Back after an involuntary absence.
Nothing serious, I hope.
I'm up in the air as to whether the first invasion of Malaya actually succeeds or not
I can definitely see it being abortive. If there's anything like real resistance at the beach, it would make the Japanese pull back & try again, & any interference with the transports while landing could produce a genuine debacle.
IJN can control the surface of the China Sea, but they weren't very good at ASW even in 1945.
To crib from Nimitz: delete everything after ASW.

Or as Chihaya, IIRC, put it: IJN introduced a dedicated ASW command, & the U.S. responded by increasing their sinkings.

in the PTO will almost certainly be over before August 1945
IMO to go anything like so long needs a miracle.
so no A-bombs on Japan. I don't see any reason the PoD or direct consequences would speed up the Manhattan project
Without the U.S., the notional Anglo-French project might accelerate. Would they finish in time? I doubt it. As for why:
Add in the Pacific war starting two years early and keeping it running until late 1944 is non-trivial.
OK, I'm drawing a distinction between war in CBI & war in the Pacific (Ocean). With good torpedoes, intel, & access the Luzon/Formosa Strait, the Pacific war lasting more than 18mo from start date requires a miracle. (BTW, I'm not just pulling that number out of a hat. That's based on OTL USN experience & the sinkings tabulated in Blair's
Silent Victory.)
War in CBI, as noted, could go into 1944, perhaps; IDK enough about it.
If Germany is still in the fight come August 1945, they are extremely likely to get nuked. AFAIK, there was no person who was BOTH a key player in the action/decision tree that led to the bombs being used AND had any reservations about using them.
There was, tho, fairly strong pressue by Groves
to use it, to get the bombers in place to pressure the scientists to stop testing & release for use. I don't see that TTL. Also, Groves was, as I understand it, a real mastermind in getting the project finished at all. Without him, it might not be 8/45, but 8/50 for the Wallies, & later still for SU.
That said, if the Bomb is done, I expect Germany to be lit like a Christmas tree.


Most of the project scientists were Jewish with
no qualms about using it on Germany.
That does make the *Marshall Plan more difficult: radioative parking lots take a lot of rebuilding...
As an example, the USN is going to have time to boost its AA protection before the shooting starts. Just knowing the IJN has carrier-borne monoplanes and that they're a serious threat to capital ships at sea puts the USN on the right path two years earlier than OTL.
Unfortunately, you're presuming USN pays attention & changes weaps & doctrine. Absent actual combat experience, as I said upthread, I'm dubious.
Does the war in the ETO last longer than OTL? I don't know. I've been playing with both "Germany does better" and "Germany does worse" variants, and neither one is really telling me "I'm the most probable and/or more interesting one" yet. The Scandinavian variation is appealing, but admittedly is much more story-driven than probability-driven.
As a default, I'd say better, if only for diverted resources. OTOH, & to repeat a refrain you're probably tired of by now,

there's no reason at all the Wallies have to follow their OTL strategies in the bombing campaign. With more demand, & so IMO less tolerance for losses, I don't expect Bomber Command to be allowed to throw away a/c & crews.
If the Allies are down to mopping-up actions in the ETO then InstaSun is less likely.
As noted, IMO you could crash the German economy in a matter of months.
Quite possibly. It partly depends on what happens in the naval battle and what forces are involved. OTL even Pearl wasn't necessarily seen as being a decisive supplanting of the capital ship by the carrier as most of the ships sunk were elderly and caught at anchor. The loss of Force Z was the 1st sinking of a modern capital ship solely by air power and it could be said the Japanese were lucky there with a critical early hit on the PoW. As such, while there might be a shift towards more carriers I can't see the US stopping their battleship programme rapidly.
There's also a simple issue of lack of materials. Are the same number of Libertys being built? Are merchant losses in the Atlantic as high? (I'd suggest "no" is at least a credible answer, with more VLRs available, thx to PTO demand.) If "yes", construction of BBs & CVs (not CVEs/CVLs) may need to be reduced. OTOH, with fewer 'phib ops in train from U.S. ops in PTO (tho this is a fine issue of timing), there's less demand. Add more VLRs (B-24s or Stirlings), you naturally reduce merchant losses & so steel demand. Decisions, decisions...
I think its likely that a negotiated agreement would occur, although it would mean big losses for Japan. Definitely out of mainland China and quite possibly Taiwan and Manchuria depending on the circumstances.
I find that entirely credible.
Possibly if the Philippines still fall and another Bataan death march perhaps.
TTL, I could see IJA expecting to face more men in P.I. & so being better prepared for large numbers of POWs (which I understand is the root of the Death March: they didn't expect so many

). As to whether there would still be Japanese brutality, I expect so; without the "treachery" of attacking Pearl, I don't see there being quite so much vengeful U.S. response. Not to say it
can't happen...
...I doubt they will upgrade all the old ships as some are pretty ancient by now.
With Japan being more aggressive TTL, what do you suppose the chances are of the Asiatic Fleet getting some/all of the BBs that OTL were at Pearl?

(See
Arizona sunk on Day One just the same?

Some ships just can't get a break.


)
Also the heavier losses in France, for the Luftwaffe at least could be more than negated by the lack of any BoB.
Did I miss something? I don't recall anything that would eliminate the BoB. I find it pretty unlikely to be butterflied. (I could, perhaps, be persuaded.

)
...greatly improved food supply situation compared to OTL, as rice exports from Bengal and Burma don't get disrupted.
This is a good thing locally. It also has quite important impacts on British merchant shipping generally. The (1944?) famine was a product of a halt in shipping of food thanks to a shipping crisis, itself a product of
Paukenschlag (Thunderbolt).
If India is more secure and is politically more peaceful and satisfied during the war, might we see some production or war industry locate there? The labor would be available...
May I suggest a/c & MTB production, beyond the rifles? How many carpenters were there in India in 1939?


More than the population of Canada, I'd guess.

So building *Mossies, perhaps Hurrys, & MTB/MGBs would be pretty easy. Engines from Oz, NZ, & Canada... And South Africa? Guns ditto, plus from India.
Borrowing from [url="https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=170058&page=1"another thread[/url] (where I also suggested it

), do you see riverine ops in CBI?