Italy and Japan divided during Cold War era

How to make Italy and Japan occupied and divided like Germany during the Cold War. Perhaps the Italians fight until the end and operation downfall goes into place. They get divided into a North (Communist) and South (Capitalist). What are the effects on each bloc in a scenario like this?
 
Last edited:
For a divided Japan, have a more compromising admiral/general oversee the Occupation rather than OTL's Douglas MacArthur. ATL's compromising admiral/general agrees to divide Japan with the USSR getting Northern Japan, while the United States, United Kingdom, and Republic of China (ROC) divide Southern Japan.

For Italy, have the USSR do better and take all of Austria, before continuing southward into Northern Italy. Maybe they 'liberate' Corsica before incorporating it as part of Occupied Italy. The WAllies meet the Soviets at the Tiber River and divide Italy, with the Soviets getting Northern Italy and Corsica, while the US, UK, and France divide Southern Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily.
 
Last edited:
For a divided Japan, have a more compromising admiral/general oversee the occupation rather than OTL's Douglas MacArthur. ATL's compromising admiral/general agrees to divide Japan between the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of China (ROC), and the USSR.

For Italy, have the USSR do better and take all of Austria, before continuing southward into Northern Italy. Maybe they'd 'liberate' Corsica before holding onto it and incorporating it as part of Northern Italy. The WAllies meet the Soviets at the Tiber River and divide Italy, with the Soviets getting the North and Corsica, while the US, UK, and France divide Southern Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily.
The problem is that a more successful Red Army is going to take more of Germany than bother with Italy.

Stalin knew that where the Red Army was standing when the war ended was going to be the future communist bloc.

Stalin would rather have all of Germany in the communist bloc than parts of Italy. Germany is richer and have more industry, people, and farmland. Having troops on the Rhine is a good strategic position for the inventible war with the west (in Stalin’s mind)

Not saying he wouldn’t take a bite of Italy if given the chance but that would only happening if the West is slowed, and it’s hard seeing Stalin not eating up Germany.

In regards to Japan, the Soviets had no navy to speak of.

Say the coup works and Japan doesn’t surrender. The US invades. It’s possible for the Soviets to get enough boats together, but we won’t see any race for Tokyo.
 

Deleted member 94680

Have Italy descend into Civil War - over the ISR or low-level strife that explodes over the Institutional Referendum - and the Powers divide the country as it's clear that it cannot continue as a single entity post-War?
 
For a divided Japan, have a more compromising admiral/general oversee the Occupation rather than OTL's Douglas MacArthur.

If I recall correctly, it was Truman's decision, not MacArthur, that stopped the Soviets from invading and occupying Hokkaido.
 
If I recall correctly, it was Truman's decision, not MacArthur, that stopped the Soviets from invading and occupying Hokkaido.
Correct. I was going to edit my post to have it read, "maybe if FDR lived longer and was willing to compromise with the USSR." I didn't edit because someone quoted my post by then.
 
I was going to give my two bits, but then I re-read the OP about how to divide Italy and Japan, not what would happen if it did. Sorry, drawing a blank there. Though I would say that Austria should be Soviet-controlled only, as it's the gateway into both Germany and Italy.

However, I will say this; North Italy will be a hell of a lot more prosperous than South Italy; most of the north is more industrialized, with a better living standard and more population. The south is industrialized, but mostly agrarian, even under Mussolini's attempts to modernize (or rather, militarize) Italy. With the Italian identity being less 'secure' than the German one, I can foresee the divide remain even after the Iron Curtain falls.

Japan will be like Korea; a heavily populated and industrialized south vs a highly agrarian north (Hokkaido has a lot of Japan's best farmland), so Japan becomes even more reliant on foreign imports. But that's about it; Hokkaido has some good harbors and farmland, some resources, but very little industry and very little of Japan's massive population. Honshu and Kyushu have the overwhelming majority of the people, and will be where all the development is.

I recall the Ainu inhabit the north more, perhaps under the Soviets they'll be brought to the fore as a people benefiting from Communism?
 
However, I will say this; North Italy will be a hell of a lot more prosperous than South Italy; most of the north is more industrialized, with a better living standard and more population. The south is industrialized, but mostly agrarian, even under Mussolini's attempts to modernize (or rather, militarize) Italy. With the Italian identity being less 'secure' than the German one, I can foresee the divide remain even after the Iron Curtain falls.
How? It would probably be similar to East Germany.
 
How? It would probably be similar to East Germany.
East Germany got the smaller slice of the country. It had its reources, but the lion's share of industry, manufacture, and even population and farmland was on the West half of the country. The West was just bound to be so much richer and stronger than the East.


If you meant in terms of government, secret police, and whatnot, then you may have a point. But North Italy is richer, better developed, has more population, and basically have a better situation than the south. You'll also note a major factor in the Venetian independence movement is that they provide a lot of wealth and industry to the Italian government only for Rome to turn around and waste it on the poorer south, effectively siphoning Venice's treasury they could be using for themselves.

Divided Germany generally regarded the other half as "under foreign occupation", thus not formally recognizing the other state while declaring itself to be the "real" government of Germany. Italy has a weaker centralist belief, meaning the various regions have a slightly stronger tendency to recognize themselves as (for example) Venetians, Sicilians, Sardinians, Romans, etc... than purely Italian. So there's a chance that a Cold War divide may remain even after the curtain falls.
 
East Germany got the smaller slice of the country. It had its reources, but the lion's share of industry, manufacture, and even population and farmland was on the West half of the country. The West was just bound to be so much richer and stronger than the East.


If you meant in terms of government, secret police, and whatnot, then you may have a point. But North Italy is richer, better developed, has more population, and basically have a better situation than the south. You'll also note a major factor in the Venetian independence movement is that they provide a lot of wealth and industry to the Italian government only for Rome to turn around and waste it on the poorer south, effectively siphoning Venice's treasury they could be using for themselves.

Divided Germany generally regarded the other half as "under foreign occupation", thus not formally recognizing the other state while declaring itself to be the "real" government of Germany. Italy has a weaker centralist belief, meaning the various regions have a slightly stronger tendency to recognize themselves as (for example) Venetians, Sicilians, Sardinians, Romans, etc... than purely Italian. So there's a chance that a Cold War divide may remain even after the curtain falls.

While it is true that regional and local identites are very prominent in Italy, it is hard to say that we are less centralist than Germany. After all, Germany is a federal state, and has been for a long time. Italy has been basically a very centralized for all its existence until about 2001... the regional autonomy reforms made in the last two decades have been, by the way, sort of half-hearted. There are some regions (especially Veneto and Sardinia, for very different reasons) where separatism or calls for more autonomy are very strong. In both these two regions, it is reasonable to talk about local nationalist movements, though most people still tend to identify also as Italians.
Anyway, I don't think that Italian nationalism/centralist attitude is so much weak relative to Germany's to justify that Italy would be permanently divided (which, by the way, would require a very diffenent WWII to be possible).
 
For Italy, have the USSR do better and take all of Austria, before continuing southward into Northern Italy. Maybe they 'liberate' Corsica before incorporating it as part of Occupied Italy. The WAllies meet the Soviets at the Tiber River and divide Italy, with the Soviets getting Northern Italy and Corsica, while the US, UK, and France divide Southern Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily.


France would be hilariously pissed, but France would be a much weaker version of itself, maybe even a divided Paris.

That's an idea too.
Dday is a fantastic disaster, the Allies have to invade up from the 'soft underbelly' of Europe.

The Soviets end up liberating the Italian Social Republic, that stalling claims in spite of the fact that the Nazis are the ones who propped it up to begin with, he's discovered it's actually the will of several Northern Italian people to establish their own state. 'You know during liberation.' And the Socialist republic of Italy includes Corsica.

France is divided at Seine River, as Allied troops who moved up from Spain liberated most of France up to the Seine River, divided Paris.

Spain only reluctantly let them through because they didn't want to border with the Soviet Union.

But here is pretty interesting, the CIA deposed the dictatorships in Portugal and Spain, much of what would have been the Marshall aid went to them. Without severe damage like the rest of Europe, they're two of the top economies in their world, with Portugal being the Japan of its timeline. Free Europe is a Sicilian based Italian Kingdom divided at the Tiber river.

The French Republic, the republic's of Spain and Portugal, The UK, a Kingdom of Norway without Finmark, and an Irish republic.

The Republic of France is fiercely nationalistic and often finds itself at odds with the rest.

This "West," France also refused to relinquish control of Algeria.
 
While it is true that regional and local identites are very prominent in Italy, it is hard to say that we are less centralist than Germany. After all, Germany is a federal state, and has been for a long time. Italy has been basically a very centralized for all its existence until about 2001... the regional autonomy reforms made in the last two decades have been, by the way, sort of half-hearted. There are some regions (especially Veneto and Sardinia, for very different reasons) where separatism or calls for more autonomy are very strong. In both these two regions, it is reasonable to talk about local nationalist movements, though most people still tend to identify also as Italians.
Anyway, I don't think that Italian nationalism/centralist attitude is so much weak relative to Germany's to justify that Italy would be permanently divided (which, by the way, would require a very diffenent WWII to be possible).
Then I have been misinformed on the matter and defer to you, my apologies.

Still, am I correct on the industry and agriculture being more developed in the north than the south?
 
Still, am I correct on the industry and agriculture being more developed in the north than the south?
Absolutely, especially with regard to industry.
The contrast is quite stark by most economic indicators, and there's been a long term trend of migration from the South to find jobs. Agriculturally, the South is perhaps more productive, but people hardly benefit from it: land tenure is a recurring problem, as is low intensity of capital.
 
Absolutely, especially with regard to industry.
The contrast is quite stark by most economic indicators, and there's been a long term trend of migration from the South to find jobs. Agriculturally, the South is perhaps more productive, but people hardly benefit from it: land tenure is a recurring problem, as is low intensity of capital.
So effectively, with all other factors being equal, North Italy would be more prosperous than South Italy. It would depend on matters such as foreign investment, flow of capital, corruption, government, and economic policy, but the North would have a head start.

Same thing with East/West Germany and North/South Korea; the "Capitalist"-controlled parts had the heavier population and most of the infrastructure and resources. West Germany had almost everything compared to East Germany, whose industry and agriculture were much smaller, and while North Korea has more farmland and is the bigger country, it has just about half the population of South Korea and is more reliant on primary industries. More research is necessary to clarify, but those facts certainly have an impact.

Admittedly, West Germany and South Korea had a major advantage over their communist neighbors; American investment. The German Economic Miracle was largely boosted by the Marshall Plan, while South Korea was massively revitalized by US military and economy aid after the 1954 treaty, and by 1960 was on the cusp of its economic rise. The USSR tried to counter with COMECON and other economic plans, but was recovering from the aftereffects of WW2 and did not have the almost limitless pockets of the USA. In the case of a divided Italy, it remains to be seen if US investment will tip the scales in favor of South Italy.

Of course, there was the case of North/South Vietnam. They had similar population numbers (the North had a slightly bigger population), but while the South had unlimited American spending, it was also primarily deeply broken in fundamental ways that would have needed an overhaul of the country to fix, and it needed it early on.
 
The problem is that a more successful Red Army is going to take more of Germany than bother with Italy.

Stalin knew that where the Red Army was standing when the war ended was going to be the future communist bloc.

Stalin would rather have all of Germany in the communist bloc than parts of Italy. Germany is richer and have more industry, people, and farmland. Having troops on the Rhine is a good strategic position for the inventible war with the west (in Stalin’s mind)

Two weeks late to the party, but there's also the matter that Germany was the home of Marx, so its also more important on a ideological standpoint as well.

Divided Japan is possible, Divided Italy? Probably not unless they choose to gobble up Austria and then Trentino/South Tyrol.
 
So effectively, with all other factors being equal, North Italy would be more prosperous than South Italy. It would depend on matters such as foreign investment, flow of capital, corruption, government, and economic policy, but the North would have a head start.

Same thing with East/West Germany and North/South Korea; the "Capitalist"-controlled parts had the heavier population and most of the infrastructure and resources. West Germany had almost everything compared to East Germany, whose industry and agriculture were much smaller, and while North Korea has more farmland and is the bigger country, it has just about half the population of South Korea and is more reliant on primary industries. More research is necessary to clarify, but those facts certainly have an impact.

Admittedly, West Germany and South Korea had a major advantage over their communist neighbors; American investment. The German Economic Miracle was largely boosted by the Marshall Plan, while South Korea was massively revitalized by US military and economy aid after the 1954 treaty, and by 1960 was on the cusp of its economic rise. The USSR tried to counter with COMECON and other economic plans, but was recovering from the aftereffects of WW2 and did not have the almost limitless pockets of the USA. In the case of a divided Italy, it remains to be seen if US investment will tip the scales in favor of South Italy.

Of course, there was the case of North/South Vietnam. They had similar population numbers (the North had a slightly bigger population), but while the South had unlimited American spending, it was also primarily deeply broken in fundamental ways that would have needed an overhaul of the country to fix, and it needed it early on.
Agreed, though Juche appears to have really derailed North Korea despite it having some headstart over the South before the division. I understand the was really little industrial development in either part of Korea before 1950; what little was there tended to be in the North, so American investment really made a lot of difference in that case.
A divided Italy might see a more even development: the North would have a big headstart (most industry present in the country before 1945 was there, and it was not inconsiderable even if the war badly damaged many plants) but we can assume heavy american investment in the South, probably steering the area toward a more service-oriented economy (tourism likely be a big thing). Then it depends on how the long term economic management goes. The South would likely see a lot of corruption, but it could be contained. A Communist North might squander resources in top-down projects, with lack of democratic feedback into the system causing errors to accumulatecatastrophically (a problem in the Soviet Union, but one that the PCI could potentially avoid), or might instead chose a more balanced path that keeps the system working (the closest Communist analogue IOTL is probably Vietnam, which is a completely different context). While precedents of historical Communist rule does not suggest optimism, I guess a Communist North Italy in 1945 would have more of an industrial base relative to the population than any historical Communist country except maybe the DDR (I am not sure about Czechoslovakia either*)

*Relative to the time of the Communist takeover. The Soviet Union of 1945 far outproduced Italy.
 
Top