Re: Food Checkout Week

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fql0v6$oud$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alan Woodford <alanw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> John Dallman <jgd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> One campaign that was not fought, but would have been very bloody
>>>> indeed, was the invasion of Japan.  That could have got into WWI
>>>> levels of deaths rather readily.
>
>>> Instead of an invasion, why not just blockade the islands so as to
>>> starve them into submission?
>
>> Because it wouldn't have worked.
>
> My understanding is that they were already on the verge of starvation.
> I think blockading the islands, sinking any fi****ng vessels, bombing
> any trains or trucks that appeared to be moving grain, and bombing
> refineries and coal plants that were powering those trains and trucks,
> could have won the war at a negligible cost in American lives.  And
> may have cost fewer Japanese lives than in invasion would have.

I suggest that either likely would have resulted in the Japanese killing 
off their civilian and military prisoners. They were already starving 
and killing many of them.

> Of course what actually happened cost fewer American lives and fewer
> Japanese lives than either of those alternatives.

Why are you specifying American lives, rather than allied lives?

Karl Johanson