Battle Of Dogger Bank

What would have been the effect of The Royal Navy being ordered to fire on the Russian Baltic Fleet after it had fired on British Fishing Boats near Dogger Bank in October 1904. Given that France was allied with Russia, Britain with Japan and the entant cordieal was a year away, would France of honored its treaty agreements? With the Russian Army being mauled in the Far East would the Kaiser have taken the chance to gain more territory and backed his British Cousin, stayed neutral or joined with the French to attack Britain (unlikely I know but Kaiser Bill had a bad case of Battleship envy).
 
I think if England would had push the issue, France would had broken her treaty with Russia. Germany would take all of what today is Poland maybe more. Russia would have a new government by the end of 1905.

The new Russian government would cut a peace deal, and start to rebuild everything.

World War One is likely not to happen.
 
I think if England would had push the issue, France would had broken her treaty with Russia. Germany would take all of what today is Poland maybe more. Russia would have a new government by the end of 1905.

The new Russian government would cut a peace deal, and start to rebuild everything.

World War One is likely not to happen.

If Germany is doing that well, then Romania would probably get in on the fighting too.
 
I think if England would had push the issue, France would had broken her treaty with Russia. Germany would take all of what today is Poland maybe more. Russia would have a new government by the end of 1905.

The new Russian government would cut a peace deal, and start to rebuild everything.

World War One is likely not to happen.
Thats Just in Europe. Whats Japans cut? With Britain and Germany as allies Teddy Roosevelt's likely to be told to get lost. Port Arthur, All of Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Allutions perhaps? If so when Russia falls into revolution, possibly more than once their eyes are going to lock firmly on the Northen Resource Area instead of China and points south.
 
Thats Just in Europe. Whats Japans cut? With Britain and Germany as allies Teddy Roosevelt's likely to be told to get lost. Port Arthur, All of Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Allutions perhaps? If so when Russia falls into revolution, possibly more than once their eyes are going to lock firmly on the Northen Resource Area instead of China and points south.

Implausible. The West will limit Japan's gains mostly on racial grounds, and the British would still distrust the Germans, but now with far more reason.
 
I agree that Japan won't benefit much more than in OTL in terms of territory. I expect they will get all of Karafuto/Sahkalin, but that it about it. Japan has no need for Siberia anyway, save perhaps Vladivostock, and they can't have that.

The big advantage for Japan here in that they win their main war aim: a free hand in NE Asia. Russia will be far too busy with internal revolutions to bother with Asia for quite a while. So, Japan can annex Korea a few years early. Russia will likely be forced to hand over the railroad and all Russian concessions in Manchuria and China. Manchuria, in particular, will be recognized as a Japanese sphere of influence, like the Yangtze River basin is for the British. I would expect Mongolia to fall under Japanese influence, too. Perhaps, during the choas of the 1911 Revolution in China, Japan will establish both Manchuria and Mongolia and independent but Japan-oriented states. Maybe even an East Turkestan, if they influence spreads beyond Mongolia.

This would also have a big impact on Japanese foreign policy. I would expect anti-Russian "Go North" ideas to carry more weight with the government, given the huge border Japan has to protect against Russia now.
 
Given that France was allied with Russia, Britain with Japan and the entant cordieal was a year away, would France of honored its treaty agreements?

I think if England would had push the issue, France would had broken her treaty with Russia.


It's like the blind leading the blind around here... :rolleyes:

First, this subject was discussed not more than a month ago during a topic about expanding the Russo-Japanese War.

Second, how about a nice big Reality Sandwich(tm)? The Franco-Russian Alliance was aimed at the Triple Alliance in Europe alone. The text of the Franco-Russian Alliance mentions the Triple Alliance in Europe alone. The provisions of the Franco-Russian Alliance deal with attacks by the Triple Alliance in Europe alone. Colonial and other issues beyond Europe, which both France and Russia had plenty of in 1892, were specifically and deliberately left out of the Alliance as neither power wanted to be drawn into a European war due to the colonial shenanigans of the other.

Here's the entire text of the Alliance, compliments of 30 seconds work on Google:

France and Russia, being animated by a common desire to preserve peace, and having no other object than to meet the necessities of a defensive war, provoked by an attack of the forces of the Triple Alliance against either of them, have agreed upon the following provisions:
1. If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
2. In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.
3. The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.
These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.
4. The General Staffs of the Armies of the two countries shall cooperate with each other at all times in the preparation and facilitation of the execution of the measures mentioned above.
They shall communicate with each other, while there is still peace, all information relative to the armies of the Triple Alliance which is already in their possession or shall come into their possession.
Ways and means of corresponding in time of war shall be studied and worked out in advance.
5. France and Russia shall not conclude peace separately.
6. The present Convention shall have the same duration as the Triple Alliance.
7. All the clauses enumerated above shall be kept absolutely secret

In the OTL - in reality - France met her treaty obligations to Russia and aided Russia during the war just enough to somewhat maintain Russia's good will. France allowed Russia's fleet to anchor for relatively short periods off French colonial possessions and France allowed Russia's fleet to purchase supplies from French colonial possessions. France did not, however, providing coaling facilities and stockpiles to Russia because of other geopolitical concerns.

A Russo-British war resulting from the Dogger Bank Incident will not see France entering the war on the side of Russia because the alliance France has with Russia deals with the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy alone. In fact, because of that alliance and the thinking behind it's provisions, France will do - and did in the OTL - everything in it's power to mediate a peaceful a resolution between Russia and the UK because a war between those two powers will leave Russia in a much weaker position vis a vis the Triple Alliance.
 
I think if England would had push the issue, France would had broken her treaty with Russia.

I doubt it - and Don Lardo eloquently states why.

Basically, Diplomacy 101 strongly recommends that you don't break a military alliance without getting something at least as good from the other guy.
 
Top