Hypothetically what if Japan did everything but attack Pearl Harbor?
The US had a plan called "Plan Orange" I believe. Basically it was the plan the Navy would use to fight a war with Japan in the Pacific. I believe it consisted of organizing a battle group not around aircraft carriers but around battleships...with the carriers as escorts. they were then to go to the phillipeans and try to engage the enemy in a knockout blow.
Maybe if Japan didn't show the huge effects of a carrier attack...the US would have had it's plan around battleships and Japan would have based theirs around carriers...the resulting battle may have resulted in even more loss than Pearl because everything sunk couldn't have been raised.
Basically my point is maybe through some irony by Japan attacking and crippling the US battleship fleet forcing the US to adopt a strategy around carriers and submarines...caused the US in the long run to suffer less casulties. Maybe if the battleship fleet was undamaged it would have gone out in search of the enemy and maybe instead of loosing only 2 battleships maybe we could have lost more! (not to mention more men...for i think that it is safe to asume you'd loose more men out at sea than in a harbor!)
I guess just talking off the the top of my head! ...anybody have anything else to add?

------------------
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey...

There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.

Those are some interesting ideas. A more passive Japanese offence might have won, especailly since the US would be as enraged about the Pearl Harbor sneak attack.

Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, I think they would have concentrated on Australia, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, Ceylon, India, Southeast Asia and Korea.

Well that is what the Japanese did? From Dec. 41 to mid 42 they captured most of the dutch east indies, singapore, Java, and the Phillipeans. After they put the US fleet out of action that's where they concentrated their forces.

I must have misread your post-sorry. I thought it said that if the Japanese didnt attack Pearl then where were they to strike? I know they were very active in those areas and had captured most of the territory mentioned but, I figured that I would throw in Australia for good measure.

Since they never controlled India either thats where I would figure they would attack had no Pearl Harbor attack happened. That would also give them the excuse to conqour Australia-why I dont know. Could you imagine massed Banzai charges across the plains of Austraia?

I think that the Aussies would have stopped them anyway and it would probably seem more like WW1 Europe-trenches and all. Waltzing Matilda would eventually win-bil-a-bong and all.

Yeah i agree! I always wondered what would have happened if Japan invaded Australia...but i never doubted them loosing that battle! I think it would have required more men than they could have afforded. I guess they knew that since they stopped short so close to Australia when they were their strongest and us their weakest!
Although i think there was fighting by Japan in and around India all through the war. With British and Indian troops...the line going back and forth throughout the war.

Thats correct, Japan did fight in and around India. Some of the toughest battles in WW2 were fought there take the battle for Imphal and Kohima (spelling?), for instance. Also the Brits had the Ghurkas with them on most if not all the campaigns fought there. Ghurkas are Indian troops and they are elite soldiers. The Ghurks Rifles are some of the most famous Indian troops.

Another tough fight was between the Japanese and the Australians was: The Kokoda Trail. Then you can factor in Merrills Marauders (5317th composite) they did many great deeds like helping capture Myitkyina (Pronounced Mitchenah) Frank. D. Merrill, was under the command of Vineger Joe Stillwell.

I forget the name to the British chap who commanded the UK forces, he was the popular one that died in a plane crash.

Are you, perhaps thinking of Louis Mountbatten? He was assasinated by the IRA in 1979. (They blew up his yacht.)

Thanks for the try but it wasnt Mountbatten. I havent found the time to look up his name but I think its in the Time-Life WW2 books. If its not in those books, then its certainly in the American Heritage book on WW2. I could easily have looked it up by now if I had been givin my collection of Mil Hist and WW2 Magazines back.

If Japan hadn't attackec Pearl Harbor, than they would have had all their carriers free to attack India in 1942.

They would have attacked Malaysia, Singapore, Dutch Indies, New Guini, Ceylon, India, the Maladives, ...

I think that the US wouldn't intervene, because none of their belongings would have been attacked.

__________________

I think that the USA would have got involved in a war, anyway. As Yamamoto knew; the Americans were not going to see quietly how the Pacific became a Japanesse lake... There was too much power there, and there could only be one country with power...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Did the US intervene when Japan attacked Russia in 1938-1939 or when they attacked China in 1931?

__________________

No, they didn't. But also France and Britain did not react with Austria and Czechoslovakia...

But the USA had already started reacting by 1941, cutting off Japan's petrol. If Japan would have attacked somewhere else it was clear that the USA would have had to declare war sooner or later...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun