No Russo-Japanese War, effects on WW1?

So, the Russo-Japanese war was a severe financial and social crisis for the Russian state, provoking revolution, draining the physical reserves and social cohesion of the country. So, what would happen if Russia and Japan somehow avoid fighting before alt-WW1 happens? Now, arguably a WW1 is unlikely without the Russian weakness caused by the Russo-Japanese war, but let's hand-wave it and say that Austria and Germany are somehow brave enough to dare pushing things anyway. Would WW1 be likely to happen earlier or later in this situation (for example, without the Russo-Japanese war the Russians are going to be alot more active during a Moroccan crisis)? And when WW1 happens, just how different would things be on the Eastern Front? Is the Russian military performance on the front likely to be much different without the costs (but also lessons) of the Russo-Japanese clash? Would Japan possibly end up joining the CP in order to settle their disagreements with Russia? Would Russia collapse as badly or at all towards the end of the war (certainly all the revolutionary movements besides the Poles, who didn't rise during 1905, are going to lack alot of the experience that allowed them to be so dangerous from 1917 on)?

fasquardon

How is the war to be avoided? Does Japan fail to obtain an alliance with the UK, or alternatively, does Japan reach an understanding with Russia over Manchuria/ Korea?

Some general thoughts:

1) Russia would still have prospects of extensive further expansion in the East. That might have at least three possible effects:

A) Russia is less pushy in the Balkans; that could either delay WW1, or result in it being merely another Balkan war. And-

B) Britain feels less threatened in Persia and SW Asia, and sees no reason to seek closer accomodation with Russia in order to protect her territorial holdings; Britain sees less advantage in cozying up the the Entente, so if war does come, perhaps Britain is more likely to sit it out; or-

C) With Russia still expanding in the East and her military weaknesses not apparent, Britain is even more fearful of her, and greater antagonism pushes Britain away from the idea of Triple Entente with France and Russia, possibly even seeking closer relations with Germany as a counter. This could reduce the likelyhood of a World War, or (unlikely) see Britain on the CP side if one still breaks out

2) Russia is unaware of its military deficiencies and also retains a larger fleet (much of it was lost OTL). This might mean:

A) Russia pushes harder than its true condition warrants, resulting in greater likelihood of a war somewhere or other, or-

B) Russia feels more self-sufficient and has less need for French loans, which means that ties between the two are not as close; the sense of security provided by a tight Entente relationship is lacking, and diplomacy might have more chance of working if "some damned thing" brews up in the Balkans, reducing the chances of a wider war

3) Germany sees Russia evidencing less interest in the West, and feels less pressured, thus becoming less wedded to a single knee-jerk two-front war plan; there is a greater chance of conflict localization if something does blow up

All of these factors might well be working simultaneously, and there will be second-order effects, so it'd take a brighter guy than me to guarantee which way it'll go.

Without the combat experience of the Russo-Japanese War, naval tactics and technology are likely going to be different. The semi-dreadnought concept might remain prominent for longer and perhaps influence the Royal Navy to build them alongside dreadnoughts. Navies might not be as prepared for long range gunnery as they were historically, because few expected combat to be fought at the "extreme" ranges seen in the Russo-Japanese War. An interesting thing is that dreadnoughts might carry thicker armor under such circumstances and perhaps see a delayed adoption of all or nothing armor. Historically early dreadnoughts had thinner armor than their pre-dreadnought predecessors, likely because combat experience made naval architects realize that ships could use thinner armor and achieve the same relative protection levels as thicker armor at closer ranges.

Without the educational opportunities and drain on finances from the RJ war, the Russians are likely to be even more belligerent in the Balkans.

OTL the Russians were laying the groundwork for the Serbian/Bulgarian alliance prior to the Russo-Japanese war. Without the setbacks in the East and with reduced unrest, you could expect to see a more assertive Russia in the Balkans sooner with predictable results...

The litmus test would be the A-H annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Personally, I would think that Russia could only be stronger without the Russo-Japanese war.

From what I have read, their fleet was not bad (nothing compared to the British or French fleet of course, but it didn't need to be), the main problems for the fleet were 1) sailing around the world (which exhausted the fleet before it even fought) and 2) poor strategy, which gave the Japanese the decisive battle they desired on a silver platter, where for Russia, denying that decisive battle probably would have been much wiser.

I wonder if retaining the fleet would have meant Russia entering the naval race in the Baltic?

Then again, Russia probably lacks the financial wherewithall to give the Germans a naval race, even without 1905 raining on their parade.

I wonder if there would be any major impacts from Admiral Makarov living longer? He does seem to have been a very able man.

I suspect that Russia would be a more liberal place than it was in OTL 1914, since there would be no crackdown after 1905.

Tallil2long's suggestion that Russia may not need such heavy investment from France may really change French economic history. OTL, France diverted so much credit to Russia that it starved her own industries.

And did the Russo-Japanese war actually reveal any deficiencies in the military that Russia wasn't already aware of?

fasquardon