Russia Wins the Russo-Japanese War and then Invades Japan

I never suggested otherwise. However, the OP explicitly asked for the destruction of Japan so as to prevent its rise in the future. Doing so entails an occupation, an occupation that would, as you yourself omitted, be impossible. Furthermore, these "raids" would undoubtedly cost the Russians more then the Japanese.

To do to Japan what Sherman did to the ante-bellum south is also impossible. Sherman was up against a relatively minuscule number of confederates, which allowed him to frequently divide his army in order to acquire supplies. Against the Japanese however, the Russians would not be able to employ this strategy. This isn't a repeat of the Opium wars, with a pre-industrial army getting slaughtered by a comparatively small industrial one. Rather, this is two modernized, industrial nations going up against one another. This era was defined and won by the number of men on the field. The Japanese, fighting on the home islands themselves, would be able to deploy as many men as they had guns. Thus, the Russians would be unable to break through and replicate Sherman's success at total war because they would be unable to periodically divide whatever army they manage to get onto the islands with a large Japanese presence looming over them.

To elaborate further, they cannot land chucks of the invasion force throughout numerous sections of the islands. They would simply get annihilated, one by one, by a larger combined Japanese force. So, that means they have to perform one massive landing and establish a beach-head. Knowing that they lacked the logistical capacity for such an undertaking, this scenario that you purpose is already rendered impossible. However, lets wave a magic wand and assume they get the bulk of the Russian army in the Far East onto one of the four islands. From there, they would then have to break out of the beachhead, which would entail defeating whatever combined army the Japanese manage to muster. After said army is defeated, only then can they pursue a strategy akin to Sherman's.

And all of that's assuming that the British, who have a very vested interest in containing Russia, reacting to the Russians invading, occupying, and dismantling their closest ally in the region with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Russo-Japanese war was in 1905, and neither side sought to directly annex Korea. The Japanese only annexed it in 1910.

Where is this base, then?
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Russo-Japanese war was in 1905, and neither side sought to directly annex Korea. The Japanese only annexed it in 1910.

Where is this base, then?

Furthermore, just because a country is annexed doesn't mean it's a viable launching pad to invade Japan; Korea took until the late 1920s to become a self-sufficient colony. I'm guessing the most ideal port is Pusan, since you can see Tsushima from there. But the Russians neither have legal grounds to do so nor would the British just watch this happen.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And one of the three Russian fleets is essentially land-locked

Russian Naval Spending actually far exceeds Japan's at the time- the Russians are faced with the problem of maintaining three fleets while Japan has the luxury of only one

And one of the three Russian fleets is essentially land-locked, so it comes down to the Russians having to build and maintain two fleets, in two separate theaters, that cannot reinforce each other in any sort of timely fashion... and to a theater where the Russians can not maintain any sort of shore establishment to compare with what the Japanese can provide their fleet - in theater.

This is not a recipe for success for the Russians - as it was not, historically.

The equivalent - in terms of time and distance - would be for the Germans to invade Japan.

Just to bring some facts into the discussion, by 1900, Russia's total industrial potential (100 = UK in 1900) was 47.5; Japan's was 13. Of course, the Russians have to divide the military and naval forces paid for by that economy by (at least) 3-4 theaters (Baltic, Eastern Europe, Black Sea/Southeastern Europe, Central Asia, Northeast Asia, etc.)... the Japanese really only have one, northeast Asia.

Historically, the Russians had 383,000 tons of warships in 1900; the Japanese had 187,000; of course, the Japanese only had to worry about the northwestern Pacific, and could concentrate their forces there; the Russians had to split their ships at least three ways, and one-third of 383,000 does not equal 187,000.

Best,
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
And one of the three Russian fleets is essentially land-locked, so it comes down to the Russians having to build and maintain two fleets, in two separate theaters, that cannot reinforce each other in any sort of timely fashion... and to a theater where the Russians can not maintain any sort of shore establishment to compare with what the Japanese can provide their fleet - in theater.

This is not a recipe for success for the Russians - as it was not, historically.

The equivalent - in terms of time and distance - would be for the Germans to invade Japan.

Just to bring some facts into the discussion, by 1900, Russia's total industrial potential (100 = UK in 1900) was 47.5; Japan's was 13. Of course, the Russians have to divide the military and naval forces paid for by that economy by (at least) 3-4 theaters (Baltic, Eastern Europe, Black Sea/Southeastern Europe, Central Asia, Northeast Asia, etc.)... the Japanese really only have one, northeast Asia.

Historically, the Russians had 383,000 tons of warships in 1900; the Japanese had 187,000; of course, the Japanese only had to worry about the northwestern Pacific, and could concentrate their forces there; the Russians had to split their ships at least three ways, and one-third of 383,000 does not equal 187,000.

Best,


Yes but not conclusive- the Russians get caught napping in the period 1895-98 but after that they are on a building surge. The Borodino Class and Osliaba (which was in the Baltic) was equal to the entire battleship component of the Japanese Fleet. United it would have been a much different war

The Russians were indifferent to the Black Sea- very little building there at all and the Baltic had essentially been abandoned- the Russians simply don't fear a German attack and British attacks are unlikely

The major problem the Russians have at the time is that the Borodino class isn't built- the Salva isn't ready even when the fleet sails for the Pacific even though it was supposed to be built by 1903

Essentially, once the fleet combines, the Japanese are in a pickle There are several things the Russians can do to make that happen-

The first is to finish the ships on time

The second would be not to build Dalny- without that base Japan is never going to get Port Arthur in time

The third would be finishing the railroad

The fourth would be approving the stockpiling of supplies

By 1905, the Japanese would stand little chance-

The Borodinos would be finished (as would the repairs to the Osliaba). Those ships would arrive long before the seige of Port Arthur is over.

The Trans Siberian railway would be finished as well- also making the Japanese siege of Port Arthur helpless

Essentially, the Japanese have a window from 1902 with the signing of the British alliance and 1905 with the completion of the Borodino class and the railway.

The Japanese almost wait too long and the Russians were fools for giving the opening

There are a host of other things the Russians could and should have done before the war. But the balance of power was fast shifting to the Russians

Best
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet...

There are a host of other things the Russians could and should have done before the war. But the balance of power was fast shifting to the Russians.

And yet, they did not, and the result was Tsushima...

Utter defeat for the Russians, and a complete victory for the Japanese. Seems like a pretty tall hill to overcome.

Best,
 

LordKalvert

Banned
And yet, they did not, and the result was Tsushima...

Utter defeat for the Russians, and a complete victory for the Japanese. Seems like a pretty tall hill to overcome.

Best,


Yes, the Japanese manage to defeat two fleets in detail. Its not that great of a military accomplishment. Here we do not deal with what actually happened but what would happen if other outcomes take place. It can be very crucial how we bring about the change

The question of the thread was what if the Russians win- I was pointing out ways that they could have won. One of which is to combine the two fleets I also pointed out what the future of the Far Eastern balance of power was- Russian

If power isn't shifting towards Russia in a hurry, Japan has no reason to strike but it is and dramatically so. Japan strikes while she still can- she almost waits too long

The Russians could easily have made the changes needed to bring about the thread's hypothetical
 

BooNZ

Banned
If power isn't shifting towards Russia in a hurry, Japan has no reason to strike but it is and dramatically so. Japan strikes while she still can- she almost waits too long

The Russians could easily have made the changes needed to bring about the thread's hypothetical

The amusing thing is the Russians attempted to do much of what you suggest. The Tran-Siberian was completed under urgency, which ultimately contributed to shortfalls in capacity. The Bordello/Borodino class battleships (bad Russian copies of a poor French design) were rush built with Asia in mind. The above, coupled with Russian belligerence in refusing meaningful negotiations with the Japanese, left Japan with one obvious and immediate path.

The thing about the Russian regime is that nothing was "easy". Sure, they should have built better ships, they should of built the railway better and their army should have been more effective. However, the Russian administration lacked competent bureaucrats and corruption/nepotism was endemic. The Russians sunk (excuse the pun) huge resources into their rail, army and navy.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The amusing thing is the Russians attempted to do much of what you suggest. The Tran-Siberian was completed under urgency, which ultimately contributed to shortfalls in capacity. The Bordello/Borodino class battleships (bad Russian copies of a poor French design) were rush built with Asia in mind. The above, coupled with Russian belligerence in refusing meaningful negotiations with the Japanese, left Japan with one obvious and immediate path.

The thing about the Russian regime is that nothing was "easy". Sure, they should have built better ships, they should of built the railway better and their army should have been more effective. However, the Russian administration lacked competent bureaucrats and corruption/nepotism was endemic. The Russians sunk (excuse the pun) huge resources into their rail, army and navy.


The thread asks simply "what would have happened if the Russians win the Russo-Japanese War". That's actually easy for them to do- and rushing the Borodino class to completion isn't the one I suggested. I suggested funding the ships properly so they were built on the navy's rather than Witte's schedule

Completion of the Trans Siberian by 1903 is also not that hard to do and there are plenty of other things the Russians can do to win the war

There is some importance on how they win the war but not if they win the war- the thread assumes it. It also assumes that the Japanese fleet is destroyed. Neither is ASB and arguments to the contrary are not relevant to the discussion
 
Last edited:
Monumentally unlikely IMHO, nearly if not quite ASB.

But let's assume that Russia somehow manages to get troops landed on Japan, and somehow occupies the country. Handwavium... This is not going to work. Japan of this time would not be Japan after the A-Bomb. The country would be heaving with revolt, to the point that the Russians can only hold onto the major cities. Ongoing waste of men and resources to hold down some fairly worthless islands will only add to the major internal problems within Russia, and when Revolution comes - which, let's be honest, is inevitable in Russia at this point - the Occupation will be abandoned because those troops will be needed at home.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and Japan has rebuilt. Only this time, they've got murder in their heart and blood in their eye... Congratulations, all the Occupation has done is delay Japan's rise, and make it nastier than OTL.
 

orwelans II

Banned
I agree that a conquest of Japan is impossible for Russia at this point, but presuming a disaster for the Japanese Navy in battle and an establishment of Russian dominance on the sea, would it be possible for them to occupy Hokkaido?
 

Cueg

Banned
The thread asks simply "what would have happened if the Russians win the Russo-Japanese War". That's actually easy for them to do- and rushing the Borodino class to completion isn't the one I suggested. I suggested funding the ships properly so they were built on the navy's rather than Witte's schedule

Completion of the Trans Siberian by 1903 is also not that hard to do and there are plenty of other things the Russians can do to win the war

There is some importance on how they win the war but not if they win the war- the thread assumes it. It also assumes that the Japanese fleet is destroyed. Neither is ASB and arguments to the contrary are not relevant to the discussion

No, the thread was a question in regard to the effects of a Russian invasion/destruction of Japan, which would entail an occupation. The question itself is flawed because a defeat of the Japanese navy, which I agree is certaintly possible, in no way entails a Russian invasion of the home islands. In fact, even with mastery of the Sea of Japan, it would be impossible to land the required Russian force it would take to achieve what the OP posited. The logistical structure simply did not exist for such an endeavor.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
No, the thread was a question in regard to the effects of a Russian invasion/destruction of Japan, which would entail an occupation. The question itself is flawed because a defeat of the Japanese navy, which I agree is certaintly possible, in no way entails a Russian invasion of the home islands. In fact, even with mastery of the Sea of Japan, it would be impossible to land the required Russian force it would take to achieve what the OP posited. The logistical structure simply did not exist for such an endeavor.

Actually, the question is " Russia invaded Japan in order to destroy the second-rate Asian power so that it isn't a threat again"

That doesn't require occupation or all that much of a force. Destroy the Japanese fleet after the Japanese have landed on the mainland. You get 2 for one as the Japanese navy is gone and the army is stuck in Mancuria/Korea

A landing in Japan doesn't have to be an occupation- just a March through Georgia would do the trick
 

Cueg

Banned
Actually, the question is " Russia invaded Japan in order to destroy the second-rate Asian power so that it isn't a threat again"

That doesn't require occupation or all that much of a force. Destroy the Japanese fleet after the Japanese have landed on the mainland. You get 2 for one as the Japanese navy is gone and the army is stuck in Mancuria/Korea

A landing in Japan doesn't have to be an occupation- just a March through Georgia would do the trick

I already explained why anything akin to Sherman's March would be impossible. I'll just copy-paste.


To do to Japan what Sherman did to the ante-bellum south is also impossible. Sherman was up against a relatively minuscule number of confederates, which allowed him to frequently divide his army in order to acquire supplies. Against the Japanese however, the Russians would not be able to employ this strategy. This isn't a repeat of the Opium wars, with a pre-industrial army getting slaughtered by a comparatively small industrial one. Rather, this is two modernized, industrial nations going up against one another. This era was defined and won by the number of men on the field. The Japanese, fighting on the home islands themselves, would be able to deploy as many men as they had guns. Thus, the Russians would be unable to break through and replicate Sherman's success at total war because they would be unable to periodically divide whatever army they manage to get onto the islands with a large Japanese presence looming over them.

To elaborate further, they cannot land chucks of the invasion force throughout numerous sections of the islands. They would simply get annihilated, one by one, by a larger combined Japanese force. So, that means they have to perform one massive landing and establish a beach-head. Knowing that they lacked the logistical capacity for such an undertaking, this scenario that you purpose is already rendered impossible. However, lets wave a magic wand and assume they get the bulk of the Russian army in the Far East onto one of the four islands. From there, they would then have to break out of the beachhead, which would entail defeating whatever combined army the Japanese manage to muster. After said army is defeated, only then can they pursue a strategy akin to Sherman's.
 
I already explained why anything akin to Sherman's March would be impossible. I'll just copy-paste.


To do to Japan what Sherman did to the ante-bellum south is also impossible. Sherman was up against a relatively minuscule number of confederates, which allowed him to frequently divide his army in order to acquire supplies. Against the Japanese however, the Russians would not be able to employ this strategy. This isn't a repeat of the Opium wars, with a pre-industrial army getting slaughtered by a comparatively small industrial one. Rather, this is two modernized, industrial nations going up against one another. This era was defined and won by the number of men on the field. The Japanese, fighting on the home islands themselves, would be able to deploy as many men as they had guns. Thus, the Russians would be unable to break through and replicate Sherman's success at total war because they would be unable to periodically divide whatever army they manage to get onto the islands with a large Japanese presence looming over them.

To elaborate further, they cannot land chucks of the invasion force throughout numerous sections of the islands. They would simply get annihilated, one by one, by a larger combined Japanese force. So, that means they have to perform one massive landing and establish a beach-head. Knowing that they lacked the logistical capacity for such an undertaking, this scenario that you purpose is already rendered impossible. However, lets wave a magic wand and assume they get the bulk of the Russian army in the Far East onto one of the four islands. From there, they would then have to break out of the beachhead, which would entail defeating whatever combined army the Japanese manage to muster. After said army is defeated, only then can they pursue a strategy akin to Sherman's.


Bingo. Sherman was only able to do that because Hood was an idiot who went hunting snipe in Tennessee. Sherman was delighted Hood did that because it did allow him to do what he did. If Hood backed up fighting Sherman all the way to the sea it would have taken Sherman much longer and been much more difficult. His whole scheme was doable because Hood was a complete idiot and a good part of the South was already destroyed. What you are doing is if Sherman tried doing it in 1862 in Virginia which would have been insanity.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I already explained why anything akin to Sherman's March would be impossible. I'll just copy-paste.


To do to Japan what Sherman did to the ante-bellum south is also impossible. Sherman was up against a relatively minuscule number of confederates, which allowed him to frequently divide his army in order to acquire supplies. Against the Japanese however, the Russians would not be able to employ this strategy. This isn't a repeat of the Opium wars, with a pre-industrial army getting slaughtered by a comparatively small industrial one. Rather, this is two modernized, industrial nations going up against one another. This era was defined and won by the number of men on the field. The Japanese, fighting on the home islands themselves, would be able to deploy as many men as they had guns. Thus, the Russians would be unable to break through and replicate Sherman's success at total war because they would be unable to periodically divide whatever army they manage to get onto the islands with a large Japanese presence looming over them.

To elaborate further, they cannot land chucks of the invasion force throughout numerous sections of the islands. They would simply get annihilated, one by one, by a larger combined Japanese force. So, that means they have to perform one massive landing and establish a beach-head. Knowing that they lacked the logistical capacity for such an undertaking, this scenario that you purpose is already rendered impossible. However, lets wave a magic wand and assume they get the bulk of the Russian army in the Far East onto one of the four islands. From there, they would then have to break out of the beachhead, which would entail defeating whatever combined army the Japanese manage to muster. After said army is defeated, only then can they pursue a strategy akin to Sherman's.


See Peter the Greats campaign in Sweden during the Great Northern War

Destruction of Poland during the Deluge (and the Great Northern War)

Japan is not an industrial power in 1905 and destroying its ability to wage war for a long time to come isn't all that hard. Destruction of the fleet does that
 
So what do you think would be the reaction of Britain, Germany, the US, and even Russia's good buddy France to all of this? It's one thing to fight a war over colonies and spheres of interest; quite another to wage a war of conquest against a (somewhat) major power.

I see the seeds of an early World War in this.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
  1. Where do they get the ships to do so?
  2. How are they supposed to stockpile that much supplies that far east and get them in Japan without them sinking or burnt by Japanese raiding parties?
  3. How do they keep the Royal Navy from simply blocking their way and telling them to fuck off?

In short, a much earlier POD is required to prevent Japan from modernizing enough to pose a threat, which would very likely retcon the war as a whole anyway and hand Russia a blank cheque to do what they please in Manchuria and Korea.

Well, if they destroy the Japanese Navy, resupply becomes rather easy- as does looting Korea for a lot of goodies

The Royal Navy? Now that is an interesting question

In a Russian victory scenario the Russians would have 15 relatively modern battleships in the Pacific and have demonstrated that their navy is tactically and technically capable

For Britain, a defeat at Sea means the end of her Empire, the destruction of her economy and the possibility of foreign occupation. That's a lot to risk. To do so, the British are going to have to feel that absolute vital interests are at stake and send a force that will win decisively- a victory where the British lose a bunch of battleships is devestating- infact its exactly what Tirpitz planned all along

So figure the British would need a 2-1 advantage over the Russians or 30 Battleships. Are they really going to deploy that much to protect Japan knowing that it opens up their Islands to attack from France or Germany?

A defeated Japan isn't worth that much to the British- the likely scenario is that Britain shops for allies (the US) and doesn't get any help. Roosevelt would do it but the Congress wouldn't let him. The Germans certainly aren't risking Berlin for Tokyo-something they had made rather clear

Once that failed, the British would be stuck trying to negotiate directly with the Russians. The entente with much more favorable terms to Russia is the most likely
 
Top