WI Russia won the 1904 war with Japan

[PhoenicianLegacy]

Hey guys,

Right now I'd like to discuss another 20th possibility In 1904, Imperial Russia and Imperial Japan fought a war over Manchuria since both saw it as a worthy part of their empires : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

In OTL in which Japan won, leading Japan to start its imperialist colonial campaign in the Pacific until the end World War II. The former went downhill from then on, leading the Tsarist government to be weakened enough to face an overthrow by Communism in 1917.

What if Russia had won that war? If so, the Tsar would've been strengthened and able to put up a better fight against Germany in World War I and possibly get his hands on those who desired to overthrow him and thus, no Soviet Union and no Cold War. Upon gaining Manchuria, Russia's next action would be turning Korea into a buffer zone. As for Japan, it's loss would mean that they'd have to delay their imperial ambitions if not abandon them completely, leading to no Pacific Wars. It would be a very different 20th century indeed.

What do you people think?

 

[Namayan]

What if Russia had won that war?

Russia was expected to win. Fall of the Romanovs was still going to happen as long as Imeperial Russia maintained its archaic social, economic and political structures. Bloody Sunday and Revolt in 1905 had more effect on Russia than the loss vs Japan. Loss to Japan was more of a international prestige blow than a whole Russia effect blow. Since angry peasants were not butterflied, there was every reason for the Tsardom to be toppled. Results in WW1 Russian will probably be the same as OTL unless you change the insides of Russia.

As for Japan, it's loss would mean that they'd have to delay their imperial ambitions if not abandon them completely, leading to no Pacific Wars. It would be a very different 20th century indeed.

The loss of Japan would mean the Anglo-Japanese would have survived since the IJN will not be seen as a threat by the Commonwealth. Japan will have less reason to be ambitious in ATL than OTL due to its loss vs Russia as well retention of the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

The issue in the pacific is how powerful China would be without 1930s engagement with Japan like OTL. In this case, China would align with Axis instead of Japan. What is happening in OTL present day in surrounding China might have happened in the 1940s, where China is trying to land grab each neighbors sovereignty. Annexation of Tibet, land border skirmish with British India, islands and land grabs from French Indo China, US Philippines and Imperial Japan. At worst, it may go head to head with USSR. The Abomb would have dropped in Nanking, Peking or Shanghai instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[TRH]

The issue in the pacific is how powerful China would be without 1930s engagement with Japan like OTL. In this case, China would align with Axis instead of Japan. What is happening in OTL present day in surrounding China might have happened in the 1940s, where China is trying to land grab each neighbors sovereignty. Annexation of Tibet, land border skirmish with British India, islands and land grabs from French Indo China, US Philippines and Imperial Japan. At worst, it may go head to head with USSR. The Abomb would have dropped in Nanking, Peking or Shanghai instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

With all the butterflies flapping, it's one thing to assume WW1 will go the same as OTL, but to expect an even vaguely recognizable WW2 is a bridge too far, IMO.

 

[zert]

Also a stronger Russia may do a lot better against Germany. This could have large butterflies and it might be that Germany does not roll up France and gets squished. WW1 may be a lot shorter war and Britain may not even have to get involved.

I agree that any recognizable WW2 analog might be asking a little too much.

 

[BooNZ]

Also a stronger Russia may do a lot better against Germany. This could have large butterflies and it might be that Germany does not roll up France and gets squished. WW1 may be a lot shorter war and Britain may not even have to get involved.

I agree that any recognizable WW2 analog might be asking a little too much.

If Russia 'wins' the Russo-Japanese war, it is likely to fare much worse in WW1, if indeed that eventuates.

A victorious and confident Russia would be less inclined to put the huge level of resources into modernising its military and supporting infrastructure. Similarly, the development and Russification of Manchuria would also absorb significant manpower and resources that might otherwise be put to military purposes.

A victorious and confident Russia may also be perceived as a threat to the Great Britain, which may threaten the Entente.

 

[Namayan]

With all the butterflies flapping, it's one thing to assume WW1 will go the same as OTL, but to expect an even vaguely recognizable WW2 is a bridge too far, IMO.

I never even stated that WW2 is the same as OTL. Too much coffee, reading my statement too much in between...eh>

 

[Tallil2long]

As I see it, Russian expansionism focused on three areas, switching back and forth in priority: Southwest Asia, the East, and the Balkans. By 1904, large scale expansion into Southwest Asia was no longer possible, as Russia and Britain had mostly absorbed the independent polities there, or had created fairly stable spheres of influence. Losing the Russo-Japanese War greatly hindered Russian prospects in the East. Only the Balkans presented possibilities, and Russia focused its efforts there.

But if Russia won the war, isn't it possible she might've kept her focus in the East, meaning that her machinations in the Balkans became less aggressive? Serbia might've felt less certain of Russian support, and consequently behaved with greater circumspection, delaying the outbreak of WW1.

 

[Aley]

But if Russia won the war, isn't it possible she might've kept her focus in the East, meaning that her machinations in the Balkans became less aggressive? Serbia might've felt less certain of Russian support, and consequently behaved with greater circumspection, delaying the outbreak of WW1.

And Germany will wait when Russia and France have finished upgrading their armies?

 

[Captain Jack]

As I see it, Russian expansionism focused on three areas, switching back and forth in priority: Southwest Asia, the East, and the Balkans. By 1904, large scale expansion into Southwest Asia was no longer possible, as Russia and Britain had mostly absorbed the independent polities there, or had created fairly stable spheres of influence. Losing the Russo-Japanese War greatly hindered Russian prospects in the East. Only the Balkans presented possibilities, and Russia focused its efforts there.

But if Russia won the war, isn't it possible she might've kept her focus in the East, meaning that her machinations in the Balkans became less aggressive? Serbia might've felt less certain of Russian support, and consequently behaved with greater circumspection, delaying the outbreak of WW1.

Russia's response to the July Crisis of 1914 was largely coloured by its loss to Japan. The leadership felt that they couldn't afford to back down over Serbia because they had been pushing the idea of Pan-Slavism as a way to boost popular support.

In short a Russian victory over Japan alters international relations such that WW1 will be drastically different.

 

[LordKalvert]

As I see it, Russian expansionism focused on three areas, switching back and forth in priority: Southwest Asia, the East, and the Balkans. By 1904, large scale expansion into Southwest Asia was no longer possible, as Russia and Britain had mostly absorbed the independent polities there, or had created fairly stable spheres of influence. Losing the Russo-Japanese War greatly hindered Russian prospects in the East. Only the Balkans presented possibilities, and Russia focused its efforts there.

But if Russia won the war, isn't it possible she might've kept her focus in the East, meaning that her machinations in the Balkans became less aggressive? Serbia might've felt less certain of Russian support, and consequently behaved with greater circumspection, delaying the outbreak of WW1.

A Russian victory would have kept Russia as the dominant power in the Franco-Russian alliance. France's ability to drag Russia into an anti German foreign policy over Morocco would have been negated.

Russia and Germany would have been more likely to force French adherence to Bjorko and a continental alliance against England becomes a real possibility

 

[LordKalvert]

If Russia 'wins' the Russo-Japanese war, it is likely to fare much worse in WW1, if indeed that eventuates.

A victorious and confident Russia would be less inclined to put the huge level of resources into modernising its military and supporting infrastructure. Similarly, the development and Russification of Manchuria would also absorb significant manpower and resources that might otherwise be put to military purposes.

A victorious and confident Russia may also be perceived as a threat to the Great Britain, which may threaten the Entente.

It would also have been more likely to keep its autocratic system- which would have allowed the tsar to dictate spending without the Duma. Also the financial collapse of Russia would not have occurred meaning more money for defense

Finally, the Entente would never have developed more likely a revived three Emperor's league with French adherence

 

[LordKalvert]

As for Japan, it's loss would mean that they'd have to delay their imperial ambitions if not abandon them completely, leading to no Pacific Wars. It would be a very different 20th century indeed.

What do you people think?


For Japan, loss of this war ends it all. Russian peace terms would have been harsh and only intervention by England may have been able to save something for Japan. But that would be highly unlikely. England had egged Japan on to avoid getting involved herself and a strengthened Russia would have left her the same options as before:

War with Russia would risk the British fleet and possible lead to the destruction of the British Empire. Even if England were to beat Russia war would have left England weakened and vulnerable. Its Tirpirtz's risk theory at work

 

[EnglishCanuck]

As for Japan, it's loss would mean that they'd have to delay their imperial ambitions if not abandon them completely, leading to no Pacific Wars. It would be a very different 20th century indeed.

What do you people think?


For Japan, loss of this war ends it all. Russian peace terms would have been harsh and only intervention by England may have been able to save something for Japan. But that would be highly unlikely. England had egged Japan on to avoid getting involved herself and a strengthened Russia would have left her the same options as before:

War with Russia would risk the British fleet and possible lead to the destruction of the British Empire. Even if England were to beat Russia war would have left England weakened and vulnerable. Its Tirpirtz's risk theory at work

If Russia wins, Japan is deterred from expanding into Korea for the time being, they will wait and look for easier colonial targets (China potentially). They will also remain allies with England as it offers protection from foreign dominance (and access to wonderful naval benefits). Also Russia can't really dictate harsh peace terms (British and American pressure would prevent that, not to mention the fact that Russia stood no chance of threatening the Japanese Home Islands).

Meanwhile internal rot starts to plague the Russian system which will adversely effect politics in Europe.

 

[Sharunaku]

The issue in the pacific is how powerful China would be without 1930s engagement with Japan like OTL. In this case, China would align with Axis instead of Japan. What is happening in OTL present day in surrounding China might have happened in the 1940s, where China is trying to land grab each neighbors sovereignty. Annexation of Tibet, land border skirmish with British India, islands and land grabs from French Indo China, US Philippines and Imperial Japan. At worst, it may go head to head with USSR. The Abomb would have dropped in Nanking, Peking or Shanghai instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Do you realize that with a PoD in 1905 you'll need a lot of butterflies to get TTL China to look like OTL China in the '30s?

 

[BooNZ]

It would also have been more likely to keep its autocratic system- which would have allowed the tsar to dictate spending without the Duma. Also the financial collapse of Russia would not have occurred meaning more money for defense

OTL the duma did little to control military spending and Russia generally continued to run as autocracy.

I am not aware of any financial collapse but the extreme expenditure related to the war and suppressing unrest in that period will be incurred irrespective of the war outcome. Additional Eastern territories will require additional expenditure to defend and develop.

The above expenditures would need to be funded through French loans, which would provide France with huge leverage over Russia - per OTL.

Finally, the Entente would never have developed more likely a revived three Emperor's league with French adherence.

England would likely not join a victorious Russia/ France alignment, but neither would Germany and/or A-H. Russian Pan-slavism and activities in Balkans undermine A-H and France and Germany are unlikely to get along.

England will either cling to isolationism or reconcile with Germany - not sure if that would extend to formal alliance - doubtful.

 

[BooNZ]

War with Russia would risk the British fleet and possible lead to the destruction of the British Empire. Even if England were to beat Russia war would have left England weakened and vulnerable. Its Tirpirtz's risk theory at work

One of the many flaws of Tirpitz risk theory is naval battles are ordinarily far more decisive than land battles i.e. a superior fleet often inflicts a battle of annihilation with little loss to themselves e.g. Battle of Trafalgar & Battle of Tsushima.

 

[Green Painting]

Do you realize that with a PoD in 1905 you'll need a lot of butterflies to get TTL China to look like OTL China in the '30s?

Especially OTL's China in 1930s would never have lead to a expansionist one in the 1940s. I'll get back on that later if necessary.

Now: the effect of Russia winning Sino-Japanese war on China directly.

IOTL China clearly preferred Japan over Russia, there was a sense of relief and even joy when Japan finally won.

Russia was seen as an European slaver conspiring to subjugate all Asians, while Japan was at worst a lesser evil, and at best a standard-bearer of the Yellow Race. The former view was held by imperial officials, while the latter view was predominant especially among the young revolutionary-minded nationalists.

Now, with this colossal monster of the north winning, and a promising model of modernization of the east discredited (a bankrupt militarist state was hardly a success) , the combination of an enormous sense of crisis brought by Russia and disillusionment with Japan may bring about a strong conservative / Confucian backlash in China, probably giving the Qing an extra few decades.

 

[Al-numbers]

From what I've learned, a Russian win the the war would result in Japan going bankrupt or having a lot of financial trouble due to spending issues by the militarists (about 40% percent of total government expenditure was on issues relating to the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars). I do not want to be a Japanese militarist if either War is lost.

On the other hand, Russia borrowed heavily from France and Germany to prop itself up during the war, and winning the war would help it gain some needed credit from the other Western Powers (at least for a short while).

 

[Grey Wolf]

As I see it, Russian expansionism focused on three areas, switching back and forth in priority: Southwest Asia, the East, and the Balkans. By 1904, large scale expansion into Southwest Asia was no longer possible, as Russia and Britain had mostly absorbed the independent polities there, or had created fairly stable spheres of influence. Losing the Russo-Japanese War greatly hindered Russian prospects in the East. Only the Balkans presented possibilities, and Russia focused its efforts there.

But if Russia won the war, isn't it possible she might've kept her focus in the East, meaning that her machinations in the Balkans became less aggressive? Serbia might've felt less certain of Russian support, and consequently behaved with greater circumspection, delaying the outbreak of WW1.

That is exactly how I see it, added to which without Russia's weakness Austria-Hungary won't be annexing Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908 and ratcheting up the tension.

My Tsar Michael The Great story and timeline begins with Nicholas II's death at Livadia in 1901 and a Russian victory in the R-J War. I plan to finally publish it soon, but events since late April have derailed all the work I had done on getting it ready.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Especially OTL's China in 1930s would never have lead to a expansionist one in the 1940s. I'll get back on that later if necessary.

Now: the effect of Russia winning Sino-Japanese war on China directly.

IOTL China clearly preferred Japan over Russia, there was a sense of relief and even joy when Japan finally won.

Russia was seen as an European slaver conspiring to subjugate all Asians, while Japan was at worst a lesser evil, and at best a standard-bearer of the Yellow Race. The former view was held by imperial officials, while the latter view was predominant especially among the young revolutionary-minded nationalists.

Now, with this colossal monster of the north winning, and a promising model of modernization of the east discredited (a bankrupt militarist state was hardly a success) , the combination of an enormous sense of crisis brought by Russia and disillusionment with Japan may bring about a strong conservative / Confucian backlash in China, probably giving the Qing an extra few decades.

There were a number of Sino-Russian joint ventures (banks, railways, steamship companies) which a Russian victory would allow to continue, so this is going to have butterflies of its own.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf