Tolerance for a Soviet conquest of East Asia

[Snaut]

Assume no WWII in Europe. Japan attacks and gets stuck in China, until the USSR goes to war with it with the objective of grabbing Manchuria, Korea and whatever else can be conveniently conquered sometime in the 1940s or so. Presumably the Soviets win, and press onwards. How much of China, Korea and Japan would the remaining world powers allow the Soviets to subjugate before deciding that Stalin must be stopped?

 

[pattersonautobody]

Probably nearly all of it honestly. Japan was cut off from oil, but no one was willing to fight them in a war.

 

[raharris1973]

Agreed- Whatever they can grab- Which in my view, is all of China, Korea, and Sakhalin (if the Soviet side is lucky or well-fortified from the start). The obstacles to an amphibious invasion of the home islands of Japan would be insuperable in my view.

Japan, by it's conduct in the Sino-Japanese War and alignment with European rogue states, had forfeited all western sympathy against the Soviet Union, regardless of how much the USSR was a pariah in the international system.

Plus, the western powers just really didn't want to have wars with anyone if they could help it.

Soviet attacks will be viewed in Washington, London and Paris as just desserts and appropriate comeuppance for Japan. Russian moves in East Asia would begin to alienate the west only if/when the Soviets clash with the Chinese Nationalist government, or threaten European colonial possessions. Even here, western powers will be mostly concerned with their own possessions, not each other's. IE, Soviet or later ChiCom sponsored guerrilla warfare in Indochina will mainly bother Paris, not Washington. Threats to Burma, Nepal, India would bother London, not Washington.

Now, the Soviets are not foreordained to make any moves at all. Their probable judgement will be that the juice is not worth the squeeze.

However, if they decide that the cost is reasonable, their war aims will likely center of reversing the verdict of the Russo-Japanese War, restoring South Sakhalin and influence in all Manchuria at a minimum, with a probable desire to gain dominant influence in Korea, and northern China. But, unless alienated by the Chinese Nationalists and sensing weak or non-existent local and global opposition, Moscow will likely handle it's relations with the Chinese Nationalists delicately. If they do so, the Chinese Nationalists will be unhappy at Soviet aggrandizement, but it's not their worst-case scenario because it gets Japan off their back, and a Soviet Manchuria or Korea is a buffer against renewed Japanese aggression deep into China.

 

[pattersonautobody]

What is the result of a USSR that is butterflied out of WW2 and unleashes a campaign of conquest in East Asia, stretching to Southeast Asia? Would this lead to a jump in GDP that would lengthen the long term prospects of the USSR, or is USSR economics so bad that all it does is stunt the development of Asia economically?

 

[raharris1973]

What is the result of a USSR that is butterflied out of WW2 and unleashes a campaign of conquest in East Asia, stretching to Southeast Asia?

This is an unlikely scenario, especially the "stretching to Southeast Asia" part, but I will entertain the possibility.

Would this lead to a jump in GDP that would lengthen the long term prospects of the USSR,

Conquest of East and Southeast Asia (sans Japan) is not going to majorly increase Soviet GDP. The cost to take over, organize and develop the regions will be high, and will be less "lucrative" than domination over eastern Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. With Japan (which I think is highly implausible), the Soviets will gain more value from Asian expansion.

Avoidance of WWII, rather than gains in Asia, would preserve so much infrastructure and population in the European Soviet Union that its GDP is much higher- now that gives the USSR a better material basis to thrive and survive in the future compared to OTL. Of course, while materially the USSR will stronger, in political and moral terms, without victory in the Great Patriotic War, the USSR may be a less cohesive society, with a greater chance of possible revolt or civil war or self-inflicted wounds based on ideological campaigns.




or is USSR economics so bad that all it does is stunt the development of Asia economically?

The first decades of Soviet domination will be good for economic development of the region. Literacy and industrial production will increase even faster than OTL. It's after the industrial base is built and significant urbanization and education increases that the problems of being disconnected from market mechanisms and global trade will begin to slow the Asian states down. Remember, these states are coming from such a low base that they are bound to grow a great deal under almost any regime for quite awhile.