WI Russia won the 1904 war with Japan

[LordKalvert]

Trash talk - love it



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.



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.

Taking your "points" one by one here-

The Royal Navy did take the French seriously (as well they should have) up until the Entente. France knew she couldn't compete head to head with England which is why she didn't seriously consider war over Fashoda.

But the French had developed detailed plans to deal with England based on drawing away as much of the English fleet as possible and attacking her commerce. Sticking over half the British fleet in the Pacific fits rather nicely in those plans

As I said, Russia had no intention of competing with England one on one but with France or Germany (see treaty of Bjorko) that calculation changes rather dramatically.

The Russian Navy at the time of the Japanese War is the third largest. She has certain strategic difficulties but added to any other respectable Navy (Italy or Germany) she had very considerable weight

The Russian Navy was also more of a "throwaway" than England's- losing her Navy meant little to Russia and everything to England. Presenting England with the option of cutting a deal or risking her Empire (to either Russia or a third power that intervenes after a Russo-Anglo war) is a very real piece of English calculations

 

[LordKalvert]

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.

Not in the least. You, on the other hand, forget that Russia had a long Navy tradition and could produce many competent and great Navy leaders- Kolchak and Makarov for example.

In the era, technology could be bought on the open market and you neglect just how decrepit the British fleet had gotten until the Fisher reforms

Look at how much Russia accomplished after the war (with limited funds and limited times) or how much Makarov could turn the fleet around in the Pacific in just weeks.

By the First World War, Russia is producing first class battleships (better than England's in many ways) and doing so much more quickly than she had ever done before.

The greatest failures were of leadership and that starts with his Uncle.

 

[LordKalvert]

Trash talk - love it


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.

You seem completely ignorant of the diplomatic games being played.

Russian alliance with the Ottomans "impossible"? Really, do you think the Sultan didn't know about the Balmoral offer from Salisbury- that Russia join in deposing the Sultan? I'm sure the thought of losing his throne would be more than enough to drive the Sultan into Russian arms

That's definitely the way the Germans saw it- Hohenlohe even wrote the Kaiser that "Russia is too smart to fall into the English trap. She will, without taking Constantinople, take the Sultan under her protection and cross English schemes" (See German diplomatic correspondence)

Long term, Russia had designs on the Straits doesn't mean she was in any hurry- see rejection of Nelidov scheme

Nor was she as driven by Pan Slavism as you gather. Their was strong Pan Slav feelings in Russia (and Pan German feelings in Germany) doesn't mean it drove foreign policy in either country Russia wanted the straits for herself not Bulgaria

 

[LordKalvert]

Trash talk - love it

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.

Your ignorance knows no bounds- A Russian German alliance is quite possible and doesn't require dropping France or Austria. They just have to be allied against some other power (France and Germany allied themselves quite a lot in the period up to 1904 against third powers)

See Kaiser's proposal to the Tsar at Bjorko

 

[LordKalvert]

Trash talk - love it





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

Showing your complete lack of Russian economic statistics are you? The "40%" figure is for new capital invested in corporations- it ignores reinvested profits, money invested in other forms of businesses (Russians preferred family partnerships) and government investment (which was quite large)

Direct foreign investment totaled a little less than 100,000,000 rubles a year

And yes, Russians did spend an awful lot on tea and travel (see Gatteral The Tsarist Economy for starters)

 

[LordKalvert]

Trash talk - love it


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.

No kidding? Of course the railroad served multiple purposes- that's what I told you

[Quote
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. [/Quote]


Even you can't be that ignorant. On second thought, I guess you are

See Sino-Japanese War and Triple Intervention

Port Arthur is occupied in 1898 (costing Russia her Chinese alliance)

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

The Japanese were driven to World domination (see World War II)

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

...and what did actually happen in 1914?

What get dragged into a war which he didn't want and performs far better than any other leader? He certainly knew a lot more about what was going on than you

Kindest regards

 

[BooNZ]

The Russian Navy was also more of a "throwaway" than England's- losing her Navy meant little to Russia and everything to England. Presenting England with the option of cutting a deal or risking her Empire (to either Russia or a third power that intervenes after a Russo-Anglo war) is a very real piece of English calculations

That is my point. Aside from prestige and coastal defence, there was little need for Imperial Russia to maintain a sizable navy.

The Russian Navy at the time of the Japanese War is the third largest. She has certain strategic difficulties but added to any other respectable Navy (Italy or Germany) she had very considerable weight

The Russian Navy was certainly large, but respectable- not.

Not in the least. You, on the other hand, forget that Russia had a long Navy tradition and could produce many competent and great Navy leaders- Kolchak and Makarov for example.

Giggle - you funny

By the First World War, Russia is producing first class battleships (better than England's in many ways) and doing so much more quickly than she had ever done before.

Pretty on paper perhaps

In the era, technology could be bought on the open market and you neglect just how decrepit the British fleet had gotten until the Fisher reforms

Those decrepit ships were more than a match for a comical collection of French and Russian capital ships. The British become less confident with the appearance of the German competition - hence the naval reforms

Many aspects of naval technology were highly guarded during the period, so no, it could not all be bought on the open market. In respect of capital ships, France was some way behind England and Germany by 1905.

Technology was advancing at such a pace any Russian ships would be obsolete as they were completed - due to dodgy design doctrines and slow build times.

Russian alliance with the Ottomans "impossible"? Really, do you think the Sultan didn't know about the Balmoral offer from Salisbury- that Russia join in deposing the Sultan? I'm sure the thought of losing his throne would be more than enough to drive the Sultan into Russian arms

Yes - a meaningful Russian alliance with the Ottomans was impossible.

Nor was she as driven by Pan Slavism as you gather. Their was strong Pan Slav feelings in Russia (and Pan German feelings in Germany) doesn't mean it drove foreign policy in either country Russia wanted the straits for herself not Bulgaria

OTL the Russian sponsorship of alliances between Bulgaria and Serbia was driven by Pan Slavism...

Your ignorance knows no bounds- A Russian German alliance is quite possible and doesn't require dropping France or Austria. They just have to be allied against some other power (France and Germany allied themselves quite a lot in the period up to 1904 against third powers)

See Kaiser's proposal to the Tsar at Bjorko

OTL the Russian and German diplomatic services killed the Bjorko concept due to their respective commitments to France and A-H. In the scenario(s) you provide, the UK has a far greter chance of getting an alliance with Germany than Russia.

The Japanese were driven to World domination (see World War II)

Generalise much?

 

[LordKalvert]

That is my point. Aside from prestige and coastal defence, there was little need for Imperial Russia to maintain a sizable navy.



The Russian Navy was certainly large, but respectable- not.



Giggle - you funny



Pretty on paper perhaps



Those decrepit ships were more than a match for a comical collection of French and Russian capital ships. The British become less confident with the appearance of the German competition - hence the naval reforms

Many aspects of naval technology were highly guarded during the period, so no, it could not all be bought on the open market. In respect of capital ships, France was some way behind England and Germany by 1905.

Technology was advancing at such a pace any Russian ships would be obsolete as they were completed - due to dodgy design doctrines and slow build times.



Yes - a meaningful Russian alliance with the Ottomans was impossible.



OTL the Russian sponsorship of alliances between Bulgaria and Serbia was driven by Pan Slavism...



OTL the Russian and German diplomatic services killed the Bjorko concept due to their respective commitments to France and A-H. In the scenario(s) you provide, the UK has a far greter chance of getting an alliance with Germany than Russia.



Generalise much?

Other than displaying your Anglophilia and Russophobia do you have any genuine points to make?

The Russian ships were far more than "pretty on paper" The ones that were finished for the Black Sea performed very well against your vaunted Germans

Yes, a Russian Ottoman or rather Russo-Sultan alliance against England was very possible. The Sultan had pretty much had it with the English when they stole Egypt from him. Trying to depose a prince is a sure way to lose his friendship forever. Might want to know something before spewing your nonsense

OTL Serbian Bulgarian alliances were driven, at least in foreign ministry circles, as a guard against Austria. Really pan slavism is completely lacking from Nicky's inner circle

Russian build times were on par with the world by 1914 and no, not much was a closely guarded secret at the time.

But since you've shown your ignorance of some of the most basic facts of the era (like the Russo-Chinese alliance and Salisbury's effort to depose the Sultan) I can understand your failure to grasp the situation

 

[BooNZ]

Other than displaying your Anglophilia and Russophobia do you have any genuine points to make?

OTL The Royal Navy ruled the waves for decades/ centuries past. OTL the Russian navy was a mess. Those are statements of fact, not opinion.

The Russian ships were far more than "pretty on paper" The ones that were finished for the Black Sea performed very well against your vaunted Germans

Inconclusive engagements between multiple battleships v a single battle cruiser does not exactly demonstrate excellence - indeed the fate of Imperatritsa Mariya undermines your position.

Yes, a Russian Ottoman or rather Russo-Sultan alliance against England was very possible. The Sultan had pretty much had it with the English when they stole Egypt from him. Trying to depose a prince is a sure way to lose his friendship forever. Might want to know something before spewing your nonsense

So OTL is nonsense?

OTL Serbian Bulgarian alliances were driven, at least in foreign ministry circles, as a guard against Austria. Really pan slavism is completely lacking from Nicky's inner circle

Guard against Austrian rule of Slavs perhaps?

Russian build times were on par with the world by 1914 and no, not much was a closely guarded secret at the time.

The Russian build times for capital ships by 1914 were about four years, while the build times for the German and Royal Navy were 2-3 years depending on urgency, so no - OTL the Russian build times remained inferior.

But since you've shown your ignorance of some of the most basic facts of the era (like the Russo-Chinese alliance and Salisbury's effort to depose the Sultan) I can understand your failure to grasp the situation

I would not classify obscure happenings with limited or no impact on regional events as 'most basic facts'. You have certainly confirmed the Russian decision making could have been much worse...