But by these late PODs (which, note, achieve "no Pacific War" by first achieving Allied victory in Europe!) the Japanese would have been engaged in a long, deep, hard war on the Chinese for the better part of a decade already. The chief reason the Japanese attacked the various Western colonial territories in the first place in 1941 was to get resources for that war. So Japanese "flinching" in this case does not just mean refraining from their deliriously successful grand adventure (which would not go so well even in the first flush of surprise here, and come to a halt sooner followed by collapse, so yes, they would hold off that) but accepting defeat by attrition on the mainland, where by most conventional metrics they held the upper hand.
I think there would still be actual war of some kind between some Western power or other and Japan, because of the China situation. The Japanese cannot just shrug and pull their armies out of China--they are committed to trying to somehow or other make the China venture pay, and I think there were key conquests (notably in Manchuria, for instance) that were producing key outputs without which Japan's economy would collapse completely. And of course withdrawing from China would expose Korea as well.
I guess it wouldn't be called a "Pacific War" or look much like OTL's situation, if the Soviets are the ones who move in on the Japanese forces in China. The European powers are hardly in a position to stop the Soviets from doing whatever they like there.
To be sure, the USSR would not have had the experience of the "Great Patriotic War" to forge the Red Army into the cohesive steamroller it was by 1945 OTL--by that same token though, the Soviet Union would not have been devastated by Hitler's invasion either. With Nazi power collapsed on their west, the Soviets still have to watch out for Western intervention coming from that direction--assuming that 1939 went much as OTL, Stalin has that awkward power grab in Poland and the Baltics the Western Allies might want to address-does he back down, at least in the matter of withdrawing from eastern Poland if not the Baltics? Or risk the British and French resuming war, turning their defeated German foes into allies in a noble crusade to liberate the "East" (where "East" is creatively vague--Allies can declare victory if they just liberate east Poland, but to get the momentum going against the Soviet colossus politics doubtless recruits people with far deeper ambitions)?
Then, I can see a Western/German attack on Soviet occupied East Poland going well there, but bogging down on one side or other of the former international border--and in these circumstances meanwhile, the Germans having been defeated in far less detail than OTL, neo-Naziism could perhaps make a comeback and the Anglo-French faced with the ugly choices of finishing what they started with the Nazis as allies (something their recently liberated Polish allies probably won't be able to stand!) versus pulling out (leaving the Poles to negotiate their freedom with the Germans as best they could) or even having to call for a truce with Stalin on terms favorable to him in order to turn around again and defeat the Nazis a second time...
Assuming the West doesn't disintegrate in such an unseemly but all too likely fashion like that and persists in fighting Stalin--assuming Stalin had not himself backed down nor had the two sides arrived at some acceptable balance of power without war--now the Soviets might possibly offer alliance to the Japanese! The Russians have resources to trade (in the same fashion Stalin traded with Hitler during the Pact period OTL) which can keep Japan in the fight in China.
In any scenario involving a quick Allied victory in Europe, whether a negotiated truce with a post-Hitler coup regime in Germany or German defeat on the battlefield, both Eastern Europe and East Asia remain unstable messes, with the Soviet Union still in play. It seems possible that the global war in both theaters might still heat up before 1945, or a settlement in Europe (hard to achieve, with Stalin having grabbed eastern Poland and the Baltics and having fought the Winter War against Finland) leads to European and Soviet intervention on one side or the other in China--a "Pacific War" of one kind or another is still in the cards.
All this talk pretty much assumes the Chinese war itself doesn't "count" as a Pacific War in being--that we are only concerned with Europeans and Americans being involved, it apparently doesn't matter how hard and long the Chinese are fighting! If we count the Chinese, the "Pacific War" started OTL in the early 1930s!
I rather thought the OP intention in asking the question was focused on avoiding that, not just the escalation of the Europeans into the mix. I figured the idea was, what if WWII in Europe and not at all in East Asia!
Which is tough, as it involves the Japanese being satisfied with just holding on to Korea and Taiwan and presumably their incrementally achieved coastal concessions in China (alongside European ones) and evolve their Empire peacefully from there. That would have been economically very restrictive for Japan, it isn't clear they had a peaceful path to follow.
If they somehow found one, the alliance between Britain and Japan might hold; from the British point of view Japan might evolve toward a de facto part of the Commonwealth/Stirling sphere. Perhaps during the period Hitler and Stalin were allied, the Japanese would be encouraged by Britain to seek opportunities at Soviet expense, and when the Russians hit back hard the British might assist Japan to at least hold on to what they had before? But the front line in that clash OTL was in Manchuria which presumably the Japanese have not taken as a protectorate here--though perhaps part of the "peaceful path" is increased penetration of China by Japanese business concessions, and we have an alliance of Chiang Kai-Shek and Japan against Communists, both Chinese and Soviet, with British backing. That would turn pretty awkward if the Soviets are later attacked by Hitler and Churchill or whoever is the British PM is suddenly praising the Russians as stout allies! Either the Sino-Japanese or the Russians get screwed in the hasty urging by the British that they settle their differences in Asia the better for the Soviets to fight off the Germans--it would be easy for both sides to come out feeling betrayed by British treachery!

All too likely, with Japan and China and East Asia generally being at peace with each other and so far from the European action, it would be the Asians the British urge to accept losses the better to keep Stalin happy and fighting.
So even then there might wind up being trouble brewing between the Asian powers and European ones. Probably not escalating to an all-out war though.
It's also unclear how US attitudes would have evolved toward Japan had the Japanese avoided extensive militarism in the 1930s. I believe the USN was regarding Japan as the obvious next enemy in the Pacific long before 1930, going back at least as far as the settlement of WWI, and no amount of Japanese pacifism in that interim would have turned Naval fears in any other direction--Japan remaining the only plausible
potential threat, unless the Soviets were building up a credible Pacific fleet. (Or the American admirals and generals, desperate for someone to fear and possibly fight, drummed up suspicion of the British or French!)
So at least that's one variable less--Japan would be the one Americans wanted to fight, no matter how little provocation they offered. That makes a Japanese peaceful road that much harder for them to find and travel of course!
I generally figure big wars and other massive events known to OTL have deep underlying causes and can't be expected to be totally diverted in ATLs--merely to have their exact timing and lineup of winners and losers somewhat shifted around.
That sure looks like the case here. The world had a lot of tensions to work out in the 20th century and a couple big world wars just seem to have been in the cards.