alternatehistory.com

Greetings I'm new here and my apologies for opening a topic that has been gone over multiple times.

The reason I'm asking this is that, while the topic has been broached multiple times, most of the responses focused on the Japanese side of the ledger: basically, it made little or no sense for Japan to leave PI untouched, especially given how their leaders perceived the world. Since Japanese attack on PI would have meant war with US, it made little sense then to leave PH unscathed.

What I wonder is a bit different: suppose Japan did not attack PH or PI on Dec 7/8, 1941. Instead, they commence attack on Malaya and DEI, while delivering a diplomatic note to the State Dept notifying that because of such and such bogus grievances, Japan is now at war with UK and Netherlands, but also reiterating their peaceful intentions vis-a-vis US and that they expect US would observe the int'l legal requirement of a neutral power.

At least in the short to medium term, this would place US policymakers in a pickle, I should think. Tens of thousands of personnel and up to a million tons of war material are waiting for transportation to the Philippines. While the Philippines would not be under attack just yet, the surrounding area would be a war zone. Philippines might still be attacked at any time, however, and the convoys of troops and war material are vital to bring up its defenses (notwithstanding the fact that, according to the Rainbow Plans, PI are effectively written off in case of war with Japan in favor of a more deliberate countermove across the Pacific.) Further, there had been talks with the British and Dutch political and military leaders in which US support in case of attack by Japan has been pledged--although not quite in "uncertain terms" (e.g. Roosevelt's response to Churchill at Placentia, where he merely pledged support even if it risked war with Japan, not that US would certainly go to war with Japan). While the Europe First strategy would have advised de-prioritizing US involvement in the Pacific, to do so while alienating Britain would make little sense. And of course, all these come before having to placate a US public where isolationism remains a force (even if its influence might have been exaggerated) in face of overt declaration by Japan that Japan intends to remain at peace with the U.S.

In the medium to long run, I don't doubt that some cause for conflict would emerge and US will enter the war against Japan somehow. The real question for me is how that might come about, how long that might take, how such delay might affect the course of the war compared to OTL, and what kind of consequences might follow (predominantly focusing on US domestic politics and postwar world events, including the effect on the Cold War as I suspect that this might affect US involvement on the world stage after the war.) from US entry into the war in absence of a direct attack on US, depending on the particulars of how that might have come about (and the consequent changes in course of the war).

Thanks in advance!
Top