WI Russia won the 1904 war with Japan

[Grey Wolf]

I find it a fallacy to say that without defeat Russia would not modernise. From the naval perspective look at its 1900-1904 orders - it is investing large sums in buying foreign ships (battleships from USA and France, armoured cruiser from France, cruiser from Denmark) so that it CAN incorporate modernisation in its own building programme.

Russia in 1904 already had submarines, and it even deployed a mission from Vladivostock. I've got that on my website here:-

http://www.alternate-history-fiction.com/russian-submarines-1904.html

Russia also had a balloon ship that it was going to send with Rozhestvensky but decided against it.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[zert]

If the Russians did win, would they base main line fleet ships in squadrons or try to just use a few? Would they try to utilize subs more as well as develop advance mines?

 

[BooNZ]

I find it a fallacy to say that without defeat Russia would not modernise. From the naval perspective look at its 1900-1904 orders - it is investing large sums in buying foreign ships (battleships from USA and France, armoured cruiser from France, cruiser from Denmark) so that it CAN incorporate modernisation in its own building programme.

Did those ships have wheels?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Did those ships have wheels?

All ships have wheels, I'm not sure I understand the question? What would they use without them?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

If the Russians did win, would they base main line fleet ships in squadrons or try to just use a few? Would they try to utilize subs more as well as develop advance mines?

They already had a squadron system. The problem had largely been lack of homogeneous units to form squadrons. The Petropavlosks were a start at this.

Looking at the build up of Russian naval strength I would expect them to try to base 2 squadrons of three minimum, or 2 squadrons of four if they can. I don't see them having a permanent Far Eastern strength beyond this, because who would it be aimed at?

This is more or less what they were doing OTL, backed up by two powerful squadrons of cruisers. The plan was simply to rotate older units out, and newer ones in.

I would definitely see submarines and mines develop. The latter proved their worth, as well as how dangerous your own mines could be, leading to a need to keep developing them.

Submarines have proved their potential use and need now to develop that into actual use.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[BooNZ]

All ships have wheels, I'm not sure I understand the question? What would they use without them?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Nicely answered!

Whether or not the Russians modernised its navy is academic - the quality of it's Army was what mattered. An early and significant navy victory against Japan would have denied the Russian army those learning opportunities and the impetus to modernise.

In respect of the Russian Navy, sea denial weapons (like the submarines and the mines you mention) make far more sense with the possible exception of the Black Sea fleet - in my opinion.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Nicely answered!

Whether or not the Russians modernised its navy is academic - the quality of it's Army was what mattered. An early and significant navy victory against Japan would have denied the Russian army those learning opportunities and the impetus to modernise.

In respect of the Russian Navy, sea denial weapons (like the submarines and the mines you mention) make far more sense with the possible exception of the Black Sea fleet - in my opinion.

Against Japan, only active sea power worked - mines and subs would not have prevented the army supply and transport convoys. Only cruisers and battleships could do that.

In addition, having a surface force in the China seas was a prestige thing, even Italy and Austria maintained warships operating from Korean and Chinese ports. As well as prestige, being able to bombard, blockade and land marines was always useful.

Going forward, I can see the value of sea denial in defence, but its not going to carry the battle to the enemy across the seas. Mines also can be swept if laid off a coast other than one under your coast defence guns.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Whether or not the Russians modernised its navy is academic - the quality of it's Army was what mattered. An early and significant navy victory against Japan would have denied the Russian army those learning opportunities and the impetus to modernise..

Could Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes have been much worse? What difference did modernisation bring in the outcome of these battles?

Or did it give the Russian army the capability to survive this level of defeat?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[BooNZ]

Could Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes have been much worse? What difference did modernisation bring in the outcome of these battles?

Or did it give the Russian army the capability to survive this level of defeat?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Any Russia v Germany scenario is never going to end well for Russia, however, OTL the modernised Russian Army was initially extremely effective against A-H and the Ottomans...

 

[BooNZ]

Against Japan, only active sea power worked - mines and subs would not have prevented the army supply and transport convoys. Only cruisers and battleships could do that.

In addition, having a surface force in the China seas was a prestige thing, even Italy and Austria maintained warships operating from Korean and Chinese ports. As well as prestige, being able to bombard, blockade and land marines was always useful.

Going forward, I can see the value of sea denial in defence, but its not going to carry the battle to the enemy across the seas. Mines also can be swept if laid off a coast other than one under your coast defence guns.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Mostly concur, but a low profile and non-threatening naval presence in Northern Asia would have better served the interests of Russia. OTL all its mis-matched collection of cruisers and battleships achieved was to 'intimidate' the Japanese into making a pre-emptive strike.

The longer Russia had to build its railways, the stronger its eastern presence would become.

 

[LordKalvert]

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

The English were afraid of everyone- just like all great powers of the day. The greatest fear was that they would "all pounce upon our easily divisible Empire" to borrow the words of Lord Salisbury. England, like all countries at the time when contemplating war, had to consider the possibility that a war would lead her so weaken that a third power would chose to intervene- which was a common practice at the time. See Congress of Berlin, Triple Intervention

IOTL England would go to war with Germany in less than ten years, so yeah, they would have thought about it

Say what?

Russia's taking a more active position in the Balkans is mainly due to factors outside of its control- Russia certainly in the immediate post Japanese war era needed peace and quite while she rebuilt her forces. The precipitating events were beyond Russia's control- The overthrow of Abdul Hamid in Turkey was not something she instigated or desired. The execution of the Serbian King and Queen was not something she instigated or desired. Nor did she want a crises over Bosnia- just a nice deal with Austria. Finally, she didn't desire the Italo-Turkish War either. I think that's all very obvious

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...

You do seem confused. Russia dumps huge amounts of spending into it's Navy in OTL even more than Germany by 1914. It's another one of Nicholas' mistakes.

Sure, Russian army reforms would have been quite different but so would everybodies. In the time period, diplomacy and perception are far more important. It was Austria's perception that Russia's weakness was coming to an end and that it was "now or never" that drove a lot of her thinking.

 

[BooNZ]

The English were afraid of everyone- just like all great powers of the day. The greatest fear was that they would "all pounce upon our easily divisible Empire" to borrow the words of Lord Salisbury. England, like all countries at the time when contemplating war, had to consider the possibility that a war would lead her so weaken that a third power would chose to intervene- which was a common practice at the time. See Congress of Berlin, Triple Intervention

IOTL England would go to war with Germany in less than ten years, so yeah, they would have thought about it.

Yeah-NAH - you are (again) conflating Japan (an aspirational naval power) with the ROYAL NAVY. GB had the strongest economy, industry and navy in the world. GB could maintain a two power naval standard with obsolete buckets for decades because the combined threat of a French-Russian was pitiful/ non-existent.

Russia's taking a more active position in the Balkans is mainly due to factors outside of its control- Russia certainly in the immediate post Japanese war era needed peace and quite while she rebuilt her forces. The precipitating events were beyond Russia's control- The overthrow of Abdul Hamid in Turkey was not something she instigated or desired. The execution of the Serbian King and Queen was not something she instigated or desired. Nor did she want a crises over Bosnia- just a nice deal with Austria. Finally, she didn't desire the Italo-Turkish War either. I think that's all very obvious

Yeah-NAH - Russia facilitated a secret alliance between Bulgaria and Serbia in 1903-04 (purportedly against Ottomans and A-H0 - a breach of treaty obligations with A-H.

The A-H takeover of Bosnia-Herzegovina was initially with the explicit approval of Russia, which was seeking concessions in respect of the Dardanelles - subsequently, Russia denied all knowledge (of their betrayal) after things turned to custard

Russia encouraged Italian aggression against Ottomans (along with France and GB) in the hope Italy would align with the Entente and also provide potential Russian opportunities in the Dardanelles

Russia facilitated alliance of Serbia and Bulgaria against Ottomans, but subsequently lost control and had to chose between the two victors...

With all due respect, your representations have no basis in fact.

You do seem confused. Russia dumps huge amounts of spending into it's Navy in OTL even more than Germany by 1914. It's another one of Nicholas' mistakes.

Damn right - I am confused because you explicitly state that after dumping vast amounts of additional scarce resources into naval assets, the Russian ARMY would be significantly stronger than OTL.

Russia MAY have spent more than Germany on its navy in 1914, but its output (due to backward economy and lack of naval expertise and corruption) was never a threat to German naval dominance - let alone GB.

Sure, Russian army reforms would have been quite different but so would everybodies. In the time period, diplomacy and perception are far more important. It was Austria's perception that Russia's weakness was coming to an end and that it was "now or never" that drove a lot of her thinking.

With no budget and limited learning opportunities, there would be very limited Russian Army reform, beyond business as usual - OTL there was some room for improvement. A-H effectively had its Heir assassinated by a client state of Russia/France, which may have coloured its thinking.

In any case, from what I can gather, Germany was the one that pressed the issue...

[/QUOTE]

 

[pattersonautobody]

Big effects on WW1. THe Revolution in 1905 probably gets delayed a few years or waits for during WW1. Victory disease will make the Russians fare worse against the Germans.

 

[LordKalvert]

Yeah-NAH - you are (again) conflating Japan (an aspirational naval power) with the ROYAL NAVY. GB had the strongest economy, industry and navy in the world. GB could maintain a two power naval standard with obsolete buckets for decades because the combined threat of a French-Russian was pitiful/ non-existent.

Um, you missed the point that I had the entire Russian Fleet in the Pacific and said that the Russians could do what America and Japan were trying- establish naval supremacy in an area of less concern for England.

By doing so, England would need a fleet in the Pacific that would threaten Russia without risk. That would be about 2-1 especially because Russia, unlike England, could afford to lose her navy.

Furthermore, England needed a sea control capacity while sea denial works well for Russia. England's big lead over the French and Russian fleets is mostly in her cruisers. To pull the entire battlefleet from European waters for months would be suicidal for England.

She never contemplated such nonsense. Instead she chose to abandon the Pacific to Japan and the Western Hemisphere to the Americans and concentrated her fleet in Europe. She would also reach out to France. England realized after the Boer War how overextended she had become

The A-H takeover of Bosnia-Herzegovina was initially with the explicit approval of Russia, which was seeking concessions in respect of the Dardanelles - subsequently, Russia denied all knowledge (of their betrayal) after things turned to custard

Russia encouraged Italian aggression against Ottomans (along with France and GB) in the hope Italy would align with the Entente and also provide potential Russian opportunities in the Dardanelles

Russia facilitated alliance of Serbia and Bulgaria against Ottomans, but subsequently lost control and had to chose between the two victors...

With all due respect, your representations have no basis in fact.

Russia would have been just fine with Austria's annexation of Bosnia if she got her share. Its Austria's reneging on that deal that leads to the final break with the Central powers.

Damn right - I am confused because you explicitly state that after dumping vast amounts of additional scarce resources into naval assets, the Russian ARMY would be significantly stronger than OTL.

Russia MAY have spent more than Germany on its navy in 1914, but its output (due to backward economy and lack of naval expertise and corruption) was never a threat to German naval dominance - let alone GB.

Yes, your confused. When I said that Russia would have done well in 1910-13 to delay her naval buildup I was referring to the post-Japanese War situation- when she had made her peace with England, abandon her aspirations in the Pacific and was more interested in confronting Austria in the Balkans.

Now do you understand? When times change, your plans should change. If you want to expand in the Pacific, you build up your navy and keep the Balkans as quite as you can. If your interested in the Balkans, you build up your army to deal with Germany and Austria.

What damn good is a Russian fleet against the Germanic powers?

With no budget and limited learning opportunities, there would be very limited Russian Army reform, beyond business as usual - OTL there was some room for improvement. A-H effectively had its Heir assassinated by a client state of Russia/France, which may have coloured its thinking.

In any case, from what I can gather, Germany was the one that pressed the issue...

Now your really confused. Germany told Austria to do what it wanted- they never "pressed the issue" It was Austria that rejected the Serbian response, it was Austria that mobilized against Serbia, it was Austria that issued the first declaration of war, it was Austria oh never mind.

As for limited reforms, maybe, maybe not. But all the powers learned major lessons from the Japanese War and constant reform was what the powers did

 

[LordKalvert]

Yeah-NAH - Russia facilitated a secret alliance between Bulgaria and Serbia in 1903-04 (purportedly against Ottomans and A-H0 - a breach of treaty obligations with A-H.

Thought I'd save this for a seperate post- You ignore that after the Serbian coup against King Alexander Russia told the Austrians that they had no objection if Austria entered Belgrade. Really an adventurist policy of the Russians, that she encouraged the Bulgarian Ottoman accords to ease tensions in Macedonia, reached the Murzsteg accords with Austria, signed a neutrality pact with the Austrians

Yeah, that's a real aggressive Russian policy in the Balkans Its really only after the Bosnian agreement fell apart that Russia severed its ties to Austria

Let's go even further into some of your "ideas" shall we?

Yes, the Russian navy was spending more on its navy by 1914 and the ships she was building were first class- she applied the lessons of the Japanese War very well. Even greatly cutting her building time

Was she going to compete with GB? Nope she never would have fought a Naval War with GB by herself Would she join Germany in a war with GB? ALmost certainly in the right circumstances.

And with the Battlecruisers and Battleships she would have had in 1917, she might very well have held the balance of power between the two

From a naval perspective, the greatest weakness of the Russians was the need to defend three coasts that couldn't be mutually supported.

Of course, this was exactly Admiral Loman's point in 1895 when he advised the Tsar to abandon the Baltic and concentrate the fleet in the Pacific leaving only a force of about 200 torpedo boats in the Baltic (which could be shipped by rail to either the Black Sea or the Pacific.

The navy needed to be concentrated where it would do the most good- given Russia's interests in the Pacific and desire to maintain good relations with her Austrian and German neighbors, that makes perfect sense.

Your failure is to look at the world of 1904 from an English view and see the damage that a Russian victory over Japan would have on it.

As for your ideas about the lack of reforms in the Russian Army, consider this: Every nation took note of the Japanese war and the lessons to be learned. The Russians may have learned more and did overhaul many important aspects of their military. So did everyone else.

But the Russians, if they had won the war with Japan quickly, would also have spared themselves the 2,500,000,000 Rubles that they spent on that Russia's greatest weakness in 1914 was the lack of reserves of war material- mainly because she had used them all up in 1904-5.

Give Russia a 3000 shell reserve like the Germans had, then she wins the war in September because the Germans used up all their ammunition in fighting the French

 

[BooNZ]

From a naval perspective, the greatest weakness of the Russians was the need to defend three coasts that couldn't be mutually supported.

...

Your failure is to look at the world of 1904 from an English view and see the damage that a Russian victory over Japan would have on it.

One of the (many) problems with your 'cunning plan' is that GB could (and did) build superior capital ships, at half the cost, in half the time and had an industrial capacity/ economy many times larger than Russia. You are effectively suggesting that Russia could have intimidated GB by threatening to bring a knife to a gunfight.

For all its size and population, OTL Russia had very finite resources and vast commitments.

Russia had to maintain a huge standing army with a shallow educational base, making it difficult to train a decent strategic reserve. Russia neighboured an ever powerful German army and was on poor terms with A-H, Ottomans and Japan. Further, Russia was playing the great game with GB and up to its neck in Balkan intrigue. In its spare time, the standing army also had to police a vast territory, populated by significant numbers of minorities...

Russia spent vast treasure to connect its empire through railway construction, including the Trans-Siberian. Adopting the gold standard may have been expensive, but without it, it was doubtful Russia would have been able to raise international finance to fund its railways development to provide access to markets (internal and external) and access to the East.

[Shipping remained a far more efficient and effective means of transportation to the Far East than rail. London was effectively far closer to Japan/Korea than Moscow/Petrograd. However, the Trans-Siberian did provide an internal line of supply that could not be interdicted by the GB.]

Notwithstanding the above, Russia had staggering potential and an economy growing and developing faster than its potential rivals. Avoiding hostilities as long as possible is in Russia's interest. In the interim, maintaining a strong military was vital, but scarce resources used to build and maintain Russian fleets could definitely be better used elsewhere.

OTL Russia had an opportunity to avoid war with Japan and focus on Manchuria and leave Korea to Japan. Prior to hostilities, Russia had to rely on foreign nationals to manage its very limited holdings in Manchuria, so real control of Manchuria alone would have been a challenge Russia - let alone Korea. A decisive Russian victory could have created a serious administrative headache for Russia.

OTL Russian activities in the Balkans were driven by a desire to control the Dardanelles and its notion of pan-slavism. If those notions were put aside, Russia (along with A-H and the Ottomans) would have fared better.

FYI - the Russians DID try to crash build the Borodino Class Battleships with an eye on the far East. This was likely a contributing factor in the Japan decision to launch a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Grey Wolf]

By 1904 Russia was basically following the plan that had the Baltic Fleet as the feeder fleet for the Pacific. All its best capital ships were heading out to Port Arthur, whilst those which needed repair and refurbishment headed back to Saint Petersburg. New ships did similar, working up in the Baltic before heading out to the Far East.

The Russian fleet in the Baltic does not need to be capable of defeating the German battle line, simply of being able to defend their shores and the approaches to them. Given Germany's need to focus most of her fleet against Britain, and thus to use the Baltic as the training, refurbishment focus, it would have continued to work this way.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[LordKalvert]

One of the (many) problems with your 'cunning plan' is that GB could (and did) build superior capital ships, at half the cost, in half the time and had an industrial capacity/ economy many times larger than Russia. You are effectively suggesting that Russia could have intimidated GB by threatening to bring a knife to a gunfight.

For all its size and population, OTL Russia had very finite resources and vast commitments.

Russia had to maintain a huge standing army with a shallow educational base, making it difficult to train a decent strategic reserve. Russia neighboured an ever powerful German army and was on poor terms with A-H, Ottomans and Japan. Further, Russia was playing the great game with GB and up to its neck in Balkan intrigue. In its spare time, the standing army also had to police a vast territory, populated by significant numbers of minorities...

Russia spent vast treasure to connect its empire through railway construction, including the Trans-Siberian. Adopting the gold standard may have been expensive, but without it, it was doubtful Russia would have been able to raise international finance to fund its railways development to provide access to markets (internal and external) and access to the East.

[Shipping remained a far more efficient and effective means of transportation to the Far East than rail. London was effectively far closer to Japan/Korea than Moscow/Petrograd. However, the Trans-Siberian did provide an internal line of supply that could not be interdicted by the GB.]

Notwithstanding the above, Russia had staggering potential and an economy growing and developing faster than its potential rivals. Avoiding hostilities as long as possible is in Russia's interest. In the interim, maintaining a strong military was vital, but scarce resources used to build and maintain Russian fleets could definitely be better used elsewhere.

OTL Russia had an opportunity to avoid war with Japan and focus on Manchuria and leave Korea to Japan. Prior to hostilities, Russia had to rely on foreign nationals to manage its very limited holdings in Manchuria, so real control of Manchuria alone would have been a challenge Russia - let alone Korea. A decisive Russian victory could have created a serious administrative headache for Russia.

OTL Russian activities in the Balkans were driven by a desire to control the Dardanelles and its notion of pan-slavism. If those notions were put aside, Russia (along with A-H and the Ottomans) would have fared better.

FYI - the Russians DID try to crash build the Borodino Class Battleships with an eye on the far East. This was likely a contributing factor in the Japan decision to launch a pre-emptive strike.

Okay BooNZ, your being completely illogical and uninformed:

1) Russia IS in an arms race with GB at the time, Unlike Germany, she doesn't do by herself but with the French. When GB talks about her "two power standard" which two powers do you think she has in mind?

2) Yes there are a lot of problems with the Russian fleet. Never denied that and said sacking his Uncle would have been the one best thing that Nicholas could do.

3) Contrary to your assertions, Russia was not so stupid as to pursue aggressive policies in both Europe and Asia. Russia was on very good terms with Austria, the Ottomans (GB was terrified at the prospect of an Ottoman Russian alliance after the Armenian affair) and Germany- one of the main reasons the Germans resisted the idea of an English alliance

4) There's no evidence to support your assertion about the gold standard, Russia had freely borrowed for many years without it. The money that is rolling in has more to do with the relative peace on the continent and the French alliance. Besides, Russia spent more on foreign travel and tea than she got in foreign investment. No problem putting restrictions on both

5) The trans Siberian railroad wasn't built for trade with China, which if sent by shipping would have been vulnerable to attack. It was built to develop the entire region

6) There were opportunities for a deal with Japan. Maybe she should have taken it but the best course is to crush Japan early. I would have done it 1895 when it could have been done with a little note.

7) Your right- Japan decided to attack because she saw Russian power exploding and knew that long term she could never take on Russia. Time was on Russia's side. Russia's failure in the Far East is that she allows a brief window for Japan to attack open and Japan takes it.

8) If Russia's relations with Austria, the Ottomans and the Germans were so bad, why didn't the three (and Sweden) jump her after the 1905 Revolution breaks out? Why did the Kaiser think it was so safe to build up his navy? If he thought war with Russia likely, that would never have happened

 

[BooNZ]

Okay BooNZ, your being completely illogical and uninformed:

Trash talk - love it

1) Russia IS in an arms race with GB at the time, Unlike Germany, she doesn't do by herself but with the French. When GB talks about her "two power standard" which two powers do you think she has in mind?

The two power concept was formalised in statute in 1889, but by 1900, any 'race' with France/Russia had finished many years earlier. The French Navy doctrine through the 1890s had more of a focus on cruisers and torpedo craft than capital ships.

The Royal Navy did not begin to take things seriously again until the rise of German naval rivalry and Fisher's purge of obsolete ships. Presumably those obsolete vessels had previously been considered adequate to handle any combination of Russian and French vessels.

2) Yes there are a lot of problems with the Russian fleet. Never denied that and said sacking his Uncle would have been the one best thing that Nicholas could do.

You do not appreciate the complexities of building and crewing a modern naval fleet - the challenges faced by Russia would far exceed those of Germany in challenging the Royal Navy.

3) Contrary to your assertions, Russia was not so stupid as to pursue aggressive policies in both Europe and Asia. Russia was on very good terms with Austria, the Ottomans (GB was terrified at the prospect of an Ottoman Russian alliance after the Armenian affair) and Germany- one of the main reasons the Germans resisted the idea of an English alliance

OTL following the butchering of the Serbian Royal family in 1903, the Russians facilitated/ sponsored secret agreement(s) between Serbia and Bulgaria. This was a clear breach of its treaty obligations with A-H. Meanwhile, Russia was also crash building the Borodino battleships and rebuffing overtures from Japan. So OTL yes, Russia was that stupid.

A long standing objective of Russian foreign policy was to gain control of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, since Russia did not want a repeat of the Crimean war. The above, coupled with a history of conflict going back centuries, means there simply is no prospect of an alliance between Russia and the Ottomans. GB would not lose any sleep whatsoever.

Another underlying theme of Russian foreign policy was Pan-Slavism, with the Russian interpretation being Slavic peoples (with variable definitions) coming under the benevolent leadership of Imperial Russia. This is not compatible with A-H or the Ottomans, since vast numbers of Slavic peoples occupied lands within their respective empires.

One of the main reasons Germany resisted an alliance with GB was the knowledge that any conflict with Russia would involve armies, of which GB would have a limited contribution (i.e. Germany would bear the brunt). Another reason was the German expectation that any attempted reconciliation between Russia and England would fail and both would then end up bidding for Germany's favour.

Germany was traditionally on good terms with both Russia and Britain, but any hook-up with Russia would have required Germany to drop A-H and Russia to drop France. This was unlikely.

4) There's no evidence to support your assertion about the gold standard, Russia had freely borrowed for many years without it. The money that is rolling in has more to do with the relative peace on the continent and the French alliance. Besides, Russia spent more on foreign travel and tea than she got in foreign investment. No problem putting restrictions on both

By 1913, foreign investment financed 40% of all industrial investment in Russia - that would be an awful lot of tea and travel!

5) The trans Siberian railroad wasn't built for trade with China, which if sent by shipping would have been vulnerable to attack. It was built to develop the entire region

While the western portions of the Trans Siberian railway did bring vast areas into production, the Eastern stretches of the line were to secure Russian claim on Siberia and relations with China. Railways were also skilfully used by Russia to peacefully extend its influence into China/Manchuria. Without the TS railway, the Russian position in the Far East remained vulnerable to GB action.

6) There were opportunities for a deal with Japan. Maybe she should have taken it but the best course is to crush Japan early. I would have done it 1895 when it could have been done with a little note.

With what? - the Russian presence in the Far East was meagre in 1895 and did not improve significantly until after the boxer rebellion in 1900, after which a significant military presence stayed behind and occupied Port Arthur.

Further, until such time as the Trans-Siberian railway is substantially completed, the Russians are no more able to defend their position in Siberia as they would be in Alaska or the East Coast of the US.

7) Your right- Japan decided to attack because she saw Russian power exploding and knew that long term she could never take on Russia. Time was on Russia's side. Russia's failure in the Far East is that she allows a brief window for Japan to attack open and Japan takes it.

Alternatively, the actions of Russia gave Japan the impression it needed to
take on the Bear.

8) If Russia's relations with Austria, the Ottomans and the Germans were so bad, why didn't the three (and Sweden) jump her after the 1905 Revolution breaks out? Why did the Kaiser think it was so safe to build up his navy? If he thought war with Russia likely, that would never have happened

Because real life does a piss poor job of replicating Paradox games...

Further, is it 'logical' to cite the Kaiser as a geopolitical expert - after the benefit of hindsight?

...and what did actually happen in 1914?

 

[Karelian]

OTL following the butchering of the Serbian Royal family in 1903, the Russians facilitated/ sponsored secret agreement(s) between Serbia and Bulgaria. This was a clear breach of its treaty obligations with A-H. Meanwhile, Russia was also crash building the Borodino battleships and rebuffing overtures from Japan. So OTL yes, Russia was that stupid.

Not building battleships would have been more unsual, since other major powers present on Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific were all expanding their navies.

The other two instances just show how highly personalized and hence outright random the Czarist Russian foreign policy could really be.

Both in the Russo-Japanese relations and in her Balkan politics ambitious individuals like Hartwig in Belgrade and Bezobrazovin Manchuria and Korea were able to pursue their individual goals in Russian politics while opposed by their competitors, while Foreign Ministry was increasingly bypassed after the death of Muraviev when men like Izvolskii were able to rise to positions way above their league. And when Nicky II pushed old favourites out of their positions and lifted new men to replace them, it was really hard to predict what - if any - long-term political line Russia would pursue next.