Military Review

Rehabilitation of General Stessel

Heroes of Port Arthur are known, it's time to name the traitors

It is difficult to surprise the sophisticated reader. But I will try. Quote: “Now that more than eight years have passed from this difficult moment and the literature on this historical it’s very rich material that can be said with complete impartiality and obviousness that the violent death of the fortress prevented its natural death for only a few days or at most for a week. ”

Question: what kind of fortress in question? Hint: an excerpt from a military essay written by the colonel of the General Staff of Czarist Russia GD Romanovsky is quoted. Even having received such a hint, not everyone will find the right answer. And this is not surprising, since the opinion of Romanovskii sharply differs from what has been taught in schools for a century. Romanovsky writes completely "unthinkable" things about Port Arthur: it turns out that the senior commander, General Anatoly Stoessel, capitulated at the moment when the fortress essentially exhausted its ability to resist.

How so? Every schoolboy knows that Stoessel treacherously surrendered the city, when the fortress was still full of strength, there were a lot of shells, cartridges, all kinds of provisions. The soldiers rushed into battle, the officers did not think about the surrender and on the military council at Stoessel directly spoke about it and demanded to continue the resistance. But Stoessel deceived them, secretly sent parliamentarians to the Japanese and put all before the fact. As a result, the heroic defense ended in unprecedented betrayal.

Point case

Stoessel returned home, and there a trial awaited him. A lot of witnesses were interviewed, each step of the general was disassembled and carefully analyzed. And the natural sentence is the death penalty. True, Nicholas II eventually amnesty the traitor and Stoessel avoids the deserved harsh punishment. Nevertheless, the former general still does not receive any rehabilitation, and he is driven out of the army, living in disgrace and surrounded by contempt from all of Russia, and especially Portartourians who until the last heroically fulfilled their duty, are living out their days.

This is the dominant point of view in our society. The children know that the fortress could have fought for a long time, and the colonel of the General Staff Romanovsky, a member of the defense of Port Arthur, who was awarded the golden saber For Bravery, for some reason turns out to be a blind man who actually rehabilitates Stoessel. In fact, the investigative commission, which dealt with the Port Arthur case, found signs of a whole series of crimes in Stoessel’s actions, and the accusation consisted of many points. However, at the trial, it almost completely collapsed, shrinking to three theses:

1. He handed over the fortress to the Japanese troops, not having used all the means for further defense.

2. Inaction of power.

3. Minor violation of official duties.

By “inaction of power” was meant the following. In Port Arthur, Lieutenant-General Fock criticized in a mocking tone the actions of those not subject to him, but 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 unimportant by the same court, so we will not consider it.

In the disputes about Port Arthur, I repeatedly noticed how people confused two different documents: the text of the prosecution and the final court decision. There were a lot of accusations, but at the trial, Stessel was acquitted on the absolute majority of points. And to the death penalty Stoessel was sentenced only for the first point - for the premature surrender of the fortress.

Romanovsky claims that Port Arthur could no longer hold. If he is right, Stessel is innocent, there is no betrayal. Therefore, I affirm that Romanovsky is actually rehabilitating the general and refuting the court decision.

But is it possible to trust a single testimony, even if such an authoritative person as Romanovsky, is a colonel at that moment? And what about the general condemnation and contempt that his former subordinates attacked on Stoessel? Let's see.

Here is a telegram to Stossel, Lieutenant Colonel Vadin and Staff Captain Solomonov: “In the difficult moment of the test that befell you, we ask you to accept expressions of our sincere sympathy and deep respect. Having survived with you both the glorious days of Port Arthur and the difficult days of the trial, we now with great hope await the last gracious royal word, and whatever happens with you, we will never forget how much the garrison owes you, our true leader, and on the instructions of which we performed our duty at a difficult time. "

The telegram of the former commander of the 15 East Siberian Rifle Regiment, Major General Gryaznov: and time will justify your determination. "

After the trial of Stoessel, the commission at the General Directorate of the General Staff, having carefully studied the circumstances of the siege of Port Arthur, issued a conclusion regarding the fortress position shortly before the surrender: “On December 10, the Japanese gained major success: they seized the first defensive line on the Western Front. The line of defense on the Eastern Front took on a position that was extremely unfavorable for defense. ”

December 20 night: “Taking the Big Eagle Nest put the second defensive line in such a position that it was almost impossible to stay on it ... again changed the position of the Eastern Front line even more for the worse ... the position of the third defensive line became extremely difficult marvel not only frontal, but also rear fire. "

The commission also found that by December 20 there were thousands of people in 11,5 positions, of which more than half had scurvy. But despite the data of such an authoritative source, there is still a ridiculous figure in journalism - 23, thousands of defenders of Port Arthur. At the same time, the army of General Legs, who besieged Port Arthur, numbered about 20 – 70 thousands of people by 80 December.

In such a situation, the fortress could not hold on much longer. The next general assault would turn into a massacre of the remnants of the Russian garrison, and even into a massacre of the civilian population and the wounded. In August 1904, the Japanese warned Stoessel that they did not guarantee the life of the city’s population if they took it during the assault. How did the defense commander respond?

Rehabilitation of General Stessel

“Order on the troops of the Kwantung fortified area. 4 August 1904 of the year. No. 496.

Glorious defenders of Arthur!

Today the impudent enemy through parliamentary Major Major Moki sent a letter with an offer to surrender the fortress. You, of course, know how the Russian admirals and generals could answer, with whom a part of Russia was entrusted; Offer rejected. I am confident in you, my brave comrades-in-arms, get ready to fight for Faith and your beloved King. Hooray! God is almighty help us.

Lieutenant-General Stessel ".

But what about the fact that Port Arthur surrendered unexpectedly to his defenders? This well-known thesis also needs to be checked, and here the memories of Portarturs will help us.

The military engineer Lilye kept a diary, regularly recording the events that took place.

Here is an entry from October 21 1904 of the year, that is, two months before the surrender of Port Arthur: “... there is a complete decline in animation. Everyone was obviously fed up with the tested impressions of all the horrors of war. ”

November 22: “The fortress is overworked and makes its last desperate attempt, sending its last defenders to their last battle ...”

November 25: “Many officers are fully aware of all the despair and recklessness of the position of both the fortress itself and its defenders.”

November 27: “In general, the position of the fortress is completely hopeless. There is even talk of surrender in the city. ”

The recording made by Lilier 19 of December, that is, on the last day of resistance, reflects the atmosphere of despair: “The mood in the garrison is the most depressed. Now a lot of voices are openly distributed about the complete impossibility of further defense of the fortress ... ”

Maybe Lilya is wrong? Judges only by itself? Well, there is a passage from the memory of Kholmogorov, a priest from Port Arthur: “December 19 Day. There was gunfire and rifle gunfire, but not assault. December 20 we waited for the decision of their fate, and even began to prepare for death. What was our surprise when we woke up in the morning of 20, we did not hear the cannon and rifle guns at all. Perplexed about what this meant, I hurried to the regimental office and learned there that Gen.-Adjutant Stessel had begun the negotiations with the Japanese on Port Arthur since the evening.

How did this garrison of the fortress? As for the officer circle familiar to me and the defenders of the positions of the right flank, whose opinions I had occasion to learn, they all regarded this as the logical and inevitable end of a hopelessly lost cause. Nobody, no lower ranks, no officers, expressed their desire to keep on. ”

Another key to truth

In the history of defense of Port Arthur there is another common plot. This is a confrontation of patriots led by the heroic General Roman Kondratenko and a certain “party of cowards and capitulators”, consisting of Stessel and his “accomplices” - General Fock and Colonel Reis.

It is alleged that while Kondratenko was alive and led the defense, the Japanese suffered one defeat after another, but when he died, the “party of traitors” lifted its head and quickly brought the fortress to surrender.

Indeed, Kondratenko was killed on December 2 1904 of the year, and only 18 days later Port Arthur surrendered. But does it follow from this that the city could last longer?

On November 25, the Fortress Defense Council was held, and it was suggested that January 1 1905 was the deadline until which the garrison was able to resist.

Kondratenko participated in this discussion. And in those years it was accepted that if the opinion of the council member disagrees with the majority and the officer himself wants to emphasize his disagreement, then the “special opinion” of this person is recorded in the protocol separately from the general text. If a council member believes that his words were distorted when they were recording, then he has the right not to sign the protocol at all. Kondratenko did not express any particular opinion and wrote the text. In other words, he did not protest against the thesis that the city can hold only until January 1, 1905.

In reality, Port Arthur fell on December 20, and the remains of the garrison were withdrawn from the December fortress 23. As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between these dates and January 1. In addition, Portarture Dudorov later recalled that when the Japanese captured Mount High, Kondratenko himself said that this was the beginning of the end. Indeed, this event dramatically worsened the situation of the defenders. From Vysokaya, important sections of the fortress and the harbor where Russian ships sheltered were viewed. The Japanese equipped the High Observation Point, thanks to which they were able to make artillery fire adjustments.

It was Kondratenko who oversaw the High Defense, and then he also organized a counterattack in order to regain control of this key point. Counterattack failed. High called the key of Port Arthur, and this key was in the hands of the enemy during the life of Kondratenko, and Stoessel, whoever he was, has nothing to do with it.

And by the way, why would Stossel be a coward and a traitor? To begin with, he is a participant in the Russian-Turkish war, then 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 began to gradually lash 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 tsar with a petition to commute the sentence to ten years imprisonment. He motivates his request by saying that the fortress “stood up under the leadership of Lieutenant General Stoessel's unprecedented stubbornness in the annals of military history defense” and also “that during the entire siege Lieutenant General Stoessel maintained the heroic spirit of the defenders of the fortress”.

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

And the last. The thesis that Stoessel passed the city contrary to the opinion of the military council.

Indeed, shortly before the fall of the fortress, another 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 by one, the officers described in detail the desperate position of the fortress, explained for a long time why it was impossible to hold on, but nevertheless called for the defense to continue.

Here are 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.

Here it is appropriate to recall the military council in Fili, where the majority of votes were for the defense of Moscow.

Kutuzov, contrary to the opinion of the military council, passed Moscow, but went down in history as an outstanding commander and patriot of Russia. Meanwhile, Stoessel, who defended a completely blocked city in China for many months, thousands of kilometers from the vital centers of our country, who inflicted a series of heavy defeats on the Japanese, is still cursing as a traitor.

Those who had tried Stoessel knew the circumstances of the military council and, I think, perfectly understood what really happened. And despite this, sentenced to death. In general, the more you study the circumstances of that trial, the more the impression is that they simply made a scapegoat out of the general. This, at least, and most likely the court was completely ordered, that is, they deliberately slandered the true hero of Port Arthur in order to demoralize the army, expel the real patriot from its ranks, and maybe save the traitors and saboteurs by hanging their crimes on the brave and honest, but inexperienced in the intrigues of the general.

Among the judges was Nikolai Vladimirovich Ruzsky, that is, the person who later became 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. Admiral Grigorovich gave testimony against Stessel - later the Minister of the Navy and one of the most important participants in the February revolution.

All of these are future Februaryists, that is, people who have thought to arrange the overthrow of state power in the midst of World War II. I am not going to argue now about whether Nicholas II deserved to be overthrown or not. But the fact is that a coup d'état during the war in any case led to a loss of controllability of the country, disorganization of the army and a sharp drop in defense capability. Treason in Russia started up not in the 1917 year, but much earlier.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. V.ic
    V.ic 16 September 2015 06: 34
    The court knows better. The winners are not judged, and in case of defeat, the presence of a "culprit" is simply necessary.
    1. CALL.
      CALL. 16 September 2015 08: 12
      But the fact is that a coup d'état during the war in any case led to a loss of control over the country, disorganization of the army and a sharp drop in defense capability. Treason in Russia started not in 1917, but much earlier.

      If we imagine that life is a theater, and the people in it are actors, it seems that somewhere there is a director, director and screenwriter. It is they who prescribe scenarios for centuries to come. It was the commies who divided the greater Russia into 15 republics, as a result we got foci of nationalism on our borders. And let the real communists or those who share communist ideals for this word commies forgive me. I myself was and is a communist and share these ideals, moreover, I believe that it is precisely behind communist ideals that there is a future. It is important to understand one thing. Communism as an ideology was born in the West. It is believed that the ideologist of this teaching is Mordecai Marx Levy, who ideologically substantiated why the tsarist regime should be overthrown. All that is good in communist ideology and with which the Communist Party is now proud was realized by the Stalinists, and what the communists are accused of is the work of the Trotskyists, who are the agents of world capital.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 16 September 2015 08: 57
        Not in 15 but in 16 republics, there was the Karelian-Finnish SSR, Khrushchev abolished it. The disgusting supply of troops is striking; how can the disease of Tsingoy be allowed in a southern city? They knew how to deal with it for 200 years, and then the 20th century and half the soldiers with scurvy. About not the desire to adopt machine guns, no words, I want to spit.
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 17 September 2015 00: 56
          Quote: Free Wind
          how can qingoy disease be allowed in a southern city? They knew how to deal with it for 200 years, and then the 20th century and half the soldiers with scurvy.

          KO suggests that when a city, even a southern one, has been besieged by an enemy for almost half a year, the delivery of vitamin C encounters serious obstacles ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. dmb
        dmb 16 September 2015 09: 57
        I'm afraid you have a somewhat simplified idea of ​​the communist ideology in general and the history of building socialism in the USSR in particular. Let me make a reservation right away that I absolutely share your confidence in building a communist future. But to ascribe everything bright to the Stalinists, and everything that the communists are accused of, to the "Trotskyists", is to contradict historical facts. In particular, mass repressions, and their fact is not denied by the most terrifying Stalinists, clearly cannot be attributed to the light, but they are the basis for criticism of socialism. I am not in the clouds at all, and I do not believe that the old world would give up and surrender without a fight. But your last phrase about "agents of world capital" contradicts logic. Certainly there are degenerates in any society, Yeltsin, and Putin is an example of this. But after all, they lived in a prosperous society and did not particularly risk anything. And those communists who were destroyed by the Stalinist system practically all did not hang out in their offices, fighting capitalism, of which they were agents. Let's leave Trotsky aside (I myself am not delighted with him). Among the destroyed leaders of the party there were many who did not share Trotsky's ideas, moreover, they actively fought with him.
        1. CALL.
          CALL. 17 September 2015 00: 12
          Quote: dmb
          Among the destroyed leaders of the party were many who did not share Trotsky's ideas, moreover, they actively fought against him. Will we also write them down as "agents"?

          Yes, I have simplified the historical vision of the events of the last century to understand the process. When I write that all the good deeds are for the Stalinists, and all the bad deeds are for the Trotskyists, I "conditionally" divide them according to their deeds. It is estimated that one of the bloodiest executioners who carried out the repressions was the first secretary of the West Siberian Regional Committee of the CPSU (b). Took the most active part in the "dispossession" of the Siberian region. Subsequently, it was he who, in March 1937, sent a telegram about the intensification of the repression - "Because the enemy does not sleep." And I tried very successfully in this field. So successfully that he was later shot for this. In our time, the relatives of those innocently repressed, for some reason, Stalin and Beria are accused of this. This was done at the suggestion of Khrushchev. “The Central Committee of the CPSU (b) - to Comrade IV Stalin on July 10, 1937 .. I inform you that all the criminal and kulak elements who have served their sentences and settled in the mountains. Moscow and the Moscow region, 41 305 people were registered. Of these, 33 were registered as criminal elements. The available materials give grounds to classify 436 people as the 1st category of criminals. and to the 6500nd category - 2 people. Kulakov, who served their sentence and settled in Moscow and the region's districts, 5272 people were counted. The available material gives grounds to classify 7869 people from this group as category 1. and to the 2000nd category - 2 people. We ask you to approve the commission as a part of com. Redens (one of the leaders of the bloody bacchanalia in the Crimea, when after the departure of Wrangel from there, from 5869 to 80 thousand were shot) - Early. Directorate of the NKVD for M.O., Maslov - Deputy. the Prosecutor of the Moscow Region, Khrushchev NS - the Secretary of the MK and MGK with the right, if necessary, to replace Comrade AA Volkov. - Second Secretary of the Moscow City Committee. Secretary of ICWCP (b) N. Khrushchev ”. Appreciate the bloodthirstiness of Khrushchev. Khrushchev and then asked to increase the limits on executions in Moscow and the Moscow region and shot 150 people. As the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Ukraine, for outstanding initiatives and bloody achievements in dispossession, arrests and executions of "enemies of the people", I received a short telegram from Stalin without any ceremony: "Stop, @ Hurk!" Although Eikhe and Khrushchev everywhere branded Trotskyists, but because of their deeds, they were real Trotskyists. Lies about "Stalinist repression"
          Vassoevich A. L. How Stalin was killed
          Grover Ferr "Great" lies of Khrushchev Here are figures about "mass" repressions. The Gulag. Archives Against Lies -
  2. strelets
    strelets 16 September 2015 06: 46
    Treason in Russia for a long time. Even under Ivan the Terrible, when the boyars poisoned his wives and children. If not before. Bastards are ready to sacrifice people and the whole country for a piece of jamon. Need to shoot for treason.
  3. X Y Z
    X Y Z 16 September 2015 07: 27
    Yes, Stepanov's favorite book from childhood "Port Arthur", where heroes and traitors are so vividly described, turned out to be just a propaganda work serving some current interests. It's a shame! Nevertheless, nothing can discredit the heroic behavior of the Russian troops, their valor and courage. It's time to restore historical justice and put everything in its place.
  4. iury.vorgul
    iury.vorgul 16 September 2015 07: 49
    I agree with the opinion of the author of the article that they made a scapegoat out of Stoessel, but put a minus on the article. And that's why. Stoessel was not the commandant of the Port Arthur fortress, but the commandant of the Kwantung fortified region (senior military commander), and had to take measures to prepare the defense of the fortress on the distant lines. He didn't. And although he is not the only one to blame for this (the culprits can be listed for a long time and end with “Saint” Nicholas), he definitely earned his sentence.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 September 2015 10: 22
      Quote: iury.vorgul
      And that's why. Stessel was not the commandant of the Port Arthur fortress, but the commandant of the Kwantung fortified area (senior military commander), and had to take measures to prepare the defense of the fortress at distant frontiers. He did not.

      Didn’t? Or did not give to do?
      Let's open Yakovlev:
      According to the local commission, first of all, it was necessary to use some old coastal batteries, improving them and properly arming them, and then gradually replace these batteries with new ones. As for the land front, it was recognized as necessary to make a line of forts of the designed fortress on the Wolf Mountains, 8 kilometers from the outskirts of the old city. However, this project was not approved, and in October 1898 a special commission was sent to Port Arthur, which amounted to another project. The latter differed from the first in that its line of forts did not reach the Wolf Mountains, but ran approximately 4 1/2 kilometers from the outskirts of the city, along the Dagushan - Dragons ridge ridge - Panlunshan - Angular Mountains - High Mountain and the height of the White Wolf.

      An interagency meeting, which this project came up for consideration, trying to save costs on Kwantung both by people and by money, spoke out against the project, and the latter was not approved. At the same time, a wish was expressed that, in general, the Qantong garrison should not exceed the number of bayonets and sabers available there, namely 11 people, so that "organizing the protection of the peninsula would not be excessively expensive and politically dangerous."

      In the end result, according to the compiled project, the extension of the land defense line, which passed along the heights of the Dragon Range, to a hill in front of the Cemetery Mountain, toothed mountain, to a hill near Sanshugou village, to Valdshnepin hill, to heights at the southern corner of the Western Basin and to Bely Mountain a wolf, it came out about 19 km, and this project was approved in 1900.

      In the end, Port Arthur did not satisfy, first of all, the theoretical conditions of the then normal fortress, since some of the fortifications of the outer contour were less than the minimum limit of 4 km from the city; since fort No. 3 was 2,5 km away from it, and forts No. 4 and 5 were even 1,5 km from the outskirts of the new city. Even if we consider only the eastern basin, where the Russian squadron was hiding, to be protected area, then it turns out that the land forts line was only 1 km away from the border in places (for example, forts No. 2-3). It is clear that such proximity of the fortifications to the city caused the bombing of the latter and the port from the very first shots, with ships, warehouses, hospitals suffering, and not only shells, but also gun bullets flying through the city streets. Such a narrowing of the contour, as we saw above, was caused solely by economic considerations and the desire to adjust the length of the contour in accordance with the manpower strictly allocated for Port Arthur.

      In short, there was no long-term defense at distant frontiers. And to stop the Japanese landing by two divisions in the field fortifications, and even with a practically inactive fleet ... what
  5. SergeySeverny
    SergeySeverny 16 September 2015 08: 08
    troubled business ...
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah 16 September 2015 13: 56
      The most muddy, in my opinion, on the other hand, is this:

      of them, more than half had scurvy.

      As in his youth, he read essays about this war, it described how merchants, industrialists and army supplies were stolen on it. As usual, the pursuit of profit destroys everyone. The result - the Russo-Japanese war became the forerunner of the revolution in Russia, which destroyed all who stole. Greed, money-grubbing, stupidity are the true traitors in any state. You can expand the list, but the thirst for profit simply must be the main sin, because it begets all the rest.
  6. akudr48
    akudr48 16 September 2015 08: 48
    Treason in Russia started not in 1917, but much earlier.

    You cannot argue with this, but it should be borne in mind that any state exists in a certain external international environment and is subject to pressure and geopolitical aspirations from other states, as a result of which there may be internal squabbles with the search for real or imaginary "scapegoats" in this or that failure , and the best way to find the culprit is to accuse of treason.

    But Imperial Russia was much more consistent in this matter than modern Russia, when it nevertheless found guilty for state failures.

    Now it’s not so, now it’s not only the matter that can be ruined and destroyed, such as, for example, destroying the whole state of the USSR, and then the entire economy and industry of Russia for the sake of seizing the personal wealth of the people.

    And then these grandmasters of betrayal and betrayal become national heroes, like Gaidar or safely move to the blessed West with their looted billion.

    And you say, Stessel ...
  7. bionik
    bionik 16 September 2015 08: 54
    In the Union, they said one thing, now another, some contradictions. Anyone interested can read "Port Arthur" Stepanov AN
  8. Djozz
    Djozz 16 September 2015 09: 39
    Auto RU. That's right: General Staff Colonel Romanovsky.
  9. AID.S
    AID.S 16 September 2015 09: 52
    Stessel was to blame, was not to blame, what difference did the Russian Empire not gain pride and glory in this unrighteous war for the colonies, but took the first step to her death. And Stessel took part in this not in the last roles. He had a Soviet counterpart, with a more unenviable fate, General Pavlov. He was also probably brave, worthy. Will we rehabilitate in the next article?
    1. Captain45
      Captain45 16 September 2015 17: 37
      Quote: AID.S
      Stessel was to blame, was not to blame, what's the difference

      Quote: AID.S
      He had a Soviet counterpart, with a more unenviable fate, General Pavlov. He was also probably brave, worthy. Will we rehabilitate in the next article?

      Well, we haven't reached Pavlov yet, but here "The case of Admiral A.V. Kolchak: the question of rehabilitation" the question is raised specifically. Soon both Krasnov and Vlasov will begin to justify request
  10. Old26
    Old26 16 September 2015 10: 09
    Article PLUS. The author raised a very interesting topic. In our heads, the fall of Port Arthur has always been associated with Stessel. And all thanks to the book of Stepanov, undoubtedly very well and talentedly written. But still - this is an artistic work. And to draw historical conclusions based on fiction ...
    I recall Valentin Pikul's answer to one of the critics that he distorts historical events in his novels, that everything was said to be “wrong”. He replied very briefly: "You are not studying the history of France from the novel by Dumas" The Three Musketeers. "Thanks again for the article
  11. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 16 September 2015 11: 35
    Yes Yes...
    it is strange that the author did not blame the Communists for the fall of Port Arthur ... but what? commies started a revolution! while the most honest, noble, worthy, etc. etc.
    I suspect that this is the same author with a clean, not clouded, and most importantly, a NEW view of events - who wrote here about the Great Naval Commander ZP Rozhdestvensky who "circumstances" did not allow to defeat the Mikado fleet ...
    The Russo-Japanese War entered our history as a shameful war that showed the complete degeneration of the ruling elite, all these brilliant generals and admirals with large eagles on shoulder straps with rare exceptions were distinguished by their rare mediocrity ...
    Stesel (like Fok and Kuropatkin, etc.) was a mediocrity and careerist, and the result of his work is quite logical ...
  12. andrew42
    andrew42 16 September 2015 11: 36
    The article claimed to be a sensation, but in fact it is something of an "alternative history" in the style of "What if that was so?" Stoessel's arrogant attitude to the naval (and the word "samotopy" was not invented by Stepanov) is well known. And what a clear interaction between the army and the navy was required to complicate the Japanese landing on Kwantung! Also, the figure of Stoessel is a ready-made, concentrated image of many of the leadership of the tsarist army: "We throw our caps over the Japs." Shortsightedness, complacency, lack of initiative, fear of displeasing the authorities with their own decisions and actions - these are Stoessel and company. And the fact that he surrendered / did not surrender the fortress - this question does not mean anything. It's too late to drink Borjomi. The main thing is what happened BEFORE THIS. What was / was not done to obstruct the landing of Nogi and the deployment of Japanese forces. And encouraging letters with scuffling of some tsarist senior officers in front of another disgraced (in front of Stoessel) - so it is ridiculous to cite them as evidence. Stoessel and his company "screwed up the whole thing", and much earlier than December 1904.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 September 2015 13: 35
      Quote: andrew42
      But how precise interaction of the army and navy was required to complicate the Japanese landing on Kwantung!

      The interaction of the army with the fleet ...
      Well, let's see - with whom the army could interact in April 1904.
      "Tsarevich", "Retvizan" and "Pobeda" are under repair until the end of May.
      "Petropavlovsk" is at the bottom.
      Remains "Sevastopol", "Poltava" and "Peresvet". 2 EBR and one EBR-KR. Against 6 EBR Togo. It's no wonder that:
      Instruction E.I. Alekseeva V.K. Witgeft prescribed a strictly defensive course of action that did not preclude active operations by cruisers and destroyers, but only with the guarantee of the safety of their return to Port Arthur.

      And how, under such conditions, would you order the army and navy to cooperate to complicate the landing - if the fleet’s ships could be released only if they were returned safely to the base?
      1. Russian Uzbek
        Russian Uzbek 16 September 2015 15: 28
        "" And how, under such conditions, would you order the army and the navy to cooperate to complicate the landing - if the exit of the ships of the fleet was possible only on condition of their safe return to the base? "" "
        that is, it is clear what idiocy and mess all these shining and dignity generals and admirals made ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 September 2015 18: 05
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          that is, it is clear what idiocy and mess all these shining and dignity generals and admirals made ...

          The fish rots from the head... To begin with, the Port Arthur base did not suit the fleet at all, and it was literally imposed on the fleet. Not the fleet chose the base, but the Foreign Ministry informed the fleet that the Pacific Fleet would be based on Port Arthur.

          Well, the surrender of Port Arthur is a consequence of the policy of petty economy of the Empire. This is incomprehensible to the mind - the main fleet base on a turbulent theater was left without normal defense from land. What, Sevastopol taught nothing? But no, we again step on the same rake and save on the main thing.
          And I'm not even talking about the projects of the fortifications themselves, simplified and lightened to the limit (protection - from a maximum of 6 "shells.) And about the rear basing of the fleet, when, instead of the usual docking, you have to make a caisson every time to repair the EBR. that the base is not protected either from the landing of an assault force (the fleet does not have time to commission the ships in time), or from the fire of an already disembarked assault force (due to the shallow depth of long-term defense).

          It’s the same as opening a bank branch in a troubled area ... and putting a cardboard door and a couple of retired security guards in the vault. And then report on the savings. smile
          1. Russian Uzbek
            Russian Uzbek 16 September 2015 18: 43
            "" "It was not the fleet that chose the base, but the Foreign Ministry told the fleet that the Pacific Fleet would be based at Port Arthur."
            and what was the choice?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 September 2015 11: 05
              Quote: Russian Uzbek
              and what was the choice?

              It was. In Gangut, there was a whole article about the proposals and actions of the fleet to ensure basing in the Far East, starting already from the 60s of the XIX century.

              The problem was that at first the Ministry of Foreign Affairs practically withdrew from negotiations on bases on the Far East, leaving them to the navy. And at the end of the XNUMXth century it got even worse: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself, without consulting the fleet, only based on the results of the report of the Russian vice consul, chose and issued the fleet a base - and at the same time did not even want to consider alternative proposals of the fleet. Dubasov stood behind Mozampo with a mountain - but he defeated the Foreign Ministry.

              From a political and military point of view, the base chosen was extremely unsuccessful. Actually, the lease by Russia of Port Arthur served as one of the reasons for the future war with Japan. You remember - to whom, according to the results of the Sino-Japanese war, Liaodong was supposed to depart and how he was literally wrested from the winner. Practically - Berlin Congress No. 2.
              1. Russian Uzbek
                Russian Uzbek 17 September 2015 11: 18
                in the Far East there were TWO (2) ports that could be used to park the fleet - Vladik and Arthur - EVERYTHING! while Vladik is a freezing port
                all the fuss on this and was conducted around Liaodong
                all the more so Mozampo is a port in Korea that did not belong to Russia and I doubt that England would allow such a thing ...
                even Arthur was captured by the British and only the decisive actions of Dubasov allowed to wipe them out of there
                I know the topic about Mozampo, but this is pure alt. history
                oh yes ... infrastructure! in Arthur there was a base of the Chinese fleet - docks, workshops, mooring piers and in Mozampo it was necessary to invest a certain number of millions and knowing the epic with the construction of the port of Dalniy, we can safely assume that in the case of Mozampo, the fleet would most likely end up during the war with the unfinished main base
      2. kotvov
        kotvov 16 September 2015 20: 15
        "Tsarevich", "Retvizan" and "Pobeda" - under repair until the end of May. ,,
        and who is to blame for the fact that they ended up there? for me it was necessary to judge the entire military elite, and Aleksev there too.
      3. The comment was deleted.