"Fight and be Right"

[I Blame Communism]

Nice work, Ed!
Unless help for the Russians arrive soon, the OTL Russian Far East will be Japanese (at least for a while).

I doubt it. There's a massive disparity in Japanese and Russian interests there (for Russia, a Pacific port is precious; Japan doesn't exactly have a shortage), so its not worth Japan's while, and certainly not worth Britain's, to make Russia swallow a very large concession to a newly emerged "Asiatic" power. In 1905, the Japanese were still basiclaly being talked down to; and ITTL, the Russians will tell everyone Japan was atking advantage of rubbish Russian communications and was held up by Britain and is still an inferior Asiatic country really, I'll wager.

Russia wants Vladivostok; Japan doesn't; Britain wants peace concluded promptly in our own interests.

I think Russia will only lose the Okhotsk sea islands and its various spheres of influence and interest from Persia to Korea.

France, though, is going to have to swallow a bitter pill and recognise British supremacy outside Europe. I imagine the French will lose pretty much everything in the Indian and Pacific oceans and in east Africa and be confined to a small, compact empire built around Algeria and Senegal.

 

[V-J]

Japan doesn't;

For a government that doesn't want Vladivostok, they sure seem to be making a go of it.

Surely you're missing out on the corollary of your argument here - it's to Japan's benefit to deny Russia ports in the east, just as much as it is for Russia to hold them. Japan may not have any pressing need for picking up Russian territory per se, but seizing Vladivostok and the surrounding area would be a strategically sound move in the long-term.

 

[I Blame Communism]

For a government that doesn't want Vladivostok, they sure seem to be making a go of it.

In order to win the war, and hence expell Russian influence for Korea and Manchuria; and as noted, it's basically a sideshow for them. The Japanese have more troops to ahnd in the area than the Russians, so why should they let teh Russians rest, rbeuild, and make another try for Korea? But that doesn't mean they want to keep the territory they're invading.

Surely you're missing out on the corollary of your argument here - it's to Japan's benefit to deny Russia ports in the east, just as much as it is for Russia to hold them. Japan may not have any pressing need for picking up Russian territory per se, but seizing Vladivostok and the surrounding area would be a strategically sound move in the long-term.

True up to a point, but this means taking over a large territory of dubious value which it would be extremely difficult to defend in the long term: when all is siad and done, Russia is bigger.

So Japan does have a small interest in taking Vladivostok, but I think this is outweighed by the consideration that this territory would be very difficult to defend and Britain isn't going to go out of its way to guarantee its security or even force the Russians to hand it over (and the Russians will refuse to treat Japan as an equal in peace negotiations: they pretty much did in 1905). We didn't want war in 1904, either (because we thought the Russians would win), and a decade earlier only makes Japan more dependent on our goodwill for its policy.

 

[V-J]

But that doesn't mean they want to keep the territory they're invading.

Not neccesarily, no, but if you make a lunge for territory early on in a war, it usually signifies more than a passing interest in holding it.

True up to a point, but this means taking over a large territory of dubious value which it would be extremely difficult to defend in the long term:

I'm not actually sure this is true. If Japan can garrison and fortify Valdivostok, any other significant naval harbours, then basically you can sod the interior to an extent - there'll be nobody living there in large numbers anyway. I can't see any huge defence issues tbh that would make serious defence thoroughly unviable.

Leaving that aside, it would be, logistically/strategically speaking, a hell of a lot easier for Japan to defend than it would be for Russia to re-acquire it if they signed it away in a peace treaty IMO. A hell of a lot.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Not neccesarily, no, but if you make a lunge for territory early on in a war, it usually signifies more than a passing interest in holding it.

There are plentiful counterexamples, especially in the age of limited warfare, but even later. Germany didn't want Paris in 1914.

I'm not actually sure this is true. If Japan can garrison and fortify Valdivostok, any other significant naval harbours, then basically you can sod the interior to an extent - there'll be nobody living there in large numbers anyway. I can't see any huge defence issues tbh that would make serious defence thoroughly unviable.

Sure, there's presently nuffin' in it, but I believe the Transiberians currently reaches Irkutsk. When it hits Khabarovsk, the Russians can take all the time they like to prepare a strike. They are, repeat, a bigger country, and we saw even in 1905 that Japan lacks the resources to keep fighting them forever.

That assumes there's a round two. The Russians will undoubtedly want one if they lose Vladivostok harbour. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll get the opportunity, but will Britain really take the risk to satisfy an "Asiatic power" where no major British interest exists?

Leaving that aside, it would be, logistically/strategically speaking, a hell of a lot easier for Japan to defend than it would be for Russia to re-acquire it if they signed it away in a peace treaty IMO. A hell of a lot.

Why do you say that? The Russians, as I say, are as it stands fighting a million miles from Moscow, but when they get their railway to Khabarovsk, this is no longer the case. Japan will be in charge by sea, it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that Russia, being Russia, can simply throw stuff at Japan on land until the Japanese are running out of men, money, and will (the strategy almost paid off in 1905 OTL) if they have any motivation to.

 

[V-J]

Germany didn't want Paris in 1914.

That's a pretty silly example. The Germans went for Paris in order to defeat France, as armies have done with respect to capital cities throughout the ages.

I'm talking about border territories here. Marches. Instead of battening down the hatches and waging a naval war, Japan has took the war to the Russian far east. It hardly makes sense for them to do that if there is not at least some territorial interest there.

Look at the Russo-Japanese war in OTL. Japan went for Port Arthur with a purpose. Same here.

Sure, there's presently nuffin' in it, but I believe the Transiberians currently reaches Irkutsk. When it hits Khabarovsk, the Russians can take all the time they like to prepare a strike.

Yeah, but you're sort of assuming the Japanese will be sitting on their hands. They won't. They'll be building railways, fortifying etc with whatever they take at the same time. Looking at a map, there's a branch of the Amur north-east of Vladivostok called the Ussuri which would make an excellent line of defence - I assume if the Japanese get anywhere in the peace, they can get the border at least that far up.

But we're getting into the realms of the long-term political rather than the strategic here. It might be unwise for Japan to press territorial claims in the far east as far as their weight vis a vis Russia is concerned. Does that mean they won't? No.

 

[I Blame Communism]

That's a pretty silly example. The Germans went for Paris in order to defeat France, as armies have done with respect to capital cities throughout the ages.

I used it as an example that even in the age of total war, you can make an "early lunge" at something without wanting to keep it.

What of Sevastopol'? Prussians in Bohemia, 1866? Russians from the Balkans to Erzurum in 1828? Whatever?

I'm talking about border territories here. Instead of battening down the hatches and waging a naval war, Japan has took the war to the Russian far east. It hardly makes sense for them to do that if there is not at least some territorial interest there.

Why? The Japanese have to put forces in Asia to prevent Russian control of Korea, which isn't acceptable. Once they get the better of it, it's apparent that Russia has small forces in Vladivostok without an possibility of relief in the short term. To attack and defeat them is to ensure the security of Korea. To leave them be is to allow them to re-enforce and organise a second attempt.

Whether or not the Japanese are after the city, attacking it is undeniable military common sense. And holding important sites which you don't wnat or need to keep never hurt anyone at the peace table, least of all a "backward Asiatic power" which needs every diplomatic advantage it can get.

Look at the Russo-Japanese war in OTL. Japan went for Port Arthur with a purpose. Same here.

They went for it to remove Russian influence from Manchuria and the Yellow Sea and replace it with Japanese influence, a plausible diplomatic and military goal; by that time, attacking Vladivostok was no longer realistic.

Here, Russian influence in these regions is massively less established and one good bloody nose will be enough to see it off. If the Japanese were to take a port which, unlike Port Arthur, they don't have any particular interest in keeping, and demand the Russians kept their noses out of Korea and Manchuria in exchange for its return, that would certainly constitute a bloody nose.

Yeah, but you're sort of assuming the Japanese will be sitting on their hands. They won't. They'll be building railways, fortifying etc with whatever they take at the same time. Looking at a map, there's a branch of the Amur north-east of Vladivostok called the Ussuri which would make an excellent line of defence - I assume if the Japanese get anywhere in the peace, they can get the border at least that far up.

So in order to retain a city in which they have dramaticall less interest than Russia, Japan, an emerging power with limited resources, should invest large parts of those resources in a costly effort to fortify and garrison a considerable border which is broadly useless to them?

This war is probably going to squeeze Japan as much as 1904-1905 did OTL. They can't afford to take on that kind of liability, especially if Britain isn't interested.

But we're getting into the realms of the long-term political rather than the strategic here. It might be unwise for Japan to press territorial claims in the far east as far as their weight vis a vis Russia is concerned. Does that mean they won't? No.

And why will their claims be accepted? They are, I repeat again, a "backward Asiatic power". Their gains will be based on British goodwill (since Britain can instantly make the war unwinnable for Japan by making peace with Russia, Japan pretty much has to accept whatever peace-deal Britain drafts; and if that peace deal dropped Taiwan to the Japanese, they'd be very happy at acquiring a valuable strategic island rather than a defensive headache of little obvious value), and why should Britain go about encouraging Asian nations to grab European territory whenever they feel like it? Everyone underestimated Japan until, like, 1941 OTL.

 

[EdT]

Dislodging any reasonably decent-sized force which was fortified on Formosa would be a nightmare, surely? Can't see the Japanese getting very far with that, unless they can rope in the British for a real joint effort. Don't see that as being too likely tho.

The French are certainly entrenched in Keelung, and it'll take a lot to winkle them out. That said, the Japanese do _really_ want Formosa, and the British have some forces to spare in the region, particularly Naval. If the IJA wants a lot of support though, they'll probably have to wait until the Indochinese theatre is sorted out and all those enthusiastic members of the Australasian Expeditionary Force have nothing else to do.

This timeline makes me want to do a DBWI on what would happen if the war had been delayed so the Russian Naval squadron could get to the Far East, and maybe even have the railway be completed. To make it even more interesting, maybe butterflies could make the Tsar allow the General's plan in Afghanistan to be carried out. I say this because it seems that everything that could go wrong for the Russians is going wrong--I'd put money on an Anglo-Japanese victory.

Well the railway was never going to be completed in time ITTL, but the reinforcements for the Far Eastern Squadron would have made a big difference. If it had been able to coordinate with the French ships in Formosa on a joint sortie, I think the IJN would have severe problems in dealing with both and the Russians might have been able to (at least temporarily) accomplish their goal of isolating Korea from the Home Islands. They'd never be able to take the whole peninsula though, they simply don't have the manpower.

Ultimately though, the difficulties experienced by the Russians in the Far East ITTL are partly because of luck but mainly because they either don't have the neccesary resources in the theatre (Corea, Primorsky Krai) or are trying to do the impossible (Afghanistan). Short of changing the entire circumstances of the war somehow, they are going to have similar issues no matter how good their luck is.

I'm starting to consider the post-war diplomacy. [Snip interesting speculation]

I think we can sketch the road to the prologue from where we are now.

That all sounds quite plausible in terms of the grand sweep, but it's the details that matter!

I'm predicting that the Russians are buggered in Afghanistan, they'll be routed in the first major battle but then as the Brits chase them out, they'll suffer similar problems in trying to cross the whole country and you'll end up with deadlock.

So EdT, where will your cavalcade of counter-factual go next? North Africa? Congo? Alps? Westminster?

Ah, but are the British silly enough to try and push them back? I suspect that if the Russian advance collapses, Roberts will be quite happy for the Afghans to do his dirty work for him. "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains/And the women come out to cut up what remains" etc...

As for the next part, I'm not sure tbh! I'm probably either going to wrap up the Abyssinian theatre or stay in Asia; there's also a part on the internal difficulties faced by France and Russia during the war, but that might be best saved for later on.

Yay doukhobors!

Oh, those Russians...

So my reading is this...[snip good speculation again]

That all makes sense- I will be returning to Russia towards the end of the TL to set down the foundations of what comes, and have a magazine interview written set in 1940 which also gives a flavour. Sadly this is not a TL where Liberal Cosntitutionalism wins the day in Russia, although you might be able to make an argument that it's still nicer than OTL. Maybe.


As for the Japanese taking Siberia, there are some very good points there on both sides I think- I'm not going to give away what happens. However, I think it's worth pointing out that Russian interests in the region are rather different from OTL, and are actually far less extensive. Without OTL's Triple Intervention, there's no new round of unequal treaties in China, so no Russian lease on Port Arthur, no concession for a Manchurian railway and all the investment (and influence) that that brings.

There is also no Trans-Siberian, not even under construction, as the Russians have concentrated their efforts on a Central Asian line. If the Russians lose Vladivostok, there might well be little incentive to build one past Lake Baikal.

All of this is a way of saying that the region is much more of a backwater than OTL, and correspondingly looms far less large in the Russian mind, especially the Imperial one- Nicholas II never had the opportunity to make his OTL visit to the Far East as he was Tsar rather than Tsarevich. This is one of the reasons why the Japanese are keen to exploit the gap while it still lasts.

 

[stevep]

OTL, a mix of both was used- remember that at this point Durand hasn't addressed the border issue, so Afghanistan still has most of what today is the F.A.T.A in Pakistan. A lot of Roberts' advance is into land that Britain would take in 1894/5 OTL anyhow; the Durand Line was meant to roughly reflect the 'scientific frontier', although ITTL its equivalent will be somewhat to the west.

EdT

A bit late replying on this. I was (mis) reading your earlier post that since Roberts was talking about advancing to beyond Khabul and was it Khandar or Harat? that this was within the 'scientific frontier' and he was planning on permanently occupying much of the Afghan heartland. Hadn't realised the current border in TTL was still short of the current border OTL.

Hence probably more towards Roberts stance than I sounded initially. Ideally would plan on blocking the Russians a bit into the mountains, so they have the problem of fighting [and supplying] through much of the rough terrain before having to try and force prepared defences on a narrow front with much better supply lines. Then just let them starve through an Afghan winter and beat their head against the British wall until they concede defeat. Possibly followed up by a quick advance to turn a retreat into a route if no political solution by then. Then get the hell out of the bulk of the mountains.

Steve

 

[I Blame Communism]

That all sounds quite plausible in terms of the grand sweep, but it's the details that matter!

Absolutely!

That all makes sense- I will be returning to Russia towards the end of the TL to set down the foundations of what comes, and have a magazine interview written set in 1940 which also gives a flavour. Sadly this is not a TL where Liberal Cosntitutionalism wins the day in Russia, although you might be able to make an argument that it's still nicer than OTL. Maybe.

I have a feeling it might depend on whether you're Russian or Jewish or Kazakh, "kulak" or unskilled industrial labourer, all averaging out to about the same, in keeping with what you often say about being "neitehr better nor worse, just differant".

As for the Japanese taking Siberia, there are some very good points there on both sides I think- I'm not going to give away what happens. However, I think it's worth pointing out that Russian interests in the region are rather different from OTL, and are actually far less extensive. Without OTL's Triple Intervention, there's no new round of unequal treaties in China, so no Russian lease on Port Arthur, no concession for a Manchurian railway and all the investment (and influence) that that brings.

There is also no Trans-Siberian, not even under construction, as the Russians have concentrated their efforts on a Central Asian line. If the Russians lose Vladivostok, there might well be little incentive to build one past Lake Baikal.

All of this is a way of saying that the region is much more of a backwater than OTL, and correspondingly looms far less large in the Russian mind, especially the Imperial one- Nicholas II never had the opportunity to make his OTL visit to the Far East as he was Tsar rather than Tsarevich. This is one of the reasons why the Japanese are keen to exploit the gap while it still lasts.

Interesting angles: I hadn't considered about Nicholas II. I'm sticking by my guns, though.

 

[V-J]

I wonder what MacDonald will get up to ITTL. He was an early SDF man - I can't decide whether he'd be more or less suited to that kind of party than Labour. The first instinct is to say less, but I can see why that would not neccessarily be so.

And what about Victor Grayson, while we're at it?

 

[EdT]

I wonder what MacDonald will get up to ITTL. He was an early SDF man - I can't decide whether he'd be more or less suited to that kind of party than Labour. The first instinct is to say less, but I can see why that would not neccessarily be so.

And what about Victor Grayson, while we're at it?

I'm not that sure about Macdonald myself. I think, on balance, that he would probably follow the TUC and the likes of Lloyd George into Unionism, and then stay there. That said, I could also see him as a rather reluctant BSP member.

I don't have any important plans for him, but his political career will be very briefly referred to in one of the 'Where are the Now" interviews.


And as for Grayson, heh- he's a bit important ITTL, as he's in charge of the BSP when Britain has it's undemcratic turn. The events leading up to this will be covered in the novel I'm planning, but suffice to say he's the centre of a lot of intrigue.

As a side note, rather wonderfully it's quite possible that Grayson was Randolph Churchill's illegitimate nephew (or, perhaps, heh, son). There's a lot of circumstantial evidence- similarity of looks, odd discrepancies in Grayson's supposedly working-class background, money coming from nowhere to fund a period of private schooling, his lack of interest or feeling for his family, expensive tastes and money to pay for it, and so on. That, and his grandmother rambling on about "The Marlboroughs" on her deathbed...

 

[EdT]

Also, I just realised that FaBR won a Turtledove Award- many thanks to all my loyal readers, and please do vote in the run-off thing!

 

[NCW]

Where is Winston ?

As a matter of interest, where is Winston during this war ? In OTL, he graduated from Sandhurst in December 1894. Assuming that he went there ITTL, that would put him in line to serve somewhere.

With his father able to provide a more generous allowance than he received in OTL, I guess that he might be less likely to become a war correspondant.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[V-J]

That said, I could also see him as a rather reluctant BSP member.

My thinking was this: that MacDonald is the great showman. He's the man who didn't have a clue about government, but knew how to get there. He's the man who was more than a bit in love with the middle and upper classes.

Which means that he could legitimately be drawn either way; the BSP is obviously going to be more middle-class, but, equally, more dogmatic. So a difficult choice. I can see him going one way initially, and then maybe defecting later on.

And as for Grayson, heh- he's a bit important ITTL, as he's in charge of the BSP when Britain has it's undemcratic turn. The events leading up to this will be covered in the novel I'm planning, but suffice to say he's the centre of a lot of intrigue.

Nice.

As a side note, rather wonderfully it's quite possible that Grayson was Randolph Churchill's illegitimate nephew (or, perhaps, heh, son). There's a lot of circumstantial evidence- similarity of looks, odd discrepancies in Grayson's supposedly working-class background, money coming from nowhere to fund a period of private schooling, his lack of interest or feeling for his family, expensive tastes and money to pay for it, and so on. That, and his grandmother rambling on about "The Marlboroughs" on her deathbed...

Lord. Didn't know that. Intrigue ahoy with that lot!

I don't want to make a habit of this, but I'd be interested in what Annie Besant is doing - I have a sneaking admiration for her.

 

[EdT]

As a matter of interest, where is Winston during this war ? In OTL, he graduated from Sandhurst in December 1894. Assuming that he went there ITTL, that would put him in line to serve somewhere.

With his father able to provide a more generous allowance than he received in OTL, I guess that he might be less likely to become a war correspondant.

Cheers,
Nigel.

I suspect that Winston won't see active service ITTL, and it's something that'll rankle with him, Enoch Powell-style; not so much because he's such a good staff officer, but just because the war ends before he gets a decent posting. After that, I see his career path as broadly similar to OTL, if a little delayed; he'll stay in the army for a bit, maybe do some journalism on the side and then drift into politics where his name will be rather helpful.

My thinking was this: that MacDonald is the great showman. He's the man who didn't have a clue about government, but knew how to get there. He's the man who was more than a bit in love with the middle and upper classes.

Which means that he could legitimately be drawn either way; the BSP is obviously going to be more middle-class, but, equally, more dogmatic. So a difficult choice. I can see him going one way initially, and then maybe defecting later on.

Quite possible- indeed, it would be amusing to see him abandon the Unionists for the Socialists ITTL amidst much bad blood. I was intending to have him and Lloyd George having a bit of a 'gang of four' moment when the Unionists start getting repressive in the early 1920s.

I don't want to make a habit of this, but I'd be interested in what Annie Besant is doing - I have a sneaking admiration for her.

I know what you mean- impressive lady. Ms Besant has been mentioned a few times so far; she's elected to London County Council in 1888, and is a founding member of the British Socialist Party. All of this somewhat butterfles away the whole Theosophy thing, and absent this distraction I expect her to remain in politics, become one of the first female MPs, and end up in India as part of an attempt to organise the BSP more widely across the Empire.

 

[EdT]

Hi all, just thought I'd post to say that although I was hoping to have the next post up quite soon, I now won't really have the time to finish it before I have to, er, go back to my constituency and prepare for Government.

This means that there almost certainly won't be any new posts until mid May, or thereabouts. Fight and Be Right is most definitely not dead! But it is going to be on hold for a few months while the real world (if a General Election campaign can really be called 'the real world' ) intervenes. Apologies but I'll be back soon enough...

 

[maverick]

Damn you, Gordon Brown! WHY must YOU RUIN EVERYTHING?!?

 

[Jape]

Quite possible- indeed, it would be amusing to see him abandon the Unionists for the Socialists ITTL amidst much bad blood. I was intending to have him and Lloyd George having a bit of a 'gang of four' moment when the Unionists start getting repressive in the early 1920s.

I was pondering MacDonald's role as well. From what you've suggested, I assume the Unionists remain very much the monopolistic massenpartei until their shift to authoritarianism. Plenty of gerrymandering and bread for the plebs etc.

As such I agree with your idea for him, I can't really see him choosing a militant BSP even as dissent picks up. Dare I say he goes with the Whigs? Actually the gang of four idea does sound juicy. He seems a perfect candidate for a Kerensky figure following the war's end IMO.

 

[Michael Canaris]

Hi all, just thought I'd post to say that although I was hoping to have the next post up quite soon, I now won't really have the time to finish it before I have to, er, go back to my constituency and prepare for Government.

Good luck!

This means that there almost certainly won't be any new posts until mid May, or thereabouts.

Schweppes! Still, here's wishing all the best to you and your comrades until then.