Eastern Europe in exchange for Japan?

[Keenir]

What if, at the close of World War Two, the USA and USSR come to an agreement: Stalin will hand over all of Eastern Europe to the Marshall Plan and the West....and in return, Japan will become a Soviet client state.

(wanting to avoid losing all influence in the area, Truman insists on Korea and Manchuria being under American (or British?) influence)

As for China...both sides agree to abide by the winners of the Chinese Civil War. (which naturally no doubt leads to the USA and USSR funneling weapons to the Nationalists and Communists under the table)

Would the US let the Soviets have a free hand in Central Asia (ie Afghanistan), or would Japan be seen as enough of a trade by Congress? (might Afghanistan be the price of American Manchuria & Korea?)

 

[StevenAttewell]

I think this misses the fact that the Soviet strategic imperative always was the creation of a buffer state in Eastern Europe after two German invasions and debilitating total wars in thirty-odd years. It's one of the reasons why anti-Yalta folks are dead wrong - Stalin would never have given in on Eastern Europe, nor would any other Soviet leader.

By contrast, Japan was a sideshow where Soviets had barely been involved. You'd have to construct some extreme POD that involves Japan invading the Soviet Union and punching majorly above its weight and then Germany not invading for some reason in order for this to work.

 

[Keenir]

I think this misses the fact that the Soviet strategic imperative always was the creation of a buffer state in Eastern Europe after two German invasions and debilitating total wars in thirty-odd years. It's one of the reasons why anti-Yalta folks are dead wrong - Stalin would never have given in on Eastern Europe, nor would any other Soviet leader.

maybe Stalin keeps Poland, but otherwise all of Eastern Europe is traded?

 

[StevenAttewell]

maybe Stalin keeps Poland, but otherwise all of Eastern Europe is traded?

Which parts did you have in mind? The Baltic states? The Ukraine? East Germany? Czechoslovakia? Hungary? Romania? Bulgaria?

Baltic States and the Ukraine are a no-go, they're too close to Russia proper.

The more Southwesterly areas, including the Balkans, the USSR can probably accept as a more hands-off relationship, given that you're overwhelmingly likely to see strong Communist Parties into those states after the Right is discredited by collaboration.

As long as the Marshall Plan isn't explicitly capitalist in its operations, you might have an Eastern Europe that resembles the '45-7 coalition governments. It would take a lot of cards falling in the right direction though.

And it's still unclear why Japan would be enough of a bargaining chip, and there'd be a lot of resistance in the U.S to handing over the enemy that the U.S was primarily responsible for defeating to a minor combatant.

 

[Typo]

Wait, why would Russia want Japan as oppose to it's natural sphere of influence in eastern Europe?

Seriously, it doesn't make sense for Stalin to want that

 

[Keenir]

Wait, why would Russia want Japan as oppose to it's natural sphere of influence in eastern Europe?

in line with what StevenAttewell just suggested, perhaps Stalin agrees to that because Eastern Europe is Russia's natural sphere of influence (and thus would turn socialist anyway)....what bigger victory for international Communism than for Eastern Europe to turn Red under the watch of the capitalists?
(or at least that's one way to sell it)

Seriously, it doesn't make sense for Stalin to want that

when I first thought up the idea, I thought "warm water ports....and before and during the War, the Emperor of Japan was seriously worried about Japan turning to communism."

but mostly the warm water ports.

 

[frieza]

stalin would also be going for the natrual resources and though korea and manchuria had some resources. easton europe would be a far more valuable piece of land. and also japan has no natraul resources left thus why these days they trade in technology.

 

[Typo]

in line with what StevenAttewell just suggested, perhaps Stalin agrees to that because Eastern Europe is Russia's natural sphere of influence (and thus would turn socialist anyway)....what bigger victory for international Communism than for Eastern Europe to turn Red under the watch of the capitalists?
(or at least that's one way to sell it)

That doesn't make sense for Stalin

The man ran far more on political realism than on "world revolution"

when I first thought up the idea, I thought "warm water ports....and before and during the War, the Emperor of Japan was seriously worried about Japan turning to communism."

but mostly the warm water ports.

Then simply keep North Korea, or Port Authur in Manchuria.

 

[Tellus]

I suppose if the Soviets realized Japan's potential they might accept to reduce its Eastern Europe sphere in exchange for total control over it.

But theyd still demand everything that was integrated into the USSR proper (1941 borders) and Poland and Romania as buffer states, I think.

 

[frieza]

I suppose if the Soviets realized Japan's potential they might accept to reduce its Eastern Europe sphere in exchange for total control over it.

But theyd still demand everything that was integrated into the USSR proper (1941 borders) and Poland and Romania as buffer states, I think.

I almost agree with you Tellus but the soviet union wasnt a system to give up land. think of germany it took 45 years for them to give it up, if the soviets were offered japan they would take it but not if they were going to lose soviet land where they won famous battles against the nazis.

 

[Albidoom]

Eastern Europe is Russia's natural sphere of influence (and thus would turn socialist anyway)

I share Typo's opinion about that. None of those states turned socialist prior to WWII, so why should they do it post-war (especially after the USSR has gobbled up the Baltics)?
And the only one that did go socialist on its own, Yugoslavia, soon enough got a bit estranged with Moscow.

I'd say we'd have (apart from a different mindset in Stalin) at least one or two countries during the interbellum turning socialist on their own and developing genuinely friendly relations with the SU for that to happen (i.e. Stalin waiting for Eastern Europe turning red on its own)

 

[cbr]

in line with what StevenAttewell just suggested, perhaps Stalin agrees to that because Eastern Europe is Russia's natural sphere of influence (and thus would turn socialist anyway)....what bigger victory for international Communism than for Eastern Europe to turn Red under the watch of the capitalists?
(or at least that's one way to sell it)

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you're very wrong. Eastern Europe would have never turned socialist if the russians didn't station troops there. In Romania for example if there wouldn't have been the soviet army it's very likely that the Communist Party wouldn't even have managed to get the required number of votes to enter Parlament.

As it was there was a Communist Government imposed by the soviet army, changing election laws, banning oposition politicians and assassinating others and outright massive vote fraud. Even in these conditions the Communist Party and their allies got only about 70% of the seats. As far as I know real life votes for the Communist Party in that election by modern estimates was about 5%.

If the soviets give up influence in Eastern Europe and let those countries get in on the Marshall Plan, none or almost none of those countries would have voted for communist or even socialist parties.

 

[WarBastard]

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you're very wrong. Eastern Europe would have never turned socialist if the russians didn't station troops there. In Romania for example if there wouldn't have been the soviet army it's very likely that the Communist Party wouldn't even have managed to get the required number of votes to enter Parlament.

As it was there was a Communist Government imposed by the soviet army, changing election laws, banning oposition politicians and assassinating others and outright massive vote fraud. Even in these conditions the Communist Party and their allies got only about 70% of the seats. As far as I know real life votes for the Communist Party in that election by modern estimates was about 5%.

If the soviets give up influence in Eastern Europe and let those countries get in on the Marshall Plan, none or almost none of those countries would have voted for communist or even socialist parties.

Czechoslovakia?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Japan's potential required decades with the US handling military matters plus full access to the capitalist Western model. A Japan under Soviet auspices is going to be dramatically less valuable.

And in 1945 Japan was far less valuable than Eastern Europe, whether or not the Baltic States are included.

 

[wormyguy]

None of those states turned socialist prior to WWII, so why should they do it post-war

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic

 

[Ariosto]

To be honest, I do not see the Soviet Union willingly giving up any of its influence in Eastern Europe so that it can have influence in Japan; it already has it in the form of Northern Korea and Manchuria. Assuming that the Second World War goes on for another month or two, and the planned Soviet invasion of Hokaido is successful, then we might have Japan divided between the allied powers. However, Stalin might instead demand that rather than have Japan divided into occupation zones, that Italy shall, or that his zones in Germany and Austria be expanded. Europe was his main targert for influence, not East Asia; that is, at least for the time being.

 

[Albidoom]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic

Ah, I guess I should have phrased as "turning socialist and staying it".
It went down in less than five months so that might not serve as a reliable example for Stalin to trust those nations to turn communist on their own.