Yeah, but I think Japanese army and navy would still be very influential, and I think their primary goal would be to get avenge on that Russians, which the Germans would offer. The idea of Imperialism won't die because of a single lost war...
1905 - Russia beats Japan
- Thread starter Aegyptos
- Start date
Yeah, but I think Japanese army and navy would still be very influential, and I think their primary goal would be to get avenge on that Russians, which the Germans would offer. The idea of Imperialism won't die because of a single lost war...
But, beating a white country was a tremendous boost to the Japanese mentality and helped to solidify what was to come in the 1940's. A loss in 1905 will lead to despair and disappointment.
Yes, that's true. But what if some years later one of the strongest european nations, after which japanese military was formed, would come to the Japanese government and offer them a new chance on the side of a strong ally? ITTL, the Japanese wouldn't have to face the Russians on their own, they'd just be the helpers of the Germans.
Grey Wolf
Donor
A defeated Japan would be bankrupt and beset by severe political instability, all of which needs factoring in. The army will be more powerful than the navy as most of the navy will be on the bottom of the sea and there will be no money to buy or build new ships. As an effective ally, Japan will be as useful as OTL China was in 1914 - i.e. vaguely, for manpower perhaps (eg Chinese labour batallions on the Western Front). They will take some while to recover
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Well, they'd have 10 years, and the bitter will to overcome the shame of defeat. Could be enough.
Of course, they'd be no important ally, maybe they'd even loose against the Russians, but they might be able to distract Russian troops from the West and prevent supplies from the pacific. At least I think they'd be a better ally against the Russians than the MExicans would be against the US...
By the way, what about Britain? Britain was the closest ally to Japan and a great supporter of an "open-door policy" in China. With Russia defeating Japan, I think Korea and Mandchuria would be Russian protectorates in 1905 and Russia would be even more expansionist in the far east. That would alienate Britain from Russia, thus maybe Britain stays neutral in a Russian-German war?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Very good point on Japan being a better ally than Mexico, regardless !
And also a very good point on Russo-British relations. I can certainly see the Entente agreement there not coming off, or if it did it certainly wouldn't lead on to any alliance, and would be aimed purely at settling areas of colonial dispute, such as in Persia
I don't think there would be much Britain could do about Russia being in Manchuria and Korea; the first is actually an internal CHINESE concern, the latter by treaty IIRC is between Russia, China and Japan.
An interesting note is that a Russian victory could have been of much greater use to the CHINESE Empire. China had a load of its capital tied up in joint enterprises with Russia in Manchuria. It was not a Russian conquest, but a Russian grant by the Chinese. One of the joint ventures was a bank which IIRC did not do very well after the Japanese victory in OTL. What you might see is China effectively giving up all real control of Manchuria in the long term in return for a sounder economy and greater economic development. This might well prevent the events of 1911-1912 and keep the imperial form intact by 1914
Grey Wolf
The Japanese Army would push for this. They were based on and heavily influenced by the Prussian Army.
Yes, they coud not do any direct action against Russian expansion in Manchuria and Korea. Thus they'd search for allies to counter Russian expansion. And the best allies to counter Russian expansion in Asia AND in Europe are the Central Powers and Japan. Britain might not be willing to sign an alliance with these. But would they side with France against them on the side of Russia? I doubt so. And one thing one can find in almost all WWI-threats: Once Britain stays neutral, the Germans win, and ITTL they'd even have the Japanese on their side...
Whilst Britain may not join the Entente pre-war, it is virtually obliged to go to war if Germany invades Belgium. With Japanese ally Germany knows it now has another option, namely force the Russians to fight on two fronts, even if one of the fronts is weak. It is also a long way away though to ship munitions and Japanese industry is not that big so it would have a job sustaining a major army in the field.
Assuming that WW1 is two Central Powers plus Japan against the Dual Entente and the Germans go for a Russia first strategy, they still have to decide how to neutralise the French fleet otherwise cruisers operating out of African and Indo Chinese ports will attack convoys. A full blown naval war and/or blockade is going to tick off the British. The other option of tieing up escorts is going to be ruinous in ships and they may not have enough to do the job.
There is also a racial element. The Japanese were consistently underestimated in the first half of the century by Europeans on racial grounds. Are the Germans really going to ally themselves to a bunch of non-European losers?
Ever since Russia reached the sea of Oktok in the early 1600's and wrestled the Maritimes from China, Russia has been Janus like.
First looking west to Europe and then looking east to Asia.
With A Taking of Korea from Japan, and increased relations with China over Manchuria, Russia would be greatly increasing the amount of Investment in Asia.
Today whe consider Russia a European country with a Asian Hinderland. If Russia manages to hold Korea and continues to invest in Asia,
?Could whe end with an Asian Russia, with a European hinterland.?
In 1903 Japan and Russia shared dominion over Sakhalin Island, the N/S division came out of the 1905 treaty,
I see a different outcome here, either the Island stay Joint ruled, or the Russians get it all.
If the Russians get the whole Island, then I see Japans aims being the Return of Sakhalin, and the return of Korea.
If it remains joint ruled, I can see a lot of the Investment and People who went to Korea 1905~1915 being encouraged to move North, to Sakhalin.
First looking west to Europe and then looking east to Asia.
With A Taking of Korea from Japan, and increased relations with China over Manchuria, Russia would be greatly increasing the amount of Investment in Asia.
Today whe consider Russia a European country with a Asian Hinderland. If Russia manages to hold Korea and continues to invest in Asia,
?Could whe end with an Asian Russia, with a European hinterland.?
In 1903 Japan and Russia shared dominion over Sakhalin Island, the N/S division came out of the 1905 treaty,
I see a different outcome here, either the Island stay Joint ruled, or the Russians get it all.
If the Russians get the whole Island, then I see Japans aims being the Return of Sakhalin, and the return of Korea.
If it remains joint ruled, I can see a lot of the Investment and People who went to Korea 1905~1915 being encouraged to move North, to Sakhalin.
Well, OTL yes, undoubtedly. But ITTL, we'd see a Russia without the terrible setback of the Russo-Japanese war, hence even more expansionist than OTL. ITTL I think not only Manchuria and Korea would become Russian, but also Mongolia and Singkiang, thus increasing tensions with Britain in Inner Asia. And Russia might even be more expansionist towards the Bosporus - although I don't see any real progress here. But maybe they get Persian Azerbaidshan and Ottoman territories in the east. Anyway, Russia would be the main focus for Britain prior to the war.
Considering Germany, I think that the defeat the Russians got from the Japanese led to the Germans thinking that the Russians are weak. ITTL, they are more or less as weak as OTL, probably even weaker, yet nobody knows since it didn't show up. Furthermore, Russia expanded even more, increasing the image of strong Russia. This should lead to a reconsideration of German strategies: Maybe they invest more money in the Heer than into the Hochseeflotte, since the wild Russian bear in the East seems more powerful than OTL. This would decrease alienation of Germany and Britain.
I assume that these developments still do not lead to a German-British alliance, which would solve the problem of Belgian neutrality altogether.
The question is would Britain still join sides with its main enemy Russia against Germany just because the Germans violated some neutrality? They might protest, true. But war? Not necessarily.
I don't think that a Russian victory changes things altogether between Germany in Britain, but Britain was reluctant to ally with Russia IOTL. A Russian victory might be a starting point for a development which leads to Britain not only being reluctant to ally with Russia, but Britain denying any form of alliance.
Well, Russia is not able to blockade Japan, hence Japan is still open for international trade. And given British and American interest in East Asia, they might not be that interested in restrict trade to Japan. Anyway, I don't think there's much of a problem for Japan to get supplies even if Germany can send nothing.
Well, as I said, with Britain out, I don't really see who can block Japan from supplies from international markets. Japan didn't get that much supplies from Nazi-Germany IOTL, yet they occupied large areas. However, these areas are neutral, and probably willing to trade.
Well, what were the Mexicans seen as?
As I said before, this would be no alliance between equals. Japan is just a distraction for the Russians. CP have to fight and win the war, Asia is just a sideshow, by far not that important as OTL WWII.
I often tend to view these things in over-simplified terms, but here's my thoughts on this.
A much weaker Japan, perhaps much much weaker. This probably eliminates the Japanese expansion in the 1930's.
I think there would still have been a Pacific Theater in World War II but it would have probably been scaled down and smaller than WWII in The Pacific was in OTL.
There is a whole set of potential dynamics no one seems to have considered. I'm assuming this would have strengthened Imperial Tsarist Russia enough that there is no Russian Revolution and no Communist Russia in TTL. Imperial Tsarist Russia survives and continues.
England's King George V and Tsar Nicholas II had a fairly close relationship. They were I believe first cousins. They looked enough alike to pass for brothers, even twins. So what about this scenario?
Edward Prince Of Wales marries one of Tsar Nicholas's daughters. The marriage links England and Russia closer together, Edward is very happily married to his Russian Princess, the Wallis Simpson affair never happens. King Edward VIII does not abdicate.
In a later generation, suppose Edward VIII and his wife don't have children, Elizabeth II becomes Queen. Despite his hemophilia Nicholas's son Alexei becomes tsar, marries and has children. Elizabeth's younger sister, I think her name was Margaret, marries Tsar Alexei's son.
In other words you have in the 20th Century one and perhaps two marriages between the Brittish and Russian Royal Families. In TTl something like that is quite possible and would bring a whole other set of dynamics to the situation.
A much weaker Japan, perhaps much much weaker. This probably eliminates the Japanese expansion in the 1930's.
I think there would still have been a Pacific Theater in World War II but it would have probably been scaled down and smaller than WWII in The Pacific was in OTL.
There is a whole set of potential dynamics no one seems to have considered. I'm assuming this would have strengthened Imperial Tsarist Russia enough that there is no Russian Revolution and no Communist Russia in TTL. Imperial Tsarist Russia survives and continues.
England's King George V and Tsar Nicholas II had a fairly close relationship. They were I believe first cousins. They looked enough alike to pass for brothers, even twins. So what about this scenario?
Edward Prince Of Wales marries one of Tsar Nicholas's daughters. The marriage links England and Russia closer together, Edward is very happily married to his Russian Princess, the Wallis Simpson affair never happens. King Edward VIII does not abdicate.
In a later generation, suppose Edward VIII and his wife don't have children, Elizabeth II becomes Queen. Despite his hemophilia Nicholas's son Alexei becomes tsar, marries and has children. Elizabeth's younger sister, I think her name was Margaret, marries Tsar Alexei's son.
In other words you have in the 20th Century one and perhaps two marriages between the Brittish and Russian Royal Families. In TTl something like that is quite possible and would bring a whole other set of dynamics to the situation.
I would certainly go along with this. The more tension is reduced between Germany and Britain, the less likely the British will ally themselves with the French.
Agree with this up to a point. Distractions can be allowed to escalate. If the Russians and French are at war with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Japanese and they are holding ground against the Germans, they might very well think that it is good idea to deal with the Japanese and thus eliminate one front. After all, there is what the Schlieffen Plan was intended to do on OTL.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Considering its 1905, the British and French have already made the initial agreements of the Entente Cordiale, and Britain has given France a free hand in Morocco, leading to the Kaiser's little jaunt there to try to take the traditional British role of opposing French expansion there for himself.
Grey Wolf
Colonial Warfare
The logical thing for Germany to do is to write off the idea of supporting the colonies in any meaningful way. Germany can't project forces overseas unless it wins a decisive naval battle--and still keeps Britian out of it.
In this timeline, the High Seas Fleet might be smaller--but still superior to the French fleet.
To support Japan, Germany just needs to send financial support--whcih can then purchese materials to be sent to Japan in American hulls. Of course, this assumes that the USA doesn't see Japan as a future rival in the Pacific.
The logical thing for Germany to do is to write off the idea of supporting the colonies in any meaningful way. Germany can't project forces overseas unless it wins a decisive naval battle--and still keeps Britian out of it.
In this timeline, the High Seas Fleet might be smaller--but still superior to the French fleet.
To support Japan, Germany just needs to send financial support--whcih can then purchese materials to be sent to Japan in American hulls. Of course, this assumes that the USA doesn't see Japan as a future rival in the Pacific.
On OTL German colonies were of small economic value and there was no great need by the British to knock them other than prevent them being used as bases from which commerce raiders could operate from.
The French colonies are more important and it would be in the interests of the Germans to make life difficult to draw support from them.
Ultimately though it is not going to have much impact on the war. As for keeping the British out, unless the Germans are going to allow complete freedom of movement of ships in and out of northern French waters, inevitably there are going to be incidents that tick off London.
It was not until there was major Japanese involvement in China that the USA saw her as a real threat. A weaker Japan would be seen as a market and not a rival, especially as she is buying heavily.
Russia dominates Asia
Russia would rule continental Asia but not Japan. Japan is the "England of the Orient" and the Japanese still could resist Russian aggression. However, Russia would fight with Britain, Germany, France, and the United States over China.
Russia would rule continental Asia but not Japan. Japan is the "England of the Orient" and the Japanese still could resist Russian aggression. However, Russia would fight with Britain, Germany, France, and the United States over China.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I doubt it. Why does Russian need to fight anyone over China ? Its penetration into China is with the agreement of the Chinese government, joint enterprises (a joint Russo-Chinese bank and a joint Russo-Chinese steam ship company IIRC) and whilst it is clearly Russia's gain to do this, its not an invasion or a conquest. Even legally its occupation of Manchuria is a mixture of an agreement with China and I think an interpretation of a clause allowing Russia to move troops in to protect its interests when threatened - which the Boxer Rebellion did.
The USA is not going to fight anyone over China, Open Door policy or not.
Since France is Russia's ally and Britain's Entente Cordiale with France began in 1904, I don't see any of them actually resorting to arms over Chinese disagreements
And despite the Kaiser's invective and rhetoric, the German general staff is not made enough to go to war over events in China
Grey Wolf