Was the USSR actually capable of conquering Japan at the end of WWII?

[WhatIsAUserName]

First topic in a while . . .

Well, it's been something that has been bugging me, but during scenarios involving WWII with both the Soviets and the Japanese, why does it usually end up with Stalin sending the Red Army in, and occupying northern or all of Japan? I know that the Japanese had put most of their defenses around Kyushu and Honshu where Operations Coronet and Olympic would take place had the Americans invaded, but it seems unlikely to me that the Soviets would have an easier time than the Americans if they intended to invade. Not only that, but if it appears that the Americans will not invade, would Japan be capable of moving its troops up north and actually fighting off the Russians? And how many men could Stalin actually have sent over there anyways?

Discuss away.

 

[snerfuplz]

It would of been nasty house to house fighting with severe losses on both sides. But I think that the Soviets could do it, but the USA would most probally invade from the south or use the atomic bombs to make sure the Soviets don't get too much Japanese territory.

 

[Johnrankins]

The Red Navy was pretty pathetic ,did Russia have enough ships to move a large army and resupply it? I tend to doubt it.

 

[snerfuplz]

The Red Navy was pretty pathetic ,did Russia have enough ships to move a large army and resupply it? I tend to doubt it.

I would expect the Russians to feed off the land. Of course the USA would be obliged to help supply the Russians, but I dont think that much of the supplys would get to the Soviets

 

[Nick Sumner]

What Johnrankins said, the USSR does not have the sealift or the relevant experience to mount a seabourne invasion of Japan.

 

[Earling]

By mid 1946 the USSR would certainly be capable of conquering what little remains of a central Japanese state and mopping up the starving remnants everywhere else.

Ofcourse getting there without the USA "conquering" Japan in the meanwhile is difficult if not impossible.

 

[Johnrankins]

By mid 1946 the USSR would certainly be capable of conquering what little remains of a central Japanese state and mopping up the starving remnants everywhere else.

Ofcourse getting there without the USA "conquering" Japan in the meanwhile is difficult if not impossible.

With what seapower? The Russians had virtually none.

 

[CDurham]

Well they took the Kurils (sp?) and the rest of Sakhailen island, if they waited until the US invasion in the South to invade the Northernmost island I could see it happening. Neither side would "conquer" the whole chain, but it might be split North/South

 

[Billi the Axe]

As mentioned above the Red Navy has a pitiful sealift capacity,With little or no chance of getting any as the US needs all they can get for there own invasion. Also where are the troops coming from most Sov units are still occupying Eastern Europe and will be needed for some time.
Now , If therev is a US invasion of the Japanese home islands i could see the USSR grabbing all of Korea and increasing there precence in China in support of Mao
But to get a sucessful Soviet invasion of Japan the ASB's would have to come and take them ,it ranks up there with Sealion as a implausible scenario at best and if tried would turn into a disaster of epic proportions

 

[Max Sinister]

Even if they could've done the sealift (if their airforce destroys all the Japanese ships, planes and artillery in the way, it might work), the Japanese would fight for every foot of ground. The death toll might be higher than a million.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

It's implausible, not impossible.

The Soviets did hundreds of amphibious landings in WWII. They had the ability to do short range over water invasions combined with paratroop landing.The action on the Kurils were pretty successful.

For the Soviets to succeed they will have to get very nasty. Which isn't a problem for Stalin. First they need to take Sakhalin, then Hokkaido. This will accomplish two things: 1. allow them to use it as a base for their medium bombers. 2. Hokkaido is a major producer of food and without it Japan would starve.

The next thing they need to do is take Korea. Once again they would have another medium bomber base and deprive Japan of more food production. This combination of attack bases north and south would cripple Japan.

Japan's food transportation infrastructure was highly vulnerable. It depends heavily on coastal shipping to move food around plus a rail network to distribute it. These can all be destroyed from the air. The fuel supply will also be eliminated this way.

Then they would subject the starving country to incessant firebombing of the cities, and use biological and chemical weapons to reduce the population until surrender is accepted. The ability of Japan to retaliate is disporportionatly lower, since only a small percentage of Soviet population centers are within Japan's striking range.

The whole project will take at least a year, possibly two or more. But it's possible Japan will surrender before it got to the most horrific stage. The Soviets could strike a compromise, preserving the emperor and allowing some degree of self rule through a puppet government like Vichy France.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Even if they could've done the sealift (if their airforce destroys all the Japanese ships, planes and artillery in the way, it might work), the Japanese would fight for every foot of ground. The death toll might be higher than a million.

The Soviets lost a million men in the Battle of Berlin alone. They already lost 20 million in the war, adding to that loss another 5-10% should not be beyond them.

 

[Locke]

The Red Navy was pretty pathetic ,did Russia have enough ships to move a large army and resupply it? I tend to doubt it.

Well, by the time Russia declared war on japan, the IJN was pretty pathetic too.

The whole project will take at least a year, possibly two or more. But it's possible Japan will surrender before it got to the most horrific stage. The Soviets could strike a compromise, preserving the emperor and allowing some degree of self rule through a puppet government like Vichy France.

Would the Japanese puppet be a part of the Warsaw pact perhaps?

And, after WW2, if Japan was split in two, would we see a proxy war like Korea or Vietnam unfold between the Soviet-backed Communist north and the NATO-backed capitalist south?

 

[Bill Cameron]

And, after WW2, if Japan was split in two, would we see a proxy war like Korea or Vietnam unfold between the Soviet-backed Communist north and the NATO-backed capitalist south?

Locke,

No.

Was there a proxy war between Soviet-backed East Germany and NATO-backed West Germany?

In the OTL, Japan was all but solely occupied by the US after the war. In the event of an ATL US-Soviet invasion, Japan would be occupied by multiple powers. One intriguing question is whether the Soviets in Tokyo would find themselves in a reversal of their position in Berlin; holding a small pocket of territory within another power's occupation zone.


Bill

 

[Locke]

Locke,

No.

Was there a proxy war between Soviet-backed East Germany and NATO-backed West Germany?

In the OTL, Japan was all but solely occupied by the US after the war. In the event of an ATL US-Soviet invasion, Japan would be occupied by multiple powers. One intriguing question is whether the Soviets in Tokyo would find themselves in a reversal of their position in Berlin; holding a small pocket of territory within another power's occupation zone.


Bill

Yet if this supposed Communist Japan wasn't included in the Warsaw Pact....?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If you consider the colossal logistical buildup over a period of years for the Normandy landings, conducted from a very nearby base - that being England - and that we still had trouble pulling it off, with the incredibly massive power of the RN and USN and air forces backing it up, the non-existent Soviet Pacific fleet and it's even less existent supply train would have a chance of conquering Japan somewhere below the chance of Chad successfully invading Mongolia.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

If US had to carry out Operation Downfall I would imagine the Soviets would takeover Korea and land on Hokkaido. A a small Communist state would be established there. The massive death toll from Downfall will also create much more anti-American feelings in Japan and the US would not risk letting the Soviets have more control in the country. I can't imagine US allowing the Soviets a piece of Tokyo or give them northern Honshu. Possibly the west might handover Berlin as a concession.

JFK would utter the famous line: "Ich bin ein Bonner".

 

[Bill Cameron]

Yet if this supposed Communist Japan wasn't included in the Warsaw Pact....?

Locke,

Soviet occupied and not in the Warsaw Pact or some far east equivalent? Possible perhaps, but not very probable.

A Soviet invasion and occupation of Japan would also include the Soviet 'liberation' of all of Korea and the creation of a post-war communist state there. Once the West organizes an Asian version of NATO(1) that inlcudes their part of Japan, the Soviets could very well counter with a 'Pyongyang Pact'.

I suppose the communist portion of Japan could be independent of Moscow, we have Yugoslavia, Albania, and (eventually) China as examples. However none of those polities were Soviet occupied after the war (Yugoslavia and Albania) or Soviet occupied for long (Manchuria was turned over to the PLA very quickly). Japan, as a long term Russian enemy, would be undoubtedly treated differently just as Germany and Poland were and Svoiet troops won't be leaving until an ATL Gorbie withdraws them.

We should note that only one supoosedly 'independent' communist state, Vietnam, was involved in a cold war proxy fight and the Soviet's assitance there only really began when the America's idiotic intervention began.


Bill

1 - A real working defense pact and not the lame OTL SEATO

 

[Bill Cameron]

If US had to carry out Operation Downfall...

Tallwingedgoat,

Downfall isn't the certainty that too many timelines make it out to be.

After Okinawa, Nimitz was dead set against it and had convinced King. King had voted with the Joint Chiefs to begin preparations for Downfall saying that the decision to actually launch Downfall still had to be made.

Marshall was having second thoughts, especially thanks to the mounting radio intelligence that the Japanese had been reinforcing Kysuhu so heavily that the landing force would not have the 3-1 superiorty thought necessary. In fact, troop levels were either at parity or favored the Japanese.

The USAAF chief, whose name escapes me at that moment, felt Downfall wasn't needed and the air/sea blockade of the Home Islands would work. (The USAAF chief was now part of the JCS because everyone knew the air force would be independent soon and was de facto independent already.)

A Joint Chiefs meeting was scheduled for either late August or early September of '45 and the issue was going to be hashed out then. Of all the JCS, only MacArthur still supported Downfall as planned because he did not believe the radio intercepts. Fortunately history, instead of a landing, proved him wrong.

Remove the Bombs from the picture somehow and Downfall, complete with Olympic and Cornet, does not automatically or even plausibly take place.


Bill

 

[Atreus]

Conquering Japan? No. Occupying a small chunk of it (Hokkaido, any more becomes ASB's), possibly, given certain conditions. Namely:

The Combined Fleet is crushed by the USN and or RN.

Most of the Japanese army is clustered around Kyushu, preparing to ward off an Allied Invasion.

The USSR has knocked Japan out of China.

That said, the action will be hard fought, bloody, accomplish little, and force the Red Navy beyond it's capabilities. But it might happen, under the right circumstances.