1894 UberCzar Takes Throne

Grey Wolf said:
However, this Uber Czar (Veliki I believe was Russian for Great) is supposed to NOT make the mistakes of Nicholas II. One can argue not that LOSING the Russo-Japanese War was a mistake, but fighting it in the first place was. Grey Wolf

Very good point. I just picked up Osprey Publishing's Essential History of the Russo-Japanese War. Sergei Witte and some Japanese moderates were trying to defuse the possibility of conflict over Korea but lost out to the Hawks on both sides. I don't necessarily think the Russo-Japanese War is unavoidable.
 
wait wait wait,
FIRST w/ an improved army and navy & railline i don't know that they would've argued so much, i'd think it would be a likely russian victory.
SECOND defeat ing japan has real strategic value with regards to an indian invasion because britain possibly still would've made that alliance even without a japanese war, right? w/ a russian victory japan is a non-entity.

of course if you've got a choice b/w manchuria and india you choose india, but i don't really think its a give and take, and possibly its even NECESSARY to take and take.
 
Well, the Japanese were EAGER to cut a deal with the Tsar recognising Manchuria as a Russian sphere of influence, the war was caused by Russian insistence on getting a slice of Korea as well.

It's difficult to see what the point of having Korea is for Russia, there are no resources there not available in greater quantites in Manchuria and it has strategic value only as a base for fighting Japan, which isn't necessary unless you've alienated Japan by . . . taking part of korea.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
czarist said:
wait wait wait,
FIRST w/ an improved army and navy & railline i don't know that they would've argued so much, i'd think it would be a likely russian victory.
SECOND defeat ing japan has real strategic value with regards to an indian invasion because britain possibly still would've made that alliance even without a japanese war, right? w/ a russian victory japan is a non-entity.

of course if you've got a choice b/w manchuria and india you choose india, but i don't really think its a give and take, and possibly its even NECESSARY to take and take.

I'm not sure I get the logic of this. Whilst Britain saw Japan as an important ally it was only with regard to the Far East, and potentially the Pacific. A Japanese alliance isn't going to do much help to Britain in defending Northern India, and I doubt Russia is going to be trying to play fleet warfare in the Indian Ocean. Any Russian naval strategy would be based on cruisers, auxilary cruisers and depending on when this is, on submarines.

Grey Wolf
 
well i'm not naval strategist here but are you assuming this is the old russian navy. in my scenario the russians basically have dreadnoughts by this time (1905?)

anyway the anglo-japanese alliance was centered around india, how can you say it was insignificant?? if britain is attacked by russia, japan enters the war, simple as that. what that means exactly i don't know, but they were obviously not weak sisters by this point. it could mean anything from troops sent to india to tying up the russian navy to attacks on the russian mainland. i'd hardly consider it insignificant, and if you're faced with a war which you can very likely win which will knock out a future opponent who will at the very least be quite pesky while you've got much larger issues at hand and can gain and secure territory while doing so...don't you jump on it?
 
The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was NOT centered on India. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance permitted Britain to withdraw its significant Far East Squadron from points east of Singapore as a means to begin concentrating in the North Sea. Defense of India and Australia and New Zealand was still carried out by the Royal Navy, or the various Dominion forces.
 
ok then it centered around 2 things: 1)india and 2)korea/far east. india was important in fact it gets mentioned 4 times in the reneweal check here:http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob31.html. it would be prudent for russia to deal w/ one at a time instead of both at once. also, what is to keep japan from seizing the indian war as an opportunity to steal some russian territory in manchuria or elsewhere. i simply do not understand the logic of letting japan free so they can come back and bite you later.

edit: ok i'm beginning to think the japan issue is just a big red herring. we'll just assume no japan. here's something even more crazy tho - what are the chances of a russian alliance with the ottoman empire? if russia is going to be representing the muslims in the indian war, maybe there's a chance they could get their mortal enemies involved and have them (with lotsa russian assistance natch) invade and reclaim egypt? of course the ottoman empire was completely limp here but give them a few hundred thousand russians -seizing the suez would be huge obviously...that's probably too farfetched though...i dunno if the german influence was beginning to seep in yet here or not but if so they'd probably remain neutral throughout and that would leave the ottoman's with an advanged western european ally as well. it seems logically plausible to me but i don't know enought about the nuances involved.
 
Last edited:
czarist said:
i simply do not understand the logic of letting japan free so they can come back and bite you later.

Well now the British didn't quite know in 1905 how things would be so much different in 1941 did they.

czarist said:
edit: ok i'm beginning to think the japan issue is just a big red herring. we'll just assume no japan. here's something even more crazy tho - what are the chances of a russian alliance with the ottoman empire? if russia is going to be representing the muslims in the indian war, maybe there's a chance they could get their mortal enemies involved and have them (with lotsa russian assistance natch) invade and reclaim egypt? of course the ottoman empire was completely limp here but give them a few hundred thousand russians -seizing the suez would be huge obviously...that's probably too farfetched though...i dunno if the german influence was beginning to seep in yet here or not but if so they'd probably remain neutral throughout and that would leave the ottoman's with an advanged western european ally as well. it seems logically plausible to me but i don't know enought about the nuances involved.

The Russians and the Ottomans have been mortal enemies for centuries. The Russians would do all in their power to seize the Straits and have always tried to. I don't think the Ottomans, the Young Turks in power or not, would welcome Russia's overtures without carefully looking over in great detail.
 
I will smack both of you.

First of all, the Ottoman Empire was NOT limp. Grrrr. In the early stages of the Crimean War, the Ottomans DEFEATED the Russians in several battles in the Principalities (now Rumania). In the war of 1877-78, fighting one-on-one, the Ottomans held off the Russians for nearly a year despite being at war with Serbia and Montenegro, and being wracked by rebellion in Bulgaria and Bosnia due to a horrendous famine. In WWI, the Ottomans fought on seven fronts simultaneously (Mesopotamia, Palestine, Persia, Caucasus, Macedonia, Rumania, Galicia - not to mention the Gallipoli thing), after having fought the Italians and the Balkan Wars, then went on to fend off the British, French, Italian, Armenian, Greek and Russian invasions after the war - that's 12 years of continuous total warfare. Russia collapsed into anarchy after THREE years of war. Grrrr.

Second, an alliance between Russia and the Ottomans was eminently possible. It is very simplistic to assume that any one power was the mortal enemy of another. Russian and Ottoman interests frequently conflicted, but there was no overriding hostility between the two; the traditional Ottoman "mortal enemies" had been Persia and the Hapsburgs; later on the Ottomans became friends with both as their interests began to intersect. There were times in the 19th c when Russian influence was paramount in the Ottoman Empire, and although the Ottomans would treat any relationship with Russia with caution, there is nothing to prevent an alliance.

Likewise, France and Britain spend most of a 1,000 year period at war or as mutual arch-enemies. We might also note the the US-Russian conflict is now over and we are now friends.

How about Britain-US?
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Second, an alliance between Russia and the Ottomans was eminently possible. It is very simplistic to assume that any one power was the mortal enemy of another. Russian and Ottoman interests frequently conflicted, but there was no overriding hostility between the two; the traditional Ottoman "mortal enemies" had been Persia and the Hapsburgs; later on the Ottomans became friends with both as their interests began to intersect. There were times in the 19th c when Russian influence was paramount in the Ottoman Empire, and although the Ottomans would treat any relationship with Russia with caution, there is nothing to prevent an alliance.

Its interesting, because I recall when I wrote about Albertini's analysis of Greek and Ottoman relations in 1914 I vaguely recall you were of the opinion that a rapprochement was not possible.

Albertini (I think this is where I got it from) mentions German attempts during early 1914 to bring both Greece and the Ottoman Empire into a common sphere.

Without a war errupting in July 1914, would there perhaps have been an alliance between these two seemingly deadly enemies ?

Grey Wolf
 
hey! get your own thread! ;)

abdul you mention a british-us alliance. now the us did have that infamous warmonger teddy roosevelt in power at this time, however this is going to be a rather huge conflict. a few years late the people of the us were in no hurry to enter the great war - do you really think it would be wise for the us to let thousands upon thousands die for british interests??? (and we ARE talking about british interests here right, i mean sure the us might've had a couple stakes in the pacific but it seems like any russian fears they had could be set straight via old fashioned diplomacy)

edit: ooops, were you just pointing to britain-us as an example of enemies turned friends?
 
Last edited:
Grey Wolf said:
Its interesting, because I recall when I wrote about Albertini's analysis of Greek and Ottoman relations in 1914 I vaguely recall you were of the opinion that a rapprochement was not possible.

Albertini (I think this is where I got it from) mentions German attempts during early 1914 to bring both Greece and the Ottoman Empire into a common sphere.

Without a war errupting in July 1914, would there perhaps have been an alliance between these two seemingly deadly enemies ?

Grey Wolf

If I said that I was wrong. IIRC Russia was approached for an alliance historically.

With regard to Greece, alliance between the two might be a bit difficult, since the Greeks claimed the Ottoman capital and their most valuable remaining provinces, and the Ottomans wanted some of the Aegean isles back. I'm not sure the Megali Idea was ready for burial yet, but it's the Greek side that would be the stumbling block, I would suspect. If the King gains ascendency the odds are better. Oddly, Venizelos and Mustafa Kemal grew very close after the War, the former even nominating the latter for a Peace Prize - presumably he would not have if he viewed Kemal as a genocidal maniac which is the current nonsensical vogue, especially considering the rights of minorities was one of the six pillars of the National Pact.
 
Top