In the history of World War II, there are many unsaid and deliberate omissions, especially when it comes to Soviet historiography, from which Russian historiography arose. In particular, for political reasons, she kept silent about the participation of the USSR in the European Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, often ignoring even its very existence. The reasons are clear - the Soviet leadership, in order to look good in the international arena, forgave Hitler's accomplices too much, ignoring the people's aspirations for just retribution. Another important topic that was diligently hidden in the historical science of the USSR and modern Russia was the Tokyo process and Soviet participation in the post-war reconstruction of Japan. It cannot be said that it was significant, but it is also strange not to mention it in general - if only for reasons of historical justice.
In Russian textbooks, the phrase that Japan was occupied by Americans alone is still often found. From this, the authors of such statements, directly or indirectly, conclude that Tokyo subsequently became anti-Soviet and pro-American precisely because of this. In reality, everything happened a little differently. Yes, the four main Japanese islands - Honshu, Shikkoku, Kyushu, and Hokkaido - were home to approximately 350,000 American soldiers from the occupying forces. But at the same time, they were propped up by thousands of British, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian soldiers. Soviet troops were stationed on South Sakhalin and the Kuril archipelago, which were considered not even a colony of Japan, but part of the country itself, where there were Japanese cities, railways and factories. In addition, the USSR occupied the north of Korea, which, although it was a colony, was part of the pre-war Japanese state. So, in fact, the USSR had its own zone of occupation, which, with the proper skill, could give Moscow a weighty argument at the allied consultations on Japan.
The population of South Sakhalin alone was estimated at 400,000-500,000, not to mention the millions of Japanese from Korea. A certain group of the Soviet military was present in the American zone of occupation, although their power was minimal here. By the way, China also had its own occupation zone - this is the island of Taiwan and the Penghu archipelago, but the civil war in this country quickly removed the Chinese from the number of real players.
As we can see, Moscow initially had the conditions for bargaining with the Americans, albeit very limited. There were often only a few kilometers of sea straits between Soviet and American troops stationed on different islands. In this sense, by the way, it is worth mentioning some modern speculations in the Russian press regarding the Kuril Archipelago and Hokkaido. So, the Kuriles were lost by Russia not at all during the Russo-Japanese War, as some authors of even quite authoritative publications claim, but several decades before in a completely peaceful manner. As for Hokkaido, which, according to the fabrications of some journalists, was also supposed to be occupied by the Soviet Union, this is not true either. According to the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, Hokkaido remained under the sovereignty of post-war Japan, and before that came under American control under agreements between the allies. Any attempt to occupy Hokkaido by force would inevitably end in a confrontation with the United States, whose superiority at sea and in the air over the Soviet Navy was undeniable.
So, the USSR had its own occupation zone, and its representative accepted the surrender on the battleship Missouri, so the logical step was to invite him to the Tokyo process over the leadership of the Japanese Empire. The main difference between this court and the Nuremberg trials was that there was not even an ostentatious equality of accusers - the Americans in every possible way emphasized that they were in charge here. Judges and prosecutors from other countries (Great Britain, Australia, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, New Zealand, India, France, the Netherlands, Canada and China) acted only as a kind of support team, designed to give legitimacy to what was happening. Judge Major General I. M. Zaryanov spoke on behalf of the Soviet side, S. A. Golunsky (later replaced by A. N. Vasiliev) was appointed prosecutor, and L. N. Smirnov was appointed deputy prosecutor. Among the accusations put forward was the planning of a war against the Soviet Union.
Since the fact of mass, and, what is important, organized terror against the civilian population and prisoners of war was not subject to doubts (the evidence base turned out to be more than enough), the question was only in identifying and punishing those responsible. The charges against the defendants were divided into three categories: "A" (crimes against peace, unleashing war), "B" (mass murder) and "C" (crimes against humanity). Of the 29 accused, 7 were executed by court verdict, 3 did not live to see the end of the investigation. Among them is Hideki Tojo - the prime minister of the empire, under whom the Pacific War was unleashed.
Of the 16 people who were sentenced to life, 3 died in custody, and the rest were released in 1954-55, after the restoration of Japanese sovereignty. Some of them plunged into big politics and took up ministerial positions again. This is by the way about when the "revision of the results of the Second World War" actually began. Nevertheless, the very fact of the Tokyo process and Soviet participation in it remains for some reason a dark page for modern Russian society.
In general, it can be stated that since the beginning of the fifties, the Americans resolutely and firmly removed all former allies from participating in the internal affairs of the Land of the Rising Sun, which has become the same American vassal in Asia as Great Britain in Europe or Israel in the Middle East. In order to restrain Japanese politicians who still remembered the glorious days of independence, two treaties were imposed on them, shackling them hand and foot. The first is the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which left the southern islands under perpetual American occupation. The second is the original version of the US-Japan Security Treaty, which provided for the direct intervention of the US Army in the internal affairs of Tokyo if Washington deemed it necessary. By the time these provisions were eliminated, two decades had passed in which a new generation of Japanese politicians had grown up with a focus on the United States of America.
Moscow's opportunities in the new pro-American Japan turned out to be even less than in the independent imperial Japan of the past. Was there a chance to avoid such a diplomatic fiasco? Hypothetically, yes, it was. But what has been done has been done. Although economic relations between the USSR and Japan improved, Moscow throughout the Cold War was forced to keep numerous military units on the insular part of the Far East in anticipation of a Japanese-American invasion. It was the alliance of Tokyo and Washington and, to a lesser extent, the Kuril issue that pushed our countries on opposite sides of the barricades.
