Russia Left With Nothing: Portsmouth's Shame

13 330 210
Russia Left With Nothing: Portsmouth's Shame
Russian delegation in Portsmouth. Sit S. Yu. Witte and Baron R. R. Rosen


Petersburg is leaning towards peace


The death of the 2nd Pacific Squadron (based on the Baltic fleet) in the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 was one of the most severe humiliations of the Russian Empire. 21 ships were lost, 7 surrendered, 6 were interned. Almost 6 thousand people were killed and wounded, more than 6 thousand were captured. Japanese losses were minimal - 3 destroyers. No one expected such a defeat.



In Russia itself there was unrest, which was fueled as best they could by our Western "partners" and Japanese intelligence. Thus, in the Kingdom of Poland, unrest and a general strike in the summer grew into an armed uprising in the city of Lodz. Thousands of workers with red flags took to the streets. Polish nationalists and socialists began shooting at government officials and the military. Infantry, cavalry and Cossacks were sent against them. Hundreds of people were killed and wounded.

The empire was being "rocked". However, it was still strong - the police, Cossacks and the regular army fought the rebels. "Deep Russia" (the common people), which was called the "Black Hundreds", spoke out against the unrest that was undermining order and normal life.

After Tsushima, Emperor Nicholas II convened a meeting at which the question of a truce with Japan was raised. At the same time, new units and formations continued to move to the Far East. That same day (June 6), the Tsar granted an audience to the American ambassador George Meyer:

"So far no foreigner has set foot on Russian soil; but I know that the Japanese may land on Sakhalin at any moment. Therefore, a preliminary meeting must take place before that happens."

The chief Japanese strategist, General Kodama Gentaro, advocated peace, but believed that it was necessary to first seize some Russian territory to improve his negotiating position. The least protected part of Russia in the Far East was Sakhalin Island. On July 7, 1905, a Japanese landing force landed on Sakhalin. By the end of the month, the Russian garrison had been defeated and capitulated.

This operation, insignificant in military and strategic terms, had great political and diplomatic significance. The Japanese captured part of Russian land and could present it in negotiations.

Japan strengthened its international position. The Japanese Empire extended the Anglo-Japanese alliance for another ten years. London agreed that Korea would be transferred to Tokyo's sphere of influence. And most importantly, if the 1902 agreement had only defensive significance, then new articles were added that guaranteed military cooperation between London and Tokyo in the event of a third-party attack.

Almost simultaneously, a secret agreement was signed between Japan and the United States. In exchange for the Japanese firm refusal to lay claim to the Philippines, the Americans recognized Japan's authority over Korea.

At the same time, Russia’s opponents, with the help of the head of the Russian government Witte and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lamsdorf, torpedoed the possibility of a strategic alliance between Russia and Germany (the Björkö agreement).


Street demonstration of 1905. Artist: Vladislav Skochilyas

Japan needs peace


Despite the successes of the army and navy, diplomacy, Tokyo understood that the empire needed peace. The war had to be stopped while the army still looked like a winner. None of the victories of the Japanese army were decisive.

The Japanese military leaders were very concerned about the state of their troops. Manpower was exhausted, the army was no longer growing, there were almost no reserves. The Imperial General Staff calculated that Japan could put up another 1,5 divisions from the existing scattered units.

The army's officer and non-commissioned officer core had been wiped out in brutal battles. The regiments were led by elderly reserve officers, and the original command staff had either died or were undergoing treatment.

The Japanese army stopped its offensive in Manchuria, held on passively, de facto giving up the initiative in the war. In essence, the Japanese could no longer advance. There were no forces or resources, communications were greatly stretched. The wild and uninhabited spaces of Manchuria "dissolved" the Japanese army. And then there was even wilder Siberia. The Japanese were afraid that the Russians would go over to a "total" war, as with Napoleon. Japan did not have the resources for such a war.

More than half of the Japanese budget was spent on the war. This was ruining the empire. Russia, on the other hand, was not economically exhausted and had practically endless human reserves.

The real "brain" of the Japanese army, Kodama, arrived in Japan in the spring of 1905 and persistently promoted the idea of ​​concluding peace. He told the Vice Chief of the Japanese General Staff, Major General Nagaoka:

"I came to Tokyo with a specific purpose - to stop the war. Why aren't you doing anything here? Don't you know that if you start a fire, you have to think about how to put it out."

Eventually, Kodama was able to influence the government. Japanese politicians, with the help of the Americans, began to look for the possibility of concluding peace.

Meanwhile, the Russian army was only getting stronger. In the summer of 1905, the Russian army already had an overwhelming advantage: 38 full-fledged divisions against 20 Japanese. We had almost a corps against each Japanese division. The quality of our troops had noticeably improved: select regiments and divisions arrived from the western military districts (where they were preparing for war with the Germans).

Russia needed a victory. Russian Commander-in-Chief Linevich could simply crush the enemy with the quantity and quality of his troops. And then throw the Japanese into the sea. Victory would immediately weaken the revolutionary forces, restore the empire's prestige and respect in the world. It is possible that in 1914 Berlin would simply not have dared to start a war.

As the Russian military historian A. A. Kersnovsky noted: “If Linevich had gone on the offensive at Sypingai, Russia would not have known the disasters of 1905, the explosion of 1914 and the catastrophe of 1917.” Unfortunately, General Linevich did not feel the enormous historical tasks that were assigned to the Manchurian armies in that summer of 1905. He was completely immersed in “housekeeping”, looked at the troops, sent telegrams to Petersburg that these troops were “burning with the desire to fight and defeat the enemy”, but, alas, he himself did not show this desire.”

As a result, all the "windows of opportunity" were missed, all the opportunities were lost. Peace negotiations only suppressed the already weak will of the Russian commanders of this period of the empire's decline.

American Mediation


Washington realized that it was time for negotiations. Time to record profits and losses. The main tasks had been solved. Further victories and strengthening of Japan at the expense of Russia and China did not suit the USA. They did not need a new competitor in the region. Also, the Americans could not allow the defeat of Japan and strengthening of Russia in the Far East, which was also possible.

As early as March 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt informed the Japanese that he was prepared to act as a mediator. At the end of May, the Japanese side asked Roosevelt whether he could arrange a meeting between the two warring parties for the purpose of direct negotiations.

In June, Roosevelt made a proposal "in his own name and on his own initiative" to organize peace negotiations. Tsar Nicholas II accepted this mediation proposal, based on the position that "internal well-being is more important than victory." Although he made the reservation that "he cannot allow even one kopeck of contribution, nor the cession of one inch of land."

It was decided to hold the negotiations on the territory of a country not involved in the military conflict. Therefore, the peace conference was held in Portsmouth, USA, and opened on August 22, 1905. The Russian plenipotentiary delegation was headed by Witte, and the Japanese delegation by Foreign Minister Komura Jutaro.

Roosevelt was effectively blackmailing Nicholas the entire time the Russians and Japanese were negotiating peace. He wrote to the Tsar that "continuing the war means losing not only Sakhalin, but also Eastern Siberia."

Portsmouth and its importance


On September 5, 1905, in the American city of Portsmouth, Witte, Rosen, Komura, and Takahira signed a peace treaty. Russia handed over the Kwantung region with Port Arthur and Dalny to Japan, ceded the southern part of Sakhalin up to the 50th parallel, and gave up the South Manchurian Railway from Arthur to Changchun, 735 km long, with all its property (more than two-thirds of the entire road). The southernmost station remaining in the hands of the Russian CER was Kuanchengzi, in the northern part of Changchun. Russia recognized the predominance of Japanese interests in Korea and South Manchuria.

The Japanese demands for contributions and compensation for expenses (3 billion rubles) were rejected. Japan did not insist on them, was in a hurry to conclude peace and was afraid of the resumption of military actions under unfavorable conditions.

However, Russia was obliged to conclude a convention with Japan on fishing in the Russian territorial waters of the Sea of ​​Japan, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Bering Sea for a period of 12 years. The convention, signed on July 28, 1907 in St. Petersburg, was so advantageous for Japan that it was called a hidden contribution.

Witte also "forgot" about the ships of the 1st Pacific Squadron, half-sunk in Port Arthur (the Japanese raised them, strengthening their fleet), or captured due to Nebogatov's fault. These ships could and should have been returned to Russia, but this was not done. As a result, the battleships and cruisers strengthened the fleet of the Japanese Empire and reminded Russia of the "shameful" war.

Incidentally, Japan also took advantage of another prize that few people know about. The fact is that the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) was only being designed, and on June 12, 1898, by "the highest order" of Nicholas, the "CER Society" was granted the right to maintain an ocean shipping company. In the same year of 1898, the first three steamships were purchased in England. By the Russo-Japanese War, the "CER fleet" numbered 22 large and small vessels, including such cargo-passenger ships as the "Mongolia" and "Manchuria", which cost a million rubles each.

And almost all of this wealth went to the Japanese for nothing. Some was captured by them, some was raised from the bottom after we sank it. So Japan, even without Sakhalin, without the contribution from Russia, received very large compensation from the war - already due to Russia giving it ports, cities, communications, military ships and merchant ships.

Russia lost its main strategic and economic positions in the Far East, for which it paid a huge price in blood and gold. In particular, the Pacific Fleet and the possibility of its basing in the warm sea were lost. The Japanese in South Sakhalin threatened Vladivostok and our main sea communications. The colossal funds invested in Manchuria – Yellow Russia – were mostly lost.

Witte, having surrendered his position to Russia in the Far East, received the title of “king of all diplomats” from the American press.

Stalin was able to regain these positions in 1945 (Why Stalin Started the War Against Japan).

Russia was driven out of China (Manchuria), the large Far East, and again aimed at European showdowns. The rehearsal of the First World War was successful: the USA and England successfully pitted the Japanese and Russians against each other, then used this experience in Europe (Germans against Russians).

At the same time, Japan did not really win: it was hooked on loans, there was no contribution (damage to the economy), territorial concessions to Russia were minimal. Japan was weakened and could not threaten the US and Britain, which had their own plans for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region, in particular in China.

On March 1, 1919, the former corps commander on the Northern Front and future head of the War Ministry under Kolchak, Baron Alexei Budberg, was driving through Southern Manchuria, heading to Tokyo.

This is what he later wrote about this trip:

"We passed Antung, a former Korean village, now a respectable city with stone houses, factories and plants. It is sad to think that we started this too; We were the first to awaken deserted Manchuria, brought culture into it, invested many millions of Russian money, lost hundreds of thousands of Russian people and in the end made it a source of great benefits and income, but not for ourselves; Japan made a fortune, China acquired a lot and is preparing to acquire even more, but we, out of historical habit, have only gained grief, losses and a position at a broken trough."

A good epitaph for the Far Eastern policy of the tsarist government, the foundations of which were laid by Witte and which he buried in the American resort town of Portsmouth.


Portrait of Sergei Yulievich Witte during the signing of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty in 1905
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 14
    5 September 2025 04: 27
    For some reason the Author did not write about
    a derogatory nickname that Witte received after the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth: Count Polusakhalinsky wink
    1. +5
      5 September 2025 04: 38
      Well, how derogatory. More like sarcastic. And the sarcasm was not directed at Witte specifically. The fact that he defended half of Sakhalin, he really did a great job. In those conditions, it would have been unfair to demand more from him.
      1. +6
        5 September 2025 04: 40
        Quote: YAHU
        The fact that he defended half of Sakhalin, he is really great
        From gave half of Sakhalin. It's like a glass that's half full or half empty. It can be understood in different ways wink
        1. -1
          5 September 2025 04: 53
          What claims specifically to Witte? Yes, in those conditions it was a diplomatic victory. It was almost impossible to leave with a full glass. The Japanese government would not have gone for it. People would not have understood. What were they fighting for?
          1. +2
            5 September 2025 05: 33
            Quote: YAHU
            What claims are there specifically against Witte? Yes, in those conditions it was a diplomatic victory.

            Then the Brest “obscene” peace was also, in some way, a breakthrough in Bolshevik diplomacy.
            1. + 10
              5 September 2025 07: 05
              And it was a breakthrough. Only the situation changed to the opposite after six months, which is why V.I. Lenin himself called the treaty obscene.
              1. +6
                5 September 2025 07: 08
                Quote: Gardamir
                And it was a breakthrough. Only the situation changed to the opposite after six months, which is why V.I. Lenin himself called the treaty obscene.

                And I don't argue, especially in light of the fact that the German Empire barked a little later, and this "peace" became a worthless treaty. But the majority of anti-Soviets don't think so...
              2. + 14
                5 September 2025 11: 20
                Did Lenin have any options? The country was falling apart, the Germans were marching almost in formation to the east... he is only rude because Russia was the only defeated country that fought against Germany...
                Regarding the topic of the article - how big was the fleet of the Russian Empire after the massacre? If the Japanese had stretched logistics, then what can be said about ours, when the bulk of all Russian speakers are on the other side of the continent? The Japanese won a confident victory, and talk about the "big sleeping bear" is nothing more than a fairy tale
                1. -7
                  5 September 2025 13: 37
                  Quote: parma
                  Did Lenin have any options?
                  Neither war nor peace, and disband the army ©. The Germans would be exhausted by this time and would not have captured many territories. But Russia would have been sitting at the table in Versailles and dictating the terms of its peace to Germany
                  1. + 10
                    5 September 2025 13: 57
                    It is easy to reflect on this now in hindsight, but what was clear and obvious then? The German army was near Paris, the offensives of both sides were drowning in blood, the Eastern Front had effectively collapsed, and the empire was disintegrating into a bunch of small entities that were quite willing to go not just to peace, but to an alliance with Germany…
                    A trivial example: in February-March 2022, the whole world was sure that the SVO would end much earlier than summer, but now everyone’s point of view has changed.
                    1. 0
                      5 September 2025 14: 02
                      Quote: parma
                      The German army was near Paris, the offensives of both sides were drowning in blood
                      By this time, Germany was already starving, the entire male population was mobilized, and sea trade was completely blocked by the British fleet. And the Kaiser, at the end of 1916, had already begun to cautiously ask for peace.
                      1. 0
                        6 September 2025 05: 07
                        By 1917, the tsarist army could not fight with order number one. The supply of supplies and fodder was meager.
                        In addition, the Brest (bread) peace was first concluded with the Germans by Ukraine. A month earlier than the Bolsheviks. At the time of the peace, the Germans were already in Kyiv and advancing on St. Petersburg. Before that, the Bolsheviks refused to sign the peace.
                  2. 0
                    5 September 2025 22: 17
                    But the Germans were near Pskov and in Ukraine at that moment. What "stunning victory"?
                2. +3
                  5 September 2025 15: 41
                  Quote: parma
                  The Japanese won a decisive victory,

                  At the last moment. The situation for Japan was really extremely difficult and all they could do was "put on a good face in a bad game". Which they actually managed to do, regardless of whether the help "from outside" was that strong or not.
                  By that time, the armies in Manchuria had reached a "static equilibrium" in communications, and whoever could turn this situation in their favor would win the theater of military operations. Our reserves (not in troops, or rather not only in troops, but in supply means) on land were much higher than the Japanese. With decisive action, the next "equilibrium" would most likely be established where it all began - on the Yangtze. Of course, all this was not within the framework and time frame of the tank armies' attack, but on the foreseeable horizon. Would they have been able to recapture Liaote-shan? Controversial, but they would certainly have been able to block it from land.
                  And these are completely different conditions for negotiations.
                  1. +3
                    5 September 2025 19: 39
                    And who knew about it at that time? Once again, now it is easy and convenient to reason knowing the facts (or fiction, thinking that these are facts). The following was reliably known at that time - a stunning defeat at sea, the empire practically lost its fleet, on land there was also a defeat, the enemy not only occupied the "colony", but even part of the territory of the official empire. Echelons are leaving for the east, but what really awaits them there is unclear. What if the departure troops are waiting for another defeat? Give up even more imperial lands? And how will the subjects look at this, they will not want much of the king, the choice was not small ...
                    1. +1
                      5 September 2025 20: 43
                      Quote: parma
                      And who knew about it at that time? Once again, now it is easy and convenient to reason knowing the facts (or fiction, thinking that these are facts). The following was reliably known at that time - a stunning defeat at sea, the empire practically lost its fleet, on land there was also a defeat, the enemy not only occupied the "colony", but even part of the territory of the official empire. Echelons are leaving for the east, but what really awaits them there is unclear. What if the departure troops are waiting for another defeat? Give up even more imperial lands? And how will the subjects look at this, they will not want much of the king, the choice was not small ...

                      1904... - 1941... - ?
                      I am not rooting for the USSR here. And people were no dumber then, at the very least, and they knew how to count. It is just that the leadership lacks the will to win, both on the external and internal fronts. And not the slightest attempt to consolidate society. Let's not take seriously the "popular pictures" about "yellow macaques"?
                      Does this remind me of something?.. recourse
                    2. 0
                      5 September 2025 20: 55
                      Quote: parma
                      And who knew about this at that time?

                      He didn't show the trees for the forest.
                      And who can know the future with 100 or even 75% guarantee? It is impossible to know, but it is necessary to make the most probable forecasts and prepare for them request
            2. -4
              5 September 2025 08: 42
              Yes, absolutely. It could have been much worse, given the real state of affairs. And how did it happen that soon after the conclusion of this peace, the German Empire went on a short erotic voyage? It would seem that they got such perks from Russia, but it did no good?
            3. +1
              5 September 2025 09: 01
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: YAHU
              What claims are there specifically against Witte? Yes, in those conditions it was a diplomatic victory.

              Then the Brest “obscene” peace was also, in some way, a breakthrough in Bolshevik diplomacy.

              At that moment and in those conditions - a hard-won draw, the Germans could have squeezed out much more. You can't call it a victory/breakthrough - but they gained time, and it ended in disaster for the Germans
              1. -1
                5 September 2025 09: 32
                “Deep Russia” (the common people) spoke out against the turmoil that was undermining order and normal life, and they called it the “Black Hundreds.”

                What?! The Russian people fought on the barricades of Krasnaya Presnya. To shut the people up, the small victorious war.
                The Black Hundreds were a diverse group of elements: landowners, representatives of the large and small urban bourgeoisie, clergy, merchants, townspeople, artisans, Cossacks, police officials, who advocated preserving the inviolability of the autocracy on the basis of Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”
                The author is another bun cruncher.
                And there is no need to attribute to Russia the defeat of the autocratic regime, rotten by the beginning of the 20th century.
              2. -4
                5 September 2025 12: 49
                Quote: your1970
                At that moment and in those conditions - a hard-won draw, the Germans could have squeezed out much more. You can't call it a victory/breakthrough - but they gained time

                What kind of "draw"? A catastrophic defeat of the clueless amateurs/traitors of Russia, who turned Russia into an outcast.

                The Germans took everything they wanted, and they immediately spat on the borders of Brest.
                The Entente could have leave the Brest Treaty is in force and Lenin would not have done anything...
                1. -1
                  5 September 2025 22: 20
                  You forget that by that time the regime of Tsar Nicholas No. 2 was rotten through and through. And it collapsed first and foremost at the hands of its own bourgeoisie.
                  1. -1
                    6 September 2025 10: 52
                    and with whom did Stalin fight all his soviet life - shooting hundreds of thousands in peacetime, imprisoning millions (the fight is only intensifying)? And our Amria stood in Hungary and Turkey in the artillery 17
                    Quote: Jager
                    And it collapsed at the hands of its own bourgeois the first place

                    at least read Stalin - a short course
                2. 0
                  6 September 2025 05: 10
                  Six months later, all the consequences of the Brest Peace Treaty were annulled.
                  At the same time, try to condemn the Portsmouth Peace with your logic. After all, Japan could not continue to fight. What prevented the tsarist government from waiting for the Victory in 1905, the Bolsheviks again?
                  1. 0
                    6 September 2025 10: 56
                    Quote: Redoubt
                    Six months later, all the consequences of the Brest Peace Treaty were annulled.

                    ANTANTA cancelled, thanks to her. But she could have left it.
                    Quote: Redoubt
                    At the same time, try to condemn the Portsmouth Peace with your logic. After all, Japan could not continue to fight. What prevented the tsarist government from waiting for the Victory in 1905, the Bolsheviks again?

                    belay Did someone finish off the Japanese from behind, like the Germans in WWI? What are you talking about?
          2. +5
            5 September 2025 09: 36
            Then what claims, for example, to Lenin's peace treaty in Brest? The war was ended, as promised to the people. Yes
            1. +4
              5 September 2025 10: 04
              How can there be no claims against Lenin, he was a German spy after all. laughing But our "hurray-patriots" have no complaints about the Ukrainian Rada, which signed the Brest Treaty before the Bolsheviks, and according to the articles of this treaty, allowed the occupation of Ukraine within the borders that the Ukrainian nationalists imagined. Yes
              1. + 10
                5 September 2025 10: 18
                Yeah. And also, the Germans, when they recruited Lenin and paid him in gold, said: "As soon as you take power, immediately start opening research institutes and universities, build power plants, create a combat-ready army and provide all Soviet people with free medicine and universal education!" Yes laughing
                1. +2
                  5 September 2025 10: 32
                  Quote from AdAstra
                  When they recruited Lenin and paid him in gold, they said: "As soon as you take power, immediately begin to open

                  I wish they would recruit me like that now winked
                2. +1
                  5 September 2025 10: 48
                  And if they remain, carry out a revolution here, in Austria-Hungary... Yes
                3. +2
                  5 September 2025 11: 54
                  Quote from AdAstra
                  Yeah. And also, the Germans, when they recruited Lenin and paid him in gold, said: "As soon as you take power, immediately start opening research institutes and universities, build power plants, create a combat-ready army and provide all Soviet people with free medicine and universal education!" Yes laughing

                  No-no-no... the Germans, when they recruited Lenin and paid him in gold, said: "As soon as you take power, immediately begin preparing a revolution in Germany and pay local revolutionaries with our gold. Our troops at the front absolutely need to get a knife in the back". laughing
              2. +2
                6 September 2025 05: 13
                Many people always forget about the bread peace between the UPR and Germany, which was concluded in Brest a month earlier than the forced peace with the Germans of the Bolsheviks, who had only just managed to repel them from St. Petersburg (we celebrate on February 23)
                1. 0
                  9 September 2025 15: 45
                  Quote: Redoubt
                  Many people always forget about the bread peace between the UPR and Germany, which was concluded in Brest a month earlier than the forced peace with the Germans of the Bolsheviks, who had only just managed to repel them from St. Petersburg (we celebrate on February 23)

                  The whole joke is that this peace did not help. As a result of the pacification in the East, the Reich did not receive Ukrainian grain, and was unable to free the troops. The grain knocked out of Ukraine by the Germans was barely enough to provide for the occupation contingent. It was impossible to reduce it, because otherwise it would not have been possible to obtain any grain at all.
                  In short, hello to the rake of food tax collection in the land of strong businessmen with machine guns. smile
          3. 0
            14 September 2025 07: 35
            The Japanese government wouldn't have gone for it. People wouldn't have understood. What were they fighting for?
            //////
            The Japanese wouldn't go. But we didn't have to listen to the Americans either. Russia had pulled a new military grouping to the theater of operations against a weakened Japan, and we had to act.
            And now Trump is shouting from all the irons: "let's stop this war." And the political reincarnation of Witte - a certain Lavrov - is dragging himself around Istanbul and Alaska with peace proposals. The same reincarnation, but this time of Nicholas II, in the person of the current Supreme Leader, flies out for negotiations at the first request, and instantly, like to a fire. Moreover, serious leaks are allowed on the topic - where we are ready to stop, and what we agree "not to lay claim to." The American Congress then discusses options in accordance with these "leaks." The official Kremlin modestly keeps silent, and the Russian army continues to advance.
            It's true - more than 100 years have passed, but the movie is still the same. Only the characters and performers are new....
            1. 0
              14 September 2025 08: 12
              Have you forgotten about the February Revolution? Things were not easy for either of them. So they made mutual concessions. Yes. Mutual. Because it was unrealistic to recapture Sakhalin by military means. They simply would not have landed there without a fleet. With all my "love" for Nicholas. But in this case. He had no time for Sakhalin. And maybe he was right. The Provisional Government was determined to fight to the bitter end. And where is it? And was the Brest Peace a mistake? In the end, Sakhalin was returned. Now quote to me "where the German soldier's foot stood." And let it all burn. But not a single piece. Sacred. Even if every piece is covered with graves. The women will still give birth. So how are you any better than the supporters of returning to the borders of 2014? You are not. The only difference is that you are on the other side. So we get mirror images. Only left and right have swapped. Some shout "patriots of Ukraine", others "of Russia". But a mistake was made when the small victorious one began. And this applies not only to 1904. When will some people finally understand?
        2. +1
          5 September 2025 07: 57
          He didn't give anything away. Because the Japanese already had all of Sakhalin, de facto. And if someone less dodgy had been in Witte's place, all of Sakhalin would have become Japanese de jure.
          Alas, diplomats and politicians are forced to proceed from the real situation. And it was certainly not only Witte who was to blame for the situation being so deplorable. If Russian generals and admirals had fought more successfully, Russia would have had a better negotiating position. But as it was... "advanced Asia smashed backward Europe."
          1. -5
            5 September 2025 08: 34
            Quote: Illanatol
            And if there had been someone less dodgy in Witte's place, the whole of Sakhalin would have become Japanese de jure
            If someone were in Witte's place, more resourceful, then the Japanese would not have seen the southern part of Sakhalin, as if they had their ears
            1. -3
              5 September 2025 08: 39
              Names, surnames, addresses... who is he, why didn't he leave a trace in History?
              In general, are there many known precedents when purely diplomatic methods were used to force the victorious army to leave an already occupied territory of such size?
              Into the studio, please...

              Sorry, but even Gorchakov couldn’t have done it better.
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 08: 44
                Quote: Illanatol
                In general, are there many known precedents when purely diplomatic methods could have forced the victorious army to leave an already occupied territory of such size?
                Into the studio, please...

                In a studio:

                Quote: Illanatol
                Nevertheless, with his diplomacy, Witte returned northern Sakhalin, half of the island
              2. +4
                5 September 2025 08: 52
                In general, are there many known precedents when purely diplomatic methods were used to force the victorious army to leave an already occupied territory of such size?
                Into the studio, please...

                It is enough to remember who took Vienna in 1945.
                1. -5
                  5 September 2025 08: 55
                  The Red Army did not conquer Austria, but liberated it from Nazism. Is there a difference?
                  I suspect that the Japanese army did conquer Sakhalin.
                  1. +8
                    5 September 2025 08: 58
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    The Red Army did not conquer Austria, but liberated it from Nazism. Is there a difference?

                    Yes? What about the medal "For the Capture of Vienna"?
                    1. -5
                      5 September 2025 09: 14
                      So what? They took Vienna from the Nazi troops and returned it to the Austrian people.
                      Fershteyn?
                      1. +5
                        5 September 2025 11: 57
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        So what? They took Vienna from the Nazi troops and returned it to the Austrian people.

                        Yeah... and Berlin was taken from the Nazi troops and returned to the German people.
                        And look, don't get confused: in uniform - Nazi troops, murderers and punishers. And if they took off their uniform - then they immediately turned into innocent people. smile
                  2. +1
                    5 September 2025 08: 59
                    You asked a specific question and received a specific answer.
                    We can also recall the territorial results of the last Russo-Turkish war.
                    1. -3
                      5 September 2025 09: 05
                      Specific, but not correct. Do not confuse conquest and liberation in the future. Or prove that the Soviet leadership had a firm intention to include Austria in the USSR or the socialist camp.

                      As for the results of the last Russo-Turkish war, they were not so bad for Russia. They increased their territory (Moldova, Armenia), and the fact that the "Greater Bulgaria" project went down the drain is not so bad for Russia, considering what position the Bulgarians will take in subsequent wars.
                      1. +3
                        5 September 2025 09: 15
                        Moldova, Armenia
                        Priceless acquisitions, compared to the fact that the Russian army was two days’ march from Istanbul!
                      2. +1
                        6 September 2025 09: 19
                        "...we don't need the Turkish coast."
                        Really not needed. There are enough Turks in our country as it is.
                        Maybe it would be better to think about how to develop our Russian regions, rather than engage in imperialism?
                      3. +5
                        5 September 2025 10: 55
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Or prove that the Soviet leadership had a firm intention to include Austria in the USSR or the socialist camp.

                        But it's a pity that the Soviet troops withdrew from Vienna. They gave in to the Western "allies" and immediately received a "gift" - the Hungarian rebellion.
                        It seems that Austria was also a “victim” in WWII, but for some reason no one remembers the 1 million Austrians in the Wehrmacht and 150 thousand in the SS.
                      4. -2
                        5 September 2025 12: 52
                        No evidence? Question closed. The rest is beside the point.
                        Was it worthwhile to engage in such "export of socialism"? Well, if they had let Hungary go on the same terms of neutrality to the USSR, like Austria and Finland, maybe they would have had less trouble.
                        The Czech Republic is also considered a victim, Poland is considered a victim, France is considered a victim. But these "victims" still made their mark on the Eastern Front. What can you do, Europe does not suffer from Russophobia, it enjoys it.
                      5. +4
                        5 September 2025 13: 10
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Was it even worthwhile to engage in such “export of socialism”?

                        Actually, it was worth it, and much more widely and forcefully than they did in the USSR. Socialism and capitalism are antagonists. There is nothing in the world that could organically connect them. To remain the only socialist country in the world means to sooner or later receive a fatal blow from the majority. Now something remotely similar can be seen in the example of China. Although it is not socialism, but the system is somewhat different from Western imperialism, and even competitive with it, but I do not see the prerequisites for its victory, because China is alone, and the USA is again forging alliances. The USSR also built an international alliance, which worked well as a counterweight to the American one. But after Khrushchev's voluntaristic antics, everything went to hell, the alliance split, and this became the beginning of the end for the first socialist experience.
                        No country can resist all the others for long - this is an axiom.
                      6. +1
                        6 September 2025 09: 12
                        Well, I think differently. There is no point in rushing things and running ahead of the locomotive of History. Socialism must come by itself, as a result of the choice of the peoples themselves. Only then will it be sufficiently rooted. In the DPRK and Cuba, it has taken root. And in Eastern Europe... where is socialism now?
                        The USSR should have concentrated its efforts where they could actually bring positive results and not strive to impose its ideology by force, causing the opposite effect. From the same Eastern European countries it was enough to receive guarantees of neutrality and mutually beneficial trade, as in the case of Finland.

                        All the rest can be resisted, if there are weapons of deterrence. No one will attack if they know that a single country can destroy the enemy in a few hours. And the capitalist world cannot be united, it is always split and heterogeneous. Strong alliances between capitalist countries are impossible, there will always be contradictions and conflicts of interest.
                        China also has its vassals and allies (Pakistan, North Korea, some African countries), so it is not entirely alone. The US should not count on success in a conflict with China; alliances will not help them.
                      7. +1
                        8 September 2025 19: 06
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Socialism must still come on its own, as a result of the choice of the peoples themselves.

                        Dear Anatoly, if you believe that the working masses themselves will reach the point where it is necessary to change the political and economic formation, then you can wait forever. After all, the majority of the proletariat does not have access to quality education, moreover, this right is increasingly artificially limited by any means and under any pretext. And illiterate people are not capable of critical thinking, analyzing, seeing the big picture. And those rare nuggets from the people, with their brilliant intellectual data and outstanding leadership qualities, will either be bribed or quickly destroyed, "if they don't do something funny." By the way, the Mensheviks once suggested "waiting a little bit," and Lenin understood that this "a little bit" would become an eternity. Trotsky & Co. were preaching that it was impossible to include the peasantry in the struggle (they were not mature enough yet), but how significant it is that the much more literate and advanced in every sense European (German, French, English, etc.) proletariat has not “grown up” to this day, “not realized”... winked A few centuries weren't enough? wassat
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        It has taken root in the DPRK and Cuba

                        Do you want to say that the Korean and Cuban proletariat are the most progressive in the world? laughing
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        The USSR should have concentrated its efforts where they could actually bring positive results

                        Where is it?
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        All the rest can be resisted if there are weapons of deterrence.

                        It is possible to resist all the rest, but not for long. For a long time - extremely difficult. Always - impossible.
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        No one will attack if they know that a single country can destroy the enemy in a few hours.

                        Of course it will, despite the might of the Soviet army, aggressive ideas were constantly hatched against it, plans for an attack-invasion were made, provocative military exercises were conducted near the borders. There were quite strong "groups of hawks" who seriously proposed to solve the "Soviet question" by military means. And where did you get the idea that it is possible to "destroy everyone at once in a few hours"? Even the gigantic Soviet arsenal was not capable of this, let alone today.
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        And the capitalist world cannot be united, it is always split and heterogeneous

                        No, not always. It is split and heterogeneous when it divides sales markets, but in a moment of common danger (and socialism is a huge danger for all capitalist usurers) it is very much united and cohesive. In the same Korean War, soldiers from a dozen European countries killed northern communists (and what were they doing there...???).
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Strong alliances between capitalist countries are impossible

                        Certainly. But in the face of a real common threat, billionaires are able to reach agreements surprisingly quickly and efficiently (to the envy of the proletarians of all countries, who have never learned to do this. True, some people make a lot of efforts to ensure that they never learn).
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        (Pakistan, North Korea, some African countries), so not entirely alone

                        Pakistan is a very situational "ally", on the wave of confrontation with the Indian neighbor. But if you consider that the entire elite there (military and political) has been tied to the Anglo-Saxons for centuries, I would not "bet on this horse" in a future big war against America & Co. And the only trump card of the DPRK is the presence of nuclear weapons. But their presence and the possibility of high-quality mass use are not the same thing, you understand. The PLA has much more powerful and diverse forces of the nuclear triad, in comparison with which the DPRK is only a "pleasant bonus", and not a powerful support. The forces of the DPRK, if necessary, will be enough only to eliminate the South Korean threat, which is also not small, but on the global scale of the confrontation will not play any significant role.
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        The US should not count on success in the conflict with China

                        Why?
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Unions won't help them.

                        Only alliances will help them. And if they manage to pull the Russian elites into their camp, then China's fate becomes completely unenviable.
                      8. +2
                        5 September 2025 13: 01
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        As for the results of the last Russo-Turkish war, they were not so bad for Russia. They increased their territory (Moldova, Armenia), and the fact that the "Greater Bulgaria" project went down the drain is not so bad for Russia, considering what position the Bulgarians will take in subsequent wars.

                        Considering that England, which did not participate in the war, received Cyprus... We can say that our diplomats squandered all the achievements of the army and navy
                      9. +2
                        5 September 2025 13: 09
                        Well, excuse me. Why did the Greeks fall under the Anglos, and the Bulgarians under the Germans? Maybe because the Anglos and Germans had something to offer their new vassals? Money, technology, other goodies?
                        They usually make friends with the rich and developed. What could Russia really offer the Cypriots? On the other hand, what could Cyprus give Russia?

                        The fact that our country was not very developed and had little to offer is not the diplomats' fault. And it is not the diplomats' fault that the Russian army fought more than once for other people's interests, participating in foreign and unnecessary wars, from which other powers benefited. Say "thank you" to our autocrats, who were a jack of all trades. All they wanted was "integration into the civilized community."
                      10. 0
                        5 September 2025 14: 39
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        What could Russia really offer the Cypriots? On the other hand, what could Cyprus give to Russia?

                        Cyprus was then part of Turkey and the Turks gave it to the British for help in the war against Russia. In the end, they lost the war and gave Cyprus away.
                      11. 0
                        6 September 2025 09: 00
                        Well, what is the problem for us? What have we lost in this situation? Cyprus did not belong to us, so what are the losses and the defeat of our diplomacy?
                        It's the Turks' fault that they lost control over the Balkan lands and Cyprus waved goodbye to them.
                        Should Russia have been so upset by Serbia's independence? Serbs are one of the few peoples who actually treat Russians well.
                        We don't care about Cyprus.
                      12. 0
                        8 September 2025 08: 32
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Well, what is the problem for us? What have we lost in this situation? Cyprus did not belong to us, so what are the losses and the defeat of our diplomacy?

                        It's just my admiration for the skill of British diplomacy.
                      13. 0
                        8 September 2025 08: 59
                        Yes, to your health. Well, yes, everything works out for the Anglo-Saxons. It's just not clear how such wise and cunning people managed to enter the 20th century with a huge empire, and exit - with its pathetic stub and in the status of Tabaqui the jackal to the star-spangled Shere Khan.
                        And what about Cyprus? Are the Britons still in charge of this island or not quite?
                      14. 0
                        29 November 2025 11: 16
                        As for the results of the last Russo-Turkish war, they weren't all that bad for Russia. They expanded their territory (Moldova, Armenia), and the fact that the "Greater Bulgaria" project went belly up isn't all that bad for Russia.

                        The strategic goals of that war were completely failed. Access to the Bosphorus, which remained under the Ottoman Empire, was not achieved, and as a result, the Black Sea was destined to become an internal sea of ​​the Russian Empire.
              3. 0
                5 September 2025 12: 56
                Quote: Illanatol
                Sorry, but even Gorchakov couldn’t have done it better.

                Forgive me, but Gorchakov is not an example here at all. The Berlin Congress is proof of that.
                1. 0
                  5 September 2025 13: 11
                  Whoever can, let him do better. Who could do better?
            2. +3
              5 September 2025 09: 21
              The diplomats' resourcefulness will give nothing after the generals' defeat. They can lose after victory, but they will not be able to gain after defeat.
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 12: 55
                Skillful diplomacy can still compensate for some of the losses incurred by the military. And it is worth remembering how Russian diplomacy, having taken advantage of the situation, annulled the humiliating peace terms concluded following the Crimean War.
                1. +2
                  5 September 2025 13: 44
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Russian diplomacy, taking advantage of the situation, annulled the humiliating peace terms for Russia, concluded following the Crimean War
                  It's not a matter of diplomacy, but of the situation France found itself in after the Franco-Prussian War. The German Empire was created and it became clear to all the victors of the Crimean War that the next war would be with Germany. That's why all the restrictions imposed on Russia were quickly lifted. And the diplomats simply formalized it on paper.
                  1. 0
                    6 September 2025 08: 54
                    Well, that's what I pointed out about using the situation. Yeah, the initiative belonged to yesterday's victors. No way! The initiative came from Russian diplomats, who announced in a formal manner that Russia no longer intended to observe the terms of the Paris Peace. England and France didn't like it very much, but they had to wipe their faces, they couldn't do anything. And the Black Sea Fleet regained its right to exist.
          2. 0
            5 September 2025 22: 22
            If Nicholas had the will and intelligence of an autocrat, he would have delved into the essence of the issue, and not given lengthy orders in the style of “God will help.”
        3. +4
          5 September 2025 08: 56
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Quote: YAHU
          The fact that he defended half of Sakhalin, he is really great
          From gave half of Sakhalin. It's like a glass that's half full or half empty. It can be understood in different ways wink

          But everyone forgets that at the time of the negotiations Sakhalin was occupied fully:
          "On July 7, 1905, a Japanese landing force landed on Sakhalin. By the end of the month, the Russian garrison was defeated and capitulated."
          Considering the lack of strategic intelligence in Japan, the loss of the fleet as such, the absence of contributions, the seizure of half of occupied Sakhalin back is a complete diplomatic victory.
          If the army squandered everything it could, then diplomacy saved everything it could.
          1. +2
            5 September 2025 13: 32
            Quote: your1970
            Taking back half of occupied Sakhalin is a complete diplomatic victory
            A complete diplomatic victory would be to completely seize the island. At the same time, Russia had huge resources in reserve, and Japan had already exhausted them
            1. +3
              5 September 2025 17: 00
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              Quote: your1970
              Taking back half of occupied Sakhalin is a complete diplomatic victory
              A complete diplomatic victory would be to completely seize the island. At the same time, Russia had huge resources in reserve, and Japan had already exhausted them

              In order to know that Japan's resources are exhausted, strategic intelligence is needed, which it did not have.
              And the available information said that the Japanese army and navy were combat-ready, England supported Japan, the Japanese supported their emperor. And in the Russian Empire - the army was God knows where, there were no supplies, no navy, the population was rebelling.
              And at the same time to take away half of Sakhalin - when there was not even a technical possibility to force the release of what had been taken away because there was no fleet - this is the greatest diplomatic victory against the backdrop of the incompetence of the army and government.
              This is about how the Third Reich would have achieved a return half of Prussia in 1945 belay

              Khrushchev simply abandoned Port Arthur and ran away...
              1. +2
                5 September 2025 17: 06
                Quote: your1970
                In order to know that Japan's resources are exhausted, strategic intelligence is needed.
                Japan, an island state, is in dire need of raw materials and partly of food. This is clear even without any strategic intelligence
                Quote: your1970
                And in the Russian Empire - the army is God knows where, there are no supplies, no navy
                It would have been possible to manage without a fleet, but I completely agree with you about supplies!
                1. 0
                  5 September 2025 17: 45
                  Quote: Dutchman Michel
                  Japan, an island state, is in dire need of raw materials and partly of food. This is clear even without any strategic intelligence

                  The Russian Empire had no fleet at all - even a tiny bit of space to import everything and anything to Japan. England with its Grand Fleet was on Japan's side.
                  With such cover it was possible to transport ALL in view of Vladivostok, the Russian fleet could at most show a fig in the direction of the caravans.
                  England was blockaded in WWII - ran out of resources?
                  Leningrad was in a deep blockade - NEW ones were made there - not repaired, but new KV-1. Where did they get the resources from?
                  1. +1
                    21 December 2025 13: 08
                    Leningrad was in a deep blockade - NEW ones were made there - not repaired, but new KV-1. Where did they get the resources from?

                    Mostly from the stockpile that hadn't been evacuated in time. Some of the missing parts were able to be delivered, including from the ChKZ. In the fall of 1943, the rolling mill resumed operation, but cautiously, primarily in the interests of the Baltic Fleet. Full plant operations were restored in 1944.
                    1. -1
                      21 December 2025 19: 08
                      Quote: Lynnot
                      Leningrad was in a deep blockade - NEW ones were made there - not repaired, but new KV-1. Where did they get the resources from?

                      Mostly from the stockpile that hadn't been evacuated in time. Some of the missing parts were able to be delivered, including from the ChKZ. In the fall of 1943, the rolling mill resumed operation, but cautiously, primarily in the interests of the Baltic Fleet. Full plant operations were restored in 1944.

                      "In the second half of 1941 alone, out of 30,2 thousand artillery pieces manufactured in the country, 3 thousand 053 were fired in besieged Leningrad (10,1%), of the 42,3 thousand mortars Leningrad gave to the front 9 thousand 997 (23,5%), out of 4,8 thousand tanks, Leningrad factories produced 713 (14,8%), 480 armored vehicles, 58 armored trains belay (The Leningrad epic of defense organization and the city’s population. Ed. board: V.M. Kovalchuk, N.A. Lomagin, V.A. Shishkin. St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 158.)
                      1. +1
                        21 December 2025 22: 29
                        Actually, the question was about the KV-1. New tanks were assembled from the remaining stock, while T-26s were also rebuilt from tanks assembled for conversion into chemical tanks. Incidentally, the 45mm 20K guns, previously removed from these tanks and BTs in 1940 and stored at the Izhora Plant in quantities of about 1,500, were converted into "7-33" anti-tank guns, known as "Leningradkas."
        4. +5
          5 September 2025 10: 31
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          He gave away half of Sakhalin.

          Japanese troops captured whole Sakhalin. Witte got half of it back with the help of diplomacy.
        5. -2
          5 September 2025 20: 10
          Witte didn't give anything away, the Japanese themselves captured Sakhalin. He, let's say, steered half of Sakhalin for Russia. So it would be fairer to say that the glass is half full.
          1. 0
            21 December 2025 13: 16
            Let's say they steered half of Sakhalin for Russia.

            Like, love everything, then bargain for a piece for yourself and admire the diplomatic victory achieved...
            1. 0
              27 January 2026 11: 04
              It would be interesting if they agreed that the Japanese would fold and leave, but would receive a contribution (for the insult of occupying Port Arthur), non-intervention by the Russian Empire in Korea, and the same fishing concession.
              Would this have been better for the Russian Empire?
              1. 0
                28 January 2026 01: 28
                So, would we have reached the same outcome without the fighting and the losses involved? The lyrics of the song come to mind:
                "Everyone, everyone believes in the best
                The blue carriage rolls, rolls...
        6. 0
          27 January 2026 11: 00
          It all depends on the initial conditions of the negotiations. Witte was given a pretty crappy deal.
          I don't believe Witte personally failed the negotiations; I believe the preparation for the negotiations was flawed—the delegation wasn't adequately informed of the current state of affairs, and the "assistants" and "advisers" were foreign citizens who were interested in humiliating the Republic of Ingushetia. In short, it was a direct consequence of inept personnel management.
    2. +2
      5 September 2025 07: 54
      It was not derogatory. After all, Witte's diplomacy had returned northern Sakhalin, half of the island. The tsar's generals, who had lost the entire island, deserved more humiliation.
      1. 0
        5 September 2025 08: 57
        By the way, this is a good lesson for our "land forces", how, despite the multiple superiority of forces, we were unable to prevent the capture of Sakhalin by the enemy's naval landing force.
        1. +1
          5 September 2025 16: 04
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          By the way, this is a good lesson for our "land forces", how, despite the multiple superiority of forces, we were unable to prevent the capture of Sakhalin by the enemy's naval landing force.

          What a multiple of the superiority of forces belay?! In fact the island with the total dominance of the Japanese Navy at sea? Or those of our forces that were stationed in Manchuria, a thousand kilometers from the theater of military operations and without real means of communication (not counting the strait, which is part of the sea)?
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 17: 19
            38 divisions against 20.
            But in the right place, at the right time, the Japanese have the upper hand. Because they have a fleet - we don't.
            He who controls the sea can fight where it is advantageous for him on enemy territory. The opposite is impossible.
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 17: 38
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              He who controls the sea can fight where it is advantageous for him on enemy territory. The opposite is impossible.

              I agree, of course, but not in the vast expanses of Manchuria. Tank wedges are already in charge there. laughing
        2. 0
          5 September 2025 17: 03
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          By the way, this is a good lesson for our "landlubbers"

          There is a "minus", but there is no clear answer from you, Victor laughing
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 17: 21
            The minus is not mine.
            Landlubbers are usually not pests, but those who do evil out of ignorance.
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 17: 30
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Landlubbers are usually not pests, but those who do evil out of ignorance.

              In terms of discussion - from the very beginning of the war, there was no chance to hold on to Sakhalin, even at the time when the Japanese did not have dominance at sea (only superiority). They simply did not have such goals and objectives at that time. They only got up to it when they were "pressed" to conclude a peace that was beneficial to them.
              Do not agree?
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 17: 36
                Is not a fact!
                Landing without support = surrender of combat-ready units.
                The fact that the Japanese carried out this operation right under the negotiations speaks to the high level of both political and military leadership, who correctly understood the role of the navy in the colonial war.
                1. +2
                  5 September 2025 17: 53
                  Quote: Victor Leningradets
                  Is not a fact!
                  Landing without support = surrender of combat-ready units.

                  Sakhalin was "defended" at the beginning of the war 4 (four) companies. At the time of the landing in 1905, two companies were deployed to the composition of incomplete battalions + convicts. Who would have defended in 1904?
                  And who will interfere with the supply? The cruisers Enkvist? The fifth combat detachment (which was an "extra" both at Arthur and at Tsushima) supported by insignificant light forces, will be enough to secure the supply line between Hokkaido and Sakhalin. How long is the La Perouse Strait? 22-24 miles?
                  1. 0
                    5 September 2025 18: 02
                    You keep repeating my main idea, hanging it with details.
                    We don't have a fleet, but the Japanese do, and they know how to use it. If we had a fleet, it would be impossible to land with support. Ours would have transferred more troops along the Amur and that's it, even without ambarkatiya.
                    1. +2
                      5 September 2025 18: 06
                      Quote: Victor Leningradets
                      You seem to be repeating the main idea all the time,

                      Yes. In the context that Sakhalin as a goal was not at all in the war. It became a goal only as a bargaining chip when concluding peace. And the successes of the land army at the final stage of the war could have kept it in full force for the empire. But it happened as it happened. request
                    2. 0
                      5 September 2025 18: 11
                      Quote: Victor Leningradets
                      We don't have a navy, but the Japanese do.

                      Sorry, I didn’t get it right away, you were obviously in a hurry to write).
                      Even if we had a fleet, if the Japanese had targeted Sakhalin, we still would not have been able to hold it.
                2. 0
                  5 September 2025 18: 02
                  I haven't even mentioned the mines, which are so beloved by both sides.
                  And how will you supply your people? Across Sakhalin without roads? It is not yet known who will have greater difficulties with supplies. request
          2. 0
            5 September 2025 17: 31
            If in 1939 the USSR had a real fleet in the Baltic, and not the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, then there would have been no "Winter War" with significant losses, but there would have been a landing operation to neutralize the Finnish Command and a Proletarian Revolution in Finland, which would have led to the formation of another full-fledged republic within the USSR.
            The same goes for the operations of the Baltic fronts in 1944. Instead of rivers of blood, there was a surgical blockade of Army Group North with the enemy's defenses being cut into pockets.
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 17: 36
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              If in 1939 the USSR had a real fleet in the Baltic, and not the Red Banner Baltic Fleet

              Although we are getting off topic, what did you not like about the KBF in its attitude towards the Finns? It "covered them like a bull covers a sheep". It is not enough to have a caliper, you need to know how to use it.
              And in other respects I agree. By the way, throughout the Great Patriotic War, this postulate remained in force.
      2. 0
        5 September 2025 09: 53
        Absolutely right. It was bitter irony. They say that earlier the count's title was given for Rymnik or Chesma. And now look at our victories.
      3. 0
        21 December 2025 22: 34
        Nevertheless, Witte regained northern Sakhalin with his diplomacy.

        So he just returned it with his witty eloquence? But isn't that concessions to the "esteemed partners" in the negotiations?
        1. 0
          26 December 2025 08: 59
          These concessions (it wasn't Witte's fault that they had to be made) might not have been accompanied by the retention/return of the northern part of Sakhalin. Russia could have lost even more as a result of the conflict, given the actual state of affairs. If the Japanese had stalled, a revolution would have broken out in the Russian Empire... and Kamchatka could easily have been lost.
          1. 0
            26 December 2025 10: 35
            These concessions (it is not Witte’s fault that they had to be made)

            I didn't mean to imply that it was Witte's fault, but without concessions, he probably wouldn't have achieved anything. And anyway, "would" is the subjunctive or conditional mood, the imperfective aspect, so to speak.
    3. 0
      28 November 2025 19: 01
      It's unclear why some expert on our history came up with the idea of ​​naming one of the Moscow metro stations "Vitte Alley"! And right next to it is the "Admiral Ushakov Boulevard" metro station.
  2. +4
    5 September 2025 04: 55
    Quote: YAHU
    What are the specific claims against Witte?
    Well, not really. However, he did give away part of Sakhalin, and that is our territory, unlike Port Arthur or Manchuria. I read his memoirs, in which he justifies himself, but somehow pathetically.
    1. -1
      5 September 2025 05: 05
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      he still gave away part of Sakhalin, and this is already our territory,

      Usually I argue with you. But here, they are all plebs of the Russian land, Stolypin, etc. Now the bourgeois government is trying to make saints out of them, like [Navalny]. They did not love Russia as a Motherland, and did not love its people like the liberals. I repeat, freaks (cut out, replaced with plebs)
      1. -2
        5 September 2025 17: 04
        Quote: bya965
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        he still gave away part of Sakhalin, and this is already our territory,

        Usually I argue with you. But here, they are all plebs of the Russian land, Stolypin, etc. Now the bourgeois government is trying to make saints out of them, like [Navalny]. They did not love Russia as a Motherland, and did not love its people like the liberals. I repeat, freaks (cut out, replaced with plebs)

        Hmm, Khrushchev just abandoned Port Arthur and ran away..... He is a liberal?
        1. 0
          5 September 2025 18: 42
          Hmm, Khrushchev just abandoned Port Arthur and ran away..... He is a liberal?
          Worse. He is a Trotskyist who believes that there are no laws of nature, but only his desires (thoughtless Virgin Lands instead of Stalin's balanced plan for the transformation of nature. Incidentally, this plan envisaged investments in the Non-Black Earth Region, when there was still a population there. Brezhnev tried to invest in the Non-Black Earth Region, but there was no longer a working population there.)
          1. -2
            5 September 2025 19: 46
            Quote: Aviator_
            Worse. He is a Trotskyist who believes that there are no laws of nature, only his desires (

            And after this you say that I am anti-Soviet - although themselves you claim that any nonentity (Khrushch, MSG) easily and naturally got into the supreme power of the USSR???!!!!
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 20: 46
              And after this you say that I am anti-Soviet
              The only thing left is to find where I said that.
              1. -2
                5 September 2025 21: 40
                Quote: Aviator_
                And after this you say that I am anti-Soviet
                The only thing left is to find where I said that.

                Isn't that your statement?
                Quote: your1970
                Is he a liberal?

                Quote: Aviator_
                Worse. He's a Trotskyist,

                Quote: Aviator_
                believes that there are no laws of nature, but only his desires (

                Will you deny that Khrushchev and MSG are two nonentities and leaders of the USSR?
                1. +2
                  6 September 2025 10: 27
                  And where is the statement about the anti-Soviet? Can you read the text? Liberal and anti-Soviet are not necessarily the same. An example is Zinoviev.
                  1. -1
                    6 September 2025 12: 01
                    Quote: Aviator_
                    Can you read the text? A liberal and an anti-Soviet do not necessarily coincide. Example - Zinoviev.

                    Hmm, you gave a convincing example though. fool - Are you playing along on purpose?
                    Liberal Zinoviev was shot for anti-Soviet activity.
                    So, excuse me, but according to the decisions of Soviet courts, liberal = anti-Soviet.

                    Quote: Aviator_
                    Worse. He's a Trotskyist.

                    And there are a lot of court decisions on the Trotskyists not cancelled by anyone - for which Trotskyism was recognized anti-Soviet activities, and the Trotskyists were punished for this.
                    Therefore, every time you write that Khrushch is a Trotskyist, you admit that the country was led by an anti-Soviet brought to power by anti-Sovietists..
                    1. +2
                      6 September 2025 14: 32
                      Liberal Zinoviev was shot for anti-Soviet activities
                      I'm talking about A. A. Zinoviev. Years of life of Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev: October 29, 1922 - May 10, 2006
                      1. +2
                        6 September 2025 22: 37
                        I can't remember where I read it. AA Zinoviev is a world-famous philosopher. And there was an anniversary (but which one??) and VVP gave permission to celebrate it at a high level. And the liberals lived it up and did nothing. In the country where he was born. Probably, it was the 100th anniversary of his birthday.
                    2. +1
                      6 September 2025 18: 09
                      This is a completely different Zinoviev and it is strange that you do not know. He took part in the Great Patriotic War, was awarded .............. deprived of awards, expelled from the USSR under STALIN ................ returned under EBN. He wrote remarkable memoirs, from which it is clear that Joseph Vissarionovich was preparing for the Great Patriotic War
                      1. -2
                        7 September 2025 00: 41
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        Liberal Zinoviev was shot for anti-Soviet activities
                        I'm talking about A. A. Zinoviev. Years of life of Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev: October 29, 1922 - May 10, 2006

                        Quote: Reptiloid
                        This is a completely different Zinoviev and it is strange that you do not know. He took part in the Great Patriotic War, was awarded... stripped of his awards, expelled from the USSR under STALIN...

                        Hm, - I REPEAT - However, you gave a convincing example - are you deliberately playing along?
                        The liberal Zinoviev was stripped of his citizenship and expelled from the country for anti-Soviet activities.
                        Therefore, I apologize - but according to the decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Council and the Politburo - liberal = anti-Soviet. For which he was kicked out of the country by a kick in the ass...

                        " G. Shchedrovitsky recalled that Zinoviev hated Soviet socialism, in which socialist principles were superimposed on archaic social structures (mass forced labor and camps), but which corresponded to the national character and cultural traditions."

                        "The latest libel [the novel "Bright Future"] contains extremely cynical slanderous fabrications about Soviet reality, the theory and practice of communist construction, offensive attacks against V.I. LENIN, our party and its leadership.
                        ZINOVIEV slanderously portrays Soviet society as “a model of communism with barbed wire… in four rows.”
                        The author subjects Soviet people to particularly crude insults: “The most disgusting qualities of human nature are the norm for us… and all this abomination is covered up by the most grandiose and most deceitful ideology.”
                        From the KGB USSR note No. 1311-A “On measures to suppress the anti-Soviet activities of ZINOVIEV A.”

                        Do you understand WHAT You write
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        A liberal and an anti-Soviet are not necessarily the same thing
                        ?????!!!!!!!
                        That is, when I write about the mistakes of the USSR, I am a malicious anti-Soviet. belay , terry anti-Soviet Zinoviev - who planned to kill Stalin, forged food cards, threw mud at the USSR at the international level, returned by EBN - is just a liberal????
                        Wow, what are they? quirks in nature there are...
                        And I took them for adequate people...
                      2. +1
                        7 September 2025 06: 51
                        hi What awards did AA Zinoviev receive? How did he fight? Read. He was precisely against Stalin. They were not surprised that for some reason he was not sent to the GULAG, or even further, but exiled.
                        And when EBN returned, Zinoviev did not support him and the USSR did not
                        to denigrate.
                        You compare your comments with Zinoviev's works, as you can see... recourse recourse Cool! Bold! New! How many books are you planning? Or have you already published?
                      3. +2
                        7 September 2025 09: 49
                        It turns out that when they said about you that you evil anti-Soviet ----Were you satisfied with that? By the way, I didn't call him that. It's just that when I finally understood it, I didn't argue in vain, just like with Olgovich. And you wanted to be in the same company with Zinoviev. By the way, I somehow miscalculated. Zinoviev was exiled long after Stalin's death. He was still studying after WWII and was published and wasn't afraid to speak out loud, and didn't whisper. And why didn't Stalin repress?
                        And in the West he immediately called perestroika a catastrophe and then denounced the marked one and did not sycophate to EBN when he returned and explained that the historical West was fighting with historical Russia. And why then did Russian liberals not celebrate his 100th anniversary? Here N2 or Stolypin are celebrated, or Witte, but Zinoviev is not mentioned recourse in general, what, you didn't know? Exactly
                      4. -1
                        7 September 2025 12: 41
                        Quote: Reptiloid
                        It turns out that when they said about you that you were a malicious anti-Soviet ----Were you satisfied with that? By the way, I didn't call you that. It's just that when I finally understood it, I didn't argue in vain, just like with Olgovich. And you wanted to be in the same company with Zinoviev.

                        I'll repeat it for you - I NOT against the USSR and socialism, I против Soviet wanking and double standards at the level of "Everything is bad now, but in the USSR...!!!" (c).
                        When the the same - now it's "Oh, how bad!!", and in the USSR it was "It's nothing, it's part of life!!"
                        And yes, Olgovich is an ideological, convinced monarchist, but I am simply infuriated by the stupid worship...
        2. +2
          5 September 2025 18: 53
          Quote: your1970
          Hmm, Khrushchev just abandoned Port Arthur and ran away..... He is a liberal?

          And how old are you, young man?
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 19: 42
            Quote: bya965
            Quote: your1970
            Hmm, Khrushchev just abandoned Port Arthur and ran away..... He is a liberal?

            And how old are you, young man?

            And you apparently have a lot - since you saw Portsmouth and RYAV live - judging by your posts?
    2. +2
      5 September 2025 06: 09
      Witte did what was required of him. He made peace. And even on more favorable terms than expected. The Russian government was ready to put up with the loss of all of Sakhalin. In recognition of these merits, he was given the title of count. Quite deservedly. Yes. "Victory" had a stench. But it was not his fault. Maybe he should also answer for Tsushima and Mukden?
      1. +6
        5 September 2025 06: 17
        But it's not his fault.
        - Oh really? He was in charge of all the empire's finances for 11 years, so his guilt is considerable...
        1. +1
          5 September 2025 08: 01
          The final word always belonged to the Tsar-father, after all, it was an autocracy.
          And the author of the article claims that Russia was better off financially than Japan at the time. It's debatable, of course, but there was still money in the treasury.
          But money does not automatically turn into modern cruisers and artillery, into combat-ready divisions and smart generals and admirals. Alas, such powerful magic does not exist in the real world.
          1. +1
            5 September 2025 08: 18
            But money does not automatically turn into modern cruisers and artillery, into combat-ready divisions and smart generals and admirals. Alas, such powerful magic does not exist in the real world.

            Are you talking about our time?
            1. -1
              5 September 2025 08: 36
              This is true for any time... at least for the period when cruisers and artillery existed.
              And in terms of equipment, today's Russia will give the Russian Empire a run for its money. Things are better, after all. Drones are needed - there are drones, and in considerable quantities. And there is still no "shell shortage" like under Nikolaushka.
            2. -3
              5 September 2025 09: 03
              This works at all times, including the USSR.
          2. +2
            5 September 2025 12: 19
            Quote: Illanatol
            But money does not automatically turn into modern cruisers and artillery, into combat-ready divisions and smart generals and admirals. Alas, such powerful magic does not exist in the real world.

            The problem is that the Empire had industry. But there were no orders - because finances were tight.
            Remember the wonderful story with the second set of shells for the fleet?
            Dear Sir, Sergei Yulievich,
            Currently, the fleet does not have a second combat artillery supply kit. The Naval Ministry could not implement this measure due to lack of funds and due to the recent transition to new types of guns and smokeless powder.
            It was intended that the formation of a second combat set of shells, cartridges, gunpowder and other items for all ships should be carried out with some gradualness. But given the alarming circumstances that have arisen, the slightest slowdown seems absolutely impossible. The cost of the second set of combat supplies is estimated at 22.600.000 rubles. This amount is divided into two parts: the first, 6 mil. rubles - for the ships of the Pacific squadron at this time and constitutes an urgent military need. For this amount, 1 million has already been allocated to the Maritime Ministry. rubles For further immediate orders for the procurement of supplies, it is necessary to allocate another 5 million to the Navy Ministry in the same manner. rubles — Then the remaining 16.000.000 rubles. can be paid in installments until January 1, 1905 for 4.150.000 rubles. annually.
            © Letter from the Temporary Administrator of the Naval Ministry, Vice-Admiral Avelan, to the Minister of Finance, S. Yu. Witte. July 19, 1900
            The petition for the allocation of credits for the formation of a second combat set was considered at a special meeting on the issue of additional appropriations to the maximum budget of the Naval Ministry in the period 1900-1904. The HIGHEST approved journal of the special meeting on August 14, 1900 confirmed the need to eliminate for the entire remaining period of the maximum budget any further burden on the treasury by increasing the credits of the Naval Department.
            Then, upon consideration of the special journal of the general meeting of the State Council on the financial estimates of the Ministries and Main Directorates, and on the State list of income and expenses for 1903, it is HIGHEST commanded: to direct the most energetic efforts to contain the growth of expenses. - However, the insistent petitions of the Naval Ministry for the allocation of additional loans for the procurement of a spare combat kit were partially satisfied - in view of the military events: in 1900 - 1.300.000 rubles were given and in 1903 - 1.800.000 rubles.
            © Testimony of the Assistant Head of the Department of Structures of the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding and Supply, Major General Ivanov.
            4,1 million rubles have been allocated (taking into account the first million already allocated). Out of the 22,6 million required.
          3. 0
            5 September 2025 12: 19
            And here are the defensive lines of Port Arthur, where at the beginning of the war there was only one ready fort:
            The cost of all engineering structures was estimated at about 7,5 million rubles; artillery means should have cost almost as much. In general, about 15 million rubles should have been allocated for the construction of Port Arthur Fortress.
            Although the project for the fortress was finally approved in 1900, work began somewhat earlier. However, due to small financial allocations, the work was not carried out immediately, but was divided into three stages, with the expectation of completing the entire fortress in 1909. Until 1904, when the Russo-Japanese War broke out, a total of 4 ¼ million rubles were allocated for the defensive work of Port Arthur, that is, less than one third of what was needed. Therefore, by the specified date, a little more than half of all the work in the fortress had been completed, with the greatest attention being paid to the coastal front, which was in a greater degree of readiness: 21 batteries and 2 powder magazines had been erected there, with half of the buildings in finished form.
            On the land front, only one fort was completed - No. 4, 2 fortifications (4th and 5th), 3 batteries (lit. A, B and C) and 2 nutrient cellars. The remaining structures were either not completed, or just begun by construction, or not started at all. Among the unfinished, but which were just of paramount importance in the defense of the fortress (since a land attack was carried out on them), forts No. 2, 3 and temporary fortification 3rd belonged.
            © Yakovlev. History of fortresses.

            And there was the same financial problem with training - remember the concept of an armed reserve in the navy?
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 13: 00
              I agree completely. But it would be better if the author of this opus got acquainted with it, his picture is somehow not very objective.
              I strongly suspect that such “financial problems” were created on someone else’s orders, from the outside.
              And Russia’s defeat in that war was not solely in the military sphere.
        2. -1
          5 September 2025 08: 37
          But was the defeat in the RYA caused by financial reasons? And why was Witte so bad at managing them? There were no crises. The budget was in balance. The ruble was stable. Against the background of everything else, finances were more or less fine.
          1. +1
            5 September 2025 12: 08
            There were no crises. The budget was balanced. The ruble was stable.
            - Yes, yes, the entire empire is in foreign loans, gold is leaving the country in tons, Count Witte's fortune in French banks is growing, Seven poods of august meat are burning through millions in Paris, Nikolasha dotes on his Alix, who is unable to give him a normal heir to the throne. We all clap and dance together...
            1. 0
              5 September 2025 13: 15
              The loans were taken for railways and industry. And in theory they should have paid off. Of course, there was effective development. But when was it different in Rus'? And to hang the sins of Nikolai and Alekseev on Witte. Their guilt is beyond doubt. And also Bezobrazov and some others. Compared to them, Witte is an angel.
              1. +1
                5 September 2025 14: 19
                Well, I didn't say that Witte was the only one to blame, but he's not an innocent lamb either... hi
                1. 0
                  5 September 2025 15: 24
                  And to you with a brush. I won't judge the effectiveness of Witte's activities. I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. But it seems that he was not the worst possible.
              2. 0
                9 September 2025 15: 40
                Quote: YAHU
                Loans were taken out for railways and industry.

                The problem was that these loans were used for the development of the railway, based on the combined interests of three ministries: Military, Trade and Finance. And, like any compromise, the result did not satisfy anyone.
                The railway construction program adopted on the eve of the war was based on the need to ensure the concentration of troops on the western borders in the shortest possible time. This program ignored the country's trade and economic needs, as outlined in the state road construction plan drawn up by the Ministry of Railways.
                It turned out that the plans of the two departments were not coordinated and as a result the existing road network in many ways did not meet either economic or military interests. Nevertheless, the proposals of the War Ministry, after wrangling with the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of Finance, were used as the basis for construction.
                © Bloodless
          2. 0
            5 September 2025 13: 02
            ...and Schubert's waltzes and the crunch of a French roll. A country that is seriously at war rarely has a budget that comes together. And "financial savings" can turn into wastefulness in terms of soldiers' lives.
      2. +5
        5 September 2025 08: 13
        Witte did what was required of him. He made peace.
        Approximately how Lebed concluded the Khasavyurt peace.
        1. +1
          5 September 2025 23: 27
          Well, if Pulikovsky hadn't screwed Grozny over to the Czechs in "Jihad" before, then it wouldn't have been necessary to conclude it, there were preliminary agreements a couple of months before that that were much less lenient, so again, the root of the problem lies in the military, not in diplomacy. But, of course, Lebed and company were far from Witte and couldn't bargain for the already captured territories.
          1. +1
            6 September 2025 10: 30
            Well, if Pulikovsky hadn't blown Grozny to smithereens in "Jihad" before that
            That's true. But Lebed had the opportunity to refuse, and would have remained in memory as a combat general, at least in Afghanistan, but he got into trouble and became a piece of sh i t.
      3. +2
        5 September 2025 08: 37
        Quote: YAHU
        Made peace. And even on more favorable terms
        Peace could be considered concluded on more favorable terms only if part of Russia, the southern part of the island, had not been given away.
        1. -1
          5 September 2025 13: 23
          Sometimes you have to sacrifice something. Shafirov, for example, also "gave up" Azov under the Treaty of Prut. But this only benefited his career. In any case, questions to Nikolai's government. Which demanded the quickest peace. And if Witte had continued to be stubborn, he would have simply been replaced. And peace was needed, among other things, because of the February Revolution. But we can't remember that here. But downvote me. I don't care.
        2. -1
          5 September 2025 17: 14
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Quote: YAHU
          Made peace. And even on more favorable terms
          Peace could be considered concluded on more favorable terms only if part of Russia, the southern part of the island, had not been given away.

          Who did the USSR lose the war to - when Khrushchev simply abandoned Port Arthur and ran away???
    3. -1
      5 September 2025 06: 11
      Do you think you would have made peace on more favorable terms? And don't forget, he acted on behalf of his government. And within the framework in which it placed him.
    4. +5
      5 September 2025 08: 18
      However, he still gave up part of Sakhalin

      It wasn't him who gave it away, the military did. He actually returned half of it.
      1. 0
        5 September 2025 08: 39
        Quote from solar
        It wasn't him who gave it up, it was the military
        The military didn't give it away, they screwed it up. That would be more accurate. wink
        1. -1
          5 September 2025 16: 16
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          It wasn't him who gave it away, the military did. He actually returned half of it.

          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          The military didn't give it away, they screwed it up. That would be more accurate.

          Do you have a recipe for how to retain island with total enemy dominance at sea?
          So the Japanese army also lost Saipan to the Americans in 1944?
          1. +1
            5 September 2025 16: 44
            Quote: Adrey
            Do you have a recipe for how to hold an island when the enemy has total dominance at sea?
            I do not serve in the General Staff and do not work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
            1. -2
              5 September 2025 16: 48
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              I do not serve in the General Staff and do not work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

              I'm sorry, but your statements (accusations) are categorical.
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              The military didn't give it away, they screwed it up. That would be more accurate.
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 16: 51
                Quote: Adrey
                I'm sorry, but your statements (accusations) are categorical.
                Matching your peremptory questions and comments
                1. -1
                  5 September 2025 16: 53
                  Quote: Dutchman Michel
                  Matching your peremptory questions and comments

                  Apparently you have nothing more to say. As you wish. laughing hi
  3. +9
    5 September 2025 05: 09
    Author, I would also like to mention Nicholas II and his role in this disgrace.
    The Emperor was weak and strongly influenced by his wife. He was more interested in the wishes and dreams of the Empress than in the problems of Russia, which at that time was already engulfed in corruption and quiet betrayal.
    The political weakness and sycophancy of the Emperor were the root cause of the disgrace of Tsushima and the subsequent collapse of the Empire.
    1. +5
      5 September 2025 05: 20
      The Emperor was weak and strongly influenced by his wife.

      Nicholas II as a person was a total nonentity...he had no qualities to govern a great country...no competence, no will, no character.
      I read the memoirs of his friends, drinking buddies and servants... some kind of nerd... only entertainment on his mind... state affairs were of little interest to him.
      It is not surprising that such an ocean-going ship as the Rossiya, with an incompetent captain, ran into its iceberg in 1917.
      1. +5
        5 September 2025 05: 56
        I agree.
        Although I am an Orthodox person, I do not approve of the canonization of Nicholas II. He accepted a strong, rich state, and the result was a tragedy. Around the imperial court there were a bunch of crooks and sycophants, whose only thought was "to snatch".
        1. +5
          5 September 2025 08: 21
          Around the imperial court there were a bunch of scoundrels and sycophants, whose only thought was to "grab".

          so this is normal: all sorts of scum graze around any "feeding trough"...
          It's another matter when such a bastard is allowed to make decisions...
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 17: 18
            Quote: Dedok
            Around the imperial court there were a bunch of scoundrels and sycophants, whose only thought was to "grab".

            so this is normal: all sorts of scum graze around any "feeding trough"...
            It's another matter when such a bastard is allowed to make decisions...

            Hmm, you are reading the acceptance report of the People's Commissariat of Defense dated 07.05.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX.
            Read carefully.
            Even today's people couldn't have destroyed the Red Army like that...
        2. +4
          5 September 2025 10: 34
          Quote: Proton
          Although I am an Orthodox person, I do not approve of the canonization of Nicholas II. He took over a strong, rich state.

          They got carried away with the idea of ​​a strong and rich state. Nikolai Alexandrovich took over the kingdom as a sort of powder keg, and it eventually exploded.
          The Royal Family was canonized by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Church. In this case, any Orthodox person is obliged to accept the canonization with approval.
        3. -1
          5 September 2025 11: 38
          Quote: Proton
          but I do not approve of the canonization of Nicholas II

          Canonization has nothing to do with professional qualities and public administration.
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 13: 16
            One can only sympathize with a country that canons losers as saints.
            However, I doubt that such a "Saint Nicholas" (not Santa Claus!) is popular among believers. How many people ask such a "holy passion-bearer" for intercession and protection?
            1. +3
              5 September 2025 14: 36
              Quote: Illanatol
              One can only sympathize with a country that canons losers as saints.

              And Boris and Gleb - are they also "losers"? And Mikhail Tverskoy? And Fyodor Ushakov? Thank God it is not for me or you to determine who gets what and for what. I understand that many people look at the Church as some kind of social institution, but this is very deeply wrong and some external actions are very different from the deep content of the Church, which is not visible at first glance, but is well felt if you live like that.
              Quote: Illanatol
              However, I doubt that such a "Saint Nicholas" (not Santa Claus!) is popular among believers. How many people ask such a "holy passion-bearer" for intercession and protection?

              Let's say that the royal family is revered. As Vladimir Bober wrote below, many people understand the sacred meaning of this sacrifice very well. If there had been a trial, they would have found him guilty - probably this would not have happened. But for some reason the Bolsheviks never got around to it and even did not make such a sentence retroactively, which means that his death was indeed sacred - it marked the destruction of the "old" Russia.
              But of course no one can "surpass" Saint Nicholas in terms of veneration.
              However, this is not the topic at all.
          2. +3
            5 September 2025 13: 52
            Quote: Trapper7
            Canonization has nothing to do with professional qualities and public administration

            Absolutely accurate definition.
            The Tsar's Family was killed with particular cruelty by those who hated Orthodox Russia itself, the symbol of which was the Orthodox Tsar.
            The murder of the king and his family is a mystical event, they accepted their death in a Christian manner, for which they were canonized.
            1. +2
              5 September 2025 21: 00
              The example of the martyrs of Sebaste is indicative. Each has his own path. And his own crown.
      2. +4
        5 September 2025 07: 13
        The ocean ship, Russia, hit its iceberg in 1917.
        Thunderous, prolonged applause. No sarcasm. I love such beautiful expressions!
      3. 0
        5 September 2025 08: 04
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        It is not surprising that such an ocean-going ship as the Rossiya, with an incompetent captain, ran into its iceberg in 1917.


        Beautifully said, well done. But still, it must be acknowledged that this autocratic "Titanic" set a course for the iceberg even before Nicholas.
  4. +4
    5 September 2025 05: 20
    Washington realized that it was time for negotiations. Time to fix profits and losses. The main tasks were solved

    Sound familiar?
    1. -7
      5 September 2025 08: 05
      Ask the Ukrainians, this should remind them of this.
  5. +2
    5 September 2025 05: 57
    It was very opportunely noted at the beginning of the article that the crowning achievement of the adventure of Nicholas II, his Court, the generals and his government was the destruction of the Baltic Fleet in the Sea of ​​Japan!!! Well, it is clear that even then single ships made round-the-world voyages and expeditions to half the world. But to drive the Baltic Fleet into battle from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, and for some reason to call it only the Pacific Squadron, and for it to go into battle right away after a very difficult transition with the then performance characteristics of the ships with a very modern fleet by the standards of that time, which actually traveled to the battlefield only a tenth of the distance that the Baltic Fleet traveled to Tsushima, not everyone would think of that!!! And therefore, in order for the true scale of that adventure of Nicholas II, his Court, Generals and Cabinet of Ministers to always be understood, it is probably necessary to always write about the death of the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Sea of ​​Japan, and not about the death of the Pacific Squadron there.
  6. +7
    5 September 2025 06: 03
    The "Portsmouth Peace" was not a disgrace, the entire Russo-Japanese War was a disgrace, the stupid and uninitiative generals and admirals, the greedy officials and statesmen...
    1. +2
      5 September 2025 08: 24
      The "Portsmouth Peace" was not a disgrace, the entire Russo-Japanese War was a disgrace, the stupid and uninitiative generals and admirals, the greedy officials and statesmen...

      yes: "causes and consequences"...
  7. +2
    5 September 2025 08: 16
    In general, Witte did not want to agree to the transfer of the southern part of Sakhalin. He was constantly pestered by telegrams from the Tsar with advice and he was irritated. The Japanese were already ready to agree to the renunciation of Sakhalin, when Witte was again reminded from St. Petersburg that it was necessary to agree and he agreed.
  8. +1
    5 September 2025 08: 23
    "So far no foreigner has set foot on Russian soil; but I know that the Japanese may land on Sakhalin at any moment. Therefore, a preliminary meeting must take place before that happens."


    And they didn’t think to send reinforcements to Sakhalin?
    Or did no one think about it at all?
    1. +5
      5 September 2025 09: 16
      “Or did no one think about this at all?” - that’s because they were thinking about reinforcements and weren’t being transferred.
      1. The defense of Vladivostok from a possible Japanese landing was a priority.
      2. It is possible to land reinforcements, even on a bare shore, but how to supply them? Especially in winter. The Japanese fleet is the master of the sea.
      3. Where should people live? The climate on Sakhalin is not great.
      1. -1
        5 September 2025 18: 02
        And that's why they armed the convicts.
        The climate is not sweet.
        There is no fleet.
        And in general, Sakhalin Island is just one big hard labor camp!
        There is no need to protect her!
        1. -1
          5 September 2025 23: 35
          Well, actually, yes. And the Red Army in the first months of the war, when the failure of counterattacks became obvious, was also far from eager to lay down their lives for the sake of "an extra inch of land", but on the contrary retreated to more advantageous defensive lines and defended strategically important cities, and not any villages from A to Z. These are, as it were, the basics of war, it's strange that you don't know this. And Sakhalin (just like Russian Alaska, beloved by dreamers of all stripes, in the 1860s) was an obvious hole at the beginning of the 20th century with almost no infrastructure, population or strategic value, and between it and Vladivostok, which at least had some defensive structures, and the port itself had at least some value, and at least some supplies by land, Vladivostok was naturally chosen, and not the Sakhalin trap, where the Japanese would quickly lock up and destroy all these troops.
  9. -3
    5 September 2025 08: 48
    Quote: Dutchman Michel

    In a studio:



    Well, I asked about a precedent, that is, about an earlier example of such success. laughing
    It turns out that Witte did achieve diplomatic success and he was the first who managed to reduce the losses through diplomacy, the blame for which lay with the army and navy of the Russian Empire?

    Then what is the essence of the claims against Witte? He should be given a monument and an order... earlier, in the 18th century - several villages with serf "souls" as a gift from the monarch.
  10. -3
    5 September 2025 08: 52
    A good epitaph for thatand the Far Eastern policy of the tsarist government , the foundations of which were laid by Witte and which he also buried
    Far Eastern policy is far from just Port Arthur, it is, first of all, a huge Primorsky Krai.

    Thanks to STATE development programs, in just 20 years, the deserted outskirts have turned into a flourishing region of Russia - with rapidly growing cities, villages, ports, mining and processing industries, developed lands, firmly connected to the country by the steel ridge of the Trans-Siberian Railway: the population has grown for 500 thousand people, more than 400 settlements were built, the Russian population became predominant, open mines, factories, plants, thousands of hectares of arable land, gardens, etc.

    And this is a great merit and the work of Nikolai Alexandrovich, the government and Russian people
    1. +1
      5 September 2025 11: 48
      the deserted outskirts turned into a flourishing region of Russia
      - Thanks, made me laugh...
      1. 0
        5 September 2025 12: 29
        Quote: faiver
        the deserted outskirts turned into a flourishing region of Russia
        - thank, laughed...

        yes, you're welcome:
        -
        Last year there was an incident where a brick fell on a boy at a construction site, but he was wearing a hard hat, and he just laughed and went home.

        -And I know this boy - he still wears a helmet and laughs.

        How do you like the helmet? hi
  11. +1
    5 September 2025 08: 56
    “Deep Russia” (the common people) spoke out against the turmoil that was undermining order and normal life, and they called it the “Black Hundreds.”

    And where was "deep Russia" (the common people), which was called "the Black Hundreds" in February 1917? Why didn't they speak out? But demonstrations and clashes with the police took place only in the capitals. Who rocked the Empire in February 1917? Japan, with England and France as allies, the United States of America entered the First World War on April 6, 1917. Who brought money for the generals, the clergy, all sorts of Duma members, for "deep Russia" (the common people), which was called "the Black Hundreds"?
    1. -3
      5 September 2025 09: 09
      Quote: parusnik
      And where was the “deep Russia” (common people), which was called the “Black Hundred” in February 1917?


      They sat at home, sitting on their butts. These "common people" (the same "common people" in Germany would provide the first personnel for the stormtroopers of Rem and Hitler) stopped receiving bonuses from the regime, and suddenly lost all their social activity.
    2. 0
      5 September 2025 11: 51
      Japan, together with England and France, were allies
      - with such allies you don't need enemies....
      1. -1
        5 September 2025 12: 21
        As they say, God gave, then he added Romania and Italy, and a little later the USA
  12. +2
    5 September 2025 09: 49
    Vita can be accused of poor preparation for the war, of developing Dalny to the detriment of Arthur, but the claims against him regarding the peace terms are more than strange; for the terms to be better, at least some military success was needed.
  13. +2
    5 September 2025 10: 42
    Almost simultaneously, a secret agreement was signed between Japan and the United States
    Which in 1941 turned into Pearl Harbor for them, and for the British, a year later, into the loss of Singapore and Burma.
    1. +1
      5 September 2025 11: 58
      What does "a year later" mean?
      Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk on 10.12.1941. And then Singapore fell.
      1. +2
        5 September 2025 13: 08
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        What does "a year later" mean?
        Singapore and Burma fell in 1942. I just refreshed my memory.
        1. +1
          5 September 2025 13: 45
          To be more precise: Singapore fell on 15.02.1942 February XNUMX, two months after Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the ships of Phillips' squadron.
  14. +2
    5 September 2025 10: 47
    More than half of the Japanese budget was spent on the war. This was ruining the empire. Russia, on the other hand, was not economically exhausted and had practically endless human reserves.

    Where do you get all this from?
    Russia's direct expenses for the war with Japan amounted to 2,347 billion rubles. Ships worth 260 million rubles were lost. The external debt increased by a third in a year.
    The empire's budget in those years was equal to 2 billion rubles.
    We all think that Japan is a small country with a small population. In those years, the population of Japan was 40 million. What problems with recruiting new recruits does the author write about? Irrecoverable losses of 80 thousand people is a drop in the ocean. Did they lose a lot of officers? Japan spent many times more on education than the Russian Empire.
  15. 0
    5 September 2025 14: 52
    Witte, having surrendered his position to Russia in the Far East, received the title of “king of all diplomats” from the American press.

    It can already be considered a rule that if Americans praise someone here, it only means that this person meets their interests, nothing more. In terms of compliment, "you have a cool shirt, dude" has more value than "king of diplomacy".
    You can also compare: "Mr. NO" and "Gorby" - one was praised, and the other was listened to.
    1. 0
      5 September 2025 17: 34
      Quote from cpls22
      It can already be considered a rule that if Americans praise someone here, it only means that this person meets their interests, nothing more.

      At that time, their interests in this region of the world were zero...
      1. -2
        5 September 2025 18: 09
        Quote: your1970

        At that time, their interests in this region of the world were zero...

        Then they would not have participated in this story. However, this is not so. They did not participate directly in the conflict, but they were clearly on the side of Japan. That is enough.
        1. +1
          5 September 2025 19: 40
          Quote from cpls22
          Quote: your1970

          At that time, their interests in this region of the world were zero...

          Then they would not have participated in this story. However, this is not so. They did not participate directly in the conflict, but they were clearly on the side of Japan. That is enough.

          And they didn't participate in any way - don't confuse them with England or Russia or Germany or Japan. They didn't have any interests there yet.
          1. -1
            5 September 2025 20: 26
            Quote: your1970
            They didn't have any interests there yet.

            Once again, they were on Japan's side.
            And I would not so unconditionally assert the absence of interests.
            This only speaks of a one-sided perception of that history.
            Not to mention that the absence of economic interests does not exclude an interest in the defeat of potential competitors.
            1. +1
              5 September 2025 21: 32
              Quote from cpls22
              Quote: your1970
              They didn't have any interests there yet.

              Once again, they were on Japan's side.
              And I would not so unconditionally assert the absence of interests.
              This only speaks of a one-sided perception of that history.
              Not to mention that the absence of economic interests does not exclude an interest in the defeat of potential competitors.

              The fact that we don't like the US is not a reason to suspect them of being interested in this conflict on someone's side. Russia at that time is in principle not a competitor to the US in any way, even in theory.
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 21: 47
                Quote: your1970

                The fact that we don’t like the United States is not a reason to suspect them of being interested in this conflict on anyone’s side.

                Try to abstract from today's "dislike of the USA", because their play on Japan's side at the beginning of the 20th century was already discussed then. It is enough to recall the cartoons in the press of that time.
                1. 0
                  5 September 2025 23: 45
                  Cartoons in private newspapers? We still have all sorts of things in the press, but for some reason no one draws "serious conclusions" from them. Maybe at least for the sake of decency you could find some acts, documents, or at least the words of official US representatives at that time? You want to fit history to your fantasies so much that you simply ignore even common sense. But the reality is that in 1905 the main competitor of the USA was the British Empire and they had no sense in helping its obvious protégé in the person of Japan (especially remembering that the USA had quite warm relations with the Russian Empire at that time, and in the same Civil War we supported the alliance (by the way, precisely for the same reason of weakening Britain), and Lisovsky's squadron came to "shine the flag" in San Francisco, and Alaska was sold to the USA instead of Britain).
                  1. 0
                    6 September 2025 11: 23
                    Quote: shocktrooper
                    Cartoons in private newspapers? We still see all sorts of things in the press, but for some reason no one draws "serious conclusions" from this. Maybe, for the sake of decency, you can find some documents, or at least the words of official US representatives at that time?

                    You are confusing cause and effect. Cartoons are not the cause of an opinion, but its consequence. In words, everyone in politics can be "warm" until it comes to direct conflict. Read today's statements by Trump and Modi, for example.
                    In general, "approval" of some politician from another country has only one goal - to support his course in the eyes of his compatriots, if he has serious opposition against him. If there is none, there is no need to praise - everything is already under control. Compare "Gorby" and EBN. As for our warm relations with the USA - I do not argue, they existed, and were confirmed by deeds.
                    1. -1
                      6 September 2025 16: 20
                      Again, if you insist on cartoons as an argument - give us statistics, in how many newspapers, where they were published, what proportion of the population, etc. And again, no matter how much you would like to admit the opposite, in the USA of those years freedom of speech was quite significant and who didn't write there. Well, and if you can't trust the statements of politicians in office, then why can you trust cartoons that come from private individuals?
                      1. 0
                        6 September 2025 18: 58
                        Quote: shocktrooper
                        Again, if you insist on cartoons as an argument, give us some statistics.

                        No, that won't do. I'm not going to do the data collection work just so you can demand another batch of arguments without presenting anything yourself. All the best.
                      2. -2
                        6 September 2025 19: 17
                        Lol, that's a clever substitution of concepts, you made the assertion about the US supporting Japan based on some caricatures, and when you were asked to provide normal evidence, you dropped the topic and for some reason shifted the "proof of absence" onto me. No, if you don't want to continue the argument, just say so, but without shifting the "burden of proof" onto your opponent.
                      3. +1
                        6 September 2025 19: 20
                        Quote: shocktrooper
                        No, if you don’t want to continue the argument, just say so, but without shifting the “burden of proof” onto your opponent.

                        I don't want to, because you will back down when asked for counterarguments. Actually, you have already backed down.
                  2. -2
                    6 September 2025 13: 39
                    Language is given to politicians to hide their thoughts.
                    The USA had its own views on our Far Eastern territories and they could well have gone for a temporary rapprochement with Japan and Britain. This was fully proven by the First World War and the actual occupation of part of the Far East during our Civil War.

                    The fact that we once helped the Yankees... there is a good English proverb: "a favor once rendered is worth nothing."
                    1. -1
                      6 September 2025 16: 28
                      While Russia was a full-fledged country - yes, America was quite ready to cooperate with it, and where was that proven in the First World War - I have no idea, the USA generally supported the Entente, of which Russia was a part. And the fact that during the Civil War the USA decided to try to grab more territories of the collapsed empire for itself, instead of washing its hands of it and allowing the British and Japanese to do whatever they wanted there - well, excuse me, this is quite normal behavior, so-called realpolitik. The salvation of a sovereign country is the work of the country itself, if the country fails, then no one is obliged to run and save them for them (as we did with the Austrians in 1849). I hope you are not suggesting that the capitalist USA support the communist rebels from central Russia (who they were at the beginning of the occupation)?
                      1. 0
                        7 September 2025 09: 09
                        During the First World War, the USA, England and Japan were in one alliance - the Entente, which is what I pointed out.

                        I am not suggesting anything. I just know that the very same capitalist USA already supported the Bolsheviks and made a good profit from it. After the revolution and the Civil War, oil from Baku left the world markets, which made Mr. Rockefeller very happy. And economic ties with Soviet Russia in terms of industrial restoration and further industrialization were beneficial to American companies (especially during the Great Depression).

                        They like to remember the German sealed train car with Ilyich. They remember much less often where Trotsky came to Russia by steamship on the eve of the revolution and who got him off the hook from English counterintelligence when they wanted to arrest Trotsky as a German spy.

                        The "Western partners" were, of course, betting on our liberal Februaryists. But a bad businessman is one who does not consider and take into account reserve, alternative options that can also be used.
                2. 0
                  6 September 2025 09: 07
                  Quote from cpls22
                  Quote: your1970

                  The fact that we don’t like the United States is not a reason to suspect them of being interested in this conflict on anyone’s side.

                  Try to abstract from today's "dislike of the USA", because their play on Japan's side at the beginning of the 20th century was already discussed then. It is enough to recall the cartoons in the press of that time.

                  I agree, you were right.
              2. 0
                6 September 2025 13: 42
                Quote: your1970

                The fact that we don't like the US is not a reason to suspect them of being interested in this conflict on someone's side. Russia at that time is in principle not a competitor to the US in any way, even in theory.


                They were not interested in conflict, but in expanding their spheres of influence.
                The Yankees have their own approach. "The enemy of the USA is the one who has what the USA wants to acquire." The USA would not refuse to acquire our Far East and Siberia even now.
  16. 0
    5 September 2025 16: 15
    After this defeat, the days of the Romanov monarchy were numbered due to complete bankruptcy.
  17. 0
    5 September 2025 19: 20
    Russia was not economically exhausted and had practically endless human reserves.

    What kind of phrase is this, endless human reserves, like we'll fill everyone with meat, the women will give birth? Well, well, well. All resources are finite.
  18. 0
    5 September 2025 22: 53
    "St. Petersburg is leaning towards peace"

    This is why I want to give Samson Aleksandrov a minus.
  19. 0
    6 September 2025 05: 34
    "Victory was not far away and the enemy was already exhausted and could not fight." This is usually how individual critics of the Brest Peace talk about Germany in 1918. But about Japan in 1905... that's different.
  20. 0
    19 January 2026 14: 09
    This reminds me of something modern. But alas, there are no people like Witte in modern Russian politics.