if Japan never surrendered and instead, used decades long guerrilla tactics near Japanese mountains, would US operation Downfall succeed?How many American soldiers would die? Would Japan win against America like Vietnam and Afghanistan did ?
>>18718150It wouldn’t succeed. America’s failures in putting down guerrilla movements came from a lack of effort on their part, none of them were a total war situation for the United States. This wasn’t the case in World War 2. Any and all Japanese guerrilla movements in this scenario would get wiped off the face of the earth with all of the material at America’s disposal.
They surrendered like champs in Manchuria but go on with the Japs would never surrender myth.
>>18718150Badly phrased question because America would certainly win a conventional land war against Japan, leading Operation Downfall to succeed. Whether or not they would be able to hold onto Japan is another matter entirely. But >>18718166 answered that.
>>18718166>America’s failures in putting down guerrilla movements came from a lack of effort on their part, none of them were a total war situation for the United StatesThe US put down an insurgency in the philippines at the cost of 200k civilian deaths.
>>18718150At first I thought picrel but then I remembered the US was the only nation with nukes at this point so they could just keep spamming A-bombs at Japanese guerillas.There's also no threat of diplomatic isolation against the US because it's Imperial Japan we're talking about so Americans could just show other nations the Japanese war crimes photos to moralfag about how they deserve it.
I think Japan would lose a Guerrilla war because they wouldn’t have the motivation to go all the way with it. Think about it, in real life, Americans took one island and dropped two bombs and Japan surrendered. I don’t think it’d take much more convincing if the Emperor somehow wasn’t convinced by what actually happened irl.
>>18718285>I think Japan would lose a Guerrilla war because they wouldn’t have the motivation to go all the way with it.Wrong, the Japanese hald "hold outs" throughout the Pacific who were still fighting a war decades after it ended. All of them were literally guerrilla fighters too.As for OP's question, the Japanese DID use guerrilla tactics and no it did not help. Nothing would have helped because >>18718166. Vietnam had the entire soviet/communist world supporting them, Japan had no one. Afghanistan is an entire nation of terror cells who all work independently from each other where as Imperial Japan was a different culture with strict hierarchy lead by any emperor. If Japan did win a hold out situation it would be at a cost of losing that hierarchy and everything that they were fighting for.
>>18718363Those hold outs were pretty meaningless though. I think of that guy who believed the surrender was a trick, but finally did surrender when some japs confirmed it. I see no reason the same wouldn’t happen on the mainland.
Japan would need an intermediary to sustain them like north korea or afghanistan, every single on of their neighbours despised them so it wasn't going to happen.
>>18718166i think so and maybe too because of the natural of warfare back then, it wouldn't be liberal niceness of Afghanistan and Vietnamese. They likely would have razed villages, killing civilians, raped, tortured civilians/POWs etc. Which is what you kind need to do unfortunately
>>18718180Judeo-Bolshevism is just that scary
>>18718150The US could just starve them out since they lack a land border with a "neutral" country to resupply them
>>18718280Should add>supposedly neutral country nearby to take refugeCambodia and Pakistan come to mind
