Sure, about that? Sure the Russian Empire doesn't get itself into a war with Germany, a war in which it is outclassed, and in over its head, and destabilized, leading to a revolution, that could go radical, even Bolshevik?
Would Asia/the world of the twentieth century have been better off if Japan lost the Russo-Japan War, was stalemated, or deterred from attacking?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
Russia could have its own flavours of fascism particularly if it gets invaded by Germany in WW1, which would target Jews, leftists, Muslims.
Map Thread VI
Well, only in the Ukraine, though, it seems... I was thinking more Greece myself.
www.alternatehistory.com
I honestly haven’t seen *Fascist (Zemlists? Autocrats?) Russia timeline
Last edited:
Well, it depends a lot on how the Russians win, but maybe if Admiral Makarov (according to Wikipedia, Russia's foremost naval expert at the time) doesn't die to a naval mine the Russian military could eek out a victory in the Siege of Port Arthur, which would likely deal a severe blow to Japanese morale.
Not the exact way he says, I didn't follow that causal sequence, but it's easy to equate a Russian win vs Japan to an earlier Russian Revolution.
Russia wins, 1904, or 1905 or earlier.
Russia is cockier and pushier in the Balkans, it backs Austria-Hungary and Germany into a corner, so war breaks out with them.
Russia gets smacked around by Germany hard, destabilized, has a revolution, or two, because of the bad war. Even if Germany ultimately loses that war to other opponents.
.....there you go, lickety-split.
Sekhmet_D
Kicked
One could argue that Germany had the cojones to take on Russia IOTL because they saw Russia get humiliated by Japan.
It is possible that they would not be keen on fighting a Russia that mopped the floor with the Japanese.
I don't realistically see a way Russia mops the floor with Japan without the TSR being completed a few years sooner, and even then without Russia's navy from the Baltics and Black Sea (which is half a world away and would take months to arrive) I don't realistically see a way for Russia to defeat Japan fully.
It took 3 revolutions to get the most extreme sect of the radical extreme into power. Even if you apply a tight butterfly net to Europe if Russia can make it to 1914, or any other alt Great War without a Revolution the likely result is an agrarian socialist government led by the SR's if the Tsarist regime gest into trouble and even that might be avoided if the agrarian reforms of Stolypin have time to work though with 1905 the impetus would be a lessened so Stolypin might be less successful than OTL.
Russia had been expanding its influence in Korea and the Qing Dynasty for decades by the time of the conflict, in fact the war should be seen as the culmination of a "great game" between Russia and Japan in Northeast Asia. As for why I think Russia could plausibly colonize Korea? Because Japan did IOTL, and the Russian Empire has vaster resources to do the same, which they are now positioned to do virtually unopposed. I.e. the power imbalance is greater than between Korea and Japan. The same is true of the sparsely populated parts of northern China like "Manchuria"—Japan eventually colonized that part of China, so it's no great stretch to assume Russia, one of the greatest empires in the world, has the ability to do the same.
Regarding WW1, no Russian loss and Russian preponderance in Northeast Asia seriously hampers any prospects of an Anglo-Russian Entente, as the Russian threat remains from a British perspective. Moreover, Russo-German relations were pretty good up until Russia's defeat. Wilhelm II had strongly encouraged Russia to expand eastward and become the hegemon in the Far East. This served German interests well, as a Russia more preoccupied in the east allowed Germany more legroom in Europe. Russia's loss to Japan meant it had to effectively give up its ambitions in the east, turning its attention back to Europe. With this and the Anglo-Russian Entente no longer preordained, who knows what the web of alliances would look like in this timeline.
The other butterfly is that the defeat of Japan in 1905 undermines the British options in the Far East and for dealing with the threat of a possibly revitalised Russia and it’s ambitions in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Britain faces the reality of backing and rebuilding its ally to maintain the defence of the Far East position or ditching Japan and taking on rapprochement with either Germany to counterbalance, or Russia itself, however that is unlikely given the imperial rivalry.
Britain faces the reality of backing and rebuilding its ally to maintain the defence of the Far East position or ditching Japan and taking on rapprochement with either Germany to counterbalance, or Russia itself, however that is unlikely given the imperial rivalry.
One potential butterfly is with a Russian victory in the Russo-Japanese War, there may be a lessened Japanese influence in Korea, leading to an independent Korean Empire lasting much longer. Or a Korean Empire under the protection of the Russian Empire.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
As a previous member has posted, Admiral Makarov & the Petropavlosk are not blown up by a mine. With the Japanese still losing two battleships to the same cause, and a commander who outshone Vitgeft, and who would stand up to the Viceroy, the Russians would have a well-led fleet that outnumbered Togo's. If the cruiser squadron at Vladivostok could avoid grounding the Bogatyr and able to pull Kimimura's armoured cruiser away from the battleline, the Russians would have a better chance of pulling off a victory that might allow them to dominate the Korean Straits. The Battle of the Yellow Sea's decisive moment came with a "lucky" hit that wiped out Vitgeft and left his flagship & fleet leaderless. A lucky Russian hit on the Mikasa that takes out Togo would also shift the balance towards the Tsar.
Even so, Germany and Austria-Hungary could be backed into a corner. A more cocky Russia leaves Serbia feeling invulnerable and it doesn’t back down when Austria annexes Bosnia, or it mounts an insurgency or disguised invasion of Bosnia (a la Pakistan v. India 1965) or an open invasion, and Russia refuses to let Serbia get punished- Vienna and Berlin can’t let that stand, etc.
It probably wouldnt matter that much. But the Russians losing kept Manchuria out of the Russian empire. It might not become a Chinese territory by modern times if the tsars had been able to hold it after 1905.
IOTL 20th century, around 50 million Chinese moved from China proper to Manchuria. There are 100 million people there now. It is also one of the country's main breadbaskets and is home to China's biggest oilfield. Not having Manchuria would make China much weaker. Whether this makes a better or worse world is anyone's guess though.
IOTL 20th century, around 50 million Chinese moved from China proper to Manchuria. There are 100 million people there now. It is also one of the country's main breadbaskets and is home to China's biggest oilfield. Not having Manchuria would make China much weaker. Whether this makes a better or worse world is anyone's guess though.
There are various reasons why I picked no, one of them is an opinion that Russia is too big as it is. But, its mostly due to logistical over reach, because as it was, Russia had difficulties keeping the far east properly supplied. I do not think that having one main rail link for the entire country at that time was very wise, because if Russia had Manchuria, and China got into a war with them, it would be fairly easy to sever the rail system and cut off supply from the western part of Russia.
I'm just going based off what I understood at the time to be true; Russia had one rail line that was barely functional to the far east, only got completed due to the R-J war iirc. Said rail line was not terribly far north of the border with China/Mongolia.
For various reasons, Japan getting Manchuria helped accelerate the governmental changeover for Russia, but that system was already breaking down as it was and would have necessitated change somewhere down the line regardless.
I'm just going based off what I understood at the time to be true; Russia had one rail line that was barely functional to the far east, only got completed due to the R-J war iirc. Said rail line was not terribly far north of the border with China/Mongolia.
For various reasons, Japan getting Manchuria helped accelerate the governmental changeover for Russia, but that system was already breaking down as it was and would have necessitated change somewhere down the line regardless.
If too big Russia wouldn't be sustainable for too long, then if you see Russia as a big bad bear of a threat, it sounds like nothing to worry about.
Then what is not to love about a scenario that slows down Japanese growth, cockiness and exuberance in Korea and China, and also doesn't buff up Russia too much?
Wouldn't the Koreans be better off? Or feel better off? Could/would the Russians make them feel as second or third class as the Japanese did?
Would they though?
There is no Japanese occupation so they got nothing to compare Russian occupation with. Korea will also be strategically vital due to the warm water ports so grand efforts will be made to keep it. I can imagine they'd operate a Finnish model to this Korea and start off as friends before slowly taking over fully. I think Korea is too vital in regards to warm water ports for Russia to let it go so there may be attempts to settle Russians there which would make second/third class citizens. The Koreans in this tl will probably be wishing the Japanese won.
I think this is too sweeping. Rather, Japan seemed to have two expansionist goals in mind:
A- Establish their own colonial Empire where ever possible. China was really the only large scale possibility. All other areas had been claimed by European colonial powers.
B - Develop enough capability to capture the "Southern Resource Area" if this became a national interest. This, would of course, involve fighting European powers.
In the end, I think a Japanese defeat in the Russo Japanese war would put a damper on "B" plans / Pear Harbor thinking. But.... it would not put a damper on "A" thinking.
At the end of the day, the Japanese would bet that they could still handle Chinese national and warlord armies in regards to Colonial expansion. And.... also bet that there would not be any large scale European or American intervention. The Japanese don't, however, "accidently" bomb European or American gun boats in China.
Last edited:
@Cryptic
Japanese China only makes sense if China is partitioned following Russian victory in the war, and then Japan gains more parts of China in *WW1 on the winning side and backs rebel movements in other parts of China.
Japan would be able to hold its direct colonies and clients together through fear of Russia and Russian expansion from Xinjiang, Manchuria etc., and for its clients having freed them from the British, French
Japanese China only makes sense if China is partitioned following Russian victory in the war, and then Japan gains more parts of China in *WW1 on the winning side and backs rebel movements in other parts of China.
Japan would be able to hold its direct colonies and clients together through fear of Russia and Russian expansion from Xinjiang, Manchuria etc., and for its clients having freed them from the British, French
Last edited: