How could this happen? It would be best if Russia had some naval success also. Would Brittain intervene if the japanese are losing? How would the USA react? Could this lead to the participation of China with Russia annexing Manchuria and others following suit? What would be the long term consequences?
Russia wins russo-japanese war
- Thread starter Tibi088
- Start date
jahenders
Banned
Russia could potentially have one if they had better land and sea leadership, didn't underestimate their enemy, and (perhaps) got the railroad done sooner so they could better resupply.
If Russia won, the effects could potentially be huge, potentially forestalling the 1905 Revolution, potentially preventing/changing WWI, potentially preventing/changing 1917 Revolution, changing Japanese readiness for China and WWII.
For Russia:
1) Retains Port Arthur
2) Retains a Baltic Fleet and a Far East Fleet to build on
3) Her prestige is much greater, improving it's position within Europe and as Serbia's protector. This might change Austria and/or Germany's calculus when Ferdinand is shot. We might have to wait for some other excuse for war.
4) Her success may avoid much of the revolution of 1905
5) Even assuming WWI starts much as it did, Russia may fare somewhat better and (even if things fall apart) it may not lead to the decisive revolution of 1917 -- IT may be more like 1905.
For Japan:
1) Greatly set back as an "emerging power"
2) Efforts in Korea constrained
3) Loses Sakhalin
4) Loses some of the navy she's built up and development efforts (carriers) may be delayed
5) May not get involved in WW1
6) May be much later before she's ready to get involved in China
7) May be far more hesitant to engage US and/or UK since they'll have not history of modern naval success
If Russia won, the effects could potentially be huge, potentially forestalling the 1905 Revolution, potentially preventing/changing WWI, potentially preventing/changing 1917 Revolution, changing Japanese readiness for China and WWII.
For Russia:
1) Retains Port Arthur
2) Retains a Baltic Fleet and a Far East Fleet to build on
3) Her prestige is much greater, improving it's position within Europe and as Serbia's protector. This might change Austria and/or Germany's calculus when Ferdinand is shot. We might have to wait for some other excuse for war.
4) Her success may avoid much of the revolution of 1905
5) Even assuming WWI starts much as it did, Russia may fare somewhat better and (even if things fall apart) it may not lead to the decisive revolution of 1917 -- IT may be more like 1905.
For Japan:
1) Greatly set back as an "emerging power"
2) Efforts in Korea constrained
3) Loses Sakhalin
4) Loses some of the navy she's built up and development efforts (carriers) may be delayed
5) May not get involved in WW1
6) May be much later before she's ready to get involved in China
7) May be far more hesitant to engage US and/or UK since they'll have not history of modern naval success
I think that given more time before the war would make Russia much better prepared and give them a chance. The problem is that the japanese knew this as well so its not likely they would wait.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Wasn't Japan by the time it ended on the verge of running out of money and manpower to support the war? Why not just have the war go on longer causing Japan to run out of both and Russia has an offensive that is able to recapture Port Arthur.
Interesting but what about Manchuria? Wouldnt Russia make it at least a protectorate? Korea is at least in the Russian Sphere of Influence. And wasnt there a big army reform in Russia after this defeat and the revolutions? Wouldnt this victory butterfly away that making the russian military actually weaker in reality? On the other hand you are probably right about Russia perceived by the other powers as much stronger than IOTL - this defeat really ruined the prestige of Russia.
I think you are right about Japan just want to point out that Japan didnt own Sakhalin before russo-japanese war. It only gained the southern part after the victory in the russo-japanese war.
I recently read the british documents on the origins of the war and its seems to me that Japan would go to war if their predominance in Korea was questioned - even if they didnt think they could win. And the Russians did just that.
It would be bad for Russia. A Russian victory in the War would mean a greater integration of Manchuria into the Russian Empire - with all of its Chinese population. Today the combined population of the three provinces of Manchuria are nearly the same as Russia's (though admittedly, in this TL the population will be somewhat smaller as Russian Manchuria is hardly likely to industrialize at the same pace, assuming Russian possession throughout the 20thC). Still, this means that the Russian Far East becomes Chinese, not Russian - no Russian action save genocide can reverse that.
Russia is unlikely to get any benefit from defeating an Asian power. The shock of 1905 was that a white European power was trashed by an Asian one in conventional war - if Russia had won, it would be considered in the natural order of things. Russia didn't get a lot of kudos either for defeating the Ottomans in 1878, Moltke saying that it was like 'the one-eyed beating the blind'.
Indeed, without the shock of loss, Russia's military weakness becomes even more pronounced than OTL, which would serve it poorly in the upcoming Great War in Europe.
On the other hand, Russia's victory does mean that the Tsar doesn't lose face before the Russian people. Victory-fervor should ward off the 1905 Revolution, maybe give the monarchy some more time for a gradual political evolution. However, again without the shock of defeat Russia might not even think about such reform - which only builds up more social pressure that will eventually explode in Nicholas' face.
Russian ascendancy in the Asian northeast will probably result in an accelerated colony-grab within the Qing Empire as countries balance out increasing Russian influence in the region. Anglo-Russian relations will be more strained as a result (though the threat of Germany will still bring them together).
Depending on Japan's performance during the war (a 'valiant' struggle against Russia will still earn it points) a defeat might not actually hurt it that much and for resource reasons alone it will have to accelerate its acquisitions in China, maybe in its 'sphere of influence' in Fujian. A catastrophic failure against Russia on the other hand i.e. resulting in the loss of Korea, will spell quite a bit of danger for the Japanese ruling elite, especially from the nascent anarcho-syndicalist movement.
Perception is everything. Russia would be perceived as stronger. It would I think alter Austrian policy into something more conciliatory (a continuation of the policy of detente post 1897) rather than the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But Russia still has feet of clay and trying to hold down Manchuria and Korea only has them more overextended.
But Russia still has feet of clay and trying to hold down Manchuria and Korea only has them more overextended.
I would say this was a problem which dogged the Russians quite a bit. Russia has a massive army, but they also have a massive country, and back in those days they lacked infrastructure in much the same way a mime lacks appeal. Mobilization on the scale required to fight full-scale warfare took a ton of time. Put simply, to win this war, Russia needs more modern infrastructure, and it needs to be in place before the first shot is even launched. I don't know if that is possible or not, and leave it to others to ponder about.
There's no guarantee that Russia would annex Manchuria directly. In fact I'd say that they wouldn't. Its one thing to have de-facto influence in a region, or even to set up a protectorate, but its a whole different thing to annex part of another nation, especially one that has multiple great powers competing in it. If Russia tried to do so I'd bet that we'd see a repeat of the Triple intervention against Japan after the First Sino war or a Congress of Berlin scenario like after the Russo-Turkish war in 1877-78.
Chance's are that Manchuria would remain in a similar position to before the war: under Russian influence, but not part of the Empire itself. Of course, assuming that China still falls apart, there's a high chance of Russia carving off Manchuria and creating a puppet state like Japan did. But full annexation would trigger a shitstorm in Europe.
Korea would also remain a satellite of Russia like it was before 1905. As for reforms in Russia itself, that's a resounding NO. I've said it before and I'll say it again: as long as Empress Alexandra is alive and dominating Nicholas II, true reform is impossible. Remove her and chances are Nicholas II would lack the spine to disagree with the Ministers, Officers and Grand Dukes who pointed out the need for reforms.
Also, I wonder if such a loss by Japan might result in the lessening of Military influence on the civilian government. After all, it would be the military that would have to shoulder the blame, not the government. We might see the civilian administrations be able to reign in the military before things get completely out of hand.
Im not sure about Manchuria. One of the main reasons the war started was that Russia refused to withdraw its forces occupying Manchuria.
The british were so disturbed by this that they wanted to do something so they made an agreement with Germany about upholding the open door and territorial integrity of China. But it turned out that the germans only wanted a guarantee that Britain wouldnt annex or make a protectorate of the Jangtze valley and when the british wanted they support regarding Manchuria they said that the agreement doesnt include Manchuria. If you see the agreement it clearly includes Manchuria but its true that during the negotiations the germans especialy stated that they dont want to get in a conflict with Russia because of Manchuria - which is kind of understandable. It was only after seeing that they wont get any help from Germany that Britain turned to Japan.
If Russia wins its position in Manchuria is strengthened and i really doubt that there will be a Triple intervention like in 1895. Remember that then the ones who intervened were France, Russia and Germany. Neither France nor Germany will interfere with any russian plan regarding Manchuria. So i think they will formalise their rule of Manchuria. Most likely sign a treaty with China that makes Manchuria at least de facto a Russian protectorate - maybe even de jure. It depends on how confident they are after the victory over Japan - and knowing Russia (1878 San Stefano) i think they would go farther rather than show restraint. The farthest would be if they buy or lease Manchuria but i dont think they would go that far.
Germany might not like the dismemberment of China but Manchuria is not worth a conflict with Russia - not to mention how hard it would be to do anything against Russia in this regard after the support they gave them during the war. Add to that they dont mind if Russia is occupying itself with the Far East instead of the near East (Turkey and Balkans) were they could get into conflict with Austria.
The only ones who really could and might want to do something about this are the british and the US. I dont think that the british would act alone. I think that they either try to get someone else to join they effort in this direction or cut they losses and say that Russia in Manchuria is the start of the dismemberment of China and make a treaty with China regarding the Jangtze Valley. After that others would follow suit.
I dont know what the US would do - they clearly dont like the idea of the partition of China but im not sure if they would go to war to prevent it?