 GMT lordroel said:

But what about the United States embargo against Japan, that is going to hurt Japan, also Japan in OTL knew that expansion into the Netherlands East Indies would mean that Malaya and the Philippines had to have been cleared in order for the Japanese to secure the area. This meant inevitable United States intervention.

  They have to fight Britain anyway.  The Philippines wouldn't be a threat unless the US became hostile and had enough strength there to pose a serious prolonged threat to Japanese SLOC.  If they have refused to go to war to support the British and Dutch when the Japanese attack them many [not just in Japan] will view the US as a 'paper tiger' who are unwilling to commit their troops to a shooting war.  Also while the US is building up their forces in the Philippines they are at least 6 months from being in a position to withstand Japanese invasion and pose a prolonged threat to the Japanese supply lines.  Its very likely that by that time Britain could have been forced to make peace and also that the Japanese can strengthen the forces on their controlled territory that surrounds the islands.  Or if their insane enough, which is possible, they might having gained all their desired territories in the south and then attack the Philippines before the US build-up is complete.  [Which is likely to anger the US population but still poses a serious problem for the US.

  In terms of the embargo that is hurting and a major reason why Japan is expanding the war.  However if they gain the territories they took OTL, i.e. the DEI, Malaysia and Burma, even if nothing else, they gain virtually all resources they will need to maintain their war in China.  As well as cutting off aid to China via Burma.  There might be some problems with steel production according to some sources but then Japan managed to fight to Sep 45 anyway.

The war in Europe will still going to be won by the Soviets and British, it will be harder but that will not change, except that mainland Europe i will think will be a little more communist that OTL, and because the Germans never had that much of a surface fleet the British will send more of their big guns to the Pacific to fight the Japanese.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2017 21:10:40 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2017 21:04:37 GMT stevep said:

  They have to fight Britain anyway.  The Philippines wouldn't be a threat unless the US became hostile and had enough strength there to pose a serious prolonged threat to Japanese SLOC.  If they have refused to go to war to support the British and Dutch when the Japanese attack them many [not just in Japan] will view the US as a 'paper tiger' who are unwilling to commit their troops to a shooting war.  Also while the US is building up their forces in the Philippines they are at least 6 months from being in a position to withstand Japanese invasion and pose a prolonged threat to the Japanese supply lines.  Its very likely that by that time Britain could have been forced to make peace and also that the Japanese can strengthen the forces on their controlled territory that surrounds the islands.  Or if their insane enough, which is possible, they might having gained all their desired territories in the south and then attack the Philippines before the US build-up is complete.  [Which is likely to anger the US population but still poses a serious problem for the US.

  In terms of the embargo that is hurting and a major reason why Japan is expanding the war.  However if they gain the territories they took OTL, i.e. the DEI, Malaysia and Burma, even if nothing else, they gain virtually all resources they will need to maintain their war in China.  As well as cutting off aid to China via Burma.  There might be some problems with steel production according to some sources but then Japan managed to fight to Sep 45 anyway.

The war in Europe will still going to be won by the Soviets and British, it will be harder but that will not change, except that mainland Europe i will think will be a little more communist that OTL, and because the Germans never had that much of a surface fleet the British will send more of their big guns to the Pacific to fight the Japanese.

  What scenario exactly are you considering here?  If Britain has to fight for a period without American support then it would be weaker in most ways, while also American moblisation is likely to be delayed.  The Battle of the Atlantic goes on longer and if by the 1st sentence you mean the US takes no direct military part in the European conflict then its going to be very long and bloody.  Under those circumstances Britain will be sending less forces to the Pacific than OTL and probably only the minimum to maintain what they still hold in the Far East.  The Soviets will end up with much more of Europe but their costs will be a lot higher and might break them and its very unlikely there will be any Soviet attack on Japan in Manchuria.  [Which might be seen as a good thing in the longer run by the west but not at the time.

  I agree that, presuming L-L continues, Britain [and allies] and Russia are likely to defeat the European Axis but its far from certain, even with Hitler's [mis-]leadership of the latter.  At the very least both will be markedly more exhausted by the resulting conflict.  Britain will be able to probably clear N Africa and then later invade Italy but doubt it could invade N France on its own.  According to some sources the Soviets were running out of manpower by the last ~18 months of the war and relied heavily on mass conscription of troops from the areas they liberated.  Slow down the Soviet advance and increase their losses and something might break down here.  At the very least you have a much greater chance of Stalin looking for a separate peace with the Nazis.

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2017 21:23:55 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2017 21:10:40 GMT lordroel said:

The war in Europe will still going to be won by the Soviets and British, it will be harder but that will not change, except that mainland Europe i will think will be a little more communist that OTL, and because the Germans never had that much of a surface fleet the British will send more of their big guns to the Pacific to fight the Japanese.

  What scenario exactly are you considering here?  If Britain has to fight for a period without American support then it would be weaker in most ways, while also American moblisation is likely to be delayed.  The Battle of the Atlantic goes on longer and if by the 1st sentence you mean the US takes no direct military part in the European conflict then its going to be very long and bloody.  Under those circumstances Britain will be sending less forces to the Pacific than OTL and probably only the minimum to maintain what they still hold in the Far East.  The Soviets will end up with much more of Europe but their costs will be a lot higher and might break them and its very unlikely there will be any Soviet attack on Japan in Manchuria.  [Which might be seen as a good thing in the longer run by the west but not at the time.

  I agree that, presuming L-L continues, Britain [and allies] and Russia are likely to defeat the European Axis but its far from certain, even with Hitler's [mis-]leadership of the latter.  At the very least both will be markedly more exhausted by the resulting conflict.  Britain will be able to probably clear N Africa and then later invade Italy but doubt it could invade N France on its own.  According to some sources the Soviets were running out of manpower by the last ~18 months of the war and relied heavily on mass conscription of troops from the areas they liberated.  Slow down the Soviet advance and increase their losses and something might break down here.  At the very least you have a much greater chance of Stalin looking for a separate peace with the Nazis.

I still think that the United States will join the war in the Pacific even if their fleet is based out of San Diego, i found a good responds on Redit about it.

The U.S. was sending arms to the Chinese the Japanese were fighting since 1937. Roosevelt had ordered military build ups in the Pacific and the Philippines and had told the Japanese they would take steps against them if the Japanese invaded those areas. The U.S. was embargoing trade specifically oil and had frozen Japanese assets.

A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion

The U.S. thought it was going to war eventually. This would have been the immediate cause.

Then Japan had military coup which replaced the civilian one with a more militant one. The coup was in part because of the Army's rejection of an agreement with the U.S. to withdraw from already invaded territories. The new military government of Japan believed that the U.S. would attack them if they seized those resources and they had no reason not to think otherwise, they stage was set.

Believing the U.S. would intervene they needed to eliminate the U.S. forces in the Philippines which sat right along the trade route from the Indies. Leaving those forces meant that when the U.S. did declare war the enemy was sitting right along Japans most strategic trade route.Knowing that an attack on the U.S. in the Philippines would bring on retaliation from the U.S. in general they struck the U.S. Pacific Fleet peremptorily.

If Japan had skipped attacking the U.S. most likely the U.S. would have declared war on Japan, if not immediately then within several months, probably after beefing up the Philippines to the point it was invaluable. Although the pre-war U.S. plan was to abandon the Philippines the realities of war often change plans.

The resources would have had the same effect they did IRL, not enough, and cut off by unrestricted American submarine warfare. The addition of the American forces in the Philippines blocking those resources from day one would be even more detrimental to the Japanese economy. The Pacific Fleet would be intact. The Japanese would be forced to try and fight a U.S. fleet that was aware they were at war and prepared rather than surprised and with a few hours notice (the RL plan was to tell the U.S. just before the Pearl Harbor attack started but that got messed up). In all likelihood the Japanese would lose something in that battle. Losses which they were less likely to absorb and replace than the U.S.

Japan was in a bad situation in 1941. There were no good options just bad options and worse options. It made many decisions in the years before 1941 that lead to those options and it was too late to recover from them and maintain face. Maintaining face is a very important cultural element, and even more important to the reactionary military government that took power than the previous civilian ones that got them in the mess. There was no path in 1941 that didn't lead to war with the U.S. it was just a matter of how that war started and what the positions of the various players forces where when it did.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2017 21:27:55 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2017 21:23:55 GMT stevep said:

  What scenario exactly are you considering here?  If Britain has to fight for a period without American support then it would be weaker in most ways, while also American moblisation is likely to be delayed.  The Battle of the Atlantic goes on longer and if by the 1st sentence you mean the US takes no direct military part in the European conflict then its going to be very long and bloody.  Under those circumstances Britain will be sending less forces to the Pacific than OTL and probably only the minimum to maintain what they still hold in the Far East.  The Soviets will end up with much more of Europe but their costs will be a lot higher and might break them and its very unlikely there will be any Soviet attack on Japan in Manchuria.  [Which might be seen as a good thing in the longer run by the west but not at the time.

  I agree that, presuming L-L continues, Britain [and allies] and Russia are likely to defeat the European Axis but its far from certain, even with Hitler's [mis-]leadership of the latter.  At the very least both will be markedly more exhausted by the resulting conflict.  Britain will be able to probably clear N Africa and then later invade Italy but doubt it could invade N France on its own.  According to some sources the Soviets were running out of manpower by the last ~18 months of the war and relied heavily on mass conscription of troops from the areas they liberated.  Slow down the Soviet advance and increase their losses and something might break down here.  At the very least you have a much greater chance of Stalin looking for a separate peace with the Nazis.

I still think that the United States will join the war in the Pacific even if their fleet is based out of San Diego, i found a good responds on Redit about it.

The U.S. was sending arms to the Chinese the Japanese were fighting since 1937. Roosevelt had ordered military build ups in the Pacific and the Philippines and had told the Japanese they would take steps against them if the Japanese invaded those areas. The U.S. was embargoing trade specifically oil and had frozen Japanese assets.

A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion

The U.S. thought it was going to war eventually. This would have been the immediate cause.

Then Japan had military coup which replaced the civilian one with a more militant one. The coup was in part because of the Army's rejection of an agreement with the U.S. to withdraw from already invaded territories. The new military government of Japan believed that the U.S. would attack them if they seized those resources and they had no reason not to think otherwise, they stage was set.

Believing the U.S. would intervene they needed to eliminate the U.S. forces in the Philippines which sat right along the trade route from the Indies. Leaving those forces meant that when the U.S. did declare war the enemy was sitting right along Japans most strategic trade route.Knowing that an attack on the U.S. in the Philippines would bring on retaliation from the U.S. in general they struck the U.S. Pacific Fleet peremptorily.

If Japan had skipped attacking the U.S. most likely the U.S. would have declared war on Japan, if not immediately then within several months, probably after beefing up the Philippines to the point it was invaluable. Although the pre-war U.S. plan was to abandon the Philippines the realities of war often change plans.

The resources would have had the same effect they did IRL, not enough, and cut off by unrestricted American submarine warfare. The addition of the American forces in the Philippines blocking those resources from day one would be even more detrimental to the Japanese economy. The Pacific Fleet would be intact. The Japanese would be forced to try and fight a U.S. fleet that was aware they were at war and prepared rather than surprised and with a few hours notice (the RL plan was to tell the U.S. just before the Pearl Harbor attack started but that got messed up). In all likelihood the Japanese would lose something in that battle. Losses which they were less likely to absorb and replace than the U.S.

Japan was in a bad situation in 1941. There were no good options just bad options and worse options. It made many decisions in the years before 1941 that lead to those options and it was too late to recover from them and maintain face. Maintaining face is a very important cultural element, and even more important to the reactionary military government that took power than the previous civilian ones that got them in the mess. There was no path in 1941 that didn't lead to war with the U.S. it was just a matter of how that war started and what the positions of the various players forces where when it did.

  On this last point I do agree but I think we will have to differ otherwise.  The worst approach was the one Japan took OTL.  In terms of your suggestions I see them as falling into two categories,
a)  The US delays before joining the Pacific conflict. -  This will mean that Britain and other anti-Japanese forces are weaker and the Japanese have their fleet available to concentrate on the US.  If the US waits more than a couple of months it might find that Britain is forced to make peace with Japan.  Even once greatly strengthened the Philippines are still an isolated outpost and the USN is likely to suffer very badly if it tries to force a relief mission through, let alone maintain supply lines to it.  If the US decides that the Philippines are to be defended and the continued existence of the Pacific fleet might push them into that direction [although not on its own I suspect] then their likely to get a very serious defeat.

b)  The US declares war almost immediately.  This still leave the Philippines, Guam and possibly Wake indefensible.  The existence of the Pacific fleet won't prevent the fall of SE Asia unless they risk deploying large proportions of it to that region, where it will be without effective support and supply and it would be likely to draw much of the Japanese fleet to the region.  With bases in FIC and their gains in Malaya plus islands to the NE the Japanese can supply their forces far more easily.  They could well take losses but the US is likely to suffer far more.

  Either way without an attack on Pearl the US is less motivated for war to the end.  Also if it means that the US isn't or is significantly delayed in joining the European battle their going to get a lot less support and if fighting through to the bitter end with an invasion of Japan itself you might see it happening earlier than OTL but its going to be much more costly for the Americans.

[mcnutt]

Attacking the Philippines might still drag the United States into a war with Japan.

An attack on the Philipines will bring war with the US, not only is the Phillipines still US territory, but more importantly the Japanese would be attacking US bases with many dead Americans.