Russian Victory in the Russo-Japanese War

[Japhy]

I know the war is bascily lopsided against the Russians, but is there anyway that the Czar's forces could defeat the Japanese, Holding Port Arthur and their Manchurian Concession?

[Riain]

Russia had the potential to outlast Japan economically, but was let down by poor military performance which kicked on revolution. If Russia had performed a bit better all around they might have forstalled revolution long enough to regain their earlier losses.

[Anaxagoras]

It was certainly possible for the Russians to emerge victorious. IIRC, by the end of the conflict, the Japanese were virtually bankrupt, which was why they agreed to the settlement in the first place. Plus, Russian reinforcements were arriving all the time. Had the Russians performed a bit better and held off the Japanese a bit longer, the tide would have begun turning against the Japanese.

The consequences of this would have been immense. For one thing, if a victory had made the Russians more aggressive in the Far East, it could have ruined the chance for an improvement in relations between the Russians and the British.

[General Zod]

France honors the Dual Entente, DoWs Japan, and sends a fleet of her own to fight in the Far East, it teams with the Russian one and they crush the Japanese at Port Arthur, they cut the supplies for the Japanese troops in Manchuria and Japan begs for peace.

Russia annexes Inner Manchuria. Japan smarts for defeat and annexes Korea. The British scare about Russian expansionism in the far East and Franco-Russian naval expansionism, quickly shelve the Entente Cordiale as an aborted experiment, and make renewed feelings about a reapprochement with Germany, offering a sensible compromise about naval builds, which the Germans are eager to accept (after the Franco-Russian naval victory at Port Arthur, German naval buildup does not look so scary to the British). Japans signs an alliance with Britain.

To appease their new tentative British friends, the German High Command shelves the Schliffen Plan, and rewrites strategic plans for a Russia First option.

In 1914, after Britain declares neutrality, and the first French offensives in A-L are repulsed, France chooses to go through Belgium to enflank the Germans, and asks Belgium permission to cross their territory. Belgium refuses and asks London for assistance, so the UK DoWs France and Russia. Japan decides to honor alliance with the UK, mobilizes and attacks on the Yalu. Italy, too, after seeing the side the wind is blowing, decides to honor her alliance.

Advance a couple of years of trench warfare bloodshed, an exausted Dual Entente throws the towel after Russia collpases in revolution and isolated France is swamped by Allied troops. The Japanese successfully claim Inner and Outer Manchuria at the peace table. Sometime, from the ashes of defeat, greater victories are sown and reaped. :D

[Anaxagoras]

France honors the Dual Entente, DoWs Japan, and sends a fleet of her own to fight in the Far East, it teams with the Russian one and they crush the Japanese at Port Arthur, they cut the supplies for the Japanese troops in Manchuria and Japan begs for peace.

What do you think the French would ask for in the Far East if this scenario had played out?

[Thande]

What do you think the French would ask for in the Far East if this scenario had played out?

Formosa perhaps?

[Anaxagoras]

Formosa perhaps?

Perhaps. But would the British have been willing to allow this to happen? At the very least, the French would have wanted a better deal in China.

[General Zod]

Oh France will surely claim their good slice of Chinese flesh to pay their decisive aid in this war. Some good possibilities are: Formosa, Hainan, Kuang-Si-Chuang, and the Shangtung Peninsula. Fromoas, Hainan, and Kuang-Si-Chuang (the province facing Hainan and bordering North Vietnam) all have the advantage of bordering or being somewhat close to French Indochina, but they will encroach on British sphere of influence around Canton, which will PO them even more than Japanese defeat did. Shangtung has the advantage of being close to ally Russia's posessions in Manchuria, but will heavily encroach on Germany's sphere of influence.

Probably neither UK nor even less likely Germany will immediately go to war over Franco-Russian gains in China. The UK lacks an ally at this point, this war has showed the Entente Cordiale is useless, and fighting France and Russia together is too risky even for the British Empire. For Germany, a sphere of influence is too trivial to risk a two-front war against the Entente.

Expect the diplomatic aftermath of this war to be the TTL equivalent of the Moroccan Crisis, there will be a lot of diplomatic skirmishes and threats, at the end France and Russia will keep the essence of their claims with trivial concessions, and UK and Germany will claim some other (minor) slice of China elsewhere. This will heighten international tensions, and hasten reapprochement between Germany and UK, and second thoughts about dalliances with France by Italy. Once the Dual Entente has shown they truly mean business, the other Great Powers will close ranks, especially the ones (UK and Germany) who lack a major ally and feel directly threatened. French gains in China from the war will definitely happen, but they feed the scenario.

[Grimm Reaper]

No possibility of any of this happening.

The French are not throwing out the nascent Entente Cordiale with the UK plus good relations with the US(remember the Open Door Policy) for a few bits of territory which they might never get or might only get after years of negotiations which also benefit Germany.

From the French position they're actually better off if the demonstrably weak Russians must reform and thus become stronger, depending on the French themselves for the improvements. One reason WWI began when it did was because the Germans knew time was against them as Russia began to modernize.

[General Zod]

No possibility of any of this happening.

The French are not throwing out the nascent Entente Cordiale with the UK plus good relations with the US(remember the Open Door Policy) for a few bits of territory which they might never get or might only get after years of negotiations which also benefit Germany.

From the French position they're actually better off if the demonstrably weak Russians must reform and thus become stronger, depending on the French themselves for the improvements. One reason WWI began when it did was because the Germans knew time was against them as Russia began to modernize.

Instead it is, assume Russia decides to test the worth of the Dual Entente, or realize she needs help, and makes a clear request for the French to honor their alliance or it is forfeit (they can always make a deal with the Germans, who needs shifty allies). This would force France's hand, without the Russians the Entente Cordiale is a worthless scrap of paper, they will always lose a one-front war.

[Grimm Reaper]

So Russia will not invoke an alliance which won't do them much good, as it would take months for the French to even deploy substantial help.

Which is exactly as they did in OTL, despite 19 months without a single victory to their credit, with the one exception of the Japanese bungling into a minefield.

Your analysis of Russia's options regarding Germany are wrong. Germany had not the slightest intention of shaking up her alliances, wise as this would have been, given AH's perpetual stress on every other German ally, nor did Russia see any prospects in this regard.

What aid, precisely, is France going to send? Nothing overland as the incomplete Trans-Siberian Railway is already stressed to the limit. Not troops! How long will a fleet take to mobilize, and then be based from French Indochina, thousands of miles from the war?

[General Zod]

Your analysis of Russia's options regarding Germany are wrong. Germany had not the slightest intention of shaking up her alliances, wise as this would have been, given AH's perpetual stress on every other German ally, nor did Russia see any prospects in this regard.

Would the French feel confident enough to see the bluff and slap their one true major ally in the face and show they are worthless allies (the Entente Cordiale was still very tentative) when the risk is their dalliance with their mortal enemy ? Mind it, France needed Russia much more than the reverse, and Russia much more than Britain. And the League of the Three Emperors was not so far away.

What aid, precisely, is France going to send? Nothing overland as the incomplete Trans-Siberian Railway is already stressed to the limit. Not troops! How long will a fleet take to mobilize, and then be based from French Indochina, thousands of miles from the war?

If Russia decides to test the worth of the Dual Alliance (which would have been the wise thing to do, with French help they would have won the war), and makes the request for France to make a show if their committment from the start, or after the first Russian defeats, a French fleet can be assembled and has all the time in the world to arrive in the Sea of Japan, base in Russian ports, combine with the Russian fleet, quash the Japanese one, or if the Japanese avoid battle, cut supplies to Manchuria, and end the war.

So Russia will not invoke an alliance which won't do them much good, as it would take months for the French to even deploy substantial help.

Which is exactly as they did in OTL, despite 19 months without a single victory to their credit, with the one exception of the Japanese bungling into a minefield.

Give Russians the insight to test the worth of their alliance in their first major committment (the PoD), 19 months offer plenty of time for a fleet to go from France to the Sea of Japan.

[karl2025]

Well, the Russians had the manpower and the economy to just bury the Japanese in bodies. The casualty rates were embarrassing for the Russians, but terrible for the Japanese. In addition the Trans Siberian Railway would be finished being double tracked only a month after the war ended IOTL, which means if it goes on the Russians continue to gain an advantage.

That being said, the victory would be pretty Pyhrric. The Russian people were incredibly upset even before the war and the masses of casualties (In fact one reason the Russians went into the war was because they thought a short, stunning victory would placate their populous). You might see a successful 1905 revolution.

[General Zod]

Well, the Russians had the manpower and the economy to just bury the Japanese in bodies. The casualty rates were embarrassing for the Russians, but terrible for the Japanese. In addition the Trans Siberian Railway would be finished being double tracked only a month after the war ended IOTL, which means if it goes on the Russians continue to gain an advantage.

True, but they had lost the confidence, and they were getting a revolution.

That being said, the victory would be pretty Pyhrric. The Russian people were incredibly upset even before the war and the masses of casualties (In fact one reason the Russians went into the war was because they thought a short, stunning victory would placate their populous). You might see a successful 1905 revolution.

Rather unprobable that a victory would make the 1905 revolution more likely to succeed. Military victories generally placate the people at least temporarily, they give the feeling that the ruling elite is not so bad after all. Truly, this feeling may be quite fleeting, ask Churchill or GHB, but a respite of some months is just what the Czarist government needs to halt the momentum of the revolution. Truly, this will just give the Czarist regime a few years' respite, WWI is still coming and with it the February Revolution (and as others have pointed out, this victory will llikely cost the Russians their alliance with the British, which means more casualties and more crushing defeats in WWI, even more fuel for the revolution).

[Grimm Reaper]

General Zod...

Russia had 19 months losing and never invoked the alliance because it did not apply, as competing land grabs over the Chinese border did not remotely qualify as a defensive war. Nor did Russia feel some desperate need for a precedent that might leave Russia involved in French border incidents in SE Asia or Africa.

Germany had no intention of shaking up her alliances, worthless as all of them turned out to be save the one with Austria-Hungary, since Vienna was on miserable terms with the other German allies.

Russia was under no delusion that Germany had any potential as an ally. That fetish for things Viennese again.

Russia will not invoke the treaty before the war, due to the humiliation of admitting that an obscure Asian island nation might be a match for Russia.

Russia needed France far more than the reverse. Germany knew that an isolated France was a harmless France but Russia's growing potential suggested a day when Russia alone might not be harmless. Ergo one was a far better choice for isolating and cutting down to size soonest. Indeed, German decisions for when WWI took place had little interest in France and great interest in when certain Russian upgrades would be completed.

Further, major improvements in Russian military standards were far more plausible than in French or most other European military standards, Russia's army needing serious reforms and learning just how badly in this was.

Neither are the Russians going to request French support at any point before they lose all hope of winning on their own. Had they won at Tsushima this would have given them the victory. Ergo they will not be requesting French aid until such time as the war is already lost and Russia faces revolution. At which point there is no Russian navy and the Russian army is needed internally, and France alone is unlikely to fight the war on Russia's behalf.

The issue of whether Russian ports in the Far East would be capable of serving French needs is yet another worthwhile example, along with this assumption that the French alone could easily crush the Japanese fleet.

Neither would the French have all the time in the world. It was universally known that the fall of Port Arthur would effectively destroy Russia's position in Manchuria, let alone any claims on Korea, so the French are being asked...well, they aren't going to be asked until it is too late(Tsushima), so it won't be happening.


Lastly, since Russia didn't have an actual alliance with the British it is doubtful that once London decided to involve itself, Russia will be deprived of anything. No doubt the British explain this as using Russian manpower in place of British lives...

[General Zod]

General Zod...

Russia had 19 months losing and never invoked the alliance because it did not apply, as competing land grabs over the Chinese border did not remotely qualify as a defensive war. Nor did Russia feel some desperate need for a precedent that might leave Russia involved in French border incidents in SE Asia or Africa.

As you point out, 19 months is a long time and was a string of countinous defeats. You only need the Russian government to be less bullheaded and more safe than sorry and deem that creating such precedent is less humiliating (and dengerous) than risk losing a war to upstart Japan, in time for a French fleet to show up at Tsushima.

Germany had no intention of shaking up her alliances, worthless as all of them turned out to be save the one with Austria-Hungary, since Vienna was on miserable terms with the other German allies.

Hey, no need to persuade me of that, this harcore Germanophile has been long since thoroughly persuaded that the one horrible blunder my otherwise idol Bismarck did was to let the Habsburg live. The wisest strategic thing Prussians/Germans could have done from 1862 to 1914 (well, apart of slitting the throat of the first that mouthed "naval buildup") was to dig up old archives for documents of the partition of Poland, crosswrite "Poland" with "Austria", call Russians, Italians, and Hungarian nationalists to a nice little secret diplomatic conference, and give those useless Habsburg inbred a nice little combined ultimatum. No more useless dynastic corpse to uphold, unbreakable Italian alliance, sturdier Hungarian satellite, very good chances of Russian friendship or neutrality in any confrontation with France. WWI butterflied away entirely or (in the case they deemed cut-down-to-size Russia better than ally-client Russia) fought over a much more favourable position.

Russia was under no delusion that Germany had any potential as an ally. That fetish for things Viennese again.

The lure of incomplete national unification, if you ask me. Staying close to A-H as a substitute for a good Anschluss. And that idiotic feeling of useless conservative-monarchical solidarity that had already clouded the mind of the Czar to save the Habsburg in 1848-9 and Bismarck to spare them again in 1866-7.

Russia will not invoke the treaty before the war, due to the humiliation of admitting that an obscure Asian island nation might be a match for Russia.

Not necessarily before. Just soon enough for the French to show up at Tsushima. At present, I have no definite idea how much time French 1904 battleships would take from Atlantic and/or the Mediterranean to the Sea of Japan.

Russia needed France far more than the reverse. Germany knew that an isolated France was a harmless France but Russia's growing potential suggested a day when Russia alone might not be harmless. Ergo one was a far better choice for isolating and cutting down to size soonest. Indeed, German decisions for when WWI took place had little interest in France and great interest in when certain Russian upgrades would be completed.

This is only valid if Germany is unshakably committed to her Viennese fetish, which is only absolutely clear on hindsight, otherwise Germany has no life-and-death quarrel with Russia like it has with France, whereas anybody in Europe knows that France will only relent when Germany will give up A-L and major parts of Reinland without a fight. Hence, without hindsight, France needs Russia more than the opposite.

Neither are the Russians going to request French support at any point before they lose all hope of winning on their own. Had they won at Tsushima this would have given them the victory. Ergo they will not be requesting French aid until such time as the war is already lost and Russia faces revolution. At which point there is no Russian navy and the Russian army is needed internally, and France alone is unlikely to fight the war on Russia's behalf.

Hence the PoD of them deciding to be more safe than sorry and calling on their alliance sometime in their chain of defeats.

The issue of whether Russian ports in the Far East would be capable of serving French needs

Russian needs, but not French needs ? Do French ships need different brands of coal ?

is yet another worthwhile example, along with this assumption that the French alone could easily crush the Japanese fleet.

Not alone. French fleet plus Russian fleet combined.

Neither would the French have all the time in the world. It was universally known that the fall of Port Arthur would effectively destroy Russia's position in Manchuria, let alone any claims on Korea, so the French are being asked...well, they aren't going to be asked until it is too late(Tsushima), so it won't be happening.

Well, it wasn't one naval defeat breaking and nullifying one string of victories, it was one final defeat sealing a string of defeats, being less stiffnecked and calling on allies sometime along the chain is not so farfetched, even if it did not happen OTL.


Lastly, since Russia didn't have an actual alliance with the British it is doubtful that once London decided to involve itself, Russia will be deprived of anything. No doubt the British explain this as using Russian manpower in place of British lives...

Sorry, I completely fail to get your point here. :confused:

[Grimm Reaper]

In addition to fuel, and France was quicker to replace coal-burners with that funny dark liquid in Arabia, there would be the issue of spare parts, shells for the artillery and so forth. Especially shells.

Also the Russians were rather deranged when it came to standardization of their OWN fleet's heavy guns. In most places when you built a class of ships the entire class would have the same guns. There WAS an exception.:D

The point is that Russia is not going to accept humiliation and ask for help when they may not need it. And once they lose their fleet at Tsushima they aren't asking the French fleet to help, they're asking the French fleet to fight the entire war against a triumphant Japanese fleet with several captured Russian battleships added on.


You were suggesting a Russian victory over Japan would cost the Russian alliance with Great Britain. Said alliance didn't exist until, by default, the two found themselves at war with Germany in 1914 ergo...

[General Zod]

In addition to fuel, and France was quicker to replace coal-burners with that funny dark liquid in Arabia, there would be the issue of spare parts, shells for the artillery and so forth. Especially shells.

Such shells and spare parts taxing the Transsiberian railway to ship to Vladivostok how much ?

The point is that Russia is not going to accept humiliation and ask for help when they may not need it. And once they lose their fleet at Tsushima they aren't asking the French fleet to help, they're asking the French fleet to fight the entire war against a triumphant Japanese fleet with several captured Russian battleships added on.

Hence they need to realize their best odds sometime before Tsushima, not outlandish since they are getting a string of defeats. Since as you pointed out, French troops aren't going to be much help, they will send ships. I concede it is not a terribly likely PoD, given the mentality of the Russians, but I've seen far more unplausible PoDs being discussed. At least, this has better chances of success, than the Russian government simply gritting their teeth and keeping to throw more troops at the Japanese despite 19 moneths of setbacks, Tsushima, and revolution.


You were suggesting a Russian victory over Japan would cost the Russian alliance with Great Britain. Said alliance didn't exist until, by default, the two found themselves at war with Germany in 1914 ergo...

Actually, the seed of the alliance was the Anglo-Russian Detente in 1907, which this PoD, with or without French intervention, will butterfly away, as the Russians will keep looking too dangerous to London in Asia. And if UK and RU cannot find a deal, their ongoing tension will also wither away the Anglo-French Entente, back to British neutrality in WWI. French intervention would instead move them all the way to the CP camp. But the point is, if the Russians by whatever reason swallow pride and call on French help before Tsushima, the French must go. They cannot afford to lose Russia. Russia only needs French help if Germany is an enemy, and Germany is an enemy only if they stay an ally of France. The depth of the Viennese fetish is only clear in hindsight. France needs Russia nonetheless, otherwise they are at the mercy of Germany, and Britain is no substitute here (no matter that the Entente Cordiale was little more solid than a truce by 1905, nowhere near the decade-long Dual Entente full alliance).

[Grimm Reaper]

Since the railway isn't even complete and the Russians need every scrap of supply line for themselves, quite a bit.

The Russians didn't throw much after Tsushima was lost and until then the Russian fleet was by no means as hopelessly outclassed as some seem to think. No nation calls for help with all the attendant shame and costs if they still think they can win on their own.


A few points to correct your analysis of the diplomatic situation and the Dual Alliance.

1) The French have no obligation under a defensive alliance to join the Russians in the war against Japan and trying to grab parts of Korea and Manchuria is no defensive act.

2) The Russians need French aid in modernizing desperately, don't feel any desire to make the concessions involved in getting Paris to bail them out, and don't think they need the help until it is too late to win.

3) In OTL the French barely tolerated the Russian fleet off the coast of French Indochina and offered no aid whatsoever. Yet somehow the alliance survived.

4) History is filled with defensive alliances which survived and prospered without all members joining every foreign adventure launched by one member.

5) Having concluded that German expansionism was the primary threat, due primarily to Germany's naval race, the British would not be dispensing with the Entente Cordiale so quickly.

6) Positing Great Britain joining the Central Powers over the Russo-Japanese War crosses the line into ASB territory.

7) Given Russia's many difficulties and defeats, followed by inevitable revolt, even if the Russians pull out a victory at Tsushima it is far too late for them to appear threatening to Britain, or much beyond marginally competent. If that.

8) The continuing pressure on Russia's allies in the Balkans will do nothing to improve relations between St Petersburg and Vienna with Berlin supporting Vienna all the way. Foolish, but there you are.

9) Likewise this position that Germany solely saw Russia as a potential enemy because of the alliance with France is wrong.

[Inferus]

I see a few butterflies.

First, the Japanese assaulted the Russians at Tsushima. If they lose the war, this may lead to the Japanese rethinking Pearl Harbor (if WWII happens) as Tsushima reinforced that an early attack on a country's important naval port led to a successful offensive as Tsushima allowed the Japanese to control the waters off the Far East and crush the Russian navy.

Second, it may reinforce the belief in white superiority. Many were surprised when the Japanese won. The Tsar even called the Japanese "yellow apes." If the Japanese lose, it only reinforces the radical view of the inferiority of Asiatics to the West.

Third, it may check Japanese imperialism. There was a brief flirting with democracy in Japan before the semi-fascism of the 30s took hold. Whp is to say that a loss wouldn't be a humbling enough experience to counter the likes of Tojo in their attempts to conquer Asia for the Asiatics?

Finally, who is to say this won't interest Russia in further expansion in the east? Perhaps Outer Mongolia is annexed. Even Korea.

[Slamet]

I see a few butterflies.

Second, it may reinforce the belief in white superiority. Many were surprised when the Japanese won. The Tsar even called the Japanese "yellow apes." If the Japanese lose, it only reinforces the radical view of the inferiority of Asiatics to the West.


Yes, this could lead to bigger butterflies. Most (at least some) of the South and South Eastern Asia countries' fervor for independence was based on the fact that Asians could triumph over West men. So maybe some countries don't gain their independence as per OTL.

[Ridwan Asher]

Yes, this could lead to bigger butterflies. Most (at least some) of the South and South Eastern Asia countries' fervor for independence was based on the fact that Asians could triumph over West men. So maybe some countries don't gain their independence as per OTL.

My personal opinion though, inclined to believe that that would depend on what will happen after this though : Will there still be a Great War ? As for Indonesia's case it will depend indirectly on the fate of Germany. Seems that if German Empire would've survived (whether they'll be on winning side/WW1 doesn't happen), the Netherlands (as it was a German-leaning country at the time) would be in better position in general. They would maybe able to at least SHOW that they were indeed committed to grant Indonesians self-rule. This alone would may going to be enough to affect general relationship between Indonesians and DEI colonial government in the long term, as long as there wouldn't be any form of disturbance whatsoever.

[Jared]

France is not going to get involved in the Russo-Japanese War. This is because Britain and Japan are allies. Their alliance was signed in 1902, and without it, there's no way the Japanese are going to start the war with Russia in the first place. The terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance were that if one of them was at war with more than one Power, then the other would come to their aid. So while Russia and Japan are fighting each other, no problem. But if France joins in, then Britain is obliged to declare war on France. Neither France nor Britain wanted war with each other, and indeed signed the Entente Cordiale after the Russo-Japanese War broke out.

However, the original suggestion of Russian victory in the Russo-Japanese War is perfectly plausible. Japan was in economic trouble by the end of the war, and if a few more lucky breaks go Russia's way, they could end up with some sort of victory to the war. It probably won't be a smashing victory, though. Something close to a peace of exhaustion, in fact. Russia will still realise its military weakness, and may begin reforms. Japan will be more cautious for a while. Will they be likely to get thrown out of Korea even if they have a marginal defeat in the war?

[Hendryk]

Rather unprobable that a victory would make the 1905 revolution more likely to succeed. Military victories generally placate the people at least temporarily, they give the feeling that the ruling elite is not so bad after all.
I disagree. Pyrrhic victories may have the same destabilizing effects as outright defeats: look at post-WW1 Italy, which was technically on the winning side of the war, yet underwent a political crisis that led to a Fascist takeover. I think that in the event of Russian victory, the cost would have been high enough in human lives, monies and lost prestige that either thorough reform or revolution would have followed anyway.

Depending on how the postwar negotiations turn out, Japan probably gets to keep overlordship on Korea, but Russia tightens its grip on Inner Manchuria. I doubt it would be annexed outright, considering that it already had a sizeable Chinese population at the time. However this may lead to butterflies in Chinese politics: Zhang Zuolin, who would become one of China's most powerful warlords and the de facto ruler of Manchuria until his assassination in 1928, was the leader of a pro-Japanese mercenary army during the Russo-Japanese War, and defeat may well lead to his death or at the very least cut short his military career. Further, with Japanese ambitions on the Asian mainland chastened, the Republican revolutionaries may find themselves without Japanese support for the overthrowing of the Qing.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Tocomocho's A prussian on the spanish throne features a russian victory in the Russo-japanese war, followed by chaos and revolution in Japan and what seems to be a restored shogunate.

[General Zod]

Since the railway isn't even complete and the Russians need every scrap of supply line for themselves, quite a bit.

Ammo and spare parts for a fleet are rather trivial in bulk in comparison to supplies for an army.

No nation calls for help with all the attendant shame and costs if they still think they can win on their own.

Austria in WWI, against Serbia and Russia. Italy after Caporetto. Stalin was rather shrill about a second front from 1941 to late 1943. Italy in Grecia and Africa 1941. France in WWI and 1940.

"Think they can still win on their own" is a psychological variable that is subject to divergence, it is not something engraved in stone for every possible TL.

1) The French have no obligation under a defensive alliance to join the Russians in the war against Japan and trying to grab parts of Korea and Manchuria is no defensive act.

So it wasn't A-H attacking Serbia in 1914, yet they called on German garantee of aid and Germany granted it. Honoring the terms of the alliance on their own and answering the ally's request is something different.

2) The Russians need French aid in modernizing desperately, don't feel any desire to make the concessions involved in getting Paris to bail them out, and don't think they need the help until it is too late to win.

3) In OTL the French barely tolerated the Russian fleet off the coast of French Indochina and offered no aid whatsoever. Yet somehow the alliance survived.

4) History is filled with defensive alliances which survived and prospered without all members joining every foreign adventure launched by one member.

Again, here's the crux of our disagreement about the scenario. You think Russian confidence is a constant that cannot be ever subject to divergence, notwithstanding the fact they were getting a string of defeats before Tsushima. I disgree. Maybe you should just agree to disgree on this. I've seen far strange non-ASB PoDs than this.

5) Having concluded that German expansionism was the primary threat, due primarily to Germany's naval race, the British would not be dispensing with the Entente Cordiale so quickly.

The Entente Cordiale was a tentative, shaky, and half-hearted thing up to 1914, and only German invasion of Belgium crystallized it into a strategic long-term alliance. Had the Germans agreed to a curbing of the naval buidup, the British would have been to crumple it very quickly. There were serious talks about a Anglo-German reapproachement and possible alliance again in 1907-9, and serious feelers again in 1912-3 (for this reason, some historians posit that had not WWI exploded in 1914, UK and DE would have found an agreement, since the naval buildup and the attendant scare was dwindling). Or, if the Russians or the French had done anything serious (like beating up Japan) to show them any more strategically threatening, the British would have crumpled the Entente Cordiale equally quickly. It was a somewhat innatural pairing between old enemies up to 1915. WIthout the naval scare, it would have never happened. And the naval scare is quite subject to divergence.

6) Positing Great Britain joining the Central Powers over the Russo-Japanese War crosses the line into ASB territory.

Russian victory in this war would move them away from any repprochement with the British (the Russo-British Entente of 1907 is butterflied away), since they would still look like main strategic enemy of London. In this outlook, even the Entente Cordiale is reassessed and its value questioned, and more energetic efforts are made for a detente with the Germans. If the Russians win the war with French help, then the Dual Alliance has shown her effectiveness to trounce a British ally, using naval power. The British reassess their options, and deem again Franco-Russian naval power as the main threat, not German one. In this outlook, they have no good reason not to join the Central Powers. No real strategic tension with Germany besides the naval buildup. Two slightly different scenarioes: Russian victory in the war by their own resources: No Entente Britian. Russian victory with French help: CP Britain.

7) Given Russia's many difficulties and defeats, followed by inevitable revolt, even if the Russians pull out a victory at Tsushima it is far too late for them to appear threatening to Britain, or much beyond marginally competent. If that.

Weren't they modernizing ? If the Germans are aware of that, so the British.

8) The continuing pressure on Russia's allies in the Balkans will do nothing to improve relations between St Petersburg and Vienna with Berlin supporting Vienna all the way. Foolish, but there you are.

Yep, but this does not affect Britain's position much. As far as UK was concerned, they worried about Russian encroachements on the Ottomans, not the Austrians.

9) Likewise this position that Germany solely saw Russia as a potential enemy because of the alliance with France is wrong.

It's the difference between potential enemy (to a degree, no Great Power completely trusted any other, and even a war with a current ally was never completely outlandish to military and political planners; Ask Conrad and his shrill requests for a pre-emptive war on Italy) and sure enemy.

[General Zod]

France is not going to get involved in the Russo-Japanese War. This is because Britain and Japan are allies. Their alliance was signed in 1902, and without it, there's no way the Japanese are going to start the war with Russia in the first place. The terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance were that if one of them was at war with more than one Power, then the other would come to their aid. So while Russia and Japan are fighting each other, no problem. But if France joins in, then Britain is obliged to declare war on France. Neither France nor Britain wanted war with each other, and indeed signed the Entente Cordiale after the Russo-Japanese War broke out.

Well, this is the first really serious obstacle to realize the scenario that I've heard. :(