[C. Edmund Wright]

The author nonsensically states that Soviet victory was inevitable because of a larger population and more resources, but then disregards both those factors in asserting that Japan could have defeated the U.S.

Your point is only partially valid as an analogy. The geographies are totally different, and the definition of victory is totally different. In other words, the author is not saying Japan could have ever beaten the US to the point of invading and occupying.....and it's pretty damned tough to drive tanks across the Pacific. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges...

[SampleMan]

Your point is only partially valid as an analogy. The geographies are totally different, and the definition of victory is totally different. In other words, the author is not saying Japan could have ever beaten the US to the point of invading and occupying.....

The author states, "Had Japan annihilated the rest of the Pacific Fleet carriers, it would have taken Midway. With land-based planes on Midway, it would have taken Hawaii. With Hawaii…well, who knows? Maybe San Francisco, maybe Alaska."

...and it's pretty damned tough to drive tanks across the Pacific. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges...

Its not hard to drive ships across the Pacific. Our ship building capacity dwarfed Japan's. Note these tanks that we "drove" across the Pacific.

[Westbrook]

After the Germans capitulated, the Russians were mobilizing to attack Japan. They had a score to settle with the Japanese, anyway.

The atomic detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war too soon for the Soviets to get involved. Ironically, the Japanese were spared any Soviet intervention in the years that followed.