Why no flanking amphibious invasion in WWI?

That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.

We often forget that the conclusion of the war was not a known element.

As stated, Peleliu mattered little in the end, but if something had gone wrong somewhere else, it may have been the cornerstone of allied victory.

It most certainly caused Japan some level of strategic/logisitical grief, and it’s one more piece on the board the americans could seize to strengthen their offensive.

As for publicity stunts… PHI was a must. The U.S. said they would return, and everyone believed it.  If the U.S. had not returned… that would have been a costly political enterprise.

Thank you Worsham. That explains a lot.

@abworsham4

We’ll say that magic happens-the Japanese would have surrendered by regular bombing before the planned invasion, even without the atomic bomb. So I’ll say that five nuclear bombs would be ready for tactical use.

I think the Allies would have lost 1.5 million men, including naval losses, radiation poisoning after entering area attacked by atomic bombs, and regular land fighting. Countless more would have been wounded. This also includes Soviet losses from the planned Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.

The Japanese would have lost at least 12 million men killed, due to the enormous losses fighting, from the nuclear bomb, and the mass of Kamikaze attacks. This total includes PCFC losses. 1 million more might have died in guerrilla warfare after the war.

20 million would have been wounded, if not more.

The Soviet didn’t have capability to invade Japan, they just had claims to Sakhalin Islands and possibly Korea which they lost in the 1905 war. The A-bomb created a huge vacuum for Stalin to mop up demoralized Kwangtung Army units in Manchukuo.

Okinawa could not be bypassed, a further invasion of Southern Japan could not take place without this logistical island. You need a good staging area and Okinawa and Iwo Jima are both necessary to that end.

Mainland China would not be good because Japan still had credible army units within reach, but had zero naval capabilities…so it was a safe choice to use the islands to stage invasion.

THE PHILLIPINES WAS A MUST!!!

Folks, the war wasn’t like Axis and Allies,  you didn’t know how many aircraft carriers and battleships your opponent had, or what weapons, or what secret technologies,  you fought as best as you knew, and you hit the enemy where you knew you could.

HOWEVER - Like Axis and Allies everything is done in Baby Steps.  Sure - Peleliu didn’t matter by the course to victory the allies took,  but say,  the Japanese invented the Jet in 42?  Or won a series of battles they lost?  Say they turned the American offensive around at Gaudalcanal?

You know, I can stand on a cardboard box and screw in a light bulb, but what if I slip? or the carboard crumples?  I might fall and break the light bulb… or my neck…  Better to get a REAL step ladder, or a cinder block, and place it on the ground - JUST TO MAKE SURE, I have a fail safe point to operate from.

That’s what the Phillipines was all about.  It was also a symbol to the world, of which side was winning… and it removed a POSSIBLE and SIGNIFICANT strategic asset from the enemy.  It had to be done.

There is a reason America didn’t just take the whole fleet to San Diego, load it with Marines, and set sail for Tokyo and for the win.  Everything is done one step at a time.

@CWO:

A similar situation existed in the Confederacy in the early stages of the U.S. Civil War, where it was believed that the material advantages of the North (in terms of industrial capacity, natural resources and sheer population numbers) could be overcome by (if I recall the quote correctly) “the gallantry and fighting spirit of the Southern Gentleman.”  The contrary (and ultimately correct) view was expressed by a certain Northerner to a friend he had in the Confederacy: “No nation of agriculturalists has ever defeated a nation of industrialists.  You are bound to fail.”

That’s an excellent example. I looked up the Civil War and found that the North experienced twice as many combat deaths as the South. That ratio would seem to partially justify Southern leaders’ faith in their strategy. However, the overall ratio of military deaths was 1.4 to 1. The reason for this is that so many soldiers on both sides died from disease, exposure, and other causes.

Later in the war, the North increasingly benefited from activities which did not necessarily involve a clash between the main Northern and Southern armies. The increasingly effective naval blockade is a good example of this, as are some of the coastal raids the North performed later in the war. The Southern economic collapse which resulted from the naval blockade is still another example. Later in the war, Grant capitalized on the Northern advantage in manpower by sending several secondary forces to invade the South, while the main Southern forces were occupied by their Northern counterparts.

BUMP This is cool if you have not seen it yet.