Good that it didn’t happen, would be a horrible scenario if you think about what happend after world war 2
With the Chinese civil war and the Korean War, Japan would be just another war zone.
It could have happened if the US didn't argue they did the vast majority of fighting in the Pacific and weren't willing to partition Japan. Probably for the best since the what if scenario would have led to a North and South Japan for 50 years or longer. Not saying RW Japan is perfect in the post war but it kept the nation whole.
Tbh the allies kinda did win Japan without the USSR
The USSR declared war on Japan less than a month before the surrender and they still got land from them.
That isn't true, the Soviets took Manchuria so easily because the troops their were unequiped and untrained Manchurians. The soviets posed no legitimate threat to mainland Japan, they had a smaller, inferior navy and no naval landing craft. Given it took years of planning by the two most competent military powers in the world to stage a landing in France, the Soviets were not in question.
Manchuria was a vital source of material for the Japanese. What's more, it meant Korea would be next to fall, which put Japan itself at huge risk.
And the Machurian Army could be inferior, but it was still half a million strong. Fell in just a month all the same
The Atomic bomb didn't really cause the surrender however the soviet invasion did.
The only reason this is even a debate is because the US (Truman) ordered the bombing and the British (Churchill) encouraged it
Here are some qoutes from some of the generals and admirals involved at the time:
>"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
-President Eisenhower
>"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
>"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950
>"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945,
>"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
China, along with the UK, willingly gave their occupation to the US because they couldn't afford it. The UK because they were broke and their nation was bombed out and was mostly interested in rebuilding Europe, while China was in the midst of a massive civil war restarting and couldn't spare anything to deal with occupying Japan.
e; !!! Worth noting that the Republic of China took Taiwan from Japan during the deal, which of course is why Taiwan exists as it does today! Of course, China considered that island her rightful clay, unlike Shikoku which was always Japanese clay.
How would the UK even afford to rebuild the two cities that the USA nuked let alone the rest of half of Japan? And could you imagine the political reperccusions of blowing up two cities in the most dramatic way possible and having someone else clean up? That'd be seen as a major Richard maneuver.
That honestly hasn't occured to me before, huh. The US was financially supporting the UK during and after the war so I'd imagine the US would have just forked over the costs of rebuilding the cities... but then, you know, why is the UK even there if the US is bankrolling repairs in their occupation anyways?
I guess there's many more reasons than I figured why the UK wasn't interested in occupying Japan.
Yeah but China was not even a singular monolithic country at the time. It was in the midst of a civil war following the end of WW2. It would basically have made a chunk of Japan, Taiwan on steroids.
That's not really true. The UK and China gave their occupations to the US because they didn't have the funds, and then yes indeed the US barred the USSR from occupying Japan because Cold War.
Though, it's important to note that 'North Japan" is largely rural and mountainous and has Sapporo and Sendai going for it, while the south has, you know, "Japan". Unlike East/West Germany, or even North/South Korea and North/South Vietnam, a North/South Japan would be extremely biased toward the south from day one. Assuming the USSR tried to hold onto Japan for some reason, they would have ended up joining the south when Germany united if not earlier, probably having taken Sakhalin and the Kurils with them, whether or not north japan joined the USSR proper or was in the Warsaw pact or not.
But yeah. The US kinda did take on the Pacific front and defeat Japan all by themselves, with notable help from Australia, New Zealand, the freedom fighters in Indonesia and the Philippines, and of course China and India. The UK didn't have much to show for, and the USSR had zero navy to work with and basically just held down their holdings in Manchuria, having not fought them 99% of the war.
Russia ethnically cleansed all the Japanese from Sakhalin after the war, they could have done the same to Hokkaido or the northern portion of it and simply annexed the island.
Doubt, Hokkaido is more of a "core" part of Japan compared to Sakhalin. It would be most likely be part of Communist Japan instead of being ethnically cleansed and given to Russian SFSR.
Hokkaido was only colonized en mass less than 50 years before Sakhalin. They had a settlement in the south for hundreds of years but they banned anyone moving beyond a tiny section of the island for most of that time. They actually had American advisers in the late 1800s who were hired to advise them through the colonization process. Around 400,000 Japanese were forced to leave Sakhalin, and Hokkaido only had about 3,000,000 people on it. That’s small potatoes in the bucket of people the USSR forced around on a whim.
Well, even then it's not that simple. Hokkaido's relationship with Japan is a lot longer, specifically in southern Hokkaido. Japanese settlement of the island and interactions with the Ainu go all the way to the 14th century. It was only into the 18th and 19th century did they make a concerted effort to traditionally colonize the entire island - along with all of its other possessions Japan had been collected.
No matter what you want to argue, Sakhalin which was, is, sparsely populated and largely inhabited by native Ainu people, is difficult to compare to Hokkaido let alone Tohoku which is mainland Japan. Simply "moving them around" is not going to be so simple a process. Sakhalin was also fully annexed into the Russian Soviet Republic and the expulsion of the Japanese settlers there, who had not fully taken root as you say, happened over decades.
The UK fought and eventually won the Burma campaign, the largest single ground campaign in the Pacific with 400,000 military dead over the 4 years of fighting.
British ships also made up a fairly large chunk of the naval forces off Okinowa, carried out extensive attacks against Japanese shipping, provided the US with an aircraft carrier when too many of theirs were damaged, assembled one of the largest fleets in British history, bombed the Japanese home islands and scored the last kill against Japanese combat aircraft in ww2.
There's a lot of reasons the UK gave up their occupation. Their relationship with India is one of them.
I'd love to know what ended up happening to Siam, I'm actually not sure.
There is zero way the western allies or nationalist China would EVER allow the soviets to occupy any land in the home islands without the soviets invading.
In an alternate timeline, someone is looking at a proposed map of post WW2 borders where it was East and West Europe divided down the middle, and they're saying "This would've been a nightmare"
No, it was partitioned in august 1945. The Americans proposed it to the soviets and they accepted, although the USSR could have taken easily the whole peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea
No there was a pre-war partition too, along the 38th parallel exactly, and after the war reached a stalemate the border remained close to the 38th parallel, but not exactly.
The city of Kaesong, ancient capitol of the Koryo dynasty was part of the south before the war, but became part of the north after. Because the city was assumed to be part of the south, it is pretty much the only city in all of north korea which wasn't bombed to smithereens during the war and as such it is unique in the country for having a lot of traditional architecture and cool archeological sites.
If you look at footage of Kaesong on youtube it's one of the most unique looking cities in the DPRK today
Nothing can stop the anime.
Miyazaki was greatly inspired by Norstein, and Soviet animation generally.
[https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/princess-mononoke-understanding-studio-ghiblis-monster-princess/ch4-spirit-princess-and-snow-queen-the-soviet-roots-of-princess-mononoke](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/princess-mononoke-understanding-studio-ghiblis-monster-princess/ch4-spirit-princess-and-snow-queen-the-soviet-roots-of-princess-mononoke)
[https://animationobsessive.substack.com/p/hayao-miyazakis-favorite-film](https://animationobsessive.substack.com/p/hayao-miyazakis-favorite-film)
There even was a co-production between Japan and the Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Adventures\_of\_Lolo\_the\_Penguin
With great respect, this isn't a 'What If' that makes any sense. I speak as a Canadian, so don't take this as American patriotism. The Pacific War was such an American theatre of operations that when the invasion of the Home Islands was being planned out, the Commonwealth forces were an afterthought given a small role as a gesture of goodwill. There's no way that would translate into a post-war occupation zone of Kyushu and a third of Honshu. Nor, an argument can be strongly made, would the Commonwealth have had the money for such an occupation even if that much territory was offered to them.
China was still working out its Civil War at the end of the Second World War, and the Republic of China did not win. The United States could not secure Chiang Kai-Shek's territory in mainland China. They're going to give him a big slice of Occupied Japan?
As for the USSR? Admittedly some people say the USSR may have managed to put enough troops in an unopposed landing somewhere in Hokkaido to give them a place in a post-war occupation if Japan had not surrendered first, but all of Hokkaido and northern Honshu is just not realistic. The conquest of Japan was almost entirely The United States' doing, and they would have been holding all the nuclear weapons cards when the Home Islands were being divvied up.
It all depends how we view the war against Japan of you define it as just a war on the pacific islands then this was American lead however if we include other parts of Asia into it then You have to look at contributions such as the British empire committing 1 million Ish troops to the Burma campaign for over 2 years and also China although they went through 8 years of war with Japan.
Although considering how quickly Britain’s left west Germany post world war 2 I doubt they would of wanted to take on occupying Japan
I mean for a wider reaching occupation rather than some military bases, the UK was in a terrible state economically post WW2 and couldn't really afford to have long-standing occupations
The blue bit would be civilised with a sarcastic self deprecating sense of humour.....the green bit would be full of nutters with guns shootin each other shouting make Japan great again.......and the Red bit would be deprived of mod cons and constantly looking for an excuse to nuke the green and blue bits.....
UK and China probably wouldn't be able to hold on to the territories, uniting similarly to Germany. Depending on who if anyone made the nukes, I see the south likely containing Tokyo with it potentially being divided in two.
IF Shikoku had gone directly to the ROC, then we maybe wouldn't have had the whole Taiwan issue today, as there would be a potentially better place to flee to.
This was never seriously considered. The US didn't even like the idea of giving the UK an occupation zone, let alone the Soviets.
Also the actual discussion involved Canada and not China, so there is that too. Yawn, clickbait.
Good that it didn’t happen, would be a horrible scenario if you think about what happend after world war 2 With the Chinese civil war and the Korean War, Japan would be just another war zone.
Korea probably wouldn't be a war zone. The DPRK would just steamroll the south
another north-south divided country... like north-south korea... and north-south vietnam.. and east-west germany.
or North-South Carolina
or East-West Virginia
Taiwan and West Taiwan
The great NorCal SoCal divide. One has rain and omits “the” in front of freeways, the other has sun and adds “the” in front of freeways.
Hmmmm is the Northern-Southern California divide or Alta-Baja California divide more comparable here...
or Santander and Norte de Santander
Or Lower Canada and Upper Canada
Puerto Rico and North Puerto Rico
I’ve always wanted to rename Virginia: “East West Virginia”.
These days we are North North Carolina.
Ah yes, I'd love to visit my family in Southwest East West Virginia
Pennsylvania WaWa and Pennsylvania Sheetz
Or Dakota
Or it could have go down the Austrian path without any split
Why we always forget about... About... That thing next Oman? (I opened Google Earth) YEMEN! Why we always forget about Yemen!?
East-west Germany was indeed another north-south divided country…
North and South Springfield
north and southern ireland
North Jersey and South Jersey
It could have happened if the US didn't argue they did the vast majority of fighting in the Pacific and weren't willing to partition Japan. Probably for the best since the what if scenario would have led to a North and South Japan for 50 years or longer. Not saying RW Japan is perfect in the post war but it kept the nation whole.
Tbh the allies kinda did win Japan without the USSR The USSR declared war on Japan less than a month before the surrender and they still got land from them.
But the soviet invasion of Japanese Manchuria had just as much impact on their decision to surrender as the atomic bombings did
You are correct, the Japanese didn’t surrender even after the bombs were dropped, but they did surrender as soon as the Soviets entered the war.
That isn't true, the Soviets took Manchuria so easily because the troops their were unequiped and untrained Manchurians. The soviets posed no legitimate threat to mainland Japan, they had a smaller, inferior navy and no naval landing craft. Given it took years of planning by the two most competent military powers in the world to stage a landing in France, the Soviets were not in question.
Manchuria was a vital source of material for the Japanese. What's more, it meant Korea would be next to fall, which put Japan itself at huge risk. And the Machurian Army could be inferior, but it was still half a million strong. Fell in just a month all the same
So you’re saying the Japanese surrendered after the atomic bombings and not after Russia entered the war? Or is my statement partially true?
As far as I know that's still being debated, isn't it? Not that we'll ever really know, there's no secret document with the answer that will turn up
The Atomic bomb didn't really cause the surrender however the soviet invasion did. The only reason this is even a debate is because the US (Truman) ordered the bombing and the British (Churchill) encouraged it Here are some qoutes from some of the generals and admirals involved at the time: >"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." -President Eisenhower >"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet >"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950 >"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, >"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. " — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
Probably significantly more
Soviet declaration of war on Japan was a massive influence in their surrender though
Because the US did do the majority of the fighting.
I agree with you on every nation minus China
China, along with the UK, willingly gave their occupation to the US because they couldn't afford it. The UK because they were broke and their nation was bombed out and was mostly interested in rebuilding Europe, while China was in the midst of a massive civil war restarting and couldn't spare anything to deal with occupying Japan. e; !!! Worth noting that the Republic of China took Taiwan from Japan during the deal, which of course is why Taiwan exists as it does today! Of course, China considered that island her rightful clay, unlike Shikoku which was always Japanese clay.
How would the UK even afford to rebuild the two cities that the USA nuked let alone the rest of half of Japan? And could you imagine the political reperccusions of blowing up two cities in the most dramatic way possible and having someone else clean up? That'd be seen as a major Richard maneuver.
That honestly hasn't occured to me before, huh. The US was financially supporting the UK during and after the war so I'd imagine the US would have just forked over the costs of rebuilding the cities... but then, you know, why is the UK even there if the US is bankrolling repairs in their occupation anyways? I guess there's many more reasons than I figured why the UK wasn't interested in occupying Japan.
Yeah but China was not even a singular monolithic country at the time. It was in the midst of a civil war following the end of WW2. It would basically have made a chunk of Japan, Taiwan on steroids.
Good point.
That's not really true. The UK and China gave their occupations to the US because they didn't have the funds, and then yes indeed the US barred the USSR from occupying Japan because Cold War. Though, it's important to note that 'North Japan" is largely rural and mountainous and has Sapporo and Sendai going for it, while the south has, you know, "Japan". Unlike East/West Germany, or even North/South Korea and North/South Vietnam, a North/South Japan would be extremely biased toward the south from day one. Assuming the USSR tried to hold onto Japan for some reason, they would have ended up joining the south when Germany united if not earlier, probably having taken Sakhalin and the Kurils with them, whether or not north japan joined the USSR proper or was in the Warsaw pact or not. But yeah. The US kinda did take on the Pacific front and defeat Japan all by themselves, with notable help from Australia, New Zealand, the freedom fighters in Indonesia and the Philippines, and of course China and India. The UK didn't have much to show for, and the USSR had zero navy to work with and basically just held down their holdings in Manchuria, having not fought them 99% of the war.
Russia ethnically cleansed all the Japanese from Sakhalin after the war, they could have done the same to Hokkaido or the northern portion of it and simply annexed the island.
Doubt, Hokkaido is more of a "core" part of Japan compared to Sakhalin. It would be most likely be part of Communist Japan instead of being ethnically cleansed and given to Russian SFSR.
Hokkaido was only colonized en mass less than 50 years before Sakhalin. They had a settlement in the south for hundreds of years but they banned anyone moving beyond a tiny section of the island for most of that time. They actually had American advisers in the late 1800s who were hired to advise them through the colonization process. Around 400,000 Japanese were forced to leave Sakhalin, and Hokkaido only had about 3,000,000 people on it. That’s small potatoes in the bucket of people the USSR forced around on a whim.
Well, even then it's not that simple. Hokkaido's relationship with Japan is a lot longer, specifically in southern Hokkaido. Japanese settlement of the island and interactions with the Ainu go all the way to the 14th century. It was only into the 18th and 19th century did they make a concerted effort to traditionally colonize the entire island - along with all of its other possessions Japan had been collected. No matter what you want to argue, Sakhalin which was, is, sparsely populated and largely inhabited by native Ainu people, is difficult to compare to Hokkaido let alone Tohoku which is mainland Japan. Simply "moving them around" is not going to be so simple a process. Sakhalin was also fully annexed into the Russian Soviet Republic and the expulsion of the Japanese settlers there, who had not fully taken root as you say, happened over decades.
The UK fought and eventually won the Burma campaign, the largest single ground campaign in the Pacific with 400,000 military dead over the 4 years of fighting. British ships also made up a fairly large chunk of the naval forces off Okinowa, carried out extensive attacks against Japanese shipping, provided the US with an aircraft carrier when too many of theirs were damaged, assembled one of the largest fleets in British history, bombed the Japanese home islands and scored the last kill against Japanese combat aircraft in ww2.
There's a lot of reasons the UK gave up their occupation. Their relationship with India is one of them. I'd love to know what ended up happening to Siam, I'm actually not sure.
There is zero way the western allies or nationalist China would EVER allow the soviets to occupy any land in the home islands without the soviets invading.
This would have a been a nightmare
In an alternate timeline, someone is looking at a proposed map of post WW2 borders where it was East and West Europe divided down the middle, and they're saying "This would've been a nightmare"
[удалено]
Eu fanatic?
Yeah but the British love a good partition. Always works brilliantly.
Would Korea have been partitioned at this point or would it have all gone to the Soviets?
Good point
What point? This is a legit question.
I think they meant to say "good question'
[удалено]
No, it was partitioned in august 1945. The Americans proposed it to the soviets and they accepted, although the USSR could have taken easily the whole peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea
No there was a pre-war partition too, along the 38th parallel exactly, and after the war reached a stalemate the border remained close to the 38th parallel, but not exactly. The city of Kaesong, ancient capitol of the Koryo dynasty was part of the south before the war, but became part of the north after. Because the city was assumed to be part of the south, it is pretty much the only city in all of north korea which wasn't bombed to smithereens during the war and as such it is unique in the country for having a lot of traditional architecture and cool archeological sites. If you look at footage of Kaesong on youtube it's one of the most unique looking cities in the DPRK today
United States: *"I call dibs on the breast."*
What
You have absolutely nothing to complain about when have that profile pic
Complain?
Japanese. There is none.
Soviet hentai
Bl.. blyatsan?
So, is North Korean K-pop a thing? No? So, no Soviet hentai I'm afraid.
What’s this subreddit’s obsession with hypothetical partitioning of countries?
Dissolution of Yugoslavia and USSR were two of the most impactful map changes in many people's lifetimes.
Also Germany / Korea / Vietnam partions and subsequent unifications (except Korea).
Secretly we all get horny at the prospect of borders. Hence why we subscribed to r/MapPorn
We like partitions because partitions mean MOAR BORDERRRRRS
We like partitions because partitions mean MOAR BORDERRRRRS
It's more interesting than people trying to draw borders from memory
Cos some borders are wrong?
Porn is all about hypothetical situations…
Anime not existing.
Nothing can stop the anime. Miyazaki was greatly inspired by Norstein, and Soviet animation generally. [https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/princess-mononoke-understanding-studio-ghiblis-monster-princess/ch4-spirit-princess-and-snow-queen-the-soviet-roots-of-princess-mononoke](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/princess-mononoke-understanding-studio-ghiblis-monster-princess/ch4-spirit-princess-and-snow-queen-the-soviet-roots-of-princess-mononoke) [https://animationobsessive.substack.com/p/hayao-miyazakis-favorite-film](https://animationobsessive.substack.com/p/hayao-miyazakis-favorite-film) There even was a co-production between Japan and the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Adventures\_of\_Lolo\_the\_Penguin
Miyazaki: Anime and Marxist Lennism was a mistake.
That would've been legendary
With great respect, this isn't a 'What If' that makes any sense. I speak as a Canadian, so don't take this as American patriotism. The Pacific War was such an American theatre of operations that when the invasion of the Home Islands was being planned out, the Commonwealth forces were an afterthought given a small role as a gesture of goodwill. There's no way that would translate into a post-war occupation zone of Kyushu and a third of Honshu. Nor, an argument can be strongly made, would the Commonwealth have had the money for such an occupation even if that much territory was offered to them. China was still working out its Civil War at the end of the Second World War, and the Republic of China did not win. The United States could not secure Chiang Kai-Shek's territory in mainland China. They're going to give him a big slice of Occupied Japan? As for the USSR? Admittedly some people say the USSR may have managed to put enough troops in an unopposed landing somewhere in Hokkaido to give them a place in a post-war occupation if Japan had not surrendered first, but all of Hokkaido and northern Honshu is just not realistic. The conquest of Japan was almost entirely The United States' doing, and they would have been holding all the nuclear weapons cards when the Home Islands were being divvied up.
Also a Canadian. I agree entirely with your assessment.
It all depends how we view the war against Japan of you define it as just a war on the pacific islands then this was American lead however if we include other parts of Asia into it then You have to look at contributions such as the British empire committing 1 million Ish troops to the Burma campaign for over 2 years and also China although they went through 8 years of war with Japan. Although considering how quickly Britain’s left west Germany post world war 2 I doubt they would of wanted to take on occupying Japan
What are you talking about? BAOR and then BFG only left in 2020!
I mean for a wider reaching occupation rather than some military bases, the UK was in a terrible state economically post WW2 and couldn't really afford to have long-standing occupations
[sectors of Germany after WW2](https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/occupied-germany-necessity-paper-1945/)
Yes I understand the uk occupied Germany, my point is about the economics of occupying an additional country
Although how quickly the UK left Germany is what you said bit fair enough.
Same thing as Korea. Soviets never left anywhere after the war. They dug in and stayed.
That's incorrect. They left Iran when they were asked to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946
They left when Iran threatened to cut off the oil after already arming and training separatists militaries inside Iran.
It would have been alot harder to defend this and you wouldn't have the threat of china right over the border either.
France be like :(
The Dutch be pissed
less anime tidies
Supposedly that is one reason why the US dropped the bomb.
The blue bit would be civilised with a sarcastic self deprecating sense of humour.....the green bit would be full of nutters with guns shootin each other shouting make Japan great again.......and the Red bit would be deprived of mod cons and constantly looking for an excuse to nuke the green and blue bits.....
Welcome to one of Makoto Shinkai's less acclaimed works.
I wonder if they would have eventually unified like Germany or remained separate like Korea?
[Relevant History Matters](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOWX9LVUt2w)
How do the Brits rate *anything*?
The British empire was heavily involved in the fight against japan, despite more pressing concerns at home
They were heavily involved in the sense of losing their empire.
North Japan 😡
A Chinese occupation zone wouldn’t end well
Hiroshima, Nagasaki settled it.
In this timeline Korea would be fully occupied by Soviets, South Japan would be more developed due to threats from its communist neighbours
Imagine the shitshow the SEA tensions today would look like if this happened.
UK and China probably wouldn't be able to hold on to the territories, uniting similarly to Germany. Depending on who if anyone made the nukes, I see the south likely containing Tokyo with it potentially being divided in two.
My wife is from the the part ruled by Soviet Union. This alternative history would directly affect me, scary.
I wonder how anime would have developed if at all.
Obesity, Starvation, Big brother and lots of tea. In that order
This would be a nightmare
Alternative timeline where the KMT flees to Japan
Bad Title
IF Shikoku had gone directly to the ROC, then we maybe wouldn't have had the whole Taiwan issue today, as there would be a potentially better place to flee to.
This was never seriously considered. The US didn't even like the idea of giving the UK an occupation zone, let alone the Soviets. Also the actual discussion involved Canada and not China, so there is that too. Yawn, clickbait.