Really it should have lasted only 2 to 3 years, not 10, considering that the Emperor is still alive in this scenario. If he dies though...it wouldn't just last a mere 10 years. It would last a lot longer.

@@vistagreat9994 Japan was on the verge of mass starvation at the time of the invasion and they committed most of their resources to the fight in Kyushu. Once that campaign was done the Tokyo region would not have held out long

@@andrewpizzino2514 That's why it should not have lasted 10 years with the Emperor alive. Of course, mass starvation means absolutely nothing if your only chance to surrender was taken away from you from your enemy. If Emperor Hirohito was killed by the Americans during this crucial moment, then American defeat is inevitable - its not a matter of if the Americans lose in that scenario, its a matter of when. But if the Emperor is still alive, once Kanto is taken and Kyushu is at least somewhat under tenuous control (which should occur at around 2 to 3 years), then the Emperor will probably surrender, breaking the 3 by 3 deadlock, and allowing the USA to get both most of Korea and all of Japan.

Yeah, the war would not last this long if the Emperor lived (in which he does in this scenario). It would also not last this short if he died.

Logistics is the major issue here, I cannot see the entire world being able to standardize all its forces, and work together enough to invade mainland US. The US would take a major hit due to loss of trade, but with access to Canadian national resources, they should be able to somewhat keep up with the world in terms of military powerful, especially factoring the massive technological gap. No country in the world has a better developed military than America. If anything, most militaries in the world would only prove to be a hidnerance, eating up supplies that would have better been spent elsewhere. Though the US being able to expand beyond NA is not that high, and the US being able to expand to the world is impossible. If the world took a quarter of a century, and was miraculously able to stick together through the entirety, then yeah they could win, but realistically, I doubt most nations would be able to sustain a 25 year war economy, without lots and lots of moral loss.

*at least At most, 2 to 3 years.

But in this alternate Timelime, Soviet would occupied it. Fully occupied the whole East Asia mainland including China & Korea after their succeed in Manchuria, while Western Allies do operation downfall in mainland Japan

Delusional.

@@vistagreat9994 More than that, disgusting. The Emperor was willing to literally sacrifice millions of civilians just to not get tried for his war crimes. "At one point they will be sick of shooting the school girls I throw at them!"

@@lukasweiss4462 ...

When i said "Delusional" i was referring to your "After a few months best US tank columns would just roll over anything the Japanese had left to throw at them". Now *THAT* is completely delusional beyond any sane person's belief. Okinawa lasted nearly 3 months. Naturally, Operation Downfall would NOT last "a few months". Completely delusional. Here is the reality: Operation Downfall would have likely lasted 2 to 3 years...so long as Emperor Hirohito and his family live, so that they can actually organize a surrender - if a delayed one. It only makes sense for the Japanese to only surrender when the Emperor surrenders. If one imagines the horrifying scenario in which the Americans, seeing the utter brutality of the IJA, are convinced that they need to assassinate and kill Emperor Hirohito (just like they did with assasinating Admiral Yamamoto)....then i can't see the Japanese surrendering any time soon....AT ALL. It very clearly wasn't the Emperor who was willing to sacrifice millions. The IJA was, ever since 1928 with their incidents in the Fengtian Clique. It is, by far, very clear that, whilst having an influence on military policy, he was pretty much goaded into it by the Military. There was even an attempt to assassinate him in 1945 just to not have the surrender be achieved. If that was successful, then it is likely that the Japanese would find out, and that it would be Yasuhito who would surrender, likely in the same year. Remember how the USA assasinated Admiral Isoroku no Yamamoto in Operation Vengeance? What if they explicitly assassinated Hirohito and his entire Imperial Family, in a understandable way to try to "lower Japanese morale"? In that scenario...surrender becomes impossible. Why would you even want to negotiate with an enemy when they are at your doorstep, are killing millions, and are destroying your traditions and wish to mold you into what they want you to be? In that scenario, the official war is extended to 4 to 6 years, until the Americans basically declare victory. "Mission accomplished!" except that its in the early 50s. Obviously not 1955, but likely 1949 to 1951. Of course, now they face a population that completely HATES them, and is going to push them out no matter the cost, and has mountain terrain completely covering it. This is NO LONGER a scenario in which the USA can even remotely win. They lost in Vietnam. They lost in Afghanistan. They lost in Iraq. They *WILL* lose in Japan. HORRIBLY. It will just take longer. In that scenario, i expect the USA to evacuate in the 70s to 80s if they wish to remain a capable nation. If they don't evacuate by then...then they will undeniably be pushed out in the 2000s...and collapse becomes inevitable. One also can't forget about the Soviets. They may be able to blitzkrieg into Northern Manchuria, but it will take a while for them to take Southern Manchuria. 2 years, likely. The US will likely liberate Korea by then. And if the Soviets get embroiled into a conflict with the KMT? Well, since Ichi-go failed, Japan would likely just focus on evacuating and destroying CCP remnants, so...forget about Hokkaido and Sakhalin. There is no scenario in which Operation Downfall lasts 3 months. This is simply a delusion. There is an unlikely - but still, terrifyingly likely outcome - in which it lasts 60 years.

Make sure to read my comment about why this video is quite farcical, by the way.

What’s makes you think they couldn’t just capture IJN ships in Korean ports and use them for troop transports? Also what about civilian craft? Dunkirk ring any bells? Plus in addition, the Soviet pacific fleet had two cruisers, ten destroyers (and their escorts, and several other smaller craft. Now given Soviet history at this time of using things like the backs of T34s for example for troop transports…….. crowding their destroyers with men doesn’t seem too crazy. It’s not like your asking them to invade Alaska from Vladivostok. It’s literally just them crossing the strait of Tsushima and that’s it. Tsushima could be used as a fueling and resupply station too

@@TheBuckeyeHistoryGuy1776 dunkirk was fine, they used civlian craft to *evacuate* troops. landing in a hostile beach is quite another level. also, the IJN will scuttle the ships if the soviets came even 100 kilometers from those troop transports. if they are even in korea. crusiers and destroyers, all six of them in total? no. even if they can operate with impunity (impossible with shore based batteries) they cant carry too many soliders, because they need to carry supplies and weapons, and they arent suitable to land any troops. they wouldnt be able to take even that piddly island, let alone anything else.

@@matthewbarabas3052 never say never