A Serious Soviet-Japanese War in the 30s

So I was musing on how a communist Japan would be a very interesting place, but I couldn't think of any way to get a Communist Japan short of a Soviet-Japanese war that didn't include America and went rather successfully for the Soviets.

I don't think it is too unlikely to keep America out of such a war - if Japan chooses to fight the Soviets instead of trying the Southern Strategy, then American isolationism is a big barrier to getting involved. If Japan fights a major war with the Soviets instead of going south into China after the Marco Polo Bridge incident, then there wouldn't even be the China lobby pressing for getting into the fight against Japan.

But how to get a serious Soviet-Japanese war? The best PoD that has occurred to me is the battles of the Khalkhin Gol incident to go much better for the Japanese due to a worse purge of the Red Army. But Stalin began purging the Army in 1936, and by that point, I have a hard time seeing the Japanese not starting something big in China. So even if the Red Army truly fluff up Khalkin Gol and make it look like the Japanese could march all the way to Moscow, would the Japanese want to escalate the incident into a full war?

So, anyone else have any thoughts?

fasquardon
 
The Sino-Japanese War didn't have to start in summer 1937. Unlike Japan's invasion of Manchuria, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident was not planned.

While a Sino-Japanese War is likely to happen at some point, there are any number of reasons why it could be delayed for a few years (or happen earlier).

Chiang might destroy the Communists during the Long March, or escape being captured at Xi'an. There is no United Front, and Japan is not as concerned about China. Chiang wanted to delay any confrontation until after he completed the German training plan of 30 divisions which would not be completed until 1939.

If there is no war with China, the Lake Khasan Battle might be the one that spirals out of control and triggers a Sino-Soviet War.

However, it is highly unlikely the Soviet Union would ever be able to invade Japan. It's navy was a joke, and the Red Army had zero experience in amphibious assaults. A Communist takeover in Japan would have to be a result of the Japanese government somehow collapsing in a 1917 scenario with a Japanese Lenin managing to take power.
 
However, it is highly unlikely the Soviet Union would ever be able to invade Japan. It's navy was a joke, and the Red Army had zero experience in amphibious assaults. A Communist takeover in Japan would have to be a result of the Japanese government somehow collapsing in a 1917 scenario with a Japanese Lenin managing to take power.

One scenario could be that Japan decides to fight on after the atomic bombings of 1945. The Japanese navy and air force have no fuel left, so it's not a big problem anymore. The Soviets could potentially invade Hokkaido and create a "People's Republic of Japan." This probably doesn't quite fit the OP's bill though.
 
One scenario could be that Japan decides to fight on after the atomic bombings of 1945. The Japanese navy and air force have no fuel left, so it's not a big problem anymore. The Soviets could potentially invade Hokkaido and create a "People's Republic of Japan." This probably doesn't quite fit the OP's bill though.

What I have read is that before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese already knew they were facing a doomsday scenario just because the US controlled the sea at that point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki only accelerated the surrender by a couple months.

Since the USSR didn't have a big fleet and by that point the US wouldn't be willing to let the prize for their victory go to their ally, I don't think a communist Japan could happen at this point.

However, it is highly unlikely the Soviet Union would ever be able to invade Japan. It's navy was a joke, and the Red Army had zero experience in amphibious assaults. A Communist takeover in Japan would have to be a result of the Japanese government somehow collapsing in a 1917 scenario with a Japanese Lenin managing to take power.

Indeed, the lack of fleet means that I would expect to see the Soviets forcing Japan to surrender with nuclear bombs. Or perhaps the Soviets attack Germany first during the alt phony war period, with the price for this being British and French help in the war against Japan. After hard-fought wars on both ends of Eurasia, the final settlement would have the Soviets getting Japan and being recognized as hegemon in northeast asia, while in Europe instead of a divide between east and west europe, all three (possibly four, if the USA joins this war) powers are equal guarantors of free europe. (Stalin being Stalin, he'd still want a hegemony in east europe, but in this case, he has to pursue it by democracy and bribery, lest his grip on Japan be threatened.)

And I hear you about ways the Sino-Japanese war could be different or not happen at all. Do you think that a Japan that wasn't bogged down in China would feel strong enough to commit itself to a real war with the Soviets though? Personally, I think it is unlikely, unless the Soviets somehow looked very weak, and I have trouble thinking of a PoD that would both make the Soviets look weak, and change the situation in China.

fasquardon
 
What I have read is that before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese already knew they were facing a doomsday scenario just because the US controlled the sea at that point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki only accelerated the surrender by a couple months.

The Soviets planned to invade Japan in the September-October period. A few months is enough.

Since the USSR didn't have a big fleet
To land at completely undefended Rumoi, the Soviets don't need a big fleet. It would be the kind of operation the Soviets pulled repeatedly against the Germans in the 1943-44 and the Japanese themselves throughout August.

and by that point the US wouldn't be willing to let the prize for their victory go to their ally
Well, not beyond Hokkaido at least.
 
The problem with viewing the Khalkhin Gol incident as the sum total of Soviet-Japanes battles ignores the issue of command. Namely the USSR was fielding one of the major military minds of WWII while Japan was using an intelligence officer without real ground war experince.

So to me the result of such a fight is not decided on a single battle.
 
The problem with viewing the Khalkhin Gol incident as the sum total of Soviet-Japanes battles ignores the issue of command. Namely the USSR was fielding one of the major military minds of WWII while Japan was using an intelligence officer without real ground war experince.

So to me the result of such a fight is not decided on a single battle.

I chose Khalkhin Gol as a possible starting point for a war because it is a well known border clash. That saved me from explaining more about the Japanese-Soviet relations when really I didn't need to, since all of the border clashes had, in my eyes, the same problem. However well it goes for the Japanese, it is hard for me seeing the Japanese committing the resources for a wider war in Siberia, since they already know the geographic challenges pretty well.

And did you read what I wrote? 1) I am proposing a Soviet army without Zhukov. 2) I am asking for thoughts on how to get the Japanese and Soviets fighting a serious war, rather than isolated (if very large) battles.

At no point have I ever asked about how one might get a decisive single battle that... I have know idea what you think I wanted from such a decisive battle. You seem to have read some very strange things into my earlier posts.

fasquardon
 
Stalin gives command of Siberian forces to one of his political lackeys instead of Zhukov, which results in a Japanese victory at Khalkhin Gol. This encourages the Japanese to be more aggressive toward USSR, forcing Stalin to commit to a wider war with Japan to neutralize the potential threat. The forces earmarked for the Winter War against Finland is instead sent to sort out Japan in Manchuria.
 
Top