|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 23, 2016 7:26:48 GMT
Hey guys, back again pretty quickly after starting up my last thread hey? Okay, let's get on to the subject .
For those of you who don't know Russia and Japan fought a war over Manchuria from 1904-1905 known as the Russo-Japanese war as seen in the title. In our timeline, the Japanese won, which most likely paved the way for the country's imperialist ambitions over the Asia-Pacific region until the end of World War II. This is also likely a major factor which weakened Tsarist rule in Russia, leaving it vulnerable to being overthrown completely in the midst of putting its effort into fighting yet another war a decade later.
If this war theoretically went the other way around, we'd get another fundamentally different 20th century on the scale of the outcome of had the Central Powers won the First World War. After winning Manchuria from competition with Japan, the then-existing Russian authority, The Tsar of course would have been emboldened with and maybe would've ended up much more efficient in fighting Germany. Maybe Tsar Nicholas II would've even been able to thwart the Bolshevik Revolution (even if just barely so). After winning WWI with the allies, Tsarist rule lives into the 1930's, which unlike our timeline was infamous for merciless communist rule under Stalin, the Tsar Nicholas is pressured to fully embrace capitalism in Russia to lessen the odds of mass starvation, or even another potential revolt. If that were the case, then perhaps Russia will still be ruled by Nicholas's dynasty, the Romanovs and there will maybe never even be a Cold War between the west and east.
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Jan 23, 2016 8:02:07 GMT
There was a revolt in Russia during the war. Russia had a really backward and feudal social structure then that caused alot of discontent. Somehow, something would change, even if the stuff like the Potemkin that happened during that time wasn't as bad.
Japan was winning when Roosevelt did the negotiations and he favored Japan. But they might not have been able to keep it up much further.
I think maybe Japan would not be taken as a world power as much, and this might encourage racist notions of white only powerful empires. For all Japan did during WW2, them being a great power helped undermine racism somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 23, 2016 9:10:21 GMT
Russia probably annexes Outer Manchuria, and has a reduced or eliminate 1905 rebellion. Such a victory would definitely increase nationalistic feelings and most likely improve the general opinion of the Tsar, but the long term effects in terms of holding serious reform is debatable. Russian expansion/vassalage/general actions towards Korea depends on the degree of victory. IIRC, the Tsar mainly just wanted to make practically all of Northern Korea into a giant DMZ so as to provide a strong buffer for Russia’s newly acquired positions in Manchuria.
Japan’s growing prestige just got wrecked, and a victorious Russia is certainly going to lead to Anglo fears of increased assertiveness in places like Central Asia or the Black Sea basin, especially in light of the Dogger Bank incident. France would, in this eventuality, be stuck in the metaphorical rock and a hard place. They can either reaffirm their ties with the Tsar, or forsake them for building upon their 1904 agreements with the UK. Given the balance of power of this era, I suspect they (France) would align with the UK more (And this also means Japan). French capital is eliminated to Russia, severely impacting their industrialization efforts but allows the French to truly begin developing their colonies (A Trans-Sahara railway is extremely likely, maybe an early Kra Canal through Siam/Thailand?)
Shorn of its French connections, the Russians likely turn to the Germans for allies to firmly secure their European front and to acquire a new benefactor to assist in their modernization programs. This has OTL precedent, and the firm split with the French should be enough to have it achieved as per OTL. With Germany as a middleman and now the main supporter of both, the Austro-Russians are forced to work out their differences as the alliance begins to firm up. In essence, the Three Emperors League is restored with Italy attached. The Austro-Russian reconciliation helps to ease tensions in the Balkans, as radicals on all sides now realize they can’t effectively play the local great powers off against each other. When the ATL Balkan Wars play out, the situation gets resolved as fast and amicably as possible but no one is permitted to keep the festering sore open for long then needed.
In this ATL, World War I likely never happens due to both alliance systems being so firmly equal in a sense. Compared to OTL for example, a British blockade wouldn’t work due to the vast land connections Russia has to receive supplies as well as the fact there would be no shortage of men to keep on the farms since Russo-German armies won’t be slaughtering one another in the fields of Poland and Lithuania. On the flipside, Anglo-French naval might means they can seize all the colonies to secure their own economic well being and never suffer a blockade (Sans the U-Boat threat) imposed by their adversaries. An early Cold War based upon national ambitions combined with a hint of ideology (Liberal France and UK vs conservative monarchies of the Three Emperors) is likely to ensue, which will help technology and economic development. This will be further aided by the lack of two generations sent to the meat grinders, providing massive Human capital compared to OTL.
Globally, Africa remains colonies till the present day but the continent will be much more developed as the various Great Powers dump massive funds into them since they will be prestige projects in the Cold War. India will get dominion status, and is more developed as well. China, however, will remain fractured and far behind it’s OTL greatness since the various powers benefit from it remaining prostate. The ABC powers in South America, along with odds and ends such as Uruguay likely achieve First World status thanks to more capital for investment being in play. The USA still rises to become a major power, but without the World Wars to drain Europe dry, it’s more a first among equals things. I foresee the Philippines becoming a series of states, and thence developed as well plus maybe a few wars with Mexico. Culturally, the world is more European than American and also more conservative. Without the killing fields of Europe, atheism and socialism never really get the opening they received historically. Arguably it’s a better world in many ways, if you can look past things like continued Imperialism and such.
|
|
|
Post by rinkou on Jan 24, 2016 4:44:25 GMT
I think maybe Japan would not be taken as a world power as much, and this might encourage racist notions of white only powerful empires. For all Japan did during WW2, them being a great power helped undermine racism somewhat. While it's true that Japan eventually gains some respect in western popular consciousness as a result of its imperial successes, it's a purely orientalist respect. This is why the phrase "western nations and Japan" or some variant is so commonplace in textbooks. Japan is a token. Japan is literally your "black friend". Japan is the model minority. Not only are other economically successful Asian states completely ignored in this terminology, Japan is seen in one of two lights in the western popular consciousness. Either as subhuman savages (see wartime propaganda, or tweets about 'payback for Pearl Harbor' in response to everything from natural disasters to the Women's World Cup) or as noble savages (obsession with seppuku, kamikaze, 'national spirit'). Arguably, the west's consciousness of the east as far back as the ancient Greeks and their view of the Persians, to western Europe's view of the Byzantines, has always been couched in this view of the east as noble and dangerous, but also duplicitous, effeminate. It's a view of "good, but not good enough", and when it is "good enough" it's only through some sort of underhandedness. Regardless, respect borne out of success at exploitation is hardly respect worth having.
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Jan 24, 2016 9:11:07 GMT
Very true. The world at that time unfortunately based its hierarchy on colonial empires. Not that Japan was not already an imperial power, but when the Meiji restoration happened, they imitated the western model of colonialism in Taiwan, Korea and elsewhere.
I have heard the Japanese could not keep winning much more than they did due to shortages or something. I still think the fundamental problems in Russia's feudal monarchy would eventually lead to some kind of challenge to the Tsar though. It might not be like the 1905 and 1917 revolts, but even if they won, they're still just papering over the cracks.
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 24, 2016 19:16:18 GMT
One thing that keeps coming up in these threads is just assuming things turn the other way. Before you can begin to consider the world where Russia won, you've gotta show what changed that allowed that to happen. Japan was winning virtually every step of the way, particularly at sea - to a degree where it becomes difficult to countenance a Russian military victory. They could have brought enough manpower to bear to halt and possibly reverse Japanese advances, but it is dependent entirely on the domestic situation, which was so crucially undermined by the immense cost and unpopularity of the war, not to mention the myriad other problems already at boiling point in Russia.
If you want the situation resolved more favourably for Russia, it would be smarter to have someone slap Tsar Nicholas II in the face and get him to agree to a treaty with Japan prior to the war's initiation - agreeing Japanese dominance in Korea and Russian dominance in Manchuria.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 25, 2016 22:10:30 GMT
One thing that keeps coming up in these threads is just assuming things turn the other way. Before you can begin to consider the world where Russia won, you've gotta show what changed that allowed that to happen. Japan was winning virtually every step of the way, particularly at sea - to a degree where it becomes difficult to countenance a Russian military victory. They could have brought enough manpower to bear to halt and possibly reverse Japanese advances, but it is dependent entirely on the domestic situation, which was so crucially undermined by the immense cost and unpopularity of the war, not to mention the myriad other problems already at boiling point in Russia. If you want the situation resolved more favourably for Russia, it would be smarter to have someone slap Tsar Nicholas II in the face and get him to agree to a treaty with Japan prior to the war's initiation - agreeing Japanese dominance in Korea and Russian dominance in Manchuria. Actually, no Pre-War PoD is really necessary as the fundamentals for a Russian victory were already present during the conflict. Just remove Anatoly Stessel from command at Port Arthur (Many easy PoDs for this), and the defenses there will able to hold down Nogi Maresuke's troops for a long time. Better operational security combined with a lack of Nogi's victory allows for the near destruction of the Japanese at the Battle of Sandepu. The survivors are forced to retreat across the Yalu, allowing the Russians to effectively stick Nogi into a Hammer and Anvil situation that sees him destroyed. With their land forces smashed and economy collapsing, the Japanese are forced to seek terms.
|
|
|
Post by rinkou on Jan 27, 2016 4:59:19 GMT
Do you think that a Japanese defeat at Port Arthur and Sandepu would force them to sue for peace before Tsushima?
Also, how big of a role does Stessel play in the Russian defeat? I haven't studied the Russo-Japanese War's military history, so it'd be cool to know.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 27, 2016 8:27:15 GMT
Do you think that a Japanese defeat at Port Arthur and Sandepu would force them to sue for peace before Tsushima? Also, how big of a role does Stessel play in the Russian defeat? I haven't studied the Russo-Japanese War's military history, so it'd be cool to know. Tsushima would occur around the same time, but would be irrelevant to the overall course. Japan can win great naval battles but with the Russians approaching the Yalu and their (Japan's) economy going down the drain, it can't change the overall course. With regards to Stessel, the man literally deserves an award for incompetence. He organized a very ineffective defense of Port Arthur (Which was considered one of the most fortified locations in the world at that time), he completely bungled the logistics management of his force. When the Japanese took over, vast stores of supplies were found despite the fact that many of the Russian defenders were starving by that point. Combined with things like refusing Japanese offers to evacuate women and children from the war zone and then leaving aboard a British luxury liner for St. Petersburg while leaving behind all of his officers and men in captivity, his inabilities as a commander are amazing.
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 28, 2016 23:25:33 GMT
I don't know if I agree, Epic History.
When the Japanese took Port Arthur, Russian casualties are listed (by Wikipedia, at any rate, and simplified a little) as 6,000 dead and 25,000 wounded out of a force of 50,000. The battle would undoubtedly have dragged out longer than historically had Stössel not been in command at Port Arthur, but he likely would have taken up position over the Kwantung Military District (or whatever you want to call it), which encompasses the whole area, rather than just the fort. So I doubt his incompetence would be mitigated by this measure - more likely the fort would still not get supplies and reinforcements and so on that it needed, with probably wider consequences too.
The Battle of Sandepu comes about as a result of fears that Nogi's army, fresh from Port Arthur, will tip the balance at Mukden - but they didn't add anything to the order of battle, so little actually changes at that battle. It's beyond the remit of Stössel and Smirnov (assuming he succeeds him at Port Arthur), so their change of hands there does relatively little. I feel like it's more likely the Russians would wait, perhaps for winter to end. The weather harmed their performance at Sandepu, but I'm still inclined to believe the failings inherent in the Russian military were more serious detriments to their performance in the battle. Plus even by February (at the time of the Battle of Mukden) as far as I can tell the Russians had received no significant reinforcements.
I'm not sure by what logic the Japanese would retreat east instead of south the way they came if they had been defeated anyway? Korea is the objective in the war, sure, but they have the entire Third Army waiting at Port Arthur - and the Russians are going to push in that direction to relieve the fortress anyway, assuming it was still standing that long.
Tsushima also remains important as a prestige loss for Russia - particularly since I dispute your picture where the Russians waltz over the Japanese. With two of their three fleets destroyed and the one remaining confined to the Black Sea, they've suffered both a colossal embarrassment and a major financial loss.
Already at this point you're getting to the stage where the war is so unpopular in Russia it's fomenting dissent in the populace and disgrace in the international scene. More than that, if you want to talk financials, Russia is the one I think that's really suffering, given the degree to which they dug themselves an almighty hole of debt to fund the whole war, whereas the Japanese raised a comparatively paltry 38% of their expenditure overseas. The economic impact of the war on Russia being greater than on Japan is almost undeniable, no?
I also think you're underestimating the Japanese mindset, national attitude, and method of waging war - particularly as far as comparisons to Russia go. This whole conflict comes off the back of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Boxer Rebellion, two conflicts where the West had essentially pushed Japan out of the spoils and taken back most of what she did get. Russia is a big part of that, so already they're committed to this conflict as a matter of national pride.
More than that though, it's balanced against Russia's expectation of a quick and easy victory. Japan is more ready for the long slog than Russia, and it shows in how Russian support melted away but Japan kept on trucking. You can see it in myriad factors.
Their military advantages were also crucial. Arms and equipment and training, sure, but who cares about that? There's morale, military intelligence, cautiousness towards your enemy, an awareness of his capabilities that comes through careful study, a commitment to the battle, an understanding of the forces your adversary your enemy could bring to bear... Things the Japanese had and the Russians lacked. People want to say "they underestimated the Japanese", and that's true, but it's too simple, it encapsulates it too easily without understanding that it was on more levels than just thinking Japan wasn't as good as them - the fact is the Japanese out thought the Russians.
They still could've lost, of course, I just poke holes for fun :3
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 30, 2016 7:29:04 GMT
Why is it that this particular thread of all the threads I started on these forums, just so happens to be the most popular at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 30, 2016 9:45:00 GMT
Why is it that this particular thread of all the threads I started on these forums, just so happens to be the most popular at the moment? For one, most people in the AH community (Myself included) tend to be historical generalists; we're masters of none, but are decently knowledgeable over a wider extent of history. It also helps that this specific conflict is not that far removed from living memory and it is close enough to the present day to be decently documented. This means more posters like myself are more comfortable to engage in dialogue on this than say you're more specialized threads. Huojin, I'll try to give a response in a few days, if work and school permits me to do so.
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 30, 2016 15:24:41 GMT
Why is it that this particular thread of all the threads I started on these forums, just so happens to be the most popular at the moment? For one, most people in the AH community (Myself included) tend to be historical generalists; we're masters of none, but are decently knowledgeable over a wider extent of history. It also helps that this specific conflict is not that far removed from living memory and it is close enough to the present day to be decently documented. This means more posters like myself are more comfortable to engage in dialogue on this than say you're more specialized threads. Huojin, I'll try to give a response in a few days, if work and school permits me to do so. I'll heartily disagree, and in doing so offer the real answer: There's something this thread has that most others of this forum do not - and it's in no small part thanks to you, Epic History! That thing is discussion. In so many other threads on this forum people are throwing out ideas or statements and there's little interrelation between them, consideration of ideas, debate over points, etc. It's part of the reason I've been spending my time poking holes. It's all shouting into the void otherwise. This thread is doing well because we don't agree and are talking about it, rather than ignoring each other to keep talking about whatever we solely find interesting. So take your time with a response, I don't mind at all
|
|
|
Post by abdulhadipasha on Feb 5, 2016 2:39:28 GMT
Globally, Africa remains colonies till the present day but the continent will be much more developed as the various Great Powers dump massive funds into them since they will be prestige projects in the Cold War. India will get dominion status, and is more developed as well. China, however, will remain fractured and far behind it’s OTL greatness since the various powers benefit from it remaining prostate. The ABC powers in South America, along with odds and ends such as Uruguay likely achieve First World status thanks to more capital for investment being in play. The USA still rises to become a major power, but without the World Wars to drain Europe dry, it’s more a first among equals things. I foresee the Philippines becoming a series of states, and thence developed as well plus maybe a few wars with Mexico. Culturally, the world is more European than American and also more conservative. Without the killing fields of Europe, atheism and socialism never really get the opening they received historically. Arguably it’s a better world in many ways, if you can look past things like continued Imperialism and such. You had me until the last paragraph. There is no chance Africa and India would have remained colonized until the present day. First, France and Britain have voters, which will never support pouring massive funds into Africa. Second, even if that could happen, you'd only speed up Africans' use of Western discourse to undermine the colonial order. Third, a cold war like you've described will cause Germany & friends to pour resources into anti-colonial movements. You're assuming some idyllic ever-lasting Victorian Era would result from this scenario. Everything else you said seemed spot on to me.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhadipasha on Feb 5, 2016 2:46:52 GMT
One thing that keeps coming up in these threads is just assuming things turn the other way. Before you can begin to consider the world where Russia won, you've gotta show what changed that allowed that to happen. Japan was winning virtually every step of the way, particularly at sea - to a degree where it becomes difficult to countenance a Russian military victory. They could have brought enough manpower to bear to halt and possibly reverse Japanese advances, but it is dependent entirely on the domestic situation, which was so crucially undermined by the immense cost and unpopularity of the war, not to mention the myriad other problems already at boiling point in Russia. If you want the situation resolved more favourably for Russia, it would be smarter to have someone slap Tsar Nicholas II in the face and get him to agree to a treaty with Japan prior to the war's initiation - agreeing Japanese dominance in Korea and Russian dominance in Manchuria. But the scenario is that Russia does better. There's no reason why Russia couldn't have won the naval struggle - there were a couple of terrible decisions made and a few super-lucky hits, like Makarov hitting a mine and Vitgeft getting killed by a hit to the bridge. Either of those could have happened to Togo - imagine a similar hit on Mikasa during the Yellow Sea. If the Japanese fleet is defeated, their prospects for victory are not good.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhadipasha on Feb 5, 2016 2:51:45 GMT
I don't know if I agree, Epic History... ...Tsushima also remains important as a prestige loss for Russia - particularly since I dispute your picture where the Russians waltz over the Japanese. With two of their three fleets destroyed and the one remaining confined to the Black Sea, they've suffered both a colossal embarrassment and a major financial loss. It's not just that. If the Japanese lost at Tsushima, how would they support their forces on the continent? There is no way to adequately supply their forces if the Russians can interdict shipping from Japan. The moral effect on the Japanese would also be enormous, as now their home Islands are subject to invasion (not that Russia had the slightest chance of pulling that off, but then Germany never had a chance of successfully invading England - but that didn't stop the hysteria).
|
|
|
Post by abdulhadipasha on Feb 5, 2016 2:54:49 GMT
Do you think that a Japanese defeat at Port Arthur and Sandepu would force them to sue for peace before Tsushima? Also, how big of a role does Stessel play in the Russian defeat? I haven't studied the Russo-Japanese War's military history, so it'd be cool to know. Tsushima would occur around the same time, but would be irrelevant to the overall course. Japan can win great naval battles but with the Russians approaching the Yalu and their (Japan's) economy going down the drain, it can't change the overall course. With regards to Stessel, the man literally deserves an award for incompetence. He organized a very ineffective defense of Port Arthur (Which was considered one of the most fortified locations in the world at that time), he completely bungled the logistics management of his force. When the Japanese took over, vast stores of supplies were found despite the fact that many of the Russian defenders were starving by that point. Combined with things like refusing Japanese offers to evacuate women and children from the war zone and then leaving aboard a British luxury liner for St. Petersburg while leaving behind all of his officers and men in captivity, his inabilities as a commander are amazing. Wait, why would Tsushima happen if Russia defeated Japan at Port Arthur? The reason the Baltic Fleet was sent was because of the defeat at Port Arthur.
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Feb 5, 2016 19:22:04 GMT
Re: Tsushima
—The Russian fleet was in poor condition to start with - already outclassed by the Japanese, who were also faster and more manoeuvrable. —The voyage from the Baltic Sea had been wearing on the Russian sailors and their ships, and they were seriously in need of maintenance. —Togo was an very experienced admiral, the most experienced left alive in the entire war. —The Japanese had homefield advantage, and had essentially picked their ideal spot to intercept the Russians. —The Japanese navy had technological and training advantages over the Russians.
As for the naval conflict generally, yes Togo could have been killed, but by a shot from the Russians is more likely than a mine as they didn't offensively deploy mines until after Makarov had been killed and attempts to break the blockade of Port Arthur had failed. Togo's death would be a more significant imposition on the Japanese, of course, but I'd still argue they'd have the advantage. Japan is nearby, and their naval officers were capable and plentiful - unlike the Russians, who were, of course, closed in.
Still, the death of Togo during a battle is a more interesting approach to undermining the Japanese position. It could explain some reversals that give the Russians more leeway, though it would do little to undo the numerous other advantages the Japanese held over the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by bytor on Feb 6, 2016 17:13:29 GMT
An early Cold War based upon national ambitions combined with a hint of ideology (Liberal France and UK vs conservative monarchies of the Three Emperors) is likely to ensue, which will help technology and economic development. This will be further aided by the lack of two generations sent to the meat grinders, providing massive Human capital compared to OTL.
On the other hand, all those deaths first in WW1 and even more so in WW2 contributed greatly to women entering the workforce and the rising wages (especially for skilled workers) because there were more jobs than there were people to fill them. This was also why industrialism and technological growth truly sunk in its teeth after WW2. With all those young men still around to take the jobs, there's not as strong an impetus for industrialization or higher wages. The middle class never exists in the numbers to create the current OTL worries of it shrinking and most of the Western World are people stuck in unmechanized factory jobs that require few skills. Of course this also means there's no need relocate factories to the Third World to take advantages of lower wages, but such a conceptual realm doesn't even exist. Industrialization happens eventually, but much more slowly and evenly spread across the planet and globalization is similarly hindered. OTL's modern 'consumer culture' doesn't exist, either because the middle class never developed into the overwhelming monster in the West to create such markets. Without the higher wages that the worker scarcity enabled, people just don't have the money to waste on consumer culture. Add to that the knock-on effects from women staying at home instead entering the workforce and the resulting dilution of feminism's drive to achieve equal rights and wages for women, we'd probably be a low-tech, blue-collar world with no Internet, no smartphones, no home computers or cable TV and 1950s 'women belong in the home' social attitudes. That's what you 'massive human capital' would very likely result in.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle R. Wood on Feb 12, 2016 21:49:14 GMT
Agree with bytor re: war sparking industrialization and research, and the intense competition excess human capital would face in the job market. However, the issue of women's rights isn't so cut-and-dry.
A lot of the early US women's rights movement was tied up in two issues: 1, suffrage, and 2, temperance. The reform movement during the Guilded Age did as much to bring about greater equality for women as WWI and Wilson's need for votes. Not to mention how the Roaring Twenties sparked lots of changes in society independent of warfare due to economic prosperity. Also, the 1950s feminine "ideal" relied a lot on the same consumerist culture that would not exist now (ie, cheaper labor savings devices, suburbia, etc).
In the absence of two world wars, I'd say women would have been as fractured in their development as men: lower class women would continue as they always had throughout history, working alongside their husbands to scratch out a living for their families. Higher class women would still have access to college educations and would probably continue their reform efforts as they had in the 1880s & 1890s, taking on more leadership positions in aid and progressive organizations. I still see women getting the vote in both the US and the UK, and there would still be women elected to their respective legislatures as in OTL (with or without women's suffrage).
Also: just because we're avoid the World Wars as we know them doesn't mean smaller wars don't break out around the world, as was true for most of the 19th century. Warfare may still spark change, competition, and growth, just in a more localized and less global arena. The Spanish-American war was in 1898, and Europe had plenty of conflicts ongoing during this time (early 20th century); just because none of them develop into the "Great War" doesn't mean they don't still take their toll, alter borders, and propel industry forward.
|
|