Soviet Occupation Zone in Tokyo

What if as a demand for joining the war against Japan, Stalin asks for an occupation zone in Tokyo, similar to the agreements on Berlin. I don't see the USA refusing this, as it really isn't a big deal(pre-Cold War). The reasons for Stalin wanting this are obvious; influence in Japan in case there isn't time for an invasion of the islands(which there wasn't IOTL). So how does the Cold War play out if there is a North/South or East/West divide in Tokyo? It would serve as a foil to Berlin, because if the USSR cuts of West Berlin, the Americans and Japanese can cut off North Tokyo(or whatever it would be).
 

The Vulture

Banned
Here's a map you may find helpful of proposed occupation zones.

Proposed_postwar_Japan_occupation_zones.png
 

Old Airman

Banned
It would serve as a foil to Berlin, because if the USSR cuts of West Berlin, the Americans and Japanese can cut off North Tokyo(or whatever it would be).
Tokyo not being blessed with abundance of land suitable for airport, I expect Allies to engage in the Blockade before Stalin did IOTL. Logistics of supplying Berlin from W. Germany is nothing comparing to supplying Soviet Tokyo without suitable airport in Soviet zone.
 

ninebucks

Banned
What if as a demand for joining the war against Japan, Stalin asks for an occupation zone in Tokyo, similar to the agreements on Berlin. I don't see the USA refusing this, as it really isn't a big deal(pre-Cold War). The reasons for Stalin wanting this are obvious; influence in Japan in case there isn't time for an invasion of the islands(which there wasn't IOTL). So how does the Cold War play out if there is a North/South or East/West divide in Tokyo? It would serve as a foil to Berlin, because if the USSR cuts of West Berlin, the Americans and Japanese can cut off North Tokyo(or whatever it would be).

I'd dispute this. The Americans knew well before the end of the War that the Soviets would be trouble in the long run, and the whole reason why the atomic bombardment was even considered was to prevent the Soviets getting any foothold on Japan.
 
Tokyo not being blessed with abundance of land suitable for airport, I expect Allies to engage in the Blockade before Stalin did IOTL. Logistics of supplying Berlin from W. Germany is nothing comparing to supplying Soviet Tokyo without suitable airport in Soviet zone.
Couldn't they ship supplies in? And why anger Stalin, who can effective do the same to Berlin with an air blockade.

I'd dispute this. The Americans knew well before the end of the War that the Soviets would be trouble in the long run, and the whole reason why the atomic bombardment was even considered was to prevent the Soviets getting any foothold on Japan.

It's not an occupation zone in Japan, but one in Tokyo. Small in size, and insignificant to the rest of Japan, just a random cooperation thing promised in one of the conferences by FDR. I don't think it'd warrant the USA so blatantly breaking their promises made to their allies in 1946.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Couldn't they ship supplies in? And why anger Stalin, who can effective do the same to Berlin with an air blockade.



It's not an occupation zone in Japan, but one in Tokyo. Small in size, and insignificant to the rest of Japan, just a random cooperation thing promised in one of the conferences by FDR. I don't think it'd warrant the USA so blatantly breaking their promises made to their allies in 1946.

Politics and common sense, which you lack:(

Truman and the British would not have wanted Russians in Japan, period. That and for all their help in Europe, Russian involvment in the Pacific was in most ways a last minute, purely political venture.

The US and British, and to a lesser extent even the French could argue that while they may not have fought their way into Berlin, they had been fighting the Germans just as much as the Soviets, if on a smaller scale.

Japan was seen, quite rightfully, as an issue for the US and British. The Russians where not needed, and giving them holdings in Tokyo would essentially be handing them over for free.
 
But how about an earlier POD? Nukes not working, delayed surrender? This would allow Soviet forces to invade Japan from the north, no?

I was thinking of a timeline like that some days ago, maybe with a Korean-style war to go with it.
 
How would the Ainu have fared under a Soviet zone Japan, and later under a "North Japan"? Does anyone know sources on the Ainu in the old USSR?

What about the Japanese Communist Party's attitude towards Ainu?
 
Politics and common sense, which you lack:(
I know, because all decisions in human history were made rationally and logically.
Truman and the British would not have wanted Russians in Japan, period. That and for all their help in Europe, Russian involvment in the Pacific was in most ways a last minute, purely political venture.

The US and British, and to a lesser extent even the French could argue that while they may not have fought their way into Berlin, they had been fighting the Germans just as much as the Soviets, if on a smaller scale.

Japan was seen, quite rightfully, as an issue for the US and British. The Russians where not needed, and giving them holdings in Tokyo would essentially be handing them over for free.
It's irrelevant how much the USSR helped in the war, and it's all political bargaining. Do the allies want a piece of Berlin? Then the USSR must get a piece of Tokyo. Hello, an easy POD could be Roosevelt lives longer. He'd be sure to give the USSR a slice of Tokyo.


How would the Ainu have fared under a Soviet zone Japan, and later under a "North Japan"? Does anyone know sources on the Ainu in the old USSR?

What about the Japanese Communist Party's attitude towards Ainu?

Was there a Japanese Communist movement at the end of WWII?
 

Cook

Banned
I'd dispute this. The Americans knew well before the end of the War that the Soviets would be trouble in the long run, and the whole reason why the atomic bombardment was even considered was to prevent the Soviets getting any foothold on Japan.



I think saving a lot of American and Allied lives that would have been lost in an invasion may have played a rather large part in Harry Truman’s decision there Ninebucks.
 

Cook

Banned
How strong were they?

I remember a documentary on the occupation of Japan after the war and the Communists took part in the elections and doing rather badly. Beyond that it was too long ago to recall. They weren’t paramilitary if that’s what you are wondering.

Vulture,
Where’d that map come from?
 

Teleology

Banned
From Wikipedia:

The JCP is one of the largest non-ruling communist parties in the world, with about 400,000 members belonging to 25,000 branches. In the wake of the Sino-Soviet split the party began to distance itself from the Socialist Bloc, especially from the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the JCP released a press statement titled, "We welcome the end of a great historical evil of imperialism and hegemonism" ("大国主義・覇権主義の歴史的巨悪の党の終焉を歓迎する"), while at the same time criticizing Eastern European countries for abandoning socialism, describing it as a "reversal of history".
Consequently, the party has not suffered an internal crisis as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor has it considered disbanding or changing its name or fundamental objectives, as many other Communist parties have done. It polled 11.3% of the vote in 2000, 8.2% in 2003, 7.3% in 2005, and 7.0% in the August 2009 election. While this represents a slow decline, the JCP still polled nearly 5 million votes, after Russia the second largest showing for any Communist Party in the Group of Eight nations. At the July 2007 elections for the House of Councillors it received 7.5%.
 

Cook

Banned
5 million votes out of a population of 125 million; we’d better get the office carpets dry cleaned before they move in!
:)

Any info on how they did in the early elections, while the Americans were still in occupation?
 
Top