WI Russia won the 1904 war with Japan

[Grey Wolf]

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.

Russian peace terms would have been recognition of dominance over all of Sakhalin and the Kurils, recognition of Manchuria as Russian sphere of influence and of Korea as a puppet state of Russia. In addition, wars in this era usually ended with reparations claimed against the loser, so Japan will be paying off some of Russia's war debts.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Depending on HOW Russia wins a lot of change might result in ATL naval development. Different "lessons" might be learnt. The road to the Dreadnought might be derailed.

The most likely route to victory is for Makaroff to avoid being blown up, complete his shake up of the fleet so it is actually a fighting force, and to defeat Togo in battle. With Russia commanding the sea, Japanese armies can't be supplied and Russia can turn the tide of the land war.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[LordKalvert]

Let's posit this scenario for a Russian victory:

Nicholas comes to the throne and immediately fires his incompetent uncle replacing him with the likes of Makarov and Loman. He begins his buildup in 1895 rather than 1898 which would allow for the Borodino class to be finished before the war and the Russian navy is well trained and equipped with decent shells. They engage and destroy the Japanese fleet in an early fleet action before the end of March 1904

What of Tirpirtz's risk theory which contains a lot of subtly. The Russian fleet massed in the Pacific with fifteen battleships For England to force the Russians to back down, she would need a force of around thirty battleships- she would want a force that would guarantee victory which would be about two to one. Anything less than that would risk Russia destroying the English fleet piece by piece

But to do that, she would have to abandon European waters- something she could never do. She could threaten to blockade Russia at the straits and the sound. However, this would require German and Austrian cooperation since Russia would merely switch her foreign trade to the railroads. Neither of the two really showed much interest in fighting Russia and France at the time- which is shown in Germany's reluctance in the Allliance talks. This is especially true over far east considerations

England's most likely course would be to cut a deal with Russia where Russia gets the Northern Pacific and England a claim to the Yangtze.

 

[BooNZ]

Let's posit this scenario for a Russian victory:

Nicholas comes to the throne and immediately fires his incompetent uncle replacing him with the likes of Makarov and Loman. He begins his buildup in 1895 rather than 1898 which would allow for the Borodino class to be finished before the war and the Russian navy is well trained and equipped with decent shells. They engage and destroy the Japanese fleet in an early fleet action before the end of March 1904

In the first instance, this would be entirely out of character for Nicky. In the second instance, the abortive design from which the Borodino was copied was not yet available. In the third instance, Nelson, Tirpitz and John Fisher working in perfect unison could not have turned the Russian Navy into an effective fighting force in less than ten years...

In short, ASB

What of Tirpirtz's risk theory which contains a lot of subtly. The Russian fleet massed in the Pacific with fifteen battleships For England to force the Russians to back down, she would need a force of around thirty battleships - she would want a force that would guarantee victory which would be about two to one. Anything less than that would risk Russia destroying the English fleet piece by piece

I think you may have chose the wrong word here - I believe Tirpitz's risk theory contains a lot of 'stupidity'. Russia did not have the economy, industry, or technology to even attempt to apply Tirpitz's mad theory, which worked so very well for Germany...

Britain continued to maintain a two power standard. In terms of quality the Royal Navy hardware, training and doctrine would likely remain a decade ahead of anything the Russians could hope to put to sea. In my opinion, the best option for Russia would be to limit naval assets to coastal defence and sea denial - the vast sums saved could instead be better invested in improved infrastructure.

But to do that, she would have to abandon European waters- something she could never do. She could threaten to blockade Russia at the straits and the sound. However, this would require German and Austrian cooperation since Russia would merely switch her foreign trade to the railroads. Neither of the two really showed much interest in fighting Russia and France at the time- which is shown in Germany's reluctance in the Allliance talks. This is especially true over far east considerations

I'm curious how transAtlantic marine trade could be so easily switched to rail...

Germany and A-H were wary about being sucked into a continental war, but Willy was always interested in a seat at the big table.

England's most likely course would be to cut a deal with Russia where Russia gets the Northern Pacific and England a claim to the Yangtze.

Sorry, I must have I missed the part where the Cossaks were marching through London?

I am sure the US would be very interested in working with GB to maintain an open door to greater China or failing that, Willy could be invited to dinner...

 

[Grey Wolf]

A Russian victory does mean increased Russian influence in Peking, but post-Boxer Rebellion all the powers have a focus on China, and besides Russia and China had a closening relationship anyway (steamship companies, banks, railways).

Russia could have had more battleships in the Far East by one of two routes
1) rotate them out less often - several of those which came with Rozhestvensky had previously been out there (eg Sissoi Veliki) but had been rotated back to Europe for refitting
2) get the Osliabia out there on time with her little group; on declaration of war they turned back.

The Russian Navy was aware that its battleships were being outdated by European and American ones, hence why it ordered the Retvizan from the USA and the Tsesarevitch from France. If Russia had poured more money into crash-building a class instead of the Borodinos, it would have ended up with modified Petropavlosks.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[LordKalvert]

A Russian victory does mean increased Russian influence in Peking, but post-Boxer Rebellion all the powers have a focus on China, and besides Russia and China had a closening relationship anyway (steamship companies, banks, railways).

Russia could have had more battleships in the Far East by one of two routes
1) rotate them out less often - several of those which came with Rozhestvensky had previously been out there (eg Sissoi Veliki) but had been rotated back to Europe for refitting
2) get the Osliabia out there on time with her little group; on declaration of war they turned back.

The Russian Navy was aware that its battleships were being outdated by European and American ones, hence why it ordered the Retvizan from the USA and the Tsesarevitch from France. If Russia had poured more money into crash-building a class instead of the Borodinos, it would have ended up with modified Petropavlosks.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

However, by 1895 Russia had the French alliance and access to French designs as well as American ones. She could easily have had better battleships. The Petropavlosks were already four years old and out of date.

Again, yes, the technical aspects of the ships would have been different than the Borodino class (which were awful anyway) but the ships would have been built. I'm sure that any commander would prefer five Petropavlosks in hand than five Borodinos on the dock

Russia didn't need to be rotating the ships out- she should have simply followed Loman's suggestion of abandoning the Baltic and concentrating on the Far East What she had was two half fleets incapable of defending either

The correct military strategy would have been to concentrate the fleet where it could do the most good- which was the Pacific.

There's really no reason that Russia couldn't have had two or three to one superiority over Japan in 1904 except for the incompetence of the Russian naval high command, foremost of whom is Grand Duke Alexis

 

[BooNZ]

...

Russia didn't need to be rotating the ships out- she should have simply followed Loman's suggestion of abandoning the Baltic and concentrating on the Far East What she had was two half fleets incapable of defending either

The correct military strategy would have been to concentrate the fleet where it could do the most good- which was the Pacific.

By "most good" you mean antagonise the British, the Japanese and the US. Instead of the Japanese in 1904 you might see a repeat of Copenhagen 1807, which was something the Germans had purportedly been wary of...

There's really no reason that Russia couldn't have had two or three to one superiority over Japan in 1904 except for the incompetence of the Russian naval high command, foremost of whom is Grand Duke Alexis

Such a Russian naval presence would represent a clear and present danger to the interests of Britain, USA and Japan.

Modern navies were expensive to build and Russia OTL spend more than any other power on its military (25% being naval related). The development of the Trans-Siberian railway was also staggeringly expensive and the Russian army was in dire need of reform/ modernisation. Much of the above needed to be financed by French loans.

An enhanced Russian Navy would either need to be loan funded or Russia would need to spend significantly less on its Army or railway development.

 

[LordKalvert]

By "most good" you mean antagonise the British, the Japanese and the US. Instead of the Japanese in 1904 you might see a repeat of Copenhagen 1807, which was something the Germans had purportedly been wary of...



Such a Russian naval presence would represent a clear and present danger to the interests of Britain, USA and Japan.

Modern navies were expensive to build and Russia OTL spend more than any other power on its military (25% being naval related). The development of the Trans-Siberian railway was also staggeringly expensive and the Russian army was in dire need of reform/ modernisation. Much of the above needed to be financed by French loans.

An enhanced Russian Navy would either need to be loan funded or Russia would need to spend significantly less on its Army or railway development.

well its obvious that Japan and England thought of Russia's presence in the Far East as a threat which is why they allied and Japan attacked. The US, for all of Teddy Roosevelt's bluster, wanted nothing to do with it. Congress would never have backed him up

As for a Copenhagen- remember the Russo-French fleet was formidable and such a strategy on England's part would have been very risky for her. England had backed down over the Armenian issue and wouldn't involve herself in Japan's attack-

Russia's power was growing very rapidly in the Far East and Japan had a very narrow window to fight her roughly January 1902-1905. Before that, she didn't have English cover and her fleet wasn't ready. After that, the railroad would be finished and the Borodinos built. Russian success depends on closing that window something she should have been able to do

 

[BooNZ]

well its obvious that Japan and England thought of Russia's presence in the Far East as a threat which is why they allied and Japan attacked. The US, for all of Teddy Roosevelt's bluster, wanted nothing to do with it. Congress would never have backed him up

The USA seemed happy enough to purloin the Philippines when the opportunity arose. The USA was very vocal about keeping Europe out of China and USA increasingly saw Asia as its sphere of influence.

As for a Copenhagen- remember the Russo-French fleet was formidable and such a strategy on England's part would have been very risky for her. England had backed down over the Armenian issue and wouldn't involve herself in Japan's attack-

Nonsense, the Russo-French fleet was a non-entity - the French battleship design concepts were peculiar at best (as illustrated by the copied Borodinos) and the Russians spent most their time in port. Meanwhile the Royal Navy had been recently aroused by some German competition.

I'm not aware of any 'Armenian issue', but a small landlocked state on the border of European Russia compared to the potential domination of China has no equivalency in importance or ability to intercede.

Russia's power was growing very rapidly in the Far East and Japan had a very narrow window to fight her roughly January 1902-1905. Before that, she didn't have English cover and her fleet wasn't ready. After that, the railroad would be finished and the Borodinos built. Russian success depends on closing that window something she should have been able to do

Russia's power in the east was growing from a very low base - the Russians were still dependent on Chinese managers to administer their very limited holdings in Manchuria, which limited their potential influence. Chinese immigration to the region was also rampant and beyond Manchuria was Korea with a high population density - more potential minorities for the Tsar?

The window of opportunity comment is relevant, at least in respect of the Railroad. In my opinion the best way for Russia to close that window would have been appeasement for 10 years - Manchuria being within the Russian Sphere and Korea in the Japanese Sphere. I understand Japan proposed something similar before hostilities...

A Russian wank would be for Russia to form an alliance with Japan before the British - just after they seized Port Arthur That would relieve them of the need to maintain any Eastern fleet at all...

 

[LordKalvert]

In the first instance, this would be entirely out of character for Nicky. In the second instance, the abortive design from which the Borodino was copied was not yet available. In the third instance, Nelson, Tirpitz and John Fisher working in perfect unison could not have turned the Russian Navy into an effective fighting force in less than ten years...

In short, ASB

Yes it would be out of character for Nicky- he didn't actually do it but we're exploring an alternate history where he does. The time needed to turn Russia's navy around isn't as long as you would have it especially under energetic and forceful leadership. Makarov made great progress with the fleet in the short time he commanded it. Give him about a year and the fleet would have been in good repair, trained to actually hit something. Some of this has to do with funding but most had to do with the failures of the leadership

I'm curious how transAtlantic marine trade could be so easily switched to rail...

Germany and A-H were wary about being sucked into a continental war, but Willy was always interested in a seat at the big table.

Most of Russia's trade went by rail anyway. Switching her seaborne trade to rail simply would mean shipping it to a German or other port. England certainly wouldn't have tried to blockade the continent. In the railroad age, blockade required the cooperation of the other powers to inflict much damage on an adversary.

Sorry, I must have I missed the part where the Cossaks were marching through London?

I am sure the US would be very interested in working with GB to maintain an open door to greater China or failing that, Willy could be invited to dinner...

Who said anything about Cossacks in London? What I said was if the Russians had sunk the Japanese fleet, England's position in the Far East would have been dire indeed especially if the Russian fleet had been concentrated there.

For England to mass a force strong enough to fight Russia in Asia, she would have had to leave her European interests undefended- something she could not do. As much as you might decry the French fleet, it certainly could have handled England if she took her fleet and put it in the Pacific

 

[LordKalvert]

The USA seemed happy enough to purloin the Philippines when the opportunity arose. The USA was very vocal about keeping Europe out of China and USA increasingly saw Asia as its sphere of influence.

The USA (read Roosevelt) was vocal in support of free trade to China- doesn't mean that she would go to war over the issue. The purloining the Philippines had been a very controversial step in America.

Nonsense, the Russo-French fleet was a non-entity - the French battleship design concepts were peculiar at best (as illustrated by the copied Borodinos) and the Russians spent most their time in port. Meanwhile the Royal Navy had been recently aroused by some German competition.

I'm not aware of any 'Armenian issue', but a small landlocked state on the border of European Russia compared to the potential domination of China has no equivalency in importance or ability to intercede.

The Russo-French fleet was far from a "non entity" and French designs were good. The problem with the Borodinos were the redesign that left them top heavy. English ships also had lots of technical problems (Fisher would scrap over half the fleet as obsolete and worthless) Again, the scenario is that Russia and Japan go to war but the Russians win, destroying the Japanese fleet something that is very plausible

Russia's power in the east was growing from a very low base - the Russians were still dependent on Chinese managers to administer their very limited holdings in Manchuria, which limited their potential influence. Chinese immigration to the region was also rampant and beyond Manchuria was Korea with a high population density - more potential minorities for the Tsar?

The window of opportunity comment is relevant, at least in respect of the Railroad. In my opinion the best way for Russia to close that window would have been appeasement for 10 years - Manchuria being within the Russian Sphere and Korea in the Japanese Sphere. I understand Japan proposed something similar before hostilities...

A Russian wank would be for Russia to form an alliance with Japan before the British - just after they seized Port Arthur That would relieve them of the need to maintain any Eastern fleet at all...

Russia's power in the Far East was already immense- second only to Japan's and growing very rapidly. Once the Borodinos and the railroad was finished, Japan's position would be well nigh impossible. Russia's failure is in not closing that gap three years earlier

Russia made mistakes in its far east policy- not dealing Japan the death blow in 1895 when she could have forced Japan to give up all her gains, seizing Port Arthur and thereby losing the Chinese alliance and pressing the Manchurian issue a year too soon. Given the balance in 1904, cutting a deal with Japan would have been the safest play.

But all that said, a scenario where Russia defeats the Japanese and destroys her fleet in battle is quite plausible and the ramifications of that is what I was hoping to explore

 

[LordKalvert]

I think you may have chose the wrong word here - I believe Tirpitz's risk theory contains a lot of 'stupidity'. Russia did not have the economy, industry, or technology to even attempt to apply Tirpitz's mad theory, which worked so very well for Germany...

Britain continued to maintain a two power standard. In terms of quality the Royal Navy hardware, training and doctrine would likely remain a decade ahead of anything the Russians could hope to put to sea. In my opinion, the best option for Russia would be to limit naval assets to coastal defence and sea denial - the vast sums saved could instead be better invested in improved infrastructure.

Let's explore Tirpirtz's risk theory for a moment. He postulated that building a strong German navy that would be concentrated in European waters would give Germany the strong hand against England. This was because:

1) England couldn't afford to concentrate their entire Fleet in home waters

2) England couldn't afford to risk her fleet in the wake of the hostilities of other nations- mainly France and Russia. That a battle between England and Germany would leave the English fleet so weakened that she wouldn't be able to stand up to the latter two afterwards

It failed for Germany for several reasons. The main was that European waters were the most vital for England. If forced to abandon control over some of the Oceans it would be the Western Hemisphere and Asia rather than the North Sea.

The other was that England might choose to kiss and make up with the French and the Russians

Now how does this apply to Russia? She doesn't threaten England's position in Europe but rather the Far East. These interests are no where near as vital.

Second, the moving of the British fleet to the Far East leaves her naked in Europe- the one thing that she could never do. A Russian fleet concentrated in the Far East would have required a huge English force to deal with.

Look at what England's policy was- she toyed with using Germany as the counterweight to Russia but the Germans wanted nothing to do with that demanding English adherence to the Triple Alliance as her price. This was way too high for England.

The Americans wouldn't help either and so she turned to Japan the only power willing and able to fight Russia in the Far East. This led to the creation of a powerful Japan which England and America came to regret in 1941.

But what happens to England if her Japanese allies are defeated?

 

[BooNZ]

The Russo-French fleet was far from a "non entity" and French designs were good. The problem with the Borodinos were the redesign that left them top heavy.

The problem with the Borodinos was that they were a (poor) copy of the French built Tsesarevich which "Like the French ships, though, she was top-heavy and lacking in stability, and had longitudinal watertight bulkheads which made her prone to capsize if holed on either side." Being top heavy was a French design feature.

English ships also had lots of technical problems (Fisher would scrap over half the fleet as obsolete and worthless)

Obsolescence is scarcely a technical problem - surviving until old age is seen as virtue in many cultures...

Russia's power in the Far East was already immense- second only to Japan's and growing very rapidly. Once the Borodinos and the railroad was finished, Japan's position would be well nigh impossible. Russia's failure is in not closing that gap three years earlier

Russia made mistakes in its far east policy- not dealing Japan the death blow in 1895 when she could have forced Japan to give up all her gains, seizing Port Arthur and thereby losing the Chinese alliance and pressing the Manchurian issue a year too soon. Given the balance in 1904, cutting a deal with Japan would have been the safest play.

Aside from Russia's growing power the logic of cutting a deal, I disagree with everything else outlined above.

But all that said, a scenario where Russia defeats the Japanese and destroys her fleet in battle is quite plausible and the ramifications of that is what I was hoping to explore

Here goes:
- Russia re-establishes itself as the English nemesis, resulting ultimately in reconciliation between Germany and England. Entente membership is subsequently limited to France, Russia and Serbia...

- Russia continues to spend vast sums of money on the Trans-Siberian railway in addition to its now enhanced navy. With the 'true worth' of the Russian navy demonstrated, perhaps a fourth fourth fleet on the Murman Coast is a possibility. To remain competitive, 50% of the Russian defence budget would need to be spent on its navy.

- OTL the Russians often relied on Chinese managers to maintain their limited Manchurian holdings - expanding those holdings would be expensive and difficult. Further, from 1895 China was successfully encouraging massive Chinese emigration into Manchuria to thwart foreign influence/ control.

- If Russians seeks to expand control into Korea, management difficulties become more difficult by high population density. Any civil unrest among those now ethnic minorities would be subsequently encouraged by Japan, China, USA and England - if their initial demands of for Korean sovereignty were ignored.

- With the Japanese navy defeated, it is likely augmented sufficiently by England or the USA to ensure safety of the Japanese homeland. Some parallels to post WW2 Korea/Japan, without the imperialist baggage - a potential Japan wank .

- With an under-resourced Russian army and German-English understanding, terms like German Morroco and/or German Indochina might be in everyday use - a potential German wank .

- In summary, Russia will have fewer friends, a more fragile economy and an army that overdue for a world of hurt.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

A victorious Russia will have one immediate impact:

Russia is more confident.

So while THE Entente Cordiale, the Russo French Alliance still stand the Anglo Russian relations will probably be worse than otl. So the 1907 Treaty of St. Petersburg is butterflied away.

Continuing Russian British rivalry might lead to a Britain NOT being so keen to get involved in an European War.

That means we get a more multipolar world.

 

[LordKalvert]

England's position is considerably hurt and what is her response and Russia's?

One of two outcomes is most likely- either England continues the policy of the Entente- there were many reasons for it: She wished to end her rivalry with France and Russia and thereby secure her Empire. She had also become aware of the danger of German hegemony. If she continues this policy though, the Russians would be able to drive a much harder bargain

And what of Russia? She would have made huge gains in the Pacific and would want to consolidate them. Would she have been strong enough to pull France from the entente and bring her into Bjorko? or would she still cut a deal with England?

Russia's return to the Balkan's may have been inevitable- it was driven by a host of factors beyond her control (the Bosnian annexation- which she might have been tempted to ignore, the Young Turks seizure of power and the Italian-Turko war) But she would have been militarily much stronger and Germany may not have been so keen to back Austria

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

I am sure the US would be very interested in working with GB to maintain an open door to greater China or failing that, Willy could be invited to dinner...

We all know how hungry Billy Badass was, but I also don't see America not doing all it could to maintain an open door policy with China. I also don't see Russia winning in 1905, Japan was fighting a limited front and through their navy could resupply much quicker.

Say they do win, they'll more than likely not be taking the war to Japan; so now you'll have an untouched Japan looking to put a hurt on Russia and without the defeat why would the Russian's modernize?

Japan will seek allies, and a Britain who see's the Great Game restarting will be their so I still see an alliance between the two. Maybe Russia would stay in alliance with Germany and Austria, in which case Germany would be trying to modernize at least Russia's economy to back it in case of war with France and/or Britain (mostly Britain.)

From their the world diverges and who knows exactly how it would turn out, but my best guess is we would still see a militant Japanese by the 40's if only against Russia except with the knowledge it is possible to loose.

 

[BooNZ]

We all know how hungry Billy Badass was, but I also don't see America not doing all it could to maintain an open door policy with China. I also don't see Russia winning in 1905, Japan was fighting a limited front and through their navy could resupply much quicker..

Mostly agree, unless hostilities extend into 1906 and Russia wins a battle of attrition. Unless the Japanese are extraordinarily unlucky, I cannot see Japan losing control of the seas to Russia with a POD after 1900.

Say they do win, they'll more than likely not be taking the war to Japan; so now you'll have an untouched Japan looking to put a hurt on Russia and without the defeat why would the Russian's modernize?

Entirely agree

Japan will seek allies, and a Britain who see's the Great Game restarting will be their so I still see an alliance between the two. Maybe Russia would stay in alliance with Germany and Austria, in which case Germany would be trying to modernize at least Russia's economy to back it in case of war with France and/or Britain (mostly Britain.)

Austria and Russia would need to build a mighty big bridge to get across their Balkan differences and Germany would need to abandon any ambitions in respect of the Ottomans. The main problem with a Germany-Russia-AH alliance is a lack of capital, since all those economies were growing strongly and such growth needed to be funded.

 

[BooNZ]

England's position is considerably hurt and what is her response and Russia's?

... She had also become aware of the danger of German hegemony.

How so? What were those dastardly German deeds? What English interests did Germany impinge upon?

Russia's return to the Balkan's may have been inevitable- it was driven by a host of factors beyond her control

Say what?

But she would have been militarily much stronger and Germany may not have been so keen to back Austria

How so? In your peculiar scenario Russia is dumping vast amounts of defence spending into it's navy, thereby starving the Russian army of funds. In your peculiar scenario the Russian army has not been schooled by the Japanese and are blissfully ignorant of their own shortcomings.

In your scenario, A-H would probably not even need Germany...

 

[Grey Wolf]

A defeated Japan is not going to be untouched - its going to be both bankrupt and humiliated (very important in Far Eastern culture). Its not going to be playing a grand strategy game where it rearms and waits for its next chance. Its best ships and commanders are going to be dead (because that is the way Russian can win) and the army is going to either have to surrender or negotiate a withdrawal, leading probably to the suicide of its best officers in the field.

There's definite potential for Japan to become a basket case

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Read the lead-up to the Bosnian annexation and how Vienna thought it had the tacit approval of a weakened Russia. THAT is not going to happen. Vienna can only annex Bosnia in this scenario if it is willing to risk war. A risk of war may well trigger an international crisis and mediation, which may well NOT end in Austria-Hungary's favour.

Its a different order of magnitude from beating up Serbia in retaliation for regicide and hoping everyone lets you get away with it. In this scenario, Austria would be doing what Russia just told it not to do at risk of war, and with no justification. It would be a DIRECT challenge to Russia, and the other powers are going to want to intervene and try to sort things out.

If Vienna is that stupid

Best Regards
Grey Wolf