WW2, If Russia had siezed Japan, what then?

Great Debates
1

Russia still technically at war with Japan? to this day?
Crux issue, Kurile Islands…

More than fifty years have passed since the end of World War II, and no peace treaty has been concluded between Japan and the former Soviet Union. The reason for this delay is the unresolved Northern Territory issue. In the aftermath of World War II, Japan lost those islands, the Kuriles to Russia. Russia clings to its territory in the rich fishing grounds of the North Pacific, defying, Japan, which wants the southern Kuriles, the islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Etorofu and Kunashir back. It is considered that the territorial dispute is both political and economic issue. On the other hand, the inhabitants on the islands just wish their hard lives to get easier, especially after the Cold War, due to economic difficulties without much help from the Russian government.

Medvedev’s visit to Kuril Islands sparks Tokyo backlash…/.
http://rt.com/Politics/2010-11-02/ja…-backlash.html

Here is the thing, disputed territory,
Who does the land belong to???

see also… Russian president visits disputed Kuril islands - BBC News
Russian president visits disputed Kuril islands
excerpt from article.
Dmitry Medvedev has paid the first visit by a Russian president to the disputed Kuril Islands, sparking a diplomatic row with Japan.

Mr Medvedev met local residents in Kunashir, the second-largest of the four islands, and pledged more investment for the region.
article continues.

and
Japan summons Russian ambassador over Kuril islands visit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nds-visit.html
excerpt from article.
Russia and Japan have become embroiled in a diplomatic row after Mr Medvedev, the Russian President, visited a chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean that Tokyo believes were stolen by Moscow almost seventy years ago.

Mr Medvedev ignored Japanese pleas to stay away and became the first Russian leader since the fall of the Soviet Union to visit the disputed territory that the Russians call the Kuril Islands and the Japanese the Northern Territories.
article continues…

Another point of interest is the ‘Coincidental timing’ use of Nukes by the US.
One aspect i am particularly interested in, given that Russia took ‘possession’ of the Kuril islands in August 1945, I wondered how that stacked up against the US use of Nukes against Japan. in August 1945,

It seems that apparently many ppl thought at the time, that the real reason for using Nukes against Japan was mainly to deter Russia from invading the whole of Japan, seizing it…
They had already invaded, seized the Northern most Islands of Japan…
The Kurils.

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki
(( same month, August 1945… )) ( is this mere coincidence is what i asked…
and if it is not as i think probable, its never been admitted… ever… )

excerpt from article.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little Boy
The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter

Japan campaign
Air raids – Volcano & Ryukyu Is – Tokyo – Starvation – Tokyo Bay – Kure – Downfall – Hiroshima & Nagasaki – Kurils
Japanese surrender

Pacific War
China – Central Pacific – Southeast Asia – Southwest Pacific – Japan – Manchuria (1945)

During the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United States conducted two atomic bombings against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

For six months, the United States had made use of intense strategic fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities. Together with the United Kingdom, and the Republic of China the United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon “Little Boy” on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945,[1][2] followed by the detonation of “Fat Man” over Nagasaki on August 9. These two events are the only active deployments of nuclear weapons in war.[3]

note reference to the Kurils…

current news.

Headline.
No common economic zone with Russia in Kurils — Japan’s Foreign Ministry

Zanthor

2

Er, no, they certainly are not. The Soviet Union was a signatory to Japan’s instrument of surrender; the USSR’s representative, Lt. Gen. Kuzma Derevyanko, signed the instrument of surrender on September 2, 1945, at the same time as the other Allied powers. The two countries also have diplomatic relations.

Yes, they have unresolved territorial disputes. That doesn’t constitute a state of war. Canada and Denmark have an unresolved territorial dispute. They aren’t at war.

So, um, you might want to revisit your premise.

3

Is the OP in some sort of secret code??

-XT

4

seems to me far more complex than what you say.

consider this as just one example.
from Wikileaks, oops Wikipedia ( sigh )

Soviet intentions
Main article: Soviet–Japanese War (1945)

Security concerns dominated Soviet decisions concerning the Far East.[53] Chief among these was gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean. The year-round ice-free areas of the Soviet Pacific coastline—Vladivostok in particular—could be blockaded by air and sea from Sakhalin island and the Kurile Islands. Acquiring these territories, thus guaranteeing free access to the Soya Strait, was their primary objective.[54][55] Secondary objectives were leases for the Chinese Eastern Railway, Southern Manchuria Railway, Dairen, and Port Arthur.[56]

To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace.[57] At the same time, in their dealings with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, re-affirmed at the Yalta Conference, that the Allies would not accept separate or conditional peace with Japan. The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement.[57] This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria (Manchukuo), Inner Mongolia (Mengjiang), Korea, Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly, Hokkaidō[58] (starting with a landing at Rumoi).[59]

5

or this.
Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan’s WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08…#ixzz19XGuWcU3
excerpts.
As the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, 1.6 million Soviet troops launched a surprise attack on the Japanese army occupying eastern Asia. Within days, Emperor Hirohito’s million-man army in the region had collapsed.
snip
Now a new history by a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to reinforce that view, arguing that fear of Soviet invasion persuaded the Japanese to opt for surrender to the Americans, who they believed would treat them more generously than the Soviets.

Japan’s forces in northeast Asia first tangled with the Russians in 1939 when the Japanese army tried to invade Mongolia. Their crushing defeat at the battle of Khalkin Gol induced Tokyo to sign a neutrality pact that kept the USSR out of the Pacific war.
snip
He is quoted in Hasegawa’s book as saying, “If we miss (the chance) today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States.”

V-J Day, the day Japan ceased fighting, came on Aug. 15 (Aug. 14 in the U.S.), and Japan’s formal surrender followed on Sept. 2.

Dominic Lieven, a professor of Russian government at the London School of Economics, said anti-Soviet sentiment in the West tended to minimize Soviet military achievements.

Also, “very few Anglo-Americans saw the Soviet offensive in the Far East with their own eyes, and Soviet archives were not open to Western historians subsequently,” he said.

More surprising, even in Russia the campaign was largely ignored. Although the scale of the Soviet victory was unprecedented, 12,000 dead against Japan hardly compared with the life-and-death struggle against Nazi Germany, in which 27 million Soviets died.

“The importance of the operation was huge,” said retired Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, who took part in the 1945 campaign. “By entering the war with militarist Japan … the Soviet Union precipitated the end of World War II.”

so, basically, Russia caused war with Japan to cease, NOT the slaughter in the Pacific NOR American Nukes??

6

That’s a very interesting history lesson but doesn’t state Russia and Japan are at war. It’s also worth noting that “Russia” was not the country Japan was at war with in 1945; it was at war with the Soviet Union.

What is the point you’re trying to make, Zanthor?

7

err, you are aware that Russia did not declare war against Japan until August 8th 1945?
Heck, i noted many topics in the thread so far worthy of investigation, discussion, how come you see none of these?, you want me to list them for you?
Hint… The use of Nukes would be a good place to start…

8

I don’t see how the Soviets would have had an easier time invading Japan itself than the Americans. The Americans had millions of troops in the theater, a huge navy, a massive fleet of long-range bombers, and extensive experience in naval landings - all of which the Russians lacked - and they were still hesitant to invade the main islands. The U.S.S.R may have had the world’s most powerful land army at the time, but it was ill-suited to seizing Japan.

9

I think it is already well known that Japan was at war with the USSR, the USSR seized the Kuriles which are still controlled by Russia, and that the threat of further Russian claims on Japan influenced the US to end the war with the greatest haste (i.e. drop the A-bomb, though there were other contributing reasons for that).

Beyond that, if you have a question, please phrase your question in the form of a question.

10

Hardly surprising, since at the Yalta Conference Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945. Exactly 3 months later, on August 8, 1945 the USSR kept to its commitment to enter the war on Japan.

11

I’m going on memory here, as the book is in storage, by I think Richard Frank touched on this in his essay, “No Bomb, No End,” in the book, “What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been.” If I remember correctly, the end result of no atomic bomb, along with the resulting chaos of the invasion and destruction of the Japanese infrastructure, might have given the Soviet Union time to mount an invasion from the north. The end result being Japan being in the same position as North and South Korea.

12

I wonder, did the Japanese fight to the last man against the Soviets in the same way they did against the Americans in the Pacific Theater?

13

why?, i post info to provide cause for questions, i will leave the precise questions up to you, if that is ok?

consider this. ( if you will )

The surrender and signatories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...t_of_Surrender

Treaty of San Francisco

'…Soviet Union’s opposition to the Treaty

The Soviet Union took part in the San Francisco conference, and the Soviet delegation was led by the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. From the start of the conference the Soviet Union expressed vigorous and vocal opposition to the draft treaty text prepared by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Soviet delegation made several unsuccessful procedural attempts to stall the proceedings.[7] The Soviet Union’s objections were detailed in a lengthy September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[8] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union’s claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that the draft treaty violated the rights of China to Taiwan and several other islands; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. not having any legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union’s sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.[citation needed] It was not until October 19, 1956, that Japan and the Soviet Union signed a Joint Declaration ending the war and reestablishing diplomatic relations.[9]…’

The Soviets signed the surrender ending hostilities with Japan, but was edged out of the occupation.
article continues…

One of many things i did ask was, without the use of Nukes, would Japan have been Russian?
ie, denied the US Japan and subsequently such as Subic Bay as major US bases?
seeds of World domination? would the US have reigned supreme so easily, for so long?
I do not think so…
enough questions from me,
enjoy…
Zan

14

I am not, because the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, not Russia.

It’s unclear what you’re trying to debate. On the SDMB we generally clearly lay out one topic for debate in GD, rather than rambling on a series of things and asking people to pick up the peices.

If Russia had any sort of amphibious invasion capability, I am quite unaware of it. They had a hell of an army but the T-34 doesn’t float.

15

I also don’t think they had any bombers that could reach Japan.

16

I guess it is conceivable that if the war dragged on, and the USSR helped make significant contributions to end it, then they might have been in a position to make claims on parts of Japan. But lacking any ability to project force across the sea, this is doubtful.

If you ask my opinion, it was evident to everyone that the US and USSR would be rivals after the postwar period, and the US knew its position would be weaker if it were bogged down in a hostile occupation of Japan. Even though the USSR had no amphibious invasion capacity in 1945, it is possible this could have built up in a few years, and they could have threatened Hokkaido or other peripheral islands.

17

The Soviet offensive in Manchuria really was a thing of beauty. The Red Army was operating on all cylinders then, in all phases of warfare (for example, rather than transport their tanks across all of Asia, the Soviet armored divisions left their tanks behind in eastern Europe and arrived in the east to find brand new tanks waiting for them.

But as noted, the Soviets had nowhere near the naval capability of the US in that theater. They conducted amphibious landings at Sakhalin, the Kurils, and northern Korea, but the only true “island hopping” type landing was at the Kurils, and the Japanese ended their resistance halfway through due to their general surrender.

18

Reading some of these posts make my eyes hurt…

Hasegawa’s book (which is well worth reading, even if I disagree with some of his larger conclusions) cites Soviet documents showing that the Soviets had the naval capability and intention of landing troops on northern Hokkaido but were prevented by the ending of the war. They could only transport three divisions to Hokkaido, but given Hokkaido’s size and limited defenses, they felt they’d be able to take the northern half. I’ve never heard any reasonable suggestions that the Soviets had any serious ambitions for invading Japan proper. Even the Hokkaido invasion was planned largely with the goal of claiming a role in the later occupation in mind.

On the more modern side of things… are Russia and Japan still at war? No. Hostilities were ended by the 1956 Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration which also re-established diplomatic relations. But there still hasn’t been a peace treaty signed between the two countries which, as much of a technicality as that may seem to be to us, is something that the Japanese take seriously and bring up from time to time.

Regarding the Northern Territories issue, the southern (smaller) two are Japan’s and the northern two are Russia’s. I don’t think that this can really be seriously debated; Japan keeps claiming all four for domestic political reasons, not because it has a strong legal case. It’s arguments are pretty laughable. The ongoing problem is something the US deserves some blame for, btw. Prime Minister Hatoyama was going to accept a two island solution in 1956 but Secretary of State Dulles intervened because he wanted the issue to remain as an irritant in Soviet-Japanese relations.

19

No, it isn’t. You’re not making yourself clear, so everybody else is just trying to guess what your topic is. If you don’t ask some questions or pose some understandable points for debate in your next post, I’ll probably close this thread. The staff has told you about this before.

20

I am making myself as clear as i deemed necessary.
The topics and many and varied, all you have to do is pick one.
( Is spoon feeding always necessary as a prime requisite for debate? )

I can debate on any level you choose.

Try, as just one example, did Russia win the war or american firepower? read Nukes…

anyways, your inability to see both sides of the equation is only temporal hindrance, surely?
try this as just one example of what i am talking about…

this look Russian to you?

also
you prob did not watch the vids on www.rttv.com, see all the Japanese there, their pain mean nothing to you?
go ahead, close the thread, i do not expect better from you, but always hopeful…
regards
Zanthor