I'm hoping Lord Kalvert will post his sources; I'd like to look into them.
Russia avoids or wins war with Japan- Balkan consequences?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
I'm hoping Lord Kalvert will post his sources; I'd like to look into them.
LordKalvert
Banned
And this assumes, contrary to the thread, that the Russians get mauled in Manchuria
After the Manchurian War, in OTL, the Russians are in bad shape (especially their finances) and the country is working through the Revolutionary fervor throughout the country. So, no, they aren't going to war if they can avoid it.
However, in this thread we are assuming that they either avoid the war or win it rather easily. So your descriptions are completely out of place.
LordKalvert
Banned
Okay Boo, here's the problem. You can't reconcile your two posts. First, you say that Russia gets away cheap because Japan was running out of manpower (thanks to the Russian Army) and funds (thanks to the Russian Army) but you say that the Russian Army is bad.
Now, the Manchurian War is thousands of miles away from where the main strength of the Russian Army is, such wouldn't be the case in a European War
Second, the Russians always rely on their superior numbers so the attrition strategy is their normal course
Third, Japan is a first class foe- equal to any in Europe and yet the Russians had worn them down- not going to happen if the Russian Army is as bad as you say
Fourth, the thread assumes that Russia doesn't fight the Manchurian War or wins it easily. Something they can do if it happens a year latter which is why the Japanese attack in 1904. So by the threads assumptions, we have a Russian Army that hasn't been used in Manchuria nor have the Russians spent two billion rubles so they have some money to keep their army up to date and their supplies aren't depleted
Fifth, the Austrian army is the usual joke that it had been since 1859
Sixth, the Germans are marching through Europe in their pretty Prussian blue uniforms that make them as easy targets as the French in their Red pants
Seventh, with an intact Russian Army in their rear, the Germans are going to be radically reducing their forces in the west. If their fortunate, enough to avoid the idiocy of driving through the Netherlands. If not, well, the Dutch Army is going to soak up a lot of those Germans
Eighth, the German army simply lacks the massive firepower advantage that it had in 1914. They have no where near the heavy artillery to smash through the fortresses or the trench mortars to take on field entrenchments
Ninth, no one has proposed what Russia is doing to provoke a war in the Balkans. They had pursued a very quite policy there since Nicholas had come to the throne and even before that. They pretty much have what they wanted
They had defended the Sultan against British schemes in Armenia, opposed Bulgaria's attempt to incite the Macedonians into revolt in 1895, joined the other powers in helping the Turks beat the Greeks and told the Austrians they were free to move into Serbia and restore order after the 1903 assassinations
Russian policy was to secure the straits- preferably with their own troops but if that couldn't be done, then through agreement with the Sultan. Given the mutual loathing of the Sultan and the British, that had been secured. So why are they attacking him? What would they gain by promoting war there? They really had no love for the Balkan states and wanted the straits for themselves not for the Bulgarians or the Greeks
The major Balkan crises of the pre war era are not the making of the Russians:
The British and the Italians are the ones behind the Armenian crises
The Austrians over Bosnia (they probably wouldn't have been so dumb about if the Russians weren't still recovering from the Manchurian War
The Italians in Tripoli (with British and French agreement going back to the early 1900's)
The Balkan Wars would never have happened if the Italians hadn't softened up the Turks for them.
BooNZ
Banned
No problem at all. With its superior manpower reserves and finances, the Russians could have eked out a pyrrhic victory. This does not speak to the competence of its army, merely the underlying size advantage Russia enjoyed.
Agreed, but the Russians used its best equipment and men available for use in Manchuria, so 'the average' quality of the Russian Army lurking in Europe is likely to be much less experienced/trained and not so well equipped.
As outlined above, Russia was able to use its best men and equipment in Manchuria, so resorting to attrition in those circumstances is disappointing.
Nonsense. The Japanese Army performance was brave, but in so many ways bone-headed. They would have fared much worse if they went up against a decent European power such as France, let alone Germany.
Agree to a point, but the inherent weakness in the quality of Russian manpower (education, training and leadership) remained.
In truth, the Austrian Army would be stronger than it was six years later and Serbia / Russia would be a shadows of their future selves. Redl would be extremely inconvenient!
A fundamental element of the French/Russian alliance was the concept of co-ordinated offensives against Germany. The Germans would not be marching through Europe, but using their excellent rail network to respond to Russian and French offensives.
In the PODs provided, I have serious doubt the Germans would go West in the first instance. The Germans would not wish to risk pulling Britain into a conflict, since it had no alternative nitrates supplies.
Not needed if Germany was on the defensive
As a fast growing economy, dependent on exports, Russia could ill afford getting entangled in a prolonged war. Nicky's father accepted this and sensible Russian diplomacy reflected this. This initially continued with Nicky's ascension to the throne, but Russian diplomacy progressively got more adventurous and dangerous as time went on.
In 1904 Russian diplomacy facilitated an alliance of sorts between Serbia and Bulgaria, which was a blatant breach of Russian commitments to A-H.
Yes they were, yes they were, yes they were...
Maybe, maybe not. As suggested earlier, Russia could have accepted the annexation in return for recognition of its position in Manchuria
Actually, I addressed this in the OP. Intentionally or not, Russia gets drawn in to Austro-Serbian disputes over Bosnia, once the Young Turk revolution reopens that pandora's box:
A Russia flush with victory, or undisturbed by prior defeat or revolution may decide the path of least resistance to is humor Serbian demands, and then when that leads to Austro-Serb confrontation, Russia feels honor-bound to back up Serbia.
To Lord Kalvert:
Would you list some of the sources that show the Russian Army in "very good shape" at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, and "easily capable of winning a crushing victory"?
Those statement don't jive with anything I've read, and I'd like to objectively evaluate your claims.
Would you list some of the sources that show the Russian Army in "very good shape" at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, and "easily capable of winning a crushing victory"?
Those statement don't jive with anything I've read, and I'd like to objectively evaluate your claims.
LordKalvert
Banned
So from a military point of view, they weren't in that bad of shape at the end of the war. As I said, the problems lay more with the Navy, which was horrid, than the Army
At the beginning of the war, Japan threw everything she had at the Russians and the Russians, operating far from their bases of supplies and men, stood on the defensive while they built up their strength. Its the logical military course
The Japanese were well equipped from their large indemnity from China. They had spent huge sums preparing for the Russian campaign and had as modern of equipment as any.
Yes, the Japanese make mistakes as one would expect as their hadn't been a major war between two great powers since the Russo-Turkish War. They account themselves quite well here and in World War II. Calling that army less than first class is a bit underwhelming
All the powers will find that they need to make changes in training and leadership (the British example in the Boer War) and the Austrians in the great war
Its lazy to blame Russian failures on lack of leadership. They real problem for the Russians in 1914, is lack of shells and cartridges which are a result of the financial constraints from the Japanese War- which here is avoided
In truth, the Austrian Army would be stronger than it was six years later and Serbia / Russia would be a shadows of their future selves. Redl would be extremely inconvenient!
I don't see why. The Germans sought to use their central position to defeat their enemies in turn. An attack East results in the Russians fighting a defensive campaign and retreating to the East if beaten, falling back on their reserves like they do in 1915. The Germans are likely to suffer rather heavily in that case and the French are going to be striking into the Rhineland.
That's why they discarded the Eastern options
Not consistent with German military doctrine of the day
The Serbs and the Bulgarians begin to reconcile themselves. The Bulgarians are terrified of the Turks at the time. You keep reaching for this but there's not much to it nor is there any indication that the Russians are planning any offensive in the Balkans
List them. You've never mention anything but a rather strong interpetation of the 1903 Serb-Bulgarian talks. Its rather inconsistent with the Russians also reaching agreement with the Austrians concerning Macedonia at the same time
Yes, that's one of the POD suggested. The problem with that is that it would allow the Japanese to cut off the communications between Port Arthur and Vladivostok and give the Japanese easy access to lay siege to both.
As I've said, the best move from a Russian perspective, would have been to fully take advantage of the Triple Intervention to deprive Japan of all her gains, splitting them with her alliance partners.
This would have given the Russians the advantages of:
1) depriving Japan of about a third of her revenue which was used to finance her arms buildup. If they were really industrious, they could stick a clause limiting Japan's fleet into the agreement. This might have required inviting Spain into the party but that wouldn't have been hard
2) allowing the Russians to obtain their Port without alienating China and thereby keeping the Chinese Alliance
3) Giving Russia the funds to begin her naval buildup three years earlier
4) Giving the Germans their port which may have avoided the Kaichow seizure and the subsequent scramble for concessions. This could butterfly away the Boxer Rebellion and delay things long enough to finish the railway (which they should have pushed to completion sooner anyway)
5) In any event, if you deprive Japan of her gains in the Sino-Japanese War while building up your navy and completing the railway by 1902, Japan wouldn't have been of much value to Britain and they may have foresaken the whole idea of the Japanese Alliance which solves everything
LordKalvert
Banned
Possible. But if Russia is undefeated in the Far East and especially if she avoids the war altogether, then Austria is more likely to be cautious in the Balkans. Certainly, don't see the Austrians behaving as arrogantly and stupidly as they do in the Bosnian Crises where they manage to infuriate just about everyone (Russia, Italy, Turkey, Germany and Britain) and mostly unnecessarily.
The Austrians are also going to have to secure German support Only the extreme provocation of Sarajevo achieved that.
I want to contribute to three not necessarily interdependent points.
1. State of Russian army - the defeat by the Japanese is mainly not due to the bad shape of the Russian army (one can discuss - the Russians were definitely not having the best army, but it was adequate - withd eficiencies)., but it was part that the Japanese army was better than expected (they are non whits, so they are inferior - was the dooctrine of the day). THe russian politics wanted to relieve Port artur by a land attack in late 1904 - against the will of the commanding general who wanted to wait for more supplies and troops. The battle of Mukden was a defeat, but the Russians could retreat - which is a sign that the cohesion of the troops was basically intact and that further indicates that the troops were not SOOO bad. THE modernisation and reforms were necessary because of lessons learned, and not only by inherent deficits. All nations had to adapt after lessons learned (without this war I am woondering howw WWI would have run - even more casualties?)
2. Annexion crisis 1908
You must take into account that Austria and Russia had at this time a good understanding concerning the Balkans (1903 agreed on mutual actions to keep the Balkans calm) and there was an agreement that Austria woudl annex B-H and Russia gets free passage through the straits. Britain was agaisnt "both" and sucessfully prevented Russia to gain its objective - which turned Russia on A-H which reached its own
. Russia and Britain even considered to intervene militarily, but perceived Russian Weakness prevented it. Without the RJ war Russia would not be considered so weak. This could have three outcomes
a. Austria backs down - this might lead to a different TL -ideas?
b. Russia achieves its objective (its not considered weak, so it might get its will) - no war in 1908: Austria and Russia improve relations
c. War - Russia + UK vs Austria (an interesting sidenote IIRC France did not consider a war against A-H as casus foederis, so Germany might stay out too) - might Austria be able to hold back the Russian Juggernaut ?? Despite being patriotic I believe that Austria would back down after a few defeats
3. The Great war in 1908
France had adopted Plan XV in 1903 - this plan basically was a defensive strategy - Plan XVI (rejected) was also defensive (1909-1911) - Only in 1909 France switched to an offesive strategy with Plan XVII.
This prevents the need for germany to knock out France (if two sides go defensive you expect a quiet war) Germany could have focusses on the "gro0ssr ostaufmarsch" plan and this lead to betetr sucess for the CP )Even if Russia and the OE would end at the same side. BUt nations like Greece Bulgaria and Italy might take the opportunity and fight "against" the OE on the side of Austria and Germany.
1. State of Russian army - the defeat by the Japanese is mainly not due to the bad shape of the Russian army (one can discuss - the Russians were definitely not having the best army, but it was adequate - withd eficiencies)., but it was part that the Japanese army was better than expected (they are non whits, so they are inferior - was the dooctrine of the day). THe russian politics wanted to relieve Port artur by a land attack in late 1904 - against the will of the commanding general who wanted to wait for more supplies and troops. The battle of Mukden was a defeat, but the Russians could retreat - which is a sign that the cohesion of the troops was basically intact and that further indicates that the troops were not SOOO bad. THE modernisation and reforms were necessary because of lessons learned, and not only by inherent deficits. All nations had to adapt after lessons learned (without this war I am woondering howw WWI would have run - even more casualties?)
2. Annexion crisis 1908
You must take into account that Austria and Russia had at this time a good understanding concerning the Balkans (1903 agreed on mutual actions to keep the Balkans calm) and there was an agreement that Austria woudl annex B-H and Russia gets free passage through the straits. Britain was agaisnt "both" and sucessfully prevented Russia to gain its objective - which turned Russia on A-H which reached its own
. Russia and Britain even considered to intervene militarily, but perceived Russian Weakness prevented it. Without the RJ war Russia would not be considered so weak. This could have three outcomesa. Austria backs down - this might lead to a different TL -ideas?
b. Russia achieves its objective (its not considered weak, so it might get its will) - no war in 1908: Austria and Russia improve relations
c. War - Russia + UK vs Austria (an interesting sidenote IIRC France did not consider a war against A-H as casus foederis, so Germany might stay out too) - might Austria be able to hold back the Russian Juggernaut ?? Despite being patriotic I believe that Austria would back down after a few defeats
3. The Great war in 1908
France had adopted Plan XV in 1903 - this plan basically was a defensive strategy - Plan XVI (rejected) was also defensive (1909-1911) - Only in 1909 France switched to an offesive strategy with Plan XVII.
This prevents the need for germany to knock out France (if two sides go defensive you expect a quiet war
) Germany could have focusses on the "gro0ssr ostaufmarsch" plan and this lead to betetr sucess for the CP )Even if Russia and the OE would end at the same side. BUt nations like Greece Bulgaria and Italy might take the opportunity and fight "against" the OE on the side of Austria and Germany.BooNZ
Banned
No, the Russian army was an absolute shambles - that was the assessment of both the French and Russians (refer earlier post), but as a nation, Russia had more resources available to it than a small emerging power.
The Russian navy problems had largely been sorted (i.e. sunk and resting at the bottom of the ocean).
The Russians sent their very best troops and equipment to the East, with those units remaining in the West left with obsolete equipment and without their best personnel. In context, the quality of the forces fielded by the Russians was superior to what it could have expected to be able to field in a larger western conflict.
Neither Russian and Japanese armies were first class, although both were well equipped with (mostly) modern arms.
One of the key challenges facing imperial Russia was societal. There was relative shortage in Russia of professional/ educated/ middle classes that could fulfil both technical roles in military/industry and NCO/ junior officer roles in the military. This limited the initiative could be expected from the ranks, so doctrines needed to be applied from the top down. In summary, the lack of leadership was from top to bottom and cannot easily be compensated.
Imperial Russia spent reckless sums on hardware prior to WW1, but was subsequently routinely outclassed by the German army. One of the key strengths of the German Army was the quality and quantity of its NCOs among the ranks.
As previously stated, the Schlieffen Plan was conceived at a time of Russian weakness and attempting it when Russia was perceived to be strong and without the assistance of super heavy artillery and extensive logistical planning would have been reckless [I believe attempting it in any circumstance was block-headed].
Prior to the Schlieffin Plan, Schlieffin's objective was "to teach and develop a Schlieffin doctrine which exploited Germany's interior position and rail mobility to counter-attack against the expected Russo-French offensives" - page 22, Zuber.
When and where were the Eastern options discarded?
Counterattack was the bedrock to German military doctrine. As outlined above a defensive posture, coupled with a willingness to counter attack was the likely default Schlieffin doctrine.
The Russians clearly facilitated/ sponsored the reconciliation between Serbia and Bulgarians. The Balkans would be the natural focus of any Russian planning given its rivalry with the Ottomans and A-H
The Russians were heavily involved in facilitating/sponsoring the 1904 Serb-Bulgarian alliance and it breached other agreements with A-H in the process. Elements of the agreement were "top secret" for a reason.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Serbian-Bulgarian-Treaties-Balkan-Policy-Russia/dp/3639043553
Effectively Russia continued to meddle in the Balkans by proxy through Serbia - a failed state that was effectively propped up and armed by Russo-French loans that were simply not sustainable.
The Japanese would not be a credible threat once (a) the Trans-Siberian railway is completed and (b) lines are upgraded to heavy duty. Japan would have its work cut out assimilating Korea, before looking to expansion (OTL 1931). By that time Russian would in no way represent a soft target.
In any case, a "no war" POD would require improved relations or understanding between Russia and Japan. In that environment, a Japan and Russia alliance would be mutually beneficial.
BooNZ
Banned
I understand under that agreement (or perhaps another) Serbia was to be within A-H 's sphere of influence and Russia's sponsorship of secret 1904 Serbian-Bulgarian alliance would be a breach thereof.
I thought that agreement took place in 1908 or was there also an earlier understanding?
Britain was agaisnt "both" and sucessfully prevented Russia to gain its objective - which turned Russia on A-H which reached its own
I was not aware Britain contemplated having skin in that game - indeed in early Entente discussions Britain expressly excluded Balkans as an area of potential commitment - any chance you could let me know where I could read the contrary?
...
"It [Plan XV] was a flexible formation, allowing a shift to block a German attack against the French left or a commitment of the reserve army to the left or the right of the centre army for an offensive into German Lorraine."
pg 25 Zuber
"...the French did not, as the Germans had assumed, switch over to a defensive strategy: they did not change their 1903 plan at all until 1907.
pg 50 Zuber
The partial Bulgarian-Serbian reconciliation was necessitated by the economic situation and fear of foreign aggression (in Bulgaria's case mostly from the Ottoman Empire), and would have happened in one form or another in any case.
Russia's degree involvement in negotiating the treaties is far from clear; the final straw that sent the Serbian government on a course of reconciliation with Bulgaria was in fact when, in March 1904, Russia responded to a question of what they intend to do if Austria decides to march into Serbia and Novi Pazar on they way to Thessaloniki with a vague "surely they would never do such a thing" instead of the guarantees of support Belgrade was hoping for.
The reason being they concerned a joint policy of supporting reforms in Ottoman-held Macedonia and preparing the ground for as smooth a joint annexation of Serbia and Bulgaria's respective claimed territories as possible.
The Kingdom of Serbia was not a "failed state". Please elaborate why you think that.
Propped up by French loans? Wut? The closest it ever came to being an economically strangled not-quite-failed state is before 1903, due to the malignant influence of Austria-Hungary, which monopolized Serbia's trade and used it to politically blackmail Serbia by suddenly turning back livestock exports whenever Belgrade looked like it was going to do something not 100% pleasing to Vienna. The post-1903 administration made it a priority to escape Vienna's economic chokehold on Serbia by branching out to French, German and other markets, which after one last blackmail attempt by Austria in 1906 it eventually succeeded. The customs union with Bulgaria - one of the key points of the Serbian-Bulgarian negotiations - was the first step to achieving this.
LordKalvert
Banned
Your equating as assessment for a European war versus continuing the war in the Far East against Japan. Yes, Russia wasn't in any shape to fight a European War in 1906 after the Manchurian Campaign and the Revolution.
But we butterflied that away by having Russia avoid the Japanese War. The assessment of the Russian Army should therefore be 1903 when it was in very good shape and no one in Europe wanted to fight it.
In a showdown, the undefeated Russian Army would have been quite formidable and the Austro-Germans knew it
The Russian Fleet was in bad shape but so what? It wasn't going to play much of a role in a European War anyway. The Russians get away cheap here. Its the thing about continental navies that drove the British bonkers- they were throw away toys. No Great European power (except maybe France and Italy) really needed their navies. So they could fight Britain at little risk knowing that if they bloodied up the British some other navy could pounce on them
This is getting desperate here. Your again insisting that the Russians have fought the war despite the thread's premise that it did not.
To call the Japanese Army less than first class is a bit delusional. It had been spending lavishly on defense thanks to the Chinese indemnity and was well supplied and operating near its home bases. Despite this it achieves little more than a stalemate with the Russians operating thousands of miles from home where they couldn't bring their full weight to bear.
Name the armies that you think were better than Japan's at the time- certainly not Austria's, Italy's or France's. Maybe Germany's but the Germans didn't have a lot of the toys that they used in WWI
As was everyone else who fought the Germans. The Russians were playing catch up to where they were before the Manchurian campaign. In any event, they truly maul the Austrians (who don't do all that bad against their other opponents)
There were some poor choices (too much manpower, the fortresses instead of the field army) but there wasn't any doubt in anyone's mind that if the Russian Great Program was completed, the Russians would have been the dominant power in 1917. Without spending years recovering from the Manchurian War, they would have been done sooner
Japan was never a credible threat to Russia- it was only the Anglo-Japanese alliance that made it one. Without that, they were nothing and they knew it.
No, a no war POD requires only dismantling the Japanese as a military power. This can easily be achieved by dividing up Japan's gains from the Sino-Japanese War with your alliance partners and occupying Korea.
I've given this to you before but here's the Japanese Budget from 1897:
Ordinary Revenue 121,000,000 Yen
Ordinary expenses:
Finance (the debt) 41,000,000
Army 28,000,000
Navy 9,870,000
(This goes for upkeep and can't really be cut)
Extraordinary Revenue: 118,000,000
Indemnity 44,000,000
Previous year surplus 10,000,000 (this is from the indemnity)
Loans 59,000,000 (this is really an advance on the indemnity)
Extraodinary Expenditures:
War 30,000,000
Navy 68,000,000
Finance 10,000,000 (debt repayment)
This goes for shipbuilding, purchasing weapons and other one off expenses. So without the indemnity, there's no Japanese Navy or Army buildup to amount to anything even if they cut everything else (which given there budget priorities are pretty thin as they are) There's a lot of military spending hidden in transport and communications as well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qNAjAQAAMAAJ (go to page 412)
The total of the indemnity is 341,000,000 yen so without it Japan is broke to start with. (they also get about 15,000,000 yen from Taiwan every year)
And that's before we spend Russia's share of the Chinese Rescue Fund of 100,000,000 yen (the yen and the ruble are about on par) plus whatever they suck up from Korea (which is three times bigger than Taiwan)
So, just to get to even, Japan is going to have to come up with funds equal to about four times their tax revenue. Love to see where they get it
Sure, but Serbia is likely to be even more cocky and provocative when sure of Russian strength.
I don't get the interpretation of Austrian behavior as arrogant in 1908.
They were annexing a territory they'd occupied by right of the treaty of Berlin for 30 years. They were "led on" by the Russians to believe it would be OK with Russia. In addition to Aehrenthal's desire to have a diplomatic success, the annexation also had a defensive motive- The Young Turk revolution threatened to upset the status quo when the new government called for representatives from B-H to come to the constituent assembly, so Austria feared Ottoman abrogation of the deal that allowed them to occupy the territory. Meanwhile, in reaction to the annexation that did occur, Serbia mobilized its forces in protest and indicated it thought it should have Bosnia or a share of Bosnia. Seeing this threat to their position, the Austrians told the Serbs to settle down and not interfere in what had been Austrian controlled territory all along. Austria even gave a territorial corridor back to the Ottomans. Effective occupation by Austria actually *shrank* as a result of the Bosnian annexation.
None of the powers listed, Russia, Italy, Turkey, Germany and Britain had a rational reason to be infuriated by this.
The Russians *chose* to be infuriated by vicariously adopting Serbian claims and complaints as their own. I've often read Italy was infuriated. But Italy had no interest in Bosnia. It seems to me that Italy was simply angry at Austria for expanding at anyone's expense, instead of Italy expanding at Austria's expense, which is what they thought Manifest Destiny was.
Turkey, well, they had business being angry, because they lost formal sovereignty over more territory. But they did reconcile themselves to the change pretty fast, bought off by money payments and the retrocession of Sanjak of Novi Pazar.
Germany had no special interest in Bosnia. Any irritation in Germany was just a secondary effect of Austria making other powers more tense, and in the end, when the Serbs and Russians openly challenged the Austrians, the Germans backed Vienna up.
As for Britain, it had no special interest either. Britain just found it convenient for their own Entente with Russia that Russia could make itself upset over this and devote its attention there instead of to the straits, Persia and Far East. And some Britons harbored an affection for the Young Turks.
LordKalvert
Banned
Only if they are sure of Russian backing. Russia wasn't all that in love with any of the Balkan states having been burned by each of them in turn. Pan Slavism wasn't the policy of Nicholas though they become a major political factor after the Duma is formed. Before that
Its not the annexation that infuriates anyone but the manner that the Austrians used in doing so. The Russians would have gladly allowed it in return for their ships being allowed to use the straits.
The Italians were the same way- if Austria is tearing up the Congress of Berlin, then they wanted compensation. A free hand in Albania or Tripoli would have soothed them.
The Turks could have swallowed it for some money (like they eventually got)
The Germans also saw no reason for the way it was handled (nor did Franz Ferdinand). They simply saw themselves forced to back Austria even though they would have preferred a nice quite arrangement. They really needed Italy and to have their Triple Alliance partners estranged was not anything they wanted
Again, the Austrians could easily have annexed Bosnia and everyone would have gotten their cut and been happy
The Russians would never have bothered encouraging Serbia if they had the right of passage given. No, Italy didn't have any interest in Bosnia and would have gone along for some concessions elsewhere.
Because Austria revised the Congress without prior agreement, she alineated everyone.
Exactly and if Austria had offered the Turks that up front, they would have been happy with it.
Of course. The Germans weren't interested in Bosnia at all and generally had let Austria take the lead in Balkan affairs. They just would have preferred it done better. Letting Russia have access through the straits would have been, from a German point of view, rather nice and if it had been a gift from Austria would have cemented ties between the two. Instead, Austria got cute which is what infuriated the Kaiser. The Austrians cemented the Triple Entente rather than breaking it up- which was the Kaiser's real goal.
There were no direct British interests in Bosnia and they wouldn't have cared a hoop in hell if Austria annexed it. What enraged them (and ended all real cooperation between the two powers) was the WAY that Austria just ripped up a treaty
BooNZ
Banned
No - you suggested the Russian Army was in good shape after the RJ war, which was simply not try. Neither was it likely to be particularly effective in 1903.
No - if a confident Russian Army went up against the Germans it would have been smashed far worse than the RJ war. It would have been interesting to see how the Russian Army would have gone about mounting an offensive against A-H (without the Germans).
OTL most powers assumed that the Russians were far more competent than they actually were, so a Russian bluff was possible.
So you essentially agree that the Russian fleets were a waste of Roubles?
No, what I am saying is that the limited Russian forces that achieved a narrow loss to a small rising power, had access to superior equipment and personnel that would not have been available to the wider Russian army in a larger western engagement.
You appear to have answered your own question?
Germany, France and probably Britain. It is entirely probably the Japanese would match Austria and better the Italians - as I say, not first class...
The 'might' of the Russian Army was consistently overrated by most Great Powers. Increased arms, shells and debt are not going to save Russian peasants from being directed to the wrong place at the wrong time... The best use of the Russian Army was as a deterrent, not a steam roller, but their leadership failed to appreciate this.
High handed Russian diplomacy also played a key role in turning a potential ally into a certain threat...
No - the POD provided two sets of scenarios and your scenario would fall under "Russia wins" set, because achieving it peacefully would require ASB.
Last edited:
Few bits on the general discussion and then substantive comment on the POD.
The problem with the Russo Japanese war is everyone can learn the lessons it wants to from it and many of them are misleading.
To run through a few. Artillery fire can suppress machine guns as at Nan Shan, except the problem of WW1 and after is the unsuppressed MG.
Defensive positions can only be taken at exorbitant cost, but the Japanese overrun three successive hill lines at Port Arthur in a single night with less than 150 dead.
Pushing artillery forward into rifle and MG range is suicide. But ALL the successful Japanese attacks include light artillery being pushed as far forward as possible. Its also important to push MG forward offensively but only the British and French seem to have clocked that ( hence the Lewis and Hotchkiss.)
Reserves are useless. In fact apart from the original garrison ALL the Russian forces prior to Mukden are second line reservists. They deliberately did not weaken the forces in Europe for the war. These are men over 35 who had had maybe 20 rounds ‘training’ on their rifles, at least 5 of which were in volley fire. Which is better than the gunners who may have had sight of a manual on the train, totally new artillery equipments.
Reserves are useful, the Kobi performed very well and the Russian reservists performed quite well in the circumstances.
And then there is the classic Austrian Lesson Learned.
‘The Japanese are timid’
Also some serious misconceptions about both the French and German tactics in 1914. Both will have confirmed that their basic method, individual aimed fire and good junior leadership are right (compared with Russian platoon and company volley fire and battalion level control). The French training emphasised fire and movement with infantry advancing from cover to cover in platoon rushes with lots of entrenching, not massed bayonet charges. Which may in fact be part their problem.
The German 06 instructions are frankly a bit daft. They actually call for advance in close order to 1000m then breaking into platoon formation only if the enemy not then suppressed and specifically stating that moving out of close order is only to be used in exceptional circumstances. How can you tell if all the opposing MG are suppressed when many are likely to be silent at 1000m.
Now Balle D fired from a Hotchkiss has a range out to 4000m and a 75 a range 6,900m which implies a willingness to advance across several thousand metres of potentially beaten ground in close order, detect the enemy, go to ground in close order. Then wait until the MG’s and artillery deploy and get netted in and suppress enemy fire. While the enemy is shooting at a known distance target. This implies either that God has conveniently arranged the terrain every time, the enemy is terminally stupid or both.
In practice in 1914, 15, 16 and 40 the Germans kept closed up until contact then attempted to disperse getting shot up while doing so and when they did the attack stalled because the company commanders could no longer exercise control over the dispersed formation.
The Frontier battles are instructive and there is a good thread on the Great War Forums on the evolution of French infantry tactics. What seems to have happened is in two parts.
During the initial battles the French suffer disproportionate casualties not because of choosing to make bayonet charges in red panties but because of abysmal recon and bad terrain. These are advances to contact in a fairly strung out with the division commanders up with the advance guard. They walk into deployed german formations get decapitated either because of the death of the commander or because he is unable to communicate and get serially defeated. Partly that is because the fighting is in close country where it is difficult to deploy in a hurry mainly because the cavalry failed.
Two weeks later (and with the dismissal or death of half the division commanders) at the Marne the French with adequate recon attack the way they are trained to and win, with a roughly 1:1 casualty rate. Note that attack really refers to what is happening at battalion level. Both French and Germans attempted to counterattack immediately so even if the Army is defending individual units will be trying to tactically attack.
So without a Russo Japanese war.
Noone will believe there is a window of Russian Weakness (including the Russians which affects diplomatic behaviour) or that the window will close at a specific date.
Russia will not have a massive debt and expenditure to reequip especially reequipping the Navy.
France will not feel so compelled to bankroll the Russian recovery.
People will look a bit closer at the Boer War as it’s the most recent ( they will also dismiss it as its colonial and does not really count).
And on the offensive a outrance, well at Mukden Kuropatkin keeps 40% of his army in reserve ( even more for the Port Arthur Garrison) and at one point one of his corps commanders is on the Japanese flank will 113 Bn vs 50 odd but only puts in 33 bn and loses. A bit of a outrance would have gone a long way to winning the war for Russia.
The problem with the Russo Japanese war is everyone can learn the lessons it wants to from it and many of them are misleading.
To run through a few. Artillery fire can suppress machine guns as at Nan Shan, except the problem of WW1 and after is the unsuppressed MG.
Defensive positions can only be taken at exorbitant cost, but the Japanese overrun three successive hill lines at Port Arthur in a single night with less than 150 dead.
Pushing artillery forward into rifle and MG range is suicide. But ALL the successful Japanese attacks include light artillery being pushed as far forward as possible. Its also important to push MG forward offensively but only the British and French seem to have clocked that ( hence the Lewis and Hotchkiss.)
Reserves are useless. In fact apart from the original garrison ALL the Russian forces prior to Mukden are second line reservists. They deliberately did not weaken the forces in Europe for the war. These are men over 35 who had had maybe 20 rounds ‘training’ on their rifles, at least 5 of which were in volley fire. Which is better than the gunners who may have had sight of a manual on the train, totally new artillery equipments.
Reserves are useful, the Kobi performed very well and the Russian reservists performed quite well in the circumstances.
And then there is the classic Austrian Lesson Learned.
‘The Japanese are timid’
Also some serious misconceptions about both the French and German tactics in 1914. Both will have confirmed that their basic method, individual aimed fire and good junior leadership are right (compared with Russian platoon and company volley fire and battalion level control). The French training emphasised fire and movement with infantry advancing from cover to cover in platoon rushes with lots of entrenching, not massed bayonet charges. Which may in fact be part their problem.
The German 06 instructions are frankly a bit daft. They actually call for advance in close order to 1000m then breaking into platoon formation only if the enemy not then suppressed and specifically stating that moving out of close order is only to be used in exceptional circumstances. How can you tell if all the opposing MG are suppressed when many are likely to be silent at 1000m.
Now Balle D fired from a Hotchkiss has a range out to 4000m and a 75 a range 6,900m which implies a willingness to advance across several thousand metres of potentially beaten ground in close order, detect the enemy, go to ground in close order. Then wait until the MG’s and artillery deploy and get netted in and suppress enemy fire. While the enemy is shooting at a known distance target. This implies either that God has conveniently arranged the terrain every time, the enemy is terminally stupid or both.
In practice in 1914, 15, 16 and 40 the Germans kept closed up until contact then attempted to disperse getting shot up while doing so and when they did the attack stalled because the company commanders could no longer exercise control over the dispersed formation.
The Frontier battles are instructive and there is a good thread on the Great War Forums on the evolution of French infantry tactics. What seems to have happened is in two parts.
During the initial battles the French suffer disproportionate casualties not because of choosing to make bayonet charges in red panties but because of abysmal recon and bad terrain. These are advances to contact in a fairly strung out with the division commanders up with the advance guard. They walk into deployed german formations get decapitated either because of the death of the commander or because he is unable to communicate and get serially defeated. Partly that is because the fighting is in close country where it is difficult to deploy in a hurry mainly because the cavalry failed.
Two weeks later (and with the dismissal or death of half the division commanders) at the Marne the French with adequate recon attack the way they are trained to and win, with a roughly 1:1 casualty rate. Note that attack really refers to what is happening at battalion level. Both French and Germans attempted to counterattack immediately so even if the Army is defending individual units will be trying to tactically attack.
So without a Russo Japanese war.
Noone will believe there is a window of Russian Weakness (including the Russians which affects diplomatic behaviour) or that the window will close at a specific date.
Russia will not have a massive debt and expenditure to reequip especially reequipping the Navy.
France will not feel so compelled to bankroll the Russian recovery.
People will look a bit closer at the Boer War as it’s the most recent ( they will also dismiss it as its colonial and does not really count).
And on the offensive a outrance, well at Mukden Kuropatkin keeps 40% of his army in reserve ( even more for the Port Arthur Garrison) and at one point one of his corps commanders is on the Japanese flank will 113 Bn vs 50 odd but only puts in 33 bn and loses. A bit of a outrance would have gone a long way to winning the war for Russia.
LordKalvert
Banned
I said that the Russian Army in Manchuria was in better strength than the Japanese in Manchuria and still getting stronger and that it would eventually crush them.
Your extrapolating from that, that the Army was still ready for a general European War- which is a pretty long stretch
Well, take your pick: either the Germans are trying to launch an eastward attack, in which the Russians dig in and fight their rear gaurd actions- a perfect strategy for WWI or the Germans go west and the Austrians get killed
Your making a big reach here. What basis do you give the British the advantage other than their Khaki Uniforms. They lack artillery for example. Their performance during the Boer War was pathetic to say the least.
France as well- what makes you think that the Japanese (who were spending as lavishly on military equipment as anyone) didn't have a comparable army?
Please- is every commander going to perform perfectly? Of course not. The Germans make plenty of mistakes in WWI. The defeats of the Russian Army in WWI are more attributable to their lack of ammunitions, particularly shells, and the lack of field artillery comparable to the Germans. When they had superiority in these things, like they do against Austria, they win
Japan was not a potential ally- Russian and Japanese aims were incompatible. But, yes, the Russians seriously erred in forgoing their good relations with China
What is ASB about destroying Japan at the Triple Intervention?
There are other things they can do (forgoing Port Arthur for a few years) pulling out of Manchuria until the railway is finished.
Getting rid of Alexi and Witte are another
If you suppose a quick Russian victory through better luck or competence (and it wouldn't take too much to change the Naval War) that's not too much either
You can also butterfly the whole thing away with a deal with Britain (the Yangtze for Japan)
But the answer to the thread would be:
The Russians would most likely have continued their pursuit of Far Eastern Supremacy and ignored the Balkans unless some other power pursued an offensive strategy there.
The stronger Russia is, the less likely that is to happen
BooNZ
Banned
OTL - the respective default strategies before the RJ War/ Schlieffin Plan were for a co-ordinated French/Russian offensive against Germany and for Germany to use its internal lines to undertake counter-offensives.
What would trigger the France and Russia to change to the defensive strategies you suggest?
British army was small, but was the only 'professional' European army and the only army with significant (be-it somewhat embarrassing) battle experience. The British were producing a reliable eighteen pounder field gun with a hydro-pneumatic recoil brake by 1904.
The French pioneered the quick firing artillery and doctrines, which were being copied by other armies. Both Britain and France had quick firing artillery, which the Russians and Japanese did not - Russia may have just started their introduction.
So you subscribe to Russian abandoning Manchuria, including Port Arthur, since those were Chinese territories... Conversely, it is conceivable that Russia could have retained those territories and recover relations with Japan.
Sorry? You just wrote a diatribe about how A-H should have sought to appease or bribe other powers so their feelings were not hurt about A-H annexing territory it had been administering for over thirty years. So Russia can just stroll in and start dictating terms as it see fit - no problem there...
At a very bare minimum Russia would earn the enduring enmity of the Britain, which would be courting Germany with every bauble it had at its disposal.
Ok, so when you say Russia erred in forgoing their good relations with China, that was strictly a short term thing...
So there would be no railways in the East or reason for Russia to be in Asia at all - I guess that works.
Without Witte, the Russian hawks would have carried Nicky into any number of meaningless conflicts...
Like perhaps other Russians with the ear of Nicky?
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wright1176315780&disposition=inline
Russian adventurism more likely
[/QUOTE]
LordKalvert
Banned
The Germans weren't very keen on sitting back and waiting for the Russians to mobilize. They never really thought they were strong enough to deal with both the French and the Russians.
There choices were two;
Attack Russia before it mobilize or strike West and destroy France and turn on the Russians before they got to Berlin
They choose the second and it was obvious for years that was their preferred course as they were building fortresses in the East and railroads in the West. The lack of Western fortresses other than a few supply depots is a dead give away.
As noted by others, France had generally defensive plans that could go offensive. The Russians certainly planned an attack but only after they had fully mobilized behind their fortresses
Yes the British were correcting some of their deficiencies following the Boer War but they had just started and even in 1914 lacked the heavy artillery that Japan had in abundance
The Japanese had spent lavishly after the Chinese War and had much good modern equipment- especially communication which proved vital
Russia would have done best to secure Korea in 1895 and complete their railway and naval buildup while depriving Japan of her conquests. Such a course would have given Russia security and the Ports she needed. Given the decrepitude of the Manchu Regime, an internal uprising would happen soon enough that the Russians could take advantage of to reduce China to a dependency
I don't think your aware of the diplomatic situation that led to the Triple Intervention (The Kaiser had written in his notes that Japan demand for Taiwan meant that "then we could claim it")
Britain wasn't too keen on Japan's conquests herself and considered joining the party, They never contemplated resisting it. The powers were disgusted with the British "defection" which was the term used. Besides, Britain had no intention of going to war with Russia, France and Germany. All they would have done is made the best of a bad job and moved on.
The British showed their enmity to Russia over Port Arthur and Manchuria but that's Salisbury's regime not Roseberry. The diplomatic record is clear: The intervening powers had more might than Japan and no one (other than a flamboyant statement by Crispi that he would join if Britain resisted) no one showed any inclination to bail out Japan- nor can you give any reason for a power to want to do so.
Even Crispi could have been bought off- he just wanted some goodies and an end to arm shipments to Menelik is probably all he was really after
It was one of the worst diplomatic mistakes they made.
You subscribe to much influence to Witte- who never had much to do with foreign policy. The railroad would have been built without him as it was the will of Tsar Alexander III
And
A lot of people had Nicky's ear. Its not like he listened to everyone. Grand Admiral Alexi opposed the war too Kuroptkain wanted to wait another sixteen months because he needed time to build up his forces (mainly because of Witte's constant interference in the defence budget)
Perhaps, perhaps not. But with a much stronger Russia and weaker Japan adventurism would be called for. [/QUOTE]