Decisive Darkness: What if Japan hadn't surrendered in 1945?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, how Okinawa was returned to Japan was a pretty interesting case of military rule temporarily switching people's thoughts. Originally Ryukyu had a shot at being independent, but since USCAR ran the place like a colony, the people voted to return to Japan in hope they can get rid of the Americans. Turns out the Japanese government backstabbed the islanders.
...which given what was done to Ryukyu over the century prior, should have come as no surprise to anyone...
 
So, how the hell does Suslov (of all people) take power in the U.S.S.R & has this TL butterflied Krushchev's rule? Also how has the U.S.S.R survived until 2017, (that seems to have been implied) is it a more hardline version of OTL's China an Authoritarian state with reformed economy.

Also what happened in Spain, is General Franco still dead?;)
 
So, how the hell does Suslov (of all people) take power in the U.S.S.R & has this TL butterflied Krushchev's rule? Also how has the U.S.S.R survived until 2017, (that seems to have been implied) is it a more hardline version of OTL's China an Authoritarian state with reformed economy.

I imagine that Krushchev probably hung about a bit longer without any Sino-Soviet split and felt that Suslov would be the natural reaction to that. By 2016 the Soviet Union is proceeding with mild economic reform and investigating further measures but with Korean and Vietnamese investment at an all time high they feel they can keep the 'Four Modernisations' genie in its bottle for a while yet.

Also what happened in Spain, is General Franco still dead?;)

By the present day I'd imagine so. :p

I can't see Dewey visiting him, so it's quite possible he would outlast his dictatorship ITTL and take the Pinochet route to exile with a sympathetic regime.
 
whats the world like outside of south Asia.

@theman7777 was generous enough to make a map a few months ago. :)


decisive-darkness-png.293885
 
I imagine that Krushchev probably hung about a bit longer without any Sino-Soviet split and felt that Suslov would be the natural reaction to that. By 2016 the Soviet Union is proceeding with mild economic reform and investigating further measures but with Korean and Vietnamese investment at an all time high they feel they can keep the 'Four Modernisations' genie in its bottle for a while yet.



By the present day I'd imagine so. :p

I can't see Dewey visiting him, so it's quite possible he would outlast his dictatorship ITTL and take the Pinochet route to exile with a sympathetic regime.

So what shape is the U.S.S.R in on the socioeconomic level & is it a global superpower in 2016?

Also what nations are TTL's ''Japan & China'' in terms of booming economic growth? Korea & Vietnam don't seem quite big enough to fill those vacuums.

Just one more thing: is Yugoslavia still a ''thing'' ITTL? I think the Soviets would be very wary of allowing a multi-ethnic federation implode, unless they wanted to use such an event as a horrible warning to their own population...

Thanks.
 
So what shape is the U.S.S.R in on the socioeconomic level & is it a global superpower in 2016?

It's not something I've put a great deal of thought into but given the lower rate of progress worldwide I wouldn't imagine it would be too different from the mid-eighties Soviet Union, albeit a bit less cynical given that the stagnation has finally come to an end. The USSR itself has declined but the Comecon as a whole is on the up, slightly more pluralistic but the Soviets still provide most of the muscle.

Also what nations are TTL's ''Japan & China'' in terms of booming economic growth? Korea & Vietnam don't seem quite big enough to fill those vacuums.

They don't and they aren't really meant to be analogous. A destroyed Japan and a divided China have left the world a poorer and less developed place, Korea and Vietnam have benefitted ITTL but they haven't been able to act as substitutes.

Just one more thing: is Yugoslavia still a ''thing'' ITTL? I think the Soviets would be very wary of allowing a multi-ethnic federation implode, unless they wanted to use such an event as a horrible warning to their own population...

A while ago there was a member who wanted to do a spin-off covering events in Yugoslavia, it appears that he's lost interest in it but I think the idea was that the greater stability in the region would allow a "managed break-up" into some sort of confederal system.
 
They don't and they aren't really meant to be analogous. A destroyed Japan and a divided China have left the world a poorer and less developed place, Korea and Vietnam have benefitted ITTL but they haven't been able to act as substitutes.
Was there ever a North Korea analogue ITTL?
 
It's roughly the boundary of where the Chinese civil war burned out, both the PRC and RoC pledge to unify the country under their leadership but the borders largely stayed the same since the fifties.

Putting aside the idea of the Nationalists actually not dying horribly to the side for now, those borders make no sense.

1. There is no viable way for the Nationalists to support the Ma warlords with that sort of borders and with Xinjiang (presumably) under Sheng or a notional Uighur Soviet Republic they would wither on the vine. Historically the Mas surrendered even before Sichuan fell for a reason. The long looking borders are on some of the worst terrain on Earth and even today there is little direct traffic - most of which is routed through Communist-controlled Hanzhong. Guangyuan to Longnan is possible but it would still be a hideously vulnerable low capacity route.
2. The borders of Tibet pre-PoD would be the actual effectively controlled Xikang province area - if recollection serves would be east of the Jinsha River so it's not exactly the modern Tibetan Autonomous Region borders.
3. They took Shanghai and got stuck SOUTH of the Yangtze?! How did that happen?
4. The borders south of the Yangtze follow the provincial borders a little TOO well for a burn-out peace.
5. Did the Americans give them pity islands? That's the only way I can think of where they somehow took all the South China Sea islands. Historical PRC with a LOT less to worry about didn't really manage to even get there until the 80s.

I could go on but this will serve for now. I know China is really an afterthought so I suppose it hardly matters, just a spot of obsession. Nothing to see here.
 
1. There is no viable way for the Nationalists to support the Ma warlords with that sort of borders and with Xinjiang (presumably) under Sheng or a notional Uighur Soviet Republic they would wither on the vine. Historically the Mas surrendered even before Sichuan fell for a reason. The long looking borders are on some of the worst terrain on Earth and even today there is little direct traffic - most of which is routed through Communist-controlled Hanzhong. Guangyuan to Longnan is possible but it would still be a hideously vulnerable low capacity route.
2. The borders of Tibet pre-PoD would be the actual effectively controlled Xikang province area - if recollection serves would be east of the Jinsha River so it's not exactly the modern Tibetan Autonomous Region borders.

I'm sure the borders would be somewhat different to what's portrayed on the map, it was more to represent that East Turkestan and Tibet remained independent.

3. They took Shanghai and got stuck SOUTH of the Yangtze?! How did that happen?

The KMT took Shanghai from the Japanese but then lost it to the Communists upon the resumption of the civil war.

4. The borders south of the Yangtze follow the provincial borders a little TOO well for a burn-out peace.

Probably true, I was somewhat vague on the details.

5. Did the Americans give them pity islands? That's the only way I can think of where they somehow took all the South China Sea islands. Historical PRC with a LOT less to worry about didn't really manage to even get there until the 80s.

Not really 'pity islands' as much as strategic give-aways. A lot more of the claimants are Commies ITTL, and quicker to boot. Given the direction of power in SE Asia a split between the KMT and the Philippines isn't too much of a stretch.

I could go on but this will serve for now. I know China is really an afterthought so I suppose it hardly matters, just a spot of obsession. Nothing to see here.

It was a Japan-centric TL so obviously China had a to take something of a backseat but if you have any ideas or theories I'd be happy to hear them.
 
Was there ever a North Korea analogue ITTL?

North Korea's probably a culmination of too many factors to have a real analogue. I suppose that Albanian "self-reliance" might become a bit harsher without any Chinese relationship but that would likely hasten the collapse of the regime if anything, Hoxha never had much interest in dynastic rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top