Russo-Japanese War - Battle of Tsushima

This may have already been discussed and if such, I apologize. Was again reading The Guns of August, and was struck how the author Barbara Tuchman argued Russia's loss to the Japanese at the Battle of Tsu-Shima destabilized the balance of power in Europe, emboldened the Central Powers, contributing to the decision to go to war in August, 1914. This battle was considered by many to be the most decisive naval battle of the 20th Century and was the last time a fleet surrended on the high seas to its adversary. This surrender more than just the defeat provided the necessary impetus to the Decembrists and began the naval arms race between England and Germany with the launching of the HMS Dreadnaught in October, 1905, and the infamous Schlieffen Plan.

To me it begs the question; If Imperial Russia managed to pull a miracle out of this debacle or at least managed to save face, would this have managed to eliminate or stave off August, 1914, and the Great War? Previous to the Russo-Japanese war, the powers of Europe and America had gotten together to aid the Chinese Emperior to crush the Boxer Rebellion as recently as 1900. Was the Battle of Tsu-Tshima the canary in the coalmine to WWI, merely a symptom of what was inevitable, or the impetus to the drive to war that Europe found itself unable to pull itself out of?
 
Honestly, WWI was still going to go down in some form or fashion in the first 20 years of the 20th century. Russia at least saving face at Tsushima would likely have resulted in less reforms in the military but would have left the czar in a slightly better position among the people. Britain and Germany would still be at odds because of Britain's policy of not allowing any one power to be hegemon of the continent.

Come WWI Britain will get involved but there won't be as much support for the effort without the danger to the navy. Russia will be in a better spot domestically but worse militarily, probably resulting in a wash overall as Russia will do worse in battle but the Czar won't be overthrown as soon as he was OTL. The naval thing does make one wonder if the USW policy would be as big as OTL, if not then the US may not get involved which only plays in Germany's favor.
 
I think it was somewhere in between. The disaster did have an effect on perception of Russia's fighting ability and it definitely did weaken the Tsar in a big way. This might have meant that when war did come, Russia would do even worse. Then again, it might have delayed war long enough to change the situation. It is overall, very difficult to know whether Germany would have felt confident enough to take on Russia but they seem to have believed that war should come before Russia become stronger.
 
I'm thinking that WWI as we know it may have been quite different or avoidable altogether. The Battle of Tsu-shima was an importatnt learning curve to the British, establishing the significance of large guns and speed for modern battleships, which began a naval arms race (that had already had some roots in Britain's response to what it saw as growing German antagonism) with the launch of the first Dreadnaught in 1906.

Add to this, Russia was almost completely removed from the world's oceans, leaving room for the Japanese to dream big on world domination. Japan's admirals reasoned that this quite decisive victory over a major European power (the first Asian nation to do so), that with more ships, better guns and armament, and superior discipline, that Japan could easily take on Britain's finest (proven in 1941 during the opening volleys of the Singapore campaign) and the United States (nearly decapitating our Pacific fleet at Pearl, holding it's own at Guadal Canal, and losing the decisive engagement at Midway).

Given that the French and Germans were going to go to war against one another at some point (Franco-Prussian War still rankled) and that Germany and A-H were fast allies and would assist each other in times of crisis. However, the alliance between France and Russia initialized in 1894 was nulled in 1900; there was no Russian connection until the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. This had to be a direct correllation to the debacle of the Russo-Japanese War and the weakness that the Czar found himself upon.

So is the B of T-S the watershed moment that all the pieces of the Great War shaped themselves around? The smoking gun perhaps?
 
Last edited:
WW1 is not inevitable. Its a combination of things one of which is a perception on the part of the Germans that there was a window of opportunity post the Russo Japanese war that was closing with Russian rearmament.


Change that other things may change. Notably during the Balkan wars and crises where people (inc Russia) felt Russia was unable to intervene.

The Russians really did not reform that much. Or if they did they got it entirely wrong. And had to spend a lot rebuilding fleets, but they may have had to do that anyway.

Without it the perception of Russian weakness is unlikely to be so pronounced, if there at all, and the Russians may be in a marginally better supply situation. Or everyone in a slightly worse one without the lessons of ammo expenditure.

Even a moderately better Russian army and the actual events of 1914 could see the Russians on the Hungarian plain in strength in late 1914 with several others jumping in to feast on the corpse.
 
In strategic terms it could be argued that Tsu Shima was not 100% relevant - not irrelevant, but not as relevant as might be seen. The Russian fleet had become pretty ramshackle and exhausted and even if it had reached Vladivostock intact it is severely doubtful if it could have got itself into a condition to interdict Japanese communication with Korea and Manchuria.

The annihilation though did put the seal on the war for Russia as it wiped out the remaining, probably dreamlike, hope and forced them to accept defeat.

In naval terms, it was an oddity. The fleets were at the turning point of technology,Japan had armoured cruisers in the battleline, Russia had coast defence ships in theirs.

Could it have gone better? Well Felkerzam not dying on the eve of battle might have helped, though he could have dropped dead in the middle of it instead! At least though he might have given some orders to the ships that believed themselves under his command.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Tsushima is a little late for the Russians to turn things around. There are things that they could have done that would have improved their performance significantly- better shells, telescopic lenses, avoiding the overweighting of coal, training against night torpedo attacks- that could have caused a lot of damage to the Japanese and perhaps have allowed a portion of the fleet to escape.

That wouldn't have been enough to change WWI.

An early Russian victory in the Naval battles of August 1904 may well have been. A Russian victory in the Japanese War would have kept Russia's focus off of Europe and on Asia. A Russian British Entente would have been more difficult or included much better terms for Russia

A victorious Russia may have been prepared to stick to Bjorko which changes everything

The real question then becomes what happens in the Balkans? The cascade of events that leads to WWI really starts with the Young Turks seizure of power. Austria's annexation of Bosnia, rather clumsily carried out, the breakdown of the Russo-Austrian Entente, the Italo-Ottoman War and the Balkan Wars.

None of these are started by the Russians so Russia may have been dragged back into Balkan affairs even though she preferred the status quo.

As for ship design, Tsushima doesn't really affect things. The lessons applied to the Dreadnaught and the Battle Cruisers had already become obvious before the Battle-

short range guns were useless

speed was essential

big guns did all the damage
 
Top