Russia avoids or wins war with Japan- Balkan consequences?

raharris1973 · Sep 2, 2014

The PoD could be as early as 1894, but most of the consequences play out in the 20th century, so this forum is more appropriate:

Scenario 1: Russia avoids the Russo-Japanese War-

PoDs: a) Russia makes a deal in early 1900s recognizing Japanese primacy in Korea in exchange for Japanese recognition of Russian primacy in Manchuria. IE, Russia self-restrained in Korea.

b) Russia makes a deal after the Triple Intervention with Japan splitting Korea into spheres of influence.

c) Russia declines to intervene against Japan in 1895, and neither does anyone else, perhaps it occupies northern Manchuria.

d) Russia joins war in late 1894, on Japan's side, seizing Manchuria and Port Arthur (and maybe some of northeast Korea) for itself, while the Japanese win at sea and in Korea.

If Russia and Japan can avoid war, what does this mean for the Balkans? Will Russia support a Balkan League earlier? If the Balkans remain the same till the Young Turk revolution of 1908, what will Russia do when this opens the Bosnia question. Austria-Hungary will at least want to maintain the status quo, which Karageorgovich Serbia will increasingly covet. Austria-Hungary's not going to just roll over. Indeed, if the Young Turks still call on representatives from Bosnia, Austria-Hungary might feel compelled to still annex Bosnia even at the risk of confrontation with Russia.

Does Russia just let itself get dragged into a conflict between Serbia and Austria in the 1908-1909 timeframe? What's the end result?

Scenario 2- Russia wins the war with Japan-

a) Russia wins the 1904-1905 war through greater competence, or Japanese mistakes that lead to Russian mass outlasting Japanese finances.

b) Russia starts a war in the 1890s (possibly just making war instead of the Triple Intervention demands) and perhaps wins because of greater relative power against Japan then as opposed to later.

If Russia beats Japan what does this mean for the Balkans? Will Russia support a Balkan League earlier? If the Balkans remain the same till the Young Turk revolution of 1908, what will Russia do when this opens the Bosnia question. Austria-Hungary will at least want to maintain the status quo, which Karageorgovich Serbia will increasingly covet. Austria-Hungary's not going to just roll over. Indeed, if the Young Turks still call on representatives from Bosnia, Austria-Hungary might feel compelled to still annex Bosnia even at the risk of confrontation with Russia.

Does Russia just let itself get dragged into a conflict between Serbia and Austria in the 1908-1909 timeframe? What's the end result?

PoeFacedKilla · Sep 2, 2014

despite the fact the best thing to do is keep modernizing and focus on building up asia.

Conservatives still feel they have need to dominate or heavily influence the balkans.

They'll get involved, and probably militarily eventually.

BooNZ · Sep 2, 2014

PoeFacedKilla said:
Conservatives still feel they have need to dominate or heavily influence the balkans.

I had understood Russian conservatives were much less adventurous on diplomacy/expansion than Russian liberals - if we were to generalise.

BooNZ · Sep 2, 2014

It would be best for Russia to avoid the war altogether (say 1A), because:
- Avoids any costs of fighting a war;
- No Russian victory disease to cope with;
- Other powers feel less threatened; and
- Signals a smarter leadership

Brilliant Russian diplomacy might even enable a discrete Russo-Japanese alliance.

In respect of the Balkans, Russia was already laying the groundwork for the Balkan alliances in 1904 and that is unlikely to change much in the scenarios provided.

In respect of the Bosnia-Herzagovina, one cute work-a-round would be for Russia to support the annexation in 1908 in return for support for its own annexation of Manchuria (and Japan of Korea).

Tallil2long · Sep 2, 2014

If one subscribes to the "three competing regions" idea -- that is, Russia could expand her control in the East, in Southwest Asia, or in the Balkans, and closing off any of those avenues causes greater attention to the remaining one(s) -- then not getting shut out in the East could reduce aggressiveness in the Balkans.

On the other hand, not taking serious losses and a nasty shock to confidence in the Russo-Japanese War might make Russia even more assertive in the Balkans.

And on the gripping hand, divergent Great Power interactions stemming from no Russo-Japanese War might easily swamp all other considerations.

LordKalvert · Sep 2, 2014

If Russia achieves her objectives without the Japanese War (and I would use several other PODs such as a crushing intervention depriving Japan of everything after the Sino-Japanese War and splitting it with Germany and France) then she will continue to pursue her Eastern Strategy while keeping a watch on the Balkans.

She could still be dragged into the Balkans through the actions others. The overthrow of Abdul Hamid is the major event. Until then, Russia pretty much had what she wanted in the Balkans. The Sultan despised and had a host of grievences against them. These include the taking of Egypt and Cyprus, stirring up the Armenians and running around Europe trying to form a coalition to depose him. So the Sultan would never allow the British fleet into the Black Sea so there was no need to make a risky grab for the straits.

The Austrians rather stupid handling of the Bosnia affair is problematic but a Russia that hadn't gone through the Japanese War or the Revolution is a much different animal and the Austrians may have acted with a little more caution.

The big one is the Italo-Ottoman War which leads to the Balkan Wars. Not sure what Russia could have done to prevent this and its likely to bring the Russians back to the Balkans but its not war threatening.

Given Franz Joseph's advanced age and Franz Ferdinand's openly pro-Russian views, the Russians could play for time and await events calmly. Others lacked patience and brought about the Great War

Cook · Sep 2, 2014

raharris1973 said:
PoDs: a) Russia makes a deal in early 1900s recognizing Japanese primacy in Korea in exchange for Japanese recognition of Russian primacy in Manchuria. IE, Russia self-restrained in Korea.

That isn't actually a point of departure; Russia had made exactly that deal with Japan, and then broke it. The POD then is simply, as you said, that the Russians exercise shelf-restraint and abide by their agreement.

MarshalBraginsky · Sep 2, 2014

Avoiding the Russo-Japanese War might have a negative consequence on the Russian Army's leadership instead of a positive one because their defeat forced them to address some serious concerns that made their military defective.

The real question of this would be: without the war between the two nations, how will this affect Russia's potential (also possibly butterflied) alliance making with France? There's also the existing Anglo-Japanese Alliance to take into consideration.

Karelian · Sep 2, 2014

Russian politics of the day were highly focused on key individuals and their relations to Nicholas II. A few butterflies here and there will easily allow different factions to have the Czar's ear at key points, and this will have major consequences. Not to mention that in practice the Russian politics were often dictated by ambitious men at the borderlands or diplomatic corps, acting on their own and hoping that their initiativeness would be rewarded later on.

Also: I've dealth with one of the PoDs you mentioned in my TL, and will continue to write about the Balkans in the future.

raharris1973 · Sep 2, 2014

That isn't actually a point of departure; Russia had made exactly that deal with Japan, and then broke it. The POD then is simply, as you said, that the Russians exercise shelf-restraint and abide by their agreement.

Thank you for making me aware of that. I knew the Japanese had proposed this, but I never knew that the Russians ever said they agreed to it.

Avoiding the Russo-Japanese War might have a negative consequence on the Russian Army's leadership instead of a positive one because their defeat forced them to address some serious concerns that made their military defective.

I'd love to see this elaborated a bit. What did they fix? I suppose they reformed and adapted militarily, although 1904-05 also gave revolutionaries practice.

I could see Russia getting into a war with the Central Powers in 1908 and 1909 and quickly getting in over its head. And with the Germans involved, nothing is saving Russia from revolutionary victory. Of course, you don't have the Haber-Bosch process, so unless Britain sells nitrates to Germany, they run out of ammo and the French and then Russians begin to roll over them.

The real question of this would be: without the war between the two nations, how will this affect Russia's potential (also possibly butterflied) alliance making with France?

With any PoD in 1894 or later, the Franco-Russian alliance is already in place.

There's also the existing Anglo-Japanese Alliance to take into consideration.

Only in scenarios starting in 1902 or later. In such scenarios, the fact of an alliance with Britain is probably going to result in some naval caution by the Russians and put a limit on how much the Russians can take from Japan. Britain going to war with Russia is risky though. France's alliance with Russia would be put to the test by this, in circumstances where Germany's position is a complete wildcard.

LordKalvert · Sep 3, 2014

raharris1973 said:
I'd love to see this elaborated a bit. What did they fix? I suppose they reformed and adapted militarily, although 1904-05 also gave revolutionaries practice.

There are a whole host of reforms in Russia after the Japanese War. Conrad described the level of reform as " scarcely imaginable in any other country"

There are military reforms led by Sukhomlinov reorganizing the reserves, pulling out of forward areas, establishing a quartermaster system and others

Economically, there are the Stolypin reforms of agriculture, revision of the passport system, reductions in holidays (the Russians took a lot)

Politically there's the creation of the Duma, religious freedom (except for Jews), expansion of Zemstvo powers, a free press (a disaster) to name but a few

On the other hand, the Japanese War destroys Russia's finances and many other reforms are halted for lack of money. The lack of shell reserves is the major weakness of the Russian army

I could see Russia getting into a war with the Central Powers in 1908 and 1909 and quickly getting in over its head. And with the Germans involved, nothing is saving Russia from revolutionary victory. Of course, you don't have the Haber-Bosch process, so unless Britain sells nitrates to Germany, they run out of ammo and the French and then Russians begin to roll over them.

Maybe, maybe not. The French Army was much stronger relative to the Germans in 1908. Its not until the 1912 and 1913 Army bills that German might began to soar against the French. The Germans lacked the heavy artillery used to blast there way through the fortresses, the massive shell reserves and machine guns they had in 1914 and they were still wearing Prussian Blue. Finally, the French have much better military doctrines in 1908 and aren't likely to suffer the horrid casualties they do from their offensives.

In short, the War in the West is unlikely to go anywhere near the script that we saw. Rather the French are more likely to bleed the Germans very heavily and wait for the Russians to deliver the knockout blow. The Russians are likely to crush the Austrians as they do in our timeline.

The Russian Army's performance (in contrast to the Navy's) is not bad in the Japanese War though they are fighting at the end of their supply lines and can't bring to bear their superior mass until near the end of the war (which is why the peace terms are so moderate for Russia)

With any PoD in 1894 or later, the Franco-Russian alliance is already in place.

Formally. Informally, a Franco-Russian Alliance against an attack by any of the Triple Alliance powers is almost a given much earlier.

Only in scenarios starting in 1902 or later. In such scenarios, the fact of an alliance with Britain is probably going to result in some naval caution by the Russians and put a limit on how much the Russians can take from Japan. Britain going to war with Russia is risky though. France's alliance with Russia would be put to the test by this, in circumstances where Germany's position is a complete wildcard.

This is very true. If the Russian Navy had performed well and they had a bit of luck, the war is likely to end very quickly in Russia's favor with the Japanese Fleet destroyed- an example would be if Makarov doesn't hit a mine and the Japanese lose the third battleship when they run over a Russian minefield. Two small changes but enough to end Japanese domination of the Seas by May. There a few others.

But an intact Russian fleet in the Pacific causes a host of problems for the British and I think that in a Russian victory the British will seek an accomadation with Russia rather than a war. The Entente with better terms for Russia in essence. This would fit with Salisbury's actions which was to search for a coalition to LIMIT Russian gains if she had victory. Doubt if there was one. Teddy Roosevelt was all talk and the American Congress was very unlikely to back him to the point of war- something the Russians were well aware of

Tirpitz's risk theory is based on the premise that the British would shy away from battle rather than risk their fleet. Even if victorious the British may conclude that their losses so weakened them that they were vulnerable to a third party (Germany)

If it actually got to fighting, the Germans were likely to stay neutral and let the two beat each other up- which would have negated almost anything the British tried against the Russians

BooNZ · Sep 3, 2014

LordKalvert said:
...

Maybe, maybe not. The French Army was much stronger relative to the Germans in 1908. Its not until the 1912 and 1913 Army bills that German might began to soar against the French. The Germans lacked the heavy artillery used to blast there way through the fortresses, the massive shell reserves and machine guns they had in 1914 and they were still wearing Prussian Blue. Finally, the French have much better military doctrines in 1908 and aren't likely to suffer the horrid casualties they do from their offensives.

The French army was not much stronger relative to the German Army throughout the pre-war period and as at 1905 the Germans already had at least six 305mm mortors (The Arming of Europe, Herrmann).

The French had horrid offensive doctrines that were only improved in 1907-08 due to perceived Russian weakness (German War Plans, Terrance Zuber). If the Russians do not get smashed by Japan, the French dodgy doctrines would remain unchanged.

LordKalvert said:
In short, the War in the West is unlikely to go anywhere near the script that we saw. Rather the French are more likely to bleed the Germans very heavily and wait for the Russians to deliver the knockout blow. The Russians are likely to crush the Austrians as they do in our timeline.

The underlying environment in which the Schlieffen Plan was conceived was a weak Russia and it may not have risen to prominence in German military thinking without the RJ war. Meanwhile the French (per their doctrine) would be waiting for no-one. The Russian offensive capacities were highlighted in the Russo-Japanese war...

LordKalvert said:
The Russian Army's performance (in contrast to the Navy's) is not bad in the Japanese War though they are fighting at the end of their supply lines and can't bring to bear their superior mass until near the end of the war (which is why the peace terms are so moderate for Russia)

The Russian Army demonstrated an ability to defend bravely, but a complete inability to show initiative, which would be required for any kind of effective offensive.

BooNZ · Sep 3, 2014

raharris1973 said:
I could see Russia getting into a war with the Central Powers in 1908 and 1909 and quickly getting in over its head. And with the Germans involved, nothing is saving Russia from revolutionary victory. Of course, you don't have the Haber-Bosch process, so unless Britain sells nitrates to Germany, they run out of ammo and the French and then Russians begin to roll over them.

I think a potential shortage of nitrates might apply to any nation that does not have control of international trade and Britain may not feel compelled to align itself to a seemingly dominant Russia...

LordKalvert · Sep 3, 2014

BooNZ said:
The French army was not much stronger relative to the German Army throughout the pre-war period and as at 1905 the Germans already had at least six 305mm mortors (The Arming of Europe, Herrmann).

Yes, six mortors aren't doing that much and German tactics are pretty bad in 1908 as well. They only learn the stupidity of close order in 1914

Its the massive spending increases in following the Second Morroccan crises that gives Germany her overwhelming might in the West

The French had horrid offensive doctrines that were only improved in 1907-08 due to perceived Russian weakness (German War Plans, Terrance Zuber). If the Russians do not get smashed by Japan, the French dodgy doctrines would remain unchanged.

As would pretty much everyone's. Everyone does apply the lessons of the Manchurian campaign, some better than others

The underlying environment in which the Schlieffen Plan was conceived was a weak Russia and it may not have risen to prominence in German military thinking without the RJ war. Meanwhile the French (per their doctrine) would be waiting for no-one. The Russian offensive capacities were highlighted in the Russo-Japanese war...

The Schefflin plan per 1908 called for an invasion of the Netherlands as well which would have added even more to the enemy coalition. It also assumed Italian help and used units that existed only on paper

The Russian Army demonstrated an ability to defend bravely, but a complete inability to show initiative, which would be required for any kind of effective offensive.

Russia was standing on the defensive while she built up her Far Eastern forces. She fights her wars with a don't lose mentality and shies from battles of annihalation. The land war was much more stalemated than people make out. The Russians lose Mukden due to poor communications but their army was still intact and could easily have crushed the Japanese Army as the reinforcements kept pouring in. That's why Russia got away cheap at the peace confrence.

Port Arthur demonstrates that the fortresses of the day were capable of withstanding a prolonged assault which they couldn't do in 1914 because of the German's super heavy artillery.

Any ground campaign in 1908 is likely to lead to a meat grinder and the Germans are going to bleed very heavily in a failed bid for victory. The French counterstrike would likely have driven to the Rhine. Since we are assuming no Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Army is going to be intact and striking hard. Austria will disappear very quickly as in our timeline

Tallil2long · Sep 3, 2014

LordKalvert said:
. The Russians lose Mukden due to poor communications but their army was still intact and could easily have crushed the Japanese Army as the reinforcements kept pouring in. That's why Russia got away cheap at the peace confrence.

If she could "easily crush the Japanese Army", why didn't she? Why "get away cheap" in defeat, when you can win "easily"?

LordKalvert · Sep 3, 2014

Tallil2long said:
If she could "easily crush the Japanese Army", why didn't she? Why "get away cheap" in defeat, when you can win "easily"?

Politically, the war needed to end. The Revolutionary fervor needed to be quelled and the first Morocco showdown was coming in Europe.

The consensus among the Russians and the Japanese was that Japan was at the end of her rope and couldn't prosecute the war much longer. The Russians have a hard internal debate about making peace but do so from the domestic situation. The generals are unanimous in their belief that victory was guaranteed.

The Russians had, of course, lost the naval war so they aren't going to be imposing any terms on Japan.

Its simply wrong to believe that the Russian Army in 1904-5 is as decrepit as the navy was. They had killed our wounded over 400,000 Japanese (more than were in the Japanese army in 1904). The casualty rates between the two are equal and the Russians had solved a lot of their problems and are in very good shape

BooNZ · Sep 4, 2014

LordKalvert said:
Yes, six mortors aren't doing that much and German tactics are pretty bad in 1908 as well. They only learn the stupidity of close order in 1914

Not correct - refer the 1906 drill regulations for the German Army. After Clausewitz - German Military Thinkers Before the Great War also suggests an understanding of warfare of the day every bit comprehensive as armchair generals of the 21st century...

LordKalvert said:
As would pretty much everyone's. Everyone does apply the lessons of the Manchurian campaign, some better than others

No - in respect of the French, an additional impact of the RJ war was strategic i.e. once the French finally realised Russian weakness in 1907 it switched over to a defensive strategy (Zuber). Without the RJ war, France would have every confidence in Russian arms and maintain an offensive strategy throughout. In 1909 regained its confidence and reverted to an offensive posture.

LordKalvert said:
The Schefflin plan per 1908 called for an invasion of the Netherlands as well which would have added even more to the enemy coalition. It also assumed Italian help and used units that existed only on paper

In 1909 Germany also had a second plan, Aufmarsch II that focused on the East, and maintained a more defensive posture in the West.

LordKalvert said:
Russia was standing on the defensive while she built up her Far Eastern forces. She fights her wars with a don't lose mentality and shies from battles of annihalation. The land war was much more stalemated than people make out. The Russians lose Mukden due to poor communications but their army was still intact and could easily have crushed the Japanese Army as the reinforcements kept pouring in. That's why Russia got away cheap at the peace confrence.

I think you are being a little too kind to the performance of the Russian Army - winning a battle of attrition maybe, but the Russian Army had shown scant signs of being able to crush anything...

Russia got away cheap at the peace conference for 3 reasons: 1 Japan was quickly running out of funds; 2 Japan was running out of manpower and 3 masterful Russian diplomacy - a rare event indeed!

LordKalvert said:
Any ground campaign in 1908 is likely to lead to a meat grinder and the Germans are going to bleed very heavily in a failed bid for victory. The French counterstrike would likely have driven to the Rhine. Since we are assuming no Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Army is going to be intact and striking hard. Austria will disappear very quickly as in our timeline

If the Russian Army is intact, the French (per established doctrine) are going to have an aggressive posture with predictable results. The Russian Army will not have to cope with the tyranny of distance, but it will be seeking to maintain an aggressive posture (not a strength) against the most effective war machine in the world - again with predictable results.

Ultimately, the above leaves GB as kingmaker with the provision of nitrates etc.

Tallil2long · Sep 4, 2014

LordKalvert said:
Politically, the war needed to end. The Revolutionary fervor needed to be quelled and the first Morocco showdown was coming in Europe.

The consensus among the Russians and the Japanese was that Japan was at the end of her rope and couldn't prosecute the war much longer. The Russians have a hard internal debate about making peace but do so from the domestic situation. The generals are unanimous in their belief that victory was guaranteed.

The Russians had, of course, lost the naval war so they aren't going to be imposing any terms on Japan.

Its simply wrong to believe that the Russian Army in 1904-5 is as decrepit as the navy was. They had killed our wounded over 400,000 Japanese (more than were in the Japanese army in 1904). The casualty rates between the two are equal and the Russians had solved a lot of their problems and are in very good shape

Clearly I need to study up on the Russo-Japanese War, because your description is so counter-intuitive as to be suspicious.

If Revolutionary fervor needed to be quelled, an "easy, crushing" victory would be a great help, reinforcing the regime's legitimacy and restoring respect for (or at least fear of) it's power. A clearly victorious army marching home is vastly more convincing than one coming back with a suspicious odor of defeat wafting from its troop trains... And if Russia were confident of an easy, crushing victory, why would that victory take long? Easy, crushing victories don't. Long, narrowly-contested attritional grinds do, though.

Not having a navy is a problem, but an "easy, crushing" victory over Japan ought to pretty much drive them from the mainland (an excellent result for Russia all by itself), and the Russians supposedly knew that Japan was out of funds, so Japan would have to sue for peace. The first fact means that Russia needs few concessions from Japan; the second means they'll probably get some anyway.

And if the Russians lacked very, very serious defects in their army, one is forced to wonder why reforming it became so important to them? I don't just mean replacing losses, either.

What it sounds more like is that the Russian generals knew Russia would eventually grind Japan down through simple, brutal attrition, but this would take a goodly while, and the regime couldn't wait that long. Plus, that sort of "victory" wouldn't actually bolster the regime's legitimacy, but likely even damage it further in the doing. This interpretation would explain why Russia threw in the towel, and why it made the regime consider army reform a crucial issue.

Maybe I just don't "get it". In any event, I'll invest the time to research the matter.

BooNZ · Sep 4, 2014

LordKalvert said:
Its simply wrong to believe that the Russian Army in 1904-5 is as decrepit as the navy was. They had killed our wounded over 400,000 Japanese (more than were in the Japanese army in 1904). The casualty rates between the two are equal and the Russians had solved a lot of their problems and are in very good shape

Really?

In 1906 Brigadier General Moulin (French Military Attaché in St Petersburg) reported "Russia will for a certain time be almost valueless as military ally against Germany"

In Mar-1906 F.F. Palitsyn (Chief of Russian General Staff) estimated it would be three and a half years before the Russian army recovered fully - Moulin assessed it would be at least 3 years.

In 1907 Palitsyn told Moulin "the Russian Army at present has neither the cohesion nor the tactical instruction necessary to a good offensive instrument". Palitsyn also pointed out that France hardly appeared to be in a better position.

Cook · Sep 4, 2014

Tallil2long said:
Clearly I need to study up on the Russo-Japanese War, because your description is so counter-intuitive as to be suspicious.

Thank goodness; it's been a while since I read up on the R-J War and I thought my memory must have seriously slipped.