post-WWII Japanese Civil War

Consider the following map.
673px-Proposed_postwar_Japan_occupation_zones.png

For those who are slightly above knowledgable in WWII history in the Pacific we recognise the following as an alternate plan to divide Japan that never got through. The reasons why are numerous: it was conceding too much to the Soviets, Japan was going to serve well as a buffer between the US and potentially all-Communist mainland Far East, and the Republic of China was falling apart.

But for argument's sake let's say it went through. Like OTL Korea Japan is partitioned along these lines, elections are held in 1948 and separate governments are formed. Soviet troops begin training the Japanese and the Americans do the same in the south. The Soviets pull out from occupying Tokyo, so none of their assets are endangered.

Let us also assume that both sides were extremely belligerent, similar to OTL Rhee vs. Kim - constant border clashes, minor scuffles, and a generally escalated atmosphere. The Soviets also send large amounts of supplies to Hokkaido and northern Honshu, both for defence against American ships and preparing for war against the south.

(we'll also assume that Korea is left whole and neutral in this scenario.)

Let's say either side started a war. Troops begin pouring in from both sides and it's becoming a major war.

The main question is this: how possible is logistical support? Won't the USN be able to cut off Soviet supply fleets? How easily can either side launch amphibious attacks? How long can North Japan wage war without supplies from the Soviets?
Questions and comments both welcome.
 
A lot depends on other OTL happenings. Do we still have a Berlin Airlift happening? Post 1948, there have been 3+ years of demobilization of US forces. OTL, holding/supplying Korea (from Japan) was enough of a project, what will be needed to direct more resources to a larger theater of operations from further away (Australia/Philippines)? While Korea was mostly a US operation, there were troops from other UN countries in force. Will they be able to proportionally ramp up troop and material contributions across the globe to a Japanese theater of operations? Do the British have the money, can the French pull from Indochina? If China is still western ally, that eases things somewhat. But can a 1948-1950ish Nationalist China spare anything? Or will it still be Nationalist China by then?

Then there is the entire nuclear question arising in 1949. Ugh.

There are a lot of reason that leaders were cautious, even indecisive, during 1945-50.

Of course, the same scenarios are playing out in the USSR. With something as large as a Japanese civil war, you're likely covering the date of Stalin's death.
 
A lot depends on other OTL happenings. Do we still have a Berlin Airlift happening? Post 1948, there have been 3+ years of demobilization of US forces. OTL, holding/supplying Korea (from Japan) was enough of a project, what will be needed to direct more resources to a larger theater of operations from further away (Australia/Philippines)? While Korea was mostly a US operation, there were troops from other UN countries in force. Will they be able to proportionally ramp up troop and material contributions across the globe to a Japanese theater of operations? Do the British have the money, can the French pull from Indochina? If China is still western ally, that eases things somewhat. But can a 1948-1950ish Nationalist China spare anything? Or will it still be Nationalist China by then?

Then there is the entire nuclear question arising in 1949. Ugh.

There are a lot of reason that leaders were cautious, even indecisive, during 1945-50.

Of course, the same scenarios are playing out in the USSR. With something as large as a Japanese civil war, you're likely covering the date of Stalin's death.

I'd like to think that everything not mentioned will proceed as OTL, although I do agree that's not likely.
 
At sea, I could see the south Dakota class, the North Carolina's and maybe the Colorado's if they still have some life left in them getting reactivated for shore bombarment. The HMS Vanguard might come along as well. Essex class ships would be used to protect these fleets from air attack. Larger ships would be more useful due to the more naval based combat that might required, though most of that would be fighting land based fighters. The Alaska class might get revived as carrier escorts.
 
fascinating idea

now the ROC, a non-foreign-ruled China (the Mongols tried it back in the day) occupies Japanese territory--my how the tables have turned!
 
At sea, I could see the south Dakota class, the North Carolina's and maybe the Colorado's if they still have some life left in them getting reactivated for shore bombarment. The HMS Vanguard might come along as well. Essex class ships would be used to protect these fleets from air attack. Larger ships would be more useful due to the more naval based combat that might required, though most of that would be fighting land based fighters. The Alaska class might get revived as carrier escorts.

Do you think the USN would be able to penetrate into the Sea of Japan?
 
Yes. Once any naval forces are sunk, then its just a matter of interecting the supply convoys, and resisting air attack

Weren't many of the WWII warships the USN used decommissioned quite immediately after the war - maybe except the aircraft carriers? Of course it'll still be vastly superior to anything the Soviets or the North Japanese have to offer, but nonetheless.
 
Top