Before reading this and after reading this, I thought it made more sense, in terms of what the Japanese leadership was trying to accomplish, was to go after the Philippines but not do the Pearl Harbor attack. And to forgo surprise on the Philippines.
My argument here is based on the Japanese Navy being momentarily superior to the US Navy in 1941, even before Pearl Harbor. I realize this window would shut by the beginning at 1943 at the latest. But the point is that they didn't need to do something like Pearl Harbor to gain an edge, they already had one. They could defeat US forces if they tried to reinforce the Philippines, or if US forces didn't reinforce the Philippines then you just take the DEI and the Philippines and you are in the same situation as they were IOTL. With naval and air warfare, even a small superiority is enough for big effects, you just need to gain a small superiority. Land warfare works differently.
So why take the operational risk of the Pearl Harbor attack and really piss off the American population if you don't really need to? I wasn't thinking in terms of attacking the DEI only and not dealing with the Philippines, but this concept is compatible with doing that but planning to go to war with the USA and after the Philippines anyway within six months if the USA butts in, either with a DOW after the attack on the DEI or taking the aggressive measures commentators have outlined above. I think after taking the oil they still have a window of several months to take on the USA before the buildup gets overwhelming.
My argument here is based on the Japanese Navy being momentarily superior to the US Navy in 1941, even before Pearl Harbor. I realize this window would shut by the beginning at 1943 at the latest. But the point is that they didn't need to do something like Pearl Harbor to gain an edge, they already had one. They could defeat US forces if they tried to reinforce the Philippines, or if US forces didn't reinforce the Philippines then you just take the DEI and the Philippines and you are in the same situation as they were IOTL. With naval and air warfare, even a small superiority is enough for big effects, you just need to gain a small superiority. Land warfare works differently.
So why take the operational risk of the Pearl Harbor attack and really piss off the American population if you don't really need to? I wasn't thinking in terms of attacking the DEI only and not dealing with the Philippines, but this concept is compatible with doing that but planning to go to war with the USA and after the Philippines anyway within six months if the USA butts in, either with a DOW after the attack on the DEI or taking the aggressive measures commentators have outlined above. I think after taking the oil they still have a window of several months to take on the USA before the buildup gets overwhelming.