Not Trying to resurect a rather old thread (few months old not an ancient anyway yet
), but last week end when doing some house cleaning, found an old article clipping (from Newsweek if i'm not mistaken) commemorative 50 years of end WW2 (that's 1995 article so that's really ancient)..
Anyway the articles put some issues on difficulties by Rossevelt to commit US in WW 2, due to reluctance on some part of US populations on commiting US troops on what they see as european issues.
Infact that relluctancies also included the unwillingness to involved in Asia in case that Japanese attacking European collonies in Asia.
Don't put too much weight in contemporary public opinion. The threat posed by a Japan with secure resource flows, increased industrial capability and no European naval forces to act as a counterweight in Asia would have become obvious to Joe blow on the street and congressman alike. The competition in Asia was primarily between the US and Japan, a massive escalation of the Chinese conflict to include attacks on US partners would have been impossible to ignore militarily, even if a few in congress would have scored isolationist political points. Remember the Bush administration escalated the Iraq war in the face of massive public disapproval.
These conflicts are driven by forces that transcend partisan politics.
That idea on not involve with other people collonies makes me wonder, is there reasonable ground for that point of view ??
Will US standing by if Japanese decided not to attack Pearl Harbour, by passing Philipines, and directly goes to Malaya and Dutch East Indies ??
Will US fight for British & Dutch collonies ??
And foremost, will Rossevelt be able to bring US invovement on WW 2 if no Pearl Harbour attack ? Will US public feel that outrage and have that overwhelmingly support for US Involvement ?? Will the mighthy US war machines will be turn up full scale on supporting the British, Russia and what's left of free allies ??
We know that by 1941 the US involvement in supporting the British and Russia are already quite significant that many believe it's just matter of time and findding the right excusse.
The excusse came with Pearl Harbour and Hitler decelerations of war in supporting the Japan war effort (which the Japanese did not returned full by not declaring war with Russia).
Just wandering what it willl be turned out, if somehow Japanese and Nazi able to skip US involvement for say another year (until end 1942). What if the US war machines will join late in war procurement and producing capabilities for another year.
Will German cement their hold in European continent, North Africa, and pacified Russia ??
Will Japan still want to atack US if they manage to hold South East Asia outside Philipines ??
I though it's just intriguing scenarios
First let me address your scenario and why i think it is not a realistic possibility.
1) An operation against Singapore, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would not have been feasible with the US Pacific Battle Fleet intact and based out of Manila. Amphibious operations are precarious things, and at any time during the operation even a partial commitment of US naval forces would have spelled disaster for the Japanese. Their lines of communication ran straight past US territory in the Philippines. Unless they could be 100% sure the Americans would not intervene, or allow Commonwealth forces to utilize US territory the operation was simply not feasible. Considering the antagonistic position the Americans had taken with the Japanese and their close relationship with the UK, neutrality was
extremely unlikely. The destruction of the US battle fleet and the fall of Manila were pre-requisites for the successful occupation of Singapore and the Dutch East Indies.
2) Japanese possession of Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies and the defeat of friendly naval powers would have significantly shifted the pacific balance of power in Japans favor, giving her the resources to become the dominant naval power in the Pacific. That outcome was and is totally
unacceptable to Washington, simply because its fundamental security position would be significantly eroded. It would be like the French standing by and doing nothing while the various German states to coalesce into a single German entity more powerful than France (see Franco-Prussian war).
Frankly large scale operations in South East Asia designed to free Japan from foreign resource dependence would have been impossible with the US Pacific forces stationed in the Pacific in 1941 and US possession of the Philippines. Assuming SE Asian resources were critical to Japanese ambitions, the US fleet in Pearl Harbor had to be dealt with one way or the other and Manila had to be taken. Considering that pretext Pearl Harbor was the most sensible option.
Now, would the US have entered the war without Pearl Harbor? Absolutely, the only major difference would have been the timing and the available US forces at its beginning.
If Japan decided not to act for another 9 to 12 months (which is extremely unlikely considering the US had already placed Tokyo in an untenable economic position in 1941) would there have been a major effect on the outcome of the war? Well the large scale supply of Russia through Iran over and above what the British had sent would have been delay by 12 months, but that probably wouldn't have affected Stalingrad much. The mobility of Russian attacks in 1943 may have been limited somewhat (American trucks were handy) but i don't think it would have tipped the balance in Germany's favor. In any case there was nothing to stop the US from increasing its aid throughout 1942 without directly entering the war.
The British would have hung on to North Africa (El Alamein was won without direct US involvement and US weapons still would have been used). Without torch though the Germans would not have fallen back to Tunisia and "Tunisgrad" would not have happened. In December 1942 the 8th army would have been facing the Africa Korps somewhere west of Tobruk.
The battle of the Atlantic was already turning in the Allies favor in early 1942, and in any case the USN was escorting Atlantic convoys half the way. For all intents and purposes the US was already in a shooting war with Germany prior to December 7th 1941.
We know that by 1941 the US involvement in supporting the British and Russia are already quite significant that many believe it's just matter of time and findding the right excusse.
The trigger would have come somewhere, it was only the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 that put the US steadily on a path to war, from a place of steadfast neutrality
and on the side of her old enemy, the British. As soon as fundamental US interests were at stake (German overtures to Mexico) it entered the war. Imagine what small incident would have been enough to justify American intervention when US sailors were already dying defending convoys to Europe and direct US interests were under grave threat in the pacific? The only major difference would have been the time and an intact pacific fleet ready to confront the Japanese.
