WI: Britain backs Japan in 1905

[RanulfC]

The British blood that was shed for Japan must be repaid

How and where? The moment Britain declares for Japan Russia is screwed with no way out. There's no way for them to reinforce their holdings and their fleet can't stand up to the British and NO ONE in Europe is going to be on their side here. They seek peace and Britain pushes (very little pressure needed as Japan knew it could not sustain a war against Russia) Japan into agreeing to a peace. Not a drop of British blood is shed so no interest in Korea.

The government cannot leave war without gain (and Korea will be the proper reward for Britain)

Governments and especially the British one have been going to war for little or no gain since the middle of the 19th century it's all part of the 'great game' at this point. There's literally nothing for Britain to gain here and no incentive to push for making Russia more nervous and pissing off Japan who entered this whole conflict OVER Korea.

Sakhalin, no bankruptcy, big compensation for the British, more than enough for Japan (and British Korea is a plus for telling people they've won something))

No one in Britain would care about Korea, they hardly cared about the Empire they had outside of certain long-term holdings. Africa was already proving to be a drain instead of a gain and Korea would be worlds worse all around. Nobody in Britain wanted it and they'd be happy to leave it to Japan as a counter to Russian influence in the region.

Russia was terrified of active British intervention and everyone understood that the moment Britain decided to move (or not) would be the deciding factor of the war.

Randy

 

[ahmedali]

How and where? The moment Britain declares for Japan Russia is screwed with no way out. There's no way for them to reinforce their holdings and their fleet can't stand up to the British and NO ONE in Europe is going to be on their side here. They seek peace and Britain pushes (very little pressure needed as Japan knew it could not sustain a war against Russia) Japan into agreeing to a peace. Not a drop of British blood is shed so no interest in Korea.



Governments and especially the British one have been going to war for little or no gain since the middle of the 19th century it's all part of the 'great game' at this point. There's literally nothing for Britain to gain here and no incentive to push for making Russia more nervous and pissing off Japan who entered this whole conflict OVER Korea.



No one in Britain would care about Korea, they hardly cared about the Empire they had outside of certain long-term holdings. Africa was already proving to be a drain instead of a gain and Korea would be worlds worse all around. Nobody in Britain wanted it and they'd be happy to leave it to Japan as a counter to Russian influence in the region.

Russia was terrified of active British intervention and everyone understood that the moment Britain decided to move (or not) would be the deciding factor of the war.

Randy

Africa was the drain, but Asia was not, but the most profitable colonies were in Asia


(British Korea will be very profitable unlike Nigeria, for example)


The Dogger Bank incident will lead to popular anger, so politicians will have to offer something for fear of the downfall of the government


(The Crimean War, without Britain's gains and unpopularity, caused the downfall of the Aberdeen government.)


The Russians cannot surrender. If the Russians surrender, it would be a very great insult to the Tsar


Even defeat will do the same



(The defeat by Japan alone was very humiliating, let alone Britain, and there is no Roosevelt to prefer the Russians)


The Ottomans, Germans and Austrians will find this a perfect opportunity to turn the Russians into a punching bag


The result leaves Britain in a stronger position (Central Asia, Persia and Korea fell completely under British influence)

 

[Salvare7097]

Op clarification: I’m basically saying in response to a slightly worse Dogger Bank incident at the peace table Britain pressure on the United States to get Japan it’s claims.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

For this to happen, the Dogger Bank incident must escalate dramatically to the point that the United Kingdom declares war on Russia, and here the Germans will join the British.


And France, which is in a very bad situation, that if they declare war on the Germans, they will be crushed, and if they do not, the Russians will feel betrayed and will not help the French again.


And they will do option number two because they don't want Britain with the Germans


(Kaiser Wilhelm II is very happy that his perfect war has occurred, but he may feel deceived if it ends up in the British favour.)


The war would end with all of Sakhalin being given to Japan, Korea a British protectorate, the independence of the Central Asian Khanate, and British protectorates like Afghanistan.


(Never think that the British will not try to make a peace that benefits them in the first place and will leave the Japanese and the Russians feeling fools)


The Germans will demand the independence of Poland


(I don't see Baltic Lithuania and Finland becoming independent because the Germans weren't as strong in 1905 compared to 1914)


Romania may join to take Bessarabia (Romanian King Carol I, a pro-German, would persuade the Francophone Romanian elite if France remained neutral to join in taking Bessarabia)


The Ottomans may join in to avenge 1878


(I see Abdul Hamid II wanting to restore Kars and abolish the Emirate of Bulgaria and expel Ferdinand and reintegrate it into the Ottoman Empire with the annexation of Montenegro and Serbia with Austrian permission, with the borders with Greece remaining in the status quo, being British puppets)


If the attempt to assassinate him continues in 1905 and succeeds this time, we may see a second early constitutional era in the Ottoman Empire with time for Ottoman democracy to establish itself better than OTL.


The revolution of 1905 will continue to happen, but with the explosion of things strongly in the face of Nicholas II, the shattering of his tyrannical ideals, and a severe injury to the black eye of the British.


He would bow down to become a constitutional monarch or would abdicate (mostly) to his brother Mikhail II, leading to a successful transition to a constitutional monarchy (the abolition of the Russian monarchy is quite unlikely in 1905).


I think the First World War will still happen and the Russians and the British will ally themselves again, but you have an independent Poland, a member of the Entente, and Russia is doing better because they learn the lessons of war the hard way.

In OTL Kaiser Wilhelm told Tzar Nicholas to send the Baltic fleet to the Far East and supported Russia against Japan

And why would Japan let Britain take Korea? That makes no sense. Japan is much closer to Korea and the Japanese have all the reasons to take it.

 

[ahmedali]

In OTL Kaiser Wilhelm told Tzar Nicholas to send the Baltic fleet to the Far East and supported Russia against Japan

And why would Japan let Britain take Korea? That makes no sense. Japan is much closer to Korea and the Japanese have all the reasons to take it.

Japan in 1905 is not the same as 1941 Britain is much stronger than them and if they take Korea they can do nothing about it


And Britain will ensure that Japan is more obedient, since Korea is a dagger aimed at Japan and is useful in terms of resources


And Germany in OTL thought of supporting a Polish uprising at the request of Japan


Kaiser Wilhelm II can say or command anything, but the government he heads remains very hostile to the Russians and they will take any opportunity to weaken it.


Remember that the attempt by Wilhelm and Nicholas to an alliance was aborted by the German-Russian governments and that's is happen in OTL

 

[Salvare7097]

This as nothing do with my question?

 

[The Gunslinger]

In fact, the 1905 revolution will take place here and may be more successful with the Kaiser failing very disastrously and getting punched in the face.



The good thing is that Russia may become more democratic

I don't think the RevolutIon happens at all. I think it stabilizes Russia somewhat by not spending an ungodly amount of blood and treasure fighting a pointless war. Any material gains for Japan is things that Russia doesn't need or greatly profit from.

 

[ahmedali]

I don't think the RevolutIon happens at all. I think it stabilizes Russia somewhat by not spending an ungodly amount of blood and treasure fighting a pointless war. Any material gains for Japan is things that Russia doesn't need or greatly profit from.

The bitter truth was that they were defeated by an Asian country racially inferior to them, which destroyed the Russians so severely.


You don't realize how racist the Russians were. They underestimated Japan and eventually became the laughingstock of Europe.


If the British join, they are finished, losing large parts of Central Asia (probably the Caucasus as well).


If they are fortunate and the Germans, Ottomans, and Austrians do not join the British side, they may not lose parts of Europe.


(It is their golden opportunity to destroy Russia and the Germans to destroy France. If you support the Russians, I don't see why they don't join.)


Add to that the Russian fleets will be destroyed as if they were paper ships, and the economic blockade of Russia from Britain would really destroy them.


Unlike OTL, reparations will be very harsh, and Britain will be keen to make the Russians pay for every drop of British blood shed.


If that's anything, the 1905 revolt would be more intense and brutal than the OTL, but I don't see the levels of 1917.


And Nicholas II will abdicate the throne to his brother after this massive insult


I do not see the end of the Russian monarchy, but rather it will successfully transform into a constitutional monarchy
real


With lessons of war learned better than OTL

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The British blood that was shed for Japan must be repaid


The government cannot leave war without gain (and Korea will be the proper reward for Britain)



Sakhalin, no bankruptcy, big compensation for the British, more than enough for Japan (and British Korea is a plus for telling people they've won something))

Why Korea? Most wouldn't British interests be in something closer to British India? Perhaps turning Bukhara into a British protectorate.

 

[Salvare7097]

Guys the question I’m asking is not what if the British jumped in during the war. It’s what if the British offered diplomatic support to the Japanese at the peace conference I.e. helping them get what they wanted. So back on topic please.

 

[tonsofun]

Even with British diplomatic support, I can't see Japan getting much more than all of Sakhalin. The Americans were dead against Japanese expansion and even the British isn't going to change that. I can see Japan maybe trying to get Primorsky or Kamchatka, but I can't see them being successful.

 

[Salvare7097]

Even with British diplomatic support, I can't see Japan getting much more than all of Sakhalin. The Americans were dead against Japanese expansion and even the British isn't going to change that. I can see Japan maybe trying to get Primorsky or Kamchatka, but I can't see them being successful.

I can see them getting their OTL gains plus all of Sakhalin plus an indemnity. That would probably really damage Russia. Which the British would not mind as the Russians were a major rival of theirs.

 

[tonsofun]

I can imagine the British pushing for an indemnity instead of more territorial gains. I wonder if the Japanese public would have a better reaction to these negotiations as opposed to OTL.

 

[ahmedali]

Even with British diplomatic support, I can't see Japan getting much more than all of Sakhalin. The Americans were dead against Japanese expansion and even the British isn't going to change that. I can see Japan maybe trying to get Primorsky or Kamchatka, but I can't see them being successful.

Americans let them protest to death


Britain here still doesn't care what Americans think

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

Americans let them protest to death


Britain here still doesn't care what Americans think

Like the time the British backed down on their claims in the Venezuela Crisis of 1895 because the US got involved and were rattling sabers and the British didn't want to anger the Americans? Or when the British sold out the Canadians by backing the Americans during the formalization of the Alaskan-Canadian border that meant the Canadians didn't get a sea outlet from the Yukon gold mines to the Pacific? Or when the UK canceled the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850 that limited American expansion in Central America with the Hay–Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 and allowed the the US to create a Central American canal and allowed the Americans arbitrate the debt collection dispute with Venezuela in 1902? This is right in the middle of the Great Rapprochement, when the UK was trying to get on the US's good side even at its own and its subjects' detriment. The UK has too much economic dependence on the US by this point to break with them, hence all the above concessions, and to suggest they'd sell out the US for Japan when they sold out themselves for the US is just silly. The UK wasn't greedy to the point of violating its own interests and uncompromising to the point they'd screw themselves over. It seems like there's the insertion of a comically evil UK into this thread that goes against actual historical trends and policies.

I can see them getting their OTL gains plus all of Sakhalin plus an indemnity. That would probably really damage Russia. Which the British would not mind as the Russians were a major rival of theirs.

Japan could've kept Sakhalin if they dropped their claims for reparations OTL, it's just that the Japanese didn't accept and Witte threatened continuing the war, hence Japan getting a raw deal of only half of Sakhalin and no reparations. I'd imagine all of Sakhalin would remain on the table if the British were posturing to support the Japanese, but the issue is, without actual military involvement, it doesn't amount to too much past that. The Russians had 4 new divisions arriving in Manchuria during negotiations and the Japanese were vastly overextended economically and militarily. Reparations are likely still off the table.

And yeah, the end result isn't too different. The Japanese public expected more and will be upset regardless, the Russians are humiliated, Roosevelt gets a Nobel Peace Prize (for some reason). It might encourage Japanese expansionism a tad more than OTL, but that won't change too much in the bigger picture. The Russians will be furious, regardless, and the Japanese people won't know how strained their country is because of propaganda and all the news about their brilliant unbroken chain of victories, so anything short of taking the entire Russian Far East won't sate their hunger. And that's absolutely unacceptable to the US, who were bankrolling Japan's war effort alongside the UK but didn't want Japan becoming a rival in the Pacific. The UK has a trend of siding with the US despite compromise and concessions disadvantaging itself, so it won't push to support Japan over the US.

 

[Insane Ranter]

Not sure how the British pushed for a change in the treaty unless you replace Teddy Roosevelt with someone British at the mediation table. Even if that happens or the British just show up and push for it. The Russians are just going to walk away from the table and put the 4 new divisions that showed up in the East into the field and drag the war on. Japan is going to need supplies and money to keep its overstretched military in a state of success. This really pans out badly for Russia and Japan in the long run and wrecks both economies. Many of the Czar gets removed in 1906 instead of later. Japan might not be "ready" for attacking China either.
Just random thoughts.

 

[ahmedali]

Like the time the British backed down on their claims in the Venezuela Crisis of 1895 because the US got involved and were rattling sabers and the British didn't want to anger the Americans? Or when the British sold out the Canadians by backing the Americans during the formalization of the Alaskan-Canadian border that meant the Canadians didn't get a sea outlet from the Yukon gold mines to the Pacific? Or when the UK canceled the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850 that limited American expansion in Central America with the Hay–Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 and allowed the the US to create a Central American canal and allowed the Americans arbitrate the debt collection dispute with Venezuela in 1902? This is right in the middle of the Great Rapprochement, when the UK was trying to get on the US's good side even at its own and its subjects' detriment. The UK has too much economic dependence on the US by this point to break with them, hence all the above concessions, and to suggest they'd sell out the US for Japan when they sold out themselves for the US is just silly. The UK wasn't greedy to the point of violating its own interests and uncompromising to the point they'd screw themselves over. It seems like there's the insertion of a comically evil UK into this thread that goes against actual historical trends and policies.

Japan could've kept Sakhalin if they dropped their claims for reparations OTL, it's just that the Japanese didn't accept and Witte threatened continuing the war, hence Japan getting a raw deal of only half of Sakhalin and no reparations. I'd imagine all of Sakhalin would remain on the table if the British were posturing to support the Japanese, but the issue is, without actual military involvement, it doesn't amount to too much past that. The Russians had 4 new divisions arriving in Manchuria during negotiations and the Japanese were vastly overextended economically and militarily. Reparations are likely still off the table.

And yeah, the end result isn't too different. The Japanese public expected more and will be upset regardless, the Russians are humiliated, Roosevelt gets a Nobel Peace Prize (for some reason). It might encourage Japanese expansionism a tad more than OTL, but that won't change too much in the bigger picture. The Russians will be furious, regardless, and the Japanese people won't know how strained their country is because of propaganda and all the news about their brilliant unbroken chain of victories, so anything short of taking the entire Russian Far East won't sate their hunger. And that's absolutely unacceptable to the US, who were bankrolling Japan's war effort alongside the UK but didn't want Japan becoming a rival in the Pacific. The UK has a trend of siding with the US despite compromise and concessions disadvantaging itself, so it won't push to support Japan over the US.

Because America 1890 and 1902 became strong



But if they tried to fight the British, they could simply destroy all the cities of America because it is in the orbit of the Royal Navy


(Destroying New York, San Francisco, Boston and all the cities of the east and west coasts with the missiles of the Royal Navy would be a fun field day)


As for Asia, it is a British-Russian stadium par excellence


America can do nothing if the Russians and the British decide to colonize China, the United States cannot try to prevent that

 

[cloistered scholar]

Americans let them protest to death


Britain here still doesn't care what Americans think

Anglo American relations had improved since the Spanish American War. The British supported the US taking over the Phillipines because they didn't want the Germans taking it.

If the British take the role of peace negotiator, the Japanese definately get all of Sakhalin. You would need more butterflies for Japan to gain more, and if they did, it would probably be Kamchatka.

 

[ahmedali]

Anglo American relations had improved since the Spanish American War. The British supported the US taking over the Phillipines because they didn't want the Germans taking it.

If the British take the role of peace negotiator, the Japanese definately get all of Sakhalin. You would need more butterflies for Japan to gain more, and if they did, it would probably be Kamchatka.

There is Outer Manchuria, which is beneficial to Japan because it will bring both sides of the Sea of Japan under their control


As for Britain, it will want to grant independence to the Khanates of Bukhara and Kokand and become buffer states like Iran and Afghanistan


The Spaniards could have realistically defeated America, but the massive incompetence and problems that Spain suffered led to an American victory.


This is if the Germans, Austrians and Ottomans did not participate in the war (and if Britain joined, I don't know why they did not join and carve out some lands from the Russians)

 

[RanulfC]

Op clarification: I’m basically saying in response to a slightly worse Dogger Bank incident at the peace table Britain pressure on the United States to get Japan it’s claims.

What, you think just because the OP is our question you have some say over where the conversation goes? Seriously this has had a lot less drift than most

Essentially Britain WAS supporting Japan already against Russia and while I think more pressure might have gotten Japan all of Sakhalin OR reparation's but not both as America was dead set against any real gains. And keep in mind that Roosevelt was in fact on better terms with Japan than Russia which was something the Russians were aware and wary of.

The outcome of the war was a surprise to everyone but everyone also knew that in fact Russia could continue the war over-land whereas Japan was stretched to a breaking point. This was the best 'outcome' that both sides could really get. Most of Europe wanted Russian influence trimmed down they just had not been expecting the Japanese to do the trimming and frankly that was something that needed attention which Britain initially took on. Up until that point no one in Europe had been taking the American "interest" in Japan seriously.

Randy