WI: Ili Crisis (1880) escalates into war between Qing China and Russia?

[GauchoBadger]

IOTL, after the defeat of the Dungan Revolt in the late 1860's, Qing China was in the process of reoccupying Xinjiang. One surprisingly stretched incident (lasting 9 to 10 years) was the Russian occupation of the Ili River region in western Xinjiang, serving to secure Russia's foothold in Central Asia. A diplomatic crisis ensued between the Qing and the Russian Empire, but, in the end, it was solved by the Treaty of Saint Petersburg in 1881, conceding China's previously recognized portion of the Ili region back to the Qing.
But what if the Ili Crisis had not been solved peacefully and, rather, escalated into war? IOTL, a first attempt at solving the question at a conference in Crimea saw the Qing envoy get lynched on his way home. What if hotter heads prevailed in the Qing court and war broke out?
It seems to me that, while Qing China was generally incompetent in regards to naval warfare, its land armies in the peripherical regions could still pack a punch. How would the Russo-Chinese War develop? Who's more likely to get out of the war with advantageous gains? How would Britain react, considering that they were, at the time, embroiled in a war in Afghanistan?

 

[TRH]

I read a bit about this in Hopkirk's book. As I recall, he said Russia backed down because they didn't think they were in good shape for a war, and were used to getting their way through diplomatic slow-walking, so Chinese belligerence caught them off guard. That said, I also remember that it took three years for a Chinese army to reach and put down Yakub Beg, so reinforcing that position might not be so easy for the Qing.

 

[kernals12]

The British would not be pleased by this to say the least.

 

[alexmilman]

The British would not be pleased by this to say the least.

Of course, pleasing the Brits was one of the main principles of Alexander II (with a result of him ending up looking pathetic even after the victory) so this was an factor. OTOH, with the British idea of “throwing Russians into the Caspian Sea” passing for a foreign policy, their accommodation was a rather difficult task To be fair, when push was coming to shove (especially when their proxies had been beaten as happened at Kushka) the Brits proved to be quite practical and the borders on Pamir and Afghanistan had been settled by the peaceful talks.

Another thing to consider was that Russia was just out of a major costly war and, IIRC, was still isolated after Congress of Berlin so unwillingness to get into a new mess can be understood (conquest of Turkestan was a higher priority and it was going on with fall of Geok Tepe in 1881 and Merv in 1884).

It is rather hard to tell how would a military conflict develop taking into an account that Russia had a serious military presence at least in the Central Asia and some very good generals, like Michael Skobelev with experience of fighting in the mountains and deserts.

Anyway, by the treaty of 1881 Russia retained 20% of the territory with a right for the Muslims to migrate there from the Chinese-held part and compensation for the 10 years of area’s administration.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Russia probably wins, but there's no guarantee of it. China had just finished putting down the Muslim rebellion and still had their armies in the area mobilized as well as a very able commander in place. Russia was also in a bad spot financially and desperately needed foreign loans and was worried about antagonizing the British.

Now by this time the people in the know more-or-less knew that India couldn't easily be invaded through Tibet, but when did that ever stop the British from conquering somewhere to keep the Russians out?

The big "if" is British intervention. If that happens it stops Russia cold and Russia loses, likely having the Treaty of Aigun repealed. If Britain stays out, it's either a Russian victory or a draw (which is basically a Chinese victory). The Russians had eyes on more than the Ili Valley and might go for all of Sinkiang, or at least everything north of the Tarim Basin. The other place they were watching closely was eastern Manchuria, and I expect they would try to peel off the area adjacent to the Amur (Heilongjiang and Jilin).

 

[alexmilman]

Russia probably wins, but there's no guarantee of it. China had just finished putting down the Muslim rebellion and still had their armies in the area mobilized as well as a very able commander in place. Russia was also in a bad spot financially and desperately needed foreign loans and was worried about antagonizing the British.

Now by this time the people in the know more-or-less knew that India couldn't easily be invaded through Tibet, but when did that ever stop the British from conquering somewhere to keep the Russians out?

The big "if" is British intervention. If that happens it stops Russia cold and Russia loses, likely having the Treaty of Aigun repealed. If Britain stays out, it's either a Russian victory or a draw (which is basically a Chinese victory). The Russians had eyes on more than the Ili Valley and might go for all of Sinkiang, or at least everything north of the Tarim Basin. The other place they were watching closely was eastern Manchuria, and I expect they would try to peel off the area adjacent to the Amur (Heilongjiang and Jilin).

I would not overestimate the British direct involvement as a factor: it would be quite difficult for them to get any significant number of troops there and their quality advantage on all levels would be a big question mark. As a political factor, this is post-Gorchakov era so I simply can’t tell if pleasing the GB at all costs still was a main idea of the Russian foreign policy. Probably not because League of the Three Emperors was reestablished in June 1881 and, anyway, while the Brits liked to make the bellicose noices (like Disraeli’ statement about throwing Russians into the Caspian Sea), they also tended to avoid the direct confrontations unless there were idiots ready to fight for their interests. Quite obviously, the Brits would not start a full scale war just to help China even if one factors in what you wrote about Pamir (BTW, when it came to finalizing borders on Pamir it was done by a peace conference: the Russians were there and the useful idiots absent). The closest case to war was Kushka crisis where the Afghan troops incited by the Brits (and, according to the Russians, led by the British instructors) had been defeated. The Brits made a lot of noice around the event but the ruler of Afghanistan was seemingly rather indifferent to the whole episode and tried to play it down, Alexander III was not intimidated by a perspective of war and the whole thing ended with a conference settling the border.

So, IMO, the right question is would it worth the effort from the Russian perspective. The answer is “no” because at that time they were busy finishing conquest of Turkestan, which was a complex and tedious process. Not sure if Kuropatkin’s book on the subject is available English but, anyway, the logistical arrangements even for a rather limited operation like conquest of Geok Tepe (1880/81) were huge in scope because everything had to be carried across the desert (and before that shipped across the Caspian Sea). Taking into an account that the conquest of Turkestan continued after Ili crisis (Merv was taken in 1884), it is rather easy to assume that Russian government was reluctant to throw the resources into the area of a relatively low importance.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I would not overestimate the British direct involvement as a factor: it would be quite difficult for them to get any significant number of troops there and their quality advantage on all levels would be a big question mark. As a political factor, this is post-Gorchakov era so I simply can’t tell if pleasing the GB at all costs still was a main idea of the Russian foreign policy. Probably not because League of the Three Emperors was reestablished in June 1881 and, anyway, while the Brits liked to make the bellicose noices (like Disraeli’ statement about throwing Russians into the Caspian Sea), they also tended to avoid the direct confrontations unless there were idiots ready to fight for their interests. Quite obviously, the Brits would not start a full scale war just to help China even if one factors in what you wrote about Pamir (BTW, when it came to finalizing borders on Pamir it was done by a peace conference: the Russians were there and the useful idiots absent). The closest case to war was Kushka crisis where the Afghan troops incited by the Brits (and, according to the Russians, led by the British instructors) had been defeated. The Brits made a lot of noice around the event but the ruler of Afghanistan was seemingly rather indifferent to the whole episode and tried to play it down, Alexander III was not intimidated by a perspective of war and the whole thing ended with a conference settling the border.

So, IMO, the right question is would it worth the effort from the Russian perspective. The answer is “no” because at that time they were busy finishing conquest of Turkestan, which was a complex and tedious process. Not sure if Kuropatkin’s book on the subject is available English but, anyway, the logistical arrangements even for a rather limited operation like conquest of Geok Tepe (1880/81) were huge in scope because everything had to be carried across the desert (and before that shipped across the Caspian Sea). Taking into an account that the conquest of Turkestan continued after Ili crisis (Merv was taken in 1884), it is rather easy to assume that Russian government was reluctant to throw the resources into the area of a relatively low importance.

I don't think it would be the British in Central Asia that was the problem, I think the British being everywhere else is what would drive Russia's economy down and what they were really worried about. Vladivostok and the mouth of the Amur, the Baltic, and maybe the Black Sea (maybe Britain can woo the Turks with getting another crack at Russia? Doubtful, but I think they would try.).

I do agree though that Russia's gains won't be the cost of the war and the OTL situation of cash was the likely outcome probably 19 times out of 20.

The more interesting thing is what happens with China's politics in the post-war. Burma and Vietnam will be directly affected by the Chinese being occupied elsewhere, and Japan might become more aggressive in a Chinese loss too.

 

[alexmilman]

I don't think it would be the British in Central Asia that was the problem, I think the British being everywhere else is what would drive Russia's economy down and what they were really worried about. Vladivostok and the mouth of the Amur, the Baltic, and maybe the Black Sea (maybe Britain can woo the Turks with getting another crack at Russia? Doubtful, but I think they would try.).

The Ottomans were out of question after 1878 and, anyway, why would they start a new war? Just to please the Brits? Unrealistic.

As for the rest, it still does not make too much sense because most of the Russian naval trade had been conducted by the foreign ships and because starting the war would endanger the British investments in Russia. Important ports on the Baltic had been well fortified and Russian trade on the Pacific was minimal even after the RJW, not to mention that the Franco-British landings during the CW ended with a failure.

Russian economy during the reign of Alexander II was down due to his never-ending attempt to please everybody (especially the Brits) by keeping the import tariffs low and started growing when his son raised these tariffs. So in that area confrontation with the GB could mean an earlier improvement and, anyway, there were France, Germany, US and other trade partners and an idea of the Brits trying to establish a blockade of the Russian ports over Russian - Chinese territorial dispute seems to be unlikely and it would not be enforceable.

OTOH, just because of the national paranoia, the Brits would expect a possibility of the Russian invasion of India (actually, Skobelev came with such a plan but nobody was interested; IMO premises of the plan were rather optimistic but this is not the point) so they’d be concentrating on its defense, probably by launching one more invasion of Afghanistan (which they just left).

 

[The Gunslinger]

One thing I was thinking is that assuming a marginal victory/stalemate for either side post-war. Can Russia afford the Trans-Siberian Railway after such a massive expenditure on a war they barely won/lost or is its construction delayed? And if so, does this affect the Triple Intervention during the Sino-Japanese War (realistically, I can't see the war being averted or ending any way other than the way it did without a different POD)?