DBWI: WI the Philippines hadn't been held in WW2?

I was looking at a research site recently, and I learned that at one point shortly after the attempted Japanese invasion of the Philippines, leaders in Washington were very hesitant at sending resupply to the Bataan Peninsula for various reasons. Eventually they did and the Pacific Fleet broke through the attempted Japanese blockade, but the first encounter with the Japanese showed that they weren't little yellow men to be ignorred.

So what if the Philippines hadn't been held? What kind of POD would be needed?
 
Personally I take the long view - if George Washington had not founded that city named after himself in the Malacca straits the Dominion of British East Asia would not have been capable, or determined enough, to resist the Japanese assault.:p
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You'd need something outlandish like a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor that sank all the battle ships or something like that. Of course, how would the Japanese manage that with the shallow water in the harbor and all the Air Corps interceptors that were there?

No, there's no way that the Japanese could have avoided the Battle of the Philippine Sea in March of '42. Now, if they had gone after the CARRIER force instead of the Battleship formations during the battle, who knows what would have happened. As was, when the our airstrikes from Lexington and Saratoga , along with all the B-17's out of Clark caught the Kino Butai as it was recovering planes, just after finally driving off the earlier strikes from Enterprise & Hornet that had gotten the Japanese CAP so low on fuel & ammo, the Japanese lost the war. Nagumo has to be the worst Admiral of the war, letting himself get caught between carriers and land based B-17's, especially considering the fact that the Flying Forts had already sank three Japanese carriers during the original invasion (I know they were light carriers, but still...). The loss of the California, Nevada and Yorktown, along with the Callahan's cruiser TF (how did the Japanese mistake five CRUISERS for the main battle fleet?) was well worth wiping out all the IJN fleet carriers, along with the Yamato (what a job by the S-23), Hiei and Kongo.

A better question is if the American and Philippine Army would have managed to hold out as well as they did if McArthur hadn't gotten killed in December 9th. Wainwright was nothing short of brillant in his defense of the Islands.
 
Didn't MacArthur insist going so close to the front after his wife was killed by a bomb from the initial assault wave, and his son injured? That might be a change right there.


But someone remind me. What exactly made the Japanese decide that a Philippine invasion wouldn't lead to a reaction by the US? True, the occasional "accidental" bombings of US ships in China hadn't stirred up so much reaction in the pre-war years, but still. Dodgy "accidents" are one thing; an invasion of an island with thousands of American servicemen is another.
 
The big change would be in Europe. Just look at what the Marines did on D-Day. There is no way the reguar army could do that.
 
The big change would be in Europe. Just look at what the Marines did on D-Day. There is no way the regular army could do that.

What a Leatherneck lover. :rolleyes:

The marines were given the duty to secure the beach head in northern Europe because the regular Army was already busy with the Mediterranean and Pacific occupation, having born nearly the entire brunt of the Pacific War minus two of the Home Island beach heads. Having been virtually ignored in the Pacific theater as the US Army deployed from the Philippines to China and the various important islands that Japan was contesting in order to blockade Japan, the decision to give Northern Europe to the marines was a Pentagon political decision to give the marines a reason to exist.

(ooc: A frequently overlooked fact is that the Army carried out as many/more major landing operations than the marines in the Pacific.)
 
Top