WI: a more 'Asian' USSR

upload_2017-11-7_12-51-48.png



- there is no WW2 in Europe.
- Japan still gets bogged down in China, and an all-out Soviet-Japanese war develops later, that sees the Japanese lose Manchuria, Korea and southern Sakhalin to the Soviets.
- the KMT wins complete control over China and in response, the Soviets annex occupied Manchuria and their puppet states of Xinjiang, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia
- shortly afterwards, the Soviets invade Tibet to preempt the Chinese from doing so
- obviously, someone other than Stalin is in charge during all of this
- when decolonization starts, the USSR starts propping up puppet/allied regimes to varying degrees of success

(please ignore the lack of a Caspian Sea on the map, pretend you didn't notice)


Keeping in mind that Manchuria' population was only around 30 million before the PRC started heavily colonizing it with people from neighboring provinces OTL (meaning ethnic Russians might still be a plurality in the USSR as a whole by 1990, especially given the lack of Op. Barbarossa ITTL), can this alternate USSR survive and thrive better than its OTL counterpart?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-7_12-15-46.png
    upload_2017-11-7_12-15-46.png
    64.7 KB · Views: 474
The USSR remains the world's top communist state without a doubt, and nothing on the level of the Sino-Soviet split occurs here.
 
Not sure that Brits would allow Soviets near of British India.
The Tajik SSR was only a short 20km stretch of Afghanistan away from British India (modern Pakistan) for nearly the whole time the USSR and British India coexisted.

Soviet troops were actually ON THE INDIAN BORDER when they had Xinjiang as a puppet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_Shicai

So there is ample precedent, but in both cases in remote, inaccessible border regions.

In case of a Soviet occupation of Tibet, there will be a single large border crossing, and that with Nepal and not India proper, since the Himalayas run through the whole length of the border. Actual threat to India would be minimal and easily containable, whilst intervention during the Soviet invasion of Tibet would be extremely difficult to achieve and maintain. I doubt London would fancy pushing for an invasion where Mt. Everest has to be used as an observation point.

nothing on the level of the Sino-Soviet split occurs here.
It would be, in fact, much much worse, with the USSR occupying various border regions the KMT will view as rightfully Chinese.
 
The USSR remains the world's top communist state without a doubt, and nothing on the level of the Sino-Soviet split occurs here.
Well, there is no PRC to begin with.

Also, such expansion would not be allowed by the Brits. Who is in charge of Germany? Is it some notNazi fascist dictatorship? A surviving Weimar? A Prussian military junta? Or is it Hitler who somehow decided not to invade Poland and stays in power?
 
Also, such expansion would not be allowed by the Brits. ?
how do they stop it?

Who is in charge of Germany? Is it some notNazi fascist dictatorship? A surviving Weimar? A Prussian military junta? Or is it Hitler who somehow decided not to invade Poland and stays in power?
not really sure. let's say a militaristic regime that is as, or even more, friendly to the ussr as late Weimar was, but which doesn't actually start a shooting war
 
- there is no WW2 in Europe.
- Japan still gets bogged down in China, and an all-out Soviet-Japanese war develops later, that sees the Japanese lose Manchuria, Korea and southern Sakhalin to the Soviets.

That is simply not happening, Japan would focus more cutting off China as it did in OTL, the Japanese knew they couldn't take the Soviets

- the KMT wins complete control over China and in response, the Soviets annex occupied Manchuria and their puppet states of Xinjiang, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia
- shortly afterwards, the Soviets invade Tibet to preempt the Chinese from doing so

That isn't going to happen either. Stalin did not accept Sheng Shicai's offer to join the Soviet Union, and only had Mongolia developed so it could provide them with resources, the same with Xinjiang. I don't know if you can get Xinjiang without Stalin, considering how much pressure he put on the KMT, an invasion of Tibet would just be reckless and possibly pointless too.

- obviously, someone other than Stalin is in charge during all of this
- when decolonization starts, the USSR starts propping up puppet/allied regimes to varying degrees of success

Who and when? Trotsky did not have much in the way of friends, and I doubt an anyone else would be as double-dealing as Stalin to get even close enough to this outcome. The only reason why Xinjiang was ruled by Sheng is that Stalin backed him in the first place. Unless we're talking about a POD in 1933 where Stalin is dead, but the Soviet advances into Mongolia and Xinjaing are already made without having to worry about someone else who does not have Stalin's advantages at all cost mindset with diplomacy.
 
how do they stop it?
Proxy wars, arming rebels, embargoes, the usual stuff.

Are the Americans in Japan ITTL?

If there is a uber-USSR in Asia, then the Allies will not spare the money to arm and develop the KMT, especially if there is no Nazism and WW2 in Europe. They will not be so reluctant to support a quasi-fascist state like the KMT. Japan will also be remilitarized most likely. If the KMT is properly industrialized and armed, they will also develop nuclear weapons shortly after. The Soviets are not likely to be able to keep up with them for long. Chinese arms will also be flowing into the hands on any anti-Soviet rebel in Asia, and they will brutally put down any Communist uprising in Indochina. The Brits and the US will be happy to assist them in this.
 
- there is no WW2 in Europe.
- Japan still gets bogged down in China, and an all-out Soviet-Japanese war develops later, that sees the Japanese lose Manchuria, Korea and southern Sakhalin to the Soviets.
That is simply not happening, Japan would focus more cutting off China as it did in OTL, the Japanese knew they couldn't take the Soviets

I'm not sure I understand. Japan got bogged down in China before it attacked America and Britain; one reason they attacked them was because there they couldn't win, because Chiang knew he could outlast the Japanese.

If there is a uber-USSR in Asia, then the Allies will not spare the money to arm and develop the KMT, especially if there is no Nazism and WW2 in Europe. They will not be so reluctant to support a quasi-fascist state like the KMT. Japan will also be remilitarized most likely. If the KMT is properly industrialized and armed, they will also develop nuclear weapons shortly after. The Soviets are not likely to be able to keep up with them for long. Chinese arms will also be flowing into the hands on any anti-Soviet rebel in Asia, and they will brutally put down any Communist uprising in Indochina. The Brits and the US will be happy to assist them in this.

I'm going to suggest the OTL Sino-Vietnamese experience suggests that China can't simply subdue Indochinese nationalists...
 
I'm not sure I understand. Japan got bogged down in China before it attacked America and Britain; one reason they attacked them was because there they couldn't win, because Chiang knew he could outlast the Japanese.

I know that, I'm saying Japan would do it they did in OTL, that is focusing on China or trying to cut off their supplies, than even bother with a war against the Soviets.
 
I know that, I'm saying Japan would do it they did in OTL, that is focusing on China or trying to cut off their supplies, than even bother with a war against the Soviets.

Who said the Japanese started it? Maybe Papa Stalin decided to push against the Japanese before China collapsed.
 
Who said the Japanese started it? Maybe Papa Stalin decided to push against the Japanese before China collapsed.
These was my idea as well.
Without a war against the Nazis and with the military reforms starting to come online, the Red Army would be in a good position to capitalize on Japanese weakness and seize Manchuria & Korea
 
I know you are saying to ignore the Caspian Sea, but I say we go with it having been drained. Anyways, I think for something like this you would want a map with not just SSRs but ASSRs and other semi-autonomous subdivisions. If the Soviets are to be more Asian, then having Siberian delegates in the upper strata might help balance things between the Turkic, Mongol (Let us say it includes the Mongolian regions in Russia and China as well, possibly also Dagestan), and East Asian. Annexing Quinghai and Gansu might also help out keep the Tibetans, Mongols, and Hui in one country. I read in Hitler's Table Talks (written by Rosenberg and translated by people who have made some stuff up and refuse to let people see the original papers) that he thought Stalin would invade China or India after surrending European Russia. Ahhh, and maybe we get lots of population transfers. Right up Stalin's alley.
 
While I no longer think fully on Soviet progress while playing in World War I, the issues in Asia generally, China in particular and Manchuria especially have made me wonder about such a Russia. I am coming from the USSR losing Ukraine, Finland (plus some), the Baltics, and Poland, possibly Georgia, Armenia and perhaps some or all of the Caucasus bits, things that push Russia back into its core. If this Soviet state has to fight a harder civil war in the East that too draws it more away from the European focus. Manchuria is under Japanese influence post-1905 but not fully a full puppet until after 1931. The KMT was Soviet influenced early on and we might see more separatism in China if the KMT holds pro-Soviet. In my world the British are not broken and still strong enough to keep Japan honest in China, both craving it up but keeping it nominally independent. Thus I am not seeing so much annexation by the Soviets but more vassal relations, like with Mongolia, encroaching into interior China, propping up the KMT led China, pressuring Japan, worrying Britain. In effect you get a rough marriage between China and the Soviet Russia earlier, make a full war in the Pacific less likely but complicate everything. Mao is not driving China, Chiang and other warlords are, I call it "Balkan China." I ponder how the USA interacts with this Russia as it likely has no experience with the war, likewise Germany is a rather wary but otherwise neutral neighbor. I think Stalin looks for ways to weaken the British, they are still the global power, in that it plays like a redux of Anglo-Russian confrontation pre-war. Perhaps what we see is a war to oust Japan after it lets its alliance to Britain lose sway, isolated it might succumb in Manchuria and then Korea is taken away, now the center of gravity is clearly in Asia.
 
The same considerations which led Stalin not to annex Mongolia or Xinjiang would IMO also be operative with other Soviet leaders. You don't want to damage the USSR's prestige in Asia by doing something that looked blatantly imperialistic; and you also don't want to drive Chiang Kai-shek into too close an embrace of the Americans by annexing the borderlands of China (as distinguished from using them for purposes of pressure by encouraging pro-Soviet forces there to strive for "autonomy.")
 
I don't see the soviets letting Estonia stay independent. It's too close to st.leninsberg, and opens or closes the Baltic. Racist soviets will also like to annex european populations to counterbalance the asians.

If the USSR then is OTL less Moldavia, parts of belarus and ukraine, latvia and lithuania, plus xinjiang, tibet, manchuria, mongolia, and korea, it will still have a centre of industry and wealth in european russia. If korea develops somewhere between the OTL north and south republics, the eastern USSR will remain behind the west to this day. The population will be about evenly split.
 
Top