Japanese Victory in Russo-Japanese War

The Poarter

Banned
What if during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan annihilated the Russian army and navy?

In this case they had a steady 3:1 kill loss ratio. By the end of the War Japan had, in this timeline lost 47,000 soldiers.

It had killed 141,000 Russian soldiers however.

How does this effect the peace treaty and the rest of the World?
 
What if during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan annihilated the Russian army and navy?

In this case they had a steady 3:1 kill loss ratio. By the end of the War Japan had, in this timeline lost 47,000 soldiers.

It had killed 141,000 Russian soldiers however.

How does this effect the peace treaty and the rest of the World?

The Navy was annihilated; that is what makes Tsushima so special and Jutland look so disappointing though the latter was more in line with historical norms (if you treat the Age of Sail as setting the norm) and the 1905 battle the historical outlier.

One of the reasons though the Japanese did so well was because the Russians simply could not funnel their entire army along a narrow track to the Far East...which also conversely prevents the Japanese from being able to smash it up to the same degree as the Russian Imperial Navy but likely is the reason they were able to win in the first place.

Japanese performance against the Soviets who had better communications links was less than stellar.
 
We did win

Uh...we did win. We drove the Russians from Manchuria and destroyed the Russian Navy at Tsushima. Or perhaps when you say 'win' you're referring to a not-disappointing conclusion to the war, wherein Teddy Roosevelt fails to limit Japan's demands: Japan gains all of Karafuto with Kuril along with heavy indemnities. Not sure how that happens barring strong British backing for Japan, but the butterflies...

...Russia's war effort in WWI will probably be even less stellar, with their finances still reeling from indemnities to Japan, and cooler relations between Britain and America over the former's support of Japan in Karafuto. In the long-term, Britain's backing would mean Japan would have strong incentive to keep the Anglo-Japanese Alliance strong, probably involving Japan maintaining support for the British Colonial Empire in SE Asia and British support for Japanese interests in Manchuria (but not in the Chinese heartland). Britain would also serve as a moderating influence on Japan...oh the butterflies of that alone...I think I see the Taisho Democracy even going for constitutional reforms in that case :eek::D:cool:
 

The Poarter

Banned
Uh...we did win. We drove the Russians from Manchuria and destroyed the Russian Navy at Tsushima. Or perhaps when you say 'win' you're referring to a not-disappointing conclusion to the war, wherein Teddy Roosevelt fails to limit Japan's demands: Japan gains all of Karafuto with Kuril along with heavy indemnities. Not sure how that happens barring strong British backing for Japan, but the butterflies...

...Russia's war effort in WWI will probably be even less stellar, with their finances still reeling from indemnities to Japan, and cooler relations between Britain and America over the former's support of Japan in Karafuto. In the long-term, Britain's backing would mean Japan would have strong incentive to keep the Anglo-Japanese Alliance strong, probably involving Japan maintaining support for the British Colonial Empire in SE Asia and British support for Japanese interests in Manchuria (but not in the Chinese heartland). Britain would also serve as a moderating influence on Japan...oh the butterflies of that alone...I think I see the Taisho Democracy even going for constitutional reforms in that case :eek::D:cool:

Thank you. This is what I'm after. In this case Britain was morally obligated to support Japan because it annihilated Russia so badly in this timeline. Now Britain and America fully supports Japan. So what happens to the rest of the World?
 
Thank you. This is what I'm after. In this case Britain was morally obligated to support Japan because it annihilated Russia so badly in this timeline. Now Britain and America fully supports Japan. So what happens to the rest of the World?

I don't think America would support Japan here, given Roosevelt's failure to prevent Japan from humiliating Russia even further. Britain though...hmm, well if Japan fully supports Britain's colonial empire in SE Asia in exchange for British support for Japanese interests in Manchuria, well we might see Manchuria annexed by Japan (as opposed to the IJA puppet state of Manchukuo) as early as 1928 or so, when the Chinese Civil War kicks up. America will protest, but with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance still strong, Britain will probably recognize it, and Europe and most of the rest of the world will follow.

There will probably be no Second Sino-Japanese War...as I posted earlier, one probable condition to a renewal of alliance (apart from Japan's support of Britain ongoing empire and Britain's support for Japan in Manchuria) would be the Chinese heartland being left alone. A bilateral trade deal between the two empires would probably be signed in 1930, in a reaction to the global economic downturn of the time...

...no Pacific War, but if WWII still goes as on - with a possible Axis China considering their claim on Manchuria and Britain's support for Japan's colonization of that territory - we might see a joint US-British Protectorate over Indochina once the Fall of France occurs. The US probably won't make noises over this though: with no war between Japan and China/China in the Axis camp, and the British co-participating in the protectorate FDR will probably be convinced to turn a reluctant blind eye.

No idea after the war...though we might see the IJN making a reverse trip around the world to fight the Germans in the North Atlantic, and the British helping the Japanese with their inferior ASW/AA capabilities. Hell, even before the war begins, continued British-Japanese good relations/alliance might see improvements in places of IJN ship design that were lacking.
 
Uh...we did win. We drove the Russians from Manchuria and destroyed the Russian Navy at Tsushima. Or perhaps when you say 'win' you're referring to a not-disappointing conclusion to the war, wherein Teddy Roosevelt fails to limit Japan's demands: Japan gains all of Karafuto with Kuril along with heavy indemnities. Not sure how that happens barring strong British backing for Japan, but the butterflies...

...Russia's war effort in WWI will probably be even less stellar, with their finances still reeling from indemnities to Japan, and cooler relations between Britain and America over the former's support of Japan in Karafuto. In the long-term, Britain's backing would mean Japan would have strong incentive to keep the Anglo-Japanese Alliance strong, probably involving Japan maintaining support for the British Colonial Empire in SE Asia and British support for Japanese interests in Manchuria (but not in the Chinese heartland). Britain would also serve as a moderating influence on Japan...oh the butterflies of that alone...I think I see the Taisho Democracy even going for constitutional reforms in that case :eek::D:cool:

Yeah, I don't know where he got the idea Russia won. In any case Japan would probably have to win even quicker or be in better financial shape earlier or have the British agree to provide Japan with cheap loans to get substantially better terms.. Japan was in very poor fiscal shape after the war which is why both sides agreed to have Roosevelt arbitrate.
 
I don't think America would support Japan here, given Roosevelt's failure to prevent Japan from humiliating Russia even further. Britain though...hmm, well if Japan fully supports Britain's colonial empire in SE Asia in exchange for British support for Japanese interests in Manchuria, well we might see Manchuria annexed by Japan (as opposed to the IJA puppet state of Manchukuo) as early as 1928 or so, when the Chinese Civil War kicks up. America will protest, but with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance still strong, Britain will probably recognize it, and Europe and most of the rest of the world will follow.

There will probably be no Second Sino-Japanese War...as I posted earlier, one probable condition to a renewal of alliance (apart from Japan's support of Britain ongoing empire and Britain's support for Japan in Manchuria) would be the Chinese heartland being left alone. A bilateral trade deal between the two empires would probably be signed in 1930, in a reaction to the global economic downturn of the time...

...no Pacific War, but if WWII still goes as on - with a possible Axis China considering their claim on Manchuria and Britain's support for Japan's colonization of that territory - we might see a joint US-British Protectorate over Indochina once the Fall of France occurs. The US probably won't make noises over this though: with no war between Japan and China/China in the Axis camp, and the British co-participating in the protectorate FDR will probably be convinced to turn a reluctant blind eye.

No idea after the war...though we might see the IJN making a reverse trip around the world to fight the Germans in the North Atlantic, and the British helping the Japanese with their inferior ASW/AA capabilities. Hell, even before the war begins, continued British-Japanese good relations/alliance might see improvements in places of IJN ship design that were lacking.

The problem then is how to get the alliance renewed as the US was putting heavy pressure on GB not to do so. If GB has to choose between the US and Japan in the late 19th and later the US is going to win.
 
The problem then is how to get the alliance renewed as the US was putting heavy pressure on GB not to do so. If GB has to choose between the US and Japan in the late 19th and later the US is going to win.

Even if they don't renew it officially, they can make an unofficial agreement like the Entente Cordiale - which contrary to popular belief did not actually exist on paper (Britain was not legally-obligated to assist France) - based on the idea that Britain would support Japan's interests in Manchuria and Japan would support Britain's interests in SE Asia. And once the Great Depression kicks in - before FDR becomes president that is - no one would really care about a bilateral trade deal between Britain and Japan, and Britain could get favorable rates on Manchurian raw materials if Japan annexes Manchuria about the same time. America might make noises, but given the economic status of the world at the time and the strong isolationist trends in America, what can they do about it?
 
Britain only allied with Japan before the Russo-Japanese War because they viewed Russia as an existential threat to the Raj.

After the war showed how weak Russia actually was on the periphery of her empire, Britain was soon able to settle mutual spheres of interests in Central Asia and end the Great Game with terms that were rather beneficial for London - and the alliance with Japan became a liability rather than asset due the improving Anglo-American relations, and thus it was quietly abandoned.
 
Even if they don't renew it officially, they can make an unofficial agreement like the Entente Cordiale - which contrary to popular belief did not actually exist on paper (Britain was not legally-obligated to assist France) - based on the idea that Britain would support Japan's interests in Manchuria and Japan would support Britain's interests in SE Asia. And once the Great Depression kicks in - before FDR becomes president that is - no one would really care about a bilateral trade deal between Britain and Japan, and Britain could get favorable rates on Manchurian raw materials if Japan annexes Manchuria about the same time. America might make noises, but given the economic status of the world at the time and the strong isolationist trends in America, what can they do about it?

You have a point and the US government would have a hard time explaining a diplomatic incident with England when it can't even show a piece of paper linking the two. This is particularly true since the US was pretty isolationist at the time.
 
Britain only allied with Japan before the Russo-Japanese War because they viewed Russia as an existential threat to the Raj.

After the war showed how weak Russia actually was on the periphery of her empire, Britain was soon able to settle mutual spheres of interests in Central Asia and end the Great Game with terms that were rather beneficial for London - and the alliance with Japan became a liability rather than asset due the improving Anglo-American relations, and thus it was quietly abandoned.

Depends...the Soviets will be on the rise after the war, America sliding back into isolationism after the fiasco at Versailles, and with Japan not so revanchist/anti-Western (a lot of Japan's anti-Western sentiments were born out of sentiments of being cheated after the Russo-Japanese War), the alliance or at least an unofficial understanding could be useful, especially in light of the Russian Civil War turning in favor of the Reds.

EDIT: Actually an informal understanding between Britain and America would be looked upon favorably by the isolationists (which were a majority at the time). Even without the alliance, Japan still has the biggest navy in the Far East, and while everyone knows (assuming Japan is more reasonable than in OTL since they have less reason to distrust/dismiss the West out of hand) that America could crush Japan if need be, the isolationists will not be too happy at the thought of having to do that. An informal understanding would allow for the alliance - a threat to US interests in the Pacific - to be dissolved while allowing Britain to retain some influence with Japan...and thus potentially restrain them in China without the US having to lift a finger about it.
 
Last edited:
Depends...the Soviets will be on the rise after the war, America sliding back into isolationism after the fiasco at Versailles, and with Japan not so revanchist/anti-Western (a lot of Japan's anti-Western sentiments were born out of sentiments of being cheated after the Russo-Japanese War), the alliance or at least an unofficial understanding could be useful, especially in light of the Russian Civil War turning in favor of the Reds.

EDIT: Actually an informal understanding between Britain and America would be looked upon favorably by the isolationists (which were a majority at the time). Even without the alliance, Japan still has the biggest navy in the Far East, and while everyone knows (assuming Japan is more reasonable than in OTL since they have less reason to distrust/dismiss the West out of hand) that America could crush Japan if need be, the isolationists will not be too happy at the thought of having to do that. An informal understanding would allow for the alliance - a threat to US interests in the Pacific - to be dissolved while allowing Britain to retain some influence with Japan...and thus potentially restrain them in China without the US having to lift a finger about it.

I think WWII to a good extent was the refusal of both Germany and Japan to accept the outcomes of war with Japan's being the more inexplicable since it won.

To some extent the German people did not want to face the fact that they lost the war due to its own mistakes and had been "stabbed in the back". The Imperial Government didn't want to admit it was deeply in debt because of the war and on the brink of fiscal collapse. Japan actually did quite well in the negotiations. Russia recognized its annexation of Korea, evacuated Manchuria and leased Port Arthur. These are not insignificant gains for Japan.
 
Japan actually did quite well in the negotiations. Russia recognized its annexation of Korea, evacuated Manchuria and leased Port Arthur. These are not insignificant gains for Japan.

Korea was not annexed until 1910, Russia just recognized Korea as a Japanese sphere of interest in 1905. The resentment against the West - well America - was brought about by the sentiment that for all the losses in Manchuria - the Russians gave the IJA as good as they got - Japan's gains in return weren't sufficient. Kuril and Southern Sakhalin and no reparations...I admit Japan seeking all of Karafuto was greedy, but the latter...well you know what they say, money is the root of all evil :D

Ahem...anyway moving on...assuming a satisfactory peace treaty here, those sentiments of being cheated won't surface, which means Japan will be a bit more trusting to the West and less inclined to listen to extremists harping on.
 
Korea was not annexed until 1910, Russia just recognized Korea as a Japanese sphere of interest in 1905. The resentment against the West - well America - was brought about by the sentiment that for all the losses in Manchuria - the Russians gave the IJA as good as they got - Japan's gains in return weren't sufficient. Kuril and Southern Sakhalin and no reparations...I admit Japan seeking all of Karafuto was greedy, but the latter...well you know what they say, money is the root of all evil :D

Ahem...anyway moving on...assuming a satisfactory peace treaty here, those sentiments of being cheated won't surface, which means Japan will be a bit more trusting to the West and less inclined to listen to extremists harping on.

What's in a name? The 1905 treaty for all practical purposes guaranteed Japanese control over Korea and Manchuria. That should have been sufficient. We aren't talking about an insignificant island or two. That is a good deal of developed land. Japan was upset because it didn't get EVERYTHING it wanted.
 
I actually wonder how the war plays out if Japan can nab Port Arthur right out the gate. If Port Arthur falls, they wouldn't have the hideously expensive siege and maybe have better finances towards the end of the war. When Witte threatens to leave during the Treaty of Port Arthur, the Japanese can call his bluff because they aren't as concerned about their finances.

I don't know how you get Port Arthur earlier though, it was a pretty tough nut to crack. Maybe the Japanese wipe out the Russian Pacific fleet fleet earlier and the Russians decide it isn't worth defending without the fleet (as per OTL)?

If Russia suffered an even worse blow than OTL I think the 1905 revolution might be even more pronounced (but the Czar still manages to crush it I suspect).

Lastly, assuming Japan gets the whole of Sakhalin, there's a good chance they keep it at the end of World War 2 (if it hasn't been butterflied away). The Russians will have a hell of a time seizing it from them when Japan implodes near the end of the war.
 
I don't think that there's any way Japan could perform significantly better than they did. In terms of operations and having their act together, they were pretty much at peak optimum.

The only real variable would be Russia. The Russians would have to screw up colossally and do much, much worse. Political upheaval, civil war, some internal crises or other that just has them going 'Eh... Japan, fuggedaboutit!'

Assuming that Russia is in a Katatonic Krisis, then the sky is the limit. The Japanese could take Kamchatka Peninsula and Russian Manchuria, as well as Sakhalin Island. I don't know why they'd want it, apart from colouring in a map, but hey, some people were up for that sort of thing.
 
What if during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan annihilated the Russian army and navy?

In this case they had a steady 3:1 kill loss ratio. By the end of the War Japan had, in this timeline lost 47,000 soldiers.

It had killed 141,000 Russian soldiers however.

How does this effect the peace treaty and the rest of the World?

Japan can't afford those losses. Russia can. If Russia had held on just a bit longer, Japan would have been bankrupt, and had to take any terms Russia was willing to give.

Of course, Russia was not in great shape, either, so I suppose if some foreign power (Britain is the only plausible one), backed the Japanese with massive loans, Japan might have gotten much better terms.

But beating the Russians in a land war of attrition? They really can't.
 
What if during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan annihilated the Russian army and navy?

In this case they had a steady 3:1 kill loss ratio. By the end of the War Japan had, in this timeline lost 47,000 soldiers.

It had killed 141,000 Russian soldiers however.

How does this effect the peace treaty and the rest of the World?


Maybe if their are a lot more Russian causalities we will get more young, raw communist recruits filling the Russian Navy's ranks so I guess we might see some more Battleship Potemkins. I cant really see much more happening, maybe the Tsars are weakened further but they are already on their way out as it is.
 
Top