With the Crescent Above Us 2.0: An Ottoman Timeline

The issue is most will be Christian Bulgarians. Ottomans can't settle them in the balkans as they consider ottoman balkans theirs. Sending them to rest of the empire is just creating a population that will agitate and cause communal violence with the muslims there. Ottomans don't need another eastern question.
Ohhh you mean refugees from the current war. Well. I don't think they want to stay either. Even if they want to go back to Bulgaria after the war, they'd probably be just as happy if Ottoman ships (at least for now they can safely cross the Med) took them to America-- and Germany's shipping companies developed the same way, the Norddeutscher Lloyd and the Hamburg-America Line started off by taking Germans across the Atlantic, and then became a giant all purpose worldwide merchant marine. The Ottomans can probably establish some joint venture with the Aegean Greeks, at least for the purpose of recruiting experienced sailors (EDIT: at this point some of the islands are still Turkish, some of them are under autonomies like the Principality of Samos. And so is Smyrna, birthplace of shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis.)

The trouble is if America will take them. The quota system there considers Slavs inferior and the Bulgarians have gotten nothing but bad press about how brutal they are. But whatever, Brazil might be less discerning.

Speaking of companies, the inevitable oil company. And here, interestingly-- I assumed that Baku was built with American technical aid. But actually, its oil infrastructure was built with a team of Europeans including the Nobel family, and (EDIT: although there were a couple of Azeri owners, the Russians and Armenians owned way more). Although they might be dependent on American and British machinery, the Ottomans might invite Azeris to train a local workforce and staff the management-- they can at least promise faster promotion and higher salaries than they can get in Baku. Bringing the Armenians over is also a possibility-- just assign them to a different oil field from the Azeris.
 
Last edited:
Ohhh you mean refugees from the current war. Well. I don't think they want to stay either. Even if they want to go back to Bulgaria after the war, they'd probably be just as happy if Ottoman ships (at least for now they can safely cross the Med) took them to America-- and Germany's shipping companies developed the same way, the Norddeutscher Lloyd and the Hamburg-America Line started off by taking Germans across the Atlantic, and then became a giant all purpose worldwide merchant marine. The Ottomans can probably establish some joint venture with the Aegean Greeks, I think some of the islands are still Ottoman subjects.

The trouble is if America will take them. The quota system there considers Slavs inferior and the Bulgars have gotten nothing but bad press about how brutal they are. But whatever, Brazil might be less discerning.
Canada could take them. It has a lot of unoccupied farm land adjacent to recently built rail lines. Accepting refugees from an ally should be just about doable.
 
Other sources of diaspora investment include the Lebanese (they live in the US, in Brazil) and potentially the Armenians.
Armenians are more likely to send there money to revolutionary groups then investment firms
Of course, the population being somewhat low means it's hard to even do what Japan did, import resources from abroad and still make profitable industrial products because labor is cheap and abundant. At best that strategy is viable in Anatolia and maybe coastal Syria. But if they are going to do it, now during the war is exactly the right time. WW1 was a boom period for Japan, because all the European countries were experiencing shortages of civilian goods-- and here comes Japan with all the Manchurian soybeans Europe could want (for flour, oil to make into margarine...)
The ottomans are totally making a killing economically, I would not be surprised if Bulgaria‘s entire gold reserve makes its way to Constantinople by the end of the war,
The Ottomans have no reason to join the war--
They have no reason to join now, but it might be prurient to join the winning side at the last second to avoid beginning fucked over by victories power.
Although Istanbul is vulnerable, the Armenian autonomy is itself a potentially pro-Russian wedge aimed at Cilicia; Antioch and Aleppo are both stuck in the small corridor between the Armenians and the sea, it is at best a less severe version of Constantinople's problem. It's really just a matter of whether the greater threat is coming by land or sea, not to mention air.

But in the meantime, no city will rival it in grandeur-- just a short walk through it is enough to build investor confidence. If the government is publicly pessimistic about the possibility of defending Constantinople, that is not the sort of message you want to send out. And trying to artificially spruce them some other city, replicating centuries of Constantinople's development, would be a poor use of resources, and raises the possibility of white elephant projects and corruption.

Now, it might be worth it to build a military/civil command complex in Ankara or Konya to which important departments can be transferred. That way Constantinople can be left to a trusted delegate and hopefully Leningrad it out in the case of disaster. But care should be taken to avoid creating separate hierarchies of Constantinople politics as normal and the bunker city's above-politics security-first deep state.
Your raise some solid points
The OTL 1914 population of the Ottoman empire was 18m. I doubt that Libya or Albania add much, at best it's still less than 25m. That's... not good, and it's not going to get better quick-- the Muslim world's population was low relative to the rest of the world for most of this period. Whatever problems Greece had after the population exchange, if Turkey really can't integrate a million or two immigrants then it has bigger problems.
Just so we’re clear I’m talking about Great War refugees.
Another possibility is moving not just into the tenements of Constantinople but Aleppo, Damascus, Beirut, and so on. Even if they become a despised underclass and even form strong dissident networks, all this is a familiar story from America's assimilation of immigrants-- it needed the labor, even if strikes could bring the country to a standstill, or immigrants could assassinate the president. The response was just to build up public and private police oppression, while waiting for the expansion of opportunities to make these families mostly quiescent by the second or third generation. Jersey Italians went from feared anarchist rabble to... well, Jersey Italians. Just like the Irish before them going from New York gangs to the NYPD. These things have a way of working themselves out.
Alternatively they could end up like Korean immigrants in Japan, refusing to assimilate
At the very least Albania and Libya should be prepared to take charge of their own defense if needed-- same way British India was expected to not only take care of itself in both wars, but conduct its own expeditions against the enemy in places metropole forces could not reach. Although in practice it would probably end up looking more like Lettow-Vorbeck's bush war in WW1 East Africa.
Giving the Albania government some Military autonomy in Exchange for some other political concession towards Istanbul makes sense, they have a “European” identity unique in the empire and are sounded by more then four hostile powers.

giving Libya military autonomy on the other hand does not sound like a good idea, because every Arab province/distinctive group of provinces will want the same. And they will all want it for the same reason; to use military force to negotiate with Istanbul, and use said military force to rebel when they don’t get there way.
 
Bolshevikism in Russia wasn't exactly a historical inevitability, nor was a revolution taking place in Russia rather than anywhere else, though Russia did seem to be uniquely primed for it.
Well if by "primed for it" we mean that the Cadets and parties to the right of them were far behind when it came to mass campaigning (to be fair to them, the Duma was a talking-shop and many provincial and city governance points were appointed-- there wasn't really much to campaign for), leaving that whole arena to the SRs and parties to the left, who could look at a mostly peasant population and offer land reform; plus WW1 eating Russia's professional army. I mean they even stripped the imperial guard regiments of Petrograd bare, sending all the professionals to the front and replacing them with people for whom priority #1 was not getting sent to the front-- those were the people whose neutrality or defection ushered in the February Revolution. So I think that while 1905 never happening TTL means it is long overdue now, and could probably happen if Russia's Persian/Afghan and Manchurian campaigns go south, anything more extreme than that is not credible. The war is not an existential one for Russia, is not taking place over its European heartland; probably won't consume as much of the voluntary recruits, simply because it will be hard to transport so many people and supplies across the length and breadth of Asia; and the fact that the concept of a Duma hasn't been ruined yet means that it and the liberals calling for it are at the peak of their appeal. But, and this is most decisive, the fact that there has not been a 1905 Revolution means the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs have no significant militant or political experience, they have no experience of the 1905 Petrograd soviet, when they went from nobodies to leaders enjoying the total confidence of their desired audience in high-stakes games with the government, or Moscow uprising of the same year; and there are no late-1900s boevik groups of leftover revolutionaries that Lenin can rope into criminal enterprises to keep his party solvent. When Stolypin started addressing that crime problem at the turn of the 1910s it really ate into Lenin's finances, diminishing his one advantage over the Mensheviks-- partially because of this he turned to the Duma, hoping to get deputies elected to propagandize on the public stage.

In fact I fully expect that in the absence of a 1905, Russian Marxism is already very different-- the split probably still happened, but consider that "the split" was primarily over who got to control the party newspaper. Not saying the newspaper isn't important, it was after all intended to keep revolutionaries informed on prospects for action-- but when action is a totally unproven concept, these are really very poor spoils to fight over. Even if Lenin himself is willing to antagonize Martov, his own supporters at this time weren't perfectly committed to him-- people like Bogdanov and Lunacharsky were... strange, supporting Lenin was just one more quirky pet project of theirs. Trotsky was an associate of Lenin but called him a dictator during the 1903 split, and again there is no 1905 to get him thinking about "permanent revolution" and gradually move him back toward Lenin. All of this also applies to other revolutionary groups for whom 1905 was a formative experience-- for example, Polish, Finnish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists.

I think the most interesting thing about this Great War is that it's really three separate conflicts running side by side-- Franco-German, Russo-British, Austro-Bulgarian. At best the British are expected to help the French, but nowhere else is help expected or likely to be received. But because of that, not everyone is facing an existential crisis. Russia's most prized lands are all safe, government hums along uninterrupted in Poland and Ukraine. Austria-Hungary only has one front, not three; Masaryk and Benes will be on the Entente grand tour but it's unlikely that great amounts of Czech POWs will be captured and turned into pro-Entente forces, plus the Russophile Czechs are now by extension anti-Entente, which splits the Czech nationalists (who dont hold a monopoly on Czech opinion anyways). Germany's naval traffic may be under threat, but it might be able to import food and other essentials from Russia; it only has one front, aside from colonial distractions, and can rotate soldiers out before they get completely worn down and demoralized; even if things go badly it might have the necessary homefront snd warfront stability to call for a time-out instead of having things explode into revolution. Britain may fear a significant disruption in India, but if that fear is dispelled then it will also no great reason for concern, except German U-boats probably.

It's really only France and (if things go wrong) Japan that are or might soon be fighting for their lives. Which on the one hand makes "defeatism" very unpopular, but on the other hand if things appear to be irreparable then continuing the war will very rapidly become the more unpopular opinion. If the enemy offers to stop as long as you pay X indemnity and the government is deluding itself into believing it has to turn things around to fulfill the holy revanche, now you start fearing a 2X indemnity. The Paris Commune arose in pretty much those exact conditions. So if a *Bolshevik episode is going to happen anywhere... and I'll mention offhand that increasing numbers of French soldiers will inevitably be Arabs, African and Caribbean Blacks, and Indochinese. Add in the Chinese guest workers in the homefront (if Japan doesn't recruit them first) and the French war effort will be quite dependent on populations sharing some of the alienation of the Russian peasant.

But it may be more interesting to avoid anything of the sort, and instead have a series of revolutions from above, states trying to engineer a nationalist, corporatist system capable of winning the next war, without having to be taken over by funny men in black or brown shirts. Chamberlain's ideas on the Empire and American Populism and Progressivism contain germs of this.

In any case no significant border changes in Europe also means Zionism will be irrelevant. Not only because no Balfour Declaration (how fitting that his wild promises are responsible for the war TTL!), but also because the post-WW1 aliyah of people fleeing former warzones like Poland, and the successful integration of them into the Jewish Agency's body politic (and economic) ensured all later migrants to Palestine would actually have Jewish towns and cities to move into, not just a few settlements. There's probably some pogroms incoming in Bulgaria but the Sephardim there are not really what the Zionist movement of the era is looking for (these guys are still in the phase of mulling over German as a pan-Jewish language). Things may get worse in Central and Eastern Europe before they get better, defeats of the Russian army might cause pogroms, but it won't be at all comparable to the upheaval of that region OTL.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately I doubt they will go full independent considering how dangerous the Balkans are right now.
This could probably be the best and worst decisions for both albania and the ottoman state
The best being for albania due to sheer isolation on all sides from bulgarians to the east and italians to the west
The best for the ottomans due to some form of diplomatic influence in the balkan region for better political and military maneuvering
The worst for albania due to questionable ottoman capability and ethnic tensions in occupied kosovo due to bulagrian ethnic cleansing
Worst for ottomans due to risky possibility of being pulled into war as an Albanian ally or risk losing the role of protectors of Muslims in Europe
 
Alternatively they could end up like Korean immigrants in Japan, refusing to assimilate
Well, as long as they're not assassinating anyone. The Japanese can manage that themselves.

giving Libya military autonomy on the other hand does not sound like a good idea, because every Arab province/distinctive group of provinces will want the same. And they will all want it for the same reason; to use military force to negotiate with Istanbul, and use said military force to rebel when they don’t get there way.
Could be a strictly military autonomy under a Istanbul-appointed governor-general-- day to day it just means an army thay trains and recruits separately, prepares its own plans, has its own logistics system. Nothing in it has to imply political autonomy. I'd say it's really only a problem if Libyan defense planning starts to rely heavily on tribal militias like the Senussis-- then we'd get exactly what you describe, militias forming (well, they already exist in places like Yemen, Iraq, and Kurdistan) and then insisting they'd be oh so useful if Istanbul let them do whatever they want
 
Getting Indian investment into the Ottoman Empire is a neat idea to me, though I don't know enough about the concept to run with it in my own mind.... hmm.
 
Getting Indian investment into the Ottoman Empire is a neat idea to me, though I don't know enough about the concept to run with it in my own mind.... hmm.
This definitely sounds good 👍
Otl their were Indian muslims that made thr journey to Istanbul to fight for the caliph during the balkan wars
Don't know if it happened itl
But I'm guessing this would all depend on how the British deal with self rule in the raj
With how the war is looking
I'm guessing alot more people are gonna being dying on the eastern front
Especially in Central Asia and Northern India
 
1914 population of the Ottoman empire was 18m. I doubt that Libya or Albania add much, at best it's still less than 25m.
The ottomans had a ridiculously over exaggerated and under exaggerated census system depending on the kaza and vilayet. For example in Trabzon, the ottomans severely under-stated the Greek and Christian Turkish population of the region whilst not exaggerating the Muslim population making the province seem underpopulated. As a result ottoman census's are considered very faulty in the grand scheme of things. In 1914, goltz estimated around ~30 -~32 million ottoman subjects which are the best estimates till date for the ottomans at the time.
 
The ottomans had a ridiculously over exaggerated and under exaggerated census system depending on the kaza and vilayet.
Imagine how they're (mis)counting the Kurds then-- the supply and recruiting pool of private armies. Then again, no point recording this stuff accurately when you already know from Mt. Lebanon that the Great Powers will use against you.

Speaking of, I sure hope the Armenian autonomy doesn't overlap with any Kurdish principalities. Someone will get violently dispossessed. Might even be the Kurds. Their migrant labor has been very important for contemporary Turkish agriculture and industry.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll take the unusual step of not quoting all your posts while responding. I'm travelling at the end of the week, which means that besides not being able to play as much Victoria 3 as I'd like to, I'll be unable to post anything until some point after November 3rd.

As for the question of moving the capital, many of you are quite right to note that Istanbul/Constantinople is in a highly vulnerable position now, just a few hundred kilometres from the border. This is a huge weakness, but it's worth remembering that this strategic weakness as well as its distance from the great bulk of the empire (though this is less important in a time of telegraphs and railways) is one of the only major weaknesses the city has against it. Istanbul is still the economic centre of the empire and its cultural centre for many of its people. While Arabs don't have a great presence in the city so far in TTL, even Istanbul in OTL has come to have a fairly substantial population in the city, even if it is one that has exposed an ugly undercurrent of xenophobia in Turkish society. While there is a chance that the Ottoman government may relocate the government in TTL, keep in mind that they lack some of the ideological rationales that existed for Ataturk and his Turkish nationalists that existed in OTL.

As for the refugee crisis, it's worthwhile keeping in mind that Greece is a neutral nation at this moment, though if the Austro-Hungarians seem to be on the cusp of victory they may join back in. Greece is most likely unwilling to take Bulgarian refugees though, ethnic Greeks living in Bulgaria excepted. The Ottomans will not be too happy about the prospect of hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian refugees streaming in, especially when considering how difficult it has been for Muslim refugees from the Caucasus and the Ottoman Balkans to be settled. Perhaps we might see the Ottoman Empire as a transit point for refugees, or worse, seeing opposition or violence toward refugees from Bulgaria. Don't expect people to embrace the refugees and sing kumbaya.

The population itself is a contentious issue in the late Ottoman Empire. Christian peoples such as Greeks and Armenians had motives to exaggerate their own populations, and there is little evidence to back up the claims of some of the patriarchs. Personally, I've always viewed the Ottoman census statistics as more reliable as if nothing else they were intended to assess the tax-raising potential of different areas. For this purpose, it would be better to over-count rather than under-count. It's worth keeping in mind that the tribal population of the empire was likely undercounted as counting those wandering Kurds (most Kurds were sedentary at this point though), Arabs, Romani and Carnies (maybe not the last group) is significantly harder to accurately count than the settled population. Christians were more likely to be settled than Muslims as well. The Armenian Provinces in Eastern Anatolia will get their own update before long, so the topic will receive some in-depth attention there.

Albania and Tripoli + Cyrenaica's futures are of course, uncertain and I think depend largely on what the Ottomans do during the Great War. The Ottomans don't have the naval strength to defend themselves from some other European power, though that doesn't necessarily mean that any of these places will be easy to take. The Italians famously had an extremely difficult time securing Libya until Rodolfo Graziani tried the time-honoured tradition of massacres.
 
Don't see ottomans being a transit nation. First albanians still don't want them walking in, and second it requires them to go through ottoman towns and villages. These people are not likely rich so bad things will happen. Lets be honest ottoman muslims will hate them, due to recent events. Any issue they cause will be used like as casus belli to commit bad things against them. Its like how europe treats romani people, any accusation is good enough for violence to done against them.

I also don't see france and the uk going dunkirik then to save them.

One question will be interesting can the russian black sea fleet go through the bosphorus straights to link up with the austrian navy. Combing there two navies may prove a threat to france or at the least threaten the suez.
 
Thunder in the East - The Far-Eastern Front of the World War in 1912
Roger Evans; A Descent into Hell - A History of The World War: Penguin Publishing

Thunder in the East

Following her great victory over the Chinese in 1896, Japan had soon come to identify Russia as her primary adversary. Both powers had been expanding their spheres of spheres advanced steadily toward each other, until a point where it seemed that confrontation seemed inevitable. However, when this point seemed to have been reached in the 1900s, this confrontation did not occur. While the Japanese were concerned about the swift growth of Russian power within Manchuria, they had also judged that the Russians would be too powerful to confront alone, even considering the vast distances between Russia’s core territories and her possessions in the Far East. If Japan were to make war against Russia alone, she reasoned, it was a gamble. If the Russians decided to draw out the war, their military superiority would virtually guarantee her victory. A gamble that the Russians would fight the kind of short war that was most unfavourable to her was judged by the Japanese high command to be a poor gamble, and as a result, the Japanese held their fire.

Despite the policy of “peace for the present”, tensions between the two powers continued to grow. Just as Russia attempted to build its informal empire in Manchuria, Japan attempted to do the same in Korea. Korea had been officially declared an independent country in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, but in practice, Korea had moved from the Chinese sphere of influence to that of Japan. Many Koreans had different ideas about the destiny of their country than the Japanese had, and this contributed to increasing hostility between the Koreans and Japanese diplomats and soldiers within the country, who the locals often perceived as supremely arrogant and overbearing. While organised armed resistance was rare, attacks against individual Japanese were not unheard of. Low-ranking Japanese diplomats, or more often individual Japanese soldiers, would find themselves the victim of Koreans who may have acted more like bandits than like nationalist freedom fighters. Although Japan had won the “right” to rule Korea as far as the European great powers were concerned, the Koreans themselves largely took exception to being subsumed within the Japanese Empire.

800px-Harbin_Modern_Hotel.jpg

As in other European-dominated Chinese cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhouwan, Harbin resembled its colonial master more than its Chinese hinterland

Russia seemingly had an easier time establishing its informal empire in Manchuria. The Chinese government which was the nominal sovereign in the region had been crippled following its disastrous war with Japan and seemed to be more focused on internal power struggles than on preserving its peripheral regions. [1] The Russians had, through a poorly disguised private company, established a chain of informal colonies along the Trans-Siberian railroad which connected Vladivostok with the rest of the Russian Empire. These colonies served as conduits for Russian commercial and cultural influence in Manchuria, which some ambitious Russian politicians hoped could be turned into a kind of settler colony, a more fertile and liveable extension of Siberia. Cities such as Harbin, which had previously been a small Chinese village, became cities built in the Russian style, with a large Russian population. In the years prior to 1912, it appeared that the great Russian ambition to turn Manchuria into an extension of Russia itself was steadily transforming into reality. Sergei Witte, who promoted Russian expansion into East Asia, not only made himself personally wealthy in these ventures but won himself influence within the Tsar’s court, eventually becoming the head of the committee of ministers in 1907, making him the head of Russia’s government.

Japan looked enviously at these developments in Manchuria. Japan’s population was growing almost as swiftly as Russia’s was, but in contrast to Russia, Japan was a crowded country which had already become full in the last years of the 19th century. Expansionist voices within Japan now began to speculate whether or not Japan would need to win living space on the Asian Mainland for her quickly growing population. The idea of turning Manchuria into a “New Japan” by conquering the territory from China and settling it with Japanese colonists from the crowded home islands won the interest of industrialists, the army and farmers who found themselves being squeezed into ever-shrinking plots of land. That the land was already being unofficially colonized by Russia was of course a great concern to these sections of Japanese society, and pressure upon the government to act grew. Most Japanese statesmen understood their country was too weak to challenge Russia, even on the far end of their empire.

In 1911 when the British, concerned about the strength of the Three Emperor’s Alliance as a whole and about Russia’s expansionist potential across Asia in particular, came to the Japanese with an offer of a formal alliance, it was difficult to refuse. The main restriction on Japan’s ability to make war against Russia in East Asia was gone, namely that Japan would no longer have to fight Russia alone. It was unknown at this point exactly how many Russians would be dispatched east to fight the Japanese in Manchuria, and how many would march south toward British India, but the very fact that the Tsar’s armies would be distracted was encouragement enough for Japan’s leaders. This, along with what was sure to be a lengthy period of deployment, allowed the Japanese to embark on a bold strategy to win Manchuria and dig in near the critical railway lines before the Russians would have time to send enough men to the east to challenge the Japanese properly.

For their part, the Russians were positively contemptuous at the news that the Japanese would be joining their British allies in the war. The Tsar, who had visited Japan, nevertheless dismissed the Japanese as “a race of little yellow monkeys”, and the Russian military establishment was equally disdainful of the combat abilities of the Japanese army.[2] While the Japanese had demonstrated dash and ability while fighting the Chinese in 1895-96, this had led more to a lessening of perceptions of the Chinese army’s fighting ability rather than a reassessment of Japan’s fighting strength. Only a few keen observers noted that Japan’s victory in that war also owed much to Japan’s strength as well as China’s weakness. Crucially this underestimation of the Japanese was shared by the Russian commander in East Asia, Aleksey Kuropatkin.[3] Contrary to his post-war claims, he believed that victory over the Japanese would be quick in coming and that he would be hampered more by the logistical challenges of fighting thousands of kilometres away from Russia’s heartland than by the Japanese army. He had boasted to the Tsar that even with a numerical disadvantage, he would be able to “scatter those yellow men with great ease”.

Kuropatkin had at least seen that the weather would be a challenge. Japan declared war on Russia in support of her British ally on the 15th of September, the same day that Germany declared war on Great Britain. Russia was already in the process of mobilizing, and Japan immediately mobilized upon the declaration of war, giving Japan a window of around two months to make serious gains in Manchuria before the weather became too cold to fight in. The Japanese First Army stormed out of Port Arthur and raced towards a small Russian garrison at Kingkou. Kuropatkin had ordered the force to retreat and join the growing Russian army at Mukden however, seeking to minimize any potential losses. As the First Army had been denied the first blood of the conflict, so too would the Second Army, which crossed the Yalu River on the 27th of September, striking toward the Russian army at Mukden. By now it appeared that the main body of the Japanese army would attempt to encircle Kuropatkin’s outnumbered men in Mukden before they could be reinforced, besieging them or if possible, inflicting a Sedan-style defeat upon them. Minister for War Oyama Iwao wanted this, though most Japanese field commanders would settle for starving the Russians out and conserving their own soldiers.

800px-Japanese_cavalries_Crossing_the_Yalu_River.jpg

The Russians were largely unable to challenge the Japanese crossing the Yalu River, allowing the latter control of this crucial barrier

It was to be the Japanese Third Army that would draw first blood. This army crossed the Yalu River further east, marching straight for Vladivostok, the home of Russia’s Pacific fleet. An initial Japanese attempt to attack Russia’s Pacific fleet using submarines had failed and the gauntlet of Russian coastal forts along the approaches to Vladivostok made a naval assault impractical, and it was left to Japan’s army to force its way into the city and annihilate Russia’s naval power in the region. At Bezverkhovo, the Russians attempted to defend the approaches against a determined Japanese assault on the 1st of October, and although they fought a brave delaying action, one Russian division proved insufficient to hold back a full Japanese army corps, and after two days of fighting the Russians were overcome, albeit with heavy bloody losses on the Japanese side. The Russians noted the almost fanatical bravery of the Japanese, who often enthusiastically attacked positions that Russian troops would hold back from. If elan was to be the deciding factor in the war, it seemed as if the Japanese army possessed more of this quality than any other.

As it turned out, elan was not as decisive as Japanese officers had hoped. Bravery and recklessness would only let the Japanese get so far. When it came to assaulting the Muravyov-Amursky Peninsula, at the southern end of which Vladivostok was located, the Japanese soon found that their offensive tactics which involved massed attacks on the enemy were unable to break entrenched soldiers in strong defensive positions. Thousands of Japanese were slaughtered trying to break into Russian well-constructed Russian trenches held by defenders able to mow down infantry assaults with repeating rifles and machine guns. It took 3 days of these massacres for the Japanese to recognize that a change of tactics was needed, and the Japanese Third Army now settled down for a lengthy siege of Vladivostok. Although Japanese propaganda continued to emphasise the need for sacrifice, telling soldiers that “a man, like a cherry blossom, should fall in his prime”, Japanese commanders swiftly became aware of the need to conserve their limited manpower. However, it would take time for them to figure out offensive tactics that would enable them to do this.

A siege also seemed to be the fate of fighting further west, where Japanese attempts to destroy Kuropatkin’s Far Eastern Army had come to nought. Kuropatkin, ever a bureaucrat more than a soldier, had hoarded provisions in Mukden, hoping to tie down the Japanese in a siege that would allow Russian reinforcements to mass in Harbin, eventually coming to his rescue. The Japanese put this down to a lack of imagination on Kuropatkin’s part, but Kuropatkin was determined to preserve as much of his force as possible. He fortified the city of Mukden as much as he could, building a strong network of trenches and redoubts to rebuff Japanese attempts to storm the city and crush the Russian army there. As November ended and December began, the weather worsened, and temperatures punched below zero degrees Celsius even at the warmest time of the day. In these terrible conditions, it seemed that the Japanese could not break the Russians.

Although the opening moves of the war had seen a string of Japanese successes as they pushed back Russian troops and besieged two of the most important strategic points in the Russian Far East, the situation seemed as though it was swiftly turning against the Japanese. The Trans-Siberian Railway was swiftly allowing the Russians to prepare a new, large army in Harbin, which seemed poised to sweep down to Mukden and relieve the siege when the spring came. Already by the February of 1913, the fully mobilized Japanese army of some 1.5 million men now only had parity with the Russians, and by now 200,000 Russians were arriving in the theatre each month. Kuropatkin’s gamble seemed to be paying off, and now the Russians made plans not only to relieve their besieged brethren in Mukden and Vladivostok but to push into Japanese-owned Port Arthur and Korea as well.

[1] – See post 385

[2] – But of course, in TTL, there was no assassination attempt. He did still get a kick-ass tattoo there if you’re into that kind of thing.

[3] – Kuropatkin in TTL was the man who had pulled the Russian army together after the defeat at Çatalca and has something of a good reputation in TTL.

* * * * * *

Author's notes - Finally back! "Guangzhouwan", or Zhanjiang as it's known today, is actually quite a pleasant little place.

This isn't quite a re-run of OTL's Russo-Japanese War. Firstly the Russians have already completed the Trans-Siberian Railway, allowing them to ferry all the troops and resources needed to the theatre to eventually push the Japanese back. Secondly, the Japanese will only have to face a smaller portion of the Russian Navy, and we will most probably not see an alt-Tsushima. This is going to have its own impact on naval thought as well as Asian political thought overall. If Japan wins in the Far-Eastern Theatre, this will not have the dramatic effect that Japan's victory over Russia had in OTL. Not that TTL's scenario is necessarily worse for Japan. In OTL she was running out of money by the time peace was signed but in TTL, she will be bankrolled by Britain. This gives Japan much more staying power than she had.

In the background of all of this is China. Her sovereign territory has become the battleground, but Guangxu is too weak to assert his authority and keep the war out of his borders. This will likely prove a lightning rod for criticism from both conservatives and Chinese nationalists. We haven't delved much into the war's effect on China yet but like the Ottoman Empire, China is going to be a key neutral country.
 
Last edited:
I just realized there was no war in 1905 so Russia and Japan are at vastly different points in terms of their military ITTL. Russia didn't get humiliated so it's got less baggage in the 1910s, and Japan hasn't quite caught them napping either. Japan, while certainly proving itself to be a modern state and in theory an equal to Europe's nations doesn't have the cachet of the OTL war as leverage.
 
You know whats interesting in a earlier update Britain and France are both saying Ottomans are no longer caliphs and saying they should choose, means a split religious scholars pro-western scholars in egypt etc versus loyalists. I think russia can use this to their advantage in central asia and play the local muslims against the brits.

Also are german naval units fleeing to Russian naval bases such as the german pacific squadron etc.
 
Not having a T.K.O against Russia might actually be a good thing for Imperial Japan - they'll have to develop an actual modern army and navy doctrine instead of counting on one big Tsushima 2.0 and a couple of banzai charges to solve everything.
 
Just realized that with Teddy as President America might well join the war on the side of the Entente. It would be very interesting to see him go down as an early Lyndon Johnson- a hugely progressive agenda with a lot of success sadly marred by America's involvement in a bloody, traumatic war.
 
The German advance toward Paris, 1912
Roger Evans; A Descent into Hell - A History of The World War: Penguin Publishing

The Advance toward Paris

As October began, the Germans were locked into a race against time in their offensive against France. Already the weather was becoming colder, and it began to rain more, sometimes turning the ground muddy to such an extent that the poorer-quality country roads were becoming impassable. Most of Belgium had been seized, and the 2nd of October brought about the welcome fall of the French city of Lille after a short siege of a few days. Although close to the Belgian border, the city nonetheless was one of the most important cities in France’s industrial Northeast. To the north, Helmuth von Moltke’s 1st army had a much harder fight on its hands as it attempted to force the British and Belgians back from the Channel ports of Dunkirk and Calais. For the British, these ports were essential for keeping their armies on the continent supplied properly, and they fought tenaciously to keep them. One German lieutenant was surprised by the ferocity of the British resistance, noting that they had to fight for almost every building in the town of Dunkirk.

Despite the tougher-than-expected defence on the part of the British, the Germans were able to push the British back steadily, and by the 12th of October, the British had been pushed out of Calais and were preparing to make a stand at the city of Amiens, a key railway junction. Taking this city was a priority for the Germans, as it would both weaken the logistical situation of the allied forces north of Paris, as well as enable them to supply their own attack on the city, provided they were able to make the railways usable as quickly as possible. Once again, however, the German advance was to be stymied by the resistance of the British forces, who were by now beginning to suffer from a serious shortage of manpower and shells, but who nevertheless tenaciously clung onto Amiens for nearly a week before the Germans were able to force the British out of the city.

A triumph for the reputation of the British armed forces the Battle of Amiens may have been, but it nevertheless represented a disaster for the Entente forces in the Northeast of France. The British had repeatedly requested French support during the battle, but hard pressed along the Aisne and in Lorraine, the French were unable to lend much in the way of support. By now the British high command, with the exception of Francophiles like John French and Charles Townshend, were beginning to regret their support of the French in light of other military challenges outside of Europe. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain himself implored the British Expeditionary Force in France to keep on fighting. The logistical situation of the British had declined so badly though, that this meant retreating over a hundred kilometres to the city of Rouen, which could be adequately supplied by the port of Le Havre.

800px-1914_Troupes_allemandes.jpg

This had been what Colmar von der Goltz had been hoping for. He was increasingly resigned to the possibility that he would likely be unable to fully encircle Paris but threatening the city may be enough to push the French to the negotiating table. The orders he sent out on the 28th of October stated that the 1st Army was to keep the British and Belgians away from Paris and that the 2nd and 3rd armies were to drive on the city. Opposing them was only one French army, the 7th. Still attempting to avoid collapse on other fronts, the French were only able to pull back smaller numbers of men for the defence of the capital city. Already on the 1st of November, the government had retreated to the city of Bordeaux, followed by thousands of frightened citizens. Right-wing figures openly castigated French commander-in-chief Maurice Sarrail, who they claimed was a commander lacking the ability and moral fortitude needed to drive the Germans back. While they would not openly challenge France’s left-wing government yet, this increasing insubordination remained a pressing issue as the German advance continued.

By the 4th of November, the German forces were approaching the northern outskirts of Paris, and yet a request for armistice from the French government had not been received, as the more optimistic German predictions had anticipated. It was as von der Goltz had feared, and to some extent expected; the French seemed willing to wage a more intensive version of the “people’s war” that they had done in 1870/71. Facing Socialist opposition at home to what was perceived as an imperialist war of aggression, von der Goltz felt as though he needed to bring the war to as quick a conclusion as he possibly could.[1] Though the government had pre-emptively arrested several Socialist politicians and trade union leaders at the beginning of the war, this had only increased the opposition of the SPD within the Reichstag, which could not so easily be suppressed. Anti-War protests had been limited by the wave of enthusiasm for the war initially, but as a swift conclusion looked increasingly unlikely, it provided great anxiety for both German’s military and civilian leaders.

Von der Goltz was now presented with a dilemma. Without encircling the city of Paris and subjecting it to a lengthy siege, the city would be able to act as a defensive bastion, constantly being supplied by the rest of France. Yet he did not have the force available to surround the city without spreading his forces dangerously thin and vulnerable to French counterattacks. The weather had now also turned against him as the autumn was in full force, bringing rain and making the ground muddy and unsuited to offensive operations. In a communique to the Kaiser on the 5th of November, von der Goltz informed the Kaiser that he would be unable to win the war by Christmas, but that with preparation, Germany could win a decisive victory in the spring of 1913. This was bad news for Germany’s civilian leaders, who feared that a lengthy war could lead to unrest at home. Von der Goltz’s position still seemed secure, but there were increasing concerns should his promise of a victory in the spring not materialize.

In the meantime, it appeared that Paris would have a very uncomfortable winter. Although the city itself was not in immediate danger of being seized, the fact that the Germans were inching their way toward the city as they methodically reduced the surrounding fortresses was greatly distressing to citizens of the city. France’s war production was now being moved to cities further south such as Lyon or Marseilles, and French Prime Minister Adolphe Messimy called for a “full mobilization of the national spirit” to expel the German forces from their territory and save France’s capital. Although France’s immediate situation remained bleak, there appeared to be hopeful signs on the horizon. France’s allies in Britain were bankrolling the French war effort while sending increasing numbers of new recruits to the continent. France herself was beginning to replace the manpower lost in the first months of the war with colonial troops, who would prove to be a vital reservoir of men as the war continued. The French were also quicker than the Germans to mobilize their industry for the purposes of war, increasing production of war materiel by a much larger degree than any other combatant in the war by the spring of 1915.

The initial disasters of the war also encouraged a change in French doctrine. Moreso than the Germans, they had recognized the destructive potential of heavy artillery, which they had comparatively less of. Maurice Sarrail was finally replaced in December with Augustin Dubail, and the latter was a strong advocate for taking a more materiel-focused approach to fighting the war, aimed at preserving France’s diminished manpower resources. He was conscious of the Entente’s short-term numerical inferiority compared with the Germans and instead hoped to wear down the Germans with the heavy artillery and machine guns which had proved all too effective in the war so far. This attritional approach toward warfare was far less glamorous and, in some respects, politically unappealing than the previous manoeuvre strategy, it would prove to be one better suited to the Entente position at the beginning of 1913. Dubail saw the war at this point as a storm to be weathered while the resources of the world outside of Europe could be steadily mobilized to crush the Three Emperor's Alliance.

While this was a sound strategy, it would take time for French doctrine and war production to adjust. And time seemed to be the one thing that the French lacked. The fighting had slowed down considerably in November as the autumn rain made offensive operations extremely difficult. This favoured the Entente, who used the breathing space afforded by the weather to dig in, eventually constructing a network of trenches that stretched from the English Channel all the way to the Swiss border. This was a formidable network, and when the cold of January froze the mud and allowed some resumption of offensive operations, the Germans found the trench systems of the allies far more resilient than they had anticipated, they decided to change their strategy in two ways. German offensives now began to rely less on the power of infantry and more on artillery preparation, though this would prove to be of only limited effectiveness. More important was their operational decision to focus attention on Paris for the time being. Paris was already vulnerable, and now the Germans began to prepare for an assault on the city. In Von der Goltz’s own words, they would either “seize the heart of France, no matter what the cost”.

[1] – Germany’s Socialists have not voted for war credits as they did in OTL. Her government has not been able to utilize the anti-Russian sentiment that existed for obvious reasons, and so German is operating on limited financial resources compared to OTL.

* * * * * *

Author's notes - This is usually where I'm supposed to apologise after taking a month and a half to actually post an update, and while I apologise, I don't have a good excuse at hand.

Looks like OTL is playing out again, kind of. Except, of course, the Germans are doing comparatively better, and they don't have an Eastern Front to be rushing troops off to. This could possibly allow the Germans to take Paris. Could this actually cripple France's war effort and force her to come to terms? France continued to fight in 1871 despite the loss of Paris, and this time she has British allies. What the British do of course depends on what happens in the as-of-yet uncovered Central Asian front of the war. Which will probably be the topic of the next update, and will hopefully take far less time to actually write.
 
Without a two-front war to fight the Germans have managed to push on further, getting closer to Paris though not without issues. A repeat of 1870 is their best case, albeit hopefully no Commune.

France, however, is bloodied but certainly not yet out; Paris has of course not yet fallen and leadership is wising up to a few advantages that may turn the tide.
 
Top