Notes on the Next War

For a somewhat more in-depth look at US invasion planning for the Home Islands, see here: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

Here, let me help you: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

Estimates ranged from "only" 125k in the first 120 days to as many as 4 million. More "accurate" estimats were in the 200-400k range. Considering how the JApanese were dug in, the fight for their home was going to be more brutal than anything we had seen to date.

No matter who's large number you look at, it was going to be extremely costly.

Another good one: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609invasion.aspx

On the Japan aspect, I find watching Initial D to be an interesting view into their culture. "Battles," "Dog fights," honor, etc. as they plan on taking over the Gunma Prefecture. One can see how left to run amok for a few centuries, their culture could easily morph into what it did through WWII. What they did to the Korean Peninsula and China, the death POW camps, for example. They had told the civilians on Oki, I think, that we were cannibals and monsters. Many of them committed suicide rather than be captured. They would hold up in the caves and not come out. I'm sure taking the mainland would not have been a cake walk, unless they surrendered (which some say they were on the verge of anyway.) Post WWII, they kinda got a hard-reset. Pitty they are going militaristic again. Oh well. Like Hemingway says above, first you inflate, then you war. Or today, first you Abenomics, then you piss China off.

That's really about the first Hemingway I've read. You know what? He was a pretty good writer. Bit dark.

Dr. Hess wrote: WWII was still a war of attrition. Germany (and Japan, for that matter) had nothing left to fight with after burning everything they had fighting the soviets.

FTFY

Short of nuking Europe, WW2 would have at the very least lasted several more years had the Soviets not been pulled into it. The history books like to play that down, on account of the whole cold war thing, but they did about 5x more killing than everybody else combined.

Bobzilla wrote: Here, let me help you: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm Estimates ranged from "only" 125k in the first 120 days to as many as 4 million. More "accurate" estimats were in the 200-400k range. Considering how the JApanese were dug in, the fight for their home was going to be more brutal than anything we had seen to date. No matter who's large number you look at, it was going to be extremely costly. Another good one: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609invasion.aspx

While I tend to agree that the costs would likely have been quite high in most of the foreseeable scenarios, using sources like these to demonstrate it is problematic. Neither of these is relying on primary sources, which are readily available, or are likely to be peer-reviewed for accuracy; the first one is a sort of educational Wikipedia (with all the weaknesses that implies). There's much better information out there and readily accessible.

For just one example, regarding the White House discussions of projected casualties and costs: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/21.pdf#zoom=100

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: WWII was still a war of attrition. Germany (and Japan, for that matter) had nothing left to fight with after burning everything they had fighting the soviets.

FTFY Short of nuking Europe, WW2 would have at the very least lasted several more years had the Soviets not been pulled into it. The history books like to play that down, on account of the whole cold war thing, but they did about 5x more killing than everybody else combined.

And a lot more losing. Total combined Soviet losses for the war are estimated (as no one has been or will be able to make an accurate count) somewhere between 25 and 40 million killed in less than four years of war. Which, at the low end of the estimates, is roughly an average of 18,000 people killed per day for the entire period from 22 June 1941 to 5 May 1945.

No wonder then that the Soviets were rather concerned about establishing post-war security.

In reply to 02Pilot:

I bought a crate of 1949 Russian production 7.62x54r ammo a while back. Mainly because it was on real clips, which were worth more alone than they were charging for the ammo. They were STILL loading the stuff so hot the bolt on my very not sticky mosin M91/30 hangs up with it. Like very noticeably louder report, heavier recoil, and larger fireball over the 80s Romanian surplus I have. For those unaware, 7.62x54r is the soviet answer to .30-06. That's how concerned they were back then. Machines still set to 11.5, years after the end.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: ....WW2 would have at the very least lasted several more years had the Soviets not been pulled into it...

Pulled? By who? (unless your idea of "pulled" is Stukas dropping 500kg bombs on your airfields )

I think it is pretty well known for many years previous that German will be going to war, it was really just a matter of when. Germany just kind of got off the blocks first. They did both just jointly invade Poland , so scruples were not an issue there.

Dr. Hess wrote: That's really about the first Hemingway I've read. You know what? He was a pretty good writer. Bit dark.

Read more. He was brilliant in a way only people on the verge of insanity can be. I am always amazed at how clearly he could paint an image in your mind with so simple a style. For Whom The Bell Tolls is one of my favorite stories. dark as berkeley though. I can vividly see the townspeople pushing fascists off a cliff twenty years after reading it.

Basil Exposition wrote: The handwringing over the US use of the bomb on Japan that usually occurs on its anniversary is revisionist in the worst way and borderline idiotic, in my view. It was the thing that had to be done at the time in the context of the time.

My grandfather's squadron was slated to perform close air support for the invasion of mainland Japan. It had been planned.

They were told to expect a 50% loss rate in their squadron. He credits the bomb with our family being here.

One person asked what they were supposed to do about civilians -especially women and children- on the ground. They were told roughly, "If it's in front of you, it moves, and it's not one of ours, shoot it."

The Bomb was horrible. The whole damned stupid war was horrible. The Bomb was less horrible than the alternative.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to 02Pilot: I bought a crate of 1949 Russian production 7.62x54r ammo a while back. Mainly because it was on real clips, which were worth more alone than they were charging for the ammo. They were STILL loading the stuff so hot the bolt on my very not sticky mosin M91/30 hangs up with it. Like very noticeably louder report, heavier recoil, and larger fireball over the 80s Romanian surplus I have. For those unaware, 7.62x54r is the soviet answer to .30-06. That's how concerned they were back then. Machines still set to 11.5, years after the end.

Not to pick nits, but I think it was more like the 7.62x54r was the pre-Soviet Russian answer to the 7mm Mauser or maybe the one just before the 7mm or that Label round. Everyone back then was in the (literal) arms race for a bolt action rifle. The 30-06 was the US answer to the 7mm Mauser (Spanish-American War). The English's 303 was their answer to the 7mm Mauser (Boar War.) The 8mm (7.9mm) Mauser was the German's answer to the (German) 7mm Mauser.

I'll take my 1942 K98 any day over a mosin......better rifle, even for being built during a war.

Baron, your grandfather has about the same sentiment mine had. He was to have been restationed from Italy for that supposed invasion.

In reply to Dr. Hess:

Perhaps "answer" was a poor word choice. Its a first gen smokeless .30 cal full power rifle cartridge. Of course, if you want the best of that bunch and can handload, you build an 8mm-06.