OT-esque - the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05

[Terminus]

Looking back on this war, we can see the beginning of Japanese Imperial ambition in the 20th Century that would eventually lead to Pearl Harbor and the destruction of the Japanese nation as it was before WWII.

However, do we know what the contemporary reaction on the world stage was to the Japanese beating the Russians? What did the Great Powers of the day think about it?

[marky]

shock but happiness IIRC. like a pat on the back.

[Mynok]

You'll get a pretty decent perspective on that from Dreadnought.

[stuman]

Well, Teddy won a Noble Prize, the Russians actually reformed their army a bit ( helped somewhat in WW1 ). Asian countries felt more emboldened to act more independantly, maybe helped move Russain Revoluiton along. Left Korea with Japan. Thats all I can come up with atm without cheating.

[thegreatwent]

IIRC American reaction to the Port Arthur attacks was generally positive. I recommend The Fleet that had to Die by Richard Hough. While dated it gives a good account of Russia's doomed Baltic Fleet and provides insight into Russia and the Wests attitudes towards Japan at the time.

[thegreatwent]

While getting my History degree I wrote a paper on "The Great White Fleet". Japanese militancy encouraged by the Russo-Japanese War as well as protests by Japan of American immigration laws in 1906 can be said to have prodded Roosevelt into ordering the fleet to sail. There was a great deal of curiosity at the time as to whether or not the fleet would arrive in battle ready condition. The voyage is now seen as a public relations success but lessons learned played a great deal in U.S. Naval planning up to 1939. It could be argued that studies on logistics, the building of coaler vessels and later oilers plus the commitment to the Panama Canal all were influenced by the Russian failure and the American Battleship Fleet's experience in 1907.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Looking back on this war, we can see the beginning of Japanese Imperial ambition in the 20th Century that would eventually lead to Pearl Harbor and the destruction of the Japanese nation as it was before WWII.

However, do we know what the contemporary reaction on the world stage was to the Japanese beating the Russians? What did the Great Powers of the day think about it?

Most certainly it showed Germans (in 1904) that Russian army is badly managed and weak in many ways, same as Boer war in South Africa showed Germans (in 1899) that British army is badly managed and weak in many ways and same as German-French war showed Germans (in 1870) how French army is badly managed and weak in many ways...

This all "helped" Germany to think that its military power on land in unsurpassed and led to false hope of victory in WWI in 1914...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Historiker]

This all "helped" Germany to think that its military power on land in unsurpassed and led to false hope of victory in WWI in 1914...

The hope wasn't without any cause... Without the younger Moltke changeing the Schlieffen plan by weakening the left flank and without the mistakes made in the first days of september, the war in the west would've been won...
The Russians were beaten even without the west being cleared - so what's the false hope here?

Japan showed up in the world as a considerable power. The victory over China made the world realize that Japan existed and has some ships, but defeating a european power was something different.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Looking back on this war, we can see the beginning of Japanese Imperial ambition in the 20th Century that would eventually lead to Pearl Harbor and the destruction of the Japanese nation as it was before WWII.

However, do we know what the contemporary reaction on the world stage was to the Japanese beating the Russians? What did the Great Powers of the day think about it?

Yes. They were gobsmacked. Or as a friend described the Warsaw Pact leadership after the First Iraq War, they had their indicator lights reset.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Historiker

This all "helped" Germany to think that its military power on land in unsurpassed and led to false hope of victory in WWI in 1914...

The hope wasn't without any cause... Without the younger Moltke changeing the Schlieffen plan by weakening the left flank and without the mistakes made in the first days of september, the war in the west would've been won...
The Russians were beaten even without the west being cleared - so what's the false hope here?

Hmmm...

The Germans early advance into Belgium and France ended in September 1914 when attacking Germans were exhausted and overstretched (full month of heavy fighting and almost non stop action since the outbreak of WWI). Even if Germans were able to capture Paris and drive to the English channel this would not end the war in the west... the France would fight on (even in WWII the France fought after fall of Paris) - the only difference would be that stalemate and trench warfare would happen on some other place...

Also German success in the east didn't happen until 1915 when trench warfare stalemate already happened in the west (and when German forces were transferred from west to east)!

BTW, the only big battle in the east in 1914 for Germans was Tannenberg - it was huge success but Russian forces destroyed were not above 200.000 which is not such big loss for Russian army that numbered millions - it most certainly didn't bring eastern front to collapse.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Historiker

This all "helped" Germany to think that its military power on land in unsurpassed and led to false hope of victory in WWI in 1914...

The hope wasn't without any cause... Without the younger Moltke changeing the Schlieffen plan by weakening the left flank and without the mistakes made in the first days of september, the war in the west would've been won...
The Russians were beaten even without the west being cleared - so what's the false hope here?

Hmmm...

The Germans early advance into Belgium and France ended in September 1914 when attacking Germans were exhausted and overstretched (full month of heavy fighting and almost non stop action since the outbreak of WWI). Even if Germans were able to capture Paris and drive to the English channel this would not end the war in the west... the France would fight on (even in WWII the France fought after fall of Paris) - the only difference would be that stalemate and trench warfare would happen on some other place...

Also German success in the east didn't happen until 1915 when trench warfare stalemate already happened in the west (and when German forces were transferred from west to east)!

BTW, the only big battle in the east in 1914 for Germans was Tannenberg - it was huge success but Russian forces destroyed were not above 200.000 which is not such big loss for Russian army that numbered millions - it most certainly didn't bring eastern front to collapse.


Leo "Apollo11"

First, I made a mistake, he weakend the right flank to strenthen the left.
If he relied on the fortresses in Elsaß, the right flank would've been significantly stronger. I don't have the data here, it's on my laptop, but IIRC, the right flank would've been about 20-30% stronger.
This, and no mistakes at the Marne would've granted the victory at Paris. Significantly more troops would've been able to advance further as even in history, they just barely managed to stop the Germans.
The loss of Paris would've mented a serious blow to the french morale and there wasn't the experience of the first world war that one might finally win a war against a unified germany. And moreover, how long did the french fight on in WW2?
It is contra facta to speculate, of course. Still, if the younger Moltke had more guts to rely on the old plan of Schlieffen, all planned objects in the west would've been taken in time - that's at least very likely.

It isn't needed to win the war in the east in 1914, as this wasn't even planned. The Russians should've been defeated AFTER France capitulated and the Russians were stopped even without the western troops.

So unlikely or unrealistic hopes for a victory? Defenitly not.
Would the changes I talked of have changed the war? Who knows, but that's all academic.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: Historiker


The hope wasn't without any cause... Without the younger Moltke changeing the Schlieffen plan by weakening the left flank and without the mistakes made in the first days of september, the war in the west would've been won...
The Russians were beaten even without the west being cleared - so what's the false hope here?

Hmmm...

The Germans early advance into Belgium and France ended in September 1914 when attacking Germans were exhausted and overstretched (full month of heavy fighting and almost non stop action since the outbreak of WWI). Even if Germans were able to capture Paris and drive to the English channel this would not end the war in the west... the France would fight on (even in WWII the France fought after fall of Paris) - the only difference would be that stalemate and trench warfare would happen on some other place...

Also German success in the east didn't happen until 1915 when trench warfare stalemate already happened in the west (and when German forces were transferred from west to east)!

BTW, the only big battle in the east in 1914 for Germans was Tannenberg - it was huge success but Russian forces destroyed were not above 200.000 which is not such big loss for Russian army that numbered millions - it most certainly didn't bring eastern front to collapse.

First, I made a mistake, he weakend the right flank to strenthen the left.
If he relied on the fortresses in Elsaß, the right flank would've been significantly stronger. I don't have the data here, it's on my laptop, but IIRC, the right flank would've been about 20-30% stronger.
This, and no mistakes at the Marne would've granted the victory at Paris. Significantly more troops would've been able to advance further as even in history, they just barely managed to stop the Germans.
The loss of Paris would've mented a serious blow to the french morale and there wasn't the experience of the first world war that one might finally win a war against a unified germany. And moreover, how long did the french fight on in WW2?
It is contra facta to speculate, of course. Still, if the younger Moltke had more guts to rely on the old plan of Schlieffen, all planned objects in the west would've been taken in time - that's at least very likely.

It isn't needed to win the war in the east in 1914, as this wasn't even planned. The Russians should've been defeated AFTER France capitulated and the Russians were stopped even without the western troops.

So unlikely or unrealistic hopes for a victory? Defenitly not.
Would the changes I talked of have changed the war? Who knows, but that's all academic.

IMHO the biggest problem with most of "what if" scenarios is that they almost never take the most important issue of war into account - the logistics (i.e. supply and all other things that are connected to it)!

The von Schlieffen's WWI plan was as impossible as Barbarosa plan in WWII was... both simply "forgot" the logistics... the total victory by either of them was impossible dream...

In September of 1914 the Germans were overestreched and exausted. Even if they won the Battle of the Marne and, possibly, took Paris this would mean the end of their advance. The trench warfare stalemate would simply happen on some other place than it it happened historically (Flanders).

The end result of WWI would still be the same... the Germany would eventually succumb to blockade (because the Central powers were landlocked in the middle of Europe)... it was all just the matter of time....


Leo "Apollo11"

[Anthropoid]

Yeah, my understanding of that whole Schlieffen Plan thing is that it was unlikely to have worked in the absolutely best of circumstances even with a stronger "right" (Belgian) flank. As Apollo said, the main problem was the logistics . . .
 
BTW, have you guys played World War One: La Grande Geurre? Sold by Matrix? Bloody nightmare before (buggy) but they seem to have it all ironed out now and I'd recommend it as a fun WWI game.

[modrow]

Apollo 11,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

IMHO the biggest problem with most of "what if" scenarios is that they almost never take the most important issue of war into account - the logistics (i.e. supply and all other things that are connected to it)!

The von Schlieffen's WWI plan was as impossible as Barbarosa plan in WWII was... both simply "forgot" the logistics... the total victory by either of them was impossible dream...

In September of 1914 the Germans were overestreched and exausted. Even if they won the Battle of the Marne and, possibly, took Paris this would mean the end of their advance. The trench warfare stalemate would simply happen on some other place than it it happened historically (Flanders).

The end result of WWI would still be the same... the Germany would eventually succumb to blockade (because the Central powers were landlocked in the middle of Europe)... it was all just the matter of time....


Leo "Apollo11"

I think you are right on target with that analysis. I recently read some analysis relating to the 1870/1871 war which came to the conclusion that much more "modern" concepts of warfare were in the minds of the German Generalstab, but that the logistics problems were impossible to solve with the transport technology of those days. The came the truck and changed it all...

Hartwig

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

Apollo 11,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

IMHO the biggest problem with most of "what if" scenarios is that they almost never take the most important issue of war into account - the logistics (i.e. supply and all other things that are connected to it)!

The von Schlieffen's WWI plan was as impossible as Barbarosa plan in WWII was... both simply "forgot" the logistics... the total victory by either of them was impossible dream...

In September of 1914 the Germans were overestreched and exausted. Even if they won the Battle of the Marne and, possibly, took Paris this would mean the end of their advance. The trench warfare stalemate would simply happen on some other place than it it happened historically (Flanders).

The end result of WWI would still be the same... the Germany would eventually succumb to blockade (because the Central powers were landlocked in the middle of Europe)... it was all just the matter of time....


Leo "Apollo11"

I think you are right on target with that analysis. I recently read some analysis relating to the 1870/1871 war which came to the conclusion that much more "modern" concepts of warfare were in the minds of the German Generalstab, but that the logistics problems were impossible to solve with the transport technology of those days. The came the truck and changed it all...

Hartwig

Moltke (the older) couldn't understand the american obsession for logistics he witnessed in the US civil war. Looking at 1864, 1866 and 1870/71, despite his disday for excessive logistics, he seems to be somehow successful, no?

Apart from that, I can't say anything. [;)] I must admit that I can't say whether logistics would have limited the advance or not. At least, the railroad system in Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg was advanced and capable and Paris isn't that far from the german railroad connections - especially as some of the french railroads were captured intact, too - I guess.

[Q-Ball]

Back to the original thread topic of the Russo-Japanese war......

I imagine the reaction by the Great Powers depended entirely on what Great Power we are talking about.

FRANCE: The Frech Press, IIRC, was supportive as Russia was in alliance with France at the time, and seen as critical counterweight to Germany. French press and government were aghast at the outcome, and not happy. French press featured stories of Russian bravery, etc.

GERMANY: See France; German press was shocked, but not overtly pro-Japanese; secretly, German planners rejoiced in destruction of Baltic Fleet, and strategic consequences this entailed.

BRITAIN: British press was lukewarm, somewhat pro-Japanese, as Japan was a naval ally of Britain, and modelled after RN. Also, denial of warm-water Russian port in Pacific was very consistent with British policy. They were not in favor of a strong or resurgent Russia, and were glad to see her knocked down a notch. Of course, later they said to themselves be careful what you wish for.......

US: Generally neutral in attitude and policy, Teddy swooped in and got that Peace Prize

....this is what I know from Memory anyway, which could be wrong

[modrow]

Historiker,

ORIGINAL: Historiker


Moltke (the older) couldn't understand the american obsession for logistics he witnessed in the US civil war. Looking at 1864, 1866 and 1870/71, despite his disday for excessive logistics, he seems to be somehow successful, no?

Apart from that, I can't say anything. [;)] I must admit that I can't say whether logistics would have limited the advance or not. At least, the railroad system in Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg was advanced and capable and Paris isn't that far from the german railroad connections - especially as some of the french railroads were captured intact, too - I guess.

Well, according to this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 90/PPJ.htm

"the 1866 and 1870 campaigns left Von Moltke with an enlarged understanding of the relatively short
striking range, the limited endurance, the logistical inflexibility of the German Army beyond the railhead, and the need to tailor doctrine and strategy to logistical limitations".

Can't say anything about the quality of the source. Sounds like the opposite of what you say about Moltke's thoughts though.

Hartwig

edit: Also, I think there were supply problems of the Germans during the march on Paris in 1870. Food was getting short and had to be bought and/or requisitioned in France. Worked out in the end, but it was not a masterplan which ran like a clockwork.

Hartwig

[Historiker]

Maybe I'm wrong. I've read this about a decade ago. I still know where this was written but unfortunately, this book is 400km away from me, now.

[crsutton]

As far as England goes, the defeat of the Russians was looked upon with some joy. England's primary concern over the previous half century had been with Russian expansion. Their fatal invasion of Afganistan was primarily in reaction to Russian expansion into the near east. They did not want the bear sitting next door to India. And of course, the Crimean disaster was the end result of England's wish to keep control of the Dardenelles out of Russian hands. I would expect that in 1904 England was much more concerned over Russian expansion in the far East than Japanese. So they choose poison over hanging.

[anarchyintheuk]

US public reaction may have been somewhat indifferent. I doubt the US Navy's was. After PA and Tsushima Russia could no longer served as a counterpoise to Japan. The power vacuum sucked in TR and the US Navy almost immediately.