Would Asia/the world of the twentieth century have been better off if Japan lost the Russo-Japan War, was stalemated, or deterred from attacking?

Would Asia/the world of the twentieth century have been better off if Japan lost the Russo-Japan War

  • Yes, because.....(reasons hopefully stated in a post, but not mandatory)

    Votes: 21 42.0%
  • No, because.....(reasons hopefully stated in a post, but not mandatory)

    Votes: 29 58.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Would Asia/the world of the twentieth century have been better off if Japan lost the Russo-Japan War, was stalemated, or deterred from attacking Russia in 1904 or later?

Why so, or why not?

In our world Japan, although regarded as an upstart, and the underdog, won this war, taking northeast Asian spheres of influence in Korea and southern Manchuria from Russia, and even the Russian territory of southern Sakhalin island, after sinking the Russian Pacific Fleet and Baltic Fleet units sent around the world to the Pacific.

Japan won and knew it, despite internal complaints that the wins and rewards, in terms of an indemnity or territory, didn't match what the Japanese people felt they "deserved" or "expected". Russia lost it, although on the ground it inflicted heavy losses on the Japanese, and lost no mainland territory and paid no indemnity.

Japan acted like a winner afterward certainly. It converted its exclusive dominance over Korea at the end of the war first into a protectorate, and then into an annexation in 1910.

Japan was more confident after this and had a spring in its step.

But the outcome was not foreordained. Japan was financially strained and depended on American and British loans. It suffered heavy losses in ground combat. 10 years earlier Russia, with other powers, had used threat of naval force to make Japan disgorge many of its gains from the Sino-Japanese war, and Russia impeded Japan's attempts to grow its influence in Korea for several years before the R-J War.

The Japanese might have been intimidated and deterred from ever starting the war. The Russians might have brought the Triple Intervention crisis of 1895 to war to their own greater advantage at that time. Or Japan's surprise attack might not have succeeded as well as it did, resulting in a stalemate at land or sea, or a successful defense by Russian forces and a repulse of the Japanese - a defensive Russian victory.

Would any of these more Russian-favorable outcomes, from a draw or stalemate, or a standoff with a frozen status quo antebellum without war, to an outright Russian victory, leave Asia or the world a better, happier, place? Would any of them leave the 20th century a better, happier century?

I would love to hear your thoughts. If you feel strongly one way or the other, I'd love to hear it. If you can sort of see arguments both ways, I've no problem with you spelling that out as well. If all you have to say is "it's impossible to know." that is kind of boring and I'm not interested. Consequences of no Japanese victory here? Pros? Cons?
 
I mean the thing is that so much time would happen between then and current year that just about anything could happen. Who says Russia or even China aren't the ones becoming the Nazi like regiments instead and tear across Eurasia and actually succeed in their goals?
 

Sekhmet_D

Kicked
No Japanese victory equals no rise of fascism in Japan. No Second Sino Japanese War, no Nanjing Massacre, no Operation Centrifuge, no Sook Ching Massacre, no Bataan Death March, no Kanchanaburi... sounds like a good thing to me.
 
No Japanese victory equals no rise of fascism in Japan. No Second Sino Japanese War, no Nanjing Massacre, no Operation Centrifuge, no Sook Ching Massacre, no Bataan Death March, no Kanchanaburi... sounds like a good thing to me.
Disagree strongly here. Victory in the Russo-Japanese war does not ordain Japan down some inevitable authoritarian warmongering imperialist path over the course of the next 30 years. Throughout the 1910s and 20s there were many factors that contributed to the eventual failing of democracy and the rise of nationalism, not a single event outcome. It’s entirely possible to strengthen Taisho era democracy and get its institutions bedded down and robust enough to withstand the major pressures of the depression and militarism.
 
Japan loses the Russo-Japanese war, Russia wins it, the immediate impact will be on the 1905 Revolution. Perhaps a situation where the Bloody Sunday still occurs but news of victory dilutes revolutionary zeal because Nicholas gets a honeymoon period. The question is can Nicholas take advantage of this or is the revolution merely delayed?
 

Sekhmet_D

Kicked
It’s entirely possible to strengthen Taisho era democracy and get its institutions bedded down and robust enough to withstand the major pressures of the depression and militarism.
Without a strongman on the throne willing to put his foot down and tell his warlords to stuff it, there is no way this is ever going to happen.
 
It's an interesting what if. The Qing Dynasty had been in terminal decline for some time, creating a power vacuum in the region by the later 1800s. Thus the Russian Empire, owing to its geography, was slowly strengthening its hold over China and Korea, until their expansion was stopped by the "check" provided by Japan ITTL.

With no one to check Russia in this scenario, who knows that might have happened? At the most extreme, we might have seen a Russia-dominated Northeast Asia, with Korea being gradually colonized by the Russian Empire and a partial absorption of China with the rest of China under Russia's sphere of influence, slowly imparting their culture and language as was their mode of colonization. Britain would have struggled to check Russian ambitions on their own, as there was a Russo-German alignment on the issue at the time, and the later Anglo-Russian Entente was only made possible by Russia's defeat in the first place.

While this might very much be preferable to later Japanese atrocities, I think the potential consequences need to be spelled out more clearly than they were by the OP.
 
It's very difficult to say as the three options (lost, stalemate and didn't happen) offer very different outcomes.

If stalemate and "didn't happen" mean that Japan retains its position in Korea, even without any position in Manchuria then I think little changes. The victory offered Japan so little that there were major riots against the peace treaty. Russia is slightly more stable but then again will be less well prepared when WW1 comes around if it hasn't leanred the lessons of 1904.

Only if Japan was severely beaten (reverse Tsushima, Russian Korea) would major butterflies flap. although i'd suggest that this would make it more likely that Japan follows a militaristic (revanchist) route which it would have ample opportunity to exercise if the fallout after any future Russian revolution.
 
Without a strongman on the throne willing to put his foot down and tell his warlords to stuff it, there is no way this is ever going to happen.
From the early 1930s onwards, I’d agree with you. However there are any combination of events that could have enabled the continuation of democracy in Japan at the time. There are a few that whilst individually may not stop the drift towards authoritarianism, they represent significant social and economic trends.

No Washington Naval Treaty and a surviving, if revised Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The British soft power influence over Japan remains as well as somewhat mollifying Japanese foreign policy objectives by influences across the more liberal social, economic and military circles. It also translates into the navy which traditionally was more liberal leaning (or at least sympathetic) to be in the ascendancy over the army factions.

Getting a durable liberal democracy is hard, as there were some fundamental flaws in the Japanese political system. That being said there is plenty of room to avoid the notion that Japan was destined to go hard ultra nationalist-militarism after the First World War.

Japanese liberal politics and parties were often fragmenting, then merging together based on personalities and campaigned against each other as much as the conservatives and militarists. However it might be possible to cement one as the dominant force, or have a series of coalitions that emerge (akin to the three party coalition Goken Sampa Naikaku) survive and stabilise its position in power after 1927 or a similar coalition formed earlier. Or avoid/reduce the financial crisis in 1927 or the combined severity of the post war economic slowdown and an improved Kanto Quake recovery. However the conservative side of politics was just as hopelessly divided

This also ignores the random micro changes brought by a gun jamming, grenade fuse failing, someone not getting pneumonia, or simply being in different cities at different times compared to OTL that enables their survival.
 
If Japan does not win vs Russia then perhaps Japan will not As arrogant as they were original timeline. They had a heck of an attitude that Europeans (and thus the US as well) were beneath them.
This is why they assumed that the US would simply give up.
Perhaps of they lose to Russia they will think twice. about the idiotic assumption that was the base for Japans war plan in WW1. I E the US. is weak willed and will give up.
 
Last edited:
Japan might be weaker, but a stronger Russia in the 1900s might have some serious repercussions leading up to World War One. It might make the British pro German and ruin its relations with France.....
 
If the Russians win, then it means that they don't need to learn the same lessons in OTL. What happens after, depends on how much Russia wins. Either way, they get full influence over Korea, whether they annex it or not is a different matter, but I think they will, because Korea has great value in warm water ports. After this who knows.
 
A stalemate would be better as that might provoke internal dissatisfaction with the government for them to be forced into more democratic reforms. It might also discredit the army which would allow civilian control to be expanded. The costs itself of the war may steer Japan away from continental expansionist policies to island trading ones.
 
Probably means no Pacific war as Japan won't have a history of seeing aggression being rewarded.

That seems like a good thing at first glance, but without hiroshima/nagasaki shocking the world, nukes might not have been viewed as anything other than a big bomb.
So not the same deterrent.
More would be built, and attitudes about using them would be much more cavalier. Until they are used of course, and that might be on a much bigger scale.
They were invented too late to be used against the nazis, and the soviets were spying on the manhattan project, so possibly ww3 in Europe with both sides using nukes.

So maybe better for japan.
Maybe better for everyone in the short term, maybe worse for everyone in the long term.
 
Probably means no Pacific war as Japan won't have a history of seeing aggression being rewarded.

That seems like a good thing at first glance, but without hiroshima/nagasaki shocking the world, nukes might not have been viewed as anything other than a big bomb.
So not the same deterrent.
More would be built, and attitudes about using them would be much more cavalier. Until they are used of course, and that might be on a much bigger scale.
They were invented too late to be used against the nazis, and the soviets were spying on the manhattan project, so possibly ww3 in Europe with both sides using nukes.

So maybe better for japan.
Maybe better for everyone in the short term, maybe worse for everyone in the long term.
A very intriguing and plausible possibility.

In a way, there's a chance that because of the way OTL's history timed the introduction of nukes to be demonstrated, but only sparingly, as a "finishing weapon" rather than a routine one, it was almost the best of all possible worlds, despite all evils leading up to it, because it was most encouraging of stable deterrence (which itself was/is no sure thing).
 
The big butterfly isn't Japan it's Russia. No defeat means no 1905 Revolution and almost certainly no 1917 Revolution. The October Revolution and the creation of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. No Soviet Union not only saves tens of millions of Russians it also probably stops any major country going Communist which in turn kills Nazism. The list the major genocides/multi-million dead catastrophes that this would have avoided; Holodomor, Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields of Cambodia to name a few is extremely long.
 
The big butterfly isn't Japan it's Russia. No defeat means no 1905 Revolution and almost certainly no 1917 Revolution. The October Revolution and the creation of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. No Soviet Union not only saves tens of millions of Russians it also probably stops any major country going Communist which in turn kills Nazism. The list the major genocides/multi-million dead catastrophes that this would have avoided; Holodomor, Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields of Cambodia to name a few is extremely long.

Sadly, the Armenians probably still wouldn't get a break...

With no one to check Russia in this scenario, who knows that might have happened? At the most extreme, we might have seen a Russia-dominated Northeast Asia, with Korea being gradually colonized by the Russian Empire and a partial absorption of China with the rest of China under Russia's sphere of influence, slowly imparting their culture and language as was their mode of colonization.

I don't really think it'd be that easy - that sort of stuff was easier to do in sparsely inhabitated regions like Siberia and Central Asia, but in way more densely inhabitated regions like China and Korea? They'd probably have as much of a hard time, if not even harder, doing that as they had trying to assimilate Poland or Finland.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think the Russo-Japanese War not occurring or going in a slightly different way would've changed all that much in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it causes the collapse of the Russian Empire sooner (no Revolution of 1905 means more people are radicalized against the Tsar, and more radicals means less support for the Great War), maybe it causes the USSR or the Republic to win the Civil War, who knows. This might be a minor butterfly effect but I have no clue.
 
Top