No Pacific War, but US-aligned Japan in the Cold War

upload_2019-6-22_11-50-3.png

Here's a thought: There is no Pacific War, but Japan ends up aligned with the US in the Cold War. Japan opts to go around the US and UK and go straight for the Dutch East Indies in a pursuit of oil for their Chinese War effort. Later, the Soviets bring down the hammer on the Japanese by the late 1940s, capturing South Sakhalin, Manchuria, and North Korea before the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on a Japanese city in 1949. The Japanese sue for peace and are made to cede the Northern Kurils as well.

Having been soundly defeated and rattled to the core, the Militarist faction is thoroughly discredited (especially after attempting to arrest the Emperor, as they tried OTL) and the Japanese quickly swing diplomatically towards cozying up with the US and UK.

What now?

I cannot see the Japanese allowing US troops in their territory the way they did OTL. We likely wouldn't see the same land and economic reforms as occurred under the US administration OTL.

There'd be no KMT rump regime, but I imagine many whites would end up fleeing to Japan TTL if allowed.

There'd be no Korean War.

Japan-proper probably has a larger population without the Pacific War. Taiwan at the least is going to be a formal home island, as the island became one during WWII OTL. Maybe Japanese Korea would be divided into prefectures similarly. Altogether, Japan-Taiwan-Korea may have ~220million people.

Meanwhile UK prestige will be greater without the defeats in Asia, the European War will have been shorter without the Asian theater, the US and UK financial situations will likely be better, and Subhas Bose likely won't have died in WWII. No loss of Burma would also mean no Bengal Famine.
 
Last edited:
Later, the Soviets bring down the hammer on the Japanese by the late 1940s, capturing South Sakhalin, Manchuria, and North Korea before the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on a Japanese city in 1949. The Japanese sue for peace and are made to cede the Northern Kurils as well.
Why on Earth would the Soviets attack an unweakened Japanese Empire,just after the destruction of world war 2.
 
Why on Earth would the Soviets attack an unweakened Japanese Empire,just after the destruction of world war 2.

Because not going to war with the US andUK =/= unweakened Japan? Khalkin Gol showed how weak the Japanese land forces were relative to the Soviets, the Germans will have been knocked out sooner TTL, and the Japanese will still have had 4 more years of the Chinese meat grinder to deal with here - a meat grinder that's all the more troublesome because the Burma road won't have been closed TTL.
 
Japan opts to go around the US and UK and go straight for the Dutch East Indies in a pursuit of oil for their Chinese War effort.
The problem with that is GB owned a large % of the wells ie Shell oil...... and it would really piss off GB/US.....

Later, the Soviets bring down the hammer on the Japanese by the late 1940s, capturing South Sakhalin, Manchuria, and North Korea before the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on a Japanese city in 1949. The Japanese sue for peace and are made to cede the Northern Kurils as well.
So the Soviets get an early bomb...and the ability to attack a much stronger Japan... what does GB/US do would the Soviets not fear that the USAF/RAF might prepare for Dropshot?
 
Khalkin Gol showed how weak the Japanese land forces were relative to the Soviets, the Germans will have been knocked out sooner TTL,
You mean the battle where the Soviets heavily outnumbered the Japanese and still loss far more men and equipment than the Japanese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

and the Japanese will still have had 4 more years of the Chinese meat grinder to deal with here - a meat grinder that's all the more troublesome because the Burma road won't have been closed TTL.
Bulk of Japan's material and deaths were the result of Allied actions as a result of the Pacific war in addition without it Japan's industry won't be destroyed.Japan is going far stronger than it's otl 1945 position with an intact industrial base

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Axis
 
Last edited:
I can see the Soviets winning in Manchuria, but not in Karafuto, much less Kuril. Not with the IJN intact. Even if they somehow reinforce Sakhalin before hostilities and beat Japan to the punch, just one battleship anchored at Toyohara would obliterate any attempt by the Soviets to approach the city, which the Japanese would then use to bring in reinforcements. And with Japan controlling the surrounding waters, the Soviet forces on the island would be forced to surrender or be crushed sooner or later.

I'd say Japan would lose all of Korea, but no islands. And the Soviets won't drop a nuke on Japan. For one thing, it's absolutely impossible for the Soviets to get the bomb before the USA, so by 1949, the USA will have a comfortable lead in nukes. Next, while the West would rejoice at Japan being beaten out of China and Manchuria, they'd draw the line at Korea. Most likely, they'd acknowledge Soviet/Communist control of the peninsula especially if - with a good chance of it happening - all of Korea is under Soviet control. But in such a scenario, they wouldn't tolerate the loss of any islands, and would see Japan as key to keeping the Soviets from having free access to the Pacific.

Stalin was a remarkably cautious figure, believe it or not. He won't use nukes, especially when he's only gained them, and the Allies are already perturbed at his acquisition of Korea.
 
How in gods name are the Soviets taking any islands with an intact IJN? Yamato would do horrible, horrible things to their 30 year old dreadnoughts, as would the Kido Butai. Now Manchuria? That's fair game, so is Korea, but Any islands are flat out not happening. Even if you DID Get ashore, all the IJN has to do is establish a blockade and starve the Soviets out, as T-34's are remarkably ill adapted to gunnery duels with 12 inch guns and up.
 
the European War will have been shorter without the Asian theater
What does this mean near OTL US entry (over a DD -Uboat incident) ?

I can see the Soviets winning in Manchuria, but not ...

I'd say Japan would lose all of Korea, .... ... Next, while the West would rejoice at Japan being beaten out of China and Manchuria, they'd draw the line at Korea. Most likely, they'd acknowledge Soviet/Communist control of the peninsula especially if - with a good chance of it happening - all of Korea is under Soviet control. But in such a scenario, they wouldn't tolerate the loss of any islands, and would see Japan as key to keeping the Soviets from having free access to the Pacific....
I don't see Korea falling, without sea control fighting down the peninsular is risky and IJA will be well supplied on both sides,it would require massive forces that USSR simply cant send without leaving Europe defenceless for GB/US to exploit......
 
What does this mean near OTL US entry (over a DD -Uboat incident) ?


I don't see Korea falling, without sea control fighting down the peninsular is risky and IJA will be well supplied on both sides,it would require massive forces that USSR simply cant send without leaving Europe defenceless for GB/US to exploit......

It would be amusing if Stalin wants to blockade Berlin but is told they cannot as the men needed to seal the border are mostly off fighting in Korea and being shelled to death by the IJN.
 
Given that the Soviets had famine in 46-48, would mobilizing for a significant war effort exacerbate the famine and possible prolong it?

But the Soviets might be able to win in short order, making it redundant.

But if the Soviets get bogged down by Japan and the US starts sending aid to Japan against the Soviets it could get interesting.
 
First without a US A Bomb program to copy the USSR aren't getting there's ready by 1949.

A Japanese Army not smashed by the US will bare little resemblance to the army of 1939 and have much better weapons, particularly tanks. The lessons of the European War won't have been ignored. If nothing else they're going to have the Type 4 Chi-To tank in service, which will give the T34 a fight. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/Type_4_Chi-To.php


Chi-To.jpg
 

DougM

Donor
What is the USSR using to deliver said atomic bomb?
They don’t have the US B-29s to copy so they are not getting a TU-4
Even with copies of the B-29 they only got it flying in 49. So with nothing to copy it is going to be years before they can deliver an Atomic bomb. And they tested the fist A-Bomb in mid to lat 49. But as far as I know they were not as fast as the US at production so I doubt they would have one for delivery until very late 49 or more likely 50. Add in that I doubt very much that 1 Bomb is going to do much to convince them to surrender and certainly not to any sort of nasty treaty as suggested.
In the real world the Japanese nave was gone, as was the Air-force. Their islands were gone and their cities had been mostly flattened and then along comes the US and one bomber one city and then the US proves it was not an accident but that they can do it regularly.
In this proposed time line as far as I can tell the Navy is still in fighting order and no naval invasion of anything has happened. Being as they USSR does not have any effective bombers before 49 (assuming they still copy the B-29 somehow). So the Japanese cities have not been bombed.
So I don’t see one city being leveled as enough to convince Japan to agree to whatever the USSR says.
Yes it has lost Asia but not it’s Islands or even its cities.

And all this assumes that the US and England don’t enter the war over the invasion of the Dutch territories
 
With regard to the Dutch East Indies, Japan only went after it because of the American embargo. Once that drops, there's no avoiding the Pacific War.

Without the embargo, the Pacific War could be avoided, but the Japanese won't go south. A more likely POD is that Japan escalates after Khalkin Gol and goes to war against the Soviets in 1939. With the Soviets being seen at the time as co-belligerents of Nazi Germany, FDR isn't likely to impose embargoes on the Japanese for attacking the Soviets, not that the public and Congress would be very sympathetic to the Communists even if he were. They'd keep a close eye on the situation, but that's probably it.

The Japanese should be able to hold out for a year at most, as the Soviets iron out the kinks in their doctrines, but by June 1940 at the earliest, the Soviets will be rolling the Japanese back, and I'd be very surprised if the Japanese aren't pushed back to Korea by wintertime. It's possible too by this point that the Japanese would ask for terms, if only to prevent losing Korea (though by then they would already have occupied Sakhalin). Stalin would probably accept, and might even use this opportunity to expand his influence in the Far East, by brokering an end to the Second Sino-Japanese War, with the Red Army threatening Korea to force Japan to withdraw from the mainland (outside of Korea).

Of course, Stalin would have to acknowledge Japanese control over all of Karafuto, but from his perspective, having crushed the Japanese on the mainland, driven them out of Manchuria and China, and earned enormous goodwill (and influence) from the Chinese, it's all worth more than a frozen island (albeit with some oil) on the edge of the world. Especially when he doesn't really have any means to contest the island. As previously mentioned, Japan's fleet would simply butcher the Red Navy.
 
How in gods name are the Soviets taking any islands with an intact IJN? Yamato would do horrible, horrible things to their 30 year old dreadnoughts, as would the Kido Butai. Now Manchuria? That's fair game, so is Korea, but Any islands are flat out not happening. Even if you DID Get ashore, all the IJN has to do is establish a blockade and starve the Soviets out, as T-34's are remarkably ill adapted to gunnery duels with 12 inch guns and up.
The Straits of Tatary are only a few miles wide.
 
First without a US A Bomb program to copy the USSR aren't getting there's ready by 1949.

A Japanese Army not smashed by the US will bare little resemblance to the army of 1939 and have much better weapons, particularly tanks. The lessons of the European War won't have been ignored. If nothing else they're going to have the Type 4 Chi-To tank in service, which will give the T34 a fight. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/Type_4_Chi-To.php


Chi-To.jpg
The Chi To is still a piece of junk compared to the T-34, never mind the T-34-85.
 
The Straits of Tatary are only a few miles wide.

Oh good, a target-rich environment for Japanese destroyers.

The Chi To is still a piece of junk compared to the T-34, never mind the T-34-85.

This is true. Unless the Japanese get M4 Shermans via lend-lease, they don't have anything that can fight toe-to-toe with a T-34. And even with M4s, the Japanese won't have the numbers to match the Soviets, at least in Manchuria.
 
it means that DDs will be at risk from coastal artillery and AFVs.

Coastal artillery and AFVs would be target practice for Japanese battleships firing from tens of kilometers away, or from dive-bombers operating from carriers, all the while having air cover from airfields in Karafuto (and from their own carriers).
 
Coastal artillery and AFVs would be target practice for Japanese battleships firing from tens of kilometers away, or from dive-bombers operating from carriers, all the while having air cover from airfields in Karafuto (and from their own carriers).
So the Yamato can magically conduct pinpoint bombardment at armored company level formations?

And the Soviets will mass more aircraft ( being an actual industrial power means they can).

Given institutional IJA command and control deficiencies, they'll definitely lose all of Korea.
 
Top