What if WW2 would of dragged on two more years in japan. What would the casualties look like, would Japan be divided by the two post war Super powers etc.
>>1057606
>would of
Delete this thread you little bitch.
>>1057626
uh oh spaghettio
would've
>>1057606
>hat would the casualties look like,
U.S./Western Allied casualties probably in the 3/4-1 million dead, with about 4 times as many wounded. Japanese casualties would probably run into the tens of millions.
This is assuming a Japanese fight to the death. Given the infrastructure damage already inflicted by the conventional bombing, Japan's railroad and canal system was in tatters, and their own government was predicting mass starvation before the end of 1945. That in all likelihood would prompt at least partial surrenders, which can change the death toll dramatically.
>would Japan be divided by the two post war Super powers.
No. The Soviets don't have a fleet in the Pacific. The only way they'd get a fleet in time is if the U.S. would lend them the boats, and it seems unlikely with the alliance already fraying over issues like China, that Truman would do such a thing, when said craft could be used to reinforce American pushes into Japan.
>>1057700
>This is assuming a Japanese fight to the death.
>people keep believing this
>>1057806
Considering their past behavior at their peripheral islands, what basis do you have to assume otherwise?
Realistically, I'd say 100k US dead with 3-4 times that wounded/incapacitated. Roughly about half a million casualties, and this is probably more leaning towards the worst case scenario.
For the Japanese, it really depends how much they're willing to sacrifice. Unlike Okinawa or the other islands, the main islands of Japan are quite big. There's less of a need to do a last stand when you can always retreat more inland much more than you could at Iwo Jima.
>>1057817
>Considering their past behavior at their peripheral islands, what basis do you have to assume otherwise?
I dunno, maybe their past behavior at Manchuria?
>>1057606
The US simulations posted allied casualties around 1 million dead and 2.5-3 million wounded.
Japan was determined to fight to the death, and transform their entire civilian population into a paramilitary resistance that would be constant trouble for Allied occupants. The timeframe was also unacceptable to the allies, who projected that it would take until mid-1947 to secure all of Japan, let alone its extended holding in Korea, China, Indochina, and the Indonesia/Singapore.
If Operation Downfall got the green light, it would've been very comparable to the Eastern Front in terms of casualties and the scale of battles. Hence why the allies went for the pure shock and awe campaign to force a surrender, with 2 atom bombs and a Soviet invasion of their northern front in Manchuria/Sakhalin, it was a clear signal to Japan that the only fate for them was total defeat.
>>1058649
In Manchuria, you had China proper to retreat and regroup in, and even so, numbers who were captured were vanishingly small for an operation of that magnitude.
One of the reasons the island fights were so bloody is that there was nowhere for the Japanese forces to go. So when the Americans hit Japan, where are those forces going to go and regroup?
>>1057606
>What if WW2 would of dragged on two more years in japan.
The US Navy and US Airforce would have depopulated Japan.
Not figuratively.
Every single Japanese civilian and soldier would have been starved by the combination of blockade and bombing.
>would Japan be divided by the two post war Super powers etc.
Oh shit yeah, I forgot, US supply of landing craft to the Soviet Army of Korea and China would have resulted in a North Japan with surviving japanese.
And this: >>1057626
The Japanese surrendered because they feared the Soviet invasion which would start before the American one.
Also stop falling for the they would fight to the last child meme. That was the dream of the imperial kuks, not reality.
