WI: Russia won the Russo-Japanese War and the First Balkan War turned into WWI?

[I_am_Unk]

This is a map of a TL I'm currently invested in. It's about what if Russia won the Russo-Japanese War. In TTL, WW1 ends up starting over the creation of Albania during the First Balkan War.

Red: Central Powers, Light Red: Likely to join the Central Powers, Lighter Red: Can possibly join the Central Powers, but it's likely to stay neutral. Blue: Entente.

Personally, I think things could happen similarly to this, but I'm open for different perspectives on this alliances. Anyway, how would WWI play out in TTL? And how would that paint the next decades to come?
Here's a list of topics that might be important for this discussion:
- Russian Revolution.
- France.
- Japan.
- Central Europe.
- Ottomans.
- Italy
- Fate of the Balkans.
- Fate of Austria-Hungary.
- Fate of the loser's African Colonies.

I personally think it's almost certain that we'll have a Central Power Victory Timeline here.

 

[raharris1973]

Red: Central Powers,

To my eyes:

Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy - why? - I guess because they are steamed about the Greco-Serbian partition of Albania?
Ottoman Empire - why? Russia as perennial enemy, chance to get alliance with Germany?
Japan -why? - revenge on Russia

Light Red: Likely to join the Central Powers,

To my eyes:

Romania

Lighter Red: Can possibly join the Central Powers, but it's likely to stay neutral.

Pink, to my eyes:

The UK

Question - what is the rationale for the UK to be a Central Powers leaner (Pink) but for ostensibly and traditionally neutral Belgium to be Entente Blue?

 

[I_am_Unk]

To my eyes:

Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy - why? - I guess because they are steamed about the Greco-Serbian partition of Albania?
Ottoman Empire - why? Russia as perennial enemy, chance to get alliance with Germany?
Japan -why? - revenge on Russia


To my eyes:

Romania


Pink, to my eyes:

The UK

Question - what is the rationale for the UK to be a Central Powers leaner (Pink) but for ostensibly and traditionally neutral Belgium to be Entente Blue?

About:
Italy - That would be right on the spot.
Ottomans - Coming back like in the Second Balkan War to reconquer territory.
Japan - To take another shot at expansion after losing in the Russo-Japanese War

Answering your question about the UK. In TTL, with the Russian victory in the Russo-Japanese War, the British still read the situation like the Russians are the most important threat to be dealt with, with Germany coming in second place. I think the UK would most likely stay the hell away from WWI, as they won't be fans of help neither the Germans or Russians (aside from the prospect of a Russian victory over Germany, which is just not happening). Plus, with the British seeing the Russians as a more primary enemy, it's unlikely that they will form an alliance with them, leaving the Entente to be only France and Russia and Britain to allign itself more with the Germans to counter Russia.
About Belgium... I don't think they have a choice in the matter. If they stay neutral, Germany is still going to want to pass through it. See this map as if this is the totality of countries that will/may enter the war during it. Countries like the Ottomans and Belgium and perhaps even Italy wouldn't enter immediately, but eventually would be dragged into war too.

 

[dfl_90]

A Japanese defeat in the war might result in a somewhat more democratic and peaceful Japan. Despite the losses, both economic and military, that Japan suffered during the war in OTL, it was sold to the Japanese people as a rousing victory over Western imperialism. That created a problem when Japan's actual position, much more precarious than the government and military let on, affected negotiations. The fact that the peace was reasonably fair for both sides seemed to defy the narrative that the Japanese had utterly crushed their foes and it appeared to the Japanese that the West had colluded to protect Russia. This actually resulted in a very serious series of riots throughout Japan along with a massive change in their international strategy.

If that war went the opposite way, Japan suffering large losses with no gains, it might quell burgeoning Japanese militarism by demonstrating that war wasn't always profitable and the military was hardly invincible. Additionally, it also doesn't paint a narrative that Japan was betrayed by a Western dominated international order. It might actually accomplish the opposite if mediation prevents a particularly harsh peace from being enforced upon them. All this isn't to say the Japanese aren't going to be considering a potential future conflict with Russia, but they're probably looking for a moment in which they'd feel both strong enough internally and internationally supported enough to see it through. Here I'm not so sure that Japan would immediately join the Central Powers. I imagine they'd probably sit by hoping the war leaves Russia in a bad state and probably following the lead of their ally Britain.

 

[I_am_Unk]

A Japanese defeat in the war might result in a somewhat more democratic and peaceful Japan. Despite the losses, both economic and military, that Japan suffered during the war in OTL, it was sold to the Japanese people as a rousing victory over Western imperialism. That created a problem when Japan's actual position, much more precarious than the government and military let on, affected negotiations. The fact that the peace was reasonably fair for both sides seemed to defy the narrative that the Japanese had utterly crushed their foes and it appeared to the Japanese that the West had colluded to protect Russia. This actually resulted in a very serious series of riots throughout Japan along with a massive change in their international strategy.

If that war went the opposite way, Japan suffering large losses with no gains, it might quell burgeoning Japanese militarism by demonstrating that war wasn't always profitable and the military was hardly invincible. Additionally, it also doesn't paint a narrative that Japan was betrayed by a Western dominated international order. It might actually accomplish the opposite if mediation prevents a particularly harsh peace from being enforced upon them. All this isn't to say the Japanese aren't going to be considering a potential future conflict with Russia, but they're probably looking for a moment in which they'd feel both strong enough internally and internationally supported enough to see it through. Here I'm not so sure that Japan would immediately join the Central Powers. I imagine they'd probably sit by hoping the war leaves Russia in a bad state and probably following the lead of their ally Britain.

How does this alternate peace treaty looks like? Do you think Japan would perhaps continue to have influence in Korea while Russia keeps Manchuria as opposed to what is shown in the map (Korea under Russian influence)?

 

[LeonardWood6]

A Japanese defeat in the war might result in a somewhat more democratic and peaceful Japan. Despite the losses, both economic and military, that Japan suffered during the war in OTL, it was sold to the Japanese people as a rousing victory over Western imperialism. That created a problem when Japan's actual position, much more precarious than the government and military let on, affected negotiations. The fact that the peace was reasonably fair for both sides seemed to defy the narrative that the Japanese had utterly crushed their foes and it appeared to the Japanese that the West had colluded to protect Russia. This actually resulted in a very serious series of riots throughout Japan along with a massive change in their international strategy.

If that war went the opposite way, Japan suffering large losses with no gains, it might quell burgeoning Japanese militarism by demonstrating that war wasn't always profitable and the military was hardly invincible. Additionally, it also doesn't paint a narrative that Japan was betrayed by a Western dominated international order. It might actually accomplish the opposite if mediation prevents a particularly harsh peace from being enforced upon them. All this isn't to say the Japanese aren't going to be considering a potential future conflict with Russia, but they're probably looking for a moment in which they'd feel both strong enough internally and internationally supported enough to see it through. Here I'm not so sure that Japan would immediately join the Central Powers. I imagine they'd probably sit by hoping the war leaves Russia in a bad state and probably following the lead of their ally Britain.

That, or it could cause some Japanese to believe that they were not trying hard enough, and some charismatic Japanese fellow like the failed artist from Vienna we all know could take over...

 

[LeonardWood6]

Well... the Ottomans are in for a world of trouble when they join. Without a Central-Powers Bulgaria, the Berlin-Baghdad railway is under even more jeopardy now. And Germany is not going to be able to send aid to the Ottomans except through Romania (and Romania may not allow due to fear of Bulgaria and Russia jointly killing them). If Romania does join though, it is a continuous front for Russia in Europe, and a front in the Caucasus. So that will be tough for them to fully cover.

Now that Italy is safely in the CP, the Isonzo Front never is a thing, and the troops Austria and Germany kept there can be sent to other fronts. Will this make a difference in the front against Serbia-Montenegro-Bulgaria-Greece? Hard to say. And with a solid bloc in the Balkans, the Entente can threaten Austria as well as the Ottomans. And while a million German troops could defeat the 4 Balkan minors, a million Ottoman or Austrian troops is a much nearer thing. And Germany will need their troops against France and Russia.

Also, there is a front for Italy and France. This is probably becoming the next Isonzo Front. Germany and Austria will be forced to send troops there to hold for Italy, and they can't afford it...

Now Japan in the Far East can have a front with Russia, and it will distract Russia, but since it's Siberia, Russia can trade a lot of territory for time.

 

[LeonardWood6]

How does this alternate peace treaty looks like? Do you think Japan would perhaps continue to have influence in Korea while Russia keeps Manchuria as opposed to what is shown in the map (Korea under Russian influence)?

Realistically, Russia would not be able to take all of Korea from Japan. They'd only be able to take Manchuria I think.

 

[LeonardWood6]

About:
Italy - That would be right on the spot.
Ottomans - Coming back like in the Second Balkan War to reconquer territory.
Japan - To take another shot at expansion after losing in the Russo-Japanese War

Answering your question about the UK. In TTL, with the Russian victory in the Russo-Japanese War, the British still read the situation like the Russians are the most important threat to be dealt with, with Germany coming in second place. I think the UK would most likely stay the hell away from WWI, as they won't be fans of help neither the Germans or Russians (aside from the prospect of a Russian victory over Germany, which is just not happening). Plus, with the British seeing the Russians as a more primary enemy, it's unlikely that they will form an alliance with them, leaving the Entente to be only France and Russia and Britain to allign itself more with the Germans to counter Russia.
About Belgium... I don't think they have a choice in the matter. If they stay neutral, Germany is still going to want to pass through it. See this map as if this is the totality of countries that will/may enter the war during it. Countries like the Ottomans and Belgium and perhaps even Italy wouldn't enter immediately, but eventually would be dragged into war too.

Honestly, I see the UK even preferring a German Victory over a Russian one.

 

[dfl_90]

How does this alternate peace treaty looks like? Do you think Japan would perhaps continue to have influence in Korea while Russia keeps Manchuria as opposed to what is shown in the map (Korea under Russian influence)?

Russia would keep it's holdings and influence in southern Manchuria and Japanese influence there would largely be quashed. Korea likely falls into the Russian sphere of influence. That's somewhat the status quo, as Japan failed to fully monopolize it's control there after ejecting it from China's orbit a few years earlier. Sakhalin is fully under Russian control and the Russians may also seize the southernmost Kuril islands. There may also be reparations, but if the treaty looks anything like in OTL, the US or other mediators might make the Russians settle for reparations or territorial gains, much like they did with OTL Japan.

 

[raharris1973]

A Japanese defeat in the war might result in a somewhat more democratic and peaceful Japan. Despite the losses, both economic and military, that Japan suffered during the war in OTL, it was sold to the Japanese people as a rousing victory over Western imperialism. That created a problem when Japan's actual position, much more precarious than the government and military let on, affected negotiations. The fact that the peace was reasonably fair for both sides seemed to defy the narrative that the Japanese had utterly crushed their foes and it appeared to the Japanese that the West had colluded to protect Russia. This actually resulted in a very serious series of riots throughout Japan along with a massive change in their international strategy.

If that war went the opposite way, Japan suffering large losses with no gains, it might quell burgeoning Japanese militarism by demonstrating that war wasn't always profitable and the military was hardly invincible. Additionally, it also doesn't paint a narrative that Japan was betrayed by a Western dominated international order. It might actually accomplish the opposite if mediation prevents a particularly harsh peace from being enforced upon them. All this isn't to say the Japanese aren't going to be considering a potential future conflict with Russia, but they're probably looking for a moment in which they'd feel both strong enough internally and internationally supported enough to see it through. Here I'm not so sure that Japan would immediately join the Central Powers. I imagine they'd probably sit by hoping the war leaves Russia in a bad state and probably following the lead of their ally Britain.

I will give you a "yes, but" response.

Yes, Japan would be more cautious, deliberative and careful about what projects it takes on, and more aware of its material limitations......

.....but, Russian warring with Germany and Austria and the Ottomans would reveal glaring weaknesses of the Russians, and likely keep the French busy and show them not to be too impressive, especially if the British joined the CP side or were a pro-CP leaning neutral. It would be exactly the kind of circumstance where Japan could make a reasonable, conservatively calculated risk, that it can and should succeed in gaining back influence on the northeast Asian mainland. It may try it through diplomatic demands, pressure, and subversion first, but could reasonably decide that going to war against Russia, allied to mighty Germany, and possibly allied to mighty Britain! is basically a 'can't lose' proposition. Japan's ability to take advantage of said strategic 'opportunity' would depend in large part on its degree of internal order, cohesion, fiscal health, and ability to borrow funds from Britain or the United States, or its perception of its ability to borrow funds from Germany [Germany I don't think was actually as 'liquid' as the Anglos, but the Japanese might not fully comprehend].

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Russia would keep it's holdings and influence in southern Manchuria and Japanese influence there would largely be quashed. Korea likely falls into the Russian sphere of influence. That's somewhat the status quo, as Japan failed to fully monopolize it's control there after ejecting it from China's orbit a few years earlier. Sakhalin is fully under Russian control and the Russians may also seize the southernmost Kuril islands. There may also be reparations, but if the treaty looks anything like in OTL, the US or other mediators might make the Russians settle for reparations or territorial gains, much like they did with OTL Japan.

That's pretty excessive for the Russians to get unless they have somehow won the Battle of Tsushima or something else decisive like getting the bulk of the Trans-Siberian Railroad done earlier than OTL so it can utilize its manpower advantage.

 

[minhow]

It makes sense, because russian defeat and the anglo-german naval arms race put Britain on entente side. Now they are CP leaning due russian threat.

This conflict will be very one sided, the russians were defeat by Germany and the french were almost overrun, but the british saved them. Now the british are hostile to entente.

What about the US? Is balanced with the americans on entente side.

 

[dfl_90]

I will give you a "yes, but" response.

Yes, Japan would be more cautious, deliberative and careful about what projects it takes on, and more aware of its material limitations......

.....but, Russian warring with Germany and Austria and the Ottomans would reveal glaring weaknesses of the Russians, and likely keep the French busy and show them not to be too impressive, especially if the British joined the CP side or were a pro-CP leaning neutral. It would be exactly the kind of circumstance where Japan could make a reasonable, conservatively calculated risk, that it can and should succeed in gaining back influence on the northeast Asian mainland. It may try it through diplomatic demands, pressure, and subversion first, but could reasonably decide that going to war against Russia, allied to mighty Germany, and possibly allied to mighty Britain! is basically a 'can't lose' proposition. Japan's ability to take advantage of said strategic 'opportunity' would depend in large part on its degree of internal order, cohesion, fiscal health, and ability to borrow funds from Britain or the United States, or its perception of its ability to borrow funds from Germany [Germany I don't think was actually as 'liquid' as the Anglos, but the Japanese might not fully comprehend].

I pretty much agree with you across the board. OP's timeline puts WW1 somewhere around 1912 presumably, which is less than a decade after what is presumably a costly loss for the Japanese. Their economy is likely still recovering and politically there may have been some literal heads rolling after the loss in 1905, so Japanese politicians may be a bit more cautious about rushing into a conflict with a nation they recently were defeated by. To me, British support would be the biggest factor. I think a British entry onto the side of the Central Powers would immediately prompt Japan to enter, whereas tepid support might instead result in Japan entering the war later on, presuming the Central Powers are winning, with the hopes of sharing some of the spoils. Not too different from their position in OTL WW1.

That's pretty excessive for the Russians to get unless they have somehow won the Battle of Tsushima or something else decisive like getting the bulk of the Trans-Siberian Railroad done earlier than OTL so it can utilize its manpower advantage.

I'm assuming the Russians accomplished at least a clear advantage in the war since the OP's premise is that they won. What I proposed is actually fairly close to the status quo with a few of the OTL treaty provisions reversed. Russia already had strong influence in southern Manchuria prior to the war and even maintained a little of it following the loss. Korea was also teetering into the Russian sphere of influence after the Japanese defeated the Chinese in 1895 and made it nominally an independent state. Sakhalin was already partly under Russian control and there was no formal agreement on a border, so it's quite believable that the Russians might push for full control of the southern portion as part of the peace. And the southernmost Kuril islands were part of a back and forth dispute where Japan and Russia both reneged on their territorial claims a few times, so it's not unthinkable that they would seize the last few islands during the peace treaty.

 

[I_am_Unk]

Wow! Great to see discussion really taking off. I'm taking notes right here e.e

OP's timeline puts WW1 somewhere around 1912 presumably

First, let me clarify a date for the start of WWI. The premise here is that it starts around the same time the First Balkan War started, so around mid 1913 actually (tho I'm pretty sure what was said about Japan still stands), with Russia giving its support for the Balkan League's annexation of Albanian territory and pissing both Italy and A-H off. On the couple of days this thread has been here, I've been thinking about the scenario and there's perhaps one change I'd like to make:
- Bulgaria most likely stays Neutral as it has no real reason to go to war against the Central Powers. Be mindful that perhaps Bulgaria in TTL might have traded Macedonian territory occupied by Serbia for support in the annexation of Macedonia, but I'm not sure if that would be enough for a declaration from A-H. I'm not sure, but this probably means the Ottomans enter way later when it's clear the Entente is most likely to lose.

Well... the Ottomans are in for a world of trouble when they join. Without a Central-Powers Bulgaria, the Berlin-Baghdad railway is under even more jeopardy now. And Germany is not going to be able to send aid to the Ottomans except through Romania (and Romania may not allow due to fear of Bulgaria and Russia jointly killing them). If Romania does join though, it is a continuous front for Russia in Europe, and a front in the Caucasus. So that will be tough for them to fully cover.

Now that Italy is safely in the CP, the Isonzo Front never is a thing, and the troops Austria and Germany kept there can be sent to other fronts. Will this make a difference in the front against Serbia-Montenegro-Bulgaria-Greece? Hard to say. And with a solid bloc in the Balkans, the Entente can threaten Austria as well as the Ottomans. And while a million German troops could defeat the 4 Balkan minors, a million Ottoman or Austrian troops is a much nearer thing. And Germany will need their troops against France and Russia.

Also, there is a front for Italy and France. This is probably becoming the next Isonzo Front. Germany and Austria will be forced to send troops there to hold for Italy, and they can't afford it...

Now Japan in the Far East can have a front with Russia, and it will distract Russia, but since it's Siberia, Russia can trade a lot of territory for time.

Sorry for basically butterflying away your contribuition, but I'll say that it was actually a factor that made me think about this change in the TL, aside from the Bulgarian Historical interests and all.

It makes sense, because russian defeat and the anglo-german naval arms race put Britain on entente side. Now they are CP leaning due russian threat.

This conflict will be very one sided, the russians were defeat by Germany and the french were almost overrun, but the british saved them. Now the british are hostile to entente.

What about the US? Is balanced with the americans on entente side.

I think the US is likely to stay neutral with Britain out of the war. Even if France holds for years like in OTL, I think the Anglo-American relations played a bigger role in America entering the war than anything else. Germany would certainly have a much easier time in the seas and blockading France perhaps, so the supply situation of WWI might get reversed in TTL (if the Great War even lasts that long) with France getting a time limit while Germany remains open for goods and supplies (perhaps from the Americans even).

I'm also inclining to agree that Japan may enter the war in its late stage as opposed from the start. I'll be doing another maps in a bit to perhaps update the TL situation.

Edit: The Maps
Red: Central Powers at the start of the war, Light Red: Likely to join the Central Powers in the later stages of the war, Pinkish Red: CP friendly. Blue: Entente at the start of the war, Light Blue: Likely to be dragged to war later on by a CP-leaning nation. Question marks: Debatable geopolitical/military stance.

 

[LeonardWood6]

Well... the Ottomans are in for a world of trouble when they join. Without a Central-Powers Bulgaria, the Berlin-Baghdad railway is under even more jeopardy now. And Germany is not going to be able to send aid to the Ottomans except through Romania (and Romania may not allow due to fear of Bulgaria and Russia jointly killing them). If Romania does join though, it is a continuous front for Russia in Europe, and a front in the Caucasus. So that will be tough for them to fully cover.

Now that Italy is safely in the CP, the Isonzo Front never is a thing, and the troops Austria and Germany kept there can be sent to other fronts. Will this make a difference in the front against Serbia-Montenegro-Bulgaria-Greece? Hard to say. And with a solid bloc in the Balkans, the Entente can threaten Austria as well as the Ottomans. And while a million German troops could defeat the 4 Balkan minors, a million Ottoman or Austrian troops is a much nearer thing. And Germany will need their troops against France and Russia.

Also, there is a front for Italy and France. This is probably becoming the next Isonzo Front. Germany and Austria will be forced to send troops there to hold for Italy, and they can't afford it...

Now Japan in the Far East can have a front with Russia, and it will distract Russia, but since it's Siberia, Russia can trade a lot of territory for time.

Expanding on this:

Bulgaria in the beginning of the war IRL had around 600,000 soldiers mobilized and 960 artillery guns. Serbia had around 250-360 thousand soldiers initially mobilized. IDK for Greece but let's say ~200-300k. Montenegro had 50k initially. That's more than a million troops mobilized for the war.

Now how many will be needed to hold the front with Austria, Ottomans, and (potentially) Romania? Let's say that the numbers are the same as IRL for the Serbian Front. IDK how many will be needed for the front with the Ottomans (depends whether they're doing an offensive push or a defensive). You guys are better than me at this, so I will let you figure out. As for the front with Romania, let's say it's the same as IRL Bulgarian troops on Romania's borders, maybe just a couple thousand more.

IDK was Italy's naval capabilities good at this time? I mean, they're incompetent for sure, but was their navy any good? Because if their navy is a threat, they could defeat the Greek Navy alongside the Ottomans and pose a potential naval invasion threat, but IDK for sure about that.

Now I presume that there will be a similar amount of troops that Russia has on the borders of Austria-Hungary and Germany. IDK how many more is needed to cover for Romania. Probably the same number of soldiers on the front with the Ottomans.

Now, will the Russian Empire be able to hold a continuous front? Doubt it. They already had trouble doing that IRL, if German army capability does not change, then the result does not change either. Austria's Galician forts are very much vulnerable thanks to Alfred Redl's sabotage, and they'd no doubt lose troops trying to hold Galicia. Austria's best chances here are retreating from Galicia and trying to hold in the Carpathian Mountains. But in any case, any advance into Galicia will be threatened by German movement into Congress Poland, so even if Russia makes some initial gains, they will probably be forced to let go of them to avoid encirclement. If they refuse to, and bite and hold, they will lose a LOT of troops to encirclement, but I am assuming Russia is not that stupid.

Now I think that with Bulgaria an Entente member, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway is under severe vulnerability, and Germany will not be able to get the oil they need. Will it hurt them a whole lot? Don't know for sure. You guys can figure that out for me.

I expect the Caucasus Front to go as bad for the Ottomans as IRL. This is bad for the Central Powers of course, but IDK if Germany can bail them out here. But perhaps with Britain remaining neutral they could send some more troops elsewhere? The Ottomans will be hard-pressed to keep Constantinople. I see them potentially losing it, which gives Russia access to the Med. Sea, giving them supplies they need. But could a joint Ottoman-Italian Fleet stop supplies from reaching the Russians? Hard to say.

Now, the Western Front. Assuming that the Shlieffen Plan goes same as IRL and Italy is in the war, France has to deal with an almost continuous front, only stopped by Switzerland. Now the First Battle of the Marne. Maybe, if Italy proves to be a large enough threat (or really, more of a distraction), France will be forced to send more troops to the Italian Front. This might (and I say a very big might) be able to distract France enough that they don't send nearly as much troops to the Marne, and with the British remaining neutral, perhaps it leads to a potential German victory (or a phyrric French victory)? This is a really big IF, and I don't know if this would really happen.

If Japan joins later in the war fully mobilized, and Russia is kept unawares to Japan's true intention, I could see a Pearl Harbor-esque event happening to Vladivostok, giving Japan a naval advantage early in the war, and stopping Russian trade in the Far East. Also, if Russia is kept unaware, Japan could surprise attack the Russian Army, taking thousands of prisoners and causing chaos in the Russian Organization (the Russian Army was not exactly the best in professionalism) until the front stabilizes. I could see Japan taking much of Korea, Kamchatka, and the Russian Far Eastern Ports if this surprise attack works. Japan's Navy will most likely be fighting the French Navy based in Indochina, and I don't know who'd win these clashes. Perhaps, if the French Indochinese Fleet is weakened enough to become a nonfactor, Japan could try naval invasions, but that is also a really big IF.

But these are just my few grains of salt. I'm not an expert in military affairs or wars, and I will not pretend to be, so just an FYI. What do you guys think?

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The Italian Navy could deal with the Greeks - not sure when Kilkis & Lemnos were bought from the USN, but the Italians outnumbered them in pre-dreadnoughts and had an overwhelming superiority in Armoured Cruisers. The Ottoman Navy spent much of the war with Italy hiding in the Dardanelles, and one light cruiser apart had little modern vessels to bring to the dance.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Question - what is the rationale for the UK to be a Central Powers leaner (Pink)

Probably tensions with Russia from the Great Game to the Dogger Bank incident.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

A Japanese defeat in the war might result in a somewhat more democratic and peaceful Japan. Despite the losses, both economic and military, that Japan suffered during the war in OTL, it was sold to the Japanese people as a rousing victory over Western imperialism. That created a problem when Japan's actual position, much more precarious than the government and military let on, affected negotiations. The fact that the peace was reasonably fair for both sides seemed to defy the narrative that the Japanese had utterly crushed their foes and it appeared to the Japanese that the West had colluded to protect Russia. This actually resulted in a very serious series of riots throughout Japan along with a massive change in their international strategy.

If that war went the opposite way, Japan suffering large losses with no gains, it might quell burgeoning Japanese militarism by demonstrating that war wasn't always profitable and the military was hardly invincible. Additionally, it also doesn't paint a narrative that Japan was betrayed by a Western dominated international order. It might actually accomplish the opposite if mediation prevents a particularly harsh peace from being enforced upon them. All this isn't to say the Japanese aren't going to be considering a potential future conflict with Russia, but they're probably looking for a moment in which they'd feel both strong enough internally and internationally supported enough to see it through. Here I'm not so sure that Japan would immediately join the Central Powers. I imagine they'd probably sit by hoping the war leaves Russia in a bad state and probably following the lead of their ally Britain.

Is there any substance to the notion that a crushing Japanese defeat at Russian hands would have resulted in massive civil unrest and political upheaval within Japan?

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Is there any substance to the notion that a crushing Japanese defeat at Russian hands would have resulted in massive civil unrest and political upheaval within Japan?

I don't think so, however the reaction to the militarists getting a hand shoved in their face reputation-wise will be a major factor, whether they more quietly stew and scheme to regain public opinion to their perspective on how to run Japan. You should watch the video Kraut made on YouTube about the fall of democracy in Imperial Japan, its rather informative on this topic and not too biased (or maybe I'm biased in thinking he was being pretty objective lol, you be the judge)