Russia Wins the Russo-Japanese War and then Invades Japan

Cueg

Banned
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
You''re not really understating the concept. In the aforementioned campaigns, the capacity for the other side to resist had been all but destroyed. Even if elements of the Japanese army get stuck on the mainland, they are stiill capable of mustering and supplying an army. Relative to the population of Japan, they got nowhere near total mobilization in Manchuria. This is for good reason. Simply put, they couldn't adquatly supplying anything beyond what they put into the field IOTL.

In your posited Russian invasion, they would be able to field far more men, of which they have many, because supply is no longer an issue. Thus, the Russians must get an army onto the home islands that's of a size that would allow for a defeat of Japan. The required number would far exceeded the logistical capacity available at the time.

To move away from the abstraction, invading a densely populated industrialed island nation at the furthest reaches of your massive empire is ASB. The premise is as follows

Explain how the Russians get, at the very least, 200,000, men onto two or three beachheads. Anything less would be destroyed.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
You''re not really understating the concept. In the aforementioned campaigns, the capacity for the other side to resist had been all but destroyed. Even if elements of the Japanese army get stuck on the mainland, they are stiill capable of mustering and supplying an army. Relative to the population of Japan, they get anywhere near total mobilization in Manchuria. This is for good reason. Simply put, they couldn't adquatly supplying anything beyond what they IOTL.

In your posited Russian invasion, they would be able to field far more men, of which they have many, because supply is no longer an issue. Thus, the Russians must get an army onto the home islands that's of a size that would allow for a defeat of Japan. The required number would far exceeded the logistical capacity availability at the time.

To move away from the abstraction, invading a densely populated industrial nation at the furthest reaches of your massive empire is ASB. The premise is as follows

Explain how the Russians get, at the very least, 200,000, men onto two or three beachheads. Anything less would be destroyed.

Ok, we're talking about a Japan that has lost its fleet. So landings can happen at will

Nor is there any need to concentrate 200,000 men anywhere. The Japanese don't have the ability to concentrate either Their army is pretty much lost in Manchuria and they can't shift their forces from one Island to another.

They don't have the massive industrial complex of WWII and they don't have much in the way of trained reserves or equipment when the campaign ends- they are pretty much a spent force in 1905 on land

We're talking about- land a force, blow the bridge and leave. Land a party, burn the village, leave. Sea the fishing boat, sink the fishing boat, people go hungry Guerrila warfare from the sea as practiced for centuries. As the Japanese have no idea of where the Russians are going to land, they really are going to be hard press to concentrate anything from what they have left

Unless someone interferes, this goes on until the Japanese agree to whatever terms the Russians impose
 
Well, if they destroy the Japanese Navy, resupply becomes rather easy- as does looting Korea for a lot of goodies

Oh sure... like the Koreans would happily let the Russians strip their country like the Japanese did IOTL.

And with what ships? Russians don't have nearly enough troop ships and supply ships (i.e. nil), nor the port capacity in any of its nearby ports to support an amphibious operation on Japan. They can't just magically teleport their troops onto Japan, or freeze a bridge across the Sea of Okhotsk and march across.

If they tried a landing, their landing party will be limited by how many troops and supplies they can carry on their ships, and they'll be expected to hold in hostile territory before they can get reinforcements. Any force too small would be destroyed and its survivors marched off to prison camps before any relief comes along. As Cueg stated, 'anything less (than 200,000 men) would be destroyed'.

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

Japan isn't totally wrecked (their Home Islands are still intact), and the British won't allow the Russians to do too much damage to them. And unlike Russia, Britain places more emphasis on its navy to maintain its colonial empire, and is rightly cowed when facing a land-based battle during the Great Game in Afghanistan. Same case for the Russians when facing off against the British at sea. A total fall of Japan, if that were ever possible, would spell doom for British naval interests in the Pacific. And they have little to fear when dealing with two disparate Russian navies that had to play second fiddle to the army.

Did I mention they have the Suez too? If the Russians even attempt to meet the Baltic and Pacific navies together, they'll have to pass through the Cape of Good Hope, across entire continents of hostile coast and with the gleaming possibility of the RN simply taking the shortcut to wreck them one by one, with the luxury of supply from any port they own along the way. And there are many.

But I digress. A Russian invasion of Japan at this stage is ridiculous. It would have been better for Russia to settle for a favourable peace without trying to invade the Home Islands, which would be a lot more possible.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
Oh sure... like the Koreans would happily let the Russians strip their country like the Japanese did IOTL.

And with what ships? Russians don't have nearly enough troop ships and supply ships (i.e. nil), nor the port capacity in any of its nearby ports to support an amphibious operation on Japan. They can't just magically teleport their troops onto Japan, or freeze a bridge across the Sea of Okhotsk and march across.

If they tried a landing, their landing party will be limited by how many troops and supplies they can carry on their ships, and they'll be expected to hold in hostile territory before they can get reinforcements. Any force too small would be destroyed and its survivors marched off to prison camps before any relief comes along. As Cueg stated, 'anything less (than 200,000 men) would be destroyed'.



Japan isn't totally wrecked (their Home Islands are still intact), and the British won't allow the Russians to do too much damage to them. And unlike Russia, Britain places more emphasis on its navy to maintain its colonial empire, and is rightly cowed when facing a land-based battle during the Great Game in Afghanistan. Same case for the Russians when facing off against the British at sea. A total fall of Japan, if that were ever possible, would spell doom for British naval interests in the Pacific. And they have little to fear when dealing with two disparate Russian navies that had to play second fiddle to the army.

Did I mention they have the Suez too? If the Russians even attempt to meet the Baltic and Pacific navies together, they'll have to pass through the Cape of Good Hope, across entire continents of hostile coast and with the gleaming possibility of the RN simply taking the shortcut to wreck them one by one, with the luxury of supply from any port they own along the way. And there are many.

But I digress.

You continue to miss the main points

1) with the destruction of their fleet, the Japanese are spent and only outside help can save them

2) blockade will quickly bring down what little industrial production they have- not to mention the destruction of their internal inter island trade

3) coastal cities and facilities are subject to both raiding parties and bombardment. Putting cities to the torch from the sea is an ancient form of warfare

4) British intervention is possible but not a given- something you should consider. British intervention risks a lot-

a) their fleet will have to be moved to block the Russians- leaving their homeland vulnerable. Something the British would be loathed to do

b) any intervention against Russia is difficult as long as a land border (Germany) remains open. Blockade is futile in such a scenario

c) the Germans have shown no inclination to join Japan or the British since that would bring the war down on them

d) any intervention is likely to deteriorate to general European Warfare- something that become incalculable in its consequences. Do the British really want to risk German hegemony on the continent for such a sideshow?
After all, the British have done nothing so far except encourage others to do the fighting

e) is a Japan with its fleet destroyed so worthwhile to the British? Are they really worth anything at all?
 
You continue to miss the main points

1) with the destruction of their fleet, the Japanese are spent and only outside help can save them

They can still mobilize their population to defend the islands, besides which if the Japanese did lose their fleet in Tsushima, they'd know enough to sue for peace. No need for the Russians to invade the Home Islands then, since their aims in East Asia could now be met comfortably.

2) blockade will quickly bring down what little industrial production they have- not to mention the destruction of their internal inter island trade

Have fun trying to block European or American shipping. Also, this isn't the blockade of the North Sea. Japan has many ports and coast to cover. Even Britain doesn't have that many ships to cover the length nor keep it supplied.

3) coastal cities and facilities are subject to both raiding parties and bombardment. Putting cities to the torch from the sea is an ancient form of warfare

See (2), previous post and Cueg's rebuttals, and you still haven't addressed the problem with obtaining the necessary ships. Raids are enormously risky as it was. Just because Japan doesn't have a fleet doesn't make it any more safe to storm hostile territory with the great possibility of death or capture without relief.

4) British intervention is possible but not a given- something you should consider. British intervention risks a lot-

a) their fleet will have to be moved to block the Russians- leaving their homeland vulnerable. Something the British would be loathed to do

b) any intervention against Russia is difficult as long as a land border (Germany) remains open. Blockade is futile in such a scenario

c) the Germans have shown no inclination to join Japan or the British since that would bring the war down on them

d) any intervention is likely to deteriorate to general European Warfare- something that become incalculable in its consequences. Do the British really want to risk German hegemony on the continent for such a sideshow?
After all, the British have done nothing so far except encourage others to do the fighting

e) is a Japan with its fleet destroyed so worthwhile to the British? Are they really worth anything at all?

As long as Russian demands don't push their buttons (i.e. influence on Manchuria and Korea, but no permanent garrison or fleet), they'll keep quiet. The moment they start demanding Tsushima and naval disbandment, however, they'll start pressuring diplomats on both sides. Who knows, Willy II might actually be able to win the British over here. :eek:
 
To begin: my statesment are mostly influenced by Ian Nish: The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War and i have read the corresponding volumes of the british documents on the origins of war.

1. Russia didnt have enough force on the east to occupy Manchuria aside from the railway line and most strategic points. To maintain an occupation of Japan in the first place in any length seems impossible.

2. British position: The main british goal was to check russian expansion in China. They hoped to do this with Germany at first (they made a pact that they aimed this way in Oct. 1900). However the germans only wanted to ensure that the british dont annex the Yangtze basin and had no intention to go to war or even treaten their relationship with Russia over Manchuria. This became evident for the british in 1901 when they futilly tried to get German help to their protest against Russian occupation of Manchuria. That made them turn to Japan.

From british documents it seems that Britain most likely wouldnt do anything for Japan if it lost a war over Corea and Manchuria. They considered it a catastrophic possibility for their interests and at that point Japan wouldnt be worth the effort to help. But that was considering a japanese loss of Corea and Mandchuria. I still think that they would have prevented the invasion of the islands - that would be too much for them. And for everyone else as well. After the war is done Britain would search for some other way to check Russian expansion in the area. That might strentheng the Russian positions when making the Entente with Britain indeed but i think its more likely it would prevent it. Britains main problem would be Russia and not Germany.

3. If Russia did whats suggested Japan woudnt have gone to war. They knew that they only have a chance before the completion of the Trans-Siberian railway so strengthening Russias position is likely to prevent the war.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
First, I would agree with you that the scenario is unlikely. I find it possible though especially without British intervention

Once the Japanese fleet is destroyed, and its certainly possible, then the Japanese are at the Russian's mercy. If as suggested, the Japanese sue for peace then we could simply have the Russians demand occupation of strategic points to enforce the treaty and a no rebuild clause for the IJN

Blockades are recognized means of warfare and the British and Americans would accept it as par for the course

No matter what terms the Russians choose to impose though, British intervention is very unlikely unless she can secure an ally. Britain preferred not to fight but amass superior force and negotiate.

As mentioned, there aren't too many good allies to look for. France is obviously out, Germany had refused to cooperate, the Italians aren't interested enough.

That would leave only the Americans- Teddy Roosevelt might promise the moon but its unlikely he would have enough congressional support to actually intervene. Salisbury did say in a cabinet meeting that it would require that the Americans break from all tradition and propose an alliance. He saw nothing to be gained by approaching them.

Finally, what goodies are there to offer potential allies? The Congress of Berlin is achieved by giving away presents to supporters (Bosnia to Austria, Tunis to France etc) what's to offer anyone anything here?
 
Top