Re: Kurils: Would they have the necessary amphibious capacity for this?
And what about vassalizing all of China?
Without hindsight, was the Russian decision in 1914 to go to war the right one?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
Re: Kurils: Would they have the necessary amphibious capacity for this?
And what about vassalizing all of China?
History Learner
Well-known member
Possibly, depending on their naval expansion.
Possibly? They basically did historically for a time as the USSR, and here the demographic and economic edge is greater.
Interesting.
That makes sense. I wonder if the vassalization could be more long-lasting in this TL, though with China eventually becoming the senior partner due to its population level. A relationship similar to Britain and the US, if you will. Britain = Russia; the US = China.
I also wonder just how many Russian casualties it would take to expel Japan from all of mainland Asia in this TL.
Also, is a Russo-Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan in the early 20th century actually plausible?
Well they could try although this would prompt the hostility of just about every other great power as well as, of course, the Chinese. If nothing else China would be receiving a hell of a lot of military aid and supplies even if no one stepped in directly.
A lot would depend on the relative technology levels, doctrines and the leadership of both but its likely to be costly, assuming that Japan still has sea superiority given the geography. They could afford it and it would be relatively small change compared to WWI and WWII but it won't be a walk-over.
It would depend on the details, specifically Russian naval strength and who their fighting as it could be more than rump IJN forces seeking to oppose such a move. With a 1914 PoD say I can't see China having a significant navy prior to ~1950, at least of their own as they have too many problems internal and external to get over.
Would the Chinese really be hostile if Russia would have kept China's independence and promised to bring prosperity and development to their country? As for the rest of the world, well, if the rest of the world genuinely cares about Chinese self-determination, then it will listen to Chinese views on this.
Are we thinking something like one million Russian military deaths here in total?
Who else do you think would support having Japan keep Taiwan? The Anglo-Japanese alliance was not renewed, after all.
@History Learner What odds would you place on an eventual new successful revolution in Russia without WWI? On AH.com, I've heard people express both sides of views on this issue, as well as some ambivalence and uncertainty.
For all their failures in the century before 1949 gave China at least an appearance of being an independent great power, the Chinese are used to being a major nation that others bow to. Even if they think their going to supplant Russia over time their not going to be happy with foreign rule, especially from such an alien culture. Let alone if there's any attempt to impose or even support the spread of Russian language or Christianity.
Probably not that high in deaths although it would depend on the circumstances. Could be that number of total casualties.
If Russia has crushed Japan's continental and especially if its seeking to control all of China then there's going to be a lot of concern about its power and hence steps to counter this.
History Learner
Well-known member
Probably a million to two million, total. The IJA isn't the same in the 1920s as it would be by the 1940s, while the Imperial Russian Army is vastly more powerful than relative to the Soviets. I don't foresee an invasion of Taiwan and anything with China is hard to predict.
No more than any of the other European powers; the idea of "Sick Men" of Europe seems more rejected now in history circles, given the rather obvious point it took World War I with all of its stresses to bring them down.
The Imperial Russian Army won't have Lend-Lease helping it out, though, will it?
To be fair, Russia previously had a revolution in 1905-1906, though this was also caused by a war, specifically the Russo-Japanese War.
History Learner
Well-known member
Imperial Russia would also be more developed than the USSR and wouldn't have the German Army rampaging in its industrial base.
Revolutionary unrest in the UK from 1911 to 1914 was as bad as Russia and 1919 looked like 1917 in many respects. Germany and France both had similar issues. Ultimately it came down to better conditions in those places along with elite solidarity.
1940s Imperial Russia would be more developed than the 1940s Soviet Union but 1920s Imperial Russia would not necessarily be more developed than the 1940s Soviet Union. Are you thinking of the second war with Japan being delayed until the 1940s?
Well, in places such as the UK and France, there was always the option of waiting until the next election. And even in Germany democracy was more developed than it was in Russia. Russians didn't have very much experience with democracy before 1917. That might have made some of them more susceptible to left-wing authoritarian temptations, though it's worth noting that the Bolsheviks lost the December 1917 elections--though they performed much better in the cities, IIRC. Honestly, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat terrifies me--how exactly are we to ensure that this dictatorship will actually always benefit the proletariat and won't be hijacked, for instance?
History Learner
Well-known member
1920s Russia would be, relative to the USSR, much more developed and Japan less so.
Democracy didn't prevent the French issues of 1916, the German Revolutionary attempts, the unrest in the UK, etc. Basically, it always comes down to economics; Democracy in of itself doesn't put bread on the table, which was the central issue in Russia at this time and, to a lesser extent, Germany.
Gotcha.
You're suggesting that the greater wealth in the West prevented the Bolshevization of those countries, right? And what exactly happened in France in 1916? I know about the 1917 mutinies, but what about 1916?
History Learner
Well-known member
Precisely, yes; all of those societies had a larger middle class than Russia. As for France, got the date wrong; meant 1917, my bad.
So, you are talking about the French military mutinies? Gotcha.
And Yeah, Russia was a bit late to the industrialization game. AFAIK, Russia's industrial levels can be compared to those of both Italy and Austria-Hungary. Though those two countries were more resilient during WWI than Russia was. A-H only had its own revolution in late 1918, whereas Russia had its in early 1917, and without a decisive military defeat like A-H experienced. Italy didn't quite have a revolution during WWI, but it was on the winning side, and it still had its issues:
Do you think that the House of Savoy would have been overthrown in Italy had the CPs won WWI?
History Learner
Well-known member
A good contact of mine sent me a copy of The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark and an article by a T.G. Otte for the The Historical Journal from its March, 2013 edition titled "DÉTENTE 1914: SIR WILLIAM TYRRELL'S SECRET MISSION TO GERMANY". Both have, so far, confirmed exactly my presumptions here in a way I was not aware of before, especially the latter, as it undercuts claims I've seen of Sir Edward Grey's steadfast Pro-French sentiments. All indications therefore are that the UK was moving to a more neutral stance with the possibility of switching into backing the Germans to contain the growing Russian power in the East.
Last edited:
Any chance of the Anglo-German alliance bringing the Americans into the war on their side in an alt-WWI?
I wonder how Tsarist Russia would feel about the Koreans that have ended up on southern Sakhalin. Of course, it's entirely possible that their numbers would be much smaller in this TL, thus making their presence less of an issue:
Sakhalin Koreans - Wikipedia
I do think that Russia has been wonderfully enriched by the Sakhalin Koreans in real life, FWIW.
Diversity at its finest!Sorry missed this before. I think this is unlikely for two reasons.
a) An Anglo-German alliance, especially since its likely to include Austria and probably the Ottomans is going to make war unlikely for a considerable period. You would have to get the Russian leadership to the point where their confident that they can take on those 4 nations and probably also Japan. Possibly even without France as the latter could well decide its not in their interests to join such a war as they would be very exposed.
b) The prime things that brought the US into the war was USW and German actions in terms of numerous breaches of both laws and standard of warfare - attacks on civilian targets by land, sea and air, use of forced labour in occupied European territories, sabotage attacks on US territory and then the attempt to draw Mexico into a war with the US. I doubt any of those are likely to occur in a war in which Britain and Germany are allied. [Doubly so if a nervous France is staying neutral.]
What about Russia? Did Russia have the capacities for USW against US ships, for instance, in the Pacific in regards to US commerce that would be meant to help Japan? Or at least to develop the capacities for USW over time?
Also, can you please respond to this thread of mine as well? Thank you:
An alt-WWI involving the Three Emperors' League on one side and an Anglo-Franco-Italo-Ottoman alliance on the other side?
What if the Three Emperors' League would have survived as a result of some kind of German-mediated deal or something between Russia and Austria-Hungary in regards to the Balkans, which in turn would have eventually caused the Franco-British to move closer together as well as to align more...
www.the-sietch.com