Talk:Operation Downfall

message: My recollection is that MacArthur didn't really want any non-American troops, and treated the Australians rather badly, for no reason. But I don't have a copy of Keegan. It could be. 
—wwoods 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons best known to himself, in 1944 Doug even turned an offer of the Australian I Corps for the Philippines campaign, saying that he could use a single division. This was unacceptable to Australian leaders, no doubt remembering the ill-use of Australian Army divisions by British generals in WW1, not to mention the disasters in Greece and Malaya-Singapore during 1941-42. So no Australian ground forces took part in the Philippines. Grant | Talk 10:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Army 

message: Frank's book (cited frequently above) discusses whether, aside from the A-bombs, there were alternatives to an invasion, such as blockade.  Does it seem worthwhile to add a section on whether an invasion was even necessary, again assuming the A-bombs hadn't been available? --Andersonblog 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be redundant with Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we were to add such a section, it must make it clear - as Frank's book does - that Japan was not going to surrender short of an invasion and a final decisive battle. (Not to mention that the food shortages of 1946-1949 would have been infinitely worse without American food shipments, and with the destruction of Japan's railroad system that would have preceeded an invasion) Raul654 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call ... I've added a link to it under a "See also" section ... Happy Editing! —72.75.65.41 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to Downfall?

message: Is there any likelihood that the redlinks in the article will become articles soon? If not I propose that they be de-linked. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: The article says "By August 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had ceased to be an effective fighting force. The only Japanese major warships in fighting order were six aircraft carriers ..." Is there a cite for this? Wikipedia's own articles mention only five (of which four were damaged and therefore imho not in fighting order, and one used only for training).
Ryuho says "on 1 April, Ryūhō was considered to be a total loss".
Hosho says "relegated to training duty in Japan's Inland Sea after 1943".
Junyo says "repairs were abandoned in March 1945".
Katsuragi says "survived the war, albeit damaged".
Kaiyo says "on 24 July 1945 ... the crew decided to ground the ship to prevent sinking".
159.169.242.3 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation is after the following sentence, to Feifer, The Battle of Okinawa, p. 418.. Raul654 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be removed, though - the IJN didn't have six combat-worthy carriers at this point, and the fate of each major warship was well-documented.  Not sure what's going on with Feifer, but it's either a misprint or a tremendous gaffe. 20 Japanese carriers were either sunk or so badly damaged they were scuttled by their crews, the others were left inoperable after damage either in battle or attacked in port. Perhaps he was referring to carriers left unfinished in construction or training vessels.  Additionally, the IJN did not have crews or pilots for six carriers at the end of the war, so they'd be pretty useless. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ijn_cv.htm gives an excellent summary of the Japanese carrier forces - can't use it as a RS, but the info is accurate. Upon looking at Feifer, while having a long bibliography, there is no footnote on where he obtained the information he claims for this quote. This book is also viewed as a social history more than a military one. Update-ok, I believe Feifer is just quoting Reynolds' 1968 book - which is generally good but I don't have access to it here - been a long time since I looked at it. Don't know how Reynolds came to that conclusion, considering the large amount of documentation on the IJN by Japanese sources and the U.S. Navy. Shrugs. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the portion in the article about the six carriers as the source is contradicted by every other source I've read on the subject. Please don't re-add without discussion here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Btw, the only Japanese battleship not sunk, the Nagato, was too damaged from Leyte to be of any use, even if it could have been fueled.  Strange the source(s) apparently don't recognize this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Japanese carriers available 

message: The external link "White, H.V., "The Japanese Plans for the Defense of Kyushu"; 31 December 1945." goes to a page that does not contain a PDF.  Instead, it has an "Access Content" button that downloads a broken EXE.  As far as I can tell, it is not a virus.  I think I found the article elsewhere at .  Noghiri (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and external links 

message: There are a number of problems with this article, which if remain unfixed would warrant a FAR: several page needed and citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, weak prose, heavy reliance on mostly just two sources, dead link on Silkett, could mention more the "intimidate-Soviets" aspect. PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also isn't at all comprehensive, and doesn't reflect modern scholarship on this topic (especially Giangreco's book Hell to Pay, which is probably the best available book on this subject). I agree that a FAR is in order as this article clearly isn't of FA standard at present, and would need substantial amounts of work to retain the status. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - substantial work would be needed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with article 

message: I have access to "Logistic Study for Projected Operations", ASF-P-SL-1 and - 2. Produced by the Planning Division, Office of Director of Plans and Operations, Army Service Forces * War Department.   Dated 28 May 1945 per a memorandum in the front of the book.  It details such things as the assumptions made in this plan, the nature of the operation and detailed information of men and materiel required.  This is an unusual document not generally available.  Can this be used as a source?
Sccatech (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "not generally available"? Is there a copy in the National Archives or some other public repository? If so, you can use it, so long as a researcher can in principle get access to a copy for verification. If not, I'd be concerned with being sure a copy gets into a public repository for historians to use, rather than putzing around on Wikipedia. $0.02. --Yaush (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special references for this article - can I use them? 

message: The Allies would have just blockaded Japan, bombed the railways, firebombed the cities and starved everyone to death. (109.159.10.211 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: King's opposition to proceeding with Downfall is mentioned in the article. This could be expanded, though, and Frank is a good source to start with. --Yaush (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There would have been no invasion 

message: I've added a small bit about the consideration of chemical attacks against the Japanese and their food crops. It may need expansion per the judgement of other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed chemical attack(s)

message: Hi all,
I'm in the process of completely re-writing the section on "estimated casualties," and at the time of this message have only covered expected American losses. The previous version was a complete train wreck and this is my attempt to clean it up into something resembling a coherent narrative. The Pittsburgher (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties Section re-written