-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
??? Are you saying the Vietnamese invaded someone after "getting their own freedom back" from the French???
If he's talking about after the end of their reunification, they did invade Cambodia in 1977 to overthrow the (pro-Chinese) Khmer Rouge and install their own puppet government. That said, the Khmer Rouge did start this by attacking first in both 1975 (within a month of the fall of Saigon) and 1977. Alternately, he might be characterizing the Vietnam War in this way insofar as North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam, so it could go either way.
No I was saying the French invaded Vietnam after themselves being a conquered people, to which they really should have known better. I probably coulda worded that better.
- 1
The French conquest of Vietnam occurred well before the Second World War.
- 1
- 1
The French re-conquest following the fall of the Japanese forces, however, took place concurrently with, and after, WWII.
- 2
There's something to the idea that the Japanese militia would have problems against a modern force. Militia forces were almost completely ineffective in WWII. Their only use was in resistance fighting, and there they could do some damage. but when it comes to actually resisting a fully equipped conventional army, I can't think of a single time in WWII that militia did that on their own.
There would be blood during the landing. After that, I think Japan would collapse surprisingly quickly. The blood would be let not during the conquest, but during the occupation, which would be a thing of horror for the Allied troops.
There would be blood during the landing. After that, I think Japan would collapse surprisingly quickly. The blood would be let not during the conquest, but during the occupation, which would be a thing of horror for the Allied troops.
I don't know if anybody has ever been to Okinawa, but I have and the peace park is a truly mesmerising place. To stand on a cliff where hundreds (if not thousands) of people threw themselves to their death rather than face their 'perception' of the US/Allied forces helps to bring home how fanatical and brain washed the Japanese people were. Yes an invasion of the main Japanese islands would have been a costly affair.
In Okinawa, if I remember correctly, there were about 250k casualties. About 80k were Japanese military, 20k US/Allied military and the rest civilians. The cost for Operational Downfall would have bought with flesh by the Japanese and by bombs and bullets by the allies.
In Okinawa, if I remember correctly, there were about 250k casualties. About 80k were Japanese military, 20k US/Allied military and the rest civilians. The cost for Operational Downfall would have bought with flesh by the Japanese and by bombs and bullets by the allies.
Off the top of my head, I think you have the US total for KIA mixed up with total casualties. IIRC total casualties were about equivalent with the Japanese.
No, I was specifically talking about people killed. According to Wiki the US 'injured' was 55,162, so yes somewhat equivalent. Without downplaying some of the horrific injuries experienced by the US forces, injured is still a lot better than being killed.
That the disparity of Killed on both sides is so huge highlights (to me at least) that the US was able to mitigate the cost in blood and instead pay in material.
I lived there from 2004 to 2008, two of my children were born there. Beautiful place with a sad history, good people, resilient.
IJA's plan wasn't to "win". It was to suicide the Japanese people into a glorious banzai charge and bring as many Americans with them as possible. The logic was, better for pure, God-descended Japanese people be all dead than under the yoke of decadent subhumans.
Actually the plan was to make an invasion so costly that the US would rather negotiate.
That was officially for to placate those members of the government who advocated peace, to make resistance more palatable. Still time and time and time again they had assurances that the US wouldn't negociate anything but unconditional surrender.
So, it's the snake biting its own tail. It would lead to total destruction of the Japanese people as martyrdom.
Here is the newest historiography on this subject. A lecture and two of the best books:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327055-1/discussion-fall-japanese-empire
Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire
Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947
The latter is the most important for understanding the proposed invasion itself. It is so comprehensive and vital for proper understanding that it has essentially swept aside all previous scholarship on the subject.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327055-1/discussion-fall-japanese-empire
Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire
Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947
The latter is the most important for understanding the proposed invasion itself. It is so comprehensive and vital for proper understanding that it has essentially swept aside all previous scholarship on the subject.
Last edited:
- 3
The American people were growing tired of the war by 1945. If Japan had somehow managed to repel the invasion on the beacheads then a negotiated peace would have been reached.
- 2
- 1
More likely, Japan would have been nuked, firebombed, and throroughly blockaded to starvation until it caved.
- 3
- 1