Talk:Operation Downfall

Casualties Section re-written

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)

Remove section 'Appendix 1'

because WP:NOTDB. If it's in the sources, folks can look it up there.

--93.128.177.100 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Appendices are condensed from the source material. The original field orders list unit by unit over many pages rather than in short form - in no other book or publication that I am aware of are comparable tables available.

The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Broken table in the Estimated Casualties section

I see the caption of the table limited to one character wide and left justified. What's going on? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Confusing sentence 2

In the introductory section, there is a sentence, "If Downfall had taken place, it would have been the largest amphibious operation in history, surpassing D-Day." Since it did not, the conditional has the effect to claiming that D-Day remains 'the largest amphibious operation in history.'

But it's not clear that D-Day was the largest; that title could as easily be awarded to Operation Husky. Deciding whether Downfall would also have out-scaled Husky is beyond the scope of this commentary; suffice it to say that, as written, the conditional references oversimplifies a complex judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.49.71 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Missing Citation

Hello Meeepmep! In this edit you added some prose that's referenced to a citation named "Browser". But there's no such citation defined in this article, and the article now renders with an error and leaves your claim unverifiable. Are you able to supply the missing citation, so that the addition can be verified and the error cleaned up? You might notice that I made a speculative fix for another referencing error you introduced; maybe you can spare a few minutes to verify that fix is correct. Thanks! -- mikeblas (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Meeepmep (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the fix!!1! -- mikeblas (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)