Soviet union doesn't declare war on Japan
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
KMT victory, and no Soviet territorial gains in the Far East. However, the Western Allies would still force Japan to fork over southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles.
Buba
A total creep
Oh, I'd have thought that Soviet non-intervention in the Far East would make FDR and Churchil pout and tell Stalin "u so meen u so no gettin any!!!1"?
Maybe US bases can be created in south Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands?
Anyway, in this TL, Russia is going to miss out on the extreme joy of integrating all of the Sakhalin Koreans.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
American bases in the Kuriles and Southern Sakhalin? That would put US troops directly within the borders of the Soviet Union.
Only if the Soviets will actually get this territory. If not, then there's no problem, right?
Buba
A total creep
In this scenario such bases would be inside "occupied Japan".
Kuriles and Southern Sakhalin are post WWII Soviet annexations, payment for its attack.
Last edited:
sillygoose
Well-known member
Better question is whether the US could afford to do that given that they'd probably have to launch Operation Downfall and US public will would be badly ebbing after Germany surrendered.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
We might be entering the world of “Decisive Darkness” with an American seaborne invasion of Japan.
raharris1973
Well-known member
Southern Sakhalin is the most likely of the "free" giveaways for the USSR, since it was held most recently by Russia, and acquired most aggressively by Japan.
Pretty much guaranteed.
Has a better chance of happening than OTL, but not guaranteed.
Pretty much guaranteed.
Has a better chance of happening than OTL, but not guaranteed.
Buba
A total creep
1 - FDR spin doctors get down to work whipping up invasion frenzy
2 - "Nuke it, Rico!"
sillygoose
Well-known member
Nukes alone wouldn't get the Japanese to quit. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was necessary to get them to surrender. Absent that they'd look at it like the firebombings of their other cities.
No North Korea,no Korean war,no soviet Kuriles.
Mao win becouse USA sabotaged KMT in OTL.If they do that again,Mao would still win.
But - we would have stronger Japan and powerful united Korea.
What about if the Allies would have still gotten the Soviets to invade Manchuria but also would have refrained from using one or both of their nukes? Would Japan have still surrendered then?
I kind of expect Churchill, who was always looking for the soft underbelly of Europe, is going to convince people to try invading somewhere the populace wants liberation before trying to invade Japan, and the Japanese home islands don't actually need invading because they lack the resources to support a navy or air force without imports. They don't have oil. I don't think they have coal. They don't have much iron.
The only place with a substantially Japanese population that needs to be taken is Sakhalin. Korea is Italy tough, but the population wants to be liberated so it's a lot easier than invading Japan. Divert the armaments stream no longer needed in Europe after the fall of Berlin to the KMT and they can take back Manchuria. And once that's done it doesn't actually matter what the Japanese government or Japanese people think because they can't do anything about it.
The only place with a substantially Japanese population that needs to be taken is Sakhalin. Korea is Italy tough, but the population wants to be liberated so it's a lot easier than invading Japan. Divert the armaments stream no longer needed in Europe after the fall of Berlin to the KMT and they can take back Manchuria. And once that's done it doesn't actually matter what the Japanese government or Japanese people think because they can't do anything about it.
Buba
A total creep
Japan has coal. Or used to mine it, nowadays it is cheaper to bring it from Indonesia or Australia (Vietnam?). During WWII 50M tons a year, which is nothing to sneeze at. Many European countries would had killed for such coal production size.
Indeed. The IJN is dead, so eliminate the Japanese Empire on the mainland and let the Home Islands starve.
Is this true or another Communist lie taken as truth?
Last edited:
sillygoose
Well-known member
Well the bomber raids to that point were more destructive than the nukes, but it was only after the Soviet invasion they quit. And they tried to surrender before the nukes were dropped apparently.
sillygoose
Well-known member
They actually did because US public morale was dropping and they wanted the war to be over, so something needed to be done to end the war quickly before public opinion ended the war and left Japan with China.
Did the Japanese try to surrender on terms that were actually acceptable to the West? BTW, I wish that the Potsdam Declaration would have contained something about the fate of the Japanese imperial system, but I don't know just how politically feasible that actually was, unfortunately.
Is it true that the Soviet advance into Manchuria was running out of steam when the US nuked Japan twice?