Assuming intelligence puts together Japan's plans by early November 41 and competent leadership could Japan have been beaten there?
Assuming intelligence puts together Japan's plans by early November 41 and competent leadership could Japan have been beaten there?
Not indefinitely.
If you hold to the historic timeline into late 1941, you would still need to change two plausible actions - that should have occured - and the garrison likely holds for much longer, which would have had useful knockons throughout the theater.
1. Move more supplies to Bataan as called for by Plan Orange. That maybe gets the US & Philippine forces another couple of months
2. Get the USAAF off the ground. It's hindsight to be sure, but getting the B-17's to attack Japanese bases on Formosa, would have been more useful than their being shot up on the ground at Clark Field and other airfields on Luzon
To get a longer fight, probably requires a much earlier change of conditions from history.
Indeed.The Japanese could not have been beaten with such a late departure. However, the Americans and Filipinos could have held out much longer and cause the Japanese many more casualties.
If Mac had concentrated his forces to defend Luzon, but make separate commands to prepare for guerrilla defense on the rest of the islands, prepare Bataan for ammunition, food, and medical supplies, then the Japanese timeline would have been severely disrupted. I don't know how long the US could have listed, but holding out another 4-6 months is possible.
Assuming intelligence puts together Japan's plans by early November 41 and competent leadership could Japan have been beaten there?
Beaten? No...
As it was, the US and Filipino forces held out on Bataan until April and Corregidor until May, which totals five months after the war began; considering the absoulute air and sea supremacy the Japanese enjoyed from late December, it is pretty remarkable. Having said that, once US air and sea power in the PI was destroyed or driven out, the bravery of the ground forces really didn't slow the Japanese offensives down markedly; there's a reason the IJA 48th Division could be withdrawn for the Java campaign.
Although MacArthur's plans for a defense on the beaches and the loss of supplies that could have and should have been moved to Bataan and the harbor island fortifications before the end would have been rational, there is a limit on what can be expected of men in battle - and as significant as Manila Bay is, denying it to the Japanese was not going to win the war.
At some point, one gets to the self-policed prisoner of war camp, akin to the Dardanelles or Salonika in WW I.
With all due credit to the gallantry of the defenders, there's a reasonable case to be made that the men and material deployed into the PI in 1940-41 would have been better used in Hawaii; the AUS units, especially the AAF units and the coast and AA artillery that were deployed to the PI between October, 1940 and December, 1941, would have been especially useful for the defense of Hawaii; same for the fleet boats and submarine tenders, and the Naval Aviation units.
Best,
Your scenario butterflies US-Japanese war. Or if there is still one would change the timeframe US enters the war. If you withdraw U.S. Troops and assets before the war starts, the Philippines would just declare itself a neutral state and would do everything in its diplomatic power with a Japanese relationship rekindle since 1898. Having said that, There is no need for the japanese to Do Pearl harbor or invade the Philippines.
The scenario would probably be good for the Jews in Europe, since Quezon would have more time to save more Jews from Europe and Philippines would have a significant Jewish population by present day ATL.
Neutrality didn't do much for the Thais, as far as the Japanese were concerned.
See:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/005/5-2-1/CMH_Pub_5-2-1.pdf
Best,