Thread 17839041

I mean, look at the scale. It was literally 6 million men in the invading force. That's more men than what took part in the fucking Barbarossa.

>>17839041 (OP)
bump

>~35k total japs
>on defense
>on a fucking island

Would have been fucking wild.

If it came to this then it would've been unimaginable slaughter. It is very likely it would've been the single bloodiest military campaign in human history had it come to this.

>>17839041 (OP)
Sure, why not. American army was getting stronger and stronger with each day of the conflict, and the US had a greater military potential than any other country at the time. Far greater than Germany in 1941 for sure.
Why invade if you can carpet bomb Japan into submission though? The nuke wasn't even necessary.

>>17839041 (OP)
No, and it wouldn't have ever come to that anyway. Even if we assume the Japanese could have held out until November(they couldn't have), the plan almost certainly would have been aborted given the Japanese had accurately guessed where the allies were planning to land, and the allies knew they had done so. The Japanese had half a million men defending Kyushu by August, and the plan was ultimately to have 900,000. Even if they hadn't been able to get that many men, even 500,000 would be a tough nut to crack with the 700,000 the US had planned for Olympic.
>>17839229
>Why invade if you can carpet bomb Japan into submission though? The nuke wasn't even necessary.
As I alluded to this is true. The idea Japan could have held out until November is absurd.
>b-but japan would never surrender!
Japanese leadership was seriously worried they would face a popular revolt if the war continued as it was going.

>>17839041 (OP)
>Mr president, here's plan A which would get six gorillion people killed
>or the other plan which we want you to do

downfall wasn't anything other than the former

>>17839189
My Lai every month.

>>17840077
More like Okinawa every month. Amerimutts wouldn't be able to endure the casualties

>>17840090
Retard.

>>17839046
Great pic, shill.

>>17840574
Shut up

>>17840583
>Shut up
Cry more, cuckboi.

>>17839041 (OP)
>>17839043
>>17839189
why would the US invade the Japanese mainland "liberation of europe" style if they could just bomb and blockade them into submission, what would be the point?
to keep the Soviets out?
>>17839411
this seems likely

>>17840599
retard

>>17840090
>Amerimutts wouldn't be able to endure the casualties
What makes you think thr Japanese could, especially after they start starving?

Would've been easy as fuck. Japs had no fuel, weapons, or trained soldiers and pilots. Just land somewhere, like Nagasaki, build up some air bases, then bomb the fuck out of all the roads. Afterwards just pick off one city at a time.

>>17840627
The Soviets lacked the necessary naval infrastructure to even land a substantial army in the Japanese home islands. I don't think people appreciate how hard it is just to transport fucking food alone for thousands of men

>>17842494
bump

>>17842494
The Americans were lending them ships and landing crafts as they were getting ready for an invasion of Japan and wanted Stalin to at least do something.

The real question is whether this was really needed. One of the biggest fears of the Japanese decisionmakers was that since their airforce was almost completely gone the Americans could spread out their bomber fleet and use incendiary bombs on the rice field just as they're being harvested, causing starvation across the islands. If you're at the point where this can be done to you and you have no countermeasure maybe just pulling a trigger at this kind of operation would be enough to bring them to surrender assuming nuclear bombs didn't(of course that's the basic implication itt).

As for the ability of the Japanese to stop American landings, it's possible, but if they didn't Americans would have very harsh attrition warfare ahead of them.

>>17842112
because they have shown repeatedly that they don't give a fuck about casualties and would gladly sacrifice 10 japanese to kill a single american?

>>17842146
Delusional. Okinawa was less defended and Americans suffered a brutal slog and 50% casualties on that island. An invasion of the Home Islands would have been even more brutal

>>17839400
>Japanese leadership was seriously worried they would face a popular revolt if the war continued as it was going
Popular revolt sounds a lot less likely than a coup to me, given that this is Japan and not France

>>17843683
>Americans suffered a brutal slog
They suffered 50k casualties out of 500k. That's not a brutal slog. The Axis and the Soviets each had million+ casualties in Stalingrad.

>50% casualties on that island.
kek

>>17842112
Very different cultural standards for what constitutes "acceptable losses". Americans were so badly mauled at Okinawa that they paled at the thought of having to do anything like it ever again.

>>17843756
>Americans were so badly mauled at Okinawa that they paled at the thought of having to do anything like it ever again.
Okinawa wasn't even top 10 for casualties among major battles in WW2 for the US.

>>17839041 (OP)
It could be pulled off only if the US Navy could get in close enough to do 24 hour shore bombardment with 14-inch and 16-inch guns.

>>17843770
the concentrated fighting on Okinawa- that is concerning the amount of time and space it was fought in
is probably second only to Stalingrad

>>17844750
the marines killed about 140,000 people in 80 days in a space half the size of Rhode Island
add to that some 12,000 deaths of their own and some 70,000 civilians
in two months
on an island

>>17844765
i think along with the buldge, Stalingrad and Kursk- those are peak meat grinding levels
what else have i left out?

>>17843770
What are you talking about retard? Okinawa in casualties is up there with Battle of the Bulge and Normandy. These were the worst battles for the US forces.

>>17839041 (OP)
Americans couldn’t beat the Japanese in battle, that’s why they bombed civilians like cowards

>>17844817
>up there with Battle of the Bulge and Normandy
Nice 10% casualty battles there. Meanwhile,

>Kasserine Pass
33% casualty rate

>Monte Cassino
Over 20%

>Anzio
30%

Other than Iwo Jima, the PTO was easy mode.

>>17844750
>the concentrated fighting on Okinawa- that is concerning the amount of time and space it was fought in
>is probably second only to Stalingrad
Stalingrad if only one side was doing all the dying.