Ottomans win Russo-Turkish War. Earliest possible Great War?

Going back to the OP, it could be ironic that Russia defeated by the Ottomans leads to Russia weakening China which leads to Japan winning earlier, and perhaps more strongly, against China. Which of course could lead to an earlier complete implosion of the Qing.

The Russo-Japanese War is often seen as one step on the chain of causality towards World War One (I think I mixed my metaphors!). But would it even happen, or might it happen later and more powerfully?

Consider that if Japan is able to defeat China earlier, then Russia, despite controlling more ex-Chinese land, is actually navally weaker and is also diplomatically weaker since beating up China doesn't really offset the loss in prestige from losing to the Ottomans.

If Japan ends up able to keep Liaoyang then Russian grievances will be stoked. But with the only available port being Vladivostock (well, only decent port since they also have Petropavlosk but it has the same problem, only worse) then any Russian naval build up in the wake of this is going to be problematic.

If there is a general Chinese collapse, and especially if Russia has puppetised or Khiva-ised Mongolia, then a Russian move on Manchuria as a whole might be seen in the mid to late 1890s. This would be a move whilst Japan holds Port Arthur. Korea would have been independentised after Japan defeated China and would be the battleground it was OTL, just with events ramped up a bit if things start off earlier.

Of course, a Japanese naval build up paid for by a Chinese indemnity, would if this happens earlier, result in a fleet of Majestics, or close equivalents. Good ships but likely to be the equal of, or maybe inferior of, what Russia gets round to building and sending - because the Japanese spent their money earlier.

So, would an earlier stronger Japan in this scenario lead to a Russian victory in a late 1890s Russo-Japanese War?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I doubt whether this would lead directly to a strong Japan. Keep in mind that at this point the Japanese were rapidly industrializing and arming themselves - even a Russo-Japanese war that is a year or two earlier could lead to a Japanese defeat, even against a weaker Russia. The 1905 war was a darn close run thing, and the Japanese were lucky that it ended before their finances broke.

A weaker Russia could also make a harder opponent in that there might be more determination to fight to the bitter end and (hopefully) the vindication of the country and erase the humiliations of the past.

Also, a China that is under more pressure may not collapse. The Chinese collapse into feuding warlords wasn't pre-determined - if the situation worsens much more rapidly in the late 19th C, we might instead see a stronger and more centralized reform movement get a grip on the country early on, due to it being obvious much earlier that the country needed radical reform, and arguing about what sort of radical reform might see China colonized.

Of course, China may just collapse, and Japan may win an earlier Russo-Japanese war, I'm just pointing out that there are very real alternative paths.

fasquardon
 
From what I gather Russian interest in Ili was more about securing freedom of trade and stability in the region then territorial ambition, eventhough it seems that they were ready for that. Their pretext was occupying it on the behalf of the Qing until the later regains ability to maintain order and they avoided suggesting possible border demarcation to the Qings. The article I read didn't mention the impasse that lasted until 1883 and it mentioned that Russia already pulled off by 1882 since their demand for duty-free trade right was confirmed by The Qing. It's also mentioned that the region's productivity dwindled after Yaqub-Bek's rebellion, contrary to Russian interest, but it was also met with abject disappointment by Russian military. Will Russian military, after a disastrous defeat in Ottoman, be in any position to steer the state towards another war just a few years after ?
 
If Russia loses then Austria (and Britain) don't have an incentive to revise the San Stefano Treaty - as there is no San Stefano treaty.

The Austrian position on the BAlkans is much more secure (as Austria mainly wanted to prevent a large slavic state)

= much better Austrian/Russian relations in the long run.

Russia might even stay close to Germany and Austria (Dreikaiserbund/abkommen)

THis might result in a much more "secure" Germany as the Russian French "bloc" is likely butterflied away (Russia on good terms with Austria and Germany = russia concentrates east)

This might have delayed any great war a long time and the great war would have been fought in a much different constellation - if it happened)

Basically Austria/Russia/Germany vs France/UK/Italy/OE/Japan likely

I am wondering if Germany ahd built a big fleet if Russia is an ally
 
I have come to doubt that Dreikaiserbund could've really held, except if we can extend Bismarck chancellorship by 2 decades, or both Germany and Russia get different cast of monarchs. Taking even the characters aside, there was conflicting economic interests between both empires in the way that might necessitates one party to capitulate. Perhaps if Germany would cease protectionism against Russian goods, or even invite Russia to Zollverein, but it's hard to imagine anyone in Germany attempting and getting away with it and his decisions unreversed immediately afterwards.
 
How much, do you think, would the construction of Siberian railway and military reform be accelerated by defeat in 1878 ? I'd like to imagine, nothing tipping the budget allocation, meaning not really different from OTL. Are you sure someone like Alex III will go to war over a scrap of land in China ?
If the idea was to get more traction then one possibility could be to start sending out surveyors earlier and in larger numbers since whilst that will cost a bit more money it won't be serious amounts and could actually save them cash in the long-term if they have a better idea of what's ahead of them and where best to build.
 
Interesting post about Russia and Japan

Another interesting post about Russia and Japan

From what I gather Russian interest in Ili was more about securing freedom of trade and stability in the region then territorial ambition, eventhough it seems that they were ready for that.....Will Russian military, after a disastrous defeat in Ottoman, be in any position to steer the state towards another war just a few years after ?

Hmm... from what I can gather, Russia and Japan are doomed to head a collision course with one another once both nations focused their attentions on Asia. It's possible - more likely, probable - that a beaten Russia would try and assert herself in the Far East, starting with the farthest edges (Ili) and moving from then on. However, Ridwan does have a point in that regional productivity of the land (or lack thereof) plays a factor, and a weakened Russia might not be in a state to wage war for at least the early 1880's, particularly for a nation that is in the process of accepting trade.

However, I think that by the later half of the decade Russia would try to gain a foothold in the east and will (I think) try and influence the outer edges of Qing China, particularly the more productive areas. Population resettlement would be likely, with Ukrainians and Russians being asked to farm the hinterlands, raising the ire of China and possibly Japan. However, I can't help but think that Russia would also try and build up her land power first rather than building up a navy, especially if the army bore the brunt of the Russo-Turkish War. With this in mind, could it be possible that a Russo-Japanese War end with a lopsided victory? Russia winning on the ground but losing at sea, and Japan's finances braking apart before anything more could be done?

If Russia loses then Austria (and Britain) don't have an incentive to revise the San Stefano Treaty - as there is no San Stefano treaty.

The Austrian position on the BAlkans is much more secure (as Austria mainly wanted to prevent a large slavic state)

= much better Austrian/Russian relations in the long run.

Russia might even stay close to Germany and Austria (Dreikaiserbund/abkommen)

THis might result in a much more "secure" Germany as the Russian French "bloc" is likely butterflied away (Russia on good terms with Austria and Germany = russia concentrates east)

This might have delayed any great war a long time and the great war would have been fought in a much different constellation - if it happened)

Basically Austria/Russia/Germany vs France/UK/Italy/OE/Japan likely

I am wondering if Germany ahd built a big fleet if Russia is an ally

I have come to doubt that Dreikaiserbund could've really held, except if we can extend Bismarck chancellorship by 2 decades, or both Germany and Russia get different cast of monarchs. Taking even the characters aside, there was conflicting economic interests between both empires in the way that might necessitates one party to capitulate. Perhaps if Germany would cease protectionism against Russian goods, or even invite Russia to Zollverein, but it's hard to imagine anyone in Germany attempting and getting away with it and his decisions unreversed immediately afterwards.

I think I have to agree on Ridwan with this one. A defeated Russia could very well turn to the right, especially if the more competent/astute Tsars and ministers ends up assassinated (very highly probable) and nationalists/incompetents gain influence in the court and military (less probable, but possible). A Russian-Austrian friendship, I can see that. A Russian-German one? Not as far as I can see. Wasn't one of Germany's "aims" in OTL WWI was to smash Russian industry before it overtook Germany's? I can't recall where I learned that info, but I think Germany did have her own reasons to antagonize Russia.

With that in mind, could it possible for an alternate World War/Great European War to be Russia/France vs. Britain/Germany, with Italy and the OE joining the winning horse? I dunno much about Austria-Hungary, but from what I did learn the country could end up on either side of the war (Attaching with Germany/Russia, especially C.P Rudolph saying that A-H's future lies in Constantinople...)

If the idea was to get more traction then one possibility could be to start sending out surveyors earlier and in larger numbers since whilst that will cost a bit more money it won't be serious amounts and could actually save them cash in the long-term if they have a better idea of what's ahead of them and where best to build.

Wait, so there could be an earlier and better Trans-Siberian Railroad? This is interesting.
 
Wait, so there could be an earlier and better Trans-Siberian Railroad? This is interesting.
I'd have to go back and look at things since my memory is generally pretty awful and its been a while but the idea of a railway into Siberia had been knocking around since the mid-1850s but didn't find official favour in Saint Petersburg until the mid-1880s under Alexander III. So the suggestion of a railway gets made and kicked about for a bit before a decision gets made in lets say 1860 to finance a major series of surveys to find the best route with it taking five years. That would then give you up to twenty years or so to raise the financing needed and start the project ahead of out timeline. With a better idea of the route and its challenges it gives the government a more accurate idea of the costs, the logistical challenges and an earlier start would mean they wouldn't be under such a large time pressure to complete.
 
I dont disagree that with reasonable monarchs on at least one side, Poland will remain quiet. Between Nicky and Willie though...

Nicky and Willie were there in OTL, and there were no uprisings until one of them was dead and the other had run away.
 
Top