Military Review

How slandered the hero of Port Arthur

76
How slandered the hero of Port ArthurStessel’s criminal case made public, facts astonish historians


In the article "Defenders of Port Arthur saved the Far East" we talked about the tremendous resilience of the Russian garrison. And now it's time to consider the circumstances of the surrender of the city. It is believed that the heroically fighting soldiers and officers were betrayed by their own commander, Anatoly Stessel, for whom bold characteristics were entrenched: "coward", "mediocrity", "traitor". Stoessel is still blamed for every conceivable and inconceivable sins, and from endless repetition these attacks turned into self-evident truth. But what if in this case we are dealing with the well-known principle that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes true?

The court in the case of Port Arthur sentenced Stessel to be shot, and this circumstance is usually considered sufficient evidence of the general’s treachery, mediocrity and cowardice. The fact that the courts are wrong, everyone knows. Everyone has heard such a thing as “ordered court decision”, so why not question the actions of judges of the beginning of the 20th century? Especially since there are lots of reasons for this.

Let's start with the fact that Stoessel is a participant in the Russian-Turkish war, then he fought in China during the “Boxing Uprising”, and had awards. Neither in cowardice, nor in mediocrity is not noticed. In Port Arthur was wounded in the head, but did not surrender the command. Moreover, when the Japanese gradually began to lay on the city, he received a written order from Kuropatkin to leave Port Arthur. Stoessel refused and asked Kuropatkin to allow him to continue to lead the defense. You will laugh, but then it is this fact and put Stossel in the blame. They said that he did not obey the order and "spontaneously" remained in the fortress. Here, a phrase from the film “About the Poor Hussar Say a Word” immediately comes to mind: “I still understand when an impostor is on the throne. But the impostor on the block? "

This phantasmagoria does not end there. Anyone who reads the verdict of the Supreme Military Criminal Court in the case of the surrender of the fortress of Port Arthur will be surprised by the wording. At first, Stessel is sentenced to death. Then the same court in the same document appeals to the king with a petition to commute the sentence to 10 years of imprisonment. And he motivates his request by saying that the fortress "stood under the leadership of Lieutenant General Stoessel, unprecedented in perseverance in the annals of military stories defense ", as well as the fact that" throughout the entire siege, Lieutenant General Stoessel supported the heroic spirit of the defenders of the fortress. "

What do we see? "Traitor" directs the defense, so much so that it impresses with its perseverance. "Coward" successfully supports the heroic spirit of the defenders! Agree, something is wrong here.

Go ahead. It is known that Stoessel was pardoned by Nicholas II. This fact, by the way, is used as a “proof” of the king’s inadequacy. Roughly speaking, Stoessel is a traitor, and Nikolai is a fool and a weakling who has pardoned the traitor. But here is a telegram of a participant in the defense of Port Arthur to Stoessel: “I heartily congratulate you on the release of your beloved military commander”. And here is what another arturean, commander of the Strongman Balk, writes: “Remembering the fighting time, I congratulate you heartily with the grace of the emperor.”

I gave only two testimonies, but they are much more. As we see, in those years, not everyone considered Stoessel a traitor. Now go directly to the court decision. The commission of inquiry, which dealt with the port-arthur case, found signs of a whole heap of crimes in Steessel’s actions, and the prosecution consisted of many points. However, at the trial, it almost completely collapsed, cringing to three theses:

1) surrendered the fortress to the Japanese troops, without using all means for further defense;
2) power failure;
3) unimportant violation of official duties.

By “inaction of power” was meant the following. In Port Arthur, Lieutenant General Fock, in a mocking tone, criticized the actions of those who were not subordinate to him, and Stoessel did not stop it. For this “inaction of the authorities”, Stossel was then given a month of a guardhouse. The third point is called an unimportant court, so we will not even consider it. Only one point remains, and look carefully at the wording: there is nothing about cowardice, lack of talent, incompetence or betrayal.

At the same time, it is believed that Stoessel made the decision to surrender contrary to the opinion of other officers, and there is still a belief in society that the fortress could hold on for a long time. One such offense is really enough to deserve the death penalty. Here with it we will understand now.

Shortly before the fall of the fortress, a military council was held, at which the current situation was discussed. What the officers said was recorded in the meeting log, and this document was made public a long time ago.

Anyone can be sure that very strange things were happening on the council. One of the other officers described in detail the desperate situation of the fortress, explained for a long time why it was impossible to keep, but nevertheless called for the defense to continue.

Here are the most typical examples:

Lieutenant Colonel Dmitrevsky: "You can still defend, but for how long, it is not known, but it depends on the Japanese ... We have almost no means to repulse the assault."

Major General Gorbatovsky: "We are very weak, there are no reserves, but it is necessary to keep and, moreover, on the front line ..."

I assure you, most of the meeting participants argued in the same way. However, in fact, this is not surprising. Nobody just wants to be known as a coward, nobody wants to get into a situation where a finger is pointed at him as the person who offered to give up. To some extent, subordinates set up their commander, who perfectly saw that there was nothing to defend, and responsibility for an unpopular decision would lie only on him.

Meanwhile, the absolute majority of the lower ranks of the defenders of Port Arthur at the end of the siege hurt scurvy. On this account there is data in the investigation materials. The testimony of Major General Irman about the fact that a day before the fall of the fortress on the Western front there were no shells for large-caliber guns was given there. Few things were better on the Eastern Front, where, according to Lieutenant General Nikitin, on average there were 10-12 shells for field guns, that is, for a few minutes of shooting. Moreover, by this time the Japanese had captured almost all serious Russian fortifications.

In addition, in the hands of the Japanese, there was already an important height — the High Mountain, during which fierce battles took place for a long time. Having captured and equipped an observation post on it, the Japanese were able to correct the fire of their artillery and began to sink the ships of the Russian squadron, which was in Port Arthur. Total defenders of the fortress remained about 10-12 thousands of people, and the hospitals were filled with sick and wounded. By the way, Stoessel later stated that the Japanese in August 1904 of the year, through their envoys, said that if the fortress was taken from the battle, the Japanese commanders could not guarantee that they would be able to keep their soldiers from committing atrocities, therefore they do not rule out mass slaughter in the city.

Having assessed the situation, Stoessel realized that soon the Japanese would realize that the Russians no longer have any opportunities for resistance, and under these conditions any decision that the winner will dictate must be made. Stoessel, without wasting time on formalities, to collect another military council, played a proactive role, sending the Japanese a proposal to begin negotiations on surrender and thereby achieving relatively honorable conditions for surrender.

But if Stoessel is not guilty, then questions arise: who and how blinded the shameful lie about him, who slandered him, and why was the court decision so unfair? If we talk about the preparation of public opinion, then Yevgeny Nozhin, the author of The Truth about Port Arthur, played an important role. From there, the public learned about the “whole truth” about Stoessel.

Nozhin is a very interesting person, so to speak, a textbook advocate of “freedom of speech”. He was a war correspondent in Port Arthur, made reports from the scene. And all would be fine if it were not for one detail: his notes contained important military information that fell into the hands of the Japanese.

Nozhin wrote about how effective the fire of the Japanese on our fortifications, noted by what forces the Russian ships are going to raid, at what time they return. He told who was in command of various defense sectors, described the tactics of the battle for the defenders of Port Arthur ... The question is, who needs such information? Russian soldiers and officers, and so without any Nozhin know how they fight. And the Japanese, who had access to the press and read the newspaper, would have helped.

I think that during the Great Patriotic War for similar essays from besieged Odessa, Sevastopol or besieged Leningrad, a figure like Nozhin would have been detained as a German spy and executed in two accounts. And the point here is not in the notorious “bloodthirstiness of the Stalinist regime”, but in the observance of the most elementary rules of information security.

So, Stoessel decided to stop the violent activities of this journalist, ordering him to be arrested. Oddly enough, the task was very difficult. Nozhin suddenly miraculously disappeared from the besieged city. It was possible to break out only by sea, and at the insistence of Stoessel, an order was issued not to take Nozhin on ships, so that the clever journalist was able to clean the tricks of David Copperfield.

However, miracles do not happen: it was just Nozhin who turned out to be powerful patrons — Rear Admirals Ivan Konstantinovich Grigorovich and Mikhail Fedorovich Loschinsky. They organized Nozhin's escape from the city, using a warship for this purpose! At first, the journalist was secretly transferred to the “Brave” cannon (this “honorable” mission was entrusted to the naval officer Boris Petrovich Dudorov), and then the Rasternop torpedo boat was taken to the Chinese town of Chefu. The destroyer then also blew up. All this leads to thoughts of betrayal. Yes, we have to bitterly admit that there were still traitors in Port Arthur, but not Stoessel, but other people.

Let's take a close look at how the fate of those who organized Nozhin's flight was formed. I propose to test February and October. The essence of the method is as follows. Revolutionaries tend to, after their victory, carry out a personnel purge and arrange their people in important posts. It is at such historical moments that it turns out who is worth something, who is the defender of legitimate authority, and who is its enemy.

Loschinsky died in the 1908 year, so the “test of revolutionism” is not applicable to him. But Dudorov's career after the February revolution sharply went up. He became the First Assistant Minister of the Navy and Rear Admiral.

With Grigorovich, the situation is more interesting. This is generally an interesting person, with a very wide field of activity. He was at the military-diplomatic work in the UK. He was the chief of staff of the Black Sea fleet in the turbulent days of the first revolution. In the years 1911-1917 - Minister of the Sea.

It is easy to see that the years preceding February are the period when it was Grigorovich who was at the head of the naval forces of the Russian Empire, and immediately after February was dismissed. That is, he is still a supporter of the legitimate state power? Let's not hurry: there is still a test for October, and for everyone who studied at school in the USSR, the words “October” and “sailors”, “fleet” are inseparable. Let me remind you that right after February, the “sailor” committee “Tsentrobalt” headed by the Bolshevik Pavel Efimovich Dybenko became the real power on the Baltic Fleet. It is clear that such a powerful organization does not appear overnight. It is obvious that preparatory revolutionary work is being carried out long before the formal “X hour”. So, Grigorovich was obliged to do everything to fight the revolution. A simple observance of his official duties would automatically turn him into the worst enemy of the revolutionaries.

And so the Bolsheviks came to power. And what did they do with Grigorovich? What is the red terror, we know. We also know very well the fate of the generation of Grigorovich, people of his level. Such as he, for the most part, constituted the White movement or, at the earliest opportunity, fled Soviet Russia, and very many of those who did not escape were put to the wall and put in jail.

In the case of Grigorovich, we see a completely different picture. Yes, under the Bolsheviks, he, of course, did not occupy any noticeable posts, but he, the tsarist minister of the sea (!), Was not shot or imprisoned. And this is at a time when, for far smaller offenses, they were set against the wall! Under Soviet rule, Grigorovich worked at the Petrograd branch of the Main Directorate of the Unified State Archival Fund, was an employee of the Maritime Historical Commission, then briefly in the State of the Marine Archive. In 1920, Grigorovich was allowed to emigrate. After moving to France, he calmly lived out his life and died in the 1930 year at the age of 77. It does not seem that Grigorovich and the Bolsheviks were the worst enemies ... There is something to think about, is not it?

Treason in the Russian Empire started a long time ago, in 1917, it only came out. The facts presented in the article suggest that Stoessel was the victim of the intrigues of those people who already at that time took the course of undermining state power in Russia. Stessel was sentenced to death in order to remove the real traitors from the blow.

By the way, do you know who judged Ctessel? Among the judges was Nikolai Vladimirovich Ruzsky, that is, the person who was later one of the main participants in the overthrow of Nicholas II. By the way, he, along with Guchkov and Shulgin, was present at the "denial" of the king. Do you know who the prosecution represented at the trial? Alexander Mikhailovich Gursky, who was later appointed by the Provisional Government to be the chairman of the Main Military Court.

I think that further comments are unnecessary.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2014/05/08/rossiya/739430-kak-oklevetali-geroya-port-artura
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parus2nik
    parus2nik 16 May 2014 08: 45
    +14
    and Nicholas - D.O.A.K. fool. and a mess .. Bring the country to two revolutions, for a relatively short term ..
    1. jagdpanzer
      jagdpanzer 16 May 2014 17: 30
      +7
      But he invented nodules laughing I, too, consider him a slobber, like Yanukovych now
      1. Shaber
        Shaber 16 May 2014 22: 26
        0
        For if he would not be so then YOU would not be ?!)
        Friends story !!
      2. Shaber
        Shaber 16 May 2014 22: 26
        0
        For if he hadn’t been there, YOU wouldn’t exist ?!)
        Friends story !!
        1. Denimax
          Denimax 16 May 2014 22: 49
          +6
          Alas, mediocrity is not justified by the fact that they remained with the troops. Here Makarov was gone, there was a shock.
          1. Sour
            Sour 18 May 2014 16: 09
            0
            Quote: Denimax
            Here Makarov was gone, there was a shock.

            In fairness, it must be said that under the leadership of Makarov the squadron did not achieve anything, only suffered losses. What is it better than Stark (predecessor) and Wittgeft (successor) - is completely incomprehensible. Is it just of common origin? Perhaps yes. Nothing more.
    2. Grenz
      Grenz 16 May 2014 18: 54
      +11
      [i] I think that further comments are superfluous. [/ i]
      Yes, no, dear author, comments in this case are very necessary.
      The conclusion on the article suggests itself - it's not Stessel himself. (By the way, Novikov-Priboy in his book does not condemn this military official).
      The question is, why this publication?
      Apparently you want to incline the opinion of the reader to the fact that all who sided with the Soviet regime were traitors who led Russia to disaster. A tricky move in the framework of the information war.
      However, everything is not so simple. Your material is intended for minor opposition members. Against the backdrop of the general cooling of the past, once again walk through the forgotten pages of history. And there is a reason.
      At the same time, your reasoning is very superficial. At one time, even before the Great October Socialist Revolution, an article by V.I. Lenin's "The Fall of Port Arthur."
      [i] Published: January 14 (1), 1905 [1]. Source: V. I. Lenin. Complete works in fifty-five volumes. - fifth edition. - M .: Publishing house of political literature, 1967. - T. 9. July 1904 ~ March 1905. - S. 151-159. [/ I]
      The progressive part of Europe and Russia believed that it gave the most faithful and plausible analysis of the causes of defeat in the Russo-Japanese war.
      Here are just a few points that break all your conclusions and conclusions.
      [i] “The fall of Port Arthur brings one of the greatest historical results to those crimes of tsarism that began to be revealed from the very beginning of the war ... Generals and commanders turned out to be mediocrity and insignificance. ... The civil and military bureaucracy turned out to be as parasitic and venal as in the days of serfdom. ... The officers turned out to be uneducated, undeveloped, unprepared, deprived of close ties with the soldiers and not enjoying their confidence.
      The events confirmed the correctness of those foreigners who laughed, seeing tens and hundreds of millions of rubles rushing to buy and build magnificent military courts, and spoke of the futility of these costs if they were unable to handle modern courts, in the absence of people who could use the latest improvements with knowledge military equipment. The fleet, the fortress, the field fortifications, and the army were backward and useless. ”[/ I
      That's who is guilty, including the fate of Stessel. And do not translate the arrows.
      Now I think that further comments are superfluous.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 16 May 2014 22: 52
        +1
        Quote: grenz
        The fleet, the fortress, the field fortifications, and the army were backward and useless.

        To survive a year-long siege of a superior enemy, you probably wanted to win? But how then to qualify the fall of Sevastopol in 1855? The troops left the city, this was impossible in Port Arthur.
        any fortress has a defense limit, there are no endless ammunition
        If there was an opportunity, they would have retreated. And with the sinking of the ships, the role of the fortress was reduced to zero. By the way, an honorable surrender appeared at all times. Moreover, in those days some kind of gentlemanly relations between the belligerents remained. In short, you would like to see everyone die a brave death .
        How long did Qingdao last in World War I?
      2. smart75
        smart75 17 May 2014 00: 17
        +5
        Vladimir Ilyich as a military analyst?
        Bravo!
        Then I ask for excerpts from his articles about the First World War.
        For the part of the public that Lenin did not study.
        Especially for the patriotic part of it.
        1. gispanec
          gispanec 18 May 2014 08: 46
          +1
          Quote: smart75
          Then I ask for excerpts from his articles about the First World War.

          +100% ....
      3. gispanec
        gispanec 18 May 2014 08: 45
        -3
        Quote: grenz
        The progressive part of Europe and Russia believed that it gave the most faithful and plausible analysis of the causes of defeat in the Russo-Japanese war.

        this phrase of yours speaks for itself ... blah blah blah blah ........ blah blah blah blah ..... who is it that you have the PROGRESSIVE part? ... the same as Makarevich, Germans .... only words and NOTHING more ... the method is familiar to us and more than once ..
  2. rotmistr4
    rotmistr4 16 May 2014 08: 47
    +15
    Betrayal of the upper echelons of the army does not beg the feats of the true heroes !!!
    Glory to the heroes!!!
  3. igor36
    igor36 16 May 2014 08: 49
    +4
    The strategy of the collapse of Russia from the inside was developed by the Anglo-Saxons in the second half of the 19th century, after a thorough study of history. All attempts to crush Russia from the outside failed. All parties aimed at the coup (Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, etc.) were financed by English money. Russia lost the Russo-Japanese War, largely because of the sabotage organized by the revolutionaries and coordinated by the British and Japanese. Defamation of Stessel is one of the stages of discrediting the Russian authorities.
    1. smile
      smile 16 May 2014 09: 30
      +21
      igor36
      Yeah, it was because of all kinds of revolutionaries that the 2 Pacific Squadron sent to nowhere was destroyed and partially surrendered in the Tsushima Strait, it was the revolutionaries who determined the rather mediocre languid actions of the general, it was they who did not allow building normal communications, forbade artillery to operate from closed positions, to use the tunic khaki, leave Dalian without a fight ... but a lot of things ...
      Look at what his insignificance nicholasch is busy at this time - his own diaries are published .... do you think he thinks about the war, meets with the military, ministers, industrialists? Damn, at least listens to reports? No!!! His main pastime is to walk, ride, go on a visit, bathe and pray ... although, of course, one cannot fail to note the passion for shooting crows ... then he came off .... probably the crows financed the February Revolution, when the princes the counts that committed it, put this degenerate under lock and key ... and finished off the country. But in everything the Bolsheviks are to blame .... :)))
      1. 225chay
        225chay 16 May 2014 11: 58
        -5
        Quote: smile
        Yeah, it was because of all kinds of revolutionaries that the 2 Pacific Squadron sent to nowhere was destroyed and partially surrendered in the Tsushima Strait, it was the revolutionaries who determined the rather mediocre languid actions of the general, it was they who did not allow building normal communications, forbade artillery to operate from closed positions, to use the tunic khaki, leave Dalian without a fight ... but a lot of things ...


        Look at what his insignificance nicholasch is busy at this time -

        Vladimir, why the hell with him with this nikolashka, he gave you ... Why are you protecting the Bolsheviks so much, by chance not the descendant of Vladimir Ilyich? )

        And how will you justify the actions of Rosalia Zalkind (The Butchers)?
        1. Astartes
          Astartes 16 May 2014 12: 56
          +1
          About a descendant of the counts of princes found))
        2. smile
          smile 16 May 2014 14: 20
          +12
          225chay
          I am a descendant of the impoverished. but the gentry, who was terribly proud of their origin (they themselves followed their cows in 39), the Ukrainian peasantry and who didn’t understand anyone of Vainakh origin, but with a fairly well-known surname, they seem to have a hungry and barefoot, but very proud prince on every mountain .... :))) So, that I’m not related to Vladimir Ilyich ... :)))

          I will not justify anyone's atrocities, I will only say that gentlemen, the white knights and the peaceful villagers of Tambov allowed themselves such wild atrocities, and on such a scale that Comrade Trotsky was lost against their background and seemed one of many ... reread Quiet Don and close this topic for yourself. Both sides were the same. Beasts were among those and among others. But in the end it turned out that the Bolsheviks defended the integrity of the country and defended as much as they could, and the White Knights, under the leadership of the Entente, destroyed Russia, tore to pieces in its interests, no matter what they thought to themselves ... that's all business ...
          I already said - I do not know who I would be then - it all depended on a mass of random factors, but in the end, if you evaluate objectively, then the assessment is as follows. And even a white officer made such an assessment - almost half of the officer corps of the Republic of Ingushetia, and half of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia sided with the Bolsheviks ... do you think this happened by chance?
          1. chehywed
            chehywed 17 May 2014 01: 34
            -3
            Quote: smile
            almost half of the officer corps of the Republic of Ingushetia, and half of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia sided with the Bolsheviks ... do you think this happened by chance?

            No, not by chance. Everyone saw the weakness of the tsarist government (that is, Nicholas No.2). But only the Bolsheviks went to the collapse of the country in wartime.
          2. zoknyay82
            zoknyay82 17 May 2014 09: 56
            +1
            Once again I repeat the isotia grated curva.
          3. 11111mail.ru
            11111mail.ru 18 May 2014 23: 55
            0
            Quote: smile
            almost half of the officer corps of the Republic of Ingushetia, and half of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia sided with the Bolsheviks ... do you think this happened by chance?

            Something there Comrade "gich Trotsky said about the former officers and radishes, don't you remember?
            You’ll go to serve the Bolsheviks if you need to feed your family (yes, it’s kind of like a hostage family)!
        3. Sergey Vl.
          Sergey Vl. 17 May 2014 01: 20
          +1
          Rosalia S. Zemlyachka (Zalkind), which is S. Udaltsov’s great-grandmother?
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 May 2014 00: 05
        0
        Quote: smile
        Yeah, it was because of all kinds of revolutionaries that the 2 Pacific Squadron that was sent to nowhere was destroyed and partially surrendered in the Tsushima Strait.

        It is no secret that fines and dysfunctional were attributed to her. + There were attempts to sabotage the damage to the equipment of ships. Due to the lack of patriotism, Glory did not have time to battle
        1. smile
          smile 17 May 2014 01: 19
          +12
          Pilat2009
          Yeah, well, yes, they collected everything that swims ... it "floats", and does not walk ... and blamed all the penalty box on this .... you think about what you wrote, please. There was almost nothing left in the Baltic, even the coastal defense battleships were taken ... or did you write the entire fleet of the Baltic Fleet into the penalty boxes with a chok?

          They left only absolutely sky-ready ships.
          Work on "Slava" was completed in October 905 ... yeah, otherwise there would have been one more drowned man and there would have been no one to defend Moonsund in due time ...
          And the lack of patriotism is to blame for all this? Maybe in the tactics of Rozhestvensky’s actions, who didn’t notice the mistakes of the Japanese, which allowed him to repeatedly cover the head of our squadron, focus fire on the head ships, and knock them out one by one, will you also find the machinations of saboteurs?
          Our sailors had no patriotism ... like brains ... they all examined and found mistakes ... and the specific culprits ... so let's not shame them and add reason to patriotism ....
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 17 May 2014 12: 39
            +1
            Quote: smile
            who didn’t notice the mistakes of the Japanese

            Rozhestvensky just created the situation with the turn of the Japanese, he was unlucky that it was not important to shoot. battaliers
            1. smile
              smile 17 May 2014 16: 54
              +5
              Pilat2009
              There are several options for action, but it doesn't matter. The fact that Rozhestvensky contributed as much as he could to the "mistakes" of the Japanese is a fact. They made mistakes without him - no one is guaranteed from them. But the fact that Togo outplayed him tactically is also an indisputable fact. And inaccurate shooting was not to blame for the defeat, although this also took place. They laid down the defeat in advance, sending together with modern ships old low-speed irons of various types, at once giving the Japanese an advantage in speed and maneuverability. The squadron was not returned after it turned out that Port Arthur was surrendered, and 1 squadron was destroyed.
              There were no chances to go unnoticed in Vladik.
              The fight, subject to the superiority of the Japanese in speed, maneuverability, uniformity of naval composition and artillery, with ships loaded with ultra-limit coal (the draft was such that the armored belt went under water) in the end, with a more determined and skillful command, was doomed to one final - rout . And there was only one thing to talk about - the degree of defeat.
              And of course, the Bolsheviks were to blame for all this ... and the ravens, who had suffered from Nikolashka, were to blame. :)))
          2. Evgeniy1
            Evgeniy1 17 May 2014 19: 52
            -1
            It is very annoying and offensive that the Japanese used Ushakov's "old" practices, while we adopted the tactics of the "stupid" Turks!
          3. Evgeniy1
            Evgeniy1 17 May 2014 19: 52
            -1
            It is very annoying and offensive that the Japanese used Ushakov's "old" practices, while we adopted the tactics of the "stupid" Turks!
      3. gispanec
        gispanec 18 May 2014 08: 50
        0
        Quote: smile
        forbade artillery to operate from closed positions,

        and also you forgot to write that the British do not clean their guns with a brick)) .... nonsense ... complete propaganda nonsense ... my pradet put his head down there ... there were his letters and the stories of my bastard ... so you write the nonsense of propaganda that you, it is for you profitable to voice
  4. saag
    saag 16 May 2014 09: 29
    +3
    Quote: igor36
    Stessel

    And who then handed over Port Arthur to the Japanese?
    1. smile
      smile 16 May 2014 09: 35
      +4
      saag
      Apparently, the British bought the Bolsheviks, sold to the Germans and acquired by the Americans ... :))) They also preserved and carefully transferred to the Japanese very significant supplies of food, large-caliber shells, despite the fact that the famine almost began to starve. and the cannons lived half-starving ... :))) Oh, these Bolsheviks are a terrible force, they and Nikolashka were elevated to the throne - after all, who else could derail the country more efficiently?
      Т
      1. 225chay
        225chay 16 May 2014 12: 27
        -1
        Quote: smile
        Oh, these Bolsheviks are a terrible force, they elevated Nikolai to the throne - after all, who else could derail the country more efficiently?


        let's say, "nikolashka", as you call him, was worthy of execution, but only after an objective trial ..
        Instead, your favorite Shaya Goloshchekin, Yankel Yurovsky, Beloborodov (Vaybard) and others from the international
        Without trial and investigation, it was not even royal people who shot at the shooting gallery, but simply citizens (Nikolai had already abdicated the throne and was just a father and husband to his children and wife. I’m not justifying him, really a rag similar to Gorbachev)
        They shot like dogs, Almighty forgive me, on average, seven bullets for each body, and even yesterday someone on TV from respected political scientists added that Yurovsky was finishing off a bayonet for living girls with a knife, which is in the museum.
        This is the executioners! and such among the first Bolsheviks were the majority. Wasn’t it?
        But not only that, the shot and cut Romanovs were taken outside the city and thrown into the mine. and to hide the traces they burned several times with gasoline (Doesn’t it resemble anything, at least the latest events in Odessa?)
        the Bolsheviks-terrorists didn’t have enough intelligence that in a mine in a confined space oxygen will quickly burn out and then the fire will not support anything. Then this fad of Hell, the Bolsheviks brought a barrel of sulfuric acid, so they wanted to hide the traces of their Terror and Crime, filled the mine with acid ...
        but unfortunately their corpses were not completely destroyed.
        The investigator of the white army, who was investigating in hot pursuit, seems from the memory of Sokolov, not the current one picked up with the same name, but he found and restored the events of the crime.
        And such crimes the revolutionaries-executioners of the EsAra and the Bolsheviks and just the bandits who came to the service of the Bolsheviks in the Cheka, then OGPU committed tens of thousands in the poor land of Russia!
        1. smile
          smile 16 May 2014 14: 38
          +5
          225chay
          1. Nikolashka was put under the castle by the very princes and counts who overthrew him. His English relatives refused to accept him and actually threw him.
          2. They banged him not by order of the Bolshevik leadership, but actually arbitrarily, so that he would not fall into the hands of the enemy. who could use it as a propaganda slogan, frowning like dark peasants. and the remaining monarchists ... because of a frowning. that the Entente masters would never have allowed the white knights to give him power ... and they themselves would not have given ... The survival of Nikolashka would simply have cost even a sea of ​​Russian blood, with the inevitable victory of the Bolsheviks. And by the way, the leadership of the Bolsheviks was on us ... he would, otherwise they would have kept him close to themselves under good guard.
          3. Nothing good is that they killed the royal family. I don’t see girls and children ... but those who suffer for them can be comforted - the Kolchakov counterintelligence scrupulously calculated and destroyed all those who dealt with the imperial family (of course, those who reached out to their hands) - those who fed them , watered, guarded, drove ... along with family members ... old people, old women, children of all, if memory serves, destroyed 2, or three thousand ... so that, aphid, worse? Kill seven girls, or, say, five hundred? One child, or, for example. three hundred? (I say right away, the numbers are random, but they are not so far from the truth) So what does this mean after that? Who is the beast? And what difference does it make to you. you got seven bullets. or you were mutilated during interrogation. and then hung naked barefoot? Who cares what they did to the corpses? How will you count? So, the bandits and pathological executioners of the white knights in the service of the Entente did at least no less than the Bolsheviks.
          3.
          1. Dovmont
            Dovmont 18 May 2014 10: 12
            +3
            Firstly, it is not worth talking about the murdered, even the royal blood, mockery! They accepted a terrible death. Secondly, there was no arbitrariness of the local OGPU, the execution was carried out by telegram from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, signed by Trotsky. Another question arises, why did the Bolsheviks need to destroy not only Exarch Nicholas, but also his entire family? After all, he abdicated from the throne, and indeed from the struggle for the Russian Empire, even before the Bolsheviks came to power! I did not participate in the political life of the country - I prayed quietly and poked around in my garden diligently! He did not pose any threat to the Bolsheviks! Even before the revolution, the liberal press of Russia named 3 useless symbols of Russia: the tsar is a cannon, the tsar is a bell and the tsar is a rag! He was not even accepted by the allied monarchies after his abdication! To whom was he dangerous?
            In 1913 Jewish bankers in the United States, led by the financier of Warburg, organized the US Federal Reserve. This has become the foundation stone on the path of Zionism to world domination. So, a significant amount of the Fed fund was contributed by Nicholas II. Soon after, the First World War began during which Zionist capital solved several problems at once: it fabulously enriched itself in financing and supplies to both warring parties; destroyed the European empires (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary) that had hard gold currencies and therefore threatened the future dictatorship of the dollar; gained access to gratuitous resources in Russia through their henchmen (the fact that the Yid Kagal under the name of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSDLP, headed by Leiba Bronstein was reported to the Zionist capital of the USA is no secret). Then everything falls into place! Although the former king lost his throne, he retained the right to his part of the Fed funds, and not only him, but his family too. And the Fed funds by 1919 swelled decently and the Nikolaev percentics would allow him to become one of the richest people in the world. That is why Trotsky was ordered to liquidate the Nikolai family, as well as about 20 more representatives of the Romanov family. Thus, the FRS-Soviets got rid of all the applicants for Nikolai’s inheritance and appropriated these capitals to themselves! When Stalin’s sword hung over Trotsky, where did he rush to save? That's right, in the Washington region! I hoped that his former merits in the genocide of the Russian people would be counted towards him! But no, the Semites do not recognize their former merits, because of which he was quietly in Mexico and on the right, closer to the ice ax! Well, something like this!
            1. 225chay
              225chay 19 May 2014 00: 19
              0
              Quote: Dovmont
              Dovmont (1) Today, 10:12 ↑ New
              Firstly, it is not worth talking about the murdered, even the royal blood, mockery! They accepted a terrible death. Secondly, there was no arbitrariness of the local OGPU, the execution was carried out by telegram from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, signed by Trotsky. Another question arises, why did the Bolsheviks need to destroy not only Exarch Nicholas, but also his entire family? After all, he abdicated from the throne, and indeed from the struggle for the Russian Empire, even before the Bolsheviks came to power! I did not participate in the political life of the country - I prayed quietly and poked around in my garden diligently! He did not pose any threat to the Bolsheviks! Even before the revolution, the liberal press of Russia named 3 useless symbols of Russia: the tsar is a cannon, the tsar is a bell and the tsar is a rag! He was not even accepted by the allied monarchies after his abdication! To whom was he dangerous?
              In 1913 Jewish bankers in the United States, led by the financier of Warburg, organized the US Federal Reserve. This has become the foundation stone on the path of Zionism to world domination. So, a significant amount of the Fed fund was contributed by Nicholas II. Soon after, the First World War began during which Zionist capital solved several problems at once: it fabulously enriched itself in financing and supplies to both warring parties; destroyed the European empires (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary) that had hard gold currencies and therefore threatened the future dictatorship of the dollar; gained access to gratuitous resources in Russia through their henchmen (the fact that the Yid Kagal under the name of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSDLP, headed by Leiba Bronstein was reported to the Zionist capital of the USA is no secret). Then everything falls into place! Although the former king lost his throne, he retained the right to his part of the Fed funds, and not only him, but his family too. And the Fed funds by 1919 swelled decently and the Nikolaev percentics would allow him to become one of the richest people in the world. That is why Trotsky was ordered to liquidate the Nikolai family, as well as about 20 more representatives of the Romanov family. Thus, the FRS-Soviets got rid of all the applicants for Nikolai’s inheritance and appropriated these capitals to themselves! When Stalin’s sword hung over Trotsky, where did he rush to save? That's right, in the Washington region! I hoped that his former merits in the genocide of the Russian people would be counted towards him! But no, the Semites do not recognize their former merits, because of which he was quietly in Mexico and on the right, closer to the ice ax!


              Thank you very much for the truthful, objective information!
              Do not forget that scum did
              p evolutionists on Russian land with the people ...
          2. gispanec
            gispanec 18 May 2014 11: 50
            -1
            Quote: smile
            Kill seven girls, or, say, five hundred? One child, or, for example. three hundred? (I say right away, the numbers are random, but they are not so far from the truth) So what does this mean after that?

            it says that you only blah blah blah ... are propaganda nonsense ...
          3. 225chay
            225chay 18 May 2014 23: 59
            -1
            Quote: smile
            Kill seven girls, or, say, five hundred? One child, or, for example. three hundred? (I say right away, the numbers are random, but they are not so far from the truth) So what does this mean after that? Who is the beast? And what difference does it make to you. you got seven bullets. or you were mutilated during interrogation. and then hung naked barefoot? Who cares what they did to the corpses?

            Yes, Mr. Goggles, demagoguery is your own sister.
            you don’t like the real truth unearthed by honest people (investigator Sokolov or Solovyov at the beginning of the civil war) ...
            "What difference does it make with the corpses" ??
            Ohrenet, pit bull, did your mother actually give birth to you or not?
            Bastards, they shot children, they still killed them, they finished them off, then they scoffed at the corpses, dragged them to hell, tried to hide the traces of crimes, burned in gasoline, like the fascists of the Maidan ... filled with acid - in the spirit of the Italian mafia.
            Yes, these executioners were real.
            And they broke through to power in Russia!
            They are Fascists and have become this Bolshevik power.
            Fortunately, Stalin realized that for scum they sucked to power as far as he could - he cleaned the scum.
            But some U.O.d. remained and their descendants are currently balamamut people.
            Events in Ukraine - this is just the work of these scum and their heirs
        2. pilot8878
          pilot8878 16 May 2014 18: 10
          +4
          They did not shoot "just citizens", but a possible banner under which armies could gather, which, as the legitimate heir to the throne, would be lobbied by the governments of Britain and America. I'm not talking about the renounced Nicholas, but about Alexei and the princesses. They were shot only under the threat of the capture of E-burg by supporters. Before that, the plans were different. By the way, adm. Kolchak suffered the same fate precisely because of the threat of the capture of Irkutsk (if I'm not mistaken?). Before that, they wanted to take him to Moscow for trial. The situation required urgent decisions.
  5. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 16 May 2014 09: 45
    +2
    How slandered the hero of Port Arthur
    The article is interesting (+), but the topic is not quite open, one could add more documentary facts. hi
    1. Moore
      Moore 16 May 2014 10: 41
      +2
      How not disclosed ?!
      Here the author wrote for doubters:
      I think further comments are unnecessary

      As for the facts, if there are more of them (some of the readers have already mentioned in the discussions), the owl will not stretch the globe.
  6. Makarov
    Makarov 16 May 2014 09: 50
    +6
    the material requires a more detailed study ... given the court intrigues and corruption of the imperial mastabs, the court could change its mind given the origin and condition of Stessel ...
  7. Kubanets
    Kubanets 16 May 2014 09: 55
    +15
    Another attempt to revise history. Yes, Stoessel is not a traitor, but an intriguer who desired glory. Japanese landing on Kwantun could have been dropped and the actions of Kondratenko's division are an example of this. But the sabotage of Stoessel and Fock brought the matter to an immediate siege of the fortress. Then Stoessel refused to surrender the command to General Smirnov. and as a result, personal ambitions led to a catastrophe. And the reference to the Tsar's pardon as "merit" only confirms the spinelessness and inconsistency of the latter, when the creator of the Tsushima pogrom, Rozhestvensky, is "pardoned" and Nebogatov, who surrendered an almost broken squadron, is put in a fortress.
    1. sebast
      sebast 16 May 2014 12: 03
      +4
      Well, in fairness it should be noted that Rozhdestvensky made a unique transition and still led the squadron to the Far East.
      1. Astartes
        Astartes 16 May 2014 13: 02
        +5
        For the sake of justice, it can be noted that there is nothing to brag about Christmas at all ...
        1. Karabanov
          Karabanov 16 May 2014 17: 42
          +2
          Just for the sake of justice ... Actually, there is something. As military admiral Rozhdestvensky ... I can’t judge. But as an organizer ... There are few, if not all ... hi
  8. Starshina wmf
    Starshina wmf 16 May 2014 09: 58
    +14
    Yes, he handed over Port Arthur and everything. What to do. They lost the war, They threw the king to hell, like a fool. The Provisional Government came to power, note that it was not the Bolsheviks who threw the king away. Then the Bolsheviks kicked out the provisional government. Then there was white terror, in response to the Red Terror. civil war, like any other, does not happen without casualties. What the Bolsheviks destroyed, what the whites. Even the White Guards destroyed more. And if they had won, then there would have been more victims. One currently praised Kolchak shot several tens of thousands of Siberian peasants. He was sold to the British.
    1. saag
      saag 16 May 2014 20: 37
      +3
      here! and then some write ... :-)
  9. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 16 May 2014 10: 08
    +4
    S.'s numerous orders, currently published, testify to his extremely meager general education and are distinguished by their stupidity. When at the end of April 1904 Port Arthur was cut off from the Russian army, S. actually ceded power to Smirnov, but in his reports he was able to present the matter in such a way that all the honor went to him. In order to prevent the spread of information about the actual state of affairs, in August he closed the (censored) newspaper Novy Kray and first forbade the reporter Nozhin from visiting batteries, forts and positions, and then, after Nozhin's attempt to leave on a junk for Chief, he confiscated all his papers and ordered to arrest him. Nozhin, however, managed to leave, and S.'s anger fell on the persons who had facilitated his departure. Since November, S. began to prepare public opinion in Port Arthur for the idea of ​​surrender; for this, he read out the documents testifying to the danger of the situation; in December he ordered to surrender Fort No. II, without special need, and then Fort No. III. On December 7, General Smirnov sent a report to the commander-in-chief, which is an indictment against S. On December 16, at the military council, S. expressed his readiness to surrender the fortress, but met with opposition from Smirnov and others; a majority surrender was rejected. Nevertheless, on December 19, S. entered into negotiations with the commander of the Japanese army, which was besieging the fortress, and signed a surrender. The troops were taken prisoner, weapons and supplies were also given, the property of the Port Arthurians was left to their fate, and only a reservation was made about Stessel's personal property, which the Japanese allowed to withdraw. At first, in Russia and in Europe, S.'s popularity was still holding; in France, donations were collected to offer S. an honorary sword. But very soon it was discovered that the military and food supplies were not


    used up, and the fortress could still resist. S. was handed over to a military court, which was to take place in the spring of 1907. Before the trial, he was dismissed at first without a pension, which later, at his request, was assigned to him. In 1905, the correspondent of Novy Krai, Nozhin, filed a request to the Minister of War for permission to bring S. to court for libel, expressed in the name of Nozhin in the official paper as a Japanese spy. A year and a half later, in January 1907, Nozhin received a reply that S. was no longer in military service and, therefore, the complaint should go in the usual court order; meanwhile, it was already a long time ago for initiating a case. See Minesweeper "General Stoessel in Port Arthur" (St. Petersburg, 1906; the brochure comes, apparently, from a person close to General Smirnov; it is hostile to S., but full of valuable facts).


    link: http: //www.peoples.ru/military/general/anatolij_stessel/ hi
  10. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 16 May 2014 10: 43
    +1
    Of course, this is a kind of "colonial war", it is impossible to demand something special from the troops, but after Brest, the question of rationality or irrationality of surrender to the enemy disappears by itself.
  11. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 16 May 2014 11: 23
    +3
    Nozhin wrote about how effective the fire of the Japanese on our fortifications, noted by what forces the Russian ships are going to raid, at what time they return. He told who was in command of various defense sectors, described the tactics of the battle for the defenders of Port Arthur ... The question is, who needs such information? Russian soldiers and officers, and so without any Nozhin know how they fight. And the Japanese, who had access to the press and read the newspaper, would have helped.

    And where was the slanderous hero Stessel at that time? Why did you allow it?
  12. barbiturate
    barbiturate 16 May 2014 11: 24
    +3
    He just handed over Port Arthur when it was still possible to resist, food supplies and military equipment allowed it. It was not he who was the soul of defense, as witnesses of events write about it, but it was he who handed over the fortress! He was heroically present during the defense and surrendered. The 3rd Japanese army from near Port Arthur went straight to join the rest of the Japanese army and the Mukden battle happened with the principle of draws, but how could it end without the 3rd army, if it was near Port Arthur, the question is interesting
  13. Astartes
    Astartes 16 May 2014 11: 26
    +2
    Already the second day of the article on the same topic with mixed content, I wonder why this is?
    1. Angro Magno
      Angro Magno 16 May 2014 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: Astartes
      Already the second day of the article on the same topic with mixed content, I wonder why this is?



      Indeed, this is MF.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Astartes
        Astartes 16 May 2014 11: 46
        0
        that's it)
  14. X Y Z
    X Y Z 16 May 2014 12: 12
    +5
    When I was 15 years old, I simply adored Stepanov's novel Port Arthur and its sequel, The Zvonarev Family. For me, his characters were like living and there was no doubt about the reliability of the presentation of historical facts. It was one of my favorite books. It was clear that the novel carried a certain propaganda charge that could really affect the credibility, but not in the same way! Now a number of articles are being published, where most of the negative characters in the novel turn out to be patriots and defenders of Russia, and the purely positive ones, on the contrary, fade somewhat. This is especially true for Stoessel, Fock, and others. Still, I wanted professional historians to determine their understanding and assessments of the events of those times and to give exhaustive explanations. Knowledge of history should not be based on opportunistic works and literary mistakes, because otherwise, we will become like some Poles who, in discussions, cite references to the film "Four Tankmen and a Dog".
    1. Angro Magno
      Angro Magno 16 May 2014 12: 21
      +2
      What, Foka, who chickened out and abandoned the Jinzhous positions, also whitewash?
      Then a targeted campaign is clearly visible.
      Cowardice and betrayal are trying to make a justified action under the pretext that "everything is not so simple."
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. zoknyay82
      zoknyay82 16 May 2014 14: 09
      +2
      What kind of professional historians are they? History has been rewritten more than once in my life. Even those events that I witnessed are interpreted by different "political scientists", "historians" ambiguously. History is a subjective science and serves the powers that be.
    4. kosmos1980
      kosmos1980 17 May 2014 17: 41
      +3
      You can ask the enemy how much equipment and military equipment they captured. In the description of the fighting of the Japanese army, figures are given. The author of this article points to the lack of ammunition, especially for guns - complete nonsense, the Japanese captured so many shells, cartridges and mines, a hundred used them for a very long time. As for the capture of Mount Vysokaya, it was not necessary to surrender positions on Kwantun so quickly, the massacre by Japanese troops was also unlikely due to a very large number of various factors, starting with the fact that very many lived in Russia. a large number of Japanese, ending with the fact that the Japanese authorities wanted to show their country not as a tribe of savages, but as a completely civilized country. First of all, to its creditors from the USA and England. What prevented them from starting to slaughter prisoners after tsushima, liaodong, etc. Of course there were cases (shooting at the survivors of the BRBO "Admiral Ushakov", but the facts are isolated and then the Japanese returned and began a rescue operation. Novikov - Priboy, Stepanov and Pikul certainly not professional historians, but reinforced by knowledge from the archives and publications of historians, I believe that their general direction of thought is correct.
      1. qwert
        qwert 19 May 2014 11: 50
        0
        I agree. According to the recollections of the participants, the content of prisoners of war in Japanese camps at that time was tolerable
  15. belovur
    belovur 16 May 2014 13: 01
    +4
    Still, Stessel proved to be not the best at Port Arthur's defense. And about Grigorovich in general, some kind of conspiracy thesis.
  16. falcon
    falcon 16 May 2014 13: 44
    +5
    Somewhat shocked by the title of the article. I carefully read this literary "creation".
    I realized that the defeat of the Russian troops was due to the actions of the military commissar Mr. Nozhin, who
    online informed the "democratic" public in detail about the military
    actions in the Port Arthur area! That's where the dog rummaged around! Now clear
    reasons for the failure of NATO troops in Afghanistan. After all, there are plenty of CNN correspondents! :))
    But, seriously, in the army, the commander is personally responsible for the outcome of the hostilities,
    that's why he is the one-man! Already one point of accusation: "The surrender to the enemy of a fortress that has not exhausted
    all means of resistance "are enough for a death sentence.
    We are looking forward to - with articles about "the most talented commander slandered by ill-wishers"
    General Kuropatkin. Man and patriot. :))
    Article "-".
  17. AZB15
    AZB15 16 May 2014 14: 19
    +3
    "Horses, people mingled in a heap ...."
    The author, of course, can express his thoughts, but to mix merits in past wars in the article, pull excerpts from the docks, letters, not bothering to do a little more serious review of the fortress’s state before the surrender and the state of the besiegers themselves and declare that Stessel’s turn was slandered, it’s like- then .., is he a relative of him (Stessel) or what?
    If only Stessel, ALL the command of the 1 TE for the shameful drowning, and Nebogatov were shot, or rather hung on the crown of the Peter and Paul Fortress, you look and fought in the 1 MV, it would be different ...
    I will add ... and the families of the executed will deprive all state rights to Siberia! And this is not from my bloodthirstiness, but all according to the rules of the game.
  18. Karabanov
    Karabanov 16 May 2014 15: 21
    +5
    This opus is curious ... But this is just a vision of the author of the article. The topic is not unambiguously disclosed and, by and large, far-fetched ... And rightly noted - And who then surrendered the fortress?
  19. JonnyT
    JonnyT 16 May 2014 15: 24
    +1
    as it is hard to believe in it! Especially after reading the book "Port Arthur", In my opinion, at that time the quality of the high command was far from "high" with rare exceptions, unlike the rank and file ........
    rabid nervous psychos, corrupt officials, intriguers, cowards, liars and hypocrites - with such a composition of qualities in the highest officer society you can figure out who set up someone and who is really to blame ...... But where did the tsar look ??? shouldn't he control his generals? Or did he approve of their behavior?
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 16 May 2014 23: 03
      +5
      Quote: JonnyT
      Or did he approve of their behavior?

      The tsar was engaged in important matters. On the day he was informed of the death of Makarov, he wrote in his diary: "he hunted a raven. He killed two things."
      Well, even if you believe Pikul, kvassil pretty. A sort of EBN of his time
      1. qwert
        qwert 19 May 2014 11: 48
        0
        I agree, if you read the diaries of the emperor AND HIS LETTERS TO WIFE, and even compare with the events in the country on the same days ... That everything becomes clear. And unsuccessful two wars and revolutions. That's just on TV they prefer to talk about the unfortunate and almost holy Emperor, as well as about the noble Admiral Kolchak (whom even his officers called a sadist and drug addict)
  20. Barboskin
    Barboskin 16 May 2014 16: 41
    +3
    Curious is the fact that Stessel, who surrendered the agonizing fortress, was a traitor, and Admiral Viren, who, before surrendering, commanded the fleet and was responsible for the destruction of ships - a hero. However, the Japanese ships lifted significantly quickly. Then they served them for a long time, and some still sold us back. But still, I do not agree with the author. Even if all this is true, then Stessel can be hanged only because Prot-Arthur prepared poorly in peacetime for war. The true hero of the defense was Kondratenko. Eternal memory to him!
  21. Walking
    Walking 16 May 2014 17: 27
    +7
    Port Arthur Hero? There were plenty of such heroes in that war, Stessel, Kuropatkin, Fock, Rozhdestvensky, Nebogatov, it is not clear why they lost the war. Admirals of the 1st squadron were conspiring with the Japanese to surrender Port Arthur, but Stessel did not want to. What else will pseudo-historians come up with? Could he write Admiral Makarov into suicide that he was specially blown up in Petropavlovsk, and General Kondratenko was not the soul of Arthur’s defense, but quite the opposite ???
    Article minus.
  22. zollstab
    zollstab 16 May 2014 17: 56
    -4
    You can’t blame all the troubles on Nicholas 2 and the color of society. They were basically highly moral and educated people. And the collapse of the country was controlled from abroad and based on the support of local traitorous and greedy elements.
    1. Barboskin
      Barboskin 16 May 2014 22: 39
      +6
      Quote: zollstab
      You can’t blame all the troubles on Nicholas 2 and the color of society. They were basically highly moral and educated people. And the collapse of the country was controlled from abroad and based on the support of local traitorous and greedy elements.

      When the collapse of the country was developed from abroad, Nicholas 2 was not an all-Russian autocrat, but a random passerby who smoked on the sidelines. The owner of the Russian land, in your opinion, did not influence anything.
    2. qwert
      qwert 19 May 2014 11: 44
      0
      Haha .. the color of society ... it seems to me that it is similar to the current color of society: Abramovich, Potanin, Zhirinovsky, Zverev, Svetlakov ....
      The lesser part was highly moral and educated, and according to the memoirs of contemporaries, this part was never able to stay at court. A mediocre and empty emperor, surrounded himself with his own kind. And those who tried to point out to him the impending crisis literally the next morning flew into the rally. The same Witte as an example.
      But the smoking cigarettes from hundred-ruble banknotes, so this is not the color of society. This degenerate nobility and cattle merchant
  23. Kibl
    Kibl 16 May 2014 18: 18
    +4
    Stessel gave up Arthur with his yeast Vera Alekseevna !!! And there was nothing to pardon the traitor!
    1. saag
      saag 16 May 2014 20: 40
      +3
      Well, the dearest Vera Alexandrovna then got it after the trial and had mercy on him
      1. Barboskin
        Barboskin 16 May 2014 22: 40
        +3
        That's how the traditions of Serdyukovschina were led in Russia.
  24. Artem1967
    Artem1967 16 May 2014 19: 33
    +8
    Minus to the author of the article! Well, he likes Stessel, but God bless him .. But why denigrate Admiral Grigorovich, who raised the Russian fleet from WWII before the First World War and returned the faith to the Russian sailors! I do not understand!
    1. Walking
      Walking 16 May 2014 22: 40
      +5
      Raise the traitor and slander the worthy - this is so liberal
  25. Arct
    Arct 16 May 2014 23: 52
    +6
    Novikov-Surf, Stepanov, Pikul. Semenov or the history of the Russo-Japanese War did not try to read? So to speak, to broaden one's horizons.
    Astartes. Yes, of course, Christmas is to blame for everything;) Crews that do not know how, half of completely unprepared officers, a trip to worthlessness, performance characteristics and other factors - is this about nothing? But nothing that, unlike the court sharkuns and lizoblyudov (admirals), Rozhdestvensky took under the peak and went to execute the order, although he did not ask for this honor. Yes, he is not a naval commander, but then throughout Russia, after the death of Makarov, 1,5 naval commanders remained. And they sent Rozhdestvensky. What he could, he did, and hang all the cats on him at least meanly.
    Marine One, in order not to write nonsense, take an interest in Stepanov’s parents once in a lifetime; there may be no questions about the author’s knowledge.
    Everything was said about Stessel in 1905. The media were not yet developed so much and they were rather weak in forming the necessary opinion. So the attitude of society clearly indicated what the subject was.
    P.S. They made fun of the high morality and spirituality of the Russian aristocracy before the revolution. Especially its higher part. Sorry, but most of its representatives at that time were a conglomerate, which in Soviet times was called rotten intelligentsia ...
  26. understudy
    understudy 17 May 2014 00: 25
    +5
    My minus. Yes, I confess that reading the novel "Port Arthur" played a role to a certain extent.
    Compare ...
    "Brest Fortress" is our pride, a symbol of glory, valor, heroism and ... Victory.
    Port Arthur is our pride, a symbol of glory, valor, heroism and ... Defeat.
    For all that, in one case, the command of the fortress was actually knocked out. And secondly ... and secondly, the generals raised their paws up.
    And the last thing. Phrase- "Russians - do not give up!" does not have an author, but everyone knows her.
  27. Sergey Vl.
    Sergey Vl. 17 May 2014 01: 30
    +3
    "Varyag" was built in the states, battleship "Retvizan" in France, etc. By the way, the French are now also completing two "ships" for us ...
  28. Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 17 May 2014 07: 47
    0
    Very interesting article!

    And - an unusual point of view. The author is a plus.
  29. sub307
    sub307 17 May 2014 10: 54
    +1
    In Tsarskoe Selo (Pushkin) in the 90s, the restoration of the historical names of streets was in full swing. So: Red Star Street was named Stoessel Street. After some time "there was a clever man" who remembered that Stoessel was supposedly known as a traitor. The street remained a Red Star. It's hard to "clean up" being someone "covered in shit".
  30. Arct
    Arct 17 May 2014 12: 26
    +1
    Sergey Vl.
    "Retvizan" is also in the states. In Frazia "Tsarevich", which served as a prototype for "Slav".
    And attempts to draw a parallel are inappropriate. What they are building now is nothing more than auxiliary and comfortable ships for local wars. But not the main units of the fleet ...
  31. Jarserge
    Jarserge 17 May 2014 18: 34
    +2
    It is not clear what the author wanted to say. To defend the honor of Lieutenant General Stoessel? Or brand the Bolsheviks as traitors to Russia? Everything turned out very badly superficially and unproven, so an article for the sake of an article, which is a pity the topic is interesting and unexplored. There are very few materials, everything was overshadowed by the First World War and then the Revolution, Civil ... I just want to say that the majority of opinion about the defense of Port Arthur was formed by Stepanov's book "Port Arthur" But this is fiction and the author in Port Arthur was 12 years old. As the participants in the defense of the fortress, who were at that time in exile in Paris, wrote that everything in the book is mixed up and has very little to do with reality. This topic needs a researcher. As for the traitors, it is somehow indecent after 100 years to throw mud at military officers without proof ..... Any donkey can kick a dead lion
  32. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 17 May 2014 19: 03
    +4
    That's for sure. Stoessel was tried "hot on the trail" and the descendants probably knew more than we do now. The author somehow very primitive, literally in two words, explains Stoessel's crimes. When the accusation itself is there, in my opinion, in 2 volumes! There is a lot of things written there, and not only about "cowardice" and "surrender" of the fortress, there and about: 2) inappropriate spending of funds, 1) on failure to take measures in the preparation of l / s, 2) on granting unnecessary rights to counterparties, etc. 3) about the complete connivance of the Japanese and giving them the initiative, 4) and about balls during the siege, 5) and about the practical elimination of the high command from the defense of the fortress and the fleet - the entire defense was controlled by middle chiefs, etc. However, the first two charges are quite enough for a death sentence and this is also noted in the indictment - about cowardice, one can argue, Stoessel was not a coward, that's for sure, but the fact that he was absolutely uninitiated is just as sure, he looked into the mouth of Grand Duke Alexei in everything and did not do that what is supposed to be done by the chief of his level. And as for the surrender .... so it is in the military code of Peter the Great's time that it is described that: "the chief who surrendered the fortress, which has not completely and unconditionally exhausted the means for defense, must be ... hanged." So, the verdict is absolutely correct, alas, if you were raised to very great heights, if you were given the right to dispose of human lives, state property and other things, so be kind and be responsible if you did not cope with your duties, to the fullest extent of military laws. In general, Stoessel "covered" the Grand Duke with his back, and then everyone wrote about this.
  33. Sour
    Sour 18 May 2014 16: 30
    0
    It is hard to say how good or bad Stessel led. There are few published data, but I do not advise anyone to study history from fiction novels.
    I can only say that the Port Arthur garrison, with limited food supplies, fought valiantly against an approximately 3-fold superior enemy. The loss of the Japanese only to the dead exceeded the entire strength of the Port Arthur garrison.
    Of course, there is no reason to call Stessel the great military leader. But it is not clear why they call the great naval commander of the same Makarov? Whom did he defeat at sea? And after all it is impossible to say that with him the squadron acted more successfully than before and after it. The most sensitive losses to the Japanese fleet (2 armadillos and 1 cruiser) were inflicted after Makarov.
    In short, much needs to be reviewed. This is not harmful.
  34. Denimax
    Denimax 18 May 2014 20: 45
    +1
    Quote: Sour
    In fairness, it must be said that under the leadership of Makarov the squadron did not achieve anything, only suffered losses. What is it better than Stark (predecessor) and Wittgeft (successor) - is completely incomprehensible. Is it just of common origin? Perhaps yes. Nothing more.

    Makarov at least organized active actions. Passivity does not damage the enemy. Others also had losses. I think he was just unlucky at one point, he could still do a lot.
  35. Tourist
    Tourist 19 May 2014 02: 23
    0
    We also know perfectly well the fate of the generation of Grigorovich, people of his level. Those like him, for the most part, constituted the White Movement or fled from Soviet Russia at the earliest opportunity,
    I would like to advise the "expert" to take an interest in the fate of at least Brusilov and Shaposhnikov
  36. qwert
    qwert 19 May 2014 07: 19
    0
    I read "Port Arthur" at one time, I liked the book, and therefore it remained in my soul that Stoessel was a traitor. Moreover, his wife still demanded from the emperor of Japan the money promised to her late husband. But, in general, the author's opinion has a right to exist. Moreover, the arguments have been anticipated. I disagree on one thing. Why should the revolution be drawn here and the alleged mass shooting of officers, as well as the alleged fact that only foreign spies could serve for the Reds ???? It has long been known that even liberals and other democrats do not argue that about 40% of the officers went over to the Reds' side, i.e. .e. almost half. So, the second part of the article is donkey ears.
  37. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 19 May 2014 16: 23
    0
    And what does Brusilov and Shaposhnikov have to do with it, exceptions only confirm the rules. And why should I be grateful to this slobbering and mediocre Nikal two, that I am in the world, that he helped to copulate with my ancestors. But Stepanov with his Port Arthur must also pass through a certain prism, a book was written you know in the days of socialist realism. History always puts in the end its priorities Barclay also considered the sex of Russia a traitor, but he ended up being a hero. But with Stessel it didn’t work out as it deservedly deserved.
  38. RomanN
    RomanN 19 May 2014 16: 28
    0
    In the mid-eighties I was reading a book with acquaintances (I don’t remember the name I apologize for years ago), various memories of whites from exile. There were several memoirs of the former Arturts, none of them remembered Stessel well, and the opinion of him in general terms coincided with the opinion of Stepanov , the author of P-A.And the opinion about this novel was ... well, so-so book.
    Of course, censorship of the time must be taken into account, but nevertheless, there is, that is.
  39. edelweiss1943
    edelweiss1943 21 May 2014 23: 04
    0
    in the history textbook himself they wrote that Stessel is a presumptuous coward. Now I begin to doubt the objectivity of the authors of the textbook
  40. fan1945
    fan1945 29 July 2014 11: 38
    0
    Here, however, it is necessary to divide - literary literature on historical topics and a revision
    real events, taking into account new data / information. The position of the fortress must be considered from two sides: - the availability of material reserves and tactical.
    The decision to surrender Port Arthur was close to a timely one. The reserves still allowed to resist. But the capture of the city of Vysokoy turned further defense into an elementary one.
    beating. With one artillery. As a "final touch" could arrange
    the last psychic - in all positions rush into the bayonet ... and surrender!
    To know how fortresses should have surrendered at the beginning of the 20th century, one could compare
    what Stessel did wrong. However, the Japanese were unlikely to surrender. Which showed WWII in the Pacific Ocean.