raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
As winter turned to spring in 1941, Japan and the Soviet Union found a neutrality treaty to be increasingly in their interests. The Japanese were under partial economic sanctions of scrap iron, and a moral embargo of aviation-grade fuel ever since their September 1940 occupation of northern French Indochina and signing of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy.
The Soviets had long wanted a nonaggression or neutrality pact with Japan, and as Hitler's grip over the the continent, especially the Balkans, and fears of war, increased, this became more urgent.
In OTL this deal was made in April 1941. It was followed by a final termination of remaining Soviet aid to Nationalist China some months later, and the withdrawal of the last Soviet advisory personnel from China some months after that [which was actually several months after the Nazi invasion]. I'm not certain if Soviet disengagement from China was an implied or secret aspect of the Japanese neutrality pact, or simply a result of Soviet reprioritization on Europe.
In the ATL, the Japanese side is determined to get more out of striking a deal with the Soviets. It wants to use the neutrality pact to end Soviet aid to the Chinese Nationalists, but also to end harassment of Japanese occupying forces in China and northern Indochina by the Chinese Communists and Vietnamese Communist-led Viet Minh, respectively.
The Soviets can protest a lack of control over Chinese or Vietnamese Communists, but the Japanese, no less than later Americans, can govern themselves by a perspective of communism as monolithic.
Can the Japanese secure Soviet agreement as part of a neutrality deal that the Viet Minh will disarm, and not disturb Japanese occupation activities in Indochina, in return for protection from prosecution or arrest by Japanese or Vichy French authorities there?
Could the Japanese secure Soviet agreement as part of the neutrality deal to retreat Communist forces behind Japanese lines out west to the Yanan base? Or alternatively have a cease-fire between the Communist and Japanese forces that allows Japanese forces free movement through all Communist base areas, including Yanan, to attack Nationalist forces?
If the Japanese make one or more of these conditions a deal-breaker, do the Soviets walk? In June when the Nazis invade, do the Soviets come back around to the Japanese position because Japanese neutrality is all the more urgent?
If the Soviets come around to the Japanese position, do the CCP or Viet Minh obey Moscow's orders? Do they openly split with Moscow while claiming Marxist-Leninist fidelity? Or do they reinvent themselves ideologically while splitting with Moscow?
If the Soviets never come around to the Japanese position, and there is no *formal* Soviet-Japanese neutrality treaty, does this fact make it more likely for Japan to choose to strike north in '41 or '42? Or for the Soviets to make a preemptive move against the Japanese? Or for the Soviets and Japanese to somehow end up at war with each other earlier than August 1945?
The Soviets had long wanted a nonaggression or neutrality pact with Japan, and as Hitler's grip over the the continent, especially the Balkans, and fears of war, increased, this became more urgent.
In OTL this deal was made in April 1941. It was followed by a final termination of remaining Soviet aid to Nationalist China some months later, and the withdrawal of the last Soviet advisory personnel from China some months after that [which was actually several months after the Nazi invasion]. I'm not certain if Soviet disengagement from China was an implied or secret aspect of the Japanese neutrality pact, or simply a result of Soviet reprioritization on Europe.
In the ATL, the Japanese side is determined to get more out of striking a deal with the Soviets. It wants to use the neutrality pact to end Soviet aid to the Chinese Nationalists, but also to end harassment of Japanese occupying forces in China and northern Indochina by the Chinese Communists and Vietnamese Communist-led Viet Minh, respectively.
The Soviets can protest a lack of control over Chinese or Vietnamese Communists, but the Japanese, no less than later Americans, can govern themselves by a perspective of communism as monolithic.
Can the Japanese secure Soviet agreement as part of a neutrality deal that the Viet Minh will disarm, and not disturb Japanese occupation activities in Indochina, in return for protection from prosecution or arrest by Japanese or Vichy French authorities there?
Could the Japanese secure Soviet agreement as part of the neutrality deal to retreat Communist forces behind Japanese lines out west to the Yanan base? Or alternatively have a cease-fire between the Communist and Japanese forces that allows Japanese forces free movement through all Communist base areas, including Yanan, to attack Nationalist forces?
If the Japanese make one or more of these conditions a deal-breaker, do the Soviets walk? In June when the Nazis invade, do the Soviets come back around to the Japanese position because Japanese neutrality is all the more urgent?
If the Soviets come around to the Japanese position, do the CCP or Viet Minh obey Moscow's orders? Do they openly split with Moscow while claiming Marxist-Leninist fidelity? Or do they reinvent themselves ideologically while splitting with Moscow?
If the Soviets never come around to the Japanese position, and there is no *formal* Soviet-Japanese neutrality treaty, does this fact make it more likely for Japan to choose to strike north in '41 or '42? Or for the Soviets to make a preemptive move against the Japanese? Or for the Soviets and Japanese to somehow end up at war with each other earlier than August 1945?
