Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905

[The Basket]

What about the 2nd strike on Pearl Harbour?
Do I spell habour with or without a u?
Anyhoo 4th March 1942 was done by 2 large flying boats and was the longest bombing mission in history at that time.

 

[The Basket]

Count Nogi Maresuke now he was an interesting guy.
But back to war.

In essence the Russians were lacking proper leadership. They had the guns and numbers but the generals were timid and didn't have the initiative to fight. However they had poor intelligence and so didn't have the chances they should have taken.

The Japanese had no problem with aggressive fighting or loss of life. A bizarre talking point is that Japanese would Fight at full strength. No reserves. But the Russians didn't know this and thought the Japanese must have reserves so their army must be much bigger than it was.

Perhaps a false positive for the Japanese that sheer determination can overcome bigger guns.

 

[Timppa]

At the time Finland was a Grand Duchy (part of Russia). As the Russian regime was quite oppressive at the time (unlike the Alexander II time, you can still find his statue in the middle of Helsinki), many Finns celebrated the Japanese victory, in quite subtle way.

 

[The Basket]

The loss of the war had two effects which involve loss of imperial ambition and failure of imperial power.

At the time Finland was a Grand Duchy (part of Russia). As the Russian regime was quite oppressive at the time (unlike the Alexander II time, you can still find his statue in the middle of Helsinki), many Finns celebrated the Japanese victory, in quite subtle way.

wouldn't Finnish troops fought in Port Arthur?

Odd how events in the Pacific are celebrated in the Baltic.

Dictatorship or absolute monarchy depend on being righteous with direct line to God.

If God decided that you lose war then maybe not as devine as you think.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Odd how events in the Pacific are celebrated in the Baltic.

yes the Finns are famous for their apathy toward Russian misfortunes...

 

[Admiral Beez]

The entire war should have been avoided. Russia's possession of Port Arthur was a perfect late 1890's bargaining chip to disrupt Britain's growing relationship with Japan (before the Anglo-Japan alliance of 1902) and to both increase Russian trade and rattle Britain's fears for India.

Best path to Russo-Japan alliance is Russia to gift Port Arthur to Japan as part of a trade agreement, with basing privileges for the Russian Navy and Japan investing in the Trans Siberian and Manchurian railway. Japan has been building railways since the 1870s, and will have engineering expertise that the Russians may value.

Port Arthur is ice free year round. Vladivostok is not, and requires ice breakers. That's the whole reason Russia wanted Port Arthur, to serve as an ice free base year round. But if Japan and Russia are on friendly terms, Russia hardly needs a navy at all in the Pacific, and can redeploy her Pacific Fleet battleships to its European bases.

So in addition to the diplomatic benefits of gifting Port Arthur to the Japanese, Russia also gains by forgoing the unsuitability of operating its navy from the port plus the cost of the railway. All good for Russia I'd say, and Japan has a new friend. Just do this before the Anglo-Japan alliance of 1902. If Britain could see a way to deal with Japan in 1902, Russia can do it in the 1890s. Russia, like Britain and its concern over Germany, just needs suitable motivation to push for the Japan deal.

For starters, we need a POD that creates a closer understanding between Russia and Japan. Roman Rosen - Wikipedia apparently tried to avoid the war and negotiated treaties with Japan in the 1890s. There were others with the potential to see through the racism to see potential with Japan...

There is the barrier of Nicolas II failed trip to Japan to overcome. But the emperor himself visited Nicolas, that's pretty strong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ōtsu_incident Maybe this guy can convince Nico to make a deal with Japan, Esper Ukhtomsky - Wikipedia

 

[Admiral Beez]

And if the war can be avoided, the 1905 Russian revolution can likely be avoided, and Japan hasn't lost face, so may not feel the need, nor the false confidence rampage against the Wallies in 1941.

 

[michaelmaltby]

interesting projection .... however, Japan in the prior Sino-Japanese War, had already adopted and proved their military playbook.
First Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia

 

[RW Mk. III]

The entire war should have been avoided. Russia's possession of Port Arthur was a perfect late 1890's bargaining chip to disrupt Britain's growing relationship with Japan (before the Anglo-Japan alliance of 1902) and to both increase Russian trade and rattle Britain's fears for India.

Best path to Russo-Japan alliance is Russia to gift Port Arthur to Japan as part of a trade agreement, with basing privileges for the Russian Navy and Japan investing in the Trans Siberian and Manchurian railway. Japan has been building railways since the 1870s, and will have engineering expertise that the Russians may value.

Port Arthur is ice free year round. Vladivostok is not, and requires ice breakers. That's the whole reason Russia wanted Port Arthur, to serve as an ice free base year round. But if Japan and Russia are on friendly terms, Russia hardly needs a navy at all in the Pacific, and can redeploy her Pacific Fleet battleships to its European bases.

So in addition to the diplomatic benefits of gifting Port Arthur to the Japanese, Russia also gains by forgoing the unsuitability of operating its navy from the port plus the cost of the railway. All good for Russia I'd say, and Japan has a new friend. Just do this before the Anglo-Japan alliance of 1902. If Britain could see a way to deal with Japan in 1902, Russia can do it in the 1890s. Russia, like Britain and its concern over Germany, just needs suitable motivation to push for the Japan deal.

For starters, we need a POD that creates a closer understanding between Russia and Japan. Roman Rosen - Wikipedia apparently tried to avoid the war and negotiated treaties with Japan in the 1890s. There were others with the potential to see through the racism to see potential with Japan...

There is the barrier of Nicolas II failed trip to Japan to overcome. But the emperor himself visited Nicolas, that's pretty strong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ōtsu_incident Maybe this guy can convince Nico to make a deal with Japan, Esper Ukhtomsky - Wikipedia

This scenario requires one of the two to back off their aspirations in the Korean peninsula. Russia and Japan both felt their rightful spheres of influence included hegemony over the peninsula and Russian encroachment in the hermit kingdom was one of, if not the primary catalyst for the conflict.

 

[The Basket]

Kinda

A war could have been avoided and a compromise reached.

Problem with the concept is the Russia would have to treat Japan as an equal.

Now ain't that a can of worms.

Japan was not treated as an equal and the Tsar was not the guy to do that.

Problem is some guys just love a good war.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Kinda

A war could have been avoided and a compromise reached.

Problem with the concept is the Russia would have to treat Japan as an equal.

Now ain't that a can of worms.

Japan was not treated as an equal and the Tsar was not the guy to do that.

Problem is some guys just love a good war.

If the British could enter into an alliance with Japan, Russia can sort out a working relationship as well.

 

[The Basket]

All part of the Great Game.

Japan and Britain had no beef and their ambitions and dreams didn't interfere. That will come later.

Russia was seen as a great British enemy and so Japan could be used as a counterweight as well as buying our ships.

But Britain didn't see Japan as equal either and when Russia fell into anarchy, the Anglo Japanese alliance fell too.

Russia and Japan wanted the same toys and Russia didn't rate the Japanese as a people or as a military force. Japan would not allow a large western power on her doorstep especially where she wanted to go.

Sometimes war has to be given a chance.

 

[Admiral Beez]

All part of the Great Game.Russia was seen as a great British enemy and so Japan could be used as a counterweight as well as buying our ships.

I can't imagine Japan buying Russian made warships. Even during peacetime they were unstable pieces of junk, with bits of wood wedged into spaces where the armour plate didn't line up.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Beside politically but historically, how the Americans looked to the Japanese can be observed even today.

In April 2017, US threatened NK that it would attack NK if the latter did not abandon the nuclear weapon.
NK did not obey but US did not attack.
NK understood US only shouted and was not so strong as it imagined.

History repeats.

It's interesting that Japan gave the USA its USS Maine moment (the US pretense to declare war on Spain) and the excuse to go to war with the Japanese attack and sinking of USS Panay in December 1937.

This was a year into FDR's second term, so he was at no political risk in stomping Japan. Japan was diplomatically alone, having not yet entered in an alliance with Germany, and in fact facing Germany-backed troops in China. Japan had no friends. Why then did FDR choose timidity?

 

[michaelmaltby]

The USA was only getting back on its feet in 1937, there was no appetite for a war whatsoever. IMO. The Maine triggered a war that the USA was happy to take on -- largest casualties suffered by the US were from tropical diseases, IIRC. Pearl Harbor created instant war fever and negated the need to teach how to hate the enemy. In democracies and totalitarian states alike, politicians read the thermometer of public opinion and act appropriately.

In today's realty, I believe, it is no longer possible to 'win' a war once it becomes 'unpopular'. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, GW2.

 

[swampyankee]

I don't think any of the European (and American) powers thought of Japan as an equal, with varying levels of racially-based disdain from all of them. Russia and Japan were in direct competition over that region in China. Russia was not helped by a ruling class which seemed to be completely incapable of understanding the ideas of modernity and preferred to work on the assumption that magically thinking their army and navy better than that of the Japanese would make it so.

Russia lost the Russo-Japanese War because of decisions made by the czar and his advisors who radically overestimated the capability of their military in comparison to Japan. Why they is something outside of my ken.

The USA was only getting back on its feet in 1937, there was no appetite for a war whatsoever. IMO. The Maine triggered a war that the USA was happy to take on -- largest casualties suffered by the US were from tropical diseases, IIRC. Pearl Harbor created instant war fever and negated the need to teach how to hate the enemy. In democracies and totalitarian states alike, politicians read the thermometer of public opinion and act appropriately.

The Spanish-American War was the result of a combination of popular pressure, inflamed by the yellow* press, the remnants of Manifest Destiny, and a desire to join the "big leagues" by getting an overseas empire. It also seems to have catalyzed a government belief that most of the nearby countries' governments had to be at least tacitly approved by the US, on threat of invasion, even when that government was actively anti-democratic and corrupt.

In today's realty, I believe, it is no longer possible to 'win' a war once it becomes 'unpopular'. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, GW2.

Negotiated settlements, vs absolute victory, have been around for millennia. Victory also doesn't require completely destroying a country's government and replacing it with one that better fits a particular nation's desires. The sort of victory that ended WW2 is probably more of an anomaly than normal in historical terms, except in the cases of complete conquest. Modern democracies have become loath to do that unless the opponent is truly an existential threat, which was certainly not the case for Korea (which was, at worst, a return to status quo ante, and not a defeat), VIetnam, Somalia, or the invasion of Iraq.

 

[The Basket]

True story but Japan and Russia were fighting over someone's land and not their own.

Japan knew it either got busy or got colonized so this drove them on.

Russian ships were said to be caked in coal dust which didn't do much for their survivability.

Maybe Dreadnought came out of Tsushima but maybe not. New Project to look into!

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe Dreadnought came out of Tsushima but maybe not. New Project to look into!

It didn't, the timing is not quite right. You don't design a ship the size of the Dreadnought and start laying it down in 4 months.
The All Big Gun ship idea had been around for several years and the last pre-dreadnoughts had been getting a bit ridiculous, like four 12 in guns and eight to twelve 8in to 10 in guns.
Tsushima may have accelerated the All Big Gun ship idea but the British were going to build the Dreadnought regardless of Tsushima (when were the turbines ordered?) even though they 'borrowed" the 12 in guns and mounts from the Lord Nelson class.

The Wiki articale iis pretty good, I have a reprint of the 1905/06 Janes referred to and the articles on all big gun ships are in there. The all big gun ship idea does go back to 1903-04.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It taught machine gun tactics and set the stage for the later Russian Revolution and of course the road to Pearl Harbour.

If only Nicolas' trip to Japan had gone well.

Ōtsu incident - Wikipedia

 

[swampyankee]

If only Nicolas' trip to Japan had gone well.

Ōtsu incident - Wikipedia

Would that be that somebody hadn't tried to assassinate him?
Or that they had succeeded?

From all I've read, Nicholas II was a nice person, but far too tied to the maintenance of absolute rule, far too unwilling to delegate, and far too unwilling to accept facts that didn't correlate with his world view. One wonders how a different czar, perhaps somebody like Peter the Great, or even Alexander III would have done.