A larger Russo-Japanese War

Is there a way for another power or powers to be involved in the Russo-Japanese War, on Russia's behalf? This is done with the full knowledge that the United Kingdom will respond to this action by also joining Japan's side due to their treaty namely the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
 
Is there a way for another power or powers to be involved in the Russo-Japanese War, on Russia's behalf? This is done with the full knowledge that the United Kingdom will respond to this action by also joining Japan's side due to their treaty namely the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

The easiest way would be for the Dogger Bank Incident to go hot. Say there's a couple of RN ships in the vicinity when the Russians attack the fishing ships and they automatically go to their aid. Getting RN and Baltic fleet ships actually firing at each other and things could get very nasty.

This could lead to a predominantly colonial war between Britain and Japan v France and Russia, as France might have been bound, or felt bound, to come in on its allies side. Or could get really nasty, if probably pretty short, if German and Austria decide to join in against the French and Russians.

Steve
 
I agree with Steve, since the trigger happy Russians did indeed fire at British fishingboats in the Northsea, while the UK at that time were not all to friendly towards the Imperialistic Russians, as they were threatening the UK's most important colonial possessions in India at that time, by advancing toward neighbouring Persia. This Russian powerplay in the South Asian region, was more than enough concern for the British and this could have been triggered a full blown war by Rozestvenskij's action in the Northsea. When there had jst been a fishinginspection vessel of teh British present at the time, it could have been explained as a hostile act of the Russians, as it attacked a military vessel then, instead of commercial ones.

A war including France was also not impossible, but less likely, as Fracner already was tight in the alliance with the UK by that time, although also allied to Russia. France might feel sympathy for the Russians, but would have known it could not fight a war against the UK on colonial terms alone, as this was the cause for a possible war between Russia and the UK as well. (conflicting interests)
 
Britain did indirectly intervene in the conflict by refusing acess to the Suez canal, if they did get directly involved it could see the great game become the great war* and that could be interesting

*Not in reference to OTLs great war
 
The easiest way would be for the Dogger Bank Incident to go hot. Say there's a couple of RN ships in the vicinity when the Russians attack the fishing ships and they automatically go to their aid. Getting RN and Baltic fleet ships actually firing at each other and things could get very nasty.

This could lead to a predominantly colonial war between Britain and Japan v France and Russia, as France might have been bound, or felt bound, to come in on its allies side. Or could get really nasty, if probably pretty short, if German and Austria decide to join in against the French and Russians.

Steve


Would that be nice hehehe.
It would be like another 7 years war.
UK, Japan, Germany and Austria vs France and Russia
no doubt that if the are no other countries involved the former would beat the latter with out a sweat, hehehe.
 
Historically, it would have been very hard. France wouldn't have assisted the Russians very much over the Dogger Bank incident. The French having been working for the past three decades to resolve differences with the British in order to win them over to their side in the eventuality of a continental war against Germany. The British didn't quite deny the Russians the use of the Suez Canal since a portion of the Russian fleet did go thru it, I believe that the portion that went around Africa were those that drew too much water.
 
Historically, it would have been very hard. France wouldn't have assisted the Russians very much over the Dogger Bank incident. The French having been working for the past three decades to resolve differences with the British in order to win them over to their side in the eventuality of a continental war against Germany. The British didn't quite deny the Russians the use of the Suez Canal since a portion of the Russian fleet did go thru it, I believe that the portion that went around Africa were those that drew too much water.

Really? cause what I've read is that the whole Baltic fleet went around Africa. Because the Brits denied them passage thru the Suez Canal. Which resulted in the late arrival of the fleet during the war.

And with regards to France, there was already the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1892, although in the OTL France did not help Russia during the war. Due to the dangers of British involvement and plus the fact that Russia did not try to enforce the Alliance with France cause it thought that i could win against Japan. But if it was at war with the Brits also due to a different
Dogger Bank Incident. Most likely Russia would plea for French aid thus forcing France to aid her.
 
At the time the Germans didn't view Russia as their big enemy. During the Russo-Japanese War Kaiser Bill tried to form an alliance with Russia to expand the war against the UK (Which the Germans saw as their main rivals). If the UK attacks Russia, I don't see why the Czar wouldn't take the Kaiser up on his offer. Austria will see little reason not to assist the Russians and Germans.

This would not directly help the Russians in Manchuria, since the Germans and Austrians probably wouldn't bother to send an army out that far, but they could help prevent the '05 revolution and keep the war going long enough for Russian numbers to prevail.

No idea where France would come down in this. They might just decide to sit it out. Then again they could want revenge against the Germans badly enough to jump into a war they can't win. Or they could stick by Russia in spite of decent relations with England and bad relations with Germany.

Teddy Roosevelt probably won't win a Nobel.

Really? cause what I've read is that the whole Baltic fleet went around Africa. Because the Brits denied them passage thru the Suez Canal. Which resulted in the late arrival of the fleet during the war.
Part of the armada went through the Canal. The French actually did try to assist the Russians as much as practical (as did the Germans) on the voyage.
 



Nikky,

Yes, really.

cause what I've read is that the whole Baltic fleet went around Africa.

A majority of what would become the 2nd Pacific Squadron passed through the Suez Canal.

Rozhdestvenskii split what was known as the 2nd Pacific Squadron into two groups. He took the newer, larger, and more capable ships, which he considered to comprise the squadron's actual fighting power, south down the Atlantic and around Africa to Madagascar. The second group consisting of older, smaller, less capable ships was led by Felkerzam and went through the Med and Suez Canal.

Later, another group of vessels, Nebogatov's 3rd Pacific Squadron, steamed through the Med and Suez Canal too, met up with the Rozhdestvenskii/Felkerzam force in Indochina, and fought at Tsushima.

The reason for the split was operational and not due to draft concerns. The Russians were extremely paranoid about Japanese torpedo boat attacks, something not too surprising given how the war began. These concerns led directly to the Dogger Bank Incident and led Rozhdestvenskii to take what he considered to be the primary striking power of his forces along a route which consisted mostly of open ocean as the Suez was seen more as a potential point of ambush.

Because the Brits denied them passage thru the Suez Canal.

The UK did not deny the Russians passage through the canal.

Which resulted in the late arrival of the fleet during the war.

The fleet's "late" arrival had nothing to do with the route steamed and everything to do with the amount of time it took to assemble and train the ships involved, the extreme difficulties it had with coaling, the lack of friendly ports at which it could stop, and the increasing maintenance problems.

And with regards to France, there was already the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1892, although in the OTL France did not help Russia during the war. Due to the dangers of British involvement and plus the fact that Russia did not try to enforce the Alliance with France cause it thought that i could win against Japan.

Sorry, but no.

The 1892 Franco-Russian military alliance was a direct result of the 1882 Triple Alliance and the Franco-Russian alliance was explicitly written to last only as long as the Triple Alliance did.

Furthermore, the language of the Franco-Russian alliance mentions Germany and the other Triple Alliance powers, Austria-Hungary and Italy, only. Any other powers, like Britain or Japan, are not mentioned and there are no responsibilities of the two signing powers towards the other in the event of a war involving a power not mentioned in the document.

But if it was at war with the Brits also due to a different Dogger Bank Incident. Most likely Russia would plea for French aid thus forcing France to aid her.

As I've explained above, that isn't going to happen because it's not part of the 1892 alliance. In the OTL, Russia did ask France for help with ports and coaling, but France stuck to it's duties as a neutral as spelled out in the various international conventions. Russian vessels were only allowed to stay in French ports or roadsteads for brief periods which the French had already extended well past the norm.

Oddly enough, a bloodier Dogger Bank Incident or a less than satisfactory Russian reply to British demands could actually spell disaster for Japan. Britain and Russia will not go to war over Dogger Bank, the consequences for each are simply too great for both parties, but Britain could extend war credits to Japan allowing that nation to fight on longer.

Fighting on longer might not be in Japan's best interest however.

In the OTL by 1905, Japan was, despite being nearly wholly victorious, virtually bankrupt and could not raise international loans except at ruinous rates. Along with running out of money, Japan was also beginning to run out men. Japan had been fighting out of her "weight class" for over a year and could no longer keep up the effort so, when Roosevelt offered to host a peace conference, Japan attended because she had no real other choice. Russia, in the person of their negotiator Witte, knew about Japan's straits and carefully dragged out the conference until Japan was forced to settle for a treaty that failed to include, among other things, reparations on Russia's part.

If Britain gives Japan the money to fight on longer, things could go pear shaped for Japan in Manchuria very quickly. Mukden had been more of a Russian withdrawal than a Japanese victory and the Russian armies in the region continued to grow. A successful Russian counter-offensive in Manchuria, no matter how "small", would have consequences in Russia and Japan.


Bill
 
Last edited:

Larrikin

Banned
In addition to what Bill says, the Trans-Siberian railway was finally finished during the War, and the Japanese were more than happy to go to a negotiated peace because they had a fair idea what was coming down the pike at them.

While they had won almost every fight up till then, they weren't capable of taking on what Russia could throw at them with a functioning railway, and the Japanese knew it. It was one of the timing indicators for the War. Start it and get a quick victory before the Russians can properly reinforce.

Railway construction schedules were also on of the drivers for WWI starting when it did. The Germans were determined to get that war done before the massive increase in Russian rail capacity came to fruition in 1918.
 
In addition to what Bill says, the Trans-Siberian railway was finally finished during the War, and the Japanese were more than happy to go to a negotiated peace because they had a fair idea what was coming down the pike at them.

True, yet the Russians had massive internal problems. Otherwise, they wouldn't have accepted a negotiated peace themselves, as obviously they knew that their military situation would improve. Now if the revolution of 1905 is a bit worse than IOTL - or at least seems so to the Japanese - additional British war loans might induce the Japanese to fight a bit longer, which increases their chance of defeat by the above discussed facts.

Increasing tensions with Britain could increase internal unrest in Russia. Say the British give war loans to Japan so that it seems to the Russian population that the war goes on. Let's add some stupid comments by British and Russian military published in papers. And add some additional mobilization to go for the Persian frontier so that it seems that the war goes on and Britain might join. If Russia is seemingly unable to defeat Japan, then obviously the government is absolutely incompetent if it drags in Britain as well...
 
A war including France was also not impossible, but less likely

A war including france would be inevitable in case someone of the triplice alliance would join in the other side (or even just mobilitize), even if that would mean being against UK.
Russo-french treaty of 1895 is very explicit in that sense.
 
True, yet the Russians had massive internal problems. Otherwise, they wouldn't have accepted a negotiated peace themselves, as obviously they knew that their military situation would improve.


Monty,

All very true, but Russia, in the person of Sergius Witte, hoped that Japan's problems were coming to a head faster than Russia's problems were. Witte played a very tight game at Portsmouth. He gambled that economic issues would force Japan to concede certain points before the growing revolution forced Russia to do the same.

Both sides were facing their own internal crisis and both sides needed the war to stop, that's why both sides agreed to Roosevelt's invitation. Fiddle with each crisis that drove each of the sides to Portsmouth and the war will continue, something that cannot have favorable consequences for Japan.

Now if the revolution of 1905 is a bit worse than IOTL...

I'd say a worse revolution would mean Witte couldn't out wait Japan by threatening to prolong the war. A milder revolution, on the other hand, may see a Russian counter-offensive in Manchuria during the summer of '05, something the Japanese may not want to see.

... - or at least seems so to the Japanese - additional British war loans might induce the Japanese to fight a bit longer, which increases their chance of defeat by the above discussed facts.

Most certainly. At Mukden, Russian forces outnumbered the Japanese and at every future battle the divide would only grow wider. On land defeats or, if she were lucky, pyrrhic victories awaited Japan after mid-1905.

Increasing tensions with Britain could increase internal unrest in Russia. (snip of interesting ideas)

Again, more unrest in Russia means a shorter war, not a wider one. If internal issues mean Russia has to get out, she's going to get out. In the OTL, she lost relatively little to Japan. If she has to give a little more in this ATL because of her own internal unrest or because Japan received foreign loans, those losses aren't going to be too catastrophic. If Japan tries to force some earlier version of Brest-Litovsk on the Czar, Europe as a whole is going to step in and set things right just as it did after the Sino-Japanese War a decade earlier.


Bill
 
Last edited:
Again, more unrest in Russia means a shorter war, not a wider one. If internal issues mean Russia has to get out, she's going to get out.

You're obviously right, I should have made it clearer: All that is require to keep both in the war would be that it seems to Japan that there's more unrest/increasing unrest in Russia.

Nevertheless, the question now seems to be how to escalate the war. Now to conclude the above discussion, it seems that a longer war means that Japan sooner or later looses. Could that escalate the war? If the Russian demands were enourmous - say limiting the Japanese fleet, Korea going to the Russians as the Kurils or something the like and Russia seemingly closing of Mandschuria, this is a serious threat to the open door policy and would alienate both Britain and the US. But the most likely outcome would be that these powers intermediate in the negotiations and limit the Russian demands, similarly as to what happened IOTL the other way round.

On the other side, let's assume that the war is over much earlier and the Japanese win - whether or not Britain gives war loans doesn't matter here, I'd say, if the Japanese win early, they'd get more, yet still not that much more. But even if they get Wladiwostok and the coastal and the Amur province, would that alienate any power enough so to enter the war on the Russian side? I doubt so.

Now what remains is an early Russian victory. Pretty much what most european powers seemed to expect anyway and did not intervene IOTL...

Really, I don't see how the war could be escalated by itself. However, there's always the possibility that something else happens elsewhere (Balkan is always a good choice) which adds a second crisis escalating to a second war involving Japan and Russia on opposite sides.
 
You're obviously right, I should have made it clearer: All that is require to keep both in the war would be that it seems to Japan that there's more unrest/increasing unrest in Russia.

Nevertheless, the question now seems to be how to escalate the war. Now to conclude the above discussion, it seems that a longer war means that Japan sooner or later looses. Could that escalate the war? If the Russian demands were enourmous - say limiting the Japanese fleet, Korea going to the Russians as the Kurils or something the like and Russia seemingly closing of Mandschuria, this is a serious threat to the open door policy and would alienate both Britain and the US. But the most likely outcome would be that these powers intermediate in the negotiations and limit the Russian demands, similarly as to what happened IOTL the other way round.

On the other side, let's assume that the war is over much earlier and the Japanese win - whether or not Britain gives war loans doesn't matter here, I'd say, if the Japanese win early, they'd get more, yet still not that much more. But even if they get Wladiwostok and the coastal and the Amur province, would that alienate any power enough so to enter the war on the Russian side? I doubt so.

Now what remains is an early Russian victory. Pretty much what most european powers seemed to expect anyway and did not intervene IOTL...

Really, I don't see how the war could be escalated by itself. However, there's always the possibility that something else happens elsewhere (Balkan is always a good choice) which adds a second crisis escalating to a second war involving Japan and Russia on opposite sides.



Im sorry for being too vague.
What I meant by escalate is to involve more countries.
 
Would that be nice hehehe.
It would be like another 7 years war.
UK, Japan, Germany and Austria vs France and Russia
no doubt that if the are no other countries involved the former would beat the latter with out a sweat, hehehe.

Except that the 7 years war was the UK and Prussia versus all pretty much:p
 
OK guys fine, so how would you suggest to escalate this limited war into something like the Seven Year's War


Nikky,

You can't expand the Russo-Japanese War into something resembling the Seven Year's War.

More accurately, you can't expand the OTL's war without also making PODs "large" enough and "deep" enough as to warp the OTL's version of the war out of all recognition. For example, there could be a general war in the first decade of the 20th Century which sees Russia and Japan on opposite sides but having a 1904 Russo-Japanese War which greatly resembles the OTL version sparking a general war is a non-starter.

Some of the problems you're facing are:

  • Strategic Importance - There is nothing of real strategic importance in northeast Asia for the other Great Powers. Only Russia and Japan have strong interests there. Compare that to the Balkans where Germany, Austria, Russia, and the Ottomans all had strong interests.
  • Alliances - Japan's sole alliance only triggered support if Japan was attacked by two or more other powers, something that was completely unlikely given the geopolitical situation in northeast Asia. Russia's sole alliance is wholly focused in Europe and her partner in that alliance, France, provided little if any help during the OTL war. Again, compare that to the situation which led to WW1 where multiple alliances dragged powers into a war whose initial spark was of no interest to them.
  • Length of the war - A longer war does increase the odds of Great Power intervention but, for various reasons, neither party in the war can fight for long. Japan knew before the war began it would have to be a short conflict and Russia realized the same thing after the war began. If you juggle things so that either Japan or Russia can potentially last longer, Japan will begin to lose and that will cut the war short itself. Japan has neither the money or men to fight a long war no matter how victorious she may be and, once Japan begins to lose, she is going to cut her losses as rapidly as possible.

As it stands, the actual Russo-Japanese War was a bit of a "wank" for Japan and a bit of an "anti-wank" for Russia. Japan achieved more than what would seem plausible while Russia suffered seemingly implausible reverses. All that leads many to believe that Japan could have done better, that the war could have lasted longer, or that other powers could have become involved.


Bill
 
But what if getting Britain involved in the war halts the 1905 Revolution by uniting the various groups patriotically in a similar fashion to what occurred for a brief time after the declaration of WW1?
 
But what if getting Britain involved in the war halts the 1905 Revolution by uniting the various groups patriotically in a similar fashion to what occurred for a brief time after the declaration of WW1?


Will,

As has already been repeatedly explained, Russia doing better means Japan gets out earlier. The war only lasted as long as it did because of Japan's near wank-ish successes.


Bill
 
Top