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

So the Yamato can magically conduct pinpoint bombardment at armored company level formations?

They don't have to. They just have to reduce entire square kilometers to rubble, which they are more than capable of, and which they have the capability to sustain.

Japan also has more than one battleship. There's the Yamato, and there's her sister ship, Musashi. There's Nagato and Mutsu, plus Hyuuga, Ise, Yamashiro, and Fuso. There's also Kongou, Kirishima, Haruna, and Hiei.

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

More aircraft does not guarantee victory, as shown in the Battle of Britain. Without the Pacific War, the IJAAF and the IJN would maintain their pilots' qualitative edge, and would have superior aircraft by this point with the Ki-84, the A8M, and the N1K-J. And this assumes no lend-lease aid, which will almost certainly come in once the Soviets push into Korea. Then the Japanese start getting Mustangs and maybe even jets...assuming the USA simply doesn't join in on the Japanese side.

And this also assumes the Soviets are able to send the same amount - proportionally or literally - of aircraft as was needed IOTL to smash the IJN and the IJAAF in the Pacific War, to the Far Eastern theater, without weakening their grip over Eastern Europe and deterring the USA.

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

That one I will not contest. But I will contend that the Japanese would lose the northern islands to the Soviets. Not against an intact IJN, and a largely-intact IJAAF, both of which would have retained their qualitative edge.
 
Last edited:
The easier way to do this is to have the Anglo-Japanese Alliance renewed, but on the condition that Japan leave the Chinese mainland alone. A major factor in Japan entering the Great Depression in the 1920s was the end of its trade with Great Britain, Australia, and other nations, which allowed for the rise of the Fascist military dictatorship. Japan's invasions of Manchuria and China led to a deterioration of relations with the United States and Great Britain. With no Second Sino-Japanese War and the Fascist military dictatorship killed in its crib, Japan joins Great Britain in fighting against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during World War II. They say that the US would have eventually joined the Allies even if there was no Pearl Harbor or Pacific War. So if this happens, both Japan and the US are part of the Allies.

Bonus points if the Chinese Communist Party still wins the Chinese Civil War or if China is divided. In either case, both the US and Great Britain would remain allied to Japan during the Cold War as a bulwark against both the PRC and the USSR in East Asia. The US probably gets its OTL military bases in Japan and Korea via Lend-Lease. I imagine that in this scenario, the PRC and USSR would support Kim Il-Sung in leading a Communist revolution against Japanese-occupied Korea. The USSR disputes with Japan over Sakhalin/Karafuto and the Kuriles/Chishima Archipelago.
 
...
Bonus points if the Chinese Communist Party still wins the Chinese Civil War or if China is divided. In either case, both the US and Great Britain would remain allied to Japan during the Cold War as a bulwark against both the PRC and the USSR in East Asia. The US probably gets its OTL military bases in Japan and Korea via Lend-Lease. I imagine that in this scenario, the PRC and USSR would support Kim Il-Sung in leading a Communist revolution against Japanese-occupied Korea. The USSR disputes with Japan over Sakhalin/Karafuto and the Kuriles/Chishima Archipelago.

The issue with that is that attacking Japan would look like the start of WWIII to London and Washington.......
(That and Japan would probably keep Manchuria as a weak puppet as victor in WWI and GB/US would accept that as its not much more thay they have HK etc)
 

Ian_W

Banned
The easier way to do this is to have the Anglo-Japanese Alliance renewed, but on the condition that Japan leave the Chinese mainland alone.

Does that include Manchuria, which - when the Japanese knocked it over - was being run by a warlord who didnt owe allegience to the "Chinese" government ?
 
Problems that Japanese would have facing the Germans. The Japanese could not hope to stop an IS-2. The big killer of infantry in the second world war was artillery, in the Soviets have a massive advantage in that area.
The biggest problem I see the Japanese Navy having is the 23mm and 37mm cannon on Soviet aircraft were capable of penetrating the armored launcherd for the long lance torpedos on Japanese warships.
The Imperial Japanese Navy could run out of Destroyers pretty quick
the biggest problem the Russian to have is giving across the Sea of Japan and get to the Japanese mainland. The Soviet navy wasn't a joke but it was an amusing story.
 
I am pretty sure that the Soviet Union is not getting across the Sea of Japan in any circumstances. The USA spent years beating down Japan before they could finally invade the mainland and even then really, really didn't want to do it considering the massive amount of casualties that would produce. Let's not forget that the Soviet Union - a socialist federative republic - would certainly not keep Hirohito at the helm, with was a large prerequisite for peace in regards to the USA. Even if the Soviet Union lands and the IJN magically disappears for a day, I'm pretty sure they will be pushed out of their beachheads and beaten to the coast. Amphibious invasions are not easy at all and Japan is not going to be a pushover.
 
The Chi To is still a piece of junk compared to the T-34, never mind the T-34-85.

The Type 4 Chi-To and Type 5 Chi-Re are both very good tanks, but they are both very expensive and take a long time to build. In any case, they'd be outnumbered by the Soviets.

What the IJA will really want is a good heavy AT gun. For island fighting or defending Korea, it will be particularly valuable. Something like the British 17 pdr or the 32 pdr, the latter able to deal with the frontal armour of an IS-2.

In broader terms, Japan will have to have pursued a Northern Strategy. There's no chance of Allied Japan if they invade the DEI. A surviving Anglo-Japanese Alliance would be interesting- might that also mean a surviving Sino-German pact (contested by the American China Lobby naturally)? Britain and Japan will have to do something nice for the USA to make it possible, however.
 
Manchuria isn't going to be the cakewalk many of you are suggesting, even with vast superiority and a Japan that was on the verge of collapse Japan's rearguard actions slowed the Soviet advance down to a crawl. A Japan that goes full bore against the Soviets is going to be a much more capable, much more well equipped force, and the whole Soviet logistic system is going to hang on the Trans-Siberian railway, which Japan is going to spend enormous effort trying to wreck throughout the entire campaign.
@BobTheBarbarian has written a ton of great posts about it.
 
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.
The Soviets lost MORE soldiers in Khalkin Gol along with more material and equipment. It didn't show any weakness on Japan's side.
 
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.

How did the Soviet's reinforce Sakhalin while they had no navy in the pacific to face an unweakend IJN, while also facing air supremacy? And how did the Soviets have a nuke while the Japan's did not by 1949? https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html
 

DougM

Donor
The US by the end of WW2 had the largest Navy on Earth by a noticeable margin. And it took years to beat the IJN back to the point that an invasion was theoretically possible so how is Russia with no pacific navy to speak of and while engaged with Germany going to be able to pull this off?

Yes the USSR (with what help the western allies could provide) fought Germany to a stand still the began advancing but what resources does that leave the USSR to use against Japan?

I love how so many folks think that the USSR was all powerful in WW2 and or think the USA was not important.

The USSR is in absolutely NO position to fight a two front war agains Germany and Japan. If they have to do both they will at best hold the line.
Add in that getting a nuke anytime soon is not likely. They barely got one in 49 and that was using stolen info and building it after the war was over but you have them doing this while also fighting Germany AND ultimately Japan. Building a larger navy (so they CAN fight Japan) and don’t forget they are designing and building a heavy bomber that can carry said bomb. And of course the have build an air force or navel air arm that smashed the Japanese enough to allow said bomber to get to its target.

That is an LOT of additional things that the magical USSR is pulling out of its magic hat.
 
Yeah, it's an insult to all the US Navy's sacrifices IOTL to think the Soviets could actually break through the IJN to attack the Japanese Home Islands when their navy was probably the most pathetic out of the Great Powers at the time. Seriously, the Soviet Pacific Fleet had no capital ships in WWII, and their heaviest was an outdated cruiser. They didn't have the industrial capability in the Far East to build it up, and the only way the Soviets could even begin to have the numbers to match the IJN was if they sent all their fleets in the West to the Pacific...and even then, a bunch of ships that were outdated in the 1920s would still just be cannon fodder for the IJN. Essentially Tsushima 2.0, that'll have the London Admiralty toasting the Japanese.

"Jolly good show again, old chaps."

Again, there is absolutely no way the Soviets will be defeating the Japanese at sea, not when the IJN is intact. Say what you want about the short distance between the mainland and Karafuto, but all that means is an absolute slaughter that sees the straits littered with burning hulks of Soviet ships and dead sailors, and the vaunted coastal artillery and artillery divisions that Soviet fanboys seem to think will be enough to keep the IJN from interfering reduced to smoking craters by Japanese battleship guns.
 
Yeah, it's an insult to all the US Navy's sacrifices IOTL to think the Soviets could actually break through the IJN to attack the Japanese Home Islands when their navy was probably the most pathetic out of the Great Powers at the time. Seriously, the Soviet Pacific Fleet had no capital ships in WWII, and their heaviest was an outdated cruiser. They didn't have the industrial capability in the Far East to build it up, and the only way the Soviets could even begin to have the numbers to match the IJN was if they sent all their fleets in the West to the Pacific...and even then, a bunch of ships that were outdated in the 1920s would still just be cannon fodder for the IJN. Essentially Tsushima 2.0, that'll have the London Admiralty toasting the Japanese.

"Jolly good show again, old chaps."

Again, there is absolutely no way the Soviets will be defeating the Japanese at sea, not when the IJN is intact. Say what you want about the short distance between the mainland and Karafuto, but all that means is an absolute slaughter that sees the straits littered with burning hulks of Soviet ships and dead sailors, and the vaunted coastal artillery and artillery divisions that Soviet fanboys seem to think will be enough to keep the IJN from interfering reduced to smoking craters by Japanese battleship guns.
I'd argue the Soviets couldn't even take Korea. North Korea and South Manchuria is very mountainous, it would be a slaughter for the Soviets trying to maneuver in that region against a completely unweakened IJA that had time to modernize.
 
Manchuria isn't going to be the cakewalk many of you are suggesting, even with vast superiority and a Japan that was on the verge of collapse Japan's rearguard actions slowed the Soviet advance down to a crawl. A Japan that goes full bore against the Soviets is going to be a much more capable, much more well equipped force, and the whole Soviet logistic system is going to hang on the Trans-Siberian railway, which Japan is going to spend enormous effort trying to wreck throughout the entire campaign.
@BobTheBarbarian has written a ton of great posts about it.

After losing 26 million people in World War II, it would have been madness for the USSR to attack Japan. People have a perception of the Red Army as this massive juggernaut that overran the Wehrmacht and faced off against the Allies over the Iron Curtain; while this was true with regards to Europe, in the Far East Russia's position was very precarious. As you noted, it was entirely dependent on the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which came very close to the Chinese border (sometimes within artillery range), and could be targeted by aircraft everywhere east of Lake Baikal. These latter weaknesses were not rectified until 1984, when the BAM line, a prewar project, was completed, providing an alternate route deeper inside the country that would have been harder to attack.

In 1945, however, the single Trans-Siberian railroad was tasked with providing for 6 million Soviet citizens as well as propping up the armed forces in the Far East. Given this, without Lend-Lease the maximum size of any Red Army contingent that could be supported was approximately 60 division-equivalents (in Western and Japanese terms, about 2 million men). This would have been greatly below the level needed to eject Japan from Manchuria.

For one thing, the ability to support troops in place is far different from taking them on the offensive; huge tracts of empty steppe would need to be overcome in order to reach anything of industrial value. Historically the 6th Guards Tank Army found this out the hard way in 1945 and had to be carted to its objectives by train after Japan's surrender.

Secondly, a Japan untouched by war in the Pacific would have expanded its armed forces in the theater considerably. In fact, without any troubles with the United States they may have attacked Siberia during the German invasion. By 1943, Japanese planners expected to be able to undertake offensive operations against the USSR on the 50-division level, which they believed would be enough to win a 'one-on-one' war (without German help). Needless to say, these forces would have been much different from the depleted Kwantung Army the Soviets faced in 1945.

For reasons of geography, I don't believe the Soviet Union would have been capable of pushing Japan out of northeast Asia in this scenario, if they even attempted at all. After all, launching aggressive wars against strong enemies was out of character for Stalin, who, unlike Hitler, had a clearer perception of his limits. It would have been far wiser, strategically speaking, to invest in nuclear weapons and combine that with Germany's missile technology to create a credible threat to the Japanese Home Islands from bases in Primorye (provided Japan hadn't previously invaded), to deter possible Northward Aggression. That way, the USSR can minimize the resources needed in the region in favor of rebuilding its shattered heartland in Europe.
 

DougM

Donor
Really what we have here in the idea of the USSR invading Japan with the US and Britain not having fought Japan is “Zalophus californianus japonicus”
Or in other words The Japanese Sea Lion. A distant relative of its much more famous (or infamous) European relative.
 
Top