Effects of a Russian Victory in 1905?

[Ulyanovsk]

How could this effect the Russian performance in the future ww1?

They'd likely be more organized and possibly they'd be similar to the British Army in that the war would remain in the Russian consciousness when war hits. It really all depends on how much the Russian General Staff chooses to really study the tactics of it. They could learn valuable lessons or just as easily brush it off, it really all depends. If they absorb the information and incorporate it into tactics, it could allow them to be much more successful in an alt-WW1. Instead of disasters like Masurian Lakes, we could see a tentative deployment of tactics similar to those used in the Brusilov Offensive.

The loss of the Russian fleets was in my opinion enough of a loss of prestige to make thebAnglo Russian convention plausible. From memory it moved Russia from having the second or third largest fleet in the world to 7th.

For Britain Russia was no longer as scary at this stage.

This different Russo-Japanese War wouldn't have the disasters the Russian's faced at Port Arthur and Tsushima particularly. The Russian fleet would likely stay in port, and if Port Arthur never falls to Japanese forces, the Russian Fleet would have no reason to move out (they'd employ a Fleet-in-Being strategy.) Without the loss of the Russian fleet, in addition to the massive annexation of Manchuria (and possibly Korea) would generate enough Russophobia in the Raj to keep the Great Game rivalry going.

 

[naraic]

This different Russo-Japanese War wouldn't have the disasters the Russian's faced at Port Arthur and Tsushima particularly. The Russian fleet would likely stay in port, and if Port Arthur never falls to Japanese forces, the Russian Fleet would have no reason to move out (they'd employ a Fleet-in-Being strategy.) Without the loss of the Russian fleet, in addition to the massive annexation of Manchuria (and possibly Korea) would generate enough Russophobia in the Raj to keep the Great Game rivalry going.

Well then Id say the result of the Russian victory depends entirely on its methods. Several people discussed a Japanese naval victory and a Japanese army defeat.

 

[Ulyanovsk]

Well then Id say the result of the Russian victory depends entirely on its methods. Several people discussed a Japanese naval victory and a Japanese army defeat.

The course of the war would have a Russian victory on land by holding off Japanese forces until Russian reinforcements can come by rail, at which point they inflict a pretty devastating defeat on Japanese forces. The naval war would be a Japanese victory in that they control the seas and bottle up the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, and are not challenged much in the course of the war, but they do not pull a Tsushima either.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

They'd likely be more organized and possibly they'd be similar to the British Army in that the war would remain in the Russian consciousness when war hits. It really all depends on how much the Russian General Staff chooses to really study the tactics of it. They could learn valuable lessons or just as easily brush it off, it really all depends. If they absorb the information and incorporate it into tactics, it could allow them to be much more successful in an alt-WW1. Instead of disasters like Masurian Lakes, we could see a tentative deployment of tactics similar to those used in the Brusilov Offensive.



This different Russo-Japanese War wouldn't have the disasters the Russian's faced at Port Arthur and Tsushima particularly. The Russian fleet would likely stay in port, and if Port Arthur never falls to Japanese forces, the Russian Fleet would have no reason to move out (they'd employ a Fleet-in-Being strategy.) Without the loss of the Russian fleet, in addition to the massive annexation of Manchuria (and possibly Korea) would generate enough Russophobia in the Raj to keep the Great Game rivalry going.

On the other hand, the rest of Europe would be viewing and absorbing a similar lesson (Rather than the effectiveness of constant offensive pressure, Elan, ect., that solid defensive engineering and logistics/fiscal-industrial endurance are keys to victory). This lesson would only be futher vindicated to the British and French by their experiences in South Africa and Morocco, which means the Entente would similarly started moving away from the Cult of the Offensive, which I'd argue plays to Entente's advantages (Naval supremacy and domestic stability, for example) and minimizes the effectiveness of the advantages of the Kaiserbund (Such as their greater population base)

As for Russian naval power, though they'd retain their navy it'd also likely push off the modernization of the fleet (via new construction of more up-to-date models) and ties down a greater amount of their pre-war military budget, which alone would be enough to slow army innovation as there's simply fewer resources available. Certainly, things could go off in different directions, but there's only so many rubles St.Petersburg has to play around with; particularly if there's a slowdown in the inflow of French/Belgian capital

 

[marathag]

The Russian army was exhausted and demoralized and thus needed reform. ITTL, the Russians will be fresh off of a victory and they won’t have mutinies and revolts to deal with.

Even after a series of Pyrrhic victories?
For the Russian Army, the Victory was likely to be a costly as defeat in 1905, given their tactics.
They would have won by having more men to toss at the IJA, than any tactical brilliance

 

[Oldbill]

Yeah it’d likely postpone the 1905 Revolution for a time, although I think it’ll come eventually. In the throes of an alt-WW1 is my guess, but that’s much better than all out collapse of the government, depending on the circumstances of it. The Russian monarchy has a chance of surviving here.

I don't think it will. This was financed by Japanese gold, and the seeds were planted for such an action long before. I think it will still occur, the only different outcome might be it is lessened by not having Naval disasters.

 

[Oldbill]

On the other hand, the rest of Europe would be viewing and absorbing a similar lesson (Rather than the effectiveness of constant offensive pressure, Elan, ect., that solid defensive engineering and logistics/fiscal-industrial endurance are keys to victory). This lesson would only be futher vindicated to the British and French by their experiences in South Africa and Morocco, which means the Entente would similarly started moving away from the Cult of the Offensive, which I'd argue plays to Entente's advantages (Naval supremacy and domestic stability, for example) and minimizes the effectiveness of the advantages of the Kaiserbund (Such as their greater population base)

I disagree. The reason so is that men always, always react as they are trained when stressed. If you've been trained a certain way, and at some point in battle you reach that critical level of stress your going to lapse back into the old way. IOTL ALL the major powers had observers with both powers, including the US. Yet a decade later, people were STILL advancing shoulder to shoulder, against dug in troops with machine guns and artillery. None of the participants had hand grenades for the troops, none had trench mortars (the German models were even bulkier than the model developed by the IJA) or not enough of them, nor enough machine guns. They had the information for a decade, institutional inertia, budgetary constraints, training, all conspired to make the things made so painfully obvious in the RJW (I'm not addressing the Boer War as my knowledge of it is pretty rudimentary) relegated to the file cabinets.
As an example (I may be misremembering this, but I need to do this and get back outside to work so Im not looking it up in the books) Hidenori Tojo (father of Hideki Tojo) was castigated pretty severely for wasting his men by allowing shoulder to shoulder assaults. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, I don't want to lead anyone astray with bad info.

 

[Oldbill]

I doubt they'd kick out the German advisors... though Germany might choose to withdraw them after they start getting the cold shoulder in high society or the Entente might pressure them to take in a French military mission instead. More likely, they'd be relegated to training roles though and removed from any formal command positions they'd have. This is especially true if, in this scenario, the IJA has to basically be rebuilt from the ground up: give the "lead from the front" attitude of the brass at the time and the horrendious casualty rate that produced, Japan would need every officer they could get their hands in on.



I don't think Japan has any German advisors by this time. The IJA cottoned on to the fact they were running out of men and attempted to change tactics to preserve them before the end of the war. A fair bit too late though!

 

[Oldbill]

I think its probable the IJA retreat to Korea and fortify lines there. It wasn't just the base at Port Arthur that prompted the war, it was Russian incursions into Korea and the Korean/Manchuria border that did it for the Japanese. To quote the Japanese at the time, Korea was considered to be "a knife at the heart of Japan". A Russian occupied Korea had the potential to be fatal to Japan, and they'd fight fanatically to prevent it. I think the Japanese would, if defeated, pull back to the Korean side of the Yalu and dig in like a ground hog next to a soy bean field. Can they hold the Russians at the line? It depends on how badly the Russians want it. If the will is there, and it may be, they'll take it, but it will be a very bloody campaign.
This is where it gets interesting. I cannot see the British allowing Russia to occupy Japan. That puts the Russians far too close to British interests and trade routes. This alone might spark war.
There is also the US to consider in this, the 1882 "Treaty of Amity and Commerce" with Korea has nothing to do with military actions, but IOTL the Koreans tried to get the US involved to prevent the Japanese from taking over. I can see them doing so again, and with TR in the White House he may decide the Japanese are the lesser of two evils as they will keep the Russians out of Korea and Japan. I'd expect some significant diplomatic efforts on the US part. What happens if they disregard US efforts, at least it will cause a chilling between the affairs of the two nations.
Ok, now I really do need to get out into the yard and paint the concrete lawn statues!

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I disagree. The reason so is that men always, always react as they are trained when stressed. If you've been trained a certain way, and at some point in battle you reach that critical level of stress your going to lapse back into the old way. IOTL ALL the major powers had observers with both powers, including the US. Yet a decade later, people were STILL advancing shoulder to shoulder, against dug in troops with machine guns and artillery. None of the participants had hand grenades for the troops, none had trench mortars (the German models were even bulkier than the model developed by the IJA) or not enough of them, nor enough machine guns. They had the information for a decade, institutional inertia, budgetary constraints, training, all conspired to make the things made so painfully obvious in the RJW (I'm not addressing the Boer War as my knowledge of it is pretty rudimentary) relegated to the file cabinets.
As an example (I may be misremembering this, but I need to do this and get back outside to work so Im not looking it up in the books) Hidenori Tojo (father of Hideki Tojo) was castigated pretty severely for wasting his men by allowing shoulder to shoulder assaults. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, I don't want to lead anyone astray with bad info.

I've got to get better at being clearer in my intent when I write. My point was relative to ViralWorld's discussion on weather or not the Russians would absorb the lessons of the war broadly and quickly enough to effect their preformance in the eventually "Great War" that's going to come when the alliance system and "peace through dividing up the rest of the world" techniques fail to solve a crisis. What I was saying was if Russia is aborbing these lessons, they won't be the only ones. Though, odds are you'd need more than just a "colonial" campaign in East Asia to truely shift the broader military culture (Indeed, if we avoid the Balkan Wars due to a better Turkish position Europe may very well stumble into a conflict with even MORE outdated tactics, due to being less exposed to the importance of artillery)

I think its probable the IJA retreat to Korea and fortify lines there. It wasn't just the base at Port Arthur that prompted the war, it was Russian incursions into Korea and the Korean/Manchuria border that did it for the Japanese. To quote the Japanese at the time, Korea was considered to be "a knife at the heart of Japan". A Russian occupied Korea had the potential to be fatal to Japan, and they'd fight fanatically to prevent it. I think the Japanese would, if defeated, pull back to the Korean side of the Yalu and dig in like a ground hog next to a soy bean field. Can they hold the Russians at the line? It depends on how badly the Russians want it. If the will is there, and it may be, they'll take it, but it will be a very bloody campaign.
This is where it gets interesting. I cannot see the British allowing Russia to occupy Japan. That puts the Russians far too close to British interests and trade routes. This alone might spark war.
There is also the US to consider in this, the 1882 "Treaty of Amity and Commerce" with Korea has nothing to do with military actions, but IOTL the Koreans tried to get the US involved to prevent the Japanese from taking over. I can see them doing so again, and with TR in the White House he may decide the Japanese are the lesser of two evils as they will keep the Russians out of Korea and Japan. I'd expect some significant diplomatic efforts on the US part. What happens if they disregard US efforts, at least it will cause a chilling between the affairs of the two nations.
Ok, now I really do need to get out into the yard and paint the concrete lawn statues!

While I need to get some sleep and so can't get into too much detail at the moment, one factor to consider is this isen't a "Total War"; both sides being at the edges of their zone of influence and logistical positions and their interests limited to certain conflicting claims of commerical-military importance. Odds are far better, especially with Japan and Russia both hitting budgetary limits (as they did IOTL) that instead of tossing huge numbers of troops at Korea you'd get a mediated peace in which Russia establishes hegemony over Manchuria

 

[twistedirregular]

I've got to get better at being clearer in my intent when I write. My point was relative to ViralWorld's discussion on weather or not the Russians would absorb the lessons of the war broadly and quickly enough to effect their preformance in the eventually "Great War" that's going to come when the alliance system and "peace through dividing up the rest of the world" techniques fail to solve a crisis. What I was saying was if Russia is aborbing these lessons, they won't be the only ones. Though, odds are you'd need more than just a "colonial" campaign in East Asia to truely shift the broader military culture (Indeed, if we avoid the Balkan Wars due to a better Turkish position Europe may very well stumble into a conflict with even MORE outdated tactics, due to being less exposed to the importance of artillery)

How would these lessons affect other countries?

 

[fasquardon]

One impact is that the expensive Japanese assaults on the Russian positions (even if nothing is changed on the battlefield except the Russians hold together long enough for Japan to die of exhaustion) don't look so good.

In OTL, the Russo-Japanese war was taken by some to mean that technology favoured the offensive again, so the expectations for static trench warfare that the American Civil War had left some thinkers with were decided to no longer apply.

So ITTL if the Russians win, observers may decide that the defensive is stronger, though maybe not by much, depending on how events on the ground unfold.

A big question is how bad the Japanese hurt the Russians in the fight - the expectation before the war was that the Russians would win. If they win as expected, but the Japanese bleed them heavily, we could still see Japanese prestige rise and Russian prestige fall. Just not by quite so much as in OTL.

And depending how hard-fought the victory was, the Russians may still implement military reforms.

I think a victory secures Manchuria for Russia, and it postpones Japanese annexation of Korea, possibly indefinitely, but I don't expect there'd be much fighting in Korea and in later years the political game could see Korea end up going to Japan or some other player in the region.

Likely we don't see the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia Herzigovina.

It's very interesting to consider whether the Italians still go for Libya in 1911 - no BH annexation does reduce the likelihood of this. And whether or not they do, what does a more assertive Russia do to the Balkan wars?

fasquardon

 

[FillyofDelphi]

One impact is that the expensive Japanese assaults on the Russian positions (even if nothing is changed on the battlefield except the Russians hold together long enough for Japan to die of exhaustion) don't look so good.

In OTL, the Russo-Japanese war was taken by some to mean that technology favoured the offensive again, so the expectations for static trench warfare that the American Civil War had left some thinkers with were decided to no longer apply.

So ITTL if the Russians win, observers may decide that the defensive is stronger, though maybe not by much, depending on how events on the ground unfold.

A big question is how bad the Japanese hurt the Russians in the fight - the expectation before the war was that the Russians would win. If they win as expected, but the Japanese bleed them heavily, we could still see Japanese prestige rise and Russian prestige fall. Just not by quite so much as in OTL.

And depending how hard-fought the victory was, the Russians may still implement military reforms.

I think a victory secures Manchuria for Russia, and it postpones Japanese annexation of Korea, possibly indefinitely, but I don't expect there'd be much fighting in Korea and in later years the political game could see Korea end up going to Japan or some other player in the region.

Likely we don't see the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia Herzigovina.

It's very interesting to consider whether the Italians still go for Libya in 1911 - no BH annexation does reduce the likelihood of this. And whether or not they do, what does a more assertive Russia do to the Balkan wars?

fasquardon

One does have to consider though that the Russians, if their goal is simply to exert more influence into Manchuria and prevent the Japanese from displacing them from Port Arthur and establishing a formidable naval presence in the China Sea, they have no reason to conduct the sort of operations that would bleed them heavily. One of the reasons, as others have previously noted, that the effect of the Japanese victory did so much for the "Cult of the Offensive" was the implicit racism that filled their pre-war expectations: everybody thought the Russians would be able to wipe the floor with an "Asiatic" army, and so the fact they lost meant there had to be something about the Japanese operations that was particularly effective. In a scenario where Japan is forced to the negotiating table by financial exhaustion after bleeding themselves white assulting Russian defensive positions, it'd only play to orthodox thought and so, I'd assert, be unlikely to lead to Russian military reforms.

As for Russian involvement in an Alt-Balkan Wars... well, they weren't really a fan of Bulgarian ambitions IOTL, and if you avoid the Ottoman humilations and instability of the period I question weather or not the Balkan States would risk an attack on the Sultanate... particularly if Britain remains warry about Russian ambitions.

 

[Karelian]

In OTL Kuropatkin wanted to amass all available reserves and then fight a single decisive battle that would settle the outcome of the war, whereas Japanese military leadership was equally convinced that the conquest of Port Arthur would be the key to victory.

Citino makes a compelling case that Russians could have held an excellent bottleneck line further north at Dalian peninsula, thus butterflying away the OTL siege and enabling the Russians to relieve Port Arthur.

IMO avoiding the war entirely does much better job at maintaining the image of Russia as formidable and massive empire instead of a stumbling colossus.

 

[Tibi088]

The diplomatic situation was really interesting. One of Brittains main aim at the time was to check russian expansionism in China. For this purpose they made a treaty with Germany in regards of China around 1900/1901. It was basically aimed at preserving the territorial integrity of China. The germans were fearing at the time that Brittain - seeing the Russian occupation of Manchuria would decide thats time for the partition of China and vanted to avoid that. Brittain counted on this treaty and protested the Russian occupation. However as germany already got what he wanted they wanted badly to avoid a conflict with Russia over Manchuria. Thats understandable as getting in to a war over Manchuria with Russia seemed like a very idiotic move - serious sacrifices and barely any gain if they win. Of course with hindsight we may judge differently.

Brittain after seeing that it cant count on Germany to hold its treaty obligation and take a risk for british interests - a very important lesson that I believe played a great part in brittain changing course and aligning itself with France - found Japan as an ally. Brittain counted on Japan winning the war. However I have read a document in The british documents on the origins of the war that listed the possible outcomes of the war. it regarded a russian victory as a catastrophic for british interests. In this case it regarded Japan as worthless in the future.

An important question is however how Russia wins. This far mostly everyone goes with the Russian army carries the day. However a naval russian victory is a much more dangerous prospect. It could lead to the invasion of Japan. I dont think that would happen - Brittain would not allow it and basically no one would like an outcome like that so I expect a meditation at the moment that Japan island are in danger.

Locally Japan looses any influences in Korea and pays an idemnity. If Japan suffered both a military and a naval defeat and was saved by the british fleet Japan might become something very resembling to a british protectorate. It wont have the ability to rebuild its fleet and would be relying for the forseable future on Brittain for protection. That would be a verydifferent Japan. The same is true of the more likely scenario that the navy wins but the army is defeated. Peace might look similar however Japan would be a lot less reliant on British protection.

Brittain would at this point accept the loss and the Russians in Manchuria or try to search for another ally - the only possibility could be the USA. I think the first is more likely.

Russia get Manchuria and Korea and some money from Japan. They will also feel that they eliminated the japanese as a threat. This would also mean that Russia needs much more troops on the ground in the east as occupation forces. They might also concentrate on inproving the rail connection to the east more. The interesting is if they decide to go for formal annexation of the territories. Seeing how the germans feared that the Russians in Manchuria would mean just that back in 1901 they might upon seeing the Russians doing it continue by annexing the Shandong peninsula trying to get some advantage by being fast in doing something that they see as inevitably coming but which they would have preffered to avoid. This really might lead to a partition of China.

And a partition of China would make everyone involved concentrating to the east for a time to come. There would likely be some rebellion by the locals. Taking the focus from Europe for a decade might have interesting results.

 

[BooNZ]

The diplomatic situation was really interesting. One of Brittains main aim at the time was to check russian expansionism in China. For this purpose they made a treaty with Germany in regards of China around 1900/1901. It was basically aimed at preserving the territorial integrity of China. The germans were fearing at the time that Brittain - seeing the Russian occupation of Manchuria would decide thats time for the partition of China and vanted to avoid that. Brittain counted on this treaty and protested the Russian occupation. However as germany already got what he wanted they wanted badly to avoid a conflict with Russia over Manchuria. Thats understandable as getting in to a war over Manchuria with Russia seemed like a very idiotic move - serious sacrifices and barely any gain if they win. Of course with hindsight we may judge differently.

Do you have any references or details regarding this "treaty"? My understanding it was the British Conservative Cabinet's failure in 1901 to secure an alliance with Germany that ultimately resulted in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

 

[BooNZ]

In OTL Kuropatkin wanted to amass all available reserves and then fight a single decisive battle that would settle the outcome of the war, whereas Japanese military leadership was equally convinced that the conquest of Port Arthur would be the key to victory.

Citino makes a compelling case that Russians could have held an excellent bottleneck line further north at Dalian peninsula, thus butterflying away the OTL siege and enabling the Russians to relieve Port Arthur.

IMO avoiding the war entirely does much better job at maintaining the image of Russia as formidable and massive empire instead of a stumbling colossus.

Agreed. Avoiding the war altogether saves vast amounts of Russian treasure being spent on the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent military build up. Imperial Russia would still be poking around the Balkans and playing the great game, but without Britain in its back pocket and with a more modest military, it is less likely Imperial Russia would over reach.

From my readings the Japanese would have preferred to reach an understanding with Imperial Russia rather than Britain, but such Japanese feelers were rebuffed by the Russians. I think a 1901 Russo-Japanese treaty/alliance comes dangerously close to an elusive Imperial Russian wank.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Agreed. Avoiding the war altogether saves vast amounts of Russian treasure being spent on the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent military build up. Imperial Russia would still be poking around the Balkans and playing the great game, but without Britain in its back pocket and with a more modest military, it is less likely Imperial Russia would over reach.

From my readings the Japanese would have preferred to reach an understanding with Imperial Russia rather than Britain, but such Japanese feelers were rebuffed by the Russians. I think a 1901 Russo-Japanese treaty/alliance comes dangerously close to an elusive Imperial Russian wank.

Very interesting; I''ve actually never heard of that initiative before. I'd always been under the impression that in order to avoid German and British spheres of vital interest following her conquest of Central Asia, Russian expansive energies were more or less forced eastward to bump up against Japan's vital sphere of influence (IE the Mid-North Pacific Rim). Though, it does make a sort of sense if one looks at it through the Chinese lenses; surely that pie is big enough for the two to split and satisfy both their needs if they're willing to renegade on the "Open Door"/Free Trade notion increasingly favored by the other powers. However, allying with the Japanese (in a world they aren't allied with the British or legitimized by its Russo-Japanese vicories) does probably retard her diplomatic options in Europe. Berlin and London, certainly have a little more ground on which to meet.

 

[Tibi088]

Agreed. Avoiding the war altogether saves vast amounts of Russian treasure being spent on the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent military build up. Imperial Russia would still be poking around the Balkans and playing the great game, but without Britain in its back pocket and with a more modest military, it is less likely Imperial Russia would over reach.

From my readings the Japanese would have preferred to reach an understanding with Imperial Russia rather than Britain, but such Japanese feelers were rebuffed by the Russians. I think a 1901 Russo-Japanese treaty/alliance comes dangerously close to an elusive Imperial Russian wank.

Search in google for Yangtze Agreement, it was signed in the october of 1900. For the full text: British Documents on the Origins of the War, volume II., document No. 17. according to my notes.

The gist is that it was a huge failure on the part of Germany and Brittain both. If you read the documents leading up to the treaty the germans clearly state that they have no intention of going in to conflict with Russia for Manchuria however the final text of the document has nothing of this in it and speaks of the Open Door and upholding chinese territorial integrity and has nothing to exclude Manchuria. Combine this with a change in the british government and the new foreign minister knows only the text. And when he decides to go forth in regards of China to protest the continuing russian occupation of Manchuria he wants to enlist the germans for a joint protest based on this documents however the germans refuse even to do this.

ps. Sorry, replied to your other message

 

[Karelian]

"The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War" is a book filled with good PODs.

In my TL I started from a bit earlier POD, but ultimately the fate of this conflict boils down to Russian court politics. I was personally surprised how determinedly the concilatory faction of Japanese statesmen really tried to reach an agreement with Russia, and how clumsy and erratic the Russian diplomacy towards Japan was.