Military Review

The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. The armed forces of the Japanese Empire

80
Japan is well prepared for the war with Russia. In 1895, a reinforcement program was adopted fleet. They built ships of all classes. The emphasis was placed on ships designed for active offensive operations: squadron battleships, armored cruisers and destroyers. Given that the Japanese shipbuilding industry could not yet solve such problems, the vast majority of ships were built abroad. In the United Kingdom, 4 squadron battleships were built, 11 destroyers, in the UK and France - 6 armored cruisers, in the United Kingdom and the USA - 5 cruisers of the 2nd class, etc.


In 1896, the Japanese government, considering the shipbuilding program of the 1895 of the year insufficient, additionally adopted a program designed for 10 years. It focused on the construction of cruisers and destroyers, necessary for cruising war, the impact on enemy communications, as well as the development of naval infrastructure. To support the actions of the seaports in the Yellow and Japan Seas, naval bases, ports and shipyards were built. By the beginning of the war with Russia, the Japanese transport fleet had the opportunity to simultaneously transfer to the Korean Peninsula two divisions with all weapons, ammunition and equipment.


Squadron battleship Mikasa, July 1904 of the year.

In 1903, the third shipbuilding program was adopted at a special meeting of the Japanese parliament. At the beginning of the 1904 of the year, immediately before the start of the war, the British firms Vikkers and Armstrong received an order to build two squadron battleships Katori and Kashima (battleships of the Katori type). Their total displacement was 16,6 thousand tons. Armed with four 305-mm / 45, four 254-mm / 45 and twelve 152-mm / 45 guns. "Neutral" England literally in a year and a half put into operation two powerful battleships - in 1906, they entered service with the Japanese fleet.

By the beginning of the war, the Japanese Empire had 6 squadron battleships (Mikasa, Asahi, Sikishima, Hatsuse Fuji, Yashima) and 6 armored cruisers (Asama, Tokiwa, Azuma, Yakumo "," Izumo "," Iwate "). Most of them were built by the "mistress of the seas" by Britain and had some technological advantage over Russian ships. Thus, the Japanese naval artillery surpassed the Russian in mass of the projectile (of the same caliber) and technical rate of fire, therefore the side salvo of the Japanese squadron during the battle in the Yellow Sea (August 10 1904) was about 12 418 kg compared to 9111 kg in the Russian squadron in Port Arthur In addition, in 1903, Japan was able to buy two armored cruisers of Italian construction from Argentina. The cruisers Kasuga and Nissin entered service at the beginning of the war and took an active part in it.

The strength of the Japanese fleet was personnel. Thanks to the development of merchant shipping and maritime industries in the country, it mainly consisted of natural sailors. Many experts had experience of the Sino-Japanese war. Another advantage of the Japanese fleet is the development of infrastructure. The Japanese fleet had well-equipped ports and docks, which facilitated the supply and repair.


"Kasuga" 1 class armored cruiser.

In 1900-1904 The power of the Japanese army was significantly increased. It was completed on the basis of the law on universal conscription adopted in 1872 year, which extended to men 17-40 years. The following year, established six territorial districts. Initially, French officers were involved as instructors, and then German officers. The service shared a valid, spare 1-th and 2-th category (territorial troops) and the militia. Given the fact that in peacetime there were more recruits than needed, the selection was carried out by drawing lots. 3 of the year served in the army, 4 of the year in the fleet. The man was listed as 1 of the year and 4 of the month for the 4 class, 2 for the year, and was then considered a militiaman. In addition, there was a police that was supposed to protect the islands, they called for it for a year.

The peacetime Japanese army numbered 180 thousand. After mobilization, Japan could expose more than 400 thousand people. Taking into account the reserve army numbered 850 thousand. People. The emperor was the commander-in-chief of the imperial armed forces. The central agencies that led the army were the Ministry of the Army, the General Headquarters of the Army and the General Inspectorate of Military Training. The Ministry of the Army was established in 1872, the General Staff in 1878 (the General Fleet Headquarters was created in 1893), the Main Military Training Inspectorate was formed in 1900. In 1900, the Military Council was established under the Emperor (Mikado).

The core of the army was the officers, who inherited the traditions of the samurai. The officer was a stronghold of the Japanese Empire, was the bearer of the idea of ​​"Great Japan", the exclusivity of the Japanese people. It should be noted that the Japanese officers were quite well prepared and showed exceptional courage and resilience in battle, was brought up on the basis of the concepts of the “warrior code”. Although in general, middle-level officers were not distinguished by initiative, preferring to strictly follow the orders of the command. In addition, the advanced German military school at that time influenced the education of Japanese officers. The officers of the General Staff suffered from the isolation of ordinary officers. Many of them were educated in France and Germany.

The army was a rigid hierarchy and discipline. The officer was the bearer of the will of the emperor (respectively, of the gods). On the basis of complete submission to the will of the commander and rigorous execution of orders, soldiers were brought up. Therefore, the personnel of the Japanese army was distinguished by stubbornness and fanaticism in battle. This type of soldier was praised by the Japanese press. Service in the armed forces was considered the highest honor, which could not be compared with other specialties. Typically, speeches by representatives of the imperial house and senior government officials provided for praise to the army and navy. Army and Navy Day was the brightest holiday of the Japanese Empire. The farewell ceremony was equated with the funeral and became a very important ceremony in the life of the Japanese. The wires were celebrated very solemnly. The future fighter expressed readiness to die in the interests of the empire.

Generals and officers respected all society, they had the highest status in Japan. In order to create the illusion of social justice, the nomination of middle-level and especially lower-level officers was allowed to nominate soldiers (usually peasants) who succeeded in the service. In general, the society was heavily militarized.

The militarization of society was promoted by the territorial principle of recruiting the Japanese army. Japanese military units had strong ties with the local civil administration, jointly controlling local life. The military kept future recruits and reservists in their field of vision, and often established close contact with their families. It is necessary to take into account such a very strong side of the Japanese army as the general literacy of the population. As Admiral Makarov wrote, in Japan for five centuries there has not been a single illiterate. From generation to generation, the Japanese were accustomed to learn and very quickly absorbed advanced European achievements. Japanese soldiers were trained from school. From school, the young man was inculcated with the idea that "Japan has a primary role in the East", that "there is no force capable of crushing Japan." Also promoted the idea of ​​overpopulation of Japan and the need to expand the territory for the growth of the welfare of the people. After Russia intervened in China and Japan, the Liaodong peninsula was taken away from the Japanese, Port Arthur was taken away, the Japanese were taught to think about the inevitability of a battle with the Russians, the need for revenge. Often school students participated in military exercises.

On the eve of the Russian-Japanese war, the rank of senior sergeant-major in the Japanese army was introduced. It was an experienced, professional soldier, who passed all the stages of service directly in the unit, who became the commander of a branch or semi-platoon. Politically, they chose supporters of the monarchy. The senior sergeant fébébels could prepare and pass the examination for an officer’s rank without interruption from service.

Operational art in the Japanese army was impressed by the victories of Prussia in the unification of Germany. The commander-in-chief of the Japanese armies, Oyama Iwao (Oyama) during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. was with the Prussian troops, studying the best practices of warfare. In 1884, a professor at the Berlin Military Academy, Meckel, arrived in the Japanese Empire. From that time began a comprehensive reorganization of the Japanese army on the German model. Meckel wrote charters and instructions for all branches of the Japanese army, and established the Tokyo Military Academy. All senior Japanese officers became students of the German professor. In addition, the Japanese carefully studied the experience of the Anglo-Boer War. As a result, Japanese military art avoided frontal actions that could lead to great losses, sought to bypass the flanks and the enemy’s environment. At the same time, it should be noted that the Japanese army was inherent in schematism and stereotyped. If the Japanese could not conduct an operation to grip the enemy’s flanks, they lost the initiative, were lost, did not know how to proceed. The imitation of the “military art of Moltke” for some time brought success to the Japanese army, but could lead to a military catastrophe if the Russian army was led by the generals of the “Suvorov school” and it would have had the opportunity to continue the struggle further.

The Japanese infantry was armed with X-NUMX-mm Arisaka rifles of the 6,5 model of the year (Type 1897). Length 30 mm, weight 1270 g. Shutter sliding, swivel. Shop middle with a chess arrangement of cartridges. In the cage 3900 ammo. Bayonet weight in 5 g with hewing blade. The reserve and territorial troops were armed with murat system guns. The value of machine guns in the Japanese army has not yet been understood, so there were a small number of them in service. Hotchkiss machine guns only passed tests. However, during the war, the Japanese army, actively modernized by the British, gained some advantage in this segment over the Russian army.

The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. The armed forces of the Japanese Empire

Arisaka rifle.

The Japanese Army’s artillery fleet was based on the 75-mm field gun of the Arisaka’s 1898 model of the year, and the 75-mm mountain gun of the 1898 model of the year. Both guns had trunnions with trunnions and tough gun carriages. There were no shields. Partial damping of the recoil of the gun when firing was carried out with the help of shoes that were put under the wheels. The bolt of the guns was piston. The loading of a field gun unitary unitary, the mountain - separate-sleeve. Mountain cannon could be disassembled into four parts. Shells at the guns were the same. The steel grenade weighed 6,1 kg and had a length 4,5 caliber. Shrapnel also weighed, but was shorter - 3,5 caliber. The maximum firing range was at the field gun - 7,8 km, at the mountain - 4,3 km. In the mountain cannons, the Russian army was inferior to the Japanese army several times.

In addition, during the war, Japan ordered 400 field 75-mm Krupp guns. Also, the Germans put 2 thousand blanks for such guns. Of these, 300 cannons were made in the arsenal of the city of Osaka. Later this gun was modernized, and it was called the Arisaka system of the 1905 model of the year (type 38). The Japanese also ordered several dozen 12- and 15-cm (120- and 150-mm) Krupp howitzers from the Germans during the war. The fortress and siege artillery had Krupp guns of large calibers, up to 280-mm guns. Own military industry of the Japanese Empire was in its infancy, so the Japanese imported guns from the factories of Krupp and Schneider (machine guns were also brought from abroad).

The highest tactical unit of the Japanese army was the division. In wartime provided for the formation of the army. So, before the beginning of the war with Russia, three armies were formed. The first divisions formed in 1885, then they created the 6 divisions. A few years later formed the Guards Division. During the war with China, Japan had 6 army divisions and 1 Guards division - 64 thousand people who turned to 171 thousand people in wartime. New reorganization in the army held after the war with China. At the start of the war, Japan deployed 13 divisions and 13 reserve brigades with a total of 375 thousand. The division consisted of two infantry brigades of double-regimental composition, the regiment consisted of three battalions, the battalion of four companies. The division also included a three-squadron cavalry regiment, and a two-division artillery regiment, each division had three batteries of six guns each. The division also had a sapper and a wagon train battalion. In wartime, the division received part of the gain. A war company had a 217 man in the state, a sapper company had a 220 man, a field battery had 6 guns, a 150 man.

Guards and 1-I divisions of the capital were more powerful in their composition. Each of them had not a cavalry regiment, but a cavalry brigade of two regiments of five squadrons, as well as an artillery brigade of three regiments, with two divisions in each, in each division there were three six-gun batteries. Army artillery consisted of divisions and batteries included in the divisions. The foot field and mountain artillery was reduced to 13 artillery regiments, which were attached to the divisions, and two artillery brigades.

One of the peculiarities of the Japanese divisions was the presence of numerous porters. As part of the army for each division during the war were 6 thousand. Porters. The need for such a large number of porters was associated with the weakness of the transport and the underdevelopment of the road network of the Manchurian theater of operations. The impossibility of creating a corps organization in such conditions led to the fact that it was necessary for each division to give tactical and economic independence. Subsequently, the Japanese created a network of field railways in a number of regions and organized a system of warehouses, which facilitated the supply of troops.

On the eve of the war, the Japanese Empire conducted the deployment of the army according to the plan of wartime. To this end, 52 reserve infantry battalions, 52 reserve batteries (312 guns) were formed to reinforce the existing troops. To compensate for the loss in the army formed 19 spare batteries (114 guns). As a result, the Japanese army in the state of peacetime had among the 13 artillery regiments of the divisional and 7 regiments of army artillery 704 guns, and in the wartime state 1130 guns. Japan faster than Russia was able to deploy its artillery in the theater of operations. The gunners as a whole had good training and, although the Japanese artillery was inferior in range and speed of fire, good technical training and ability to shoot from closed positions gave the Japanese an advantage at the beginning of the war. Subsequently, when the Russians also learned to shoot well from closed positions, the situation changed dramatically in their favor. In artillery duels, the victory was almost always left to the Russian artillerymen.

In Russia, the Japanese army was underestimated. Combat training of the troops was considered low. Japanese artillery was called unsatisfactory. It was believed that poorly trained engineering troops. The weakness of the Japanese cavalry was noted. In fact, these estimates are outdated, they are consistent with the Japanese army sample 1870-1880-s. Japanese troops were trained by advanced German specialists, and in their preparation they approached the Western European standard. The army inculcated offensive tendencies, but they got along with the traditional Japanese caution and some slowness.

The Japanese really had a traditionally weak cavalry. She usually did not tear herself away from her infantry. Cold weapons The Japanese cavalry in the attack did not use and dismounted during a combat clash for a firefight. Almost did not lead cavalry and intelligence activities. In the intelligence business, the main hopes were pinned on spies.


Oyama Iwao (1842-1916). In 1899 — 1904, the Chief of General Staff. Under his leadership, a plan of war with Russia was developed and the Japanese army was thoroughly prepared for the campaign. In June, 1904 was appointed commander-in-chief of Japanese forces in Manchuria and on the Liaodong Peninsula.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. The armed forces of the Japanese Empire
The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. Part of 2. Preparing Russia for war
The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. Part of 3. Russian army at the turn of the XX century. Theater of war
The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. Part of 4. Plans of the Russian and Japanese command
The beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. Part of 5. Attack on port arthur
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sunjar
    Sunjar 4 February 2014 08: 09
    +9
    Do not underestimate the enemy.

    But here is what is remarkable - according to the words of our liberals and the other bastard, the people of the Great Patriotic War, and in fact the Third World War (the first was the war with Napoleon, and there also united Europe fell upon Russia), won despite Stalin and the military command, and they are known directly longed to kill as many of their people as possible. But in the Russo-Japanese and World War I (World War II in fact) all the same people of the enemy for some reason could not defeat, and this despite the fact that, as everyone knows, Tsar Nicholas 2 and the structure of the state were loved by everyone, and on the contrary, the totalitarian USSR was hated through one. These are the pies.
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 4 February 2014 08: 39
      +9
      Quote: Sunjar
      and in fact the Third World War (the first was the war with Napoleon, and there also united Europe flooded Russia)

      World war is called because of the world because almost the whole world is involved.
      Do not invent new terms! Such "world wars", with the invasion of all of Europe, in our history, darkness.
      Essentially I agree with your comment, but we are talking about the state of the Japanese army. You don’t think so. that you didn’t get into the topic a bit?
      I liked the article. Will there be an analysis of the political situation?
      1. Sunjar
        Sunjar 4 February 2014 14: 16
        -1
        Quote: invisible
        World war is called because of the world because almost the whole world is involved.


        Almost the whole World did not participate in the generally accepted "First World War". You overstate.
        The 1812 war, by the way, is also considered Patriotic and there is even a reward for the Patriotic War. Here you will say that domestic is not World. Is there a definition in science that only with the participation of a certain number of countries is war considered World War II, or is the Pest War determined by the number of people participating in hostilities?

        Here is the number of countries participating in the 1812 war (from Wikipedia):


        France, Austria, Prussia, Switzerland, Duchy of Warsaw, Spain, Italy, Rhine Union, Russia, United Kingdom, Sweden

        And here is the First World 1914 (there is an award for the Second World War)

        Russia, France, United Kingdom, Serbia, Belgium, Montenegro, Italy (with 1915), Romania (with 1916), USA (with 1917), Greece (with 1917), Portugal, Japan, South African Union, Brazil, Canada,

        In fact, slightly more countries participated in the generally accepted World War I than in the 1812 war. Some countries, as you can see, joined at the end of the war in order to seize the benefits and influences from victory, and some countries generally made an insignificant contribution to the war, which is difficult can be called participants in this war.

        In view of the aforementioned 1812 war, one can consider the World War, or not consider the World War 1914.

        And all the same, it is necessary to invent new terms, since new phenomena and the like appear that have no definition. For example, at one time, I had to introduce many new terms and concepts when we created computers.

        As to whether I got into the topic or not ... Does the site’s terms of use say somewhere that a comment can be left only on the merits of the article? Not. Therefore, do not indicate what I can write and what not, and indicate what I can and what not.
        1. Shogun23
          Shogun23 4 February 2014 14: 27
          0
          Quote: Sunjar
          The war of 1812, too, by the way is considered Patriotic and there is even a reward for the Patriotic War. Here you will say that domestic is not World.

          No, it’s not, just like the Great Patriotic War, it’s not the Second World War
          Quote: Sunjar
          Here is the number of countries participating in the 1812 war (from Wikipedia):


          France, Austria, Prussia, Switzerland, Duchy of Warsaw, Spain, Italy, Rhine Union, Russia, United Kingdom, Sweden

          And all these are European countries. The same composition can be seen in the Thirty Years War. Of other parts of the world, no states are provided, and this is what makes the country global, and not the number of participants
        2. Prometey
          Prometey 4 February 2014 14: 30
          +3
          The Napoleonic wars could not pretend to a global conflict in any way - these were European squabbles.
          The second list lacks Turkey and a number of Latin American countries. The global conflict is characterized not only by the number of participating countries, but also by regions of the conflict.
        3. invisibility
          invisibility 4 February 2014 15: 51
          +2
          Well, they already answered you
          In addition to this, they participated in the First World War: Cuba, Guatemala, Nigeria, Panama, Ecuador, Siam, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Turkey, uv .. didn’t forget anyone? Ah, Germany and Austria-Hungary !!!
          Feel the difference?
          Quote: Sunjar
          And it’s still necessary to invent new terms, since new phenomena appear, etc., which have no definition

          Well, precisely for new phenomena.
          Quote: Sunjar
          Therefore, do not indicate what I can write and what not, and indicate what I can and what not.

          My friend, you are not at home! This is a discussion if you have not noticed. And you need to point to the fuy.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 4 February 2014 22: 24
          0
          Quote: Sunjar
          Russia, France, United Kingdom, Serbia, Belgium, Montenegro, Italy (with 1915), Romania (with 1916), USA (with 1917), Greece (with 1917), Portugal, Japan, South African Union, Brazil, Canada,

          Have you forgotten anyone?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Shogun23
      Shogun23 4 February 2014 11: 32
      +1
      Quote: Sunjar
      in fact the Third World (The first was the war with Napoleon, and there also united Europe flooded Russia)

      If so to speak, then the First World War, this is also the War of the Spanish Succession, then the war went on in both North America and India. The situation is the same for the Seven Years War (then even tribes in North America and partly the Mughal Empire in India even participated).
    4. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 4 February 2014 15: 21
      +4
      Quote: Sunjar
      Do not underestimate the enemy.

      And also overestimate. When asked about the reasons for the defeat of the Russian Empire, General Kuropatkin pointed out, as one of the main ones:
      "At first we underestimated the enemy, and then after the first defeats we overestimated"
      1. blizart
        blizart 4 February 2014 21: 11
        +1
        Contemporaries called this war "Macaques against something"
        1. Cristall
          Cristall 5 February 2014 22: 39
          +1
          Stepanov A- "Port Arthur"
          Hero (Boreiko or Gobyato, I think) --- If there is not a large numerical superiority, then macaques will be stuffed - "something kakam" by the first number.
          And according to the novel - everything except spotlights, yapes are better ..
          Yes, of course, for the money of the Amer loan, under the leadership of the Germans, in the shipyards of England - in short, 3 world powers took up the education of Yap and got a diligent student. Which was supposed to teach us a lesson (akin to Prussian for the French)
          add world pressure to RI. And internal problems.
          As for me - do not be a revolution - it was possible to bring the REV to its logical end, and not to a stalemate situation (the nuclear research institute did not have the ability to continue the war, but RI did not want to continue it). At which RI had to make concessions.
    5. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 16: 56
      +1
      Quote: Sunjar
      But what’s remarkable

      It is noteworthy from your comment that Napoleon, in the Russo-Japanese and the First World War (the Second World War in fact), despite Stalin and the military command, eager to kill as many of their people as possible, for some reason the same people of the enemy could not win, (sorry, further in the convolutions of your bizarre fictions comes a full "paragraph" (3,14 "zdets). Who else loved / hated through one totalitarian USSR. What were the pies with?
      1. Sunjar
        Sunjar 4 February 2014 17: 22
        -1
        None of you answered the question if there are any criteria for determining which war can be considered World War and which not? Should war take place on all continents or not? In the presence of how many states participating in the war can this be considered World? Answer me these questions.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    6. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 4 February 2014 21: 24
      0
      Well then, the 4th World War. The Crimean war was forgotten. And about the underestimation of such numbers. When defending Port Arthur, the Japanese lost 115000 soldiers, Russians 33000. In this war there were 2 key traitors. 1. Kuropatkin. 2.
  2. core
    core 4 February 2014 09: 31
    +11
    everything was the same in the Russian army. professional sailors serving for salaries, officer traditions, we also used imported weapons.
    Japan had no chance of winning the war. BUT! Big "friends" of Russia intervened, very strongly offering mediation in peace negotiations. the destruction of the Pacific squadron is not a victory in the war. to the signing of a peace treaty. The Russian army had already been mobilized and rolled eastward; the Japs would have been thrown out of the Korean peninsula in a month or two. BUT! agreed. The non-independent policy of the Russian state is the reason for the defeat in this war.
    1. amigo1969
      amigo1969 4 February 2014 10: 16
      +5
      I agree! A weak tsar with an eye on the European friends of "relatives" and became the main reason for losing the war.
      1. Bagatur
        Bagatur 4 February 2014 12: 00
        +2
        Bulgarian military teacher regiment Boris Drangov (educator of the Nikolaev Academy, was friends with General Dragomirov) said: "If Bulgaria dies, it will not happen for lack of quality people, for lack of CHARACTERISTIC !!!" Russia lost for the lack of people with character, the will that wins. Nikolai II, Kuropatkin ... and not only they cannot be accused of having a strong character and unbending will ...
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 02
          0
          Quote: bagatura
          "If Bulgaria dies,

          Has B'lgaria chi gone dead?
    2. Shogun23
      Shogun23 4 February 2014 12: 07
      +1
      the revolving revolution in the country, the unrest of workers and peasants who must produce supplies to supply the army, the complete loss of two squadrons, huge debts on military loans, which need to be taken even more to continue the war ... What do you think the country is capable of in this state wage any successful war?
      1. core
        core 5 February 2014 21: 05
        0
        The USSR was at war, the conditions were even worse, BUT! We won.
        1. Cristall
          Cristall 5 February 2014 22: 42
          0
          The coach was different ...
          And Stessel really surrendered, infection, Port Arthur. But this is the fortress Hero of that war!
        2. Cristall
          Cristall 5 February 2014 22: 42
          0
          The coach was different ...
          And Stessel really surrendered, infection, Port Arthur. But this is the fortress Hero of that war!
        3. Shogun23
          Shogun23 16 February 2014 13: 39
          0
          And why is it "Worse"?
  3. Odysseus
    Odysseus 4 February 2014 09: 49
    +3
    Japan’s preparations for the 1904 war were unconditional, especially considering that Japan’s industrial development began just 30 years before the war began (Meiji restoration), but nevertheless, due to the huge difference in human and resource capabilities with any reasonable waging war on the part of the Russian Empire, Japan had no chance of victory.
    The defeat of Russia to a large extent is a consequence of the weakness of the state and military structure of the Republic of Ingushetia (things were especially bad in the Navy) than the forces of Japan.
  4. Kapitan Oleg
    Kapitan Oleg 4 February 2014 10: 13
    +1
    Colleagues, here are some materials. The photo shows the Japanese ultimatum to the Varyag cruiser and three photos of the Russian cemetery in Yokohama.
  5. Kapitan Oleg
    Kapitan Oleg 4 February 2014 10: 14
    +5
    the cemetery is still looked after
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Kapitan Oleg
    Kapitan Oleg 4 February 2014 10: 15
    0
    The abbot of the Orthodox Church, Father Nicholas, is engaged in this.
  8. Kapitan Oleg
    Kapitan Oleg 4 February 2014 10: 16
    +2
    The Japanese also help
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 4 February 2014 12: 00
      +2
      they say that the Russo-Japanese War is the last war in which the opponents respect the fallen soldiers of the other side.
      1. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 5 February 2014 13: 24
        +1
        Quote: Shogun23
        they say that the Russo-Japanese War is the last war in which the opponents respect the fallen soldiers of the other side.

        Her historians are often called the first and last gentleman's war.
        1. Shogun23
          Shogun23 16 February 2014 13: 39
          0
          I don’t agree to the account of the first.
  9. parus2nik
    parus2nik 4 February 2014 10: 36
    +5
    The fact that they underestimated the Japanese ... it’s an ash-tree stump .. And the Russian army still rested on the laurels of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 .. They also thought that the Japanese would stay in Port Arthur .. However, everything was as usual, when Russia was ready for war ..We even come in winter unexpectedly, in winter ...
  10. Crang
    Crang 4 February 2014 11: 13
    +3
    Yes, they simply merged the super-powerful fleet and the naval base to the Japanese. The world had never seen such a defeat before the village. They certainly took place, the same Trafalgar, but then the losing side was objectively weaker. And like this - to have everything, but because of the stupidity and boneiness of the generals / admirals and the "little things" generated by this stupidity, just drain .... This has not happened before. But there were several times later. New Year's assault on Grozny, for example. Finnish war. Nevsky Piglet and Rzhevskaya Meat Grinder.
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 4 February 2014 11: 59
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      The world before the village had never seen such a defeat.

      Oh really? Remember the centennial war, namely the battle of Cresius and Agincourt, if you look earlier, the battle of Legnano, and if you plunge into antiquity, then the Gavgamela, and the complete collapse of the most powerful Persian empire. You can also recall the attempt to capture Malta by the Ottoman Empire. and these are just offhand known battles.
      1. Crang
        Crang 4 February 2014 12: 35
        +1
        This is a little bit wrong. Or rather not at all. Then, in the era of prehistoric meat grinders, the psychological and physical qualities of ordinary fighters played a huge role. The Russo-Japanese War is already a 100% war of a new generation. That is, a war in which people directly almost do not fight. They only serve and operate military equipment. The outcome of such a war already depends on the quality and quantity of this very technology, the industrial power of the state and its resources. The economy. In this regard, we were then ten times stronger than Japan.
        1. Shogun23
          Shogun23 4 February 2014 12: 57
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          Then, in the era of prehistoric meat grinders, the psychological and physical qualities of ordinary fighters played a huge role.


          But was it different in Russian-Japanese? Was it different in the Second World War?

          Quote: Krang
          a war in which people directly almost do not fight. They only serve and operate military equipment.


          And who instead of people there directly fought? And what military equipment was used?

          Quote: Krang
          The outcome of such a war already depends on the quality and quantity of this very technology, the industrial power of the state and its resources. The economy.


          And what percentage of the Russian economy was involved directly for the war, an adequate supply of troops with food, ammunition and ammunition? Definitely not ALL of Russia, but only the part that needs to be provided with all the necessary troops that are directly conducting hostilities. And mobilization in the country was not carried out.
        2. Prometey
          Prometey 4 February 2014 13: 03
          0
          Quote: Krang
          The Russo-Japanese War is already a 100% war of a new generation. That is, a war in which people directly almost do not fight. They only serve and operate military equipment.

          Bayonet - the same military equipment?
          1. Crang
            Crang 4 February 2014 14: 25
            0
            No bayonet, but many enemies destroyed with bayonets in that war? In percentage terms? Of course not. The vast majority died from shells, shell splinters, bullets, burned or choked when blocked in sinking ships.
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 4 February 2014 14: 33
              0
              Quote: Krang
              The vast majority died from shells, shell splinters, bullets, burned or choked when blocked in sinking ships.

              Uh, but did the warring parties suffer the main losses not on land?
              1. Crang
                Crang 4 February 2014 15: 46
                0
                On land ... From shells, mines and bullets.
                1. Prometey
                  Prometey 4 February 2014 18: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Krang
                  On land ... From shells, mines and bullets.

                  That is, melee was not in principle? And near Port Arthur, they constantly raged with bayonets.
                  1. Bosk
                    Bosk 4 February 2014 21: 46
                    0
                    Someone from the old generals of those times said that one of the reasons for the defeat in that war was a couple of bayonet ratings and not up to firepower ratings, and this somewhere has its own share of truth ...
            2. Drummer
              Drummer 4 February 2014 20: 26
              +1
              RPE is considered the last war of the rifle era: losses from rifle fire - 50-60%, from cold steel 5-10%, the remaining 30-40% - artillery. So, composure, strength and the ability to shoot then played an important role.
      2. Rus86
        Rus86 4 February 2014 12: 40
        -1
        and Cannes in pursuit) Hamikar Barka entered History there.
        1. Rus86
          Rus86 4 February 2014 13: 47
          0
          mistake, Hannibal)) son of Hamilcar
      3. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 09
        0
        Yeah, also the Dardannel operation of Mr. Churchill.
        1. Rus86
          Rus86 5 February 2014 05: 26
          0
          there, nevertheless, the Turks gave a light to the French Angles.
    2. Prometey
      Prometey 4 February 2014 12: 38
      0
      Quote: Krang
      They certainly took place, the same Trafalgar

      Under Trafalgar, 1 ship was destroyed directly during the battle. Everyone else was broken by a storm.
      1. Shogun23
        Shogun23 4 February 2014 12: 47
        0
        Um ... by the storm? Sorry, but the rest were defeated by artillery fire and surrendered, as it mainly happened in naval battles of the II half of the XVIII-early XIX centuries. Then the ship could be destroyed either by blowing up a powder cellar, or by strongly riddling it, forcing it to draw more water than it should be, well, or putting firewalls on them, causing a fire.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 4 February 2014 13: 00
          0
          Quote: Shogun23
          Sorry, but the rest were defeated by artillery fire and surrendered

          Broken, but not destroyed. Tsushima remains the only battle at sea, where the enemy fleet was destroyed directly during the battle.
          1. Shogun23
            Shogun23 4 February 2014 13: 20
            0
            Quote: Prometey
            Broken, but not destroyed.


            But does the essence of this change? The Allies lost more than half of their fleet, the rest were unhealthy for a long time, and indeed neither Spain nor France regained the status of a Great Sea Power.

            Quote: Prometey
            Tsushima remains the only battle at sea, where the enemy fleet was destroyed directly during the battle.


            Are you sure? That is, surrendered armadillos and interned ships no longer count?
            But even lowering this, look at the battle of Lepanto from 270-290 ships, 240 were destroyed. Under Salamis also enough Persian ships were destroyed, the battle in Chesme Bay, when the WHOLE Turkish fleet was destroyed or captured, the Sinop battle, when only one Turkish ship was saved ... Here too, only offhand and only famous battles
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 4 February 2014 14: 12
              0
              Quote: Shogun23
              Under Salamis, too, enough Persian ships were destroyed

              I apologize, I do not recognize the legends of ancient history with any sauce.
    3. Moore
      Moore 4 February 2014 13: 17
      0
      If not difficult, explain what "just merged" in the Finnish war and on the Rzhev salient?
  11. Peter76
    Peter76 4 February 2014 11: 19
    +2
    For the first time I learned about the Russo-Japanese war when I read Pikul's novel "cruiser" and was impressed why it happened, why Kuropatkin was retreating. Later it became clear that 1904 resembled 1941 with all the ensuing consequences.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 4 February 2014 22: 36
      0
      Quote: Peter76
      Later it became clear that in 1904 it resembled 1941 with all the ensuing consequences

      Not at all. In 41, the advantage of the USSR was overwhelming - the command and control of troops played a decisive role, in which Germany was always at its best.
  12. Shogun23
    Shogun23 4 February 2014 11: 23
    +1
    For Japan, such preparation for war is a very good result, however, if you take into account the officers, then of course the Japanese were lucky ... For the Japanese, all the officers (primarily the generals) involved in the war were the best in their country. In Russia, for the most part, these were second-rate generals who were sent to the Far East, either for misconduct, or for some other sins, since there is almost no career growth in the Far East. As a result, it was precisely because of this that Russia did not win a single battle.
    1. Moore
      Moore 4 February 2014 13: 32
      +1
      And more specifically about the "second-rate" of Russian generals, can you?
      For example, about the "inferiority" of Lieutenant General Roman Isidorovich Kondratenko?
      Or Major General (and later Lieutenant General) Vasily Fedorovich Bely? The same one in the Far East, where
      almost no career growth
      received two general ranks?
      1. Shogun23
        Shogun23 4 February 2014 14: 02
        0
        Quote: Moore
        Roman Isidorovich Kondratenko

        Kondratenko was sent there just because he was not loyal to command and inclined to initiative thinking. Even Makarov was sent there so that he would not be an eyesore in St. Petersburg. But these are all rather exceptions to the rules.
        And the rest of the commanders? Stark, Fock, Stessel, Kuropatkin. And moreover, they held positions higher than those of Kondratenko.
      2. Shogun23
        Shogun23 4 February 2014 14: 06
        0
        And Bely in the Far East received only one general rank, for equipping the fortress with artillery, the next he received already in 1908.
        1. Moore
          Moore 4 February 2014 17: 28
          0
          1. General Bely received the rank of "Major General" as chief of the Kwantung artillery. He received the rank of "lieutenant general" as chief of the Vladivostok fortress artillery. This is about the lack of growth.
          2. How does the "second-rate" of the generals influence whether General Kondratenko or Admiral Makarov were removed "out of sight", or were they entrusted to command - if both made a significant contribution to the defense of Port Arthur?
          3. With General Fock, too, is not so simple.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 14
      0
      You yourself served in the Far East? Or virtually? I personally 5 years and 6 winters from August 1980 to November 1985. And you served in what regiment?
  13. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 4 February 2014 11: 44
    +2
    Russo-Japanese War: January 27 (February 9) 1904 - August 23 (September 5) 1905, one year, the result of Epic Fail.
    Soviet-Japanese war: August 9-September 2, 1945, one month, the result: the complete defeat of the Japanese militarists. What was impossible right away?
    1. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 4 February 2014 12: 45
      +4
      Quote: Standard Oil
      What was impossible right away?

      Well, do not forget that in 1945 the army entered Manzhuria, which had been "trained" on the Germans for 4 years. And the Russian Empire before the RYAV ended the last war in 1878, emnip. 26 years is, you know, term hi
      1. Saburo
        Saburo 4 February 2014 13: 04
        0
        Landwarrior is right. And unlike the Imperial Army of 1905, which in terms of training and quality of weapons was at least at the level of Russian troops, the Kwantung Army in the 45th was more like a bunch of barely trained demoralized democrats, without communications, fuel and weapons 20 30th years.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 38
          -1
          Quote: Saburo
          The Kwantung army in the 45th was more likely a bunch of barely prepared, demoralized ragged, without communications, fuel and weapons from the 20-30s.

          Check out Chinese films from this period. Come to Dalnerechensk and walk at least 5-6 km. parallel to the railway from Eberhard station to Lazo station, even without rain. And on the opposite bank of the Ussuri, the Khutous fortified area (look on the Internet when he capitulated. No, the victory over the "bunch of barely prepared, demoralized ragamuffins, without communications, fuel and with weapons of the 20-30s" was not easy.
        2. Landwarrior
          Landwarrior 5 February 2014 13: 01
          0
          Saburo, in Manchuria in 1945, the Yapes had the so-called detachments No. 731, No. 516 and No. 100. The reserves of biological and chemical muck accumulated by them would be enough to slow down the offensive of the Soviet Army and depopulate Asia. Do not assume that the Japanese were completely toothless hi
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Shogun23
        Shogun23 4 February 2014 14: 15
        +1
        And if you recall that the Baltic Fleet (the 2nd and 3rd squadrons), which went to the rescue of Port Arthur, fought for the last time in the Crimean War (and even these actions cannot be called full-fledged), it becomes even sadder
        1. Moore
          Moore 4 February 2014 17: 37
          0
          It is terrible to think what the sons of Amaterasu would do with the Grand Fleet - he also shot for real goals the last time in the Opium Wars in the 60s ...
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 4 February 2014 22: 41
            0
            Quote: Moore
            It is terrible to think what the sons of Amaterasu would do with the Grand Fleet - he also shot for real goals the last time in the Opium Wars in the 60s ...

            They wouldn’t do anything because the British at least maneuvered quite well, not to mention the number + they had bases in the theater of operations
        2. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 40
          -2
          Quote: Shogun23
          Baltic Fleet (2nd and 3rd squadrons) fought last time in the Crimean War

          Do you seriously believe what you wrote?
          1. Shogun23
            Shogun23 4 February 2014 23: 25
            0
            do you have other data?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 28
      +2
      Uh, my friend, in 1945 "Japs" were "spud" by fighters and commanders who put cancer in Nazi Germany, who did not forget their combat skills, with well-adjusted interaction, who the devil himself is not a brother. And the experience of that war (1904-1905), which failed, was taken into account and creatively revised. The Japanese were "done at once", two were no longer needed. Three fronts, according to the prescribed plan, according to the approved directives ... It's not for you in 1904-1905 to deliver troops and ammunition a teaspoon to a theater of operations.
  14. Prometey
    Prometey 4 February 2014 12: 55
    +1
    Yes, something can be compared there. Russia had no experience in wars since 1878, but at sea since the days of the Crimean War (although it was no longer needed in the 20th century).
    Japan at the beginning of the century gained the experience of conducting precisely the modern war (for that period of time) with China. And she was the only country at that time (well, except for the loser China, as well as a bit of the USA), which had combat experience of using armadillos at sea.
    Russia entered the war completely without practical experience in conducting a modern war and, accordingly, not ready (as always).
    I don’t understand how much it is possible to break the spears about Tsushima, if it was natural - the sea power defeated the land at sea. I’ll even say more - it’s a shame for the Japanese that they fiddled with the Port Arthur squadron for so long without breaking it in a naval battle.
    And it is unlikely that Tsushima can be considered a blow to the prestige of Russia - before the transition of the 2nd and 3rd squadrons, Russia was never a maritime power. Only during the Russo-Japanese War was, in fact, the first global exit of the Russian fleet in the vast oceans. But the first pancake was lumpy.
    1. Galich Kos
      Galich Kos 4 February 2014 14: 28
      +1
      Quote: Prometey
      And it is unlikely that Tsushima can be considered a blow to the prestige of Russia - before the transition of the 2nd and 3rd squadrons, Russia was never a sea power

      Surprised however! That Russia was not a sea power ?! Peter the First in the coffin probably turned upside down!
      Any defeat of a country is, by definition, a blow to its prestige, and Tsushima is a .... what a blow!
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 4 February 2014 14: 52
        0
        Quote: Galich Kos
        Peter the First in the coffin probably turned upside down!

        Quote: Prometey
        And what about Peter I?

        Sergei, Alexey is probably referring to the well-known story about the "window to Europe" and the seaport in the Baltic called Petersburg, and about the creator of the fleet, Peter. If he knew about the "Marquis puddle" and that the Sea Canal in St. Petersburg was launched in action in 1885, I would probably first try for myself to answer some of the questions that arise in this connection.
        1. Galich Kos
          Galich Kos 4 February 2014 15: 12
          0
          Quote: baltika-18
          .If he knew about the "Marquis puddle" and that the Sea Canal in St. Petersburg was put into operation in 1885

          I'm talking about Thomas, you are talking about Erema! Your blah blah blah about the Marquis puddle and the Sea Canal is not at all in the subject and is irrelevant. I had something else in mind. Although, if this worries you so much, then before Peter we did not have this "puddle" either. From this very puddle, everything went.
          1. baltika-18
            baltika-18 4 February 2014 15: 49
            0
            Quote: Galich Kos
            I'm talking about Thomas

            What kind of Thomas are you talking about?
            Quote: Galich Kos
            I meant something else

            And what exactly?
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 4 February 2014 17: 46
      +1
      Quote: Prometey
      The first global launch of the Russian fleet in the vast oceans. But the first pancake was lumpy.

      Sorry, m. still second? Where do we put to ourselves (you) the passage from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea of ​​the Spiridov-Greig squadron, which ended in the Chesme battle?
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 4 February 2014 18: 34
        -1
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Sorry, m. still second? Where do we put to ourselves (you) the passage from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea of ​​the Spiridov-Greig squadron, which ended in the Chesme battle?

        Yard European showdown. Everything revolved around European sea baths.
    3. Drummer
      Drummer 4 February 2014 20: 46
      +1
      I absolutely agree.
      The beginning of the XNUMXth century was the pinnacle of the development of the Russian fleet, and the Russo-Japanese War itself was almost the only case in our history when the fleet really was needed and solved (tried to solve) strategic tasks.
  15. Prometey
    Prometey 4 February 2014 14: 36
    -1
    Quote: Galich Kos
    Peter the First in the coffin probably turned upside down!

    And what about Peter I?
    Quote: Galich Kos
    Tsushima - this is n .... what a blow!

    In what? The fact that the first time went beyond the borders of the European seas, having no combat experience in naval operations away from their bases?
  16. Galich Kos
    Galich Kos 4 February 2014 15: 01
    -1
    Everything is fine with Peter, he founded the Russian fleet, made Russia a sea power. Under him, the newly created fleet that did not have any combat experience at all repeatedly kicked the ass of experienced Swedish sailors.
    Quote: Prometey
    In what? The fact that the first time went beyond the borders of the European seas, having no combat experience in naval operations away from their bases?

    In the Far East, is the sea different? Or did the Russian squadron near Tsushima come without ammunition and coal?
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 4 February 2014 18: 32
      -2
      Quote: Galich Kos
      Everything is fine with Peter, he founded the Russian fleet

      And where was this fleet rotting 50 years in the Baltic puddle?
      Quote: Galich Kos
      Under him, the newly created fleet that did not have any combat experience at all repeatedly kicked the ass of experienced Swedish sailors.

      Fussing in the Baltic puddle, not only in the world, but also in Europe did not have any impact on the geopolitical alignment.
      Quote: Galich Kos
      In the Far East, is the sea different? Or did the Russian squadron near Tsushima come without ammunition and coal?

      What exactly do you deny?
  17. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 4 February 2014 16: 11
    +1
    An interesting article, interesting factual information about the Japanese military.
    Well, as always - the west helped the enemy!
  18. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 4 February 2014 16: 42
    0
    Interesting article. I look forward to continuing about the armed forces of the Russian Empire (in general, and in the Far East in particular)
  19. Beck
    Beck 4 February 2014 16: 47
    +1
    Russian-Japanese war. This was the first, in the colonial era, victory of a developing country over the European empire.

    To all the troubles were added sabotage and sabotage on the Trans-Siberian Railway, organized by the Bolsheviks. After all, in those days, for propaganda and seizure of power, they needed any defeat of Russia, in any war. The Bolsheviks used the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War unsuccessfully in the first Russian revolution of 1905. But on the other hand, they successfully used, they themselves created, the disorder and collapse of the Russian army in 1MV, and on this wave they already seized power in 1917.
    1. pRofF
      pRofF 4 February 2014 17: 36
      0
      In general, the idea is correct, but sin in trifles. The main diversions on Transsib were done by either the Social Revolutionaries or the Japanese intelligence. So in the 1905 revolution - the Bolsheviks had something to do with it, so far as.
      Another thing is that yes - SIS & Co has worked for us at this time the technology of distemper inflating - which was used in 17 year. And the confusion and disintegration of the army is the direct fault of the Provisional Government, and specifically Kerensky — order No. XXUMX, after which the army spread like wet paper. Kornilov therefore planned to put this attorney to the wall — for this order alone.
      In general, Great Britain achieved its goal - Russia was humiliated, they closed access to the East - that is, they were forced to turn back to the West and get into European affairs - because the Britons needed cannon fodder besides France! All this is bitter. But - a lesson to all of us.
      1. Beck
        Beck 4 February 2014 18: 00
        +1
        Quote: pRofF
        In general, the idea is correct, but sin in the details.


        Who of ordinary mortals knows all the little things in events, stories, life. Once I read that Japanese intelligence paid money not only to the Socialist Revolutionaries, but also to the Bolsheviks.

        Kerensky’s order certainly costs a lot. But even before the order, the Bolsheviks brought their share and large share through their agitation and propaganda. The order fell on the prepared ground.

        Quote: pRofF
        In general, Great Britain achieved its goal - Russia was humiliated, they closed access to the East - that is, they were forced to turn back to the West and get into European affairs - because the Britons needed cannon fodder besides France! All this is bitter. But - a lesson to all of us.


        I have a different view of the cause of the war. Japan, like China, left their countries in the Middle Ages with their isolationist policies. In the mid-19th century, Japan began to actively enter the modern world. But by the 20th century, all colonies had already been captured, the world was divided. So the young imperialist predator went to seize other territories and first of all ran into a neighbor Russia.

        It was the countries that were late to share the colonial pie that unleashed WW2 - Germany, Japan, Italy. They did not foresee the future decline of colonialism and saw their prosperity only in the seizure of "living spaces". But the colonial era, with the festering abscess of WW2, ended its existence.

        And if about ships built by the British for the Japanese, then half of the Russian fleet was built in English shipyards.
        1. pRofF
          pRofF 4 February 2014 19: 14
          +1
          Japan’s active entry into the modern world would be impossible without the development of its entire economy as a whole and industry in particular. And the development of Japanese industry would be impossible without foreign loans. The main creditors were England and the USA. Without their money, Japanese industry developed at a much slower pace, and by 1904, the Yamato could not even arm the army properly. In principle, they even did not reach the required level with loans - they still had to build a fleet abroad, and during the war itself, their economy almost completely collapsed - there was no money. If our people won and pulled time - Yapi would agree on normal conditions. Alas.
          Japan is a great example of how to grow a big danger out of a minuscule - if you have money, an eternal adversary (Russia) and cunning specialists. Actually, then the USA and England acted in the same vein with Hitler. They did everything to grow a monstrous monster of the Third Reich from Germany, ravaged and plundered by Weimar. In fact, they started sponsoring him at the age of 33. There was such an interesting friend - Ernst Hanfstaengl, from 24 to 37 he was an adviser on communication with the press in the NSDAP. And there is his very interesting memoir - "Hitler. The Lost Years." Antiresnoe such a work. In fact, a chronicle of how Hitler was done and sponsored. And the fate of Hanfstaengl is also non-standard - at 37, he allegedly fled to America. "Allegedly" - because he really went there, he was taken into custody by the FBI, an agent was assigned to him ... his son. And in 41-42 - he began to work in the headquarters of Roosevelt's advisers. The man who wrote the Hitler Youth March. The kids who burned our tanks in Berlin in May 45. Here is such a character.
          Why all this is me. Just one colonialism does not explain. One of the reasons - yes. As a reason, no. The same Germany 1914 - if the Germans managed to complete the rearmament of the army and the fleet construction program - it is not known where England and France would have turned out to be. But they were provoked - the British through the dip channels said that, they say, they would not intervene - and then they declared war. So William in this mess would not have reached - not so stupid as he was, as he is exposed. They provoked us too. And set off with the Germans. And as a result, all the empires, which to some extent had trouble with the Anglo-French alliance, developed into 17. Significant such a fact. But that's my personal opinion.

          Sincerely, Egor.
          1. Beck
            Beck 5 February 2014 08: 15
            +1
            Quote: pRofF
            An active entry of Japan into the modern world would be impossible without the development of its entire economy in general and industry in particular. And the development of Japanese industry would not have been possible without foreign loans. The main creditors were England and the USA. Without their money, Japanese industry developed at a much slower pace and by 1904, Yamato could not even arm an army properly.


            No, here many write with reproach that they say that England helped, that the USA, etc. But this is normal international practice. Which comes from the interpersonal relationships of people.

            I borrowed money from you, bought a car, then I gave you the money, for which I should be reproached. Also in government affairs. Japan for development took loans from those countries that had free money. If the Papuans would have free money at that time, then Japan would have borrowed money from them.

            What now Russia or Kazakhstan do not take loans from the West for their development? They take it. So let our countries blame this.

            Or would you like the Japanese to sail to Tsushima on junks? And under Port Arthur would samurai of the 14th century come armed only with swords? Well then, of course, a victory over the Japanese would be ensured, but only such a victory would not bring any military glory.
            1. pRofF
              pRofF 5 February 2014 10: 05
              0
              Hm The Russian-Japanese war, in general, did not bring us any great fame. So the argument is not the topic.
              In general, your logic is a little incomprehensible to me - only no offense.
              that they say that England helped, that the USA, etc. But this is normal international practice.
              - that is, to foul with another's hands to another country - is this normal and generally accepted? Perhaps this is quite common - but this practice does not become less vile from this. And that shit is a fact. It is one thing to give loans for the development of the economy for peaceful purposes, and quite another to completely militarize society and then draw this society into war. What actually England and the USA did.
              And so - glory, it is certainly good. But the minimum loss in manpower and technology - even better. So yes, I would prefer that the Yapi stayed with their junks - then there would be no war at all. The Yankees at one time simply bombed Iraq into the stone age - cheap and cheerful, the losses are minimal. This does not mean that we should admire them, but pragmatism and efficiency - we must bear in mind.
              1. Beck
                Beck 5 February 2014 10: 42
                +1
                Quote: pRofF
                In general, your logic is a little incomprehensible to me - only no offense.


                And I understand your logic of the Urashnik.

                Quote: pRofF
                - that is to spoil with the wrong hands of another country - is this normal and generally accepted? Maybe this is very common - but such a practice does not become less vile from this. And that crap - a fact. It is one thing to give loans for the development of the economy for peaceful purposes, and quite another for the complete militarization of society with the subsequent drawing of this society into the war. What actually England and the USA did.


                Russia has ordered Mistral from France for today. And who crap on whom? What does France shit on China, Japan, the United States? After all, from a military point of view, they do not need helicopter carriers flying the Russian flag. From the point of view of political and international law, everything is normal here. They don't like this, let them build their own or order from the same France. France will be pleased to fulfill additional orders.

                There is nothing to look at historical facts as if they happened yesterday. Uroshniki still cry because of the defeat at Kalka and blame the defeat of everyone around, but not themselves.
                1. pRofF
                  pRofF 5 February 2014 12: 57
                  0
                  And I understand your logic Urashnika
                  Two questions in this regard:
                  1. What do you mean by "urashnik logic"?
                  2. Where did you see her in my words? If it is not difficult for you, bring them - not to be unfounded.

                  If you mean "hurray-patriotism" - then I do not consider myself one of those. After all, I didn’t write that we would throw our hats over Japan. I pointed out that Yamato actually contracted mercenaries from England and the USA - to solve their selfish interests. Where am I wrong here?
                  Based on this, what conclusions can be drawn? Without the help of the West, the war could go differently: longer and more viscous. Japan’s economic weakness would be balanced by the inertia and incompetence of the bulk of our generals. In fact, the war could not have begun at all - that was the idea I was trying to convey. It is as if to consider such an analogy: there is a sickly pugnacious lad who may want many things, but he is strong enough; and it only remains for him to shake the air; but if you give him a weapon, train him, feed him - there will be a fighter who will climb into a fight. Here and here.

                  Russia has ordered Mistral from France for today. And who crap on whom? What does France shit on China, Japan, the United States? After all, from a military point of view, they do not need helicopter carriers flying the Russian flag. From the point of view of political and international law, everything is normal here.
                  We, these Mistrals, have not rested anywhere, we have no concept of their use in the forces of our fleet. Moreover, you should not compare the helicopter carrier - and the aircraft carrier formations of the countries you have indicated.

                  There is nothing to look at historical facts as if they happened yesterday. Urashniki still cry because of defeat in Kalka and accuse of defeating everyone around, but not themselves
                  Hm Did I really say that only behind-the-scenes conductors are to blame? I think not. I pointed out that they are directly responsible for the escalation of this war. That without their help they would not have started at all. But readiness for the war of Russia is a separate issue. And he, as I understand it, will understand the subsequent articles of Samsonov.
                  As for the historical facts - Comrade. O. von Bismarck said: "Knowing history, you can see the future" - tk. history tends to repeat itself, and, as a rule, does not teach people anything.
                  Ps A mention of Kalki - hmm, well, this is somehow clearly out of place. It seems that the Mongols didn’t feed anyone on our lands and did not supply them with money. Or do we not know something?

                  Sincerely, Egor.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 5 February 2014 15: 00
                    0
                    Well, firstly, sorry for the previous harshness.

                    Quote: pRofF
                    1. What do you mean by "urashnik logic"?


                    By this logic, I mean that even if the boil jumps up on the ass, it’s only blatant Saxons, Jew-Masons, aliens, but no lack of personal hygiene.

                    Quote: pRofF
                    2. Where did you see her in my words? If it is not difficult for you, bring them - not to be unfounded.


                    "- that is, to shit by someone else's hands to another country. And what shit is a fact ..."

                    That situation. Colonialism at its last stage. The lagging countries, Japan, make up for their backlog - Send their young men to study abroad (like Peter), build schools, universities (like Peter), introduce a new one from civilization (like Peter), and much more. Including build their army and navy (like Peter). Everyone wants to grow.

                    The interests of the two empires clashed in the Far East. Young and mature. Both that and that other developed their empires as best they could, but in many respects. Japan ordered its warships in England, Russia, some of its ships in France, Germany, the USA. And if England "crap" Russia, then according to this logic Germany, the USA, France "crap" Japan.

                    Each of the parties defended its interests, and it should be so. And taking loans is not shameful. And to give loans that are nothing more than an economic mechanism for increasing capital is also not shameful.

                    Now there are no empires, and why should one reason from an imperial standpoint? This is all a story.
                    1. pRofF
                      pRofF 5 February 2014 17: 30
                      0
                      Okay. With the "urashniki" sorted out. I do not call for all sins to be blamed only on "malicious intrigues of the imperialists." But all should be considered in the aggregate.
                      Based on this, your comparison of the development of Japan with Peter's Russia is somewhat strange. Let me explain. Peter developed the country on his own resources, long and bloody. The development of Japan took place practically in greenhouse conditions - she was given "teachers", given money, given technology. Nobody gave Peter this. And they didn’t give it - because it’s not profitable to breed competitors.
                      it is not shameful to take loans
                      Yes, it is not shameful. Nobody talks about it. Just when all these loans are aimed at the militarization of society, the exceptional development of society in the military direction - it speaks of artificial development of this state in order to our geopolitical opponents. Actually this is all about. If it were not possible with the help of Japan to once again put sticks to our wheels - no one would invest money in it. At all. There are no good altruists in capitalism. There are pragmatists and businessmen. The example of China of that period is the most obvious. There would be no need in Japan — it would repeat the fate of China. And none of their traditions, the youth of the nation and the samurai spirit would not help.
                      Once again I will make a reservation: this does not mean that we must look for all the reasons for our failures exclusively on the side. Our problems also need to be analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly - to avoid similar mistakes in the future. But at the same time, one must also be aware that a strong Russia is a problem and a headache for the West, weak and ideally torn to pieces is the best option from their point of view. And if for this it is necessary to push the processes of regression (revolution, discontent, systemic errors of the state), then everything possible must be done for this. There is no conspiracy in this - a simple principle of geopolitics, the old principle of the Romans - "Seek who benefits." I do not insist that I am the truth in the first instance, but I would not simplify the processes until the collision of two empires - mature and young - over territories.
                      Now there are no empires and talk from the imperial position to what? All is history

                      Here you are still a little wrong. The head of Japan to this day is the emperor, so de jure they are still an empire - and the Japanese can go to this fact very quickly. England is also an empire to this day, albeit covertly, with the mask of democracy. States are the same. Technocratic-totalitarian empire = again under the guise of democracy.
                      1. Beck
                        Beck 5 February 2014 18: 18
                        0
                        Quote: pRofF
                        Just when all these loans are aimed at the militarization of society, the exclusive development of society in the military


                        Where they wanted to go there and sent. Here you take a loan, what’s the matter for me that you will spend it. And all empires were militarized, this is an axiom. It’s just that you won’t capture colonies and you won’t protect your interests from other empires.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        There would be no need in Japan - it would repeat the fate of China

                        Quote: pRofF
                        your comparison of the development of Japan with Peter's Russia is somewhat strange.


                        What a strange thing. Such a way to catch up with advanced countries is the same, there is no other way. In China, such an emperor as Tsar Peter or the emperor of Japan at the beginning of the 19th century did not become ugly; I do not remember his name, which began the reforms. Tsar Peter cut the beards of the boyars. The Japanese emperor canceled the institution of samurai itself, etc.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        The head of Japan to this day is the emperor, so de jure they are still an empire - and the Japanese can move to this de facto very quickly. England - is also to this day an empire - albeit veiledly, with a mask of democracy. States are the same. Technocratic-totalitarian empire = again under the screen of democracy.


                        The definition of Empire is assigned only to those countries that have colonies. Now there are no countries that have colonies. The era of colonialism ended with a purulent boil of WW2, when Germany, Japan, Italy, who were late for the division of the world, wanted to conquer "living space".

                        And the title of emperor does not mean at all that the country is an empire; it is a tribute to traditions. Moreover, neither the Queen of England nor the Emperor of Japan have any power and perform only representative functions, just like a German president who does not have power, and the chancellor has all power.

                        And Japan is neither de jure nor de facto an empire. Depriving the emperor of Japan of any power was one of the main requirements of the United States during the surrender of Japan in 1945.

                        And the United States has never been an empire since it never had a colony.
                      2. pRofF
                        pRofF 5 February 2014 22: 07
                        0
                        I do not agree with you regarding the definition of "empire". The presence of colonies is not a prerequisite for the designation of the state by such a term. So, Russia was declared an empire under Peter I. What colonies can we talk about? Russia has never had colonies. All lands, one way or another annexed to the state, were included in it as "native" lands: infrastructure developed there, the cultural level of the population increased, resources were not siphoned off according to the principle of "beads for gold". Germany was declared an empire in 1871 - after the unification of all German lands under the rule of Prussia - and then the newborn state had no colonies. Holy Roman Empire - where in medieval Europe did the German principalities, Austria and the Czech Republic have colonies?
                        Yes, if we proceed from the interpretation of Wiki, then the presence of colonies is one of the signs - but not the conditions (and not mandatory:
                        Currently, the figurative interpretation of the word "empire" is also widely used. In this case, it means a large state and population with the following attributes[source not specified 1718 days]:
                        the presence of colonies;
                        the presence of a strong army and police;
                        large foreign policy influence;
                        powerful state idea (religion, ideology);
                        hard, as a rule, sole power;
                        high loyalty of the population;
                        an active foreign policy aimed at expansion, the desire for regional or world domination;
                        the most important criterion is the presence of internal specific[what?] systemic relations between the central governing part of the state (metropolis), which concentrated political and economic power, and its subordinate colonies, which are sources of geopolitical and economic resources.[source not specified 222 of the day]

                        In bold, I specifically pointed out that there is no indication of where the allegation is coming from for the presence of colonies as an indispensable condition for imperialism.
                        But even if we proceed from the above signs, the same States are a pure empire.
                        - They have a strong army and, in essence, militarized police;
                        - rigid central authority - the Federal Government, headed by Congress, the Senate and the President;
                        - quite high loyalty of the population ("the USA is the beacon of democracy and freedom", although right now there is a sharp drop in trust);
                        - extremely active foreign policy - the postulate of "exclusivity" and "Grad-on-the-Hill";
                        - powerful state ideology - "American dream", "we can't be wrong."
                        There remains only the question of so exciting colonies. They are not de jure. But de facto ... Having considered your words and having dug in the sources available to me, I came to the conclusion - to which, in general, many people came before me - the age of colonialism is not over. It simply turned from hidden form into hidden one — physical colonialism, direct control colonialism — transformed into economic colonialism, when economic dependence tied countries much stronger than direct intervention. And based on this principle, half the world is tied to the United States. so the States are a typical empire.
                      3. Beck
                        Beck 6 February 2014 00: 03
                        -1
                        Quote: pRofF
                        The presence of colonies is not a prerequisite for designating such a term as a state.


                        Mandatory. Empires should have a metropolis and colonies.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        So, Russia was declared an empire under Peter I. What kind of colonies can we talk about?


                        It was declared under Peter, and began to arise from Ivan the Terrible. The acquisition of the colonies of the Kazan Khanate, Astrakhan, the colonization in 1582 of Siberia Ermakom and more.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        All lands, one way or another annexed to the state, were included in it as "native" lands: infrastructure developed in them, the cultural level of the population increased,


                        You tell about the "native" lands of the Balts, Transcaucasia and others. England also developed India and only in order to more effectively exploit the colony. And the khans of the Golden Horde developed their conquered lands and founded about 100 new cities, among them the present-day Azov, Tyumen and others. So why did the Russians not want to live on the "native" Horde lands, but went to the Kulikovo field.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        Russia has never had a colony.


                        Well, that’s the limit. Further I do not see the point of conducting a discussion. So you can say that in Russia there was no feudalism, but there was a happy symbiosis of good landowners and complaisant peasants.
                      4. pRofF
                        pRofF 6 February 2014 13: 40
                        0
                        There may be a limit on your part. If we consider everything from the standpoint of some kind of infringement complex (I am hinting at all claims of "occupation" from the Baltic States, the Caucasus, Poland and, to be honest, Kazakhstan), then yes - the Russians will always be to blame for everything, and everyone the rest will be the peoples they oppress. Although during the process of oppression and colonialism (not colonization! - this term has a completely different meaning, just open any explanatory dictionary) there is a siphoning of resources, genocide of the indigenous population and the attitude towards them as second-class people. So Russia had no colonies - no matter how you want the opposite. Other lands and peoples creatively poured into our state, organically integrated into the system, assimilated and assimilated us at the same time. So no need to talk about "oppression" and "occupation". After this "occupation" the Balts had a powerful industry - which they merged happily when they "freed". Don't believe me - look for statistics. Oh, and yes - in Russia, other peoples were not treated as non-humans - unlike England, for example. For us, everyone was equal.
                        But - well, I am not going to impose a dispute on you and my opinion.
                        Just to say it once again - to simplify and conduct a superficial analysis is very easy. Considering everything in its entirety is much more difficult.

                        Sincerely, Egor.
                      5. Beck
                        Beck 6 February 2014 15: 46
                        0
                        Quote: pRofF
                        then yes - the Russians will always be to blame for everything,


                        This is purely terrible. The Russian people are not guilty. The authorities are to blame, the tsarist autocracy with its desire to follow the rules of the era. And most of all, what the Russians are to blame say the Urashniki replacing the concepts of the Russian people and the colonial imperial autocracy. Uroshniki want to cover up the period of the colonial history of Russia with the Russian people. Uroshniki now cry over the collapse of the USSR, not as the collapse of the community of peoples, but as the collapse of the colonial heritage of the Russian Empire. You are crying for the Empire, and not for the USSR.
                      6. pRofF
                        pRofF 6 February 2014 16: 29
                        0
                        Uh ... Did not the USSR de facto was an empire? Red Empire? And why should I not cry for a strong government, a powerful country, a great culture and a powerful economy?

                        The authorities are guilty, the tsarist autocracy with its desire to follow the rules of the era

                        You do not find that contradict themselves? First you say
                        Each of the parties defended their interests, so it should be
                        , and now it means it was not necessary to follow the rules of the era? Strange something comes out.

                        cover the period of the colonial history of Russia by the Russian people

                        colonial imperial autocracy

                        M-yes. You just have some irrational desire to declare Russia a colonial power. Which such never was not. Do you know what England was doing in India? For a pittance, she exported resources from there and sold there the goods of the metropolis, forcing the locals to buy them, thereby producing production. Colonies - in the sense of the conditions of the XVII-XIX centuries - are raw materials appendages. And Russia did not have raw materials appendages - schools, churches (and other buildings for religious worship) were built on the newly incorporated lands, and the infrastructure was developing. What kind of colony are you so eager to find? It's like looking for a black cat in a dark room when it's not there.
                      7. Beck
                        Beck 6 February 2014 20: 31
                        0
                        Quote: pRofF
                        Uh ... Wasn't the USSR de facto an empire?


                        So you are not crying for the USSR, but for the empire, for the lost colonies. Therefore, at the call of the Urashniks, none of the former colonial suburbs wants to come together again.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        Yeah You just have some kind of irrational desire to declare Russia a colonial power. Which has never been.


                        The Baltic States, Finland, Moldova, the Caucasus, Central Asia is what? These are the colonial outskirts of the Russian Empire.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        Do you know how England acted in India? For a pittance she exported resources from there and sold the goods of the mother country there, forcing the locals to buy them, thereby stifling production.


                        So did all the empires, including the Russian Empire. Before the revolution, minerals from the mines of Kazakhstan, livestock products were exported to the metropolis. And in the colonial era, this was in the order of things, otherwise why not have a colony. And read school textbooks, it is clearly written there that Russia until 1917 was an autocratic state and a colonial empire.

                        Quote: pRofF
                        But Russia did not have any raw materials appendages - schools, churches (and other buildings for worship) were built on the newly included lands, the infrastructure was developed


                        And how to exploit land without infrastructure?

                        All. Count as you like. You history, logic, objectivity is not a decree, you need great grandeur. Which has nothing to do with Great Russia, since Russia made a large contribution to the civilization of mankind, about the same as England, France, the USA, India, China and they are also great countries.

                        And you stupidly bang your head against the wall of reality, the flag in your hands and the locomotive of imperial self-awareness towards or the skating rink of glee.

                        You can not answer, there’s no sense in stubborn vanity, in discussion.
                      8. pRofF
                        pRofF 6 February 2014 21: 32
                        +1
                        What conclusions I made for myself from your opuses - otherwise not to name:
                        1. The complex of incomprehensible strangulation in you blooms and smells.
                        2. Logical arguments do not work for you. Arguments - which I backed up with facts. In contrast to your unfounded conclusions about the "colonialism" of my country. You see what you want to see, adjusting everything to your picture of the world. And when they point out to you that Russia was developing the outskirts and tried to pull them up to the level of the central lands, you start giving out "Well, so that it is more convenient to plunder." This is, excuse me, bullshit. Doctors say - clinic and self-belief.

                        About "stubborn vanity" - generally a song. At least they brought some of my posts to prove it. Otherwise, you get another shaking sound from your side.

                        But this phrase - just finish
                        ... Russia made a large contribution to the civilization of humanity, about the same as England, France, USA, India, China, and they are also great countries

                        Let's leave about India and China - no one disputes their contribution. But here are the first three countries ... I will omit the point that Russia has made a contribution to culture many times greater than these three countries in total. States - they generally brought in only genocide, "exclusivity" and "democracy". I only focus on these countries (which, as I understand it, you are actively defending. Do you really want to integrate into the EU? wink lol ) - brought to the world so exciting colonialism.
                        And links to textbooks - maybe in Kazakhstan it is customary to write that Russia was a colonial power (do you want to demand compensation for "damage from occupation"? Well, well), this is also accepted in the West, which, as you know, "loves" mine country and loves its resources. And calling yourself a colony within Russia - you yourself are humiliating yourself, reducing to the position of natives who have not achieved anything and could not do anything. Is it really nice?
          2. pRofF
            pRofF 5 February 2014 22: 07
            0
            In addition, neither the Queen of England nor the Emperor of Japan have any authority and only perform representative functions.

            If it is to the Japanese emperor, perhaps this is the case - but this is not the case for the Queen of Great Britain. Just this fact is not carefully advertised. I will not go into the main details - the benefit on the site not so long ago concerned this issue and there is a corresponding article. Here it is [media = http: //topwar.ru/38973-pax-britannica-kak-angliya-sohranyaet-svoyu-imp
            eriyu-v-xxi-veke.html].
            But the fact of the absence of a constitution in Great Britain and the fact that the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and others higher officials are only appointed with the approval of the king / queen - cannot be denied. So where does the "lack of executive powers" come from?

            Where they wanted to go and sent. Here you take a loan, what do I care for what you spend it. And all the empires were militarized, it is an axiom Hm That is, for you the conditions for granting loans, which state that this money should be sent practically to the military sphere - within the rules?
            What about militarization - if all empires were completely militarized all the time - they would fall apart in a very short period of time. We must understand the difference in the presence of a strong army and the universal militarization of society. If the former have a relatively balanced development - the peaceful sector of the economy, the latter cannot but fight - to maintain such a large military force is extremely costly and not rational. Japan and the Third Reich as an example - both "projects", both brought us big problems.

            Ps Thanks for the interesting dialogue.

            Sincerely, Egor.
  • Ximik-degozator
    Ximik-degozator 4 February 2014 20: 12
    +1
    Quote: Beck


    And if about ships built by the British for the Japanese, then half of the Russian fleet was built in English shipyards.


    Can you name one? Among the linear forces, I do not know any of this, among the cruisers, too. Maybe there was something among the destroyers ?! Also unlikely. Germany, USA, France, even Denmark! But not England at all. But still, the bulk of the ships were of their own construction.
    1. Ximik-degozator
      Ximik-degozator 4 February 2014 20: 23
      0
      But! Remembered! An old steam iron called the floating battery "Pervenets" Is it he who pulled on "half of the Russian fleet"?
    2. Beck
      Beck 4 February 2014 20: 59
      +1
      Quote: Ximik-degozator
      Can you name one? Among the linear forces, I do not know any of this, among the cruisers, too. Maybe there was something among the destroyers ?!


      Quote: Ximik-degozator
      But still, the bulk of the ships were of their own construction.


      It is not England, but the West. Japan England built. Russia ...
      Battleships "Tsesarevich" and "Retvizan", the first French-built, the second American. Battleship "Nikolai 1" Franco-Russian. American-built cruiser "Varyag", Philadelphia. Armored cruiser "Svetlana" - France.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2014 09: 25
        +1
        Of the 7 battleships of the Port Arthur squadron, 2 were "foreigners" - Retvizan and Tsarevich. Of the 12 battleships and armored cruisers of the second and third TOE (Monomakh and Donskoy will not be considered armored cruisers, and anyway they were built here), not a single one was imported.
        Quote: Beck
        Battleship "Nikolay 1" Franco-Russian

        laughing Nicholas I is a Russian-built battleship :)
        1. Beck
          Beck 5 February 2014 10: 31
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Nicholas I is an armadillo of Russian construction:


          My essence is different. Orders for the construction of a particular equipment in other states is the norm. And there is nothing to blame someone that they are someone who built something. Therefore, I gave examples of the fact that in the Russian fleet, and not only in the Pacific squadrons, there were ships of foreign construction. And there is nothing criminal in this.

          Now Russia has ordered Mistrals in France. And what? Never mind. I ordered, will receive and will continue to fly these helicopter carriers under the Russian flag and a Russian name.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2014 20: 24
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            My essence is different. Orders for the construction of a particular equipment in other states is the norm. And there is nothing to blame someone that they are someone who built something.

            The difference lies in the fact that if Russians from 23 armadillos and armored cruisers (in addition to the above 7 1TOE and 12 2TOE, I also take Bayan and the cruiser WOK) who participated in the war at import shipyards, as many as Xenum Besen Xenum were built Japan from 3 its armadillos and 3 armored cruisers at their shipyards did not have a single built. At the same time, I’m afraid to lie, but America alone has provided the Japanese with a loan more than necessary for the construction of their entire fleet
    3. Drummer
      Drummer 4 February 2014 21: 18
      +1
      Quote: Ximik-degozator
      Maybe there was something among the destroyers ?!

      There was a destroyer "Battle" (formerly "Som"), that's all.
  • stranik72
    stranik72 4 February 2014 20: 32
    +1
    Beck
    "organized by the Bolsheviks .... in the Russo-Japanese War, the Bolsheviks"
    Learn the story. the Bolsheviks at that time were nobody and called them nothing, the tsarist government and the nascent bourgeoisie turned out to be the main shocking force of Russia's defeat in the war, so they were the main culprits of this shame. And the revolutionaries and their ideas only in the process of the NRF began to receive an impulse of revolutionism, some historians claim that if there had not been a defeat in this war, then there would have been no 17 years. Nicholas 2, according to its results, broke down, in general, became a weak ruler. So, just in case, on the Internet there is a letter from Russian liberals of that time to the Japanese emperor congratulating his victory over Russia. Nicholas 2 did not respond to this letter.
    1. Beck
      Beck 4 February 2014 20: 39
      +1
      Quote: stranik72
      Learn the story. the Bolsheviks at that time were nobody and called them nothing, the tsarist government and the nascent bourgeoisie turned out to be the main shocking force of Russia's defeat in the war, so they were the main culprits of this shame.


      You that you do not read to the end or do not want to understand to the end? I specifically wrote that to all other troubles. And no one took the blame from the government.

      And how did you teach history, if you do not read to the end and do not perceive it to the end?
      1. stranik72
        stranik72 5 February 2014 05: 47
        0
        "And how did you learn history if you don't read it completely and don't fully perceive it?"
        Beck, don’t be stupid, I remind you once again the question was that you remembered the Bolsheviks, and in those years 1904 ... 1905 the term Bolsheviks was at the level of political parties and no more.
  • pensioner
    pensioner 4 February 2014 18: 32
    0
    Some historians once said that Japan, as a militarily powerful country, sailed in 04 in front of Russia, like an iceberg. Our intelligence spoiled the whole process of Japan becoming an industrial power ...
  • Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 4 February 2014 18: 56
    0
    The defeat of Russia is not only a failure of intelligence, they just warned Nikolai to which he replied: They would not dare. This is a systemic crisis of the state, this is when instead of obvious decisions, dubious ones are made. There are many reasons and the ships were not built for a very long time, and the shells were with a small number of explosives and command, before the appearance of Makarov it was mediocre and the mobilization was carried out slowly and almost without retraining.
    1. stranik72
      stranik72 4 February 2014 20: 48
      +2
      Victor Wolz
      "There are many reasons and the ships were not building the right ones for a very long time, and the shells were with a small amount of explosives .."
      They did not explode with shells there at all (and historians claim that% 30), in any case, 12 unexploded main-caliber shells were found in their flagship "Mikasa" after the CA. The Japanese began to understand and found out that the firing pin in the projectile (this was the design at that time) was made of soft metal, crumpled and did not prick the primer. In Russia, this was "sorted out" only when the Kronstadt rebellion was suppressed, when the Bolsheviks took shells from the arsenal and they turned out to be the same RYA party. I will say even more in RI there was no analysis of the reasons for defeat in this war, even at the fleet level. There are no documents in the archives. We tried not to notice her. Of all the commanders, Admiral Nebogatov was punished for the surrender of ships, demoted and exiled; he died in the provinces in the 20s, he seemed to be a village teacher.
  • clidon
    clidon 4 February 2014 20: 15
    +1
    I recall the read articles from Russian newspapers of 1904 dedicated to the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war. Actually, the mood at that time was similar to many of today's forums - they were going to literally shower the Japanese with hats. The columns were full of articles like a story about how "a certain fellow went to a tavern" and there he lifted a couple of Japanese sitting there (or Chinese, or Bashkir, in those years, all the more, many did not distinguish them) by the collar, held them lowered to the floor, with the words "Khlipkovaty, you are against the Russian hero." And the tone of the articles gradually changed from cheering, to worried, and then simply confused. "After all, they are squishy monkeys!" And only after the end of the war, at least some sober analysis of the situation came to an end, they began to write about the shortcomings of training, and the low quality of some ships, about poor supplies, about corruption, etc.
  • kirgudu
    kirgudu 4 February 2014 22: 49
    0
    And as always, the Anglo-Saxons could not do without ...
  • Atash
    Atash 4 February 2014 23: 50
    0
    It is believed that Japan did not actually fight with Russia, but with its Far East, which lacked the necessary infrastructure for a war against such an enemy. This is the cause of the defeat.