Military Review

Why did Japan win the 1904-1905 war.

110
Why did the Japanese Empire win the 1904-1905 war? Many researchers of the Soviet and post-Soviet epoch, raising this question, within the framework of the old peculiarities of the Russian intelligentsia, which likes to scourge the Russian people and the Russian state, spoke and wrote about the weaknesses of Tsarist Russia. On the one hand, truly Tsarist Russia had many weaknesses, which eventually led to the 1917 disaster of the year. However, the story will be incomplete if you do not report on the internal strength and integrity of the Japanese Empire at the beginning of the 20 century, in contrast to Russia, and the enormous external support from the British Empire and the United States. The Anglo-Saxons did literally everything to set Russia and Japan at first, and to help the Japanese defeat the Russians in the Far East.


Of paramount importance to the fate of any country is the national character of the people. The Japanese at the end of the first half of the 19 century 20 had full order with the national spirit. This proves a series of brilliant achievements of Japan, both in the sphere of national economy and in foreign policy.

First we must say that Japan was in the lead by education of its population. Already in the middle of the 17 century, a network of temple schools was developed in Japan, where they taught literacy, counting and manual labor to artisans, rich peasants and simple samurai. In 1872, a school reform was carried out in the country and a law on compulsory universal education was adopted. A single centralized education system was created. In Japan, the principle was proclaimed: “Not a single person without education, not a single village without a school!” For comparison, the royal power only followed this path, and universal education became mandatory in Russia only under the authority of the Soviets. In 1872, the Japanese school charter identified three types of schools in the country: primary, secondary, and tertiary (among them, male and female, general education and vocational, "dead-end" and preparing for continuing education). And it was the policy of the state, and not capitalist or socialist, but essentially feudal. In neighboring China, at the same time, the authorities deliberately supported the masses in ignorance, which was supposed to keep them in obedience.

In Japan, after the “Revolution, the Meiji were openly oriented toward the example of Germany. The German Empire was created by “iron and blood”, through reforms “from above”. Now this policy of the rise of the nation by the power of a reasonable policy of the political elite was peculiarly repeated in the Japanese Empire. The result was brilliant. From an isolated agrarian state, Japan rose to a group of world leaders, became the largest military and industrial power. Japan joined the struggle for leadership in the Asia-Pacific region.

A feature of Japan was a long-term program for borrowing knowledge, which was proclaimed through the mouth of the emperor with the beginning of the Meiji era. The world achievements of science and technology were studied thoroughly, massively translated and distributed books that had practical value. Scientists from the USA, Britain, Holland, Germany, France, Switzerland, Russia and other countries were invited to work in the empire. At the same time, many young Japanese were sent to study abroad. Higher education institutions were established in Japan itself (the first university was opened in Japan in 1877). In 1879, the Academy of Sciences was established in Tokyo, soon a number of research institutions were organized. Among them are the Central Meteorological Observatory, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, the military topographic department, the railway department, the Navy hydrography department, the Institute of Infectious Diseases, the Geological Department, the Electrotechnical Laboratory, the Fisheries Institute, the Agronomy Experimental Station, the Horticulture and Forestry Experimental Stations. This far from complete list speaks of the rapid development of Japan in those years for itself. In total, more than seven dozen such institutions were established. Plus 70 scientific associations by specialties. And this is with the active participation of the state. In Russia, we see a similar approach only in Stalin’s Red Empire.

General Alexei Kuropatkin left a very impressive comment from a pre-war trip through the Japanese Empire: “I have seen a beautiful country with a large hard-working population. Lively activity reigned everywhere. Bribed the cheerful mood of the population, his love of country, faith in the future ... In all schools of the country military exercises occupied a prominent place, and children and young men did them with enthusiasm ... ". After the war, Kuropatkin, the former commander of the Manchurian army and the Commander-in-Chief of all land and naval armed forces operating against Japan, noted that the success of the Japanese troops was accompanied by "their high morale, the willingness of all the sacrifices to achieve victory and the perseverance with which all the ranks of the army, from a soldier to a commander in chief, they sought victory. ” The whole Japanese army was imbued with patriotism, it felt the friendly support of the whole nation, felt the importance of the struggle for the future of the fatherland. Major German service von Schellendorf, who was seconded as an observer to the Japanese army, wrote that the discipline and nerves of the Japanese iron.

In Russia, this attitude was the opposite. After the revolution in emigration, General Nikolai Yepanchin, close to the imperial court, recalled: "The war began, which no one in the Russian Empire sympathized with, which the masses did not understand at all, and our army understood even less." The assessment of the monarchist general agrees with the opinion of the Social Democrat Ulyanov-Lenin about the Russian-Japanese war. According to the leader of the cadet party and writer Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams, Russian public opinion was against this war. The Russian-Japanese war was attributed to the "machinations of a small gang of courtiers" who were interested in forest concessions on Yalu. The Russian-Japanese war did not become national for Russia and did not meet the needs of its development.

There was another important feature. In Japan, from the very beginning of the Meiji revolution, state enterprise was developed. And the government itself was extremely loyal to the financial and industrial private capital. In turn, private capital thought nationally, since it was of feudal samurai origin, was raised on the ideals of the military code of honor. In Japan, leaders who, like in Russia, turned in the national interests and the future of the state and the people, did not operate. The surrender of national interests was absolutely unthinkable for the Japanese. The level of discipline and responsibility was very high.

The state established industry and created state-owned “model enterprises, which were then often transferred to new capitalists. For example, this is how the power of the Mitsui and Mitsubishi houses originated. Such large concerns like Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumimoto, Yasuda, controlled the economy of the empire. However, in particular, in ferrous metallurgy 73% smelting iron and 84% rolled products were given by the state-owned Yavat plant. The state initially encouraged the creation of a banking system, but quickly squeezed it to a minimum and well-controlled size. The “leading” banks were created - the Yokohama Currency Bank (1880 year) and the Japan State Bank (1882 year).

To finance the industrialization of the country, the Japanese tried to rely on internal sources, although they did not refuse external loans. The central government introduced new taxes: vodka and tobacco (the Japanese were very keen on them), exchange and stamp duties were established, and mining taxes were instituted. Already from 1873, the annual compilation and publication of the state budget began. The peasantry, by hook or by crook, pushed for a concentration of efforts on the production of two highly profitable goods — rice and silk. These goods were exported by the Japanese in increasing quantities almost immediately after the “opening” of the country. The profitable cotton industry also developed rapidly in Japan.

However, the main money was obtained due to the exceptional cheapness of the Japanese labor force. Later, in more modern times, this method was used by China to become a “factory” of the West. Japanese workers received 30-40% below the Russians, who also were not the benchmark for success. The “Japanese miracle” was fueled by the dire poverty of the working-class suburbs of Japanese cities. True, it should be noted that life in Japan was extremely cheap. At the same time, the Japanese were not inclined to social protests, from time immemorial they were fatalists who calmly treated natural and political upheavals. The cheapness of labor has led to the fact that the rate of profit in Japan in the Meiji era was not lower than 20 - 30%, sometimes reaching 50 - 100%. Moreover, it was not a usurious profit, parasitic in essence, but a profit created by the hard work of the nation. And these incomes were used by the Japanese elite wisely - for industrialization, for exporting capital and accumulating foreign exchange reserves.

We should not forget about such a source of development of foreign trade, as the export of precious metals (silver and gold). Before the start of the 1930s, Japan had two main gold-mining areas, they gave up the 40% mining of the Japanese islands: in the north of Hokkaido along the Esashi River (“Japanese Klondike”) and in the northeast of Kyushu in Oita province. The annual production by the 30 years was about 18 tons (a third was mined in Korea). The gold reserves of Japan at that time were estimated at about 320 tons (this is the state stock, and there were still quite significant stocks at private owners). This gold has been mined in about three decades. But gold and silver in Japan were mined for centuries, and it almost did not leave the country during the period of self-isolation (some went to trade with the Portuguese and the Dutch).

Thus, one of the main prerequisites for the victory of Japan in 1905 was a reasonable and balanced internal policy of the Japanese authorities in the previous period. The Japanese skillfully and talentedly learned how to use the scientific and technical achievements of the West in their internal socio-economic life and politics. Unfortunately, the foreign policy of Japan was not so reasonable, in it the Japanese were prone to adventures. True, for the time being they succeeded.

The second most important prerequisite for the victory of Japan was the full support of the West. "World backstage" wanted to destroy the Russian empire, and in these plans Japan had its own definite role. The war with Japan should have led Russia to be pushed out of the Asia-Pacific region, forced to more actively get into European politics. In addition, this war led to the internal destabilization of Russia. The 1905 - 1907 revolution, where foreign intelligence services and various kinds of subversive elements took an active part, became an excellent rehearsal for the year.

It is well known that the human and financial and economic losses of Japan in the war were harder than the losses of Russia and the victory of Tokyo could be problematic if the hypocritical "mediation" of the United States. In Russia, some people like to recall the alleged "Russophilism" of Americans, who "were frightened" of the reinforcement of Japan and moderated its requests during the peace negotiations. Although when the Russian-Japanese war had already begun, the main US “Russophile” president, Theodore Roosevelt, told the German ambassador in Washington, Sternburg, the following: It is in our interest that the war between Japan and Russia should go on until both countries achieve the maximum possible exhaustion of each other. so that the territories where their interests collide continue after serving peace to serve the same goals and that the boundaries of their spheres of influence cross in the same way as before the war ...

In this way - everything is simple, of course, quite American. Later, in the 1941 year, Harry Truman actually repeated these words when he advised helping the Russians if the Germans won, and helping the Germans if the Russians won up. And so on until the Russians with the Germans kill each other.

Enough to remember and history construction of the japanese navy fleet. It began to be built seriously in 1895, when the Japanese received indemnity from China. The American loan, and the help of the British sharply accelerated the process of building up the naval power of the Japanese Empire. Most of Japan's newest warships were built at British shipyards. The benefit of the Anglo-Saxons from this was very large, and political, and financial and economic.

The flagship of the Japanese fleet, the battleship Asahi, was laid on 1 August 1898, at the John Brown plant in Glasgow (Clydebank). Another Japanese flagship - the battleship "Mikasa" was built at the Vickers shipyard in Britain. The squadron battleship was launched in 1900, commissioned in 1902. The squadron battleship Sikishima was launched in 1898 by the British company Thames Iron Work at the shipyard in Blackwall on an improved design of the battleship Majestic. The battleship "Khatsuse" (of the same type as "Sikisima") was manufactured by the largest British company Armstrong, Whitworth & Co.. The ship launched 27 on June 1899 of the year and put into operation in January 1901 of the year. The battleship Fuji was laid on 1 in August 1894 of the year by the British famer Thames Iron Work in Blackkull. The battleship Foso coastal defense was built in 1875 — 1878. in the shipyards of the British company Samuda Brothers. The battleship "Yashima" was built in Britain in 1894 - 1897. at the Armstrong shipyard in Elswick. Shortly before the start of the Russo-Japanese War, battleships of the Katori type were designed for the Japanese fleet. In 1904 — 1906 in the shipyards "Vikkers" and "Armstrong" was built two ships of this class. It should also be noted that ships under construction in Japan received foreign weapons, turbines and other equipment.

The British built armored cruisers Izumo, Asama, Tokiwa, Chiyoda, Iwate. The armored cruiser Yakumo was built in Germany. The armored cruiser Azuma was built in France. The armored cruisers Kasuga and Nissin were built by the Italians for Argentina, but were overbought by the Japanese (with the support of the Anglo-Saxons). The British built for the Japanese fleet armored cruisers of the Naniwa type (Naniwa and Takachiho), the Takasago cruiser, the 2-class X Yumino armored-decks cruiser, and the Izumi armored cruiser of the British construction was purchased from Chile. The Americans built Kasagi-type armored cruisers (Kasagi and Chitose). The British built for the Japanese and the first serial squadrons: Ikatsuti type - 6 units in 1897 - 1899, their development was Akatsuki type destroyers - 2 units were built in 1900 - 1902 years. UK built in 1897-1900's. for the Japanese Imperial Navy, a series of destroyers of the Murakumo type - 6 units; 2 destroyer type "Sirakumo" in 1901 - 1902's.

The benefits of building a fleet for Japan were enormous. Debt forced Tokyo to take into account the interests of the Anglo-Saxons in their policies. The money turned into warships targeted the Japanese against Russia. Obviously, Britain and the United States would not arm Japan against themselves. Finally, the money was returned to the Anglo-Saxons, because the Japanese were spending loans on armaments.

England and France have provided Japan and great political support. The British and Americans with the beginning of the war immediately and definitely took the side of the Japanese. In the British capital, they even began to produce an illustrated chronicle of the war, which was called the “Fight of Japan for Freedom”. US President Roosevelt openly warned Paris against his possible intervention against Tokyo. He stated that in this case he "will immediately take her side and go as far as it is needed." The tone of the American press against the Russians was frankly hostile. France, on the eve of the war, hastened to explain to Petersburg that their alliance concerns only European affairs. In addition, Paris signed a "cordial agreement" with Britain - an ally of Japan. Only Germany was frankly benevolent to Russia.

We should not forget about the financial support of belligerent Japan from the United States and Britain. The Americans and the British willingly provided money to Japan. Japan’s first loan was provided in the spring of 1904 by a syndicate of Kun, Loeb and K and the National and Commercial Bank. A loan totaling $ 50 million was distributed between New York and London. The second Anglo-American loan was issued in November 104 of the year and amounted to 60 million dollars. Half of this loan was successfully placed in New York for several days. Great success was also the release of the third loan in 150 million dollars in March - April 1905. Subscription to it was blocked several times. Although the conditions were less favorable than before - 4,% instead of the previous 6%. In July, the Japanese issued a fourth loan, the distribution of which was attended by British, American and German bankers.

In total, Japan received loans for 725 million yen. Of this amount, 27 million went to banks for a commission. Japan's net sales of foreign loans amounted to 698 million yen. In the United States, 44% of the total overseas loans of the Japanese Empire was sold, covering almost one fifth of the costs during the fighting. Thus, American financial assistance to Japan in the form of loans that were necessary for the provision of the Japanese armed forces, as well as the logistics and the population, was of great importance for the implementation of the plans of the Japanese government.

Why did Japan win the 1904-1905 war.
Author:
110 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 20 March 2013 09: 11 New
    18
    To be honest, the title of the article does not correspond to its content, but rather the reasons for the rise of Japan before the war with Russia. In fact, the reasons for the defeat in the war lie not in the Japanese leap, but in idiotic military planning by Russia.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 20 March 2013 10: 09 New
      10
      The reason for the defeat of the Russian Empire is a systemic sluggish crisis in society and the army as its particle.
      There are several reasons - the army did not fight for about 30 years. Military-technical backwardness of the country. The mediocrity of the military leadership. The great length and, in general, the insignificant connectivity of the transport routes. Military assistance to Japan by Western countries and the United States.
      The main reason, in my opinion, is the rotten and incapable of competent leadership political system and personally Emperor Nicholas II.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 20 March 2013 10: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: Iraclius
        Reason for defeat

        Quote: Iraclius
        systemic sluggish crisis in society and the army, as its particle.

        Quote: Iraclius
        Military-technical backwardness of the country.

        Quote: Iraclius
        Mediocrity of the military leadership

        Quote: Iraclius
        The great length and, in general, the insignificant connectivity of the transport routes.

        It’s scary to live, comrades. what
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 20 March 2013 10: 30 New
          10
          The most obvious and revealing are the king’s diaries on the eve of the war.
          Year one thousand nine hundred and four. Nicholas is thirty-five years old. The autocrat considers the task of his government to strengthen Russia's position in the Far East. Japan is the main competitor to Russia, and the war with it is a matter of days, and even hours. So:

          24 of January. Saturday.
          The frost began to intensify and reached 13 °. After breakfast, the two of us went to a watercolor exhibition. When he returned, he took a walk. Stana dined and spent the evening with Alix. I went to the theater. There was a very interesting "Retour de Jerusalem".
          In the evening I received news of the termination of negotiations with Japan and the forthcoming departure of her envoy from here.
          26 of January. Monday.
          In the morning I had a meeting on the Japanese question; decided not to start by ourselves.
          Had breakfast: Olga and Petya (dezh.). Took governors for a long time. All day in high spirits!
          At 8 o'clock. went to the theater; The Mermaid was going very well. Returning home, I received a telegram from Alekseev with the news that that night the Japanese destroyers had attacked the Tsesarevich, Retvizan and Pallada standing on the outer roadstead and inflicted holes in them. This is without a declaration of war. May God help us!
          27 of January. Tuesday.
          In the morning another telegram arrived with the news of the bombardment of Port Arthur by Japanese ships and of a battle with our squadron. "Poltava", "Diana", "Askold" and "Novik" received minor damage. Losses were insignificant. At 4 o'clock there was an exit to the Cathedral through the crowded halls for a prayer service. On the way back there were deafening cries of "hurray!"
          In general, touching manifestations of a unanimous uplift and indignation against the impudence of the Japanese are everywhere. Mom stayed with us to drink tea. After lunch, Nikolasha and Stan came to us.
          19 of April. Monday.
          It was a good day, it got warmer. In addition to the usual reports, he received the Governor of Arkhangelsk, appointed by the Directorate, Rimsky-Korsakov. Marine Cadet Corps and Adjutant Wing. Boisman, cat. goes to P.-Arthur. Uncle Alexei had breakfast with us. I walked for a long time, killed a crow and rode in "Gatchinka".
          After lunch, he took Abaza.
          29 of April. Thursday.
          It was a cool day. In the morning I had only two reports. After breakfast, we went to a prayer service in memory of the Father! Walked and skated in "Gatchinka". I killed a crow.

          There was no quick victorious war, and it is mentioned less and less in the diary. The autocrat takes another. You read, and the impression that the sovereign is raving.
          4 of June. Friday.
          The weather was hot. After the report, he received 86 people in the halls. officers of the Nikolaev Academy Headquarters and the course of Oriental languages.
          After breakfast, we received together the new Spanish ambassador.
          Rolled Alix in an armchair and a boat. Uncle Vladimir drank tea with us. I read a lot. He rode a bicycle and killed 2's raven; yesterday alone.
          We had lunch on the balcony, it became cooler in the evening.
          5 of June. Saturday.
          At 9 hour. arrived at the St. Sophia parade ground, sat on Troska and headed for the Cuirassier regiment.
          Present at tactical training, very well executed. Then my squadron did a silent exercise, and the third wheelhouse. He examined the barracks and stables and had breakfast at the officer. meeting. Having starred as a group in the garden, he returned home to 11 1 / 2, accompanied by all the officers. Olga and Petya (dezh.), As well as all the children, had breakfast. In 2, 1 / 2 on the site said goodbye to the departing Cossacks and watched the new arrivals in the convoy. We walked and rode with Olga and Petya on the pond. The four of us had lunch on the balcony. It was a wonderful day. He rode a bicycle and killed 2's raven.

          God, what kind of war can we talk about if an inadequate, sick person was at the helm?
          1. anip
            anip 20 March 2013 11: 34 New
            +3
            And someone else wonders why they threw him off in February 1917?
          2. Black
            Black 20 March 2013 20: 58 New
            0
            Quote: Iraclius
            at the helm was an inadequate, sick man


            Well, why are you like that. The church says saint. lol
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 20 March 2013 21: 08 New
              0
              The church recently said that the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat, and around the oceans.
              And? wink
        2. nnz226
          nnz226 20 March 2013 13: 32 New
          +3
          Yes indeed, one comparison with the issue of education of the population shows "all the rottenness of the autocracy."
        3. Yoshkin Kot
          Yoshkin Kot 21 March 2013 09: 49 New
          -1
          and you, my friend, do not participate in the killing of your homeland, like the Bolsheviks and other brackets and you will be happy
      2. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 20 March 2013 11: 19 New
        +8
        "In 1872, a school reform was carried out in the country (Japan) and a law on compulsory general education was passed. A single centralized education system was created." (from article)

        There is one great legend. It sounds like that. At the beginning of 1871, after the victorious end of the Franco-Prussian war, one of the representatives of the Prussian leadership, the famous von Bismarck, made a very interesting statement. He said that the country owes its victory not to anyone, but ... to the Prussian the teacher.
        The analogy is complete, a more competent, more united ideas people, such as we had in the Great Patriotic War, defending our Motherland, wins.
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 20 March 2013 11: 57 New
          +2
          Novikov-Priboy wrote that after the capture of the Nebogatov squadron, our officers were surprised to learn that the Japanese sailors were entirely literate. In addition, as a rule, the peasants didn’t take the fleet, who had never seen the seas, as they did with us, but the merchant seamen.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 20 March 2013 13: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: Iraclius
            Novikov-Priboy wrote that after the capture of the Nebogatov squadron, our officers were surprised to learn that the Japanese sailors were entirely literate. In addition, as a rule, the peasants didn’t take the fleet, who had never seen the seas, as they did with us, but the merchant seamen.

            It is unlikely that it was 100%. In wartime, the country no less needs a merchant fleet than a military fleet.
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 20 March 2013 13: 36 New
              0
              It is not surprising if you recall that after the war, Bosin, Japan experienced rapid industrial growth and the peasants were massively taken for production, and militarization required the growth of the army and recruits.
              The fast-growing fleet required people who were trained at least in the basics of the craft in an accelerated manner. Where else could they be taken?
              And remember that Japan did not possess such significant human reserves as the Russian Empire. Knowing these facts puts everything in its place. I do not argue that the discussion at Novikov-Priboy was not about 100% of sailors, but that this was a massive phenomenon was most likely true.
          2. Alex
            Alex 5 October 2013 21: 41 New
            +2
            In addition, as a rule, the peasants didn’t take the fleet, who had never seen the seas, as they did with us, but the merchant seamen.

            Also, probably, the British advised. Their merchant fleet (the largest at that time) has always been a reserve of the military.
      3. Prometey
        Prometey 20 March 2013 12: 57 New
        +1
        Iraclius
        In part, you can agree. But the combat readiness of the army is not determined by permanent military operations. Prussia has not fought for 50 years since the Napoleonic Wars, which did not prevent it from defeating the fought French army (Franco-Prussian war).
        Quote: Iraclius
        Military-technical backwardness of the country

        She was not there. Japan did not surpass the Russian army in military-technical support, whining about shimoznymi shells is boldly sent to ignore.
        Quote: Iraclius
        Military assistance to Japan by Western countries and the United States.

        This is undeniable. But this help was not selfless either.
        Quote: Iraclius
        The main reason, in my opinion, is a rotten and incapable of competent leadership political system

        From the point of view, yes. But I would replace it with a lack of political will and a clear understanding of the goals of the war - a simple Russian soldier, and indeed most officers, did not understand its essence - there was nobody to liberate and nothing to uphold.
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 20 March 2013 13: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: Prometey
          Franco-Prussian war

          Prometheus, an unsuccessful example. In fact, the Prussian army already managed to give healing pills to the Austrians in 1866. The reason for the defeat of France, just unsuccessful wrecking military reformwhich resulted in the fact that veterans left the army. Allusions do not arise? wink And yet - yes, the French were inferior to the Prussians in military-technical terms. yes
          Quote: Prometey
          Japan did not surpass the Russian army in military-technical support

          We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean. I'll wait. As for shimoza, one should not make it a decisive factor, but one should not underestimate it either. The fact that our battleships suffered catastrophic damage from hits and a colossal high-explosive effect from Japanese shells is a historical fact.
          Quote: Prometey
          a simple Russian soldier, and indeed most officers, did not understand its essence - there was nobody to liberate and nothing to uphold.

          I agree unconditionally. Fighting for capitalist concessions in Manchuria ... hm-hm ... smacks of patriotism here. And Kuropatkin's "talents" were well known even to the rank and file. Anecdotes were also composed then.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2013 13: 31 New
            +3
            Quote: Iraclius
            We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean. I'll wait.

            There was no global dominance. Six Japanese battleships were opposed by Retvizan and Tsesarevich (each of which was at least as good as any Japanese) and the Sevastopol troika Petropavlovsk Poltava, which were very little inferior to the Japanese EBR.
            Six (later eight) Japanese armored cruisers were opposed by our "battleship-cruisers" Pobeda and Peresvet, Russia, Thunderbolt, Rurik and Bayan.
            Those. the Japanese fleet was certainly stronger, but not so much
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 20 March 2013 13: 40 New
              +4
              By the beginning of the battle, Japanese ships had advantages: in the power of artillery fire (910 barrels against 228); the rate of fire of the guns (360 rounds per minute against 134, as well as the higher explosive impact of shells); in speed (16-18 nodes against 12-13); in reservation (average 60% against 40)
              (G. A. Ammon. Maritime Memorial Dates. Moscow. Military Publishing House. 1987 p. 169)
              Andrey, who is lying?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2013 15: 43 New
                +2
                Quote: Iraclius
                Andrey, who is lying?

                Well, if you really need someone who has lied, then, judging by the above quote, you are lying. But I prefer to say "wrong" because the term "lies" presupposes a conscious distortion of reality and I do not think that you are deliberately distorting this very reality. And everyone can be mistaken.
                The quote you indicated refers to the Tsushima battle, in which the 2 and 3 TOE — squadrons that were formed in the Baltic and sent to Dalniy after the outbreak of the war — took part on our part. At the beginning of the war, these ships were not in the Far East, but there was an 1 TOE whose composition of armored ships I listed to you. 2-I and 3-I TOE came to Tsushima much later than we lost the 1-I TOE.
                In the decisive battle of the 1st TOE - the battle in the Yellow Sea, 4 battleships fought on our side (Tsesarevich, Retvizan, Sevastopol, Poltava) and 2 battleship-cruisers (Peresvet and Pobeda) against 4 battleships and 4 Japanese armored cruisers. Alas, we could not win that battle, despite the fact that the fight, in essence, was fought by equal forces - 6 against 6 (the Japanese gave two of their armored cruisers light forces and they almost did not participate in the battle)
                If you want to compare ALL the forces of the Russian imperial fleet that managed to fight in the Far East, then the picture is completely sad, since Russia lost in battle, flooded Port Arthur in the roadstead and surrendered 2,5 times more battleships than it had at the beginning wars Japan. (if we count the battleships "Peresvet" and "Victory" but exclude the "Apraksin" and "Senyavin" who lowered the flag and "Ushakov" who died with honor)
                As for
                Quote: Iraclius
                By the beginning of the battle, Japanese ships had advantages: in the power of artillery fire (910 barrels against 228); the rate of fire of the guns (360 rounds per minute against 134, as well as the higher explosive impact of shells); in speed (16-18 nodes against 12-13); in reservation (average 60% against 40)

                Alas ... Firstly - you offered to compare
                Quote: Iraclius
                balance of power and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific

                At the same time, the quote you quoted scrupulously counts the weapons of ALL ships, including destroyers. At the same time, things were not bad at all with large- and medium-caliber artillery of the armored forces — they were approximately equal, and we even had an advantage in large-caliber guns.
                Sad laughter is caused by the percent of the reservation. As Ammon considered them - the mind is incomprehensible :)))
                1. Iraclius
                  Iraclius 20 March 2013 16: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  then, judging by the above quote, you are mistaken

                  Invalid third option. There are only two of them - either Ammon or you. I myself did not take part in that war and am guided only by information from open sources. The authority of G.A. Ammon is indisputable for me in these matters.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Your quote refers to the battle of Tsushima

                  No need to juggle - you know very well that the 1 I Pacific by the time of the Tsuima battle has already ceased to exist. Why should I take these ships into account?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In the decisive battle of the 1th TOE - the battle in the Yellow Sea

                  Again, the mass of the side salvo is about 12 418 kg versus 9111 kg at the 1-th Pacific squadron.
                  In any case, the balance of forces at sea was not on the side of Russia. Another thing is that the personality of Witgeft played a decisive role, but this is a completely different conversation. What are you trying to prove to me? Like Berlioz Woland - that the devil does not exist?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2013 18: 53 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Iraclius
                    There are only two of them - either Ammon or you. I myself did not take part in that war and am guided only by information from open sources. The authority of G.A. Ammon is indisputable for me in these matters.

                    Yeah, there is no God, except for the "Marine Memorable Dates" and Ammon is his prophet. A head to think - religion does not allow?
                    You speak
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean. I'll wait.

                    I give you a list of these very armored forces as of the beginning of the war - i.e. Our first TOE against the Japanese imperial.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Six Japanese battleships were opposed by the Retvizan and Tsarevich (each of which was at least as good as any Japanese) and the Sevastopol troika Petropavlovsk Poltava, which were very little inferior to the Japanese EBR. Six (later - eight) Japanese armored vehicles The cruisers were opposed by our "battleships-cruisers" "Pobeda" and "Peresvet", "Russia", "Thunderbolt", "Rurik" and "Bayan".

                    Thus, there is a slight superiority of Japanese forces in the theater.
                    To refute my words, you are quoting Ammon neither to the village, nor to the city. You obviously do not understand what you are writing - firstly, because Ammon's quote refers to the Tsushima battle, but not to the 1 TOE about which I wrote. You want to talk EXCLUSIVELY about Tsushima - not a question, but you did not write about it. Why then do you blame me for lying when I write about the first TOE?
                    But if you decide to talk exclusively about Tsushima - attention, the question is - what is surprising then you write
                    Quote: Iraclius
                    analysis armored forces

                    And quote Ammon, who writes not about armored ones, but about ALL 2 and 3 TOE forces and the Japanese fleet? Because it’s more convenient?
                    In general, for a long time I have not met a man who managed to make 2 errors in one quote.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2013 18: 56 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Iraclius
                      No need to juggle - you know very well that the 1 I Pacific by the time of the Tsuima battle has already ceased to exist. Why should I take these ships into account?

                      With such a fright that it was 1TOE who opposed the Japanese at sea the whole war. And 2 and 3 TOE died during the day. So who is distorting here is a question, the answer to which is obvious
                      Quote: Iraclius
                      Again, the mass of the side salvo is about 12 418 kg versus 9111 kg at the 1-th Pacific squadron.

                      If you count the airborne volley of the main forces, whose confrontation determined the outcome of the battle - 6 of our battleships against 4 of Japanese EDB and Nissin with Kassuga - then this is 8519 kg for Russians versus 9005 kg for Japanese.
                      Quote: Iraclius
                      Another thing is that the personality of Wittgeft played a decisive role, but this is a completely different conversation

                      Ascending, but why didn’t you please Vitgeft?
                      Quote: Iraclius
                      What are you trying to prove to me?

                      I just responded to the offer
                      Quote: Iraclius
                      We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean.
                    2. Iraclius
                      Iraclius 20 March 2013 19: 02 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean.

                      During this period, my war at sea became so closely associated with the term "battleship" that I stuck it here too. I meant - forces at sea.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You quote from Ammon neither to the village nor to the city

                      Ammon talks about Tsushima and gives data about Tsushima. What is incomprehensible here? By this time, the 1-th Pacific was gone! And when it was, the technical advantage was still on the side of the Japanese. Where am I or Ammon wrong?
                      I have a feeling that we are talking about the same thing, but in different words. smile

                      Andrey, I seem to be starting to understand. lol I started with Ammon about Tsushima, you - about the battle in the Yellow Sea. Hence the confusion.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 March 2013 07: 04 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Iraclius
                        During this period, my war at sea became so closely associated with the term "battleship" that I stuck it here too.

                        Ahhh, well it happens. Now it is clear.
                        Quote: Iraclius
                        Andrey, I seem to be starting to understand.

                        And this happens :)))) Indeed, everyone spoke about his own and, due to the lack of a myelophon, some kind of absurdity turned out.
                        I apologize for the overly harsh tone. hi
          2. Prometey
            Prometey 20 March 2013 13: 47 New
            -1
            Iraclius
            I did not give an example of the Prussian-Austrian war, because the Austrians also cooled off for a long time. Well, if you insist, the Japanese did not have any experience in modern warfare (at that time). Well, the war with China is a yard showdown, with the capture of a couple of rusty "troughs".
            Quote: Iraclius
            We give the correlation of forces and analysis of armored forces in the Pacific Ocean.

            This is more a question of the correlation of forces in the existing theater of operations, which sounds somewhat different than military-technical backwardness. Hypothetically we transfer the Japanese army to the European theater and get complete superiority in power and support from Russia. About the fleet, let's leave the discussion - it seems like everything has been said for a long time. Russian armadillos suffer distress from super-Japanese shells (or rather, from overload) only under Tsushima, however, neither the Varyag nor the armadillos of the 1st Pacific squadron stubbornly drowned from these shells.
            Quote: Iraclius
            I agree unconditionally. Fighting for the concessions of the capitalists in Manchuria ... umm ... um ... it smacks of little patriotism.

            This is the whole point, dear interlocutor! drinks
        2. Denis
          Denis 20 March 2013 16: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: Prometey
          to the soldier and yes and to most officers its essence was incomprehensible

          Is it always necessary to understand? As V.S. Vysotsky said, “when you know what you love for, then it’s not love, but a good attitude.” You think that beyond the river we knew a lot about goals and objectives, although the political commander rubbed in on something So who listened to him? There are spirits and they must be ukantropupu. He swore and kissed the Banner, that's all. True, the company commander tried to explain:
          -What kind of international debt did you borrow from?
          -And you don’t take a loan on drunk, which you don’t remember then
          But then his task, although not understood, how they could have performed
      4. Sirocco
        Sirocco 21 March 2013 06: 08 New
        0
        You write as about Serdyukov @ company. Like a carbon copy. But in general, as one friend said)))) The classic situation with Nicholas 2: the lower classes do not want to live in the old way, but the upper ones cannot
        to manage.
      5. Yoshkin Kot
        Yoshkin Kot 21 March 2013 09: 48 New
        0
        just don’t need about military-technical backwardness, don’t repeat the stories of the Bruevich’s Bonch, take at least the loss of the Japanese during the assault on Port Arthur, fill up with corpses! and all their heavy weapons brought and paid for at the expense of England
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 21 March 2013 20: 38 New
          +1
          Backwardness is not measured by the number of guns or ships or by the number of enemy corpses ... Backwardness is measured by how quickly the goals set at the beginning of hostilities are achieved and how quickly and decisively the main goal of the war is achieved - complete victory over the enemy !!!

          If you lost, then you set unrealistic goals and fought after the sleeves - this is especially true for the high command staff and the king personally !!!
    2. baltika-18
      baltika-18 20 March 2013 11: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      and in idiotic military planning by Russia.

      Roughly you are right, but the personal qualities of Viceroy Alekseev (a relative of Nikolai 2) and Kuropatkin played a big role. Alekseev, invested with unlimited power, did not listen to the opinion of the officer corps. In honor there were mainly "sycophants", such as Stoessel, and talents were especially not given a go such as Kondratenko, Mehmandarov, Bely. The strategic point of that war Port Arthur was held exclusively by the talent of such personalities as Makarov, Kondratenko. They died and Port Arthur fell, there was no point in continuing the war.
      1. ultra
        ultra 20 March 2013 16: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: baltika-18
        Approximately you are right, but the personal qualities of the Viceroy Alekseev (a relative of Nicholas 2

        Read something other than "Port Arthur"! Many accuse Kuropatkin of indecision, etc., but behind his indecision there is one detail, he did not take active actions only because the forces under his command were not enough for the GUARANTEED defeat of the Japanese! the ability of the transsib was insufficient for the rapid transfer of troops! Actually, by the time the war ended, the necessary forces had already been concentrated! hi
      2. Alex
        Alex 5 October 2013 21: 57 New
        +1
        The strategic point of that war Port Arthur rested solely on the talent of such personalities as Makarov, Kondratenko. They died and Port Arthur fell, there was no point in continuing the war.

        Intoria tends to repeat itself ... Port Arthur is like a mirror of Sevastopol. That there the army showed complete failure and everything fell on the shoulders of the fleet and its leaders, what is there. That there governors and governors were complete mediocrity, that it is not known what cockroaches in the head of the party celebrated.
    3. Yoshkin Kot
      Yoshkin Kot 21 March 2013 09: 46 New
      -1
      Japan won for a very simple reason, she had been preparing for this war for two decades, she herself set the schedule for its start and completed the rearmament by Date. and do not forget that the war was fought on British money, and our revolutionaries, too, "mastered" a lot of dough on organizing strikes in military production and the attempt of the first Zionist revolution in 05
  2. Denis
    Denis 20 March 2013 09: 27 New
    -7
    The liberals helped, here is one whose mummy is still on the main square of the country http://leninism.su/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2098:o-naczional
    noj-gordosti-velikorossov & catid = 65: tom-26 & Itemid = 53
    1. anip
      anip 20 March 2013 09: 53 New
      +1
      Do you understand what you said?
      1. Denis
        Denis 20 March 2013 11: 06 New
        -5
        Quote: anip

        Do you understand what you said?
        I then yes, I have such a habit of thinking that I speak and answer for words
        but even the sexual paid services provided by the ladies of the family do not give me the right to poke, grow
        1. anip
          anip 20 March 2013 11: 35 New
          -3
          You need to grow up to me. Year old so 4. So you do not know, do not star. So once again - see above.
          1. Denis
            Denis 20 March 2013 11: 56 New
            -1
            Growth, he is no longer for years, he is brain
            I advise you to honor him, i.e. Lenin's work "On the national pride of the Great Russians"
            and who is he after that?
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 20 March 2013 13: 02 New
              +1
              Quote: Denis
              and who is he after that?

              Yes, really, who? smile
              1. Denis
                Denis 20 March 2013 13: 07 New
                0
                Quote: Prometey
                Who are you?
                That fifth column
            2. anip
              anip 21 March 2013 05: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Denis
              Growth, he is no longer for years, he is brain

              What are you doing ?? O_o. And I thought that growth is always centimeters. Well, you have a new unit, some kind of your own. How much will your growth be in your brain?

              Judging by this:
              Quote: Denis
              The liberals helped, here is one whose mummy is still in the main square of the country

              it’s just with your brains that growth is measured.
              A little clue: when was Lenin a liberalist?

              Quote: Denis
              I advise you to honor him, i.e. Lenin's work "On the national pride of the Great Russians"

              This work was studied at the institute. And what is there (http://libelli.ru/works/26-3.htm) too wrong (subject to an amendment at that time)?
              1. Denis
                Denis 21 March 2013 12: 16 New
                +1
                Quote: anip
                How much will your growth be in your brain?
                I can not answer, otherwise it’s close to a trivial abuse
                Quote: anip
                when it is Lenin a liberalist would
                It was the liberal who always, not the liberal. This is the figurative name for the entire fifth column, unless he was in it
                Quote: anip
                too wrong
                Is it in the order of things to wish defeat in the war for your country?
  3. Selevc
    Selevc 20 March 2013 09: 56 New
    +4
    The main reasons for the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War and other wars of that era are that Russian society and the economy were backward by the middle of the 19th century and hopelessly backward by the beginning of the 20th century ... The country, however, still needed today in deep reforms such as Peter's reforms and not in the visibility of these very reforms ... The appearance of all kinds of revolutionaries and their popularity was the result of the absence of real positive changes in society ... This could not continue indefinitely - and the 1st World War became a strong catalyst leading to the disaster of 1917 ...

    The clearest example of the rottenness of the Russian elite is the abdication of the tsar in 1917 !!! Can you imagine the situation when Alexander the 1st abdicated when Napoleon was near Moscow or that Stalin resigned when the Germans were near Moscow? !!!
    And Nicholas II denied at the most difficult moment for the country and thereby doomed himself and his country to death !!!
    1. cyberandr
      cyberandr 20 March 2013 10: 36 New
      -2
      Well, just hopelessly backward ... World War I showed that this is far from the case.
      Concerning Nicholas II, much is true as well as not true. By the time of his abdication, he already had no authority and popularity either in the army, or in the political elite, and among the people (one bloody Sunday is worth it). So renunciation was apparently inevitable, but here is how the second question brought to such a state.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 20 March 2013 10: 40 New
        +1
        Captain evidence hints that World War I was after Russian-Japanese.
      2. Denis
        Denis 20 March 2013 11: 00 New
        0
        Quote: cyberandr
        one bloody sunday worth
        Much is debatable, but don't be cunning here. That was something akin to "color!
      3. Bigriver
        Bigriver 20 March 2013 12: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: cyberandr
        well right hopelessly retarded... World War I showed that this is far from the case.
        Concerning Nicholas II, much is true as well as not true. By the time of his abdication, he already had no authority and popularity either in the army or in the political elite,

        Allegedly, "backwardness" then what has to do with it?
        IMHO, Iraclius spoke well and accurately about the reasons - systemic sluggish crisis in society and the army, as its particle.
        This crisis could not have happened if the Russian Tsar had a strong, wise, perspicacious personality.
        And so ... They had only a personified diagnosis of the state.
      4. Selevc
        Selevc 20 March 2013 21: 49 New
        +1
        The Russian army was generally not bad, but failures, especially in the initial period of the 1st World War, speak only of mediocre command and control, lack of initiative and competent tactical planning ... Or else there is an obvious betrayal in the General Staff ...
    2. Prometey
      Prometey 20 March 2013 12: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      Russian society and economy were backward by the middle of the 19th century and hopelessly backward by the beginning of the 20th century ...

      Be careful when juggling such terms. The concept of Russia's backwardness was launched into circulation by the emigrant Herzen and then was intensely propagated by Soviet historiography. Although an analysis of more or less reliable statistics shows that Russia was in no way suitable for the Zimbabwe level.
      Quote: Selevc
      The country then, as indeed today, needed deep reforms such as Peter's reforms

      God forbid from such experiments.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 20 March 2013 21: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Prometey
        Be careful when juggling such terms. The concept of Russia's backwardness was launched into circulation by the emigrant Herzen and then was intensely propagated by Soviet historiography. Although an analysis of more or less reliable statistics shows that Russia was in no way suitable for the Zimbabwe level.


        Russia, of course, is not Zimbabwe - but the Russian fleet for some reason turned out to be obsolete by the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, while Japan was not a country at all with such capacities for building ships as Russia built a modern fleet ...

        Then, for some reason, in World War I, the Russian army lacked machine guns and even guns — what did all the less or less intelligent politicians understand that the Great War was coming and could not provide their army with weapons? Here they write about shell and cartridge hunger - what kind of nonsense !!! A power that is fighting must mobilize all production facilities in the name of victory and provide its army with everything necessary ... And even more so - Russia should have an impressive strategic stock of weapons in case of military operations ... Russia had world-famous military factories and that couldn't they produce enough weapons and ammunition?

        The whole course of events of the 1st World War - all the losses of the Russian army can be explained only by a big mess in the country and hope for Russian chance !!! And we see how it ended !!!
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 21 March 2013 07: 43 New
          0
          Good day Selevc!
          Quote: Selevc
          Russia, of course, is not Zimbabwe - but the Russian fleet for some reason turned out to be obsolete by the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, while Japan was not a country at all with such capacities for building ships as Russia built a modern fleet ...

          If we take the total number of squadron battleships from Russia and Japan (1, 2 and 3 squadrons), perhaps Russia even had an advantage. Hmm, and then there was the Black Sea Fleet, rusting in the Black Sea puddle. In terms of the number of new battleships, Russia was also in no way inferior, and there were also high-speed cruisers, which the Japanese did not have. However, the advantage of the Japanese was that they were very close to the theater of operations and could concentrate forces in a fist, unlike the fragmented Russian squadrons. And the Japanese also had rubbish in the ranks, like the captured battleship Chen-Yen.
          1. Selevc
            Selevc 21 March 2013 09: 34 New
            +1
            If you take the total number of tanks, then the USSR also had much more than Germany, so what? ... But they know how to fight - not by number but by skill !!! Number doesn’t say anything - the course of the Tsushima battle itself is rather just the beating of the Russian fleet ... It is precisely because of the technical superiority of the Japanese fleet and the skillful command ... And the fact says that Japan managed to defeat a larger fleet with a smaller total fleet. about the absolutely mediocre strategy of the Russian command !!!

            When you read materials about the Russo-Japanese War, you constantly get the feeling that the Russian army and navy are simply uncontrollable and like a headless monster ... A typical picture of the times of decay - does not remind you of the 80s and Afghanistan for example? Great heroism next to a great poh-ism !!!
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 20 March 2013 21: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Prometey
        God forbid from such experiments.


        Duck, we should now have Peter's reforms - there was a lot of progressive in them ... For example, Peter sent young people to study abroad and he himself was happy to adopt the progressive experience of Europe ... Moreover, notice - he did not touch religious issues, for example, but was mostly interested in technical progress - this is the only Russian ruler who himself has mastered many professions ... Yes, many current bosses and officials need to poke their nose into the Petrine heritage !!!

        Then - Peter understood very well that the Russian army was obsolete by the end of the 17th century and began its reforms in the army precisely with the ground forces - since the basis of Russia and its support is a powerful land army ... And Nikolai the 2nd for some reason I didn’t understand and built huge ships while the army was missing the most important thing - what to actually fight - weapons ...

        And how did Peter deal with the rebels, remember? I figured it out once so that for a long time they remembered and there was not even a hint about any revolt, especially the revolution in Russia under Peter !!!

        Peter the 1st with his reforms gave such a powerful impetus to Russia that it was enough for a century !!! But the whole drama is that by the beginning of the 20th century there weren’t even people close to Peter in the Russian elite !!!
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 21 March 2013 07: 57 New
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          Duck, we would now have Peter's reforms - they had a lot of progressive ..

          Probably you should not go into discussion about the results of the so-called Petrine reforms, although the main result was the ruin of the country and the imposition of serfdom with the transformation of the main population of the country into disenfranchised cattle.
          Quote: Selevc
          this is the only Russian ruler who himself has mastered many professions ...

          This writer A. Tolstoy wrote)? In the 18th century, technologies were already at a level when universal masters could not exist in principle, but deep knowledge in a certain field was required (well, maybe with the exception of medicine, where the paramedic was a surgeon, a therapist, and a dentist).
          Quote: Selevc
          Peter perfectly understood that the Russian army was obsolete by the end of the 17th century and began its reforms in the army precisely with the ground forces - since the basis of Russia and its support is a powerful ground army ...

          As for the support, I agree completely. But the Russian army was not outdated, the regiments of the new system were already being introduced before Peter. And she beat both the Swedes and the Poles. But the Peter's army ... to put it mildly, to fight 21 years with such a small state like Sweden, where the population was less than in the Moscow province, is a very dubious result.
          1. Selevc
            Selevc 21 March 2013 09: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: Prometey
            But the Peter's army ... to put it mildly, to fight 21 years with such a small state like Sweden, where the population was less than in the Moscow province, is a very dubious result.


            Are you serious or just joking? :))) Sweden, by the way, was a superpower of the early 18th century !!! In addition to Sweden itself, it also included the territories of Finland, the Baltic states and northern Germany ... Further, in terms of economy, trade and population density, Sweden was much stronger than Russia ... And in Russia, in fact, there was no serious metallurgy - and even bells for guns overflow ... Again - it was from the time of Peter that laid the foundations of metallurgy and metalworking ...

            And Peter's genius is precisely in the fact that he defeated such a strong state - at the same time, do not forget about the constant threat of an attack by Turkey from the south ... Peter, of course, with great sacrifices (otherwise it is simply impossible) - led Russia to the Baltic and entrenched there so - that before Until now, despite all the territorial losses of Russia in the 20th century, this "window" still remains ...
          2. Selevc
            Selevc 21 March 2013 09: 54 New
            0
            [
            Quote: Prometey
            This writer A. Tolstoy wrote)?


            Actually, Peter worked at a shipyard in Holland - and admired this country - its culture and people - and I understand him very much ... You better give me an example of at least one king, secretary general or president - who mastered modern equipment during his reign , worked behind machines, promoted science and, by personal example, showed how he strives for progress ...

            Yes, there are simply no such people, because all the rulers except Peter are either dumbasses and womanizer or smug peacocks and bureaucrats ...
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 21 March 2013 13: 57 New
              0
              Quote: Selevc
              [
              Quote: Prometey
              This writer A. Tolstoy wrote)?


              Actually, Peter worked at a shipyard in Holland - and admired this country - its culture and people - and I understand him very much ... You better give me an example of at least one king, secretary general or president - who mastered modern equipment during his reign , worked behind machines, promoted science and, by personal example, showed how he strives for progress ...
              Yes, there are simply no such people, because all the rulers except Peter are either dumbasses and womanizer or smug peacocks and bureaucrats ...

              In fact, the ruler should be engaged in the management of the country, and not beards cut themselves and wave the ax.
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 21 March 2013 20: 41 New
                0
                In fact, these were demonstrative and public gestures to show that reforms are irreversible and there will be no turning back !!!

                And all this was done to show the personal position of the king - so that there were no false rumors like "the king was deceived, bewitched, replaced", etc.
    3. predator.3
      predator.3 20 March 2013 15: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      And Nicholas II denied at the most difficult moment for the country and thereby doomed himself and his country to death !!!

      Question: What the hell was Nikolai the 2nd sticking out at the headquarters in Mogilev, was he a cool commander? his whole role was to nod at the proposals of the chief of staff for the gene. Alekseev, he was supposed to be in the capital and rule the country! Yes, and the February Revolution began in lines for bread, while bread (millions of tons) was in warehouses in the Urals, just gouging officials did not bother to take them to the capital at the time!
      1. Denis
        Denis 20 March 2013 15: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: predator.3
        officials did not bother during the withdraw to the capital
        They rather bothered not to bring. There was enough sabotage, the fifth column was then
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 20 March 2013 21: 15 New
        0
        Quote: predator.3
        and the February revolution began in lines for bread, while bread (millions of tons) was in warehouses in the Trans-Urals, just gouging officials did not bother to take them to the capital at the time!


        All this was an occasion for a revolution that had already matured many years ago - the main fault of the authorities of tsarist Russia that they could not radically change the situation in the country before the start of the 1st World War ...
        1. Yoshkin Kot
          Yoshkin Kot 21 March 2013 09: 54 New
          0
          the Tsar’s main fault was that he was too good a man, and did not transfer socialists and republicans of all stripes, send 10 screamers to penal servitude for a period of 000 years without the right of correspondence, and there wouldn’t be millions killed or starved to death would be a looted country with a poor population, and destroyed by industry
          1. Marat
            Marat 24 March 2013 21: 37 New
            0
            Nicholas 2 had very high hopes for the spring offensive of 1917. Russia had a chance, if not to win the war, to accelerate its end very much. And the victory in the war itself removed all questions and the revolution in particular.
  4. common man
    common man 20 March 2013 10: 30 New
    +3
    I would compare the transformations in Japan of those times not with Stalin, but with the Peter's reforms. The same bold attraction of foreigners, training of their own abroad, the development of industry and all this from above. And about Kuropatkin. He and his ilk, instead of admiring the hard work of the Japanese, would rather roll up their sleeves themselves and work for the good of Russia. The Russian empire, as well as the Soviet one, by the way, was ruined by the fact that the country's elite got used to "eat deliciously and sleep sweetly", but was very lazy to work and force others to work.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 20 March 2013 21: 53 New
      +1
      I completely agree with the "Everyman" - keep + :)))
  5. Fox
    Fox 20 March 2013 10: 38 New
    0
    cool yap ... but the fact that in Nagasaki under Alexander 3 the base of the Russian Navy was until Nikolashka with his kunaks broke up with the Yap to please the English, it’s not written. Everyone is guilty except Nikolashka ...
  6. shurup
    shurup 20 March 2013 10: 53 New
    +1
    Japan did not win this war. The economic situation of such educated Japanese workers has worsened significantly since the war.
    And the origins of the defeat of tsarism are not in a few lost battles, but in the activities of real winners. Russia needed to give time to cook cannon fodder for a real war.
  7. optimist
    optimist 20 March 2013 11: 03 New
    +5
    The main reason is the same as now: CORRUPTION !!! General Stessel SOLD Port Arthur to the Japanese. As it turned out later, if Port Arthur lasted a few more months, the Japanese would have lost this war. Then this Judas was condemned and pardoned. Does the situation with the heart do not remind anyone? So Stessel was even tried ... And the GDP of his friend and accomplice will not give offense. God forbid now the war: blowing even faster than 1905 ...
    1. anip
      anip 20 March 2013 11: 38 New
      +1
      Maybe we won’t. But, however, war is not necessary. This amers love to fight with the weak and in other people's territories.
  8. Begemot
    Begemot 20 March 2013 11: 46 New
    +3
    Thus, one of the main prerequisites for the victory of Japan in the 1905 year was the reasonable and balanced domestic policy of the Japanese authorities in the previous period (end of quote).
    I put a few pluses for:
    1. A clear understanding that the basis of development is knowledge and discipline for all.
    2. The economy is governed not by mythical hopes of the market, but by the state.
    3. It is possible to develop, and quite successfully, due to internal reserves.
    4. The country's successes in development without wise and patriotic leadership are unthinkable.
    More than 100 years have passed, and we still can’t learn these lessons.
  9. geko
    geko 20 March 2013 11: 46 New
    0
    Interesting fact. Before the Russo-Japanese War, Rockefeller offered the emperor credit for the war in exchange for his admission to Russian oil, and after the refusal he went to the Japanese and without any problems gave it to them. Thank God thanks to the genius Witte (who was clearly against the war), losses for us were minimized after the defeat. And one more interesting fact - the Japanese until the last tried to avoid war by negotiating. But in general, who wants to know more - read Tarle.
    1. Denis
      Denis 20 March 2013 12: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: geko
      Before the Russo-Japanese War Rockefeller

      And here the rat ears stick out. You can’t say better than N.V. Starikov http://lib.rus.ec/b/107377
  10. Prometey
    Prometey 20 March 2013 11: 49 New
    +2
    No offense, but I can not agree with the conclusions of the author of the article. Yes, Japan committed on Tue. floor. The 19th century was a significant breakthrough and entered the category of actively developing countries. However, the thesis of the internal consolidation of Japanese society and a more progressive education is nothing more than far-fetched. It’s just that in Japan the contradictions between capital and wage labor have not yet had time to mature, as in Russia. Well, as for education - name the outstanding Japanese scientists of the early 20th century. It’s something that doesn’t come to my mind, but the names of Russian and European scientists are surfacing more and more.
    And the whole thesis about the defeat of Russia in the war against the Japas comes down only to the Tsushima battle and the surrender of Port Arthur. But the Japanese were unable to capture Port Arthur, but received it with a dubious surrender by Stessel. Tsushima, yes, was a noticeable slap in the face, but if you put your hand on your heart, if the war continued, it would not have any effect on the course of the war - the outcome of that war was decided in Manchuria, and not in the Tsushima Strait.
    The tsarist government was not ready (and rather, there was simply no will) to conduct a long military campaign. Japan also relied on blitzkrieg and protracted hostilities threatened it with a potential disaster, which was confirmed in 1905, when, after their seemingly triumph at sea, they began to actively seek mediation from the United States for peace negotiations with Russia. Incidentally, Minister Witte persuaded Nicholas II to negotiate with Japan. Whether it was right or wrong - now one can only speculate. Although by mid-1905, the Russian army finally, with considerable strength and resources, could turn the tide of the military campaign in Manchuria. But then apparently they considered that the outback remote from the mother country was not worth it and went to meet the Japanese.
    1. shurup
      shurup 20 March 2013 12: 05 New
      +1
      I also liked the author's phrase: "... training of artisans, rich peasants and SIMPLE samurai."
    2. valerei
      valerei 20 March 2013 13: 23 New
      +2
      Prometey, I finally read a really historical reference, and not just the groaning of Russia and the Russian government. Indeed, by 1905 Russia was able to transfer enough troops to Manchuria, numbering more than the Japanese, and better training and quality, because By this time, the construction of the Circum-Baikal railway was completed. If not for the unrest of the workers in 1905, then there would be no urgent peace with Japan. It was correctly said in some comment that the United States made a fuss with the speedy conclusion of peace. Then it was beneficial to everyone: Russia, Japan and its creditors. I do not agree with the statement that Russia gave the outback just like that. The 1905 revolution forced this to happen. In addition, the official defeat in the Japanese war blocked Russia's access to Korea, where it sought to have ice-free ports and bases and direct access to Southeast Asia. Russia generally planned to make Korea its satellite, displacing England in this region, which the latter could not accept.
  11. kamakim
    kamakim 20 March 2013 13: 02 New
    +5
    Japan did not win the war, rather the Russian Empire lost it ...
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 20 March 2013 13: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: kamakim
      Japan did not win the war, rather the Russian Empire lost it ...

      Perhaps this is closest to the truth.
    2. Grossfater
      Grossfater 20 March 2013 13: 24 New
      +1
      The rotten intelligentsia really wanted to lose the war ... And she lost it
  12. Bosk
    Bosk 20 March 2013 13: 29 New
    +1
    I think at that time we still did not understand what "modern war" was, did not learn success in the development of modern weapons and still assigned fire a secondary role, overestimated bayonet attacks, piled up reserves and exposed ourselves to enemy attacks in parts, did not wage a war in corps, and separate units, they controlled the dispositions and constantly gave the initiative to the enemy. A passive-defensive strategy, and even the attachment of troops to the railways, gave the Japanese the opportunity to freely land on the coast, deploy forces and advance in selected directions. On the other hand, I would not call a defeat in the war. of our troops, our troops at the end of the war retained their combat capability and no defeats were observed, this defeat was rather political, our government lacked the will to continue the war.
  13. Iraclius
    Iraclius 20 March 2013 13: 30 New
    +3
    Quote: kamakim
    Japan did not win the war, rather the Russian Empire lost it ...

    Casuistry, not changing the meaning of what happened. We do not consider any alternative versions - only facts.
    Pacific squadrons dead? Perished. Did Stessel surrender the fortress? I handed over. Transsiberian did not cope with the transfer of troops? Did not cope. Were not pre-developed mobilization plans? Were not. Total? Defeat in the war.

    ***
    Still, men, I want to note a striking phenomenon - the bitterness of the tragedy of that war, which is unceasing in the soul of a little bit familiar with the history of Russian people. My great-grandfather fought in the fields of Manchuria and through my father I know his stories. Grandfather went to the Navy under the impression of his father's stories about the tragedy of Tsushima and proudly served on the battleship Novorossiysk.
    Look at how many comments each article on the war leaves on our forum. Everyone sees her from their own point of view, but for sure there is only one thing - she leaves no one indifferent. crying
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 20 March 2013 14: 29 New
      +4
      Iraclius "but only one thing is certain - she leaves no one indifferent."
      That's right.
      “But the defeat of the Russian troops in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War left hard memories in the minds of the people. It fell on our country as a black stain. Our people believed and waited for the day when Japan would be defeated and the stain would be eliminated. Forty years We, the people of the old generation, have been waiting for this day. And now, this day has come. Today Japan admitted itself defeated and signed an act of unconditional surrender. " From the address of Comrade J.V. Stalin to the people on September 2, 1945.
      I. Stalin "On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union". OGIZ. GOSPOLITIZDAT. 1946. Page 205.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 20 March 2013 14: 34 New
        +1
        Nagaibak, that is precisely why I personally consider all the insinuations surrounding the possible transfer of the Kuril Islands and even Sakhalin to Japan as preparation for the direct betrayal of Russia. The results of the Great Patriotic War should never be revised and the Russian Far East is its integral part, like Siberia, the Urals, and European lands.
        Plus for a competent quote. good
        1. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 20 March 2013 15: 18 New
          +1
          Iraclius "Plus for a competent quote."
          Thank! I somehow do not plus.
        2. Odysseus
          Odysseus 20 March 2013 20: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Iraclius
          that is why I personally consider all the insinuations surrounding the possible transfer of the Kuril Islands and even Sakhalin to Japan as preparation for the direct betrayal of Russia. The results of the Great Patriotic War should never be revised and the Russian Far East is its integral part, like Siberia, the Urals, and European lands.

          This is true. But now the situation has become very complicated. In the Far East, we now have two powerful adversaries, the PRC, and Japan (plus the United States behind it)
          And Russia again became capitalist in the economy and estate-monarchist in politics.
          And if this situation does not change, the chances of holding the Far East, frankly, are few .....
          Although it is necessary to fight.
  14. Kibl
    Kibl 20 March 2013 14: 15 New
    +2
    Well, what can I say, History is an exact and cyclical science. Russia has always and everyone hated, and the country has always been not completely ready for war. It's time to break this tendency, you need to work, get rich and, most importantly, arm yourself! I want to wish Great Russia success! !
  15. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 20 March 2013 16: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: Prometey
    Russian battleships suffer distress from super-Japanese shells (or rather, from overload) only under Tsushima, however, neither the Varyag nor the 1 battleships of the Pacific squadron stubbornly drowned from these shells.

    + 100500
  16. alicante11
    alicante11 20 March 2013 17: 07 New
    +1
    In general, there are many reasons for Russia's defeat in this war. And, of course, those that are given in the article took place. But ... there is such a good Russian saying "there is no reception against scrap". For all its faults, Russia was potentially much stronger than Japan. It is enough to look at the forces that were used by Russia in this war. If we compare the fleets, then we need to compare not the 1st TE with the Imperial Japanese Navy, but both TEs. If we talk about land, then after Liaoyang the Manchu armies had a numerical superiority over the Japanese, and in artillery they outnumbered the Japanese before.
    Here they say that the command was bad "Kuropatkin is a fool." But after all, he did not make a single serious strategic mistake, except for the forced ones, when he was pushed in the back by Alekseev to the rescue of Port Arthur, as, for example, the actions of the 1st Siberian corps at Wafangou. The battle on Yalu can be considered a strategic mistake, when a clearly weaker unit was given the task of delaying superior enemy forces, but the very size of this battle does not allow it to be considered as a serious factor. Kuropatkin's actions are extremely logical from the point of view of the general staff officer. He needs to defend Vladivostok and Port Arthur and Manchuria. Manchuria comes under attack much later than naval bases. Therefore, the bulk of the troops are concentrated to protect them. And in Manchuria, the army is replenished with reinforcements from Russia. The Japanese army is divided into parts by the allocation of forces against Port Arthur, which weakens the main forces of the Japanese. After that, all that remains is to retreat and gather forces for a counterattack.
    The prosecutors of Admiral Wittgeft and his chief, Adm. Alekseeva, too, can not think of anything except their "passivity". But what did the activity of Admiral Makarov lead to, with all due respect to him, to the fact that Arthur had two serviceable battleships "Peresvet" and "Poltava" against 6 Japanese battleships. If it had not been for the "Makarov losses" the Japanese would never have dared to land the Oku army at Biziwo, and it would have stomped its feet across half of Korea and half of Manchuria in pursuit of the first army. Therefore, already with its presence in Port Arthur, the Russian fleet was a factor in the theater of operations, but its practical absence in April 1904 led to the fact that Kuropatkin's plans were crumpled. And the Japanese reached Port Arthur much faster and concentrated their main forces on the theater of operations. But even that wasn’t too scary. In the end, as I said, after Liaoyang, the Russian army had a numerical superiority and in the future it only grew. And even the death of the 1st TE and the fall of Port Arthur, which became unnecessary (of course, it is insulting, annoying, but in fact, there was no one to fight there and there was no reason), were not a factor of defeat, by the fall of 1905 the armies in Manchuria were ready to move to offensive.

    But if everything was so good and right, then why such a result? There are several key points.
  17. alicante11
    alicante11 20 March 2013 17: 08 New
    +2
    The Russian army in Manchuria was on a very hungry reconnaissance ration. The General Staff knew the Japanese peacetime army well enough and this allowed Kuropatkin to competently plan the war. But with regard to tactical reconnaissance in the theater of operations, there was a complete failure. Kuropatkin almost never had accurate information about the opposing enemy. And so he was forced to constantly defend himself and allocate part of his forces to parry dangerous Japanese detours, the danger of which he greatly overestimated. As a result, in the forefront the Japanese had complete superiority and won the battles, and then Kuropatkin retreated to save his strength. Why did this situation arise? Russia fought among the hostile Chinese population. Among which she had no agent network. And the Japanese had this network since the Sino-Japanese war. And so the Japanese were much bolder in their attacks, using their higher awareness. I think that Kuropatkin had hope for our superiority in the cavalry, which was an indispensable tactical scout. Unfortunately, our cavalry mainly consisted of Cossacks, who showed themselves very badly in this war with low training and weak initiative and were unable to serve the Russian command with their eyes. Perhaps, if Skobelev or Suvorov, who were not afraid to take risks, had been in Kuropatkin's place, the war would have ended differently. But not a fact, look at the results of the risky Makarov.
    The second factor that influenced the scales in this war, I would call a banal bad luck. Well, look, "Sevastopol" was blown up by mines three times, but it did not fly up into the air, as it happened with the "Petropavlovsk" of the same type, which killed the command of the fleet. The same event caused the undermining of the "Victory". During the battle at Shantung, the flagship "Tsarevich" breaks down at the very end of the battle. When the breakthrough was almost successful. Admiral Togo stood both battles on the open bridge and did not have a scratch. And both Russian admirals, Vitgeft and Rozhdestvensky, were disabled. Moreover, the second in the conning tower. Thus "Mikasa" in both battles was the most injured of the Japanese ships. During the Tsushima battle, a Russian shell pierced the armor of the main battery turret of the Japanese battleship Fuji and exploded inside. What happened in this case with the British ships, everyone can trace the example of the Beatty cruisers in the Battle of Jutland. But the Russians were again out of luck. Shrapnel damaged the tower's hydraulic drive, water from which prevented the spread of the fire, which was then extinguished by the team. And at the end of the day, apparently the same battleship, achieved a lethal hit on the battleship Borodino, which had not yet completely exhausted its combat capability (and if it had not died, it is not a fact that Nebogatov would have surrendered the next day, having two new battleships under their command, and it is not a fact that the Japanese would have enough shells for the second battle). I no longer take into account smaller troubles like self-explosions on mines and landings on stones. But even the only major success of the Russian fleet - the death of two Japanese battleships by mines - happened too late to prevent the landing of Oka at Biziwo.
    Well, the third mistake of the Russian command was that the Siberian corps, equipped with reservists, were sent to Manchuria first. As a result, at first the Japanese in terms of tactics and level of training were much higher than our units. Towards the end of the war, when the cadre Japanese army was defeated, and cadre troops were arriving from our side, the situation changed to 180 city. But it was too late.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 20 March 2013 18: 18 New
      +3
      alicante11
      I fully share your point of view. The Japanese army (like the navy) was in no way superior to the Russian army. All this is a "black legend" created to denigrate the old regime. The Japanese generals did not demonstrate the genius of the great commanders, and the Russian command was by no means as mediocre as they write about it. Russian soldiers in their resilience and courage were in no way inferior to the Japanese, if not superior to them. Kuropatkin acted on the basis of the reality, which was such that, in the absence of reserves, it was simply criminal to throw soldiers at the expense of the army. The Japanese needed to work out Western loans, so for them victory at any cost was justified, and the dragging out of hostilities was like death. General Stoessel, by surrendering Port Arthur, rendered the Empire of Japan an invaluable service, substituting Rozhestvensky's squadron, who had no choice but to lead a loaded and overloaded squadron past Japan, which turned into a floating shooting range for the Togo fleet. In such a situation, probably only a complete idiot would not be able to shoot floating barges like in an exercise, which turned out to be Russian battleships, overloaded with coal and drowned in water all their armor protective belt. But all this was presented as the greatest genius of Togo and the super training of Japanese sailors.
    2. albert
      albert 20 March 2013 19: 02 New
      0
      Quote: alicante11
      During the Tsushima battle, a Russian shell pierced the armor of the main battery turret of the Japanese battleship "Fuji" and exploded inside

      Our armor-piercing shells had a specific design - they easily penetrated Japanese armor but the explosive effect was negligible. It was very unsuccessfully invented.
    3. common man
      common man 20 March 2013 23: 09 New
      +2
      alicante11.
      I would listen to you Suvorov!
      "All luck, but luck. And when is the skill?"
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 21 March 2013 08: 05 New
        0
        [quote = layman]alicante11.
        I would listen to you Suvorov!
        And what did Suvorov have to do with the fleet and military operations at sea?
  18. alicante11
    alicante11 20 March 2013 17: 11 New
    +1
    A series of defeats led to the fact that returning what was lost was too long and expensive - it would not pay off. The king did not finish himself as a king, but as a merchant. And they decided to end the war.
    Thus, the defeat of Russia in this war is an objective phenomenon, which is not associated with the "rottenness" and "backwardness" of the autocracy, literacy / illiteracy or some mythical abilities of the Japanese. Well, luck was not on our side. (Although this is still how you look, without the defeat in Manchuria and the failed WWI there would have been no revolution, there would have been no Stalin and the great power that he created, but what could a nikolashka leave behind?).
  19. RoTTor
    RoTTor 20 March 2013 17: 15 New
    0
    [[b] bIdiotic article.
    Where did they build the cruiser Varyag and many other warships of the Russian fleet?
    This is the market, this is capitalism.
    By the way, a series of leaders (including the legendary "Tashkent") for the Soviet Navy was built in Italy before the war. [/ b]
    [/B]
    1. Denis
      Denis 20 March 2013 18: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: RoTTor
      Where did they build the cruiser Varyag and many other warships of the Russian fleet?
      They did the best they could with the Varyag. The guns did not have armor shields, they saved
  20. SHOGUN
    SHOGUN 20 March 2013 17: 47 New
    +3
    Who dares call the king an inadequate, sick man? IracliusAnd I tell you that Emperor Nicholas II is not at all the kind of person he was introduced to the people after the revolution. Is it possible to read the Autocrat's diaries? Then read what other people write about him in their diaries. Both ambassadors and "brothers" are his autocrats.
    So much has been written about the causes of the death of the fleet under Tsushima that it’s just fear. belay And as if by magic, there is no consensus. It all boils down to the accusation of the Tsar, the Rozhdestvensky and the system as a whole. And I tell you, Russia lost this war long before it began. She lost her not to Japan, but to the main political players of that time. Rozhdestvensky and his squadron died before they left the Baltic ... We were taught differently, but I know at least two points of view on the Battle of Tsushima and the Russo-Japanese War. Both Japanese and Russian. Have a nice day!
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 20 March 2013 18: 28 New
      +1
      Shogun, I did not call the king inadequate, never. What are you, really! I call him an extremely inadequate, sick person. Which lost vast territories for the country, then the country itself, its family and its head. And there are objective reasons for this. The first reason is his diaries. Read what the king himself wrote, and not his henchmen and slime-eaters. The fleet and the army perish, and the Autocrat, bleat, of all Russia considers the raven killed on a walk.
      Good evening, and don’t watch the Admiral movie - there Nicholas II is generally a nanny! hi
      1. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 20 March 2013 19: 56 New
        +1
        Iraclius "Autocrat, bleat, all Russia counts the crows killed during the walk."
        I would say manic kills and counts the raven.
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 20 March 2013 18: 50 New
      +1
      You can write a lot. Literary authors always exaggerate something. But about the autocrats ... Literally- Being not a participant ("Napoleon Bonaparte") of the uprising, but only an outsider witness, he could quite calmly give vent to his true feelings. “Let's go for these canals,” he said to his companion, seeing the crowd walking towards the royal palace. When Louis 16, frightened by this formidable demonstration, bowed to the crowd from the window, Napoleon said with contempt: “What a coward! It was necessary to sweep away 500-600 people with cannons - the rest would have fled! " But it is interesting that Napoleon already then thought of buckshot and cannons as the most appropriate way to respond to popular uprisings.
      1. Bosk
        Bosk 20 March 2013 22: 21 New
        +1
        Nikolai had one fad ... he disliked when bright personalities stood at high posts and, if possible, if such a personality appeared, he changed it to mediocrity, for example, on the same Stolypin himself a couple of days before the rocky shot, Nikolai prepared a decree to remove him .. .., I may not be in the topic just remembered.
  21. Prometey
    Prometey 20 March 2013 18: 24 New
    0
    Off-topic.
    Administrators, solve your technical problems. I can not evaluate articles, nor comments. Honestly, already tired am
  22. George
    George 20 March 2013 18: 29 New
    +4
    Hello all.
    General Alexei Kuropatkin left a very impressive comment from a pre-war trip to the Japanese Empire: quote
    In my opinion, Skobelev gave him the best recommendation, saying that when he obeys the order, he is so quick and brave, but as it comes to command, he becomes a fool.
    Skobelev noticed this flaw at his beginner. headquarters, and often said to him:
    - Remember that you are good for second roles. God forbid you ever take on the role of chief; you lack determination and firmness of will ... No matter what a great plan you develop, you will never be able to complete it ...
    But it is visible fanned by the rays of glory falling down on Skobelev, he became proud and decided to try on the baton of the commander in chief.
    Apparently no one paid attention to the statement of the "White General" and as a result we got what we got.
  23. Horde
    Horde 20 March 2013 18: 41 New
    -6
    Well, what Alksander Samsonov wanted to say with this article, the title is separate, the article is separate and there is NO connection between them.
    the reason for winning the war with Russia
    -uniform education -no can not be a direct cause of success in the war.
    -Japan's brilliant position in the economy is by no means in those days, Japan was not powerful in the economic situation. Yes, and now Japan itself has no resources and never has, Japan would not have sustained any protracted war.
    was the fleet more powerful than Russia? well, you won’t conquer the SUSHI fleet. Therefore, it’s not possible to explain why the land battles lost the fleet.
    -support of England and the USA -no participated in the war, only the Japanese and Russians.
    -Japanese army is a low-power state structure that does not have ANY MILITARY TRADITIONS and no EXPERIENCE in conducting major wars.
    Hence the conclusion The reason for the loss in the Japanese war is ABSOLUTELY NOT INTERESTED IN A SUCCESSFUL NOVEL WAR.
    The Tsars of the Romanovs are GERMANS and the interests of Russia and the Russian people have always been ALIEN.

    1. Prometey
      Prometey 20 March 2013 18: 52 New
      +1
      Hordewelcome
      A good comment, although not quite 100% I agree. The reason for the Portsmouth Peace was the weak will of the tsarist government to finish the job, and not the ingenious training of Japanese soldiers and generals.
      1. Horde
        Horde 20 March 2013 19: 09 New
        0
        Quote: Prometey
        Hordewelcome
        A good comment, although not quite 100% I agree. The reason for the Portsmouth Peace was the weak will of the tsarist government to finish the job, and not the ingenious training of Japanese soldiers and generals.


        Hello, Sergey! As far as I know, the order to cease hostilities was given personally by Nikolai2. As for a weak government, an analogy comes to mind with our days when Putin himself appoints such fools as stools, who will ruin the army, who prevented Putin, Nicholas2 from appointing COMPETENT people to important posts? Nobody, they just DO NOT WANT to do this. THIS IS ANOTHER.
  24. Iraclius
    Iraclius 20 March 2013 18: 45 New
    +1
    George, one cannot but agree knowing how Kuropatkin commanded during the war. Mukden did not even forgive him the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, and Brusilov directly wrote that
    German-Austro-Hungarian Union survived
    then only due to the fact that at the head of the Russian army were such
    generals like mv Alekseev, A.E. Evert and A.N. Kuropatkin.

    (Brusilov A. A. My memories. M., 1963. S. 251.)


    .
  25. albert
    albert 20 March 2013 19: 00 New
    0
    During the Tsushima battle, a Russian shell pierced the armor of the main battery turret of the Japanese battleship Fuji and exploded inside.
    Our armor-piercing shells had a very specific design - they easily penetrated Japanese armor, but the explosive impact was insignificant. Many see the reason for the failures at sea in this.
  26. George
    George 20 March 2013 20: 11 New
    +1
    Iraclius hi
    I don’t understand why the author did not give an assessment of Japan’s pre-war state.
    In the summer of 1903, the general from infantry A.N. Kuropatkin, who was in Tokyo on a personal order from Emperor Nicholas II, was present at the Japanese military maneuvers as an official. But assessments of the state of the Japanese army made very strange and far from a professional look at existing realities.

    So, the head of the Russian military department said that with the advance of the Russians against the Japanese, a double superiority in forces is necessary, the same thing with the Japanese attack on the Russians. The weakness of the army of the likely enemy, according to Kuropatkin, was also in the absence of strong religious feelings among its soldiers and officers.

    The Minister of War of the Russian Empire substantiated the latter with the following words: “They do not give any religious education and upbringing in military schools, there are no churches at schools, and future officers do not pray to the Most High either in grief or in joy. The same phenomenon is observed in the army. ” (For the first five years of ministerial activity, Kuropatkin built the 51 army church, while the opposing side was intensively engaged in training in the field, on campaigns, on maneuvers.)
    Продолжение следует ...
  27. George
    George 20 March 2013 20: 14 New
    +1
    .... And after :
    “We were pretty well acquainted with the material side of the Japanese military force. But we overlooked and incorrectly estimated the moral value of this force. We looked at the patriotic, warlike direction in which the Japanese people were educated for many years, looked at the setting up of school affairs in Japan, where future warriors were prepared even in elementary schools, along with a passionate love for the motherland from an early age.

    We looked at the pride the Japanese served in their army, and with what deep confidence and respect the Japanese people treated it. We looked through the iron discipline in this army. We looked at the role of samurai officers in the army.

    We completely did not appreciate the significance of the excitement against us that appeared after the Japanese deprived of the results of their victories over China. It was not appreciated that the Korean question was a vital issue for the Japanese. They did not appreciate that the party of young Japan had long insisted on a war with Russia and was only restrained by a prudent government. With the outbreak of war, we saw clearly, but it was too late.

    At a time when the war with Japan was not only not popular with us, but incomprehensible to the Russian people, all of Japan, as one man, responded with a high patriotic impulse to the appeal under the banner of her sons. There were cases when mothers killed themselves, when their sons turned out to be not accepted into the ranks of the army due to poor health.

    Hundreds of people were willing to go to certain death, to the most desperate enterprises. The officers and lower ranks, leaving for the war, performed a burial ceremony on themselves, signifying the intention to die for their homeland. At first, the war, captured, Japanese officers took their lives. All youth were eager for the army. The most notable families sought to bring benefit to their homeland through their service, the service of their children, or their means. There were regiments that, with a cry of “banzai,” reached our obstacles, broke through them, filled wolf pits with corpses, and burst into our fortifications over the corpses of comrades.

    All the people, together with the army, recognized the importance of the war waged by Japan, recognized the significance of the events that had occurred, and did not spare the victims to achieve victory. The strength of Japan was the complete unity of the people with the army and government. This unity gave victory to the Japanese. We fought only with the army, weakened by the mood of the people, against the entire armed Japanese people. ”
    Is this possible number of miscalculations?
    In general, Skobelev was a thousand times right.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 20 March 2013 20: 43 New
      +1
      Here above Horde wrote that the samurai are useless warriors. I did not dissuade him. Sancta simplicitas. lol
      I agree with you George, on all counts.
      I just try to be objective. Alexei Nikolaevich did a lot of useful things for the Fatherland. It is only worth remembering his merits in the Trans-Caspian region. But, behold, there wasn’t that vein in him that turns a good administrator, leader into a talented military leader. request
      This war showed like no other before this decisive importance of selecting competent leading military personnel, and not people who have come forward thanks to guardianship, pedigree or bribes, which became the norm at the junction of the 19-20 centuries.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 21 March 2013 08: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        Here the Horde wrote above that the samurai are useless warriors.

        He didn’t write at all that the Japanese were useless warriors, but that Japan had no experience in conducting major wars, with the exception of the Bosin civil war.
  28. Babay2017
    Babay2017 20 March 2013 20: 21 New
    +1
    From Wikipedia - Jacob Henry (Jacob Henry) Schiff (born Jacob Henry Schiff, German: Jakob Heinrich Schiff; January 10, 1847, Frankfurt - September 25, 1920, New York) - American banker of Jewish descent, philanthropist and public figure [

    Adler virus Cyrus Adler recalled how, in early February 1904, Schiff invited Jewish public figures to his home and told them: “In the next 72 hours, a war will begin between Japan and Russia. I was asked to provide loans to the Japanese government. I want to hear your opinion about how such actions can affect the position of our co-religionists in Russia. ” Apparently, a positive decision was made at the meeting, and Schiff did not feel remorse for the damage inflicted on the Russian regime [20]. With the outbreak of the war, Schiff-led American syndicate as part of his Kun, Loeb & Co. Banking House, National and Commercial Banks, not only issued two Anglo-American loans to the Japanese government in the amount of about $ 110 million (half of this amount was allocated by the syndicate Schiff), which played a significant role in financing Japan and ensuring its victory in the war, but also actively and successfully prevented the placement of Russian loans on the American market, thereby preventing other American banks from lending to the Russian government [21] [22] [13].

    The Russian government, suffering the damage from Schiff’s actions, tried to pull him to his side, or at least neutralize him. Interior Minister V.K. Pleve invited Schiff to Russia. Schiff made two conditions: 1) he must receive an official invitation from the minister; 2) Russian visa laws must be changed, a Jew Schiff must enter Russia on a general basis, and not by special permission. Schiff saw the change in visa law as the first step towards equal rights for Russian Jews. While there was an exchange of letters, a successful attempt was made on Pleva. Schiff called Pleve’s murder “God's punishment.” [25]

    At about the same time (tentatively, 1904), the financial agent of the Russian government, Jew G.A. Vilenkin, met with Schiff, who, using his national and even distant kinship ties, tried to negotiate with Schiff about the cessation of his assistance to the Russian revolutionary movement. Schiff, recognizing the flow of funds through him for revolutionary activity, refused to agree to such an agreement with the Russian government, saying that Vilenkin’s proposal was late and, in addition, “peace cannot be concluded with the Romanovs” [13].

    According to John Hammond, the position taken by Schiff during the Russo-Japanese War directly affected the position of Jews in Russia: “Jacob Schiff did more than anyone else to aggravate the problems of his co-religionists in Russia, through his praise that the money of Jewish bankers made possible the war of Japan against Russia ”[28].

    Since August 19, 1918, lawyer Lewis Marshall drew Schiff's attention to rumors that attributed the Bolshevik revolution to Jews and to Schiff personally. In connection with such accusations, Schiff sent a letter to the US State Department, in which he dissociated himself from the "Reds" [14]. Some historians, however, agree that Schiff supplied money to L. D. Trotsky [32] [an attribution of opinion is needed].

    For thirty years after the revolution, many American intelligence officers and diplomats working in Russia had connections with the Schiff syndicate [32]
  29. воронов
    воронов 20 March 2013 23: 19 New
    0
    Lost because there was a mediocre Tsar Nicholas II
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 21 March 2013 08: 01 New
      0
      Quote: voronov
      Lost because there was a mediocre Tsar Nicholas II

      And the Japanese won because they had an overly gifted emperor laughing
  30. Alf
    Alf 21 March 2013 00: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Denis
    They did the best they could with the Varyag. The guns did not have armor shields, they saved

    It was not Kramp, who built the Varyag and Retvizan, who faked it, but the same Admiral Makarov, who wrote that "To protect the artillery there is no need to cover the guns with shields, but it is enough to scatter them around the ship to reduce the probability of hitting." In addition, the initial project of the Varyag provided for shield cover for artillery, but the gentlemen from the MTK were constantly worried about reducing the cost of the design.
    In addition, we should not forget the fact that a powerful Russian cruising detachment consisting of Gromoboy, Russia, Rurik, Bogatyr was separated from 1 TOE and was based on Vladivostok.
  31. pinecone
    pinecone 21 March 2013 07: 49 New
    +1
    [quote = geko] Thank god thanks to the genius Witte (who was clearly against the war)
    It should not be forgotten that this "genius" was one of the authors of the Far Eastern adventure with the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway, Port Arthur and the ravings about the incorporation of Manchuria and Korea into the Russian Empire.
    Of course, he did not want to fight Japan, but the Japanese had their own interests in this region, they did not ask him and struck first.
    Stolypin was right, who advocated the policy of isolationism, the need to concentrate all forces for the internal development of the country and the maintenance of a powerful Army to protect the homeland from external enemies.
    "The wealth of Russia will grow with Siberia," Lomonosov said. There it was necessary to direct the financial and human resources of the state, and not squander them on foreign territories. ... ...
    1. Denis
      Denis 21 March 2013 12: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: pinecone
      Far Eastern adventure with the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway, Port Arthur
      I came across a book "Why Russia is not America" ​​(and thank God! Only there about something else), unfortunately I do not remember the author. This is how the dependence on the climate was cited. Not so much in terms of agriculture, but in the amount of resources and forces required to fight cold. This is not only heating, but the walls need to be made thicker, more material consumption. Of course, Vladivastok is also an ice-free port, but it is also to the north. Maybe that's why they wanted to be located further south?
  32. pinecone
    pinecone 21 March 2013 08: 30 New
    0
    In the last phrase, which speaks about resources, the word "material" is missing.
  33. alicante11
    alicante11 21 March 2013 09: 29 New
    0
    With the surrender of Port Arthur, General Stessel rendered the Japanese Empire an invaluable service by substituting Rozhestvensky’s squadron, who had no choice but to lead a transported and overloaded squadron past Japan, which turned into a floating shooting gallery for the Togo fleet. In such a situation, probably only a complete nerd would not be able to shoot like floating barges during exercises, which were Russian battleships, overloaded with coal and drowned in water their entire armored protective belt.


    And what should Rozhestvensky do in Port Arthur after the fall of Vysokaya, to put his ships next to the ships of the 1-th TE?
    In the Tsushima battle, not everything is so categorical. Rozhestvensky's main mistake is "hitting one." Thanks to this order, Mikasa received serious damage in the first minutes of the battle. But the coverage of the Russian head put him out of the shelling and the flagship of Togo survived. And what our ships could have done with the Japanese if they had not fired at Mikasa is evidenced, for example, by the fact that the first ship knocked out of the line in the Tsushima battle was ... Asama. Who received a good twelve-inch hello from Nikolai under the overhead line and went to lick the wound, which turned out to be, apparently, serious. Of course, he later returned to duty. But, if only the third detachment immediately fired at him, and did not throw useless shells at Mikasa, would he have been able to return to duty? Izumo also received serious damage, and the Japanese Gariblai were generally cardboard cruisers for our guns, which was confirmed by both battles with their participation. Thus, to paraphrase Rozhestvensky, I would say "Hit the tails" and we would be happy.

    As for the bad Russian shells, the Germans drowned the British cruisers with the same shells quite normally. As for the unexploded ordnance, the Japanese also had it with their whole shimosa.

    common man
    And besides luck you didn’t notice anything there :)? As for Suvorov, I said that we lacked him instead of Kuropatkin. But this is not a fact that in those conditions he would not have provided us with his risk and activity as much a disservice as Makarov did, with all this, I repeat, respect for him. Taking risks in the blind is very, very dumb.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 21 March 2013 19: 07 New
      0
      Quote: alicante11
      And what should Rozhestvensky do in Port Arthur after the fall of the High,

      Yes, at least get rid of transports and excess coal on armadillos.
  34. SHOGUN
    SHOGUN 21 March 2013 11: 07 New
    +1
    There are a HUGE number of factors involved in the defeat at Tsushima. And the same HUGE amount could lead to victory. It makes no sense to describe all of them. They are known to everyone, they are simply analyzed either one-sidedly, or they are not taken into account as a whole. I was taught that if the Russian fleet would not have been exhausted by the long march. If they walked at a good angle and the work of the machines would be in order. They would not be overwhelmed. And they would not rush to the Togo squadron in wake formation. And they would carry out maneuvers and line up. We wouldn't have a chance. Although we had an advantage in strength. It is also important that the Japanese navy fought "at home". This is not all, this is only a small part of the huge number of factors that influenced the outcome of the battle. But they were not accidental! And so it was conceived! And the Emperor could not help much here. The Russian fleet was sailing in that part of the world where England ruled. And it was she who made no small contribution to the death of the Russian fleet. And if Rozhestvensky won, the British would have finished him off.
    Also, do not forget to forget that it was the Japanese who asked for peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Strange huh?
    I think this war was orchestrated by our common "friends", specifically against Russia. Japan at that time was a poor country. But she was given (on credit) everything she needed: the fleet, weapons, uniforms, trained officers, published newspapers, incited nationalism and militarism, just to have a pocket tiger in the east. Russia fell victim to a conspiracy. I think so.
  35. tomket
    tomket 21 March 2013 23: 44 New
    0
    If the actions of the OPPONENT played the main role in the defeat of the 41 of the year, then the INACTIVITY of Russia played the main role in the defeat of the 1905 of the year.
  36. Ilya Katasonov
    Ilya Katasonov 23 March 2013 11: 51 New
    0
    And again, we meet the false allies of the Russian Empire
  37. Marat
    Marat 24 March 2013 21: 48 New
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    A series of defeats led to the fact that returning what was lost was too long and expensive - it would not pay off. The king did not finish himself as a king, but as a merchant. And they decided to end the war.
    Thus, the defeat of Russia in this war is an objective phenomenon, which is not associated with the "rottenness" and "backwardness" of the autocracy, literacy / illiteracy or some mythical abilities of the Japanese. Well, luck was not on our side. (Although this is still how you look, without the defeat in Manchuria and the failed WWI there would have been no revolution, there would have been no Stalin and the great power that he created, but what could a nikolashka leave behind?).


    Russia, unlike the Japanese, could still continue the war and most likely would have ended it with a victory, although the price would have been very high ... As one of the German military specialists who was at that time in the Far East, after Mukden, said: "Japan is no longer capable of such a victory, while Russia is capable of several more such defeats."