Japanese Territorial Gains from the Russian Civil War

[Father Maryland]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_intervention_in_Siberia

In the aftermath of WW1 during the Russian Civil War the Japanese intervened in the Russian Far East/Siberia deploying up to 70K troops. They established effective control over a decent piece of territory including Vladivostok and North Salakhin and Japanese troops ventured as far west as Lake Baikal.

So my challenge is can Japan realistically maintain control or even formally annex parts of the former Russian empire as a result of the intervention. At a minimum this would mean some border territories, Vladivostok and Northern Salakhin. The maximum would be say a slice of territory stretching to Lake Baikal. Is this possible? If so would Japan control this territory as a puppet state like Manchukoko or formally annex it like Formosa and Korea? Or perhaps some combination of both.

What would the economic and military effects of this be for Japan and for the Soviet Union (assuming it exists). What are the social effects from a much more sizable White Russian population in the Japanese empire? How can the diplomatic situation be worked out enough to achieve at the least American and British acceptance of this?

 

[sloreck]

Northern Sakhalin is doable, the USSR post civil war really has no capability to retake it in the face of the IJN. Potentially Japan could take Kamchatka and the Bering Sea islands/Russian Aleutians, again because of the lack of Soviet naval power. Taking the Soviet Pacific coast and holding it, let alone any depth in Siberia is simply ASB. Once the civil war is over the USSR can move on land against Japan, and I doubt Japan will get much assistance from anyone else. As far as Sakhalin, the Bering islands, and possibly Kamchatka I doubt the British or the Americans will care much either way, although the US might deal for the Russian Aleutians from Japan. If Japan attempts to hold on to much of "mainland" Russia the US/UK may tut-tut but won't do much, and as I said holding that requires some sort of puppet Siberian government to survive which is not happening.

 

[Father Maryland]

Northern Sakhalin is doable, the USSR post civil war really has no capability to retake it in the face of the IJN. Potentially Japan could take Kamchatka and the Bering Sea islands/Russian Aleutians, again because of the lack of Soviet naval power. Taking the Soviet Pacific coast and holding it, let alone any depth in Siberia is simply ASB. Once the civil war is over the USSR can move on land against Japan, and I doubt Japan will get much assistance from anyone else. As far as Sakhalin, the Bering islands, and possibly Kamchatka I doubt the British or the Americans will care much either way, although the US might deal for the Russian Aleutians from Japan. If Japan attempts to hold on to much of "mainland" Russia the US/UK may tut-tut but won't do much, and as I said holding that requires some sort of puppet Siberian government to survive which is not happening.

While holding it is a completely different matter they did effectively occupy Vladivostok and a good chunk of the Russian far east OTL.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

While holding it is a completely different matter they did effectively occupy Vladivostok and a good chunk of the Russian far east OTL.

They did... during the main part of the Civil War when the Reds were distracted elsewhere. Vladivostok is far too valuble to the Soviets as a window to the Pacific (Not to mention giving the Trans-Siberian much of a point) to get them to agree to a peace involving Japan holding it (legally signing it away). The islands? Minimal value and probably considered worth it to regain normal relations with the rest of the world by Moscow if Japan insists on keeping them.

 

[stubear1012]

It is my understanding that what Japan needed was loans for imports and for access to Western military stockpiles. The question then becomes how much blood will the Communist shed to take back lands at the far end of their country? They may decide to let the Japanese keep what they have. In a few years when the Soviets are stronger, they can come back and take it.

 

[Chris Triangle]

It is my understanding that what Japan needed was loans for imports and for access to Western military stockpiles. The question then becomes how much blood will the Communist shed to take back lands at the far end of their country? They may decide to let the Japanese keep what they have. In a few years when the Soviets are stronger, they can come back and take it.

1920s Japan does not have infinite endurance either.

 

[stubear1012]

I agree with Chris Triangle that there are limits to the Japanese endurance.

I am working on the assumption that Japan needs land for growing their country. So keeping this land is important to them. I am assuming that Japanese troops in fortified positions would cost the Soviets a lot of manpower.

I am also assuming that the Western portions of the Soviet Union are important to the Soviets keep control. I am assuming that after a certain point, the Soviets would decide that keeping the western lands and rebuilding is more important that losing a lot of men to take back what the Japanese hold.

What I do not know is if the White Russians and other groups opposed to the communist would agree to fight for Japan in exchange for land. If they do them that is more soldiers on the Japanese side.