Russia wins Russo-Japanese War

This is one which I can't recall having seen for a while but has the potential to be pretty major.
What if Russia won the said war?

The effects could be pretty large, Russia gains hegenomy over Korea rather than Japan leaving Japan stuck on its island and expansion into China quite a bit harder. How would things develop differently for Japan?
And Russia...revolution was already brewing...butterflies happen of course but...if a WW1 and Russian revolution did occur could you get more of a Japanese intervention?
And what of Korea? Russian occupation would likely be much much lighter, probally not even annexation, just a protectorate. Perhaps it could develop into a sort of east asian Finland? A nice rich country.
 
I think that, if Russia still falls into revolution, a Japanese reconquest of the peninsula is likely, but it would be very bloody, as the Japanese would have to fight an organized force of Reds and Whites, with the Entente keeping an eye on them to some extent.

Failing that, Japan may turn its attentions in the future more toward pacific islands than China. The Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, perhaps as far as Midway or even a future attempt at conquering Hawaii (probably failing, though).
 

mowque

Banned
How did they win? Meaning, just the naval end or did they win on land as well? Was it long and hard, or quick and easy? Russian genius or Japanese blundering?
 
And what of Korea? Russian occupation would likely be much much lighter, probally not even annexation, just a protectorate.

Or even less. The Russian government was less interested in Korea itself than securing and consolidating the Russian dominance in Manchuria.
 
How did they win? Meaning, just the naval end or did they win on land as well? Was it long and hard, or quick and easy? Russian genius or Japanese blundering?

The easiest way for the Russians to win is to not send the 2nd Pacific Squadron. The defeat at Tsushima, even after the fall of Port Arthur their original destination, forestalled an eventual Japanese defeat thru exhaustion. If the war remains a land war the Russians are falling back upon their supply lines and forcing the Japanese to extend their's. Financially the Japanese were on the ropes and running out of money.
 
Actually the Russians could have won if they just kept the war going longer since the Japanese despite all their victories were seriously hurting financially and if the war keeps going longer then it wouldn't be able to financially support it further.

Regardless of how they lose it, Japan's imperial ambitions are going to be stunted and it's not going to become a great power. This has other effects relating to Great Britain but what exactly I can't remember at this time.

As for Russia, well this might help postpone revolution a bit longer but not forever. As others have said Korea and Manchuria are going to fall under Russian influence, though to what extent I have no idea. Probably occupation for Manchuria, and protectorate for Korea. I do know that Port Arthur will be annexed by the Russians since it was the biggest thing they wanted out of the war.
 
Interesting thoughts. If Japan, viewed in Great Britain as sort of a protege, had been drained to the point where development and expansion were stunted, my sense is that the UK would have turned overtly to the US to develop some sort of naval partnership. With TR in the White House at the time, I believe such overtures would have had a very friendly reception. That (lack of) development on Japan's part either delays or denies the Pacific component of the Second World War: Japan would be in no position to try anything with respect to Pearl Harbor, the Phillippines, or any other part of Asia for several decades to come.

That in turn suggests that had the Great War unfolded as it did in OTL (not too bad an assumption, given the relatively minimal Pacific/Far East component), a second conflict would have been entirely European (well, essentially). Come to think of it, there wouldn't have been an Axis as we know/knew it: pretty much Nazi Germany taking on other powers. I suspect that one would have been over faster, since, presuming US involvement, all energies would be focused on defeating Germany. It also suggests that had nuclear weapons been developed, a German industrial city like Essen, perhaps, might now be a byword instead of Hiroshima.
 
Interesting thoughts. If Japan, viewed in Great Britain as sort of a protege, had been drained to the point where development and expansion were stunted, my sense is that the UK would have turned overtly to the US to develop some sort of naval partnership. With TR in the White House at the time, I believe such overtures would have had a very friendly reception. That (lack of) development on Japan's part either delays or denies the Pacific component of the Second World War: Japan would be in no position to try anything with respect to Pearl Harbor, the Phillippines, or any other part of Asia for several decades to come.

That in turn suggests that had the Great War unfolded as it did in OTL (not too bad an assumption, given the relatively minimal Pacific/Far East component), a second conflict would have been entirely European (well, essentially). Come to think of it, there wouldn't have been an Axis as we know/knew it: pretty much Nazi Germany taking on other powers. I suspect that one would have been over faster, since, presuming US involvement, all energies would be focused on defeating Germany. It also suggests that had nuclear weapons been developed, a German industrial city like Essen, perhaps, might now be a byword instead of Hiroshima.

1940LaSalle

If you avoid any serious tension in the Far East then you probably avoid or greatly shorten WWII as well. One of the big problems for Britain that prompted many supporters of appeasement, was that Britain thought it couldn't fight Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time. [Which of course simply delayed matters until we faced the three of them under markedly less favourable circumstances.:(] You might see a more confident Britain facing up to Hitler over Munich, or possibly even Mussolini over Ethiopia.

On the other hand, if Japan is kept weak throughout the period, which is probably unlikely, you may have problems with a powerful Russia [imperialist or communist] and/or a unified and aggressive China.;)

Steve
 
I really need to read up on Japanese politics, I'll have to add that to my list of things to learn alongside Chinese history.
I wonder what would happen with the political situation there- the hawks lose influence due to their defeat? Or the need for revenge and restoration of honour pushes them onwards?
 
1940LaSalle

If you avoid any serious tension in the Far East then you probably avoid or greatly shorten WWII as well. One of the big problems for Britain that prompted many supporters of appeasement, was that Britain thought it couldn't fight Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time. [Which of course simply delayed matters until we faced the three of them under markedly less favourable circumstances.:(] You might see a more confident Britain facing up to Hitler over Munich, or possibly even Mussolini over Ethiopia.

On the other hand, if Japan is kept weak throughout the period, which is probably unlikely, you may have problems with a powerful Russia [imperialist or communist] and/or a unified and aggressive China.;)

Steve

But, the butterflies...:(

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War have a symbiotic effect on the 1905 Revolution? I.e the string of defeats against Japan lead to unrest, which hurt the Russian war effort which caused more defeats which just made tensions larger? If Russia wins the war by exhaustion, and they manage to get a lot of troops into Siberia, I could definately see a de facto Russian Manchuria, and maybe even a forced loosening of Japanese control of Korea (still a puppet in 1905, IIRC).
 
But, the butterflies...:(

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War have a symbiotic effect on the 1905 Revolution? I.e the string of defeats against Japan lead to unrest, which hurt the Russian war effort which caused more defeats which just made tensions larger? If Russia wins the war by exhaustion, and they manage to get a lot of troops into Siberia, I could definately see a de facto Russian Manchuria, and maybe even a forced loosening of Japanese control of Korea (still a puppet in 1905, IIRC).

Gosing

That's my point. You would have so many butterflies that if WWI still occurs it could well be drastically different. For instance, while it did prompt reforms the defeat and revolutionary unrest made Russia look significantly weaker, both to it's leaders and other powers. As such, if it wins, even if after a fairly tough fight, it will be more confident and seen as more of a threat. Hence Germany might feel the need to fight it earlier, before it gets too powerful. Russia might be more confident and hence less willing to come to terms with Britain. Therefore you might see an Anglo-German alliance, although probably the OTL entente is still more likely.

Even with the same powers on each side a stronger [in appearance if not actuality possibly] Russia and weaker Japan will have impacts. For instance if Germany decides it can't knock out France in time to face Russia and concentrates its power eastwards no attack through Belgium could result in a neutral Britain, at least for a while.

Steve
 
Interesting thoughts. If Japan, viewed in Great Britain as sort of a protege, had been drained to the point where development and expansion were stunted, my sense is that the UK would have turned overtly to the US to develop some sort of naval partnership. With TR in the White House at the time, I believe such overtures would have had a very friendly reception.
I would say very unlikely.

IMO Britain would have had as much to fear from a victorious and expansionist Russia (allied with France), as it would have from Germany. And would have persued a policy of maintaining the balance of power between Russia and Germany.
 
Top