So winning the Great Game = getting Afghanistan and entire Persia ?

If Russia wins that AND beats Japan (hence dominating Manchuria and possibly Korea as well), then

1 ) Russian troops are more spread in Asia
2 ) Russia gets victory disease and reforms less her army
3 ) This means a worse performance during WWI in Europe
4 ) Japan resents Russia and will take an opportunity for revenge in WWI. With Japan well prepared (because of the earlier defeat) and Russia overconfident against Japan.
5 ) Britain is likely pushed to the enemy side of Russia

Then, either France and Russia ally, pushing Germany, AH, Japan and Britain together. Then, France and Russia are likely screwed.

Or, Britain clashes with Germany as well (naval and colonial race initiated by Wilhelm II), pushing Germany and Russia together (other side = Britain, France, Japan, Ottomans).
 
What if the Russian won the Great Game?
And who said that they lost it? The alleged goal (conquest of India with everything in between) was a product of the British imagination and even conquest of Afghanistan never was planned by the Russians with any degree of a seriousness. Their goals were todays' "stans" and the reason was two-fold: 1st, prevent raiding of the Russian territories from "Turkestan" and 2nd, to get an upper hand in the markets of the Central Asia (Kokand, Bukhara, Khiva) both by selling there the Russian goods and by securing the cotton-producing areas. The region was clearly too far from the British-held territories and occasional British agents getting there were of no practical significance.

Border with Afghanistan had been stabilized after Russians conquered the last oasis possession of which would allow the Afghan raiding and from Persia they got pretty much everything they wanted in the terms of the territories in the beginning of the XIX century. The rest was taken care of by the trade treaties.

How exactly can this amount to not "winning"?

What if the Russians won Russo-Japanese war?
What would have been the outcome of this scenario?

This is different because the whole adventure in Manchuria was a risky enterprise pushed through by the court camarilla against protests of the serious people like Witte and in a violation of the existing treaty with Japan. A seemingly appealing idea of having the ice free port on the Far East did not stand to any serious criticism because Port Arthur was too far from the Russian territory to be easily supported by land and because, practically by definition, Russia did not and could not have on the Pacific navy strong enough to guarantee its security by the sea: (a) Russian navy was not too strong to start with, (b) it was split between Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Pacific with no realistic chance for any of these fleets to get fast to other's help, (c) Russian Far East did not have industrial infrastructure allowing naval construction or even repairs of the serious damages.

Could Russia win that war at least potentially? Yes, at least on the land. It would take a better preparation in the terms of the numbers, armaments and leadership but within realm of the reality. Possibility of the Japanese military action could be anticipated and number of troops in the Far East could be seriously increased by 1904 with the adequate stockpiles of ammunition (both reinforcements and additional supplies could be carried by the Transsiberian railroad during the war). Naval part was much worse because, due to the "dedicated efforts" of the Admiral-General (one of Nicholas uncles) everything was done in a wrong way starting from the faulty construction of the Russian battleships and all the way to the shells which would fail to explode. However, if Russian army won an upper hand on land, then Port Arthur would not be besieged and the Pacific fleet could survive and even make some sorties from time to time. Then, of course, goes subject of the raiders (armed fast speed merchant ships) acting on the Japanese naval communications: with Japan's heavy reliance upon the imports, even minimal disruptions could have a disproportionally big effect (needless to say that while the ships were available, nothing had been done). Finally, Japan did not have too much time to win the war because it was running out of money.

What would be the results? Well, Russia would keep exploiting natural resources of Manchuria but, let's face it, short of get rich fast schema for the narrow circle of those involved, benefit for the country was going to be minimal: Russia did not suffer from the shortage of natural resources on its own territory. Probably regime would be politically stronger, which may (but probably would not) prevent Nicholas from doing what he did in 1914.

The only "positive" (depending on point of view) result would be a lesser cockiness of the Japanese military.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, Russia would keep exploiting natural resources of Manchuria but, let's face it, short of get rich fast schema for the narrow circle of those involved, benefit for the country was going to be minimal: Russia did not suffer from the shortage of natural resources on its own territory.

Fair enough, but a Russian win that leaves the Japanese not occupying positions on Sakhalin island, or in Manchuria, could also give Russia a "forward defense dividend" by preventing any land borders with Japan and allowing Russia to concentrate any defenses maintained just on Pacific Coast points instead of having to worrying about Japanese threats to inland points like the Amur country, Trans-Siberian Railway, northern Manchuria and Mongolia.

Probably regime would be politically stronger, which may (but probably would not) prevent Nicholas from doing what he did in 1914.

If a knock-on is not getting into WWI, that is a major positive for Russia.

The only "positive" (depending on point of view) result would be a lesser cockiness of the Japanese military.

No offense, but this could be a huge, huge, HUGE positive for the Koreans, Chinese and western powers. The positions won in the Russo-Japanese War were necessary building blocks for the Japanese to pursue ambitions in other areas later. And arguably created a "script" for victory through surprise attack and perseverance the Japanese were attempting to follow later in the wars with China and the Pacific War.

The Koreans could have remained independent from Japan. They might have missed out on some of the economic and educational "benefits" of being annexed, but even at their most expansive I do not think Tsarist Russia would have been as politically or culturally domineering in Korea as the Japanese were. The Russians probably wouldn't think they could turn Koreans into Russians (much less want to) and would not be such a threat to their national identity.

This is different because the whole adventure in Manchuria was a risky enterprise pushed through by the court camarilla against protests of the serious people like Witte and in a violation of the existing treaty with Japan.

What treaty was Russia violating and what specific actions was it taking that were violations?
 
Fair enough, but a Russian win that leaves the Japanese not occupying positions on Sakhalin island, or in Manchuria, could also give Russia a "forward defense dividend" by preventing any land borders with Japan and allowing Russia to concentrate any defenses maintained just on Pacific Coast points instead of having to worrying about Japanese threats to inland points like the Amur country, Trans-Siberian Railway, northern Manchuria and Mongolia.

Japan still has Korea and Russia still keeps its troops in Manchuria (refusal to remove them, as was agreed earlier, was one of the reasons for the war). I'm not sure if Amur area or Trans-Siberian Railway had been in any danger of Japanese attack prior to the Russian Civil War.


If a knock-on is not getting into WWI, that is a major positive for Russia.

Not having WWI is a major positive to everybody.
 
Top