What if Japan avoided attacking Pearl Harbour?

What if Admiral Yamamoto decided to avoid attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, but instead only attacked the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and Hong Kong?
 
What if Admiral Yamamoto decided to avoid attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, but instead only attacked the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and Hong Kong?
What if the Japanese had bypassed the Philippines? How likely would the US have been to come to the defence of the European colonial empires in Asia/Pacific? Obviously not attacking the Philippines would have been a major strategic risk, but in view of how the war unfolded probably one worth taking.
 
War with the US, plus an intact Pacific Fleet. Not a good deal.
But would Roosevelt have managed to get Congress and the public to support a war with Japan, on the basis that they are defending imperialism and colonialism. I hardly think a rallying cry of "Save the dutch and english colonies" would have the same effect as "Remember Pearl Harbor". I highly doubt it. Even if the US had declared war it would be a USA "woken from its slumber" and full of a terrible rage, they would instead fight the war halfheartedly. If the Japanese manage to score a few early victories, public opinion would turn massively against the war and isolationists would be screaming why are we defending colonialism, and in short order a peace would have been sought with Japan.
 

Deleted member 94680

This crops up fairly regularly. The Japanese can't afford to leave the American possessions alone, they need to secure their "flanks" as they push into East Asia.

There's a difference in going to war to defend European colonialism and going to war to stop untamed Japanese aggression.
 
But would Roosevelt have managed to get Congress and the public to support a war with Japan, on the basis that they are defending imperialism and colonialism. I hardly think a rallying cry of "Save the dutch and english colonies" would have the same effect as "Remember Pearl Harbor". I highly doubt it. Even if the US had declared war it would be a USA "woken from its slumber" and full of a terrible rage, they would instead fight the war halfheartedly. If the Japanese manage to score a few early victories, public opinion would turn massively against the war and isolationists would be screaming why are we defending colonialism, and in short order a peace would have been sought with Japan.

The thing is, if they're attacking the Philippines, and the campaign goes roughly along the lines of OTL, it's not just about imperialism and colonialism, pretty soon it'll be about dead American boys on Bataan.
 

Pangur

Donor
This crops up fairly regularly. The Japanese can't afford to leave the American possessions alone, they need to secure their "flanks" as they push into East Asia.

There's a difference in going to war to defend European colonialism and going to war to stop untamed Japanese aggression.
The oil embargo was certainly in place way before Pearl Harbour which was indeed posed as being to stop Japanese agression.
 
The thing is, if they're attacking the Philippines, and the campaign goes roughly along the lines of OTL, it's not just about imperialism and colonialism, pretty soon it'll be about dead American boys on Bataan.
Good point, but it wouldn't make sense for the Japanese to go ahead with the Philippines without Pearl Harbor. It would be much more realistic if Japan avoids Pearl Harbor and just goes ahead with Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia.
 

Deleted member 94680

Good point, but it wouldn't make sense for the Japanese to go ahead with the Philippines without Pearl Harbor. It would be much more realistic if Japan avoids Pearl Harbor and just goes ahead with Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia.

But that's not realistic in itself, the Japanese knew they were going to be fighting the Americans sooner or later. They chose to do it sooner, in the hope they could knock the Americans out on their terms.
 
But that's not realistic in itself, the Japanese knew they were going to be fighting the Americans sooner or later. They chose to do it sooner, in the hope they could knock the Americans out on their terms.
My bad, I worded that badly. I meant that if Japan chose not to Pearl Harbor, it would be more realistic for them to just go after the British and Dutch colonies, avoiding the Philippines.
 
My bad, I worded that badly. I meant that if Japan chose not to Pearl Harbor, it would be more realistic for them to just go after the British and Dutch colonies, avoiding the Philippines.

But that still leaves US territory right across their supply lines.

The Japanese assumed they would have to go to war with the US at *some* point. The entire idea behind the simultaneous strike at Pearl Harbor, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies was to gain as much advantage before the US could ramp up mobilisation.

The thinking was that to leave the US in their rear would just give America time to strengthen the Philippines, which would mean a hostile power with the ability to directly supply China, an interest in foiling Japanese access to East Indies oil, and presumably a massively ramped up military presence.
 

Pangur

Donor
But that still leaves US territory right across their supply lines.

The Japanese assumed they would have to go to war with the US at *some* point. The entire idea behind the simultaneous strike at Pearl Harbor, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies was to gain as much advantage before the US could ramp up mobilisation.

The thinking was that to leave the US in their rear would just give America time to strengthen the Philippines, which would mean a hostile power with the ability to directly supply China, an interest in foiling Japanese access to East Indies oil, and presumably a massively ramped up military presence.
There in the reason that Japan did what it did, it was not willing to take the risk of the US choking said supply lines
 
But would Roosevelt have managed to get Congress and the public to support a war with Japan, on the basis that they are defending imperialism and colonialism. I hardly think a rallying cry of "Save the dutch and english colonies" would have the same effect as "Remember Pearl Harbor". I highly doubt it. Even if the US had declared war it would be a USA "woken from its slumber" and full of a terrible rage, they would instead fight the war halfheartedly. If the Japanese manage to score a few early victories, public opinion would turn massively against the war and isolationists would be screaming why are we defending colonialism, and in short order a peace would have been sought with Japan.

Rubbish.

Gallup poll March 14th 1941.

Do you think the United States should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?

Yes................................40%

No................................ 39

No opinion.........................21

------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, April 7th 1941 [on the European theatre]

Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

Keep out........................... 33%

Help England.......................67%

---------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, April 28th 1941 [at this time 11% of US felt Germany & Italy would win the war, vs 57% who felt UK would defeat both alone]

If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

Yes................................ 68%

No................................ 24

No opinion......................... 8

---------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, September 7th 1941

Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?

Yes................................ 70%

No................................ 18

No opinion......................... 12

---------------------------------------------
 
Rubbish.

Gallup poll March 14th 1941.

Do you think the United States should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?

Yes................................40%

No................................ 39

No opinion.........................21

------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, April 7th 1941 [on the European theatre]

Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

Keep out........................... 33%

Help England.......................67%

---------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, April 28th 1941 [at this time 11% of US felt Germany & Italy would win the war, vs 57% who felt UK would defeat both alone]

If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

Yes................................ 68%

No................................ 24

No opinion......................... 8

---------------------------------------------

Gallup poll, September 7th 1941

Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?

Yes................................ 70%

No................................ 18

No opinion......................... 12

---------------------------------------------
Regardless, if the US goes to war to save the colonies of Britain and the Dutch, the war would only go on if the US win victories and continue to do so. However, as I said earlier if the Japanese win a few victories early on, I hardly think that the US would have the resolve to continue the war to "Save the colonies" like "Remember Pearl Harbor" did.
 

Deleted member 94680

Regardless, if the US goes to war to save the colonies of Britain and the Dutch, the war would only go on if the US win victories and continue to do so. However, as I said earlier if the Japanese win a few victories early on, I hardly think that the US would have the resolve to continue the war to "Save the colonies" like "Remember Pearl Harbor" did.

Using harsh words and feather pillows?

Those "few victories early on" would be "a few American defeats early on", involving American dead and ships/bases/prestige lost. There might well be no "Remember Pearl Harbour" but there would be "Remember Bataan" or "Remember the Trenton" or any number of other evocations. As a Great Power, the Americans could not afford to humbly kowtow to the Japanese if there were a few early defeats - anything short of a Decisive Battle comprehensively in favour of the Japanese would mean the War would continue. Your assertation is self-defeating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless, if the US goes to war to save the colonies of Britain and the Dutch, the war would only go on if the US win victories and continue to do so. However, as I said earlier if the Japanese win a few victories early on, I hardly think that the US would have the resolve to continue the war to "Save the colonies" like "Remember Pearl Harbor" did.

Hmmm. Your original position was "they wouldn't want to go to war to defend colonies of other powers". I showed you that the opposite was true, and you now say "well if they lose a few battles they'll change their mind and decide to give up"

Lemme guess - this is because America is decadent and lacks martial vigour? Insufficient Bushido spirit? A few Banzai charges and they'll crawl back to their jazz and their motion pictures.

Once countries are in wars, particularly democracies, they don't just take a quick beating and go "Oh well, maybe we're wrong".

Once the US is in, it's in for the long haul. A few thousand dead American boys on the Pacific Ocean floor or being tortured in the Philippines and it's on to the finish.

Nobody will even mention the straw that broke the camels back of the DEI or Singapore. How many British troops in the trenches of WWI were screaming "remember boys, we're fighting to defend Belgium's right deny transit to the Kaiser's army!" as the chlorine gas wafted over no mans land? Mothers burying their children comforting themselves that their little Tommy died showing the Hun that Belgian neutrality was inviolable?

Nobody - the war became about Prussian aggression from 1870 onward.
 
Regardless, if the US goes to war to save the colonies of Britain and the Dutch, the war would only go on if the US win victories and continue to do so. However, as I said earlier if the Japanese win a few victories early on, I hardly think that the US would have the resolve to continue the war to "Save the colonies" like "Remember Pearl Harbor" did.

This is the same reasoning a number of Japanese commanders had, though. It didn't work out well.

And remember the Philippines weren't just a colony- they were the US attempting to show the Imperialist powers how imperialism could genuinely be used to set up a nation. Leaving the people your own narrative says you're uplifting our to dry isn't going to be palatable.
 
What if Admiral Yamamoto decided to avoid attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, but instead only attacked the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and Hong Kong?

The ships sunk at Pearl Harbour would with the benefit of hindsight not have been that useful for the US until it had more carriers and a support system capable of sustaining a campaign to retake a route to the Phillipines. At least that is if the US were to focus on a Pacific route.

The problem with the US battleships was that they were slow and lacking in AA protection, a serious problem when they faced a Japanese fleet with superior speed, a powerful carrier force and a fearsome new torpedo. Had some of the aircraft and ships lost at Pearl Harbour been used to support the DEI they might well have posed a serious threat (on paper at least), Yamamoto might well have been worried by this risk.

The Phillipines however had to be attacked, and that meant bringing the US into the war. In which case sinking as much of its fleet as quickly as possible makes some sense. That said it was probably the only optional part of the initial attacks by the Japanese, the rest of their early targets were critical and if there been a stronger British presence in Malaya I imagine that Pearl Harbour would not have been attacked in order to support the landings in Malaya.

For what its worth on the question of could Japan leave the US out of the war? I think they could have tried but ultiamately would have committed enough war crimes to upset the US populace and eventually done something to trigger hostilities. At this point the newly conquered Japanese territory would find its supply lines compromised by a much stronger Philippines and pay dearly for the delay in attacking it. Hence Japanese planners knew that to go for the British and Dutch meant the US was very likely to join the war soon after, in which case the Japanese fleet had to take advantage of what was quite a narrow window of time before the US started seeing large numbers of new ships completed.
 
Hmmm. Your original position was "they wouldn't want to go to war to defend colonies of other powers". I showed you that the opposite was true, and you now say "well if they lose a few battles they'll change their mind and decide to give up"

Lemme guess - this is because America is decadent and lacks martial vigour? Insufficient Bushido spirit? A few Banzai charges and they'll crawl back to their jazz and their motion pictures.

Once countries are in wars, particularly democracies, they don't just take a quick beating and go "Oh well, maybe we're wrong".

Once the US is in, it's in for the long haul. A few thousand dead American boys on the Pacific Ocean floor or being tortured in the Philippines and it's on to the finish.

Nobody will even mention the straw that broke the camels back of the DEI or Singapore. How many British troops in the trenches of WWI were screaming "remember boys, we're fighting to defend Belgium's right deny transit to the Kaiser's army!" as the chlorine gas wafted over no mans land? Mothers burying their children comforting themselves that their little Tommy died showing the Hun that Belgian neutrality was inviolable?

Nobody - the war became about Prussian aggression from 1870 onward.
Still, isolationism was a major force even in 1941 America, while the American people would agree with sending support and lend lease to the Allies, Roosevelt did not have the majority support to directly intervene in WW2, pearl harbor provided the cb for that. If the Americans intervene due to a Japanese invasion of the colonies, and lose early battles to the Japanese, I think that the isolationists would be heavily questioning why we Americans are throwing away American lives for imperialism, possibly forcing Roosevelt to seek a settlement. Of course, public opinion could be swayed due to the humanitarian crimes, but the isolationists still need to be overcome.

And addressing your first point, I did say in my first reply that they may not want to defend the colonies, but I also said that the isolationists could force Roosevelt to seek a peace if the Americans lose early on.
 
Top