Soviets take Hokkaido in 1945

Indeed Japanese militia that could put up stiff resistance for a few days in fixed defensive works on a narrow front, then die are talked up as an unbeatable force. But the Red Army’s veteran ground troops and airborne who’d have been baked up by full air & sea dominance fail, because thery’re Russkies and the ground is a little rugged.:rolleyes:

Yep, that's the claim that was made:rolleyes:

It's only because they're "Russkies":rolleyes: Whoulda thunk it, right?

What's your opinion on the logistics? Do you think the Soviet Union has enough sealift capability? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert on military affairs, but do the Soviets have the ability to put the proper forces on the island? All the skill, experience, and doctrine only count for anything if you can actually get that force there.
 
No, what I'm asking is: what would the Soviets have done with an occupied Hokkaido? Would they have turned it into a communist "North Japan" satellite state?

Possibly, especially if the Americans should transform their part of Japan into one of their anti-communist frontier states as they did IOTL.
Otherwise some compromise would have been possible which would keep the Japanese nation united and demilitarized.

Or would they have annexed it like they did with Sakhalin and the Kuriles?

Very unlikely. Hokkaido was far more populous than the Kuriles and neither a former part of the Russian Empire nor inhabited by people with Soviet-related nationalities.
Hokkaido was by any means not a plausible candidate for Soviet annexion.
 
Last edited:
Yep, that's the claim that was made:rolleyes:

It's only because they're "Russkies":rolleyes: Whoulda thunk it, right?

What's your opinion on the logistics? Do you think the Soviet Union has enough sealift capability? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert on military affairs, but do the Soviets have the ability to put the proper forces on the island? All the skill, experience, and doctrine only count for anything if you can actually get that force there.

In 1945 they have the sea & airlift to transport the troops needed to take Hakkaido and keep them in supply. Japan has no way to interfere with Soviet shipping and cannot keep its own forces In the north supplied at all.

Other posters here have went into great detail on Soviet shipping in the Far East. So there no need for me to re-post the numbers....
 
All the skill, experience, and doctrine only count for anything if you can actually get that force there.

Yes. But there's one step further: first you have to get the force onto the beach, and then you must /supply/ it.

I actually think the Soviets could have established a beachhead, and perhaps even maintained it. That part is challenging, but you could make the case.

But doing something with that beachhead? Much much harder.


Doug M.
 
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa also says the Fifth Area Army was distributed at three points, Shibetsu (Nemuro), Cape Soya, and Tomakomai, while the actual target of a Soviet invasion would be undefended Rumoi.

Undefended Rumoi, that's right. Two points there. One, the landing beaches for Operation Shingle were completely undefended too. Another, notice where Rumoi is. It's down on the lower west coast, about 300 km south of Cape Soya. That 50 km hop across the Straits of La Perouse? Not in the plans.


Thus, if the Soviets learned their mistakes from the Kuril Islands campaign? At Shumshir, they only barely outnumbered the defenders, 8800 to 8500 (Glantz gives a 1:1 correlation in forces). If the Soviet Union deployed more troops (with paratroopers) and managed to land on perhaps the one clear day in late August possible, wouldn't a successful invasion be within the realm of possibility?

Well, first off, it would be September not August -- they can't learn from their mistakes until those campaigns are complete, and then it's going to take some time to put the invasion fleet together. And once you're past September 1, the clock is ticking fast.

Second, let's distinguish between a successful *landing* and a successful *invasion*, because they're completely different things. Again I point to Operation Shingle, where the initial landing went just fine.

Third, if you've got a copy of Glantz, go look at the appendix and count the number of troop transports. Now count the number of landing craft -- landing ships and landing craft (tanks). Now subtract some appropriate figures for losses and breakdowns from the earlier operations -- American experience suggests that this could be anywhere between 10% and 50%.

This will give you a rough figure for how many men the Soviets could get ashore how fast. It's not exactly Overlord.


Doug M.
 
Ugh, why must all "Post-POD" topics just result in people blabbing about how apparently impossible it is even when specifically stated that how and why is not specified nor does it matter at that point.

I mean, this isn't Sealion, people.

It's true -- this is threadjacking.

Let's start a new thread, please.


Doug M.
 
It seems to me that the Soviets could pretty easily gather some cargo ships and unload an army on Hokkaido, perhaps with help from airborne troops. After establishing some coastal control, they could just sit there on the defensive while being resupplied through airdrops and local "hospitality". Then they could slowly move to gain more control over the island and when Japan gets nuked, the USSR can claim it as an occupation zone.

but what does Stalin do with it? Hokkaido doesn't have enough people to be considered "North Japan." And making an Ainu republic isn't feasible either, since most of the population is Japanese. My guess is that Hokkaido would either be given a position similar to Mongolia (the SSR that wasn't), or perhaps just simply occupied by the Russians, never to be diplomatically heard of until 1991. Even then, depending on its legal status and what kind of policies the Soviets pursue there, the island may or may not remain in Russian hands, though there'd probably be a concerted Japanese effort to get it back. Depending on how they're treated, the locals may also want reunification.

As a side thought, in order for a true "North Japan" to emerge you'd have to make it so that Stalin also gets Tohoku and maybe part of Tokyo. Only then could you really compare it to East Germany in terms of population.
 
Oh, you could re-post the numbers on landing craft. In fact, please do.


Doug M.

Look that the last page, anyway specialized landing craft aren’t necessary when fighting no/light opposition who by 1945 barley have 20 century small-arms that, let alone artillery, tanks or supplies. Also the IJA had improvised in this manner in their various amphibious attacks. The idea Soviets with complete control over the sea & air and far better quality troops & command cannot do likewise is fanciful at best, blindly impervious to the facts on the ground at worst.

Japanese troops had few small-arms, almost no ammo, no artillery, no armour and no for reinforcement. They were also on the point of eating tree-bark & shoe leather, knew that with the Soviet attack the last vestiges of hope had faded and their officers were a band of raving lunatics. This is not the stuff with which be Red Army is held off.

Now back on the topic, assuming the Soviets fully take Hokkaido before the Japanese throw in the towel. Will both Superpowers be happy with a united ‘’Finlandized Japan’’ or will the allied occupation zones become the basis for a north-south spilt, as most seem to assume?
 
Will both Superpowers be happy with a united ‘’Finlandized Japan’’ or will the allied occupation zones become the basis for a north-south spilt, as most seem to assume?
The problem is that you have both US and Soviet troops in the country. Germany wasn't finlandized, Korea wasn't finlandized, and neither shall Japan.
 
Hokkaido doesn't have enough people to be considered "North Japan." And making an Ainu republic isn't feasible either, since most of the population is Japanese.

Why not just call it People's Republic of Hokkaido or use some similar term which does not refer to a ethnic group?

My guess is that Hokkaido would either be given a position similar to Mongolia (the SSR that wasn't), or perhaps just simply occupied by the Russians, never to be diplomatically heard of until 1991.

Hokkaido is too big and populous to be ignored.

Now back on the topic, assuming the Soviets fully take Hokkaido before the Japanese throw in the towel. Will both Superpowers be happy with a united ‘’Finlandized Japan’’ or will the allied occupation zones become the basis for a north-south spilt, as most seem to assume?

The term 'Finlandized' suggests significant Soviet influence in the Japan.
It's out of question if only Hokkaido was occupied by the Soviet Army.

The problem is that you have both US and Soviet troops in the country. Germany wasn't finlandized, Korea wasn't finlandized, and neither shall Japan.

But Austria was neutralized. Why not doing the same with Japan?
 
Why not just call it People's Republic of Hokkaido or use some similar term which does not refer to a ethnic group?
That could work. It's also the most straightforward option if you think about it.

But Austria was neutralized. Why not doing the same with Japan?
I think Japan would be viewed as too important to be neutralized. It's not entirely implausible however.
 
What would a post-war Communist Hokkaido be like? Would there be a Japanese Communist Party? Would Sapporo be similar to Pyongyang complete with gaudy monuments and statues? Any other comments-ideas?
 
Top