raharris1973
Well-known member
In OTL, after the Japanese won the Sino-Japanese war and imposed the Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895, the Russians organized the Triple Intervention with Germany and France to force Japan to hand back some of its gains, loaned China some money, and a couple years later, grabbed one of these gains, the Guangdong peninsula, for itself.
What if Russia followed the lazier path of least resistance, bullying the loser, China, instead of the winner, Japan?
In this case, as Japan is imposing the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki on Japan, imposing Korean independence and taking the Liaodong peninsula and Taiwan for itself, Russia doesn't interfere with Japan, but instead pressures China elsewhere for a slice of its own.
Russia uses banditry or some such incident in northern Manchuria as a pretext to occupy Heilongjiang province and most of Jilin province, all the land running from Manzhouli to Vladivostock and north of it, along which it built the Manchurian shortcut of the Trans-Siberian railway. Russia either annexes it outright like the lands it gained in 1858 and 1860 (outer Manchuria/Amur district and Primorye) or makes it into a special leased Manchurian "independent" "khanate".
This means Russia isn't extending itself as far to the southeast, but dividing its fleet between Port Arthur and Vladivostock turns out to not actually be tactically useful, whereas northern Manchuria provides an important shortcut.
Would Germany and/or France react to limit Japanese gains if not encouraged/led by Russia? I highly doubt it.
Would European powers move to limit Russian gains in northern Manchuria? I doubt that also. For continental European countries like Germany, France, and Italy, relations with Russia are more important than any Far Eastern interests. Japan has its own winnings to absorb and will be unlikely to want to press its luck further north. Britain could be unhappy but won't move without allies. China is hopelessly weak.
Without having faced the Triple Intervention, would Japan sign up for the Anglo-Japanese alliance post-1900? It might seem less urgent for them, or more risky in terms of causing trouble with Russia. But, Britain is a great benefactor to have in your corner. Britain, assuming it still has the Boer War, has all the same motives as in OTL.
Post 1895-1896, what, if anything, changes in terms of how other powers, like France, Germany, Britain, and Italy do in terms of picking at China demanding treaty ports? Does the development of the Boxer rebellion match OTL?
I would think Japan would deepen its control over its sphere of influence in Liaodong/southern Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan over the ensuing decade post 1895. Will it still feel any imperative or temptation to fight Russia? I doubt that it will, at least not as early as 1904. I don't think they are pre-programmed to surprise attack the Russian fleet at Vladivostock, and invade Harbin Manchuria and Sakhalin island then. Maybe ambitions or opportunities could emerge in later times.
What else changes about Japanese politics and development? What about Korean, with presumably no era of heavy Russian intervention?
What if Russia followed the lazier path of least resistance, bullying the loser, China, instead of the winner, Japan?
In this case, as Japan is imposing the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki on Japan, imposing Korean independence and taking the Liaodong peninsula and Taiwan for itself, Russia doesn't interfere with Japan, but instead pressures China elsewhere for a slice of its own.
Russia uses banditry or some such incident in northern Manchuria as a pretext to occupy Heilongjiang province and most of Jilin province, all the land running from Manzhouli to Vladivostock and north of it, along which it built the Manchurian shortcut of the Trans-Siberian railway. Russia either annexes it outright like the lands it gained in 1858 and 1860 (outer Manchuria/Amur district and Primorye) or makes it into a special leased Manchurian "independent" "khanate".
This means Russia isn't extending itself as far to the southeast, but dividing its fleet between Port Arthur and Vladivostock turns out to not actually be tactically useful, whereas northern Manchuria provides an important shortcut.
Would Germany and/or France react to limit Japanese gains if not encouraged/led by Russia? I highly doubt it.
Would European powers move to limit Russian gains in northern Manchuria? I doubt that also. For continental European countries like Germany, France, and Italy, relations with Russia are more important than any Far Eastern interests. Japan has its own winnings to absorb and will be unlikely to want to press its luck further north. Britain could be unhappy but won't move without allies. China is hopelessly weak.
Without having faced the Triple Intervention, would Japan sign up for the Anglo-Japanese alliance post-1900? It might seem less urgent for them, or more risky in terms of causing trouble with Russia. But, Britain is a great benefactor to have in your corner. Britain, assuming it still has the Boer War, has all the same motives as in OTL.
Post 1895-1896, what, if anything, changes in terms of how other powers, like France, Germany, Britain, and Italy do in terms of picking at China demanding treaty ports? Does the development of the Boxer rebellion match OTL?
I would think Japan would deepen its control over its sphere of influence in Liaodong/southern Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan over the ensuing decade post 1895. Will it still feel any imperative or temptation to fight Russia? I doubt that it will, at least not as early as 1904. I don't think they are pre-programmed to surprise attack the Russian fleet at Vladivostock, and invade Harbin Manchuria and Sakhalin island then. Maybe ambitions or opportunities could emerge in later times.
What else changes about Japanese politics and development? What about Korean, with presumably no era of heavy Russian intervention?
