TL-191: Filling the Gaps

[Alterwright]

By the way, speaking of filling in gaps in this massive timeline...

By 1944, about the time when Great Britain and Russia were just about exhausted from the fighting, Japan decides to turn on each of them. While we know what Japanese attacked in Asia, namely what ever the British possessed, we don't know a whole lot about what the Japanese were trying to claim from Russia. It just alludes to Japan demanding territory in "Siberia".

Siberia is a big place, guys. Realistically, what would the Empire of Japan in TL-191 be trying to claim in 1944 from Russia? What parts of vast territory that is Siberia would they want? Would they also want anything in Russian Alaska?

 

[Alterwright]

Because I'm going to be honest here - I think Japan attacking Russia via Manchuria and into Siberia is going to be one of their toughest fights yet. Yes, the Russians are pretty much exhausted and battered by the summer of 1944. Petrograd has been destroyed, hundreds of thousands have potentially been lost in Ukraine and Poland, and the communists are creating chaos behind the lines through suicide bombers. And the argument could be made that Russia would be too weak to defend Siberia anyway.

However, I don't think its going to be an easy fight for the Japanese. Its not going to be like Khalkhin Gol or August Storm, but its going to be as vicious a fight... or perhaps not. I guess it just depends on how weakened you think Russia is by this point. I'm of the opinion that they are not so weak as to try and resist a Japanese offensive. Successfully resisting? Not so much.

 

[FanOfHistory]

I think Japan attacking Russia via Manchuria and into Siberia is going to be one of their toughest fights yet.

Something else I found out was that before the Russo-Japanese War, Russia owned Manchuria. They took it from China after The Boxer Rebellion and held it until the war with Japan. Russian Manchuria was a big reason for the war since Japan was scared Russia would interfere in Korea, which was under Japan's sphere of influence. In TL 191, the war never happens. Japan goes to war with Spain instead, meaning that the Russians control Manchuria all the way into 1944. Now yes, there were Manchurian insurgents doing damage behind the lines, but this still means that the Japanese Army has to fight through Manchuria to even get to Siberia.

 

[Alterwright]

Something else I found out was that before the Russo-Japanese War, Russia owned Manchuria. They took it from China after The Boxer Rebellion and held it until the war with Japan. Russian Manchuria was a big reason for the war since Japan was scared Russia would interfere in Korea, which was under Japan's sphere of influence. In TL 191, the war never happens. Japan goes to war with Spain instead, meaning that the Russians control Manchuria all the way into 1944. Now yes, there were Manchurian insurgents doing damage behind the lines, but this still means that the Japanese Army has to fight through Manchuria to even get to Siberia.

Right and this is a fair point to make. Information on this area is very vague and even the books only make passing references to this place since the focus is, of course, on the conflict between the USA and CSA.

Its very hard to get a handle on who controls this area. While the Russians most certainly would have had influence in Manchuria, colonization of the area is another thing entirely. You're right in saying that there might have been no Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905 since the equivalent to that happened between Japan and Spain instead over the Philippines, which in our timeline happened between the US and Spain in 1898. Perhaps control of the Philippines satiated Japan's colonial ambitions enough to avoid a war with Russia over Manchuria. Perhaps during the possible negotiations between the two powers between 1898 and 1904 there was a compromise struck that would see Russia recognize Japan's influence over Korea, while Japan recognized Russia's influence over Manchuria. Russia needed a warm water port in Liaodong and Japan needed to have its fear over Russian expansion into their sphere of influence calmed. Perhaps by 1914 they did manage to avoid a war, allowing Japan to claim Korea as a colony by 1911, just like in our-time line.

^^^ --- This fan-made map gives us a good idea of this area by 1914. While it can be assumed Russia may have influence in Manchuria, neither have claimed it as part of their territory.

However, by 1941 things have changed.

^^^ --- Now according this fan-made map by 1941 Manchuria is already made into the puppet state of Manchukuo, which effectively gives control of the area to Japan. Again, this is a fan-made map so I doubt if its accurate.

While it may conflict with TL-191s events, this is still in line with Japan's territorial ambitions from our timeline, which I still think merits some consideration. Japan was still taking chunks out of China during the inter-war years in TL-191. With the Russian Empire wracked by civil war for a decade since 1917 its very possible that any loyal Russian troops in Manchuria were pulled out and sent back to Russia to deal with the civil war, allowing the Japanese to move in by the 1920s.

Aware of Russia's shaky state, even into the 1940s, its very possible Japan intended to be very bold and claim Russian lands in Siberia for its resources, especially around Lake Baikal. This is in-line with their Hokushin-ron strategy, which the army greatly advocated for - claiming land around Lake Baikal in Siberia for its resources. This plan assumes that Russia was a major threat and it is very likely that Japan still viewed Russia as an enemy despite technically being on the same side as the Entente.

This plan, I think, would be adapted if the Japanese did not have control over Manchuria, which itself has resources the Japanese need. Either way you slice it, I still agree - Japan is going to fight. Whether they have to go through Manchuria or parts of Siberia their target is still the same - claim the resources of the land while their enemy is supposedly too weak or too disorganized to fight back.

 

[FanOfHistory]

Japan was still taking chunks out of China during the inter-war years in TL-191.

Was it? I don't think the books mention that, but its been a while since I opened up the inter-war books

 

[Alterwright]

Was it? I don't think the books mention that, but its been a while since I opened up the inter-war books

Apologies. I believe it can be reasonably assumed and expected that Japan would continue to take land in China. The country itself in TL-191 was wracked by internal strife and constant warring between various factions of the warlords - in our timeline this was the infamous "Warlords Era" in Chinese history after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

It was during this time, from the 1920s and into the 1930s, that Japan sought and opportunity for expansion, exploiting the weakness of a dis-unified state. This is where Manchuria comes in - Manchuria was part of China technically speaking, despite having ethnic groups that were Manchu or even Mongolian that shared space with Han Chinese. Moreover, due to a lack of a central government, the only real form of a ruling authority in Manchuria was a clique of warlords, not a government led by Chiang and the Nationalists (although you can correct me on that if I am wrong).

In TL-191, it is implied that Japan was able to "intensify" its conquest of China, taking more land at the expense of the Chinese. Now, to me, it seems very likely that certain events in China remain largely the same - Chiang Kai-shek would still be battling it out with the Japanese in places like Shanghai, Beijing, Wuhan, Chang-sha, and others. Chiang was barely able defend and launch attacks of his own against the Japanese, but at great cost to his army. Communists would still likely take root in China, though they would likely sprout up independently of any influence from a strong communist state like the Soviet Union (which doesn't exist in TL-191) and their strength would be... debatable perhaps.

Either way, I think it can still be reasonably predicted that China's struggle with Japan in TL-191 would be largely the same as how we see it in our timeline, although fighting being much more brutal... as if it wasn't already brutal enough.

But back to Manchuria and a possible in invasion of Russia in 1944! With all this going on for Japan, I do think their fight with the Russians would be a tough one, not a cake walk.

 

[FanOfHistory]

I do think their fight with the Russians would be a tough one, not a cake walk.

Oh, yeah. That fight could drag on years. I think it'll end when one side gets their own superbomb. But if Japan also attacked the UK, then they're already facing an enemy with nukes. Their only advantage is that it would take a while for the UK to ship the nukes over.

 

[Alterwright]

Oh, yeah. That fight could drag on years. I think it'll end when one side gets their own superbomb. But if Japan also attacked the UK, then they're already facing an enemy with nukes. Their only advantage is that it would take a while for the UK to ship the nukes over.

Yes. And that's the other issue for Japan as well. Its leaders gambled and banked on opportunities that would allow them to claim more territory with the least amount of life lost, while the European powers fought each other, unable to respond to Japan's numerous little gains over the years as they carve up an empire for themselves. Its a strategy that has worked very well for them over the decades since Hispano-Japanese War of... roughly between 1898 and 1904.

Now, in 1944, they will face another true test of their strength and endurance. This time they will be on their own, facing off against two large, yet exhausted world powers. The Japanese were able to take the British by surprise by attacking their Asian holdings, but the situation for a Russian offensive would be different. Admittedly Japan is in a more advantageous position then in our timeline, but its land armies would still face a great challenge despite gaining experience fighting the Chinese.

They would be up against the Russians who would at least be expecting an attack on their Far East frontier from Manchuria. Now, I don't know the level of technological advancement the Russian military was able to achieve in TL-191 or how many troops they would still have in the Far East. I can only get an idea based on what I know from history in our timeline - and if the Russian army is as advanced as it is in our time, with the equivalent of the Soviet arsenal at their disposal, the Japanese are going to have a hard fight ahead of them, and that's not including their possible issues with logistics, which were still a problem for them even in the best of times in our timeline. They'd at least be up against a force that is roughly equivalent to their own in Manchuria.

 

[Zoidberg12]

List of Governors of Connecticut

41. William A. Buckingham (Republican) (1858-1866)
42. James E. English (Democratic) (1866-1869)
43. Joseph R. Hawley (Republican) (1869-1871)
44. Marshall Jewell (Republican) (1871-1873)
45. Charles R. Ingersoll (Democratic) (1873-1877)
46. Richard D. Hubbard (Democratic) (1877-1879)
47. Charles B. Andrews (Republican) (1879-1881)
48. Hobart B. Bigelow (Republican) (1881-1883)
49. Thomas M. Waller (Democratic) (1883-1887)
50. Henry Baldwin Harrison (Republican) (1887-1889)
51. Phineas C. Lounsbury (Democratic) (1887-1891)
52. Luzon B. Morris (Democratic) (1891-1895)
53. Owen Vincent Coffin (Republican) (1895-1897)
54. Lorrin A. Cooke (Republican) (1897-1899)
55. George E. Lounsbury (Democratic) (1899-1901)
56. George P. McLean (Democratic) (1901-1903)
57. Abiram Chamberlain (Republican) (1903-1905)
58. Henry Roberts (Democratic) (1905-1907)
59. Rollin S. Woodruff (Democratic) (1907-1909)
60. George L. Lilley (Democratic) (1909) †
61. Frank B. Weeks (Democratic) (1909-1911)
62. Simeon Eben Baldwin (Democratic) (1911-1915)
63. Marcus H. Holcomb (Democratic) (1915-1919)
64. Everett J. Lake (Democratic) (1919-1921)
65. Charles A. Templeton (Democratic) (1921-1925)
66. Hiram Bingham III (Democratic) (1925-1929)
67. Wilbur L. Cross (Democratic) (1929-1937)
68. John H. Trumbull (Democratic) (1937-1939)
69. Raymond E. Baldwin (Democratic) (1939-1941)
70. Robert A. Hurley (Socialist) (1941-1945)
71. Raymond E. Baldwin (Democratic) (1945- )

† = Died in Office

List of Governors of Rhode Island

27. William Sprague IV (Republican) (1860-1863)
28. William C. Cozzens (Democratic) (1863-1866)
29. James Y. Smith (Republican) (1866-1869)
30. Seth Padelford (Republican) (1869-1873)
31. Henry Howard (Republican) (1873-1875)
32. Henry Lippitt (Republican) (1875-1877)
33. Charles C. Van Zandt (Republican) (1877-1880)
34. Alfred H. Littlefield (Republican) (1880-1883)
35. John W. Davis (Democratic) (1883-1885)
36. Royal C. Taft (Democratic) (1885-1887)
37. Augustus O. Bourn (Republican) (1887-1889)
38. Herbert W. Ladd (Democratic) (1889-1891)
39. George P. Wetmore (Democratic) (1891-1893)
40. D. Russell Brown (Democratic) (1893-1895)
41. Charles W. Lippitt (Democratic) (1895-1897)
42. Elisha Dyer Jr. (Republican) (1897-1900)
43. William Gregory (Democratic) (1901-1901) †
44. Charles D. Kimball (Democratic) (1901-1903)
45. Lucius F. C. Garvin (Democratic) (1903-1905)
46. George H. Utter (Democratic) (1905-1907)
47. James H. Higgins (Democratic) (1907-1911)
48. Aram J. Pothier (Democratic) (1911-1915)
49. R. Livingston Beeckman (Democratic) (1915-1921)
50. Emery J. San Souci (Democratic) (1921-1923)
51. William S. Flynn (Socialist) (1923-1926)
52. Aram J. Pothier (Democratic) (1926-1928) †
53. Norman S. Case (Democratic) (1928-1933)
54. Theodore F. Green (Democratic) (1933-1937)
55. Robert E. Quinn (Democratic) (1937-1939)
56. William Henry Vanderbilt III (Democratic) (1939-1941)
57. J. Howard McGrath (Democratic) (1941-1945)
58. Dennis J. Roberts (Democratic) (1945- )

† = Died in Office

 

[FanOfHistory]

Yes. And that's the other issue for Japan as well. Its leaders gambled and banked on opportunities that would allow them to claim more territory with the least amount of life lost, while the European powers fought each other, unable to respond to Japan's numerous little gains over the years as they carve up an empire for themselves. Its a strategy that has worked very well for them over the decades since Hispano-Japanese War of... roughly between 1898 and 1904.

Now, in 1944, they will face another true test of their strength and endurance. This time they will be on their own, facing off against two large, yet exhausted world powers. The Japanese were able to take the British by surprise by attacking their Asian holdings, but the situation for a Russian offensive would be different. Admittedly Japan is in a more advantageous position then in our timeline, but its land armies would still face a great challenge despite gaining experience fighting the Chinese.

They would be up against the Russians who would at least be expecting an attack on their Far East frontier from Manchuria. Now, I don't know the level of technological advancement the Russian military was able to achieve in TL-191 or how many troops they would still have in the Far East. I can only get an idea based on what I know from history in our timeline - and if the Russian army is as advanced as it is in our time, with the equivalent of the Soviet arsenal at their disposal, the Japanese are going to have a hard fight ahead of them, and that's not including their possible issues with logistics, which were still a problem for them even in the best of times in our timeline. They'd at least be up against a force that is roughly equivalent to their own in Manchuria.

Another thing to consider is that this is Siberia. Just how far north and west do the Japanese have to go to convince the Russians to throw in the towel? And supply lines are a major issue. If the Russians keep drawing back, extending the Japanese lines to their breaking point, then they'll have plenty of opportunities to counter-attack. If they're already embroiled in China and are now fighting the British and Russians, the Japanese are going to be spread thin.

 

[Alterwright]

Another thing to consider is that this is Siberia. Just how far north and west do the Japanese have to go to convince the Russians to throw in the towel? And supply lines are a major issue. If the Russians keep drawing back, extending the Japanese lines to their breaking point, then they'll have plenty of opportunities to counter-attack. If they're already embroiled in China and are now fighting the British and Russians, the Japanese are going to be spread thin.

Indeed! This is a another good point about how tough of a fight the Japanese will have attacking the Russians in Siberia.

I believe we can get an idea of how far west and north Japan is willing to go by actual history in our timeline. In fact, I think the Japanese Intervention of 1918-1922 in Russia during the country's civil war in our timeline will give us a good understanding of just what they were interested in claiming... and why they eventually couldn't stay.

70,000 Japanese troops were sent to the Russian Far East in our timeline and those forces would be spread out as far as Lake Baikal and as far north as Nikolayevsk-on-Amur.

^^^ --- the areas circled here are places that the Japanese stationed troops during the Intervention and were areas of potential acquisition in their Kantokuen Plan - an invasion of the Russian Far East to claim the resources there.

Now, in TL-191, in 1944, if successful the Japanese would essentially take Buryatia, Amur Oblast, Zabaykalsky Krai, Primorsky Krai, and potentially the southern half of Khabarovsk Krai. Its a huge chunk of land.

The Japanese Army here would no doubt be stretched thin, with supply lines extended out to the breaking point. Logistics wise it would be a nightmare unless they can find a way to get all the necessary trucks and other means of transportation to this front, which would be a huge undertaking if they hadn't already built up and planned for this in advance - something that the Russians on the other side of the Amur River would definitely take note of, especially if both countries are supposed to be "allies".

Like the Japanese though, the Russians may also be stretched thin here and it would take time to send reinforcements east from the European Front, if they can spare anything at all. A decision would have to be made in light of Japanese demands of Russia in 1944 - conduct a fighting retreat and fall back into the interior to let the Japanese extend themselves out, or to make a strong stand along the Amur River and the border with Manchuria.

Its a tough call. Both sides would risking a lot of anything were to go wrong.

 

[Zoidberg12]

List of Governors of New Hampshire

28. Nathaniel S. Berry (Republican) (1861-1863)
29. Joseph A. Gilmore (Republican) (1863-1865)
30. Frederick Smyth (Republican) (1865-1867)
31. Walter Harriman (Republican) (1867-1869)
32. Onslow Stearns (Republican) (1869-1871)
33. James A. Weston (Democratic) (1871-1872)
34. Ezekiel A. Straw (Republican) (1872-1874)
35. James A. Weston (Democratic) (1874-1875)
36. Person C. Cheney (Republican) (1875-1877)
37. Benjamin F. Prescott (Republican) (1877-1879)
38. Natt Head (Republican) (1879-1881)
39. Charles H. Bell (Republican) (1881-1883)
40. Moody Currier (Republican) (1883-1885)
41. Samuel W. Hale (Republican) (1885-1887)
42. Charles H. Sawyer (Democratic) (1887-1889)
43. David H. Goodell (Democratic) (1889-1891)
44. Hiram A. Tuttle (Democratic) (1891-1893)
45. John Butler Smith (Democratic) (1893-1895)
46. Charles A. Busiel (Democratic) (1895-1897)
47. George A. Ramsdell (Democratic) (1897-1899)
48. Frank W. Rollins (Democratic) (1899-1901)
49. Chester B. Jordan (Democratic) (1901-1903)
50. Nahum J. Bachelder (Democratic) (1903-1905)
51. John McLane (Democratic) (1905-1907)
52. Charles M. Floyd (Democratic) (1907-1909)
53. Henry B. Quinby (Democratic) (1909-1911)
54. Robert P. Bass (Democratic) (1911-1913)
55. Samuel D. Felker (Democratic) (1913-1915)
56. Rolland H. Spaulding (Democratic) (1915-1917)
57. Henry W. Keyes (Democratic) (1917-1919)
58. John H. Bartlett (Democratic) (1919-1921)
59. Albert O. Brown (Democratic) (1921-1923)
60. Fred H. Brown (Democratic) (1923-1925)
61. Huntley N. Spaulding (Democratic) (1925-1929)
62. Charles W. Tobey (Democratic) (1929-1931)
63. John Gilbert Winant (Democratic) (1931-1935)
64. Styles Bridges (Democratic) (1935-1939)
65. Francis P. Murphy (Socialist) (1939-1943)
66. Robert O. Blood (Democratic) (1943-1945)
67. Charles M. Dale (Democratic) (1945- )

List of Governors of Vermont

27. Frederick Holbrook (Republican) (1861-1863)
28. J. Gregory Smith (Republican) (1863-1865)
29. Paul Dillingham (Republican) (1865-1867)
30. John B. Page (Republican) (1867-1869)
31. Peter T. Washburn (Republican) (1869-1870)
32. George Whitman Hendee (Republican) (1870)
33. John W. Stewart (Republican) (1870-1872)
34. Julius Converse (Republican) (1872-1874)
35. Asahel Peck (Republican) (1874-1876)
36. Horace Fairbanks (Republican) (1876-1878)
37. Redfield Procto (Republican) (1878-1880)
38. Roswell Farnham (Republican) (1880-1882)
39. William Henry Harrison Bingham (Democratic) (1882-1884)
40. John L. Barstow (Democratic) (1884-1886)
41. Samuel E. Pingree (Democratic) (1886-1888)
42. Ebenezer J. Ormsbee (Democratic) (1888-1890)
43. Carroll S. Page (Democratic) (1890-1892)
44. Levi K. Fuller (Democratic) (1892-1894)
45. Urban A. Woodbury (Democratic) (1894-1896)
46. Josiah Grout (Democratic) (1896-1898)
47. Edward C. Smith (Democratic) (1898-1900)
48. William W. Stickney (Democratic) (1900-1902)
49. John G. McCullough (Republican) (1902-1904)
50. Charles J. Bell (Democratic) (1904-1906)
51. Fletcher D. Proctor (Democratic) (1906-1908)
52. George H. Prouty (Democratic) (1908-1910)
53. John A. Mead (Democratic) (1910-1912)
54. Allen M. Fletcher (Democratic) (1912-1915)
55. Charles W. Gates (Democratic) (1915-1917)
56. Horace F. Graham (Democratic) (1917-1919)
57. Percival W. Clement (Democratic) (1919-1921)
58. James Hartness (Democratic) (1921-1923)
59. Redfield Proctor, Jr. (Democratic) (1923-1925)
60. Franklin S. Billings (Democratic) (1925-1927)
61. John E. Weeks (Democratic) (1927-1931)
62. Stanley C. Wilson (Democratic) (1931-1935)
63. Charles M. Smith (Democratic) (1935-1937)
64. George David Aiken (Democratic) (1937-1941)
65. William H. Wills (Democratic) (1941-1945)
66. Mortimer R. Proctor (Democratic) (1945- )

 

[Zoidberg12]

List of Territorial Governors of Sequoyah

1. Ned Christie (Cherokee Nation) (1896-1902)

List of Governors of Sequoyah

1. Pleasant Porter (Radical-Liberal/Creek Nation) (1902-1906)
2. William Charles Rogers (Whig/Cherokee Nation) (1906-1910)
3. John Brown (Radical-Liberal/Seminole Nation) (1910-1914)
4. Douglas H. Johnston (Radical-Liberal/Chickasaw Nation) (1914-1917)
-. Hunter Ligett (Military) (1917-1919)
-. Nelson A. Miles (Military) (1919-1923)
-. John L. Hines (Military) (1923-1932)
-. Preston Gist Blair (Military) (1932-1938)
-. Malin Craig (Military) (1938-1944)
-. Francis Bowes Sayre Sr. (Military) (1944- )

 

[Alterwright]

So the whole reason why I asked the question of what Japan would do in a 1944 offensive against the Russian Empire is this - besides gaining the resources of Siberia near Lake Baikal and besides this region being the main focus of the offensive, would the Japanese attempt to send troops to the Aleutian Islands as well?

Here's a map to help visualize what I mean:

Direction of Japanese Siberian Offensive - Summer-Fall 1944

So that's really what I want to know too honestly. Alaska is still part of the Russian Empire by 1944. While Siberia is clearly coveted by the Japanese, how would Alaska factor in to Japanese plans for expansion in Siberia, if at all? Would they attempt to attack the Aleutians as they did in our timeline? Why wouldn't they if they decide not to? Why would they attack if they did? If not Attu and Kiska, would they attack other islands like Adak?

To me there might be a slim chance of the Japanese attacking the Aleutians if they saw the need to. Reasons for attacking the islands can be taken from our own timeline actually - granted an attack was considered given the United States' presence in the Pacific. So I am just wondering if plans would change because Alaska is still a Russian territory.

These were some of the reasons Japan attacked the Aleutians below from OTL (taken from Wikipedia):

"The strategic position of the islands of Attu and Kiska off Alaska's coast meant their location could control the sea lanes across the Northern Pacific Ocean. Japanese planners believed control of the Aleutians would therefore prevent any possible U.S. attacks from Alaska, allowing for control of Northern Pacific transportation routes."

"The Japanese Navy had gathered extensive information about the Aleutians, but it had no up-to-date information regarding military developments on the islands. Admiral Yamamoto provided the Japanese Northern Area Fleet, commanded by Vice-Admiral Boshiro Hosogaya, with a force of two non-fleet aircraft carriers, five cruisers, twelve destroyers, six submarines, and four troop transports, along with supporting auxiliary ships. With that force, Hosogaya was first to launch an air attack against Dutch Harbor, then follow with an amphibious attack upon the island of Adak, 480 miles (770 km) to the west. Hosogaya was instructed to destroy whatever American forces and facilities were found on Adak. Hosogaya's troops were to return to their ships and become a reserve for two additional landings: the first on Kiska, 240 miles (390 km) west of Adak, the other on the Aleutians' westernmost island, Attu, 180 miles (290 km) west from Kiska."

Again, this is with the US in mind since they control Alaska.

So, again, my question is whether the Japanese would still hold this view in TL-191 for their plans to invade Siberia.

I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts on this - I have my own but anything is good.

My reasoning is that the Japanese would want to cut off Russian Alaska from the mainland and effectively isolate any Russian forces that may be used as reinforcements to be sent to Siberia. The problem is that Russia may not even have a large military force here given how they view Alaska in TL-191, which runs in stark contrast to US military views in our timeline. Then again the US in our timeline did not have a very large force here as well.

I don't think Japan would not consider attack Russia just because they were "allies" in both Great Wars, especially in the Second Great War. To me, Japan was always out for itself and allied with Russia and Britain out of specific circumstances - namely that they shared common foes despite having animosity toward each other. The Russians and the Japanese, even without a Russo-Japanese War in 1904, would still not see eye-to-eye with each other I believe, especially over spheres of influence in Manchuria.

Plans would be drawn up by the Japanese for sure - definitely for Siberia and possibly for Alaska and Aleutians. Question is whether they would follow up those Aleutian plans with an actual attack in TL-191.

In the grand scheme of things though, whether its Siberia, the Aleutians, or both, I think this conflict between the Japanese and Russians in 1944 would the Russo-Japanese War we were expecting decades ago.

 

[FanOfHistory]

If the Japanese somehow cut off Alaska, then the US would probably invade it just to deny Japan any foothold on the North American continent

 

[Alterwright]

If the Japanese somehow cut off Alaska, then the US would probably invade it just to deny Japan any foothold on the North American continent

Right. This is taking into account that Alaska is still Imperial Russian territory though. So how would the US handle attacking the Japanese in the Aleutians if the Aleutians belong to the Russians? Risking going to war with Russia right after they just finished a second war? Become temporary allies to fight a common foe?

Moreover though, I'm more interested in knowing if the Russians themselves are capable of defending the Aleutians with what they have without help from others, if they have anything at all.

 

[FanOfHistory]

So how would the US handle attacking the Japanese in the Aleutians if the Aleutians belong to the Russians? Risking going to war with Russia right after they just finished a second war? Become temporary allies to fight a common foe?

This brings up another interesting topic, since while the US and Russia were on opposite sides in the wars, they never directly fought each other. Maybe some naval engagements, but never army to army. And the US has a lot of Russian immigrants too, so I that the Russians would let them take it just to safeguard their American lands

 

[Alterwright]

This brings up another interesting topic, since while the US and Russia were on opposite sides in the wars, they never directly fought each other. Maybe some naval engagements, but never army to army. And the US has a lot of Russian immigrants too, so I that the Russians would let them take it just to safeguard their American lands

Right. This is assuming the Russians have insufficient troops to fight the Japanese with and also assuming that the US has troops of its own to even spare in an "Alaskan Adventure" to help out a current Entente Power against a former Entente "ally". I just don't know if the US would be willing to do that or that the Russians would be willing to just let the US waltz in. They have the former Confederate States to occupy as well as Canada and the Caribbean. As interesting as a topic this may be, I'm not sure I can see the US helping out the Russians in what is essentially a "bad break up" between two Entente allies.

And again, I'm more interested in the Russians and Japanese squaring off over Siberia and the Aleutians.

 

[FanOfHistory]

This is assuming the Russians have insufficient troops to fight the Japanese with

I think initially the Russians would have a manpower shortage in the east, but once they manage to transport their whole army over, Japan is in the fight of its life

 

[Alterwright]

I think initially the Russians would have a manpower shortage in the east, but once they manage to transport their whole army over, Japan is in the fight of its life

Okay, this is in reference to Siberia I think.

Yeah, if the Russians have troops to send east they'd have to do it as quick as possible. They'd likely send some battered divisions that were in the process of being replenished or send over some newly raised ones from Central Asia or from their fronts with the Germans. The key is sending them east along their rail network, which by 1944 I'd hope is sufficiently well developed enough to send troops east in a timely manner. That was one of the big problems the Russians faced during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 - being unable to move troops east efficiently with the system they had.

So then it would be a holding action for the Russians in Manchuria and the Far East - either defend every mile until help arrives or to fall back into the interior to mass at suitable locations with the reinforcements heading east in order to counter-attack the Japanese.

None of this would be easy though. After being battered in Ukraine and Poland and with peace negotiations still being talked over with the Germans for whatever reparations or demands they have, it would take time for the Russians to get things organized for a counter-offensive against the Japanese. Not only that, but the remaining communists would likely be playing hell with their logistics and supply network.

You know the more I look at this the more I start to realize that this is just the Russo-Japanese War with WWII tech and tactics.