What could Britain do to Russia (and vice versa) in a Dogger Bank War?

[raharris1973]

What if the Dogger Bank incident caused Britain to declare war on Russia? What could Britain actually do to Russia?

Well I suppose the obvious, punishment fit the crime thing, is to sink all the Russian fleet units in oceanic transit from the Baltic to the Pacific. Basically this just does the Japanese work of Tsushima early.

Having done that, the British can raid the Russian Baltic coast freely and bombard it, and sweep whatever Russian merchant traffic there is off the seas. A literal close blockade of Petersburg, helsingfors, Taliin, and Riga though may not be safe depending on the range and accuracy of Russian shore batteries.

the next instinctive move is to send the British med fleet into the straits to mangle the Black Sea fleet. Easy, right? But there’s an important political question mark hanging over it. DoesSultan Abdul Hamid want to open the straits to the British fleet, or does he still hold a grudge against the British for their vigorous anti Ottoman stances during the Armenian massacres of the 1890s? Plus British shenanigans in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf.

can/will Britain force the straits without permission?

if reaching an agreement with the Turks, presumably the latter will want to get into the fight and regain some territory. Most likely Kars and Ardahan. Would Britain countenance the return of these mainly Christian, and Armenian, lands to Abdulhamid?

Elsewhere in Asia, marching the Indian army through Afghanistan to invade Russian Turkestan seems impracticable logistically. Britain could shove away Russian influence in Persia, or try. Maybe it could send Indian troops through Persia to invade Baku and seize oil fields, but it seems likely the Russians can more than match the Raj forces in numbers.

other than that, the main activities are subsidizing the Japanese, troublemakers in the Russian empire and economic warfare through blacklisting and buying up supplies. Any blockade/embargo would be leaky because it wouldn’t halt land trade and possibly not inland sea trade with neutrals.

 

[WolfBear]

if reaching an agreement with the Turks, presumably the latter will want to get into the fight and regain some territory. Most likely Kars and Ardahan. Would Britain countenance the return of these mainly Christian, and Armenian, lands to Abdulhamid?

These regions were actually around half-Muslim or so, if not even a bit more than that in the case of Batum Oblast:

Kars oblast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Batum oblast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BTW, if Britain is busy fighting Russia, might Germany decide that now is the golden time for preventative war against both France and Russia and thus decide to attack France in the West with the hope of quickly finishing off the French so that Germany could subsequently head towards the East? If necessary, Germany can declare war on both the French and the Russians at once. Then it would be politically difficult for the British to blockade the Germans considering that both they and the Germans are simultaneously fighting the same Russian enemy, no?

 

[Buba]

The Dogger Bank incident is casus belli if the UK wants it to be.

My first reaction to the OP was "not much". Russia has short coasts and is not reliant on maritime trade. Exports will be hit, true, but I'd assume a large portion may still be sent abroad by rail.

Once the RN runs into some mines it will be careful ...
Some nice maps here:

Морская крепость Императора Петра Великого.

Накануне Первой мировой войны было начато грандиозное строительство оборонительных сооружений для защиты береговой линии и акватории Финского залива. Комплекс укреплений носил имя- морская крепость Императора Петра Великого

www.estwar.ee

I agree on the political mess concerning any RN's forays into the Black Sea. IMO the Straits can be forced, it is a question of will to take losses.

Full agreement on implausibility of mutual combat in Central Asia. On any large scale, at least.
As to funding troublemakers - Piłsudski and his terrorists have joined the chat ...
Baku is a no-no - too far away from British bases, yet with RR and shipping links to Russia.

AFAIK Russia's biggest trading partner was Germany and France was the largest provider of capital. Not much British soft power here ...

 

[raharris1973]

These regions were actually around half-Muslim or so, if not even a bit more than that in the case of Batum Oblast:

Thanks for the education.

BTW, if Britain is busy fighting Russia, might Germany decide that now is the golden time for preventative war against both France and Russia and thus decide to attack France in the West with the hope of quickly finishing off the French so that Germany could subsequently head towards the East?

In theory yes. But it seems a bit contrived and 'rule of cool' and requires a heel turn on the German's part. In OTL, the Germans were taking a generally pro-Russian stance and trying to get an alliance with them through the Treaty of Bjorko.

If necessary, Germany can declare war on both the French and the Russians at once.

If they are thinking in the terms you suggest, sure.

Then it would be politically difficult for the British to blockade the Germans considering that both they and the Germans are simultaneously fighting the same Russian enemy, no?

Well yes, it's hard to fault the Germans for anything they do against the Russians. But, the British do have the prerogative to switch their priorities quickly, and end or downplay the war with the Russians and start telling the Germans to halt if they see them invade Belgium and France and decide they don't like it. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't envy their government spokespeople, but public opinion could shift a bit with major events too.

 

[WolfBear]

Thanks for the education.



In theory yes. But it seems a bit contrived and 'rule of cool' and requires a heel turn on the German's part. In OTL, the Germans were taking a generally pro-Russian stance and trying to get an alliance with them through the Treaty of Bjorko.



If they are thinking in the terms you suggest, sure.



Well yes, it's hard to fault the Germans for anything they do against the Russians. But, the British do have the prerogative to switch their priorities quickly, and end or downplay the war with the Russians and start telling the Germans to halt if they see them invade Belgium and France and decide they don't like it. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't envy their government spokespeople, but public opinion could shift a bit with major events too.

Yeah, fair points in regards to everything here, Rob. And Yeah, this would require a change of character on the part of the German leadership. Maybe after Bjorko fails they decide that trying to ally with the Russians won't work? But of course the Anglo-Russian war might already be over by then, so ...

 

[raharris1973]

The Dogger Bank incident is casus belli if the UK wants it to be.

My first reaction to the OP was "not much". Russia has short coasts and is not reliant on maritime trade. Exports will be hit, true, but I'd assume a large portion may still be sent abroad by rail.

Once the RN runs into some mines it will be careful ...
Some nice maps here:

Морская крепость Императора Петра Великого.

Накануне Первой мировой войны было начато грандиозное строительство оборонительных сооружений для защиты береговой линии и акватории Финского залива. Комплекс укреплений носил имя- морская крепость Императора Петра Великого

www.estwar.ee

I agree on the political mess concerning any RN's forays into the Black Sea. IMO the Straits can be forced, it is a question of will to take losses.

Full agreement on implausibility of mutual combat in Central Asia. On any large scale, at least.
As to funding troublemakers - Piłsudski and his terrorists have joined the chat ...
Baku is a no-no - too far away from British bases, yet with RR and shipping links to Russia.

AFAIK Russia's biggest rading partner was Germany and France was the largest provider of capital. Not much British soft power here ...

So then we're looking at Britain sinking the exposed Baltic fleet and sinking it, maybe capturing ships willing to surrender, with other ships trying to escape. Hardly any of those making it all the way back to Russia, but interning themselves at French and neutral ports to wait out the end of the war. So the Baltic/Second Pacific Squadron never makes it there, and the Japanese never have to fight the battle of Tsushima. The lack of a naval hope for the Russian Far East becomes that much more obvious that many months earlier.

The British float the Japanese more money and supplies keeping them in business, and hammer direct Russian seaborne trade in the Atlantic. They fund Russian troublemakers, Pilsudski and his terrorists. More usefully for the Japanese, probably also some Chinese and Mongol bandits and mercenaries hired to raid Russian supply lines in Manchuria and pick off stragglers and mess with the TSRR.

Beyond that, there is not much to do. The Japanese, winning just as they did, but with a little less financial stress, will basically just probably try to hold out harder for an indemnity and probably all Sakhalin. The British will probably keep all captured ships (probably for scrap) and seek an indemnity payment for themselves. On getting these, or even just upon getting bored, the British can make peace.

 

[raharris1973]

So we're all agreed it's appropriate to assume that France will not honor its alliance obligations to Russia, and declare war on Britain and Japan? That was the assumption I was making, that France would weasel out of its obligations, not wanting to sacrifice itself, its international trade, navy, and empire to serve as a meat shield for Russia in a gesture of solidarity.

I assume this will lead to bad feelings in Russia and unwillingness to keep commitments.

France will hospitably host Russian fleet units that escape the British dragnet, but will have to intern them and their crews for the duration of the war, entertaining the men with wine, cheese, and bread, and only letting them go home when the war's settled.

 

[WolfBear]

So we're all agreed it's appropriate to assume that France will not honor its alliance obligations to Russia, and declare war on Britain and Japan? That was the assumption I was making, that France would weasel out of its obligations, not wanting to sacrifice itself, its international trade, navy, and empire to serve as a meat shield for Russia in a gesture of solidarity.

I assume this will lead to bad feelings in Russia and unwillingness to keep commitments.

France will hospitably host Russian fleet units that escape the British dragnet, but will have to intern them and their crews for the duration of the war, entertaining the men with wine, cheese, and bread, and only letting them go home when the war's settled.

Yeah, sounds reasonable. Seems suicidal on France's part to fight for Russia here.

 

[Buba]

So we're all agreed it's appropriate to assume that France will not honor its alliance obligations to Russia, and declare war on Britain and Japan?

What treaty obligated France to fight the UK alongside Russia?
The 1892 Treaty:

France and Russia, being animated by a common desire to preserve peace, and having no other object than to meet the necessities of a defensive war, provoked by an attack of the forces of the Triple Alliance against either of them, have agreed upon the following provisions:

1. If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.

If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.

2. In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.

3. The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.

These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.

4. The General Staffs of the Armies of the two countries shall cooperate with each other at all times in the preparation and facilitation of the execution of the measures mentioned above.

They shall communicate with each other, while there is still peace, all information relative to the armies of the Triple Alliance which is already in their possession or shall come into their possession.

Ways and means of corresponding in time of war shall be studied and worked out in advance.

5. France and Russia shall not conclude peace separately.

6. The present Convention shall have the same duration as the Triple Alliance.

7. All the clauses enumerated above shall be kept absolutely secret.

Signature of the Minister:

Signature of the Minister:

General Aide-de-Camp

General of Division,

Chief of the General Staff

Councillor of State

Signed: OBRUCHEFF Sub-Chief of the General Staff of the Army

Signed: BOISDEFFRE

 

[raharris1973]

What treaty obligated France to fight the UK alongside Russia?
The 1892 Treaty:

regardless of what the letter of the alliance treaty said or didn’t say, that won’t reduce the expectation of Russia to have France’s support when it is in over its head against a European power, and its disapppointment when it doesn’t get that support.

 

[Buba]

Russian leaders expecting France to come to its rescue after it attacks the British/blunders into a war with the UK? And be disappointed if it didn't?
Now, such people could be unkindly called idiots, no?

France told Russia in 1913 that if a Russo-Austrian war happens then Sankt Peterburg is on its own. And nothing untoward happened betwen those two ...

I imagine a Dogger Bank War to be short as Russia asks for terms ASAP. The negotiations could be longer than such a war
For Russia this conflict would be a nuisance, maybe a major nuisance, yet nevertheless something it could do without.
The problem might be the British getting greedy. But isn't the UK about to have a power change?

 

[raharris1973]

The problem might be the British getting greedy.

The British getting greedy- What about I wonder? I doubt they'd want any frozen islands. Too bad Alaska is sold already, they could have demanded that. They could demand a stiff indemnity, some money the Russians may not be able to afford to pay. Maybe a hands off Persia pledge or withdrawal of some presence from Persia?

But isn't the UK about to have a power change?

Yeah, they're not to far off from the switch from Balfour to Campbell-Bannerman.

Are we fully appreciating the total negative economic impact on Russia, and the further ripple effects this may have politically, however?

Point taken about this:

AFAIK Russia's biggest trading partner was Germany and France was the largest provider of capital. Not much British soft power here ...

However, Poland and western Russia is only so dense with rails, and there's a gauge switch at the border. And ship is still the cheapest way to move cargo. And regardless of the great big role of Germany and France, wasn't Britain a significant export market and financial partner/creditor for *everyone*.

So Russia being at war with Britain for however long that lasts is going to freeze Russian credit in Britain, stop Russian exports to the markets of the British empire, open the British Empire media wide to Russian dissidents, and stop the large-scale emigration of Russians to places like Britain and the Dominions (and anywhere, by making travel to Russian ports unsafe), and result in the freezing of remittance payments of Russian (mainly Jewish, Polish, Baltic, Ukrainian, Finnish) Empire immigrants living in the British Empire back to Russia.

These all tighten the financial squeeze on the Russian regime and Russian households and makes it look like a worse market risk to even apolitical business people and bankers while its facing a two front losing war and a revolution at home.

Can it all add up to pushing things over the edge into regime change territory in Russia?

 

[Buba]

Maybe a hands off Persia pledge or withdrawal of some presence from Persia?

What Britain would want in "greedy|" mode is a good question
A "hands off Persia pledge" sounds good, maybe a move back in Central Asia? getting out of Bukhara? Maybe "out of Mandzhuria"?

large-scale emigration of Russians

there was no large scale emigration of Russians. Of ethnic Russians - close to non. Of non-Russians - not that much either. Travel controls weakened after the 1905 Revolution.

Can it all add up to pushing things over the edge into regime change territory in Russia?

Do you mean a different Court Coterie?
Or the 1905 Revolution come early, with (co-)rule by some incompetent ineligentsia thrown up by street mobs?

 

[stevep]

I don't see any reason why Britain would be greedy. There would be anger about the attack but that would likely to largely sated by the destruction of the Russian Baltic Fleet. As others have pointed out there's no real suitable territorial or economic gains for Britain and I think a humbled Russia and confirmation of British naval dominance - the clashes probably however raising some issues on weaknesses that could be corrected and give some practical data for future designs. You could see a defeat for Russia reducing its influence in locations like Persia and Afghanistan but that and the military and economic costs to Russia are likely to mean the conflict ends fairly quickly. You might see a little more success for Japan against a distracted Russia, possibly as someone said it getting all of Sakhalin Is rather then just the southern half say.

 

[Buba]

I don't see any reason why Britain would be greedy.

Never underestimate human stupidity
Top Of Mind - Tory Gov't wants to Win Big as to win the next election ...
I agree that the smart thing would be to sink the 2nd Pacific Fleet Squadron and demand compensation and be done with the whole mess.

I finally noticed the "vice versa" in the OP - well, Russia can do fuck all to Britain, IMHO.
Besides glare menacingly, that is.

 

[raharris1973]

maybe a move back in Central Asia? getting out of Bukhara?

Well Britain would love this, if it could swing it. But we did discuss upthread how how serious Anglo-Indian-Russian combat in this Central Asian region was impossible, so Britain won't really have a way to enforce such terms militarily. Or have you changed your mind?

Maybe "out of Mandzhuria"?

Well the Japanese were seeing to that already in southern Manchuria. Maybe with the overall boost the Japanese are getting this gets expanded to - 'get out of all Chinese Manchuria' so that even northern Manchuria, the part south of the Amur river, and west of the maritime province, falls to the Japanese sphere of influence, and Russia is compelled to sell off any of the completed lines of the Chinese Eastern Railway.

there was no large scale emigration of Russians. Of ethnic Russians - close to non. Of non-Russians - not that much either. Travel controls weakened after the 1905 Revolution.

What are you talking about? Not much large scale emigration of ethnic Russians (just political emigres, and aristocratic tourists), but a veritable shit-ton of *Russian Empire subjects* emigrating from about 1880 onward. This was the source of much of the Polish and Jewish communities of North and South America. I'm not so sure 1905 was such the watershed on travel controls as you're saying it was. 3 of my 4 paternal great-grandparents were part of this Russian Empire pre 1905 emigration.

Do you mean a different Court Coterie?
Or the 1905 Revolution come early, with (co-)rule by some incompetent ineligentsia thrown up by street mobs?

I'm talking about the 1905 revolution come early, or come on time and get worse. OTL Dogger Bank incident happened in late October 1904. Revolution started in January 1905. A war resulting from Dogger Bank could overlap with 1905 revolution if an Anglo-Russian peace treaty isn't patched up within 3 months of the war starting.

 

[Buba]

Britain won't really have a way to enforce such terms militarily. Or have you changed your mind?

No way to enforce it, of course. But Bukhara getting same, or similar, status as Afganistan would ally British paranoia i.e. Russian troops pouring out the Khyber Pass the moment Britain stops being vigilant.

I'm not that versed in details of emigration out of the Russian Empire, but that's what I;ve been led to believe. Maybe I need to deepen my knowledge

Oh - OK. The 1905 Revolution might start a bit earlier and maybe is slightly more severe than OTL.

 

[Buba]

I found a TL in Polish about such a war.
It was a "bit" ASB ... starting with moderately competent Rozhestvenskiy.
I lost it when a new British War Cabinet headed by ... DRUMROLL ... Joseph Chamberlain authorised a commando raid on Heligoland (now, such moronic idiocy is pure Churchil ... ) because Germany was friendly to Russia and did not intern Russian survivors from the Battle of Dover Straight.

 

[WolfBear]

I found a TL in Polish about such a war.
It was a "bit" ASB ... starting with moderately competent Rozhestvenskiy.
I lost it when a new British War Cabinet headed by ... DRUMROLL ... Joseph Chamerlian authorised a commando raid on Heligoland (now, such moronic idiocy is pure Churchil ... ) because Germany was friendly to Russia and did not intern Russian survivors from the Battle of Dover Straight.

Can you read Polish?