AHC: America quietly encourages Japanese expansion in Siberia after WWI

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here's the challenge - have the U.S. have a cynical policy of pitting the Yellow Peril against the Red Menace to weaken both from 1918-1919 onward. Any PoD from 1907 on is OK and the U.S. does not have to have the same leaders at the same times but there does have to be WWI with a US entry on the Entente side and a Boleshevik Revolution.

In the absence of any American discouragement, would the Japanese intervene bigger and longer in the Russian Far East, or would they tire of and quit the enterprise on their own on about OTL's schedule?

What would the knock-ons be for Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Europe and the fleets of the world?

--related and more broadly. Were there any other options for the US to encourage conflict between other major powers to strengthen its own position, or for Britain or France to take an indulgent position towards a revisionist state in Europe or Asia in order to encourage it to spend its energies goring someone else's ox?
 

trurle

Banned
IOTL, Japan was mildly encouraged (by what remained of Triple Entente) to intervene in Russia. Nonetheless, it was the lack of the Japanese domestic political will plus feeling of being framed after other countries pulled out their forces rather than any external opposition which brought Siberian Intervention to the end. Therefore, i believe US position was not principal in deciding the scope and duration of Siberian Intervention.
Furthermore, in ~1920 era the "Red menace" concept was not prominent, therefore "Red menace" would not be perceived worth of balancing . Newborn Soviet Union was obviously weak, been beaten in 1920 even by their former province - the Poland.

To keep Japanese in Siberia longer, US should have retained (and ideally, expanded) their expeditionary forces in Siberia. The "duty to do not frame an ally" may provide the necessary motivation to extend intervention may be up to 1925. Of course, General Graves (who had many arguments in Vladivostok with his Japanese partners) is better to be replaced for US will be perceived as allies.

After 1925, chances for continued intervention are slim, even with the full US support. Peace treaty with Soviet Union was considered far more important than any possessions in Siberia.
 
"
After 1925, chances for continued intervention are slim, even with the full US support. Peace treaty with Soviet Union was considered far more important than any possessions in Siberia. "

I'm not so sure of this. IMO, if the intervention lasts until 1925, there will be plenty of evidence of Bolshevik brutalities, and thus international condemnation, of the Soviets. I think the Japanese could take on the role of benefactor of Siberia, importing a lot of raw materials, and using them for its industry. Siberia would in effect become a satellite state of Imperial Japan.
 

trurle

Banned
"
After 1925, chances for continued intervention are slim, even with the full US support. Peace treaty with Soviet Union was considered far more important than any possessions in Siberia. "

I'm not so sure of this. IMO, if the intervention lasts until 1925, there will be plenty of evidence of Bolshevik brutalities, and thus international condemnation, of the Soviets. I think the Japanese could take on the role of benefactor of Siberia, importing a lot of raw materials, and using them for its industry. Siberia would in effect become a satellite state of Imperial Japan.
Soviet atrocities were evident even in 1918. After all, the terroristic organization roots and terror ideology of the Bolsheviks was never a secret. By 1925, the people were accustomed with Soviet well enough and stopped reacting on grisly news, confirmed by the increasing trade with Soviet Union. Indicative of attitude change is the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement of 1921. US did established bilateral relation with Soviet Union in 1933, despite continued evidence of atrocities.
 
Top