if anything more manpower on islands would just lead to faster collapse of the islands cause of lack of supplies. for manpower to matter they would have needed to have at least partial naval control and good logistical network. japan had problem even supplying “reduced” number of soldiers.
1 Like
So would it be easier for the Americans to take Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Saipan, and Okinawa with an extra 20,000 Japanese soldiers or not?
Okinawa
~76,000+ Japanese soldiers
~40,000+ Okinawan conscripts[5]
Peleliu
10,000
17 tanks[2]
Saipan
Army: 25,469
Navy: 6,160
Total: 31,629[2]
Iowa Jima
- 20,933[2]
- (13,586 Army, 7,347 Navy)
i call + 20,000 shenanigans on all but Okinawa
Iwo Jima 66% not likely
Peleliu 300% no
Saipan 100% far fetched
Okinawa 15% increase yep could happen
so do you mean 20k per island or total if total not much if per island increasingly unlikely
also could you please i would love to see WW2 pacific hunger games
500,000- 600,000 IJA soldiers were held up in China. If they weren’t held up in China, they would’ve been spread out into the islands to kill as many Americans as possible and force them to fight a War of Attrition.
of course, after you minus those killed by disease, famine and sent to the bottom by submarines. You then have a JP Navy unable to supple them, support them with air or naval cover. Japan could barley support the soldiers they had converting crucial warships into transports. So again the us navy would have sent tickets if they could have.
The inability to provide consistent friendly air cover around Guadalcanal meant Japanese forces had difficulty supplying ground troops on Guadalcanal, primarily because cargo and troop ships were too easily bombed and sunk by American aircraft based on the island.Jan 26, 2023
[
"Reduced to Starvation”: The Japanese Evacuation of …
[image]
dodlive.mil
https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil › Recent
](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjMp-Koit2GAxWwGFkFHddWCLwQFnoECBEQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fusnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil%2FRecent%2FArticle-View%2FArticle%2F3278421%2Freduced-to-starvation-the-japanese-evacuation-of-guadalcanal-january-february-1%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%2520inability%2520to%2520provide%2520consistent%2Caircraft%2520based%2520on%2520the%2520island.&usg=AOvVaw2EVoDi_7c5fJiCSfOURKqf&opi=89978449)
cause you dont like wikipedia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/stalinism
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34342/chapter-abstract/328429449?redirectedFrom=fulltext
4 Likes
Nonetheless, the Japanese supply was inadequate. Troops were supplied 60% of the standard issue of ammunition sufficient for one engagement by one division and food and forage for four months
After running out of water, food and most supplies, the Japanese troops became desperate toward the end of the battle. Kuribayashi, who had argued against banzai attacks at the start of the battle, realized that defeat was imminent.
On 27 June, Igeta’s 31st Army Headquarters sent a telegram from the island stating the Japanese would not be able to hold due to the American preponderance in artillery, sea and air power, as well of a lack of equipment and supplies, including food and water.
Saito singled out naval gunfire undermining the Japanese’ ability to fight successfully against the Americans. The lack of water was a major problem, especially in the limestone caves the Japanese soldiers used for defense.
Igeta reported that some soldiers hadn’t had water for three days and were surviving on snails and tree leaves. Japanese communications were so disrupted that at one point during the week, Igeta could only account for 950 of the Japanese soldiers.
simply when japanese navy was defeated, no amount of ground troops would allow japanese to hold the islands. you would only get faster starvation and dehydration and probably ammo wastage.
1 Like
You didn’t refute his words in any way, lol.
in what way? cause i could agree with his wikipedia claims (although wiki provides good quick summary), but stalinism is well defined term that is not “made up stuff”.
1 Like
It is. Stalin isn’t theoretic.
Even if he was try. He was mainly follow Lenin ideas.
well if you know so much you can argue with all those people who wrote books and teach about stalinism. i am certainly not qualified to do so. stalinism is well defined term in books and you can check all those links that i have put in previous post. whether you like it or not stalinism exists.
1 Like
Yea, it’s one thing which sign the start of human degradation. The term has no meaning, but it has a political background.
from quora:
Stalin was not a theoritician of communism, like Marx, Engels and Lenin were. He didn’t contribute any new theoretical concepts, and he was concerned more with practical and day to day problems in governing the state.
Therefore, Stalinism is not an ideology per se, but rather Stalin’s policies and practices.
As I understand it, Leninism is inseperable from Marxism since all of Lenin’s ideas are based off of Marx’s. Read Lenin’s books and he quotes Marx and Engels incessantly.
So the perceived dichotomy between Leninism / Marxism-Leninism is mostly a matter of semantics than anything else. Trotskyists are a kind of Marxist-Leninist, although they do not call themselves that for historical reasons.
Post-Cold War, with the Stalinist / Trotskyist divide becoming irrelevant (Trotskyism was formed as a sort of reaction to Stalinism), many communist parties have thankfully abandoned adherence to this or the other historical figure, and concentrate on issues pressing the working class right now.
You can be a Marxist-Leninist while being heavily critical of Stalin. The Progressive Party of Working People in Cyprus is one such party.
1 Like
And this guy proved my point. Stalinism isn’t more than political term joke.
well i dont see how practical implementation of theory is political term. you are talking like ubuntu, arch, mint, debian are made up terms cause they are all based on linux.
1 Like
lol. It’s very different in it’s basic and suol point but whatever.
Fascism has a rigid association of citizens for the sake of the state. The superiority of the citizens of this state.
In Nazism, there is a rigid unification of citizens for the sake of the state and the nation. The superiority of the nation of a given state.
Well, both cases are the peak of capitalism. Where capital rules the ball.
Very different, very.
Well, both cases are the peak of capitalism.
It’s funny to you, but German companies were very comfortable.
Haha! Multiple sources