How feasible is a Soviet invasion of Northern Japan?

Was a Soviet invasion of Northern Japan feasible

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 52.5%
  • No

    Votes: 40 33.9%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 16 13.6%

  • Total voters
    118
[Laughter.] Stalin's promises were lies. Proxy wars in Greece, Korea, fighting in ME, IRAN, etc. 1946-1950 Plenty of wars while Stalin lived.

None of which involved the US directly going to war against the Soviet Union. In fact, in the case of Greece, that one didn’t even involve the Soviets at all. Stalin left the communists there out to hang.

38th Parallel Korea.

Established after the Japanese surrender.

Nonsense.

Unfortunately, simply declaring something nonsense does not make it so.
 
None of which involved the US directly going to war against the Soviet Union. In fact, in the case of Greece, that one didn’t even involve the Soviets at all. Stalin left the communists there out to hang.

Proxy wars did involve Russian personnel. In the case of Iran it was Russians vs British. I could even go to the Spanish Civil War...

Established after the Japanese surrender.

Still part of Yalta.

Unfortunately, simply declaring something nonsense does not make it so.

It is; if it is patently absurd. And it is.
 
Odd enough, @McPherson . You've been told that 'Neither side could afford a war against former ally if there still are common enemies alive.'

Of course I ignore nonsense. What do you think is happening in Berlin at this time?

You're ignoring this statement and continue to declare that Stalin was treacherous. Yes, he was. But any showdown between US and USSR was still not possible until Japan became finished, occupied and buried.

Wedemeyer and China.

Could USA wish the war with Soviets and Japan simultaneously? No, even if Japanese were in their dying breath.

You do know that US subs sank Russian ships and Russian planes attacked US aircraft in the closing days of the Pacific war? (accidents.)

Could USSR wish the war with Reich and WAllies simultaneously? No, even if Germans were in their dying breath.

Ever hear of Venona?
 
Proxy wars did involve Russian personnel. In the case of Iran it was Russians vs British. I could even go to the Spanish Civil War...

And yet, it still was not open war with the Soviet Union.

Still part of Yalta.

No, it was not. Korea never even came up at Yalta... or Potsdam for that matter. The 38th Parallel was agreed upon and established in late-August 1945, after the Japanese surrender, pretty much as an afterthought to everyone involved.. Had the Japanese not surrendered, it probably would have never happened.

It is; if it is patently absurd. And it is.

Except it isn’t. Plenty of evidence has been presented for how it isn’t. You have to demonstrate how while you have failed to provide the slightest bit of evidence for why it is. I guess that might be hard for you to grasp or something. Would you like picture aids?
 
1. War does not have to be formally declared to be war. (Air war in Korea is an example. Cold war is another.
2. Partitions of influence in Far East was.
3.
The Americans, while loathe to accept any foreign support at all during the actual invasion itself, were ultimately forced to do so in the form of the British Commonwealth Corps when it became apparent that the defenses of Japan were vastly stronger than initially expected. Although both MacArthur and Truman balked postwar at the prospect of a Soviet landing in Hokkaido or a joint administration of the Home Islands (when it was no longer a military necessity), the evisceration of the Sixth Army on and around Kyushu might have changed their tune. Certainly in the face of massive losses during a landing on the Japanese mainland the Americans would never have started another war over a Red landing on what might as well have been the far side of the moon, even if they had not consented to it. Such a move would have been irrational in the extreme (duh) and would have ranked as one of the greatest blunders of all time, right up there with Hitler's declaration of war on the US post-Barbarossa. Only in this case, Truman would be fighting his own ally, that he himself previously made concessions to in order to bring into the fight!


Still nonsense.

Here's why:

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V1/ch13.htm

You've seen me compile these types of "visual aids" [sarcasm] to explain complex ideas simply to people who actually need that sort of help.


p_112t.jpg


That one is not mine, but it is a similar strategic overlay as to conditions existent.

Since the US was prepared to fully NBC the beaches to get ashore at Kyushu and reach its stop lines, the claim that the "6th army would be eviscerated" is errant nonsense as well. Casualties during Olympic were expected to be on the Normandy scale: bad on the US side, not excessive, nor army destroying. Japanese casualties were expected to go through the roof, however. Bamboo spears against American infantry at this stage? Not smart.

Hence, nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Of course I ignore nonsense. What do you think is happening in Berlin at this time?

Nothing that demonstrates your point.

Wedemeyer and China.

Happened after the war.

You do know that US subs sank Russian ships and Russian planes attacked US aircraft in the closing days of the Pacific war? (accidents.)

Accidents happen in war. The US or Soviets shooting at each other because they think the other is Japanese is not evidence of the willingness of either side to go to war.


A nice demonstration of a Red-herring. What does American attempts to decrypt Soviet messages have to do with the idea that the Soviets would fight the WAllies to protect the Germans pre-May 1945?

1. War does not have to be formally declared to be war. (Air war in Korea is an example. Cold war is another.

The air war in Korea is notable because the presence of Soviet pilots was something the US kept secret for fear it might start a war with the Soviet Union (which, by the way, nicely demonstrates that even in 1950 the US didn’t want to actually go to war with the USSR if it could avoid it). And the Cold War was pretty much defined by it not actually being a war.

2. Partitions of influence in Far East was.

Now we start to see the goalposts moving. The most that was agreed at Yalta in regard to the war in the Pacific was that, first, the Soviets would enter the war, and second, some territory would be handed over to the Soviets. That’s it. No partitions of influence or, as you originally claimed and are now trying to walk back from, lines of demarcation were agreed upon.
 
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/700/

Again errant nonsense from ON. Goalpost did not move.

US did not talk openly about Russian and US naval actions on the high seas either, during THE COLD WAR.

It was actually fought you know?

As was the air war over the Soviet Union itself. (Francis Gary Powers)

And the Cuba blockade.

And a few other "hot" incidents where US and Russian forces clashed directly. (See above where US and Russian forces fired on each other during the closing stages of the Pacific war. Some of those accidents were not accidents. How do you think the Tu 4 came to be?).
 
Last edited:

I see no statement that any lines of demarcation or spheres of influence were agreed upon. Try again.

US did not talk openly about Russian and US naval actions on the high seas either, during THE COLD WAR.

Sure. Because they didn’t want it to turn into an actual war. There’s a theme here that I see your failing to grasp.

It was actually fought you know?

Sure, that does not make it an actual war.

(See above where US and Russian forces fired on each other during the closing stages of the Pacific war. Some of those accidents were not accidents.)

Your gonna have to provide actual evidence for that.

How do you think the Tu 4 came to be?).

Not as a result of fighting like your implying. A bunch of B-29s did an emergency landing in the Soviet Far East. The Soviets interred them and their crews, although the crews were sent back a few months later. No shots were exchanged and no fighting occurred.
 

iVC

Donor
What do you think is happening in Berlin at this time?

Erm, honeymoon cooperation? Arthur Werner was appointed as mayor of Berlin by Soviets, confirmed by WAllies. Inter-Allied Kommandatura was at work, sun was shining, weather was sweet, elections were planned to take place at 20 October 1946.

Kommandatura_Commandants.jpg


Wedemeyer and China.

On December 7, 1945, Wedemeyer with General Douglas MacArthur, and Navy Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, the three top military officers in the Far East, recommended to the Pentagon transporting six more Chinese Nationalist armies into North China and Manchuria.

Three months after the Japan surrendered. How do you think, would anybody listen to this idea if Olympic would be in action and bloodshed would be still active?
Ah, I forgot completely.

The Joint Chief rejected the Wedemeyer pleas.

You do know that US subs sank Russian ships and Russian planes attacked US aircraft in the closing days of the Pacific war? (accidents.)

Yes, along with British and American planes attacking Russian truck convoys in Romania in early 1945. Along with Kozhedub and Pokryshkin involved into the unhappy dogfight with american air patrol in the April 1945 over the Berlin.
Shit happens, friendly fire accidents are always the same.

Suggestions that US or USSR were eager to turn this accidents into the full-blown escalation in 1945/46 must be treated as alleged and evidence-free.

Ever hear of Venona?

OMG, how can usual, ordinary and trivial counterintelligence program serve as the evidence of intentions of two formally cooperative allies to start immediate war over one of their common enemy islands?
 

Manman

Banned
Why would the soviets and America be at war? The Japanese are still a thing and the allies still have to take them down. Also the americans will have to deal with a massive loss of life in the islands and will have to rebuild it all from scratch. So the americans would take a few months to get anywhere if for no other reason than the thing needed to move and supply the army will take time. That and the main resistance to the invasion will be there.
 
I agree that until the Japanese surrender, you won't see any US-Soviet fighting except for "friendly fire" type incidents. My point was that, given both personnel and materiel issues, the need to take Manchuria and Korea and the Kuriles, and the terrible weather for amphibious operations around Hokkaido, a serious Soviet attempt to take Hokkaido cannot take place before Spring, 1946. If the Soviets were willing to go for Hokkaido first and reduce commitments to Korea and the Kuriles they would have to go for Hokkaido as soon as Olympic went off or perhaps even sooner. This isn;t going to happen because the Soviets will want Japan maximally distracted before they shoestring it to Hokkaido.

Assuming LL continues at a high level, a spring, 1946 assault on Hokkaido is still problematic for the Soviets. Note that their assaults on the Kuriles occurred AFTER the declaration of surrender on August 15, 1945, and even so were not easy for the Soviets. Assuming the war is still going on you can expect the Japanese troops in Manchuria and Korea (also where progress was made after 8/15) to fight fiercely, especially when terrain is favorable, and the Japanese on the Kuriles will fight to the last man. There is no reason to expect that the Soviet actions that led Churchill to make the "Iron Curtain" speech in March, 1946 to be any different than OTL which will strain if not sour relations between the USA and USSR. By spring, 1946, it was pretty obvious that any territory occupied by the Soviets was going to be a "land grab". Furthermore, by Spring, 1946 with Olympic done and Coronet underway, a Soviet landing on Hokkaido will not really do much (if anything) to assist in defeating Japan. Given all of this I doubt the USA will be going to LL the resources the USSR would need for this assault, which they cannot make themselves.

Taking and holding Hokkaido will require a fair amount of resources, military and diplomatic, that Stalin would prefer to spend elsewhere. Now, if Olympic is a disaster and the US fails, that is another story.
 
Taking and holding Hokkaido will require a fair amount of resources, military and diplomatic, that Stalin would prefer to spend elsewhere.

Not really. While concerns about poor Soviet amphibious assault doctrine and the possibility of it causing a failure is legit, taking Hokkaido given the paucity of Japanese forces on the island (at least in August 1945) wouldn't really require the Soviets to expend anything they couldn't afford to. Compared to the resources expended in taking Eastern Europe or even Manchuria, they'd be quite trivial. Assuming the Japanese forces in Hokkaido remain in their August 1945 dispositions (coin-toss there, as there is no real evidence about what the Japanese thought of a potential Soviet threat to Hokkaido following the DoW in August '45), a landing on the western shore, which seems to have been where the Soviets were looking in their early planning, would have reasonable odds of success.
 
Last edited:

Manman

Banned
The Japanese by this point are starving and fighting with equipment that is several years out of date. Most the Japanese in the mainline will probably be the bottom of the barrel with most of the better troops moved to southern japan. Also the soviets can take the island easily by simply taking the harbors and waiting the troops out. If they lack food it would be only a matter of time until they surrender or they simply charge in a desperate last defence. Northern japan would probably be left at the soviets mercy with the Japanese holding out in the mountains, defending the south, or turning to banditry just to survive.

Also the biggest thing the soviets can provide is holing the area and allowing the Americans to use the resources elsewhere which they would be happy for considering they now have to take care of southern japan and its people.
 
@BobTheBarbarian The USA does not have to go to war with the USSR to "evict" them from Hokkaido, if the Russians should manage to land there (and I agree it would be a huge stretch). Stalin knows that he cannot have a war with the USA which would threaten his gains in Europe, and the USA could wipe the floor with the USSR in the Pacific. The Soviet Union was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower in 1945, and when LL stopped they were in the hurt locker for food and their agricultural and industrial capacities were going to take years to rebuild.

You still have to answer the questions of "how," "why," and "when." There would have been no action of any kind against any Soviet lodgement in Japan until after the latter's defeat; this is basic military and political common sense. Any future brinkmanship would thus be confined to the Cold War era, full stop.

[Laughter.] Stalin's promises were lies. Proxy wars in Greece, Korea, fighting in ME, IRAN, etc. 1946-1950 Plenty of wars while Stalin lived.

Are you incapable of discussing in good faith? Which of those involved direct confrontation between Soviet and Western armies while both were actively engaged against a mutual enemy, and a world power at that? Stop insulting everyone's intelligence with this nonsense.

38th Parallel Korea.

Which was a proposal put forward by two guys (future Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Colonel Charles Bonesteel) with a NatGeo Magazine accepted by the Soviets on August 16, 1945, one day after the surrender of Japan. It had nothing to do with Yalta at all and if the Japanese didn't surrender would never have happened. No experts on Korea (or the Koreans themselves) were consulted whatsoever and it was just as ad-hoc as Churchill's infamous "Napkin Agreement" with Stalin over Eastern Europe.

Ahem

1. Truman did not know what FDR and Stalin cooked up at Yalta. Like the bomb he was not briefed. After the Turkey Shoot the desire was for a Russian army to bemuse the Japanese in Manchuria, and after Okinawa, even that was seen as unnecessary as the US had three ways to end the war without Russian (or British) help. Submarine blockade, aerial bombardment or amphibious assault.; All three horrendous, but certain by March *46 at the latest. The only calculation was in the total numbers of Japanese and American dead. It was likely MacArthur would get Olympic and not need Coronet, if Lemay's city-killing was not enough. But in any event 5-10 million civilian deaths would have been the result.

Truman was a key figure in the terms of the Potsdam Conference, which was an extension of the previous talks at Yalta. Virtually all of his head-butting there had more to do with the treatment of the defeated Germans whom he sought to protect from getting another Versailles. The Russian attack in the Far East was still a central diplomatic objective for the US, and again Stalin affirmed his commitment to it.

Nonsense.

One-line blurbs are not rebuttals.

That one is not mine, but it is a similar strategic overlay as to conditions existent.

Since the US was prepared to fully NBC the beaches to get ashore at Kyushu and reach its stop lines, the claim that the "6th army would be eviscerated" is errant nonsense as well. Casualties during Olympic were expected to be on the Normandy scale: bad on the US side, not excessive, nor army destroying. Japanese casualties were expected to go through the roof, however. Bamboo spears against American infantry at this stage? Not smart.

Hence, nonsense.

The losses on Kyushu would have been disastrous for the United States. The use of atomic weapons (which would have had trifling to minimal effect on the dug-in Japanese fortifications) would only have served to poison the ground the GIs and Marines would have fought over. In general, the Japanese, unlike the Germans in Normandy, correctly predicted the locations of all the major landing sites and had massed enormous forces to greet them; the landings themselves would have been preceded by a swarm of nearly 9,000 kamikazes and conventional craft which would have produced tens of thousands of casualties before any American boot even set foot in Japan. In the words of Major Mark P. Arens,

"If Operation Olympic had been executed, as planned, on 1 November 1945, it would have been the largest bloodbath in American history. Although American forces had superior fire power and were better trained and equipped than the Japanese soldier, the close-in, fanatical combat between infantrymen would have been devastating to both sides [...] The total casualty estimate of 328,000 equates to 57 percent of the U.S. ground forces slated for Olympic. On the Satsuma Peninsula, the V Amphibious Corps casualty estimate would have been 13,000 killed and 34,000 wounded, or approximately 54 percent of the Marine force. This casualty estimate for VAC is made without any additional Japanese forces moving into the 40th Army's zone. Add to these estimates the results of kamikaze attacks against transports, and the battle for Kyushu would have been devastating to the American people.

[T]he intelligence estimates of the Japanese forces and their capabilities on Kyushu, for Operation Olympic, were so inaccurate that an amphibious assault by the V Amphibious Corps would have failed."
Proving that Operations Olympic and Coronet would have produced shattering losses is like proving that taking a meat cleaver to a man's head will kill him - it's not really up for debate. The chilling reality of what Japan had in store for the invasion as revealed by SIGINT in July in August 1945 forced the US to accept large-scale support from the British/Commonwealth during Coronet, and for the first time since 1943 prompted the Navy to officially cast doubt on the prospect of invasion in its entirety.
 
So in a typical scenario regarding Operation Downfall, the atomic bomb is either not invented or is not ready in time to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result, the Allies (the US, the UK and it's Commonwealth and France) launch a land invasion of Japan.

One element that's always been debated about Operation Downfall is the Soviets. It is always hypothesized that after the Soviets were finished conquering China and the Korean Peninsula, their next target would be the island of Hokkaido, the northernmost island in the Japanese archipelago, from which they would work their way down and race the Western Allies to Tokyo, similar to how in Europe, they had a race to Berlin.

But, here's my question. Was a Soviet invasion of Northern Japan even feasible? From what I have heard, the Soviets had a substantially weak navy and would've been unable to pull off the invasion, but some alternate historians have suggested otherwise.

Feasible, provided the US, well, provide shipping.
 
Okay: BACK ON THE TOPIC:
Side note: I lived in Japan, and have visited Hokkaido while not frequently, enough to know it.
Was an invasion of HOKKIADO feasible:
November 1945: Possible, yes, but the odds of success have been discussed and are ... not ideal, to put it mildly. I'd be honestly surprised if half the sea based troops even made it to the beaches, much less get off.

March 1946: Not a fucking and yes, this is deliberate, fucking chance in hell to succeed and if you think otherwise, you aren't doing the basic work.
After that? I doubt the Sovs would have the time.

LOOK AT THE MAP in thread. Look at the Distances. THEN LOOK AT the WEATHER. there is meter thick snow on the beaches at this time of year.
Folks:
The Soviets do not improve air and sea lift at all, they can't. (not wouldn't, can not).

Soviet logistical capability goes down over time, for this year. All the US has to do to end any viable threat of the Russians invading at any time? "No food for you."
Russia did not have manpower left. I've not seen anyone discuss the actual personnel situation on this thread, but I've hinted at it, but let me be clear:
By Spring of 1946, the Soviets, without America feeding them could not fight. Period, dot. it was plant, or fight. Choose one. And that's not discussing what the Korean conquest would have caused. In essence, Joe took what he could get before he had to demobilize. I haven't seen this discussed in the West, but there's some hints from stuff I've seen elsewhere, that the Soviet Union's collapse pretty much was assured for demographic reasons, thanks to WW2. Go look at how many Russian males died of the prime 'breeding' and work age. And Russia didn't do what would be needed to fix it.


One additional thought: Let me spell this out.

Soviets try to do this, and keep the manpower they'd need active and not planting or fixing things? Add another 20+ million dead somewhere, because Russia would starve.
 
Last edited:
LOOK AT THE MAP in thread. Look at the Distances. THEN LOOK AT the WEATHER. there is meter thick snow on the beaches at this time of year.

The distances involved aren’t any greater then those faced by Soviet amphibious operations in the Baltic, Black, and Arctic Seas. The Soviets can’t do operations over thousands of kilometers like the US and British can, but the few hundred from Vladivostok to the West Coast of Hokkaido is eminently possible. Similarly, the conditions they’d experience are that to Soviet amphibious operation in the Arctic in the northern parts of Finland and Norway during the autumn-winter of ‘44. Vasilevsky, whose in charge of Soviet forces in the Far East, commanded these operations and he’d likely draw upon them for experience.

The Soviets do not improve air and sea lift at all, they can't. (not wouldn't, can not).

Patently untrue. The Soviets have notable air and sea assets that, while still minuscule next to those of the Anglo-Americans, they could redeploy to enhance their capabilities. Small and mid-sized transport vessels could be brought in over the Trans-Siberian and transport aircraft flown in from elsewhere. If they need it. The Soviets already demonstrated they have the assets in the Far East to move about three divisions.

Soviet logistical capability goes down over time, for this year.

Again, untrue. Soviet logistical capabilities after the war actually increased as they restored their civilian industry and continued to modernize their military. Lend-lease was no longer the essential centerpiece of the Soviet economy it had been in 1943.

All the US has to do to end any viable threat of the Russians invading at any time? "No food for you."

Soviets go ”Okay” and carry on. They survived the loss of American food shipments in September 1945 OTL. Their agricultural sector has been recovering since 1944 and there’s nothing about invading Hokkaido that’d put undue stress on their recovering civilian economy.

Russia did not have manpower left. I've not seen anyone discuss the actual personnel situation on this thread, but I've hinted at it, but let me be clear:

Mainly because the Soviets manpower problem is a non-issue in this context. Invading Hokkaido would hardly be costly enough that they’d have to suspend demobilization in Europe or even dip into the ~three million available men from the class of 1927 who came of age in 1945 but that the Soviets didn’t bother to recruit. They have enough manpower in their standing armyto do the job. The rest of your post is similarly flawed in this vein.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Sloreck and MageOhki, could the Soviets invade northern Japan, no, logistically they are stretched far beyond what they can control. You have the Soviets going into Manchuria and south into China being supplied primarily along the Trans-Siberian Railway, a single rail system at this time. There is no appreciable Soviet Naval or merchant ship presence in the Pacific therefore no real way to supply a large force in this area in this type of terrain and in this type of weather you have described. Can the Soviets move large air assets to the Far East? Yes but then how do you support them?

With the war in Europe winding down so too does Lend-Lease for the Soviets, I strongly doubt given the problems MacArthur would have in supplying his forces in Op. Olympic that he would allow anything coming from the states to not go to him.
 
I have to agree with Sloreck and MageOhki, could the Soviets invade northern Japan, no, logistically they are stretched far beyond what they can control. You have the Soviets going into Manchuria and south into China being supplied primarily along the Trans-Siberian Railway, a single rail system at this time.

The Trans-Siberian was single tracked? I’m sure that’d be news to the Soviets, who double tracked it in the 30s and added all sorts of sidings and offshoots that massively expanded its capacity.

There is no appreciable Soviet Naval or merchant ship presence in the Pacific therefore no real way to supply a large force in this area in this type of terrain and in this type of weather you have described.

The Soviets would be quite stunned to learn they don’t have appreciable transport capability in the Far East. I guess they’d have to wonder how they managed to move the equivalent of three divisions in successful amphibious landings against Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuriles without even dipping into their merchant marine assets.

Can the Soviets move large air assets to the Far East? Yes but then how do you support them?

Same way they did OTL, when they moved large air assets there to support the Manchuria Operation. And then continued to maintain large air assets to this day.

With the war in Europe winding down so too does Lend-Lease for the Soviets,

The Soviets (and later Russians) were able to maintain powerful forces in the Far East without lend-lease for the past 72 years. I don’t see why that would suddenly change just because they are hitting Hokkaido.
 
Top