Another Pacific: 1903 year

The South was so solidly Democratic in this era that it was virtually a one-party region. At this point the Republicans were still solidly the Party of Lincoln.
--------
Matt, sorry, You're right, I'm wrong.

------
Teddy was also fairly popular already, despite not being elected President. In the Congressional elections of 1902 the Republicans made modest gains in the House, and retained a substantial majority of the Senate.
--------
Yes, I know this, and I know that his opponent's strategy was wrong.
If I'm not mistaken, it was considered "What would have happened if it were not for Teddy .."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Also_Ran
But unpopular war sharply affects voters
How would they get there? What coaling stations do the Japanese control in 1903? What are operational ranges of their warships? They may have to rely on foreign powers for their coaling, possibly Germany. As the Japanese are formally allied with the British, the Germans probably would be reluctant to support them.

Matt, if it did successfully II Russian squadron in 1905, then why should this complicate the Japanese?
for example
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вторая_Тихоокеанская_эскадра
"March 3, 1905 squadron withdrew from Nossi-Be and through the Indian Ocean headed to the shores of French Indochina. During the entire transition, coalloadings (8, 10, 15, 16, 21 and 30 March) were made at sea with the help of boats"
and the distance from Taipei to Manila is 630 nautical miles ( with maneuvers less than 1000)
filippiny.png


Distance To Nagasaki From Honolulu is: 3856.52 nautical miles, from SF to Honolulu 2082 nm.
This is an interesting but absolute Geo-political mess. The British would have to weigh who they would value as a potential ally- the United States or Japan. I think the Anglo-Japan Treaty will prevent the Germans from supporting the Japanese initially with coaling stations for an attack on Hawaii, but I honestly believe the British will prefer to curry favor with the US. If the British refuse to weigh in against the Americans the Japanese may tilt toward Germany in an Anti-Russian alliance.

Matt, the British can do nothing, observing neutrality and trading with both sides. It will be beneficial to Japan. They can have friendly neutrality - by providing loans for the purchase of weapons and ships from other countries. They can give a very friendly neutrality by giving the possibility of finding Japanese ships in territorial waters.
Any of these opportunities is a diplomatic trade between Britain and the US. What can in 1903 offer Britain in exchange for strict neutrality?

And in 1903, if Japan and Germany are against Russia, Britain will be happy.
Perhaps may be this is not very well known, but Russian historians believe that if it were not for Britain's support, Japan would not be able to declare war on Russia.
Therefore, your argument is not clear, and you use the post-knowledge that there will be a global war, and Britain, in alliance with Russia, will fight against Germany.

On the Monroe Doctrine- the whole thing was enforced with the unofficial agreement with the United States. They were instrumental in there even being a Monroe Doctrine. The friction between the US and the UK over Venezuela is just that, a little disagreement over particulars. The outstanding issues from the First Venezuelan Crisis and the Alaskan border were settled in arbitration. Not exactly a signal that two countries are in deep logger heads. Indeed the British policy towards the US at this time was one of cultivation. The two were extensive trading partners, they largely cooperated over China policy, the US was showing signs of its future staggering potential, and they had (if needed) a dagger pointed at the throat of a major British Dominion.

Matt, like any trade, diplomatic trade, it's art to buy cheaper, and sell expensive.
Why not get the advantage of Britain, due to the successes of Japan?
And to offer their services as an intermediary in the peace negotiations?
 
How would they get there? What coaling stations do the Japanese control in 1903? What are operational ranges of their warships? They may have to rely on foreign powers for their coaling, possibly Germany. As the Japanese are formally allied with the British, the Germans probably would be reluctant to support them.

I was wondering about that too but it appears ships from that time had no trouble with the 7000 KM they need to travel. You just keep chucking coal into the furnaces and you ge there in about 2 weeks if the weather is good.
 

nbcman

Donor
The problem is that for 1903, the US has no military advantage over Japan. And as a fleet - worse.
And the war in the Pacific, mostly marine.
As for the population, it can not be said that the suppression of insurgents in the Philippines in the years 1898-1902 was bloodless, the loss of the population was 200,000 people - about 3% of the total population (in 1899 there were 7.5 million people in the Philippines).
I would also like to note that the Koreans mostly welcomed the conquest of their country in the beginning, since it was the Japanese who introduced the primary education and the development of the country's industry. This in the future, hsituation sharply changed for the worse.
P.S. And why did you decide that if the war was in 1903, the next one would be in 1941?
The US had one large advantage over Japan - financing. The Japanese were only able to keep fighting the war against Russia by borrowing in the UK and the US. ITTL the US is out as a source of funds for Japan. The UK has to decide whether they want to allow Japan to raise funds to fight the US. If the UK doesn't allow the Japanese to borrow, Japan can't fight the war without being able to secure hundreds of millions of dollars / pounds of financing. If the UK does allow the Japanese to borrow funds, they run the risk of the US retaliation.
 
correct me if im wrong can't the US just out produce the Japanese?

They can, but how much blood and treasure is the US going to expend to recover the Phillipines and the Marianas?
The more limited capabilities of the area mean Japan is unlikely to be able make a play for total dominance of the Pacific, but snatching what are essentially the US's own ventures in colonialism only recently wrested from Spanish control is unlikely to elicit an appetite for heavy expenditure. If Japan can smash the US forces in the Pacific, I would imagine there would be strong domestic calls to give the asiatic possessions up as a lost cause.
 
The US had one large advantage over Japan - financing. The Japanese were only able to keep fighting the war against Russia by borrowing in the UK and the US. ITTL the US is out as a source of funds for Japan. The UK has to decide whether they want to allow Japan to raise funds to fight the US. If the UK doesn't allow the Japanese to borrow, Japan can't fight the war without being able to secure hundreds of millions of dollars / pounds of financing. If the UK does allow the Japanese to borrow funds, they run the risk of the US retaliation.
Yes, nbcman, this is a very serious argument. But only if the scale of military operations is equal to the Russian-Japanese war.
As I wrote above, the Japanese-American war will be mainly maritime.
The naval war differs from the land war with relatively high expenditures on the capital construction of individual units (ships), low human losses, and limited military expenditures.
What we have in the Russo-Japanese War
To fight against Russia, Japan was supposed to have 300,000 troops, and another 550,000 reservists. This was necessary in order to keep the front against 500,000 Russians (all figures rounded)
The war lasted 1.5 years, and had several large (more than 50,000 soldiers on each side) battles + siege of the fortress for 0.5 years (Japanese troops about 100,000 people)
The main costs were for land operations, because the largest expenditure of shells and other weapons, as well as large numbers of people have been served.
There were two big sea battles, and during the war the Japanese navy bought two main ships, losing two too.

If we look at the hypothetical US-Japanese war, we will see the difference.
Landed forces need an order of magnitude less - 60-80,000 troops.
To besiege them will have a much worse fortified fortress of Manila, than Port Arthur.
The costs incurred for the fleet (construction and purchase of ships) have already been made before the war.
Thus, costs can become comparable with the Russian-Japanese war, only in the case of:
- the invasion of a large number of Ameriсan forces on the Japanese islands or the Philippines
- the invasion of a large number of Japanese forces on the Pacific coast of the United States

For the first option it is necessary to defeat the Japanese fleet, otherwise it will overtake the transport

By the forces of the US Navy on 01.01.1904 this can not be done.

The invasion of the Japanese forces in the San Francisco area, I do not even consider, is insanity
Thus, the amount for a war with the US, if it takes less than a year and a half, will be much less than was required for a war with Russia.
In addition, for the entire period of the war, trade with China will not be limited as there will be no military action on its territory
And the last. I do not want to say that economically Japan is equal to the US at that time. I just want to say that the costs will be much lower than in the Russo-Japanese War, and thus the economic factor will be reduced.
And to borrow money for the war, Japan can also in France (which did not give credit to Japan, since its ally Russia was at war with the enemy Japan), and Germany, which in the war gave money to Russia so that its troops were not in Poland
 
correct me if im wrong can't the US just out produce the Japanese?
I do not know how this term sounds in English. But Russian, literal translation is a "window of opportunity".
For Japan, a "window of opportunity", a successful war against the United States is possible only until 1906. After this period, if Japan attacks the Philippines, it will lose
 
I suggest you see of you can see if you can locate William Braisted, United States Navy in the Pacific 1897-1909. It is a book published by the NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS. While I have not read that particular book I am reading his second book The United States Navy in the Pacific 1909-1922. I have found it very interesting and informative about the period I was reading about given the quality of the work I am reading. I would think the previous book would be just as informative and interesting, he spends a lot of talking about bases and the general paranoia of the American Navy toward the Japanese and their navy.
 
I suggest you see of you can see if you can locate William Braisted, United States Navy in the Pacific 1897-1909. It is a book published by the NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS. While I have not read that particular book I am reading his second book The United States Navy in the Pacific 1909-1922. I have found it very interesting and informative about the period I was reading about given the quality of the work I am reading. I would think the previous book would be just as informative and interesting, he spends a lot of talking about bases and the general paranoia of the American Navy toward the Japanese and their navy.
Wow, great Farmer 12!
I did not know about this book, I know data ships by Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905
https://books.google.ru/books/about...ghting_Ships.html?id=_318ns9rtAUC&redir_esc=y
 
I do not know how this term sounds in English. But Russian, literal translation is a "window of opportunity".
For Japan, a "window of opportunity", a successful war against the United States is possible only until 1906. After this period, if Japan attacks the Philippines, it will lose

That is a very precise translation. The term is very common in English, or at least the US.
 
I understand that this looks like authorial arbitrariness, but suppose that the Japanese defeated the US Navy in naval battle and occupied Hawaii and the Philippines. In addition, the Japanese тnavy is carrying out a naval blockade of the Pacific coast of the United States, completely interrupting cabotage.
How would key politicians and parties behave at this moment?
Have they fused together around Roosevelt, or, on the contrary, led their game, having dumped all the failures on it?
The request is to express its position, not with modern assessments of the Fatherland and patriotism, but with possible actions and moods of that time.
If possible, then with specific similar examples, and individuals.
I, as a foreigner, can foresee the reaction of American society.
 
I understand that this looks like authorial arbitrariness, but suppose that the Japanese defeated the US Navy in naval battle and occupied Hawaii and the Philippines. In addition, the Japanese тnavy is carrying out a naval blockade of the Pacific coast of the United States, completely interrupting cabotage.
How would key politicians and parties behave at this moment?
Have they fused together around Roosevelt, or, on the contrary, led their game, having dumped all the failures on it?
The request is to express its position, not with modern assessments of the Fatherland and patriotism, but with possible actions and moods of that time.
If possible, then with specific similar examples, and individuals.
I, as a foreigner, can foresee the reaction of American society.

Well for a scenario like that to exist a whole lot has gone very wrong for the US earlier. I doubt something like that could be achieved without some sort of internal struggle in the US. It would mean aboslutely zero response to the Japanese aggressiveness and expansionism. So they must be in civil disorder.

I'd say the mood is very grim.
 
---------
Duke4, greetings
The main problem, that the main opponents of the accession of the Philippines and Hawaii, were the voters of the South - the main core of the Republican Party of that time.
Initially, it was expected that in the Paris Peace Treaty, the Philippines would become independent (of course, under the control of the United States), and there would be territorial concessions to Great Britain and Germany.
But that did not happen.
And as you know, Roosevelt became president not as a result of elections, but as a result of the death attempt of McKinley
Together, all these three factors indicate that there was a strong opposition to Roosevelt, and amid the unsuccessful war, his chances of re-election, certainly not 100%, will exactly change his rhetoric.
Well, and as an option - to give after the war the independence of the Philippines (but already under the control of Japan), will not be a clear defeat for the United States for voters
-----
Sorry I have been on the road. I checked the results of the 1904 election. TR did not need any of the South to win. Plus the South has always been the most war like of the country. I can't see TR losing in 04 and Parker would have not given up if he had won. His base the south would not tolerate it.
----
Thank you for support, Carl!
I read Russian research on Goto Shinpei, and I can say this:
- for 1903, Formosa can fully accept and supply military and civilian ships
- on Formosa there were large land forces
For other questions
-how shows us the experience of the Russo-Japanese War, coal bunkering could be carried out in the sea of a large number of ships.
- to transport small warships (destroyers) used a bundle on the ropes (a large ship drags smalls - I apologize for perhaps the wrong term)


-----
Many thanks , Lionhead , for greetings!
I read that in 1897, there were 20,000 ethnic Japanese living in Hawaii.
Given that the fortifications in 1904, there was not, I believe that the capture of Hawaii, this time is equal to the transition of military transport from Nagasaki to Hawaii - two weeks
And of course the battle in the Pacific will not occur in the ocean: the probability of a meeting is low ( a little)
Most likely, the sea battle will occur near Manila.
All the same, 20,000 soldiers, this is a significant garrison, and the Japanese will not immediately be able to take Manila. In addition, most likely in the Bay of Manila, there will be American ships, so there will be a siege.
I think 3-4 months, the besieged will be able to defend themselves.
During this time, the American fleet either from San Francisco, or through the Suez Canal will be able to reach the Philippines.
To concede the Philippines without a battle will not be exactly, it is a blow to the prestige of the State.

On the second part of your proposal, I can say that you are right: indeed, the other powers will not be neutral.
But if you remember, at that time, there were some disagreements with Britain - the Venezuelan crisis, the situation in Mexico and the countries of Latin America because of the Monroe Doctrine
So the weakening of the United States was beneficial for Britain as a whole.

Well, Germany in general had a plan to invade the US (in Russian in more detail, in English less)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Германский_план_вторжения_в_США
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_German_plans_for_the_invasion_of_the_United_States

Therefore, as I wrote above, Japan is most likely not allowed to occupy all of the Philippines, and partly to cede part of the territories of Germany and Britain (for example, after the Russian-Turkish war, Britain withdrew Cyprus for mediation in a peace treaty)

Germany was very much hoping to get bases in the Philippines, they sent East Asia Squadron under von Dederichs, down to the landing in the Philippines, and Dewey was going to fight them
 
Duke4,
If I understand correctly, then you want to say the following: The US will not sign a peace treaty in its military defeat, until it builds a navy in 1905-1906?
Reason: the support of the president will be great, and he will be able to lead the war to a victorious end
Correctly?
 
They can, but how much blood and treasure is the US going to expend to recover the Phillipines and the Marianas?
The more limited capabilities of the area mean Japan is unlikely to be able make a play for total dominance of the Pacific, but snatching what are essentially the US's own ventures in colonialism only recently wrested from Spanish control is unlikely to elicit an appetite for heavy expenditure. If Japan can smash the US forces in the Pacific, I would imagine there would be strong domestic calls to give the asiatic possessions up as a lost cause.
With the racist attitudes of the time not likely.
 
Could anyone share an available source about the political situation in the US in 1902-1905?
And also: how were put forward the requirements for the Paris Treaty ?
 
How good are the shipyards on the West Coast in 1903? Would the US have the ability to quickly build ships there, or would they have to build mostly on the East Coast and go around South America?
 
Top