Maximum Japanese 1905 gains

What are the maximum gains the Japanese could get at Russia's expense?

All of Sakhalin/Karafuto, and gaining more influence in Manchuria (rather than just splitting the place), and getting an indemnity come to mind. Could Japan get Kamchatka?

Outer Manchuria seems too much given how defended Vladivostok was.


I put this in pre-1900 because I think we can include pre-war PODs to maximize this. Ergo, maybe Russia makes some bad decisions between 1895 and 1904 or Japan makes some very good decisions or the diplomatic situation is different.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Kraus

Banned
What are the maximum gains the Japanese could get at Russia's expense?

All of Sakhalin/Karafuto, and gaining more influence in Manchuria (rather than just splitting the place), and getting an indemnity come to mind. Could Japan get Kamchatka?

Outer Manchuria seems too much given how defended Vladivostok was.

They wanted the indemnity. It had been an expensive war, and they needed the money! Teddy Roosevelt's mediation favored the "white man" at the expense of the yellow man. Teddy Roosevelt was always a racist. That decision not to award the Japanese an indemnity poisoned U.S.- Japanese relations, from then on. The Japanese no longer trusted the West, for anything.

Of course, there was no way for the Japanese to utterly defeat Russia. Simply too much territory there. So, the U.S. figured they could give Japan whatever they wanted to, or nothing at all.
 
What are the maximum gains the Japanese could get at Russia's expense?

All of Sakhalin/Karafuto, and gaining more influence in Manchuria (rather than just splitting the place), and getting an indemnity come to mind.

Considering a realistic situation, Japan got pretty much most of what it could get. The main reason why it got THAT much was internal situation in Russia: the war was not popular and Witte hold an opinion that revolutionary disturbances within the empire may create unfavorable public opinion in France, thus endangering the next loan (Russian loans had been popular investment of the middle class in France because they were considered extremely safe so any serious revolutionary activities would be damaging for their reputation). So, in his letter to Nicholas, he insisted on a need of a speedy peace (as a side note, he was against the Manchurian adventure from the very beginning so it was something of "I told you so" thing).

Indemnity was out of question as a matter of principle. Sakhalin did not, yet, represented any serious interest except for being a fishing area. Basically, it was a bargaining chip for both sides.

As for Manchuria/Korea, they got pretty much everything they could: evacuation of the Russia troops, Russian leases in southern Manchuria, South Manchuria Railway and mining concessions. With 4 fresh Russian divisions arriving to Manchuria, Russian delegation declaring that they are ready to stop negotiations and leave (and Japan running out of the British money), and American media and public opinion siding with Russia, Komura yielded, and in exchange for the southern half of Sakhalin the Japanese dropped their claims for reparations.

Could Japan get Kamchatka?

Why and how would they get it? They were nowhere close and, unlike Manchuria, Kamchatka was Russian territory.


Outer Manchuria seems too much given how defended Vladivostok was.

It is also too much because the Japanese could not get there and it is rather difficult to get territory which you did not conquer. But Russian troops had been removed from it: Russia just retained Chinese Eastern Railway in northern Manchuria.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Considering a realistic situation, Japan got pretty much most of what it could get. The main reason why it got THAT much was internal situation in Russia: the war was not popular and Witte hold an opinion that revolutionary disturbances within the empire may create unfavorable public opinion in France, thus endangering the next loan (Russian loans had been popular investment of the middle class in France because they were considered extremely safe so any serious revolutionary activities would be damaging for their reputation). So, in his letter to Nicholas, he insisted on a need of a speedy peace (as a side note, he was against the Manchurian adventure from the very beginning so it was something of "I told you so" thing).

Indemnity was out of question as a matter of principle. Sakhalin did not, yet, represented any serious interest except for being a fishing area. Basically, it was a bargaining chip for both sides.

As for Manchuria/Korea, they got pretty much everything they could: evacuation of the Russia troops, Russian leases in southern Manchuria, South Manchuria Railway and mining concessions. With 4 fresh Russian divisions arriving to Manchuria, Russian delegation declaring that they are ready to stop negotiations and leave (and Japan running out of the British money), and American media and public opinion siding with Russia, Komura yielded, and in exchange for the southern half of Sakhalin the Japanese dropped their claims for reparations.



Why and how would they get it? They were nowhere close and, unlike Manchuria, Kamchatka was Russian territory.




It is also too much because the Japanese could not get there and it is rather difficult to get territory which you did not conquer. But Russian troops had been removed from it: Russia just retained Chinese Eastern Railway in northern Manchuria.


Alex, is that really you, from the now defunct soc.history.what-if in Google groups? I have a feeling we might get along a bit better on this highly moderated site.

Would you care to elaborate ever so slightly on why indemnity was "out of the question as a matter of principle"? I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't the slightest idea what you're talking about. After all, the Japanese had won the war, it had been very expensive, and, they needed the money. And, they were certainly most displeased that they didn't receive an indemnity. Possibly, if you'd been around at the time, you could have clarified the issue for the Japanese, as you can for us now. Obviously, the French paid an indemnity after the Franco-Prussian War, and the Germans paid, for a time, an indemnity after World War One. So, if you would be so kind as to enlighten us, do tell us why an indemnity was out of the question as a matter of principle, in this case of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically, and why it wasn't simply a matter of Teddy Roosevelt being a totally racist sleaze when he brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth.
 
They wanted the indemnity. It had been an expensive war, and they needed the money! Teddy Roosevelt's mediation favored the "white man" at the expense of the yellow man. Teddy Roosevelt was always a racist. That decision not to award the Japanese an indemnity poisoned U.S.- Japanese relations, from then on. The Japanese no longer trusted the West, for anything.

Of course, there was no way for the Japanese to utterly defeat Russia. Simply too much territory there. So, the U.S. figured they could give Japan whatever they wanted to, or nothing at all.
Are you taking this from the viewpoint of the Japanese militarists and propaganda? Because it does remind me of how they blamed Americans, when all they did was mediate a war the Japanese started and were bleeding themselves dry over.
 
Alex, is that really you, from the now defunct soc.history.what-if in Google groups? I have a feeling we might get along a bit better on this highly moderated site.

Would you care to elaborate ever so slightly on why indemnity was "out of the question as a matter of principle"? I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't the slightest idea what you're talking about. After all, the Japanese had won the war, it had been very expensive, and, they needed the money. And, they were certainly most displeased that they didn't receive an indemnity. Possibly, if you'd been around at the time, you could have clarified the issue for the Japanese, as you can for us now. Obviously, the French paid an indemnity after the Franco-Prussian War, and the Germans paid, for a time, an indemnity after World War One. So, if you would be so kind as to enlighten us, do tell us why an indemnity was out of the question as a matter of principle, in this case of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically, and why it wasn't simply a matter of Teddy Roosevelt being a totally racist sleaze when he brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth.

Whatever issues you may have had at some other place, this level of hostility is inappropriate here.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Whatever issues you may have had at some other place, this level of hostility is inappropriate here.

Excuse me, how could I possibly have been more polite? I'm simply requesting clarification, is that inappropriate on this site? Or, perhaps you consider that question hostile, too?

Or, is it the issue of calling Teddy Roosevelt a "racist sleaze", possibly? He was, I'm afraid, if you care to look into it.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Warning
Are you taking this from the viewpoint of the Japanese militarists and propaganda? Because it does remind me of how they blamed Americans, when all they did was mediate a war the Japanese started and were bleeding themselves dry over.

Well, I'm talking from the viewpoint of the Japanese people, who never forgave the Americans for the Treaty of Portsmouth. There was rioting in the streets over it, in Japan. And the Japanese government was fairly open at the time, moving in a democratic direction, this was a spontaneous reaction, not a government order. And, it was clearly related to Teddy Roosevelt, a racist hypocrite and poseur, totally unworthy of the office of president of the United States. Of course, he's got plenty of competition there! Relations between the U.S. and Japan never really recovered.
 
Well, I'm talking from the viewpoint of the Japanese people, who never forgave the Americans for the Treaty of Portsmouth. There was rioting in the streets over it, in Japan. And the Japanese government was fairly open at the time, moving in a democratic direction, this was a spontaneous reaction, not a government order. And, it was clearly related to Teddy Roosevelt, a racist hypocrite and poseur, totally unworthy of the office of president of the United States. Of course, he's got plenty of competition there! Relations between the U.S. and Japan never really recovered.
The Japanese attacked the Russians. And then expected a large indemnity, as well as the Russian Far East, in part due to how the Japanese military didn't mention how they were basically making footsoldiers charge into Russian bayonets. Ahhh, and the reason they wanted the indemnity? They didn't have money. Part of why they later went with a Fugu plan was because a Jewish-American banker managed to secure them loads for two hundred million dollars. Also, if the Japanese kept fighting... they might have lost. The Russians would just keep pouring people in, much like how the Japanese just dumped people on the beaches and in front of forts. Why and how could Roosevelt be seen as trying to sabotage the Japanese or anything? He thought the Russians were Autocrats. Did Theodore, who was never even at Portsmouth for the negotiations, somehow threaten the Japanese? How? Don't you think that, perhaps, we are just getting into a Stabbed in the Back style of myth?
 
Excuse me, how could I possibly have been more polite? I'm simply requesting clarification, is that inappropriate on this site? Or, perhaps you consider that question hostile, too?

Or, is it the issue of calling Teddy Roosevelt a "racist sleaze", possibly? He was, I'm afraid, if you care to look into it.
You were talking about being able to get along with someone better in a highly moderated place, suggesting a lot of past hostility or yelling. Otherwise there would be no real reason to bring it up.

Also, everyone back then used to be racist of one sort or another. Including against Russians, so you are going to be specific and give actual examples, not only of racism on TR's part, but on him actually doing negative things to Japan at all.
 
What are the maximum gains the Japanese could get at Russia's expense?

All of Sakhalin/Karafuto, and gaining more influence in Manchuria (rather than just splitting the place), and getting an indemnity come to mind. Could Japan get Kamchatka?
The Japanese sent people to check out northern Sakhalin. They didn't like it, didn't want it. I doubt they would want Kamchatka either, though they might come up in political horsetrading.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
The Japanese attacked the Russians. And then expected a large indemnity, as well as the Russian Far East, in part due to how the Japanese military didn't mention how they were basically making footsoldiers charge into Russian bayonets. Ahhh, and the reason they wanted the indemnity? They didn't have money. Part of why they later went with a Fugu plan was because a Jewish-American banker managed to secure them loads for two hundred million dollars. Also, if the Japanese kept fighting... they might have lost. The Russians would just keep pouring people in, much like how the Japanese just dumped people on the beaches and in front of forts. Why and how could Roosevelt be seen as trying to sabotage the Japanese or anything? He thought the Russians were Autocrats. Did Theodore, who was never even at Portsmouth for the negotiations, somehow threaten the Japanese? How? Don't you think that, perhaps, we are just getting into a Stabbed in the Back style of myth?

That's a legitimate question, my friend, and, a legitimate analogy to the German reaction to the Versailles treaty, at the end of the first world war.

There are obvious differences, of course. Japan won the war, she didn't lose it. And, she made gains in the war. She just failed to obtain any financial compensation.

Was it not in the power of the mediator to order indemnities? So, while it's unclear who inside Germany could have "stabbed Imperial Germany in the back", it's quite clear that, in terms of indemnities, the United States most definitely DID stab Japan in the back! No doubt, they felt they had excellent reasons for doing so, but, it was nevertheless their responsibility, wasn't it? If not, whose, then? Was it ever entirely clear that Russia would refuse to pay indemnities? Were they ever approached about it, by the mediator?
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
You were talking about being able to get along with someone better in a highly moderated place, suggesting a lot of past hostility or yelling. Otherwise there would be no real reason to bring it up.

Also, everyone back then used to be racist of one sort or another. Including against Russians, so you are going to be specific and give actual examples, not only of racism on TR's part, but on him actually doing negative things to Japan at all.

Oh, there's no way to get people's attention without yelling, on an un-moderated site! I'm just specifically saying that that's unnecessary here, so, what's the problem, exactly?

Well, TR's attitudes to blacks and native Americans were quite typical for his time, of course, so, that's bad enough. In particular, Teddy instigated the era of American Imperialism with all its racist overtones. And, TR started the widespread torturing of rebels in the Philippines using waterboarding, of course, murdering hundreds of thousands of people, horribly. And, that was contemporary with his treatment of the Japanese -- another Oriental people -- in the Treaty of Portsmouth, denying them the money they so desperately needed. Or, if you like, officials did so in his name, at Portsmouth. No doubt, the Japanese saw some parallel between the waterboarding and the way they themselves, as fellow Orientals, were being treated!
 
Well, TR's attitudes to blacks and native Americans were quite typical for his time, of course, so, that's bad enough. In particular, Teddy instigated the era of American Imperialism with all its racist overtones. And, TR started the widespread torturing of rebels in the Philippines using waterboarding, of course, murdering hundreds of thousands of people, horribly. And, that was contemporary with his treatment of the Japanese -- another Oriental people -- in the Treaty of Portsmouth, denying them the money they so desperately needed. Or, if you like, officials did so in his name, at Portsmouth. No doubt, the Japanese saw some parallel between the waterboarding and the way they themselves, as fellow Orientals, were being treated!

The money that the Japanese so desperately needed coming off of a victorious war of aggressive imperialism?

Also pretty damn sure that even at this early stage the Yamato superiority complex had set in—the Japanese would not have felt themselves equal to residents of the Philippines.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Alex, is that really you, from the now defunct soc.history.what-if in Google groups? I have a feeling we might get along a bit better on this highly moderated site.

Would you care to elaborate ever so slightly on why indemnity was "out of the question as a matter of principle"? I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't the slightest idea what you're talking about. After all, the Japanese had won the war, it had been very expensive, and, they needed the money. And, they were certainly most displeased that they didn't receive an indemnity. Possibly, if you'd been around at the time, you could have clarified the issue for the Japanese, as you can for us now. Obviously, the French paid an indemnity after the Franco-Prussian War, and the Germans paid, for a time, an indemnity after World War One. So, if you would be so kind as to enlighten us, do tell us why an indemnity was out of the question as a matter of principle, in this case of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically, and why it wasn't simply a matter of Teddy Roosevelt being a totally racist sleaze when he brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth.
You will NOT import outside drama onto this Board.

Period.

Dot.
 
Would you care to elaborate ever so slightly on why indemnity was "out of the question as a matter of principle"? I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't the slightest idea what you're talking about. After all, the Japanese had won the war, it had been very expensive, and, they needed the money. And, they were certainly most displeased that they didn't receive an indemnity. Possibly, if you'd been around at the time, you could have clarified the issue for the Japanese, as you can for us now. Obviously, the French paid an indemnity after the Franco-Prussian War, and the Germans paid, for a time, an indemnity after World War One. So, if you would be so kind as to enlighten us, do tell us why an indemnity was out of the question as a matter of principle, in this case of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically, and why it wasn't simply a matter of Teddy Roosevelt being a totally racist sleaze when he brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth.

A large part of France, including the capital, was occupied during the Franco-Prussian War, whereas Germany ended WW1 with a load of foreign armies poised to march across its borders. Japan, on the other hand, hadn't actually occupied any Russian territory, just a Russian satellite, and had no realistic way of striking at the Russian heartland. So, I don't think your examples are really analogous.
 
At most they get more money, the rest of Sakhalin and maybe more railway concessions in Manchuria. All that together would be a bonanza for Japan.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Well, I'm talking from the viewpoint of the Japanese people, who never forgave the Americans for the Treaty of Portsmouth. There was rioting in the streets over it, in Japan. And the Japanese government was fairly open at the time, moving in a democratic direction, this was a spontaneous reaction, not a government order. And, it was clearly related to Teddy Roosevelt, a racist hypocrite and poseur, totally unworthy of the office of president of the United States. Of course, he's got plenty of competition there! Relations between the U.S. and Japan never really recovered.


Do, specify what the moderators are warning me about. What are you talking about, exactly? If I'm unable to malign Teddy Roosevelt, I'm afraid you're going to have to ban me. Teddy was a racist hypocrite and a poseur, Sorry, them's the facts. Come to think of it. I think I'll post a thread to that effect.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Ban
You will NOT import outside drama onto this Board.

Period.

Dot.
I'm afraid we have a problem here. Do, ban me from the site. Frankly I couldn't care less. Also, I may decide to import my drama under other user name accounts. Let's get at it, buddy!
 
Top