Russia avoids or wins war with Japan- Balkan consequences?

[BooNZ]

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

Assuming we are talking about the Bosnia-Herzegovina escalating and Germany standing by A-H, the Germans have two options: (1) stay on the defensive (waiting for opportunities to counter-attack), perhaps providing some military support to A-H depending on the circumstances; or (2) go on the offensive seeking to knock either Russia or France out of the war quickly.

Looking at option (2), I believe logistical issues and the Willy-Nicky connections mean Germany would not attempt to knock Russia out of the war early. The alternative is France. With Russia having an intact army, Germany having no super heavy artillery or phantom divisions, a Schlieffin like Plan is not going to happen.

Accordingly, Germany would have to initially adopt a predominantly defensive approach and wait an see the French and Russian approach. If Russia was to launch at A-H immediately, it would risk being hit by both A-H and Germany, so I would expect Russia to slowly co-ordinate its military actions with France.

This would likely involve Russia mobilising and then eventually attacking Germany simultaneously with France, which had consistently been their game plan. On the Western front the French are going to be bleed profusely, in a best case scenario ultimately reaching the West bank of the Rhine and no further. Meanwhile the Russian army would be meandering merrily along, while the Germans groom them for a battle of annihilation...

The Germans had no fear of the Russians per say, but most major powers found the idea of a long war unsettling...

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.

What fortresses were the Germans building on the Eastern Front? The Germans deliberately did not overly fortify the Western front - largely because they did not wan to discourage the French attacks. That said, there were quite a few Western forts and I suspect Germany still spent more on Western fortresses than Eastern fortresses for obvious reasons.

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

References please! The whole basis of the Russian-French alliance was for a co-ordinated attack against Germany to mitigate the internal advantage enjoyed by Germany. If the French waited for Russia to do all the work like you have previously suggested, it would be the end of the alliance.

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

Again, you state that Russia could have been good friends with the Chinese after steeling all their stuff (Korea and Port Arthur). OTL Russia was dependent on Chinese managers to administer its limited holdings in the sparsely populated Manchuria - how is Nicky going to manage an additional 12 million (purportedly backward) minorities in Korea?

Aside from Korea, your views do have some alignment with Count Witte. In his opinion Japan would become fully occupied by Korea for the foreseeable future. He suggested that over time may extend influence over China through its economic and rail concessions. While Sergei advocated the with drawl of Russian troops from Manchuria, he stated that they should be reinforced if they were to remain.

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")

Citing Willy? Really?

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.

Britain would not be thrilled with Japan highlighting China's weakness, but Japan or its claims do not represent a viable threat to British interests, indeed gains by Japan would be preferable to those of any other European power. Were Russia, France and Germany prepared to go to war with Britain?

It was one of the worst diplomatic mistakes they made.

So you maintain that Russia could have remained friends with China after stealing all her stuff?

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

The Finance Ministry delved into all aspects of Imperial Russia - and loans and railways were as much a diplomatic tool as a function of Finance. Witte was responsible for renegotiations on trade tariffs between Germany and Russia, and Witte was responsible for negotiating Chinese railway concessions* and the corresponding loans (via France). Not only was he able to influence Nicky on such matters, but also had access to Willy and his French counterparts.

Witte was subsequently concerned he would get the blame for the tensions created by those Chinese concessions and the Eastern expansion relating thereto.

 

[LordKalvert]

Again, you state that Russia could have been good friends with the Chinese after steeling all their stuff (Korea and Port Arthur). OTL Russia was dependent on Chinese managers to administer its limited holdings in the sparsely populated Manchuria - how is Nicky going to manage an additional 12 million (purportedly backward) minorities in Korea?

As usual you get things completely wrong. First, I advocated letting China have Port Arthur and taking a port in Korea (which was the Navy's preferred choice anyway

Second, I guess you don't know that Korea ASKED to be a Russian Protectorate at the time of Nicholas' coronation

As for managing the Koreans, the King of Korea would have done that. You just want control over his foreign and defense policies

Britain would not be thrilled with Japan highlighting China's weakness, but Japan or its claims do not represent a viable threat to British interests, indeed gains by Japan would be preferable to those of any other European power. Were Russia, France and Germany prepared to go to war with Britain?

And can you find anything to say that Britain had any intention whatsoever of fighting the Triple Intervention? In fact, most of the discussions were in getting Britain to JOIN the Triple Intervention.

In any case, why would Britain chose to go to war with the continent in defense of Japanese conquests?

So you maintain that Russia could have remained friends with China after stealing all her stuff?

Um, no, I advocated dividing up the Japanese conquests. China would have gotten her share at Port Arthur. She was happy to ally with Russia when Russia got her Port Arthur back for an increased indemnity. But you think that getting it back for free would have made China hate Russia

The Finance Ministry delved into all aspects of Imperial Russia - and loans and railways were as much a diplomatic tool as a function of Finance. Witte was responsible for renegotiations on trade tariffs between Germany and Russia, and Witte was responsible for negotiating Chinese railway concessions* and the corresponding loans (via France). Not only was he able to influence Nicky on such matters, but also had access to Willy and his French counterparts.

Witte was subsequently concerned he would get the blame for the tensions created by those Chinese concessions and the Eastern expansion relating thereto.

Technical matters. Not matters of high policy. Going to war or not is not something Witte ever had anything to do with. But the Witte disease has definitly infected your brain to the point of being incurable

 

[BooNZ]

As usual you get things completely wrong. First, I advocated letting China have Port Arthur and taking a port in Korea (which was the Navy's preferred choice anyway

Reference please

Second, I guess you don't know that Korea ASKED to be a Russian Protectorate at the time of Nicholas' coronation

Inept Russian meddling in Korean domestic politics was instrumental in the on going deterioration of relations between Japan and Russia. That does not end well for Russia.

As for managing the Koreans, the King of Korea would have done that. You just want control over his foreign and defense policies

That was never managed OTL - by that stage what Korea wanted was not longer relevant

And can you find anything to say that Britain had any intention whatsoever of fighting the Triple Intervention? In fact, most of the discussions were in getting Britain to JOIN the Triple Intervention.

That is because [unlike your scenarios] the Triple Intervention was not seen to be seeking to enhance the position of the participants directly. OTL, the aggrandisement of one European power ordinarily required compensation for others - e.g. Germany and the Morroco crisis.

Britain had the dominant economic position in China, which it would not have willingly allowed to be eroded. The Royal Navy that was more than capable of dealing with anything the Triple power participants could cobble together in Asia.

Germany participation in the Triple intervention was premised on a bit of old fashioned intimidation. True to form, if Willy thought there would be a any real chance of biffo, he would lose interest real fast. In terms of military, China and Korea were non-entities.

In any case, why would Britain chose to go to war with the continent in defense of Japanese conquests?

Britain would not be interested in defending the Japanese interests, rather it would be ensuring that other colonial powers were not obtaining an advantage in Asia over Britain.

Um, no, I advocated dividing up the Japanese conquests. China would have gotten her share at Port Arthur. She was happy to ally with Russia when Russia got her Port Arthur back for an increased indemnity. But you think that getting it back for free would have made China hate Russia

Korea was already a protectorate of China (be-it dominated by Japan), so if Korea instead became a protectorate of Russia it would be seen as net gain to Russia, which would not go down well with anyone. With no Trans-Siberian railway in place and a weak navy, the Russian position was not exactly strong.

Technical matters. Not matters of high policy. Going to war or not is not something Witte ever had anything to do with. But the Witte disease has definitly infected your brain to the point of being incurable

It's the economy, STUPID

 

[LordKalvert]

Reference please

See effect of assassination of Queen Min. The King of Korea flees to the Russian legation. So yeah, the Russians are protecting the King

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Myeongseong


For Russian Navy policy see (I know I gave this to you before)

http://books.google.com/books?id=tl...wAA#v=onepage&q=Russian Navy Nicholas&f=false

Inept Russian meddling in Korean domestic politics was instrumental in the on going deterioration of relations between Japan and Russia. That does not end well for Russia.

Korean politics are complex but really, BooNZ, the Russians have the upper hand until the Boxer rebellion and would have it again by 1905. As I've told you many times, Russia's main mistake was to give Japan the three year window

That was never managed OTL - by that stage what Korea wanted was not longer relevant

Yes and no but little powers were always the vicitm of British aggression

That is because [unlike your scenarios] the Triple Intervention was not seen to be seeking to enhance the position of the participants directly. OTL, the aggrandisement of one European power ordinarily required compensation for others - e.g. Germany and the Morroco crisis.

Britain had the dominant economic position in China, which it would not have willingly allowed to be eroded. The Royal Navy that was more than capable of dealing with anything the Triple power participants could cobble together in Asia.

Germany participation in the Triple intervention was premised on a bit of old fashioned intimidation. True to form, if Willy thought there would be a any real chance of biffo, he would lose interest real fast. In terms of military, China and Korea were non-entities.

Okay, BooNZ, this proves that you've never studied the Triple Intervention. The British had actually proposed the intervention and then changed their minds. The Kaiser was all for annexing Taiwan and Britain had already told the Russians that they had NO OBJECTION to Russia getting a railroad connection through Manchuria or ACCESS TO A PORT IN KOREA.

The powers had more than Britain in Asia, as if that matters since such a war would be worldwide. The commercial interests of Britain would in no way justify war with the Triplice- nothing really would

And of course, a war with Russia, France and Germany is unlikely to be limited to Asia.

Britain would not be interested in defending the Japanese interests, rather it would be ensuring that other colonial powers were not obtaining an advantage in Asia over Britain.

Even Salisbury's government wouldn't go to war over Kaichow and Port Arthur. Come up with a new theory for the Liberal government to wage war with the continent over the size of an indemnity that Japan was to receive.

Korea was already a protectorate of China (be-it dominated by Japan), so if Korea instead became a protectorate of Russia it would be seen as net gain to Russia, which would not go down well with anyone. With no Trans-Siberian railway in place and a weak navy, the Russian position was not exactly strong.

Please, Marchall even argued for such an arrangement, Willie wrote the Tsar telling him that he would support Russian annexations if Russia supported Germany's. So yes, a Russia backed by Germany and France is really, really strong. And we haven't even added in the Sultan and Spain yet.

As for the Trans-Siberian not being finished, so what? The Russians have the Chinese army (not great but with a little leadership and some spare supplies more than a match for what little Japan could muster) and about sixty thousand of their own (Japan has about 100,000). The Triple Alliance has overwhelming power by land and by sea

Your just insisting on something that isn't true. You've got blinders on this. The situation in 1895 is not the one of 1901.
Germany is more than happy to back Russia for a share of the spoils, Japan is very weak and exhausted, Cleveland, the last great anti-British American president is in power not the naive, bumbling Teddy Roosevelt and America doesn't have the Philippines, Spain does

Finally, the British are under the weak Roseberry leadership (weak because the cabinet is so often divided) and isn't going to war with anyone except maybe the Sultan over Armenia

It's the economy, STUPID

Which Witte wrecked. But saying because they let Witte negotiate the details of a railroad agreement or tariffs meant that he had a great deal of influence on foreign affairs is a bit of a stretch. And any deal he made would, of course, have to secure the assent of the Emperor

Matters such as the response to the Sino-Japanese War, the Austrian Entente, the Armenian crises, Fashoda, et al are way beyond Witte

 

[BooNZ]

For Russian Navy policy see (I know I gave this to you before)

http://books.google.com/books?id=tli4tdGiQQwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Russian+Navy+Nicholas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xeAuVNTdGZCkyATX9YGIDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russian%20Navy%20Nicholas&f=false

I'm not interested in a treasure hunt - you have said the Russian Navy preferred a naval base in Korea to Manchuria - according to who and when and ideally on what page.

Korean politics are complex but really, BooNZ, the Russians have the upper hand until the Boxer rebellion and would have it again by 1905.

Is that because of the natural empathy between the Russian people and the Koreans - whom most had already written off as backward?

Okay, BooNZ, this proves that you've never studied the Triple Intervention. The British had actually proposed the intervention and then changed their minds. The Kaiser was all for annexing Taiwan and Britain had already told the Russians that they had NO OBJECTION to Russia getting a railroad connection through Manchuria or ACCESS TO A PORT IN KOREA.

The Triple Intervention OTL was about limiting Japanese gains in an attempt to maintain the status quo, which Great Britain dominated. This is very different from the self aggrandisement you propose.

Willy was keen on many things, in many cases contradictory and giving any weight to his musings would result in his musings featuring on both sides of many debates.

Who in Britain told Russia they had no objection to Russia getting a port in Korea and when was that. I note that port access is a very different beast to a military base.

The powers had more than Britain in Asia, as if that matters since such a war would be worldwide. The commercial interests of Britain would in no way justify war with the Triplice- nothing really would

The triple alliance would be unable to effectively challenge the Royal navy if there was a conflict close to home (i.e. Europe). On the opposite side of the world, they would be truly outclassed. At that time, the Royal navy was the only truly global navy i.e. consistently expected to operate far from home.

And of course, a war with Russia, France and Germany is unlikely to be limited to Asia.

As previously stated, Willy consistently shied away from war and consistently backed down throughout his reign. There would have been no WW1 if he had his way.

Please, Marchall even argued for such an arrangement, Willie wrote the Tsar telling him that he would support Russian annexations if Russia supported Germany's. So yes, a Russia backed by Germany and France is really, really strong. And we haven't even added in the Sultan and Spain yet.

Again, brave words that would disintegrate as frequently happened OTL. What exactly are the Sultan and the Spanish supposed to do?

As for the Trans-Siberian not being finished, so what? The Russians have the Chinese army (not great but with a little leadership and some spare supplies more than a match for what little Japan could muster) and about sixty thousand of their own (Japan has about 100,000). The Triple Alliance has overwhelming power by land and by sea

Spare supplies? where from exactly? How would the Russians be supplied?I recall previously you cited Russian as having 3 armoured in Asia around the Triple intervention, but OTL they only had two in service and one of those was recently commissioned and did not make it to Asia until 1904...

Your just insisting on something that isn't true. You've got blinders on this. The situation in 1895 is not the one of 1901.
Germany is more than happy to back Russia for a share of the spoils, Japan is very weak and exhausted, Cleveland, the last great anti-British American president is in power not the naive, bumbling Teddy Roosevelt and America doesn't have the Philippines, Spain does

Ok, list those examples where Germany fought for Russia, or alternatively, against Britain... How is it that Japan is "very weak and exhausted", yet China, a defeated power, is keen to throw itself into the fray to advance Russian interests?

Finally, the British are under the weak Roseberry leadership (weak because the cabinet is so often divided) and isn't going to war with anyone except maybe the Sultan over Armenia

Armenia (pre WW1) is/was a non-event. It may have caused the British to hesitate (only) to support the Sultan (as an individual), but to suggest there was any appetite for war against the Ottomans over the (non)issue is absurd! British diplomacy was ruled by self interest.

Which Witte wrecked. But saying because they let Witte negotiate the details of a railroad agreement or tariffs meant that he had a great deal of influence on foreign affairs is a bit of a stretch. And any deal he made would, of course, have to secure the assent of the Emperor

Opinion is divided on Witte's genius, between you and the rest of the world. The fact you have advocated for a 1890-1900 Russia, a fiat currency, a strong navy and neo-liberal policies (almost simultaneous) suggest you are living in your very own ATL.

Matters such as the response to the Sino-Japanese War, the Austrian Entente, the Armenian crises, Fashoda, et al are way beyond Witte

For the best part of decade, Witte met with Nicky weekly to discuss the economy and the affairs of state - of course you would argue that Nicky was not feeble minded and easily swayed...

 

[LordKalvert]

I'm not interested in a treasure hunt - you have said the Russian Navy preferred a naval base in Korea to Manchuria - according to who and when and ideally on what page.

BooNZ, look you keep bringing up nonsense after nonsense on the Russians in the Far East and the Triple Intervention. I suggested that you read an excellent work on Russian Naval Policy at the time. Start with the chapter at the crossroads and you'll find a lot-

Such as, contrary to your assertion, that the Nikolai was in the Far East for the triple intervention as were three of Russia's older armored cruisers. Russia's forces alone were enough to crush the Japanese in 1895 and everyone (including the Japanese knew it)

As for the debate as to what Port to get in the Far East- there were advantages and disadvantages to several. Port Arthur had the advantage of being relatively easy to defend but had a narrow channel that was easy to blockade and was seperated from Vladivostok.

There was the option of another Port closer to the straits of Tsushima- several were looked at. This would have had the advantage of being able to interdict a Japanese attack on either side of Korea but the disadvantage of being vulnerable to a surprise sorty from Nagasaki. Makarov, for one, preferred this option

Finally there was the option on the Sea of Japan. It would allow easy access to Vladivostok but could be blocked at the straits and would allow Japan to land troops at will on the Yellow Sea

The Triple Intervention OTL was about limiting Japanese gains in an attempt to maintain the status quo, which Great Britain dominated. This is very different from the self aggrandisement you propose.

Willy was keen on many things, in many cases contradictory and giving any weight to his musings would result in his musings featuring on both sides of many debates.

Who in Britain told Russia they had no objection to Russia getting a port in Korea and when was that. I note that port access is a very different beast to a military base.

I have referenced the diplomatic documents. I suggest you look at them to begin to understand the diplomacy of the triple intervention. You have made many glaring errors and clung to them throughout our discussions- such as America and Britain being willing to oppose it.

Willie's notes are clear and consistent on the matter- he seeks only to expand German influence and sees working with Britain or Russia as a means of accomplishing it. The powers were in agreement until England defects.

Here is an excellent summary of German diplomatic correspondence concerning the Sino-Japanese War and the Kaiser's intentions. It makes it clear that Willie would be happy to let the Russians have Korea if he can have Taiwan


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gerchin.htm

The triple alliance would be unable to effectively challenge the Royal navy if there was a conflict close to home (i.e. Europe). On the opposite side of the world, they would be truly outclassed. At that time, the Royal navy was the only truly global navy i.e. consistently expected to operate far from home.

Not the analysis of anyone in power at the time. Even a fight between England and the Dual Alliance was considered to be risky. Any war against the Continental powers was doomed as the British could never effect a blockade while losing all its continental trade.

Your the one who claimed that the Triple powers were impotent in Asia, just showing how that that's wrong

As previously stated, Willy consistently shied away from war and consistently backed down throughout his reign. There would have been no WW1 if he had his way.

Nobody wanted war over this- which is why your claims make no sense. Willy wanted a Port in Asia (something he would take at Kaichow) Your the one insisting, without a shred of evidence, that Britain would then go to war against the Triple Intervention to prevent it.

They wouldn't. They didn't intervene when Russia seized Port Arthur and Germany Kaichow under Salisbury and Chamberlain.

They didn't intervene directly even when the Russians moved into Manchuria but got the Japanese to do the fighting for them- an option that isn't available for the British in 1895

Again, brave words that would disintegrate as frequently happened OTL. What exactly are the Sultan and the Spanish supposed to do?

No, once Willy was committed he was committed. He may have found him trapped as he was our time but then, no one is fighting the Triple powers and everyone knows it. The Spanish were anxious to keep the Japanese out of Taiwan and, by the way, had adecent little fleet when added to the Triple powers and control the staits of Gibraltar. Bye Bye Mediterranean to the Royal Navy and end of war because- the Sultan was pissed at the English over the Armenian, Egyptian and Cyprus affairs and would have let the Black Sea fleet into the open waters.

Really, you need to understand how isolated England was at the end of Roseberry's term

Spare supplies? where from exactly? How would the Russians be supplied?I recall previously you cited Russian as having 3 armoured in Asia around the Triple intervention, but OTL they only had two in service and one of those was recently commissioned and did not make it to Asia until 1904...

I gave you the reference for the Russian Fleet strength and you refused to read it. Your insistence about the Armored Cruisers is insane btw and refer to ships that weren't built while ignoring the ones that were built

I suggest reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=p-...a=X&ei=jz0xVL3iH4OkyQSGgIGAAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

Go to the chapters on the Japanese War and Naval development just preceding it. Not sure where you can access a copy but really- the Russians do have a lot of firepower outside the Black Sea and a lot more than Japan in the Far East

Ok, list those examples where Germany fought for Russia, or alternatively, against Britain... How is it that Japan is "very weak and exhausted", yet China, a defeated power, is keen to throw itself into the fray to advance Russian interests?

Fought? Nobody is fighting here- they're playing diplomacy which is "war by algebra"- you count the forces against you and see if you want to fight. Japan makes the decision to back down- just like Britain backed down when faced with Franco-German opposition to the Congo treaty. Really, Germany is capable of uniting with France, Russia, Britain or anyone else to promote their interests

China is anxious to limit the damage done to her by the Japanese. She would be throwing herself into the fray to drive the Japanese out of Port Arthur (you just can't get through your head that that's part of the plan). And as for "China being a defeated power" that's without any support. Since China is going to have to spend 200,000,000 taels to get the Japanese out of part of her territory she probably wouldn't mind spending a little less to get them out of more.

Japan may have beaten China but she's no match for the Continent at the time and certainly not four or five powers (which is why she backs down at the Triple Intervention).

As for spare supplies, just who is blockading China and preventing their arrival? China is huge and your not blockading the whole thing even if your the Royal Navy. Really, a few officers, some cannons and modern rifles and the Japanese Army in Korea, cut off from its bases of resupply, is finished in a matter of weeks

Armenia (pre WW1) is/was a non-event. It may have caused the British to hesitate (only) to support the Sultan (as an individual), but to suggest there was any appetite for war against the Ottomans over the (non)issue is absurd! British diplomacy was ruled by self interest.

Yeah so the uninformed insist. The british repeatedly sought to get the powers to intervene against the Sultan. To believe that you can fight the Sultan without fighting the Ottoman Empire is truly childish. A "non event" that leads to the collapse of all cooperation between Britain and the Sultan and basically ends Austo-British relations. A "non event" that leads, in many ways, to the estrangement of Germany from Britain and the Kruger telegram (though Zeyla plays a lot there too)

Opinion is divided on Witte's genius, between you and the rest of the world. The fact you have advocated for a 1890-1900 Russia, a fiat currency, a strong navy and neo-liberal policies (almost simultaneous) suggest you are living in your very own ATL.

No there is a loudmouth group that promotes Witte as a genius, It wasn't the view of the Russians at the time who lived through his failed policies.

Witte was roundly denounced by large circles over tariffs, railroad rates, the gold standard, stinginess toward needed military spending and his exploitation of the agrarian sector for his subsidies to the elite. You just seem to think otherwise

For the best part of decade, Witte met with Nicky weekly to discuss the economy and the affairs of state - of course you would argue that Nicky was not feeble minded and easily swayed...

Yep, he had to report to his Lord and Master on a regular basis. Doesn't give him influence over foreign affairs. Nicky met with a lot of ministers- something he rather hated. But at least you understand that Nicky is the one making the decisions

 

[Karelian]

I'm not interested in a treasure hunt - you have said the Russian Navy preferred a naval base in Korea to Manchuria - according to who and when and ideally on what page.

I'll interrupt your entertaining feud here for a moment to point out one such book: "The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War" by Ian Nish. It deals with the matter of Triple Intervention and following Russo-Japanese diplomacy in detail and with good sources. The first chapters deal with the issue of naval bases.

And yes, Russian navy preferred a naval base in Korea, and their insistence on getting one was one of the reasons why the later attempts to defuse the diplomatic tensions between Japan and Russia failed.

 

[BooNZ]

I'll interrupt your entertaining feud here for a moment to point out one such book: "The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War" by Ian Nish. It deals with the matter of Triple Intervention and following Russo-Japanese diplomacy in detail and with good sources. The first chapters deal with the issue of naval bases.

And yes, Russian navy preferred a naval base in Korea, and their insistence on getting one was one of the reasons why the later attempts to defuse the diplomatic tensions between Japan and Russia failed.

I guess I've become excessively suspicious about LK's assertions. I had understood that Russian diplomacy in the Far East had effectively been hi-jacked by private interests, rather than public policy.

I would be interested in your [independent] opinion as to whether Russia could have been significantly more assertive than OTL and what, if any, butterflies would/might result.

I have referenced the diplomatic documents. I suggest you look at them to begin to understand the diplomacy of the triple intervention. You have made many glaring errors and clung to them throughout our discussions- such as America and Britain being willing to oppose it.

Actually those same diplomatic documents seriously undermine your assertions - not mine.

Here is an excellent summary of German diplomatic correspondence concerning the Sino-Japanese War and the Kaiser's intentions. It makes it clear that Willie would be happy to let the Russians have Korea if he can have Taiwan

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gerchin.htm

I find it fascinating (and more than a little bit funny) that you cite a reference that clearly undermines your own positions:

- the documents do not contemplate military action and German 'intervention' participation is premised on that basis.

- the documents note a potential clash of interests between Russia and England over Korea, but that Germany should take part in negotiations so long as conflict is not imminent

- for various reasons the documents reject the idea of Formosa (Taiwan) as a potential German prize.

- the documents are more interested in the Island of Chusan, but confirm that Germany would defer to any English claim

- the following passage seemingly confirms that ultimately Germany would side with the English or not at all:

In reference to a former report His Majesty stated that when dealing with causes of quarrel between England and France, and between England and Russia, our policy must be kept perfectly free and independent, so that when the moment arrives when England absolutely needs us and begs for our he!p, we can exact proper payment, and if a conflict takes place without our being involved in it, we can take what we want for ourselves.

- the documents indicate Germany has no significant interests in the Far East

The following considerations lay at the bottom of this: England and Russia are especially interested in the development of affairs in Eastern Asia, and England wishes to keep China as far as possible unharmed as a buffer State to protect India against a Russian advance, whilst Russia does not wish to see her alleged claims to Korea, or at least a part of it, prejudiced by further Japanese progress. But Germany on the other hand has no such great interests at stake, at least for the present, in the Far East. German trade has not noticeably suffered from the state of war up to now. On the contrary, our manufacturers, merchants and shippers have found good openings for profit by supplying and delivering war material By joint intervention with England and Russia, aimed solely at restoring peace, we should first and foremost be helping the affairs of these States, probably with considerable sacrifice to ourselves

Not the analysis of anyone in power at the time. Even a fight between England and the Dual Alliance was considered to be risky. Any war against the Continental powers was doomed as the British could never effect a blockade while losing all its continental trade.

Tirpitz was cited in 1997 as assessing Britain exceeded the two power standard (i.e. France and Russia) by some margin. The reference material you provided confirms that Germany would not side with either France or Russia, but might side with England for the right price (refer above)

Your the one who claimed that the Triple powers were impotent in Asia, just showing how that that's wrong

oh contraire - the reference material you provided confirms that the triple intervention was a diplomatic only - not military.

No, once Willy was committed he was committed. He may have found him trapped as he was our time but then, no one is fighting the Triple powers and everyone knows it. The Spanish were anxious to keep the Japanese out of Taiwan and, by the way, had adecent little fleet when added to the Triple powers and control the staits of Gibraltar. Bye Bye Mediterranean to the Royal Navy and end of war because- the Sultan was pissed at the English over the Armenian, Egyptian and Cyprus affairs and would have let the Black Sea fleet into the open waters.

Wakey, wakey, - you appear to have drifted off into dreamland...

No there is a loudmouth group that promotes Witte as a genius, It wasn't the view of the Russians at the time who lived through his failed policies.

Witte was roundly denounced by large circles over tariffs, railroad rates, the gold standard, stinginess toward needed military spending and his exploitation of the agrarian sector for his subsidies to the elite. You just seem to think otherwise

Witte's policies of focusing on industry and railway undermined the power of the landed nobles that traditionally powerful group. That group were among the strongest critics of Witte's policies because they did not enjoy his support.

Witte recognised the importance of agriculture and education, but he prioritised industry and railway on the basis those were the hallmarks of a first rate power. In respect of agriculture, he believed in reform from the ground up, which again alienated those landed nobles.

There is little point in going over the virtues of a stable currency and growth of domestic industry which were, and are, entirely orthodox. Your cunning strategies are akin to those belatedly adopted by Boris Yeltsin...

Yep, he had to report to his Lord and Master on a regular basis. Doesn't give him influence over foreign affairs. Nicky met with a lot of ministers- something he rather hated. But at least you understand that Nicky is the one making the decisions

Yeah - Nicky really had his finger on the pulse...

 

[Karelian]

I guess I've become excessively suspicious about LK's assertions. I had understood that Russian diplomacy in the Far East had effectively been hi-jacked by private interests, rather than public policy.

I would be interested in your [independent] opinion as to whether Russia could have been significantly more assertive than OTL and what, if any, butterflies would/might result.

I've read the available books from our local university library and from the web when researching my TL, and the picture I've received from the conduct of Russian diplomacy during the time period is not pretty. Russia should have either been much more lenient towards Japan and ceded her Korean peninsula, or firmly crushed her rising power by claiming whole Korea when the Shimonosheki Triad was active and Tripartite Intervention occurred. Now they were hard enough to antagonize Japan and sloppy enough to underestimate Japanese willingness to reverse their fortunes afterwards.

 

[LordKalvert]

I've read the available books from our local university library and from the web when researching my TL, and the picture I've received from the conduct of Russian diplomacy during the time period is not pretty. Russia should have either been much more lenient towards Japan and ceded her Korean peninsula, or firmly crushed her rising power by claiming whole Korea when the Shimonosheki Triad was active and Tripartite Intervention occurred. Now they were hard enough to antagonize Japan and sloppy enough to underestimate Japanese willingness to reverse their fortunes afterwards.

Exactly- the best option for Russia would have been to crush Japan's rising power at the End of the Sino-Japanese War. She had German backing (who were full of greed- the Kaiser even wrote such a suggestion to the Tsar) and the French really had no choice. The British weren't interested in intervening (they considered and rejected joining in but there's no sign they would have tried to stand up to a Franco-Russian-German alliance). After all, they had suggested intervention previously

If the Russians do take a port in Korea in 1895 and the Germans get one as well its possible the Kaichow occupation never happens and the Boxer rebellion is butterflied away. In that case, Russia would have had the time to consilidate its Far Eastern position

They also miscalculated in not beginning to address Japan's rise right away. Admiral Loman for one suggested taking the entire fleet to the Pacific, cancelling Libau and covering the Baltic with torpedo boats. His suggestions were quite correct on this score

 

[LordKalvert]

Actually those same diplomatic documents seriously undermine your assertions - not mine.

I find it fascinating (and more than a little bit funny) that you cite a reference that clearly undermines your own positions:

- the documents do not contemplate military action and German 'intervention' participation is premised on that basis.

- the documents note a potential clash of interests between Russia and England over Korea, but that Germany should take part in negotiations so long as conflict is not imminent

- for various reasons the documents reject the idea of Formosa (Taiwan) as a potential German prize.

- the documents are more interested in the Island of Chusan, but confirm that Germany would defer to any English claim

- the following passage seemingly confirms that ultimately Germany would side with the English or not at all:

In reference to a former report His Majesty stated that when dealing with causes of quarrel between England and France, and between England and Russia, our policy must be kept perfectly free and independent, so that when the moment arrives when England absolutely needs us and begs for our he!p, we can exact proper payment, and if a conflict takes place without our being involved in it, we can take what we want for ourselves.

- the documents indicate Germany has no significant interests in the Far East

The following considerations lay at the bottom of this: England and Russia are especially interested in the development of affairs in Eastern Asia, and England wishes to keep China as far as possible unharmed as a buffer State to protect India against a Russian advance, whilst Russia does not wish to see her alleged claims to Korea, or at least a part of it, prejudiced by further Japanese progress. But Germany on the other hand has no such great interests at stake, at least for the present, in the Far East. German trade has not noticeably suffered from the state of war up to now. On the contrary, our manufacturers, merchants and shippers have found good openings for profit by supplying and delivering war material By joint intervention with England and Russia, aimed solely at restoring peace, we should first and foremost be helping the affairs of these States, probably with considerable sacrifice to ourselves

Your being quite selective and missing the all important parts of the correspondence.

First, the attitude of the powers do change over time. Britain moves from intervention because her interests are protected while Germany moves towards it. A lot happens during the Sino Japanese War- not only does Japan do much better than expected but Nicholas replaces his father. The Kaiser sees this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and France and Russia and Britain. The chief aims of his policy

Second, the Kaiser's notes are the most important as he is the ultimate decision maker. He's rather consistent. When Taiwan comes up as a possible Japanese demand, he writes "we could then claim it"

Third, the Kaiser writes to the Tsar asking for a port and offering to settle territory issues with the Tsar to their mutualadvantage.

Fourth, the dispatch to the German Ambassador in Tokyo is clear that Germany would protest with "sufficient force" and that Japan must give way because "war with three powers wouuld be pointless". So much for "diplomacy only". The Germans were prepared to see it through. It makes sense because the Russians by themselves could destroy Japan

From all this it is clear: at the time of the Triple Intervention, Britain had no intention of interfering and never hinted at such action. Germany was quite willing to go much further in pushing Japan back. France, of course, was forced to follow Russia's lead or lose the Russian alliance which she could never do.


As for Witte's policies- they were greatly detested in Russia- the gold standard in particular. The opposition to it was nearly unamious in the State Council

His high tariffs were also despised (and rightfully so) as exerting termendous sacrifices on the people as well as retarding industrialization. The high tariffs on raw materials exceeded the protection of industry (see Kahan) so Russian industry ultimately faced NEGATIVE tariff protection

There are no indicators of great growth because of the gold standard. To the contrary Russian heavy industry lapses almost immediately into recession

 

[LordKalvert]

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...

The nitrate issue is the biggest bugaboo around here. Germany suffered horribly from it but that doesn't follow that the other powers would.

First, nitrates are available as a byproduct of the coking process. The Germans in fact got half of their nitrates from this source. The problem for Germany is that her agriculture depended very heavily on nitrates and she was importing 100,000 tons from Chile before the war.

In Russia, it wouldn't have been much of a problem (she goes the war blockaded as it is) because:

1) Her soils weren't nitrate deficient and she didn't use artificial fertilizers to begin with.

2) Russia was a food exporter so a drop in production won't have anywhere near the effects as it does on an importing nation like Germany

3)Haber Bosch isn't the only way to get nitrogen from the air. There were others but they used a lot more electricity. The coking process was the biggest source of artificial nitrates

 

[BooNZ]

The nitrate issue is the biggest bugaboo around here. Germany suffered horribly from it but that doesn't follow that the other powers would.

At the time, no power other than Germany would have been able to survive longer than 18 months in the face of an effective British blockade.

First, nitrates are available as a byproduct of the coking process. The Germans in fact got half of their nitrates from this source. The problem for Germany is that her agriculture depended very heavily on nitrates and she was importing 100,000 tons from Chile before the war.

Nitric acid was required to produce explosives and pre-WW1 Chile was the exclusive nitrate source for almost all militaries. The nitrates produced by coking are not suitable to produce explosives and similar uses.

Pre-war the vast majority of nitrates were used for fertilizers or similar - in war-time, the majority of nitrates were used for military purposes.

In Russia, it wouldn't have been much of a problem (she goes the war blockaded as it is) because:

Would they throw rocks?

1) Her soils weren't nitrate deficient and she didn't use artificial fertilizers to begin with.

The issue is the ability to produce effective munitions - attempting to starve a nation over time by denying access to fertilisers is a very slow fuse...

2) Russia was a food exporter so a drop in production won't have anywhere near the effects as it does on an importing nation like Germany

A hungry soldier trumps a soldier with no bullets.

3)Haber Bosch isn't the only way to get nitrogen from the air. There were others but they used a lot more electricity. The coking process was the biggest source of artificial nitrates

The Haber Bosch process also extracted nitrogen suitable for military purposes, while most other nitrate sources were more suited to fertilizer. This did not matter to the Entente because they continued to have access to Chilean saltpetre