Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. MahanMahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
History
Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan
Mahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
Naval art and science; Naval strategy; Sea-power
From the military point of view the absurdity of the procedure is clear;
but for national safety it has to be equally clear to statesmen and to
people. An outside observer, with some little acquired knowledge of the
workings of men’s minds, needs small imagination to hear the arguments
at the Russian council board. “Things are looking squally in the East,”
says one; “the fleet ought to be increased.” “Increased,” says another,
“you may say so. All the ships we have ought to be sent, and together,
the instant they can be got ready.” “Oh but,” rejoins a third, “consider
how exposed our Baltic shores would be, in case war against us should be
declared by Great Britain, which already has an understanding with
Japan.” The obvious reply, that, in case Great Britain did declare war,
the only thing to be done with the Baltic fleet would be to snuggle it
close inside of the guns of Cronstadt, would probably be made; if it
was, it was not heeded. In a representative government would doubtless
have been heard the further remark, “The feeling in our coast towns, at
seeing no ship left for their protection, would be so strong, that I
doubt if the party could carry the next election.” Against this there is
no provision, except popular understanding; operative perhaps in the
interior, where there is no occasion for fright.
The most instructive feature of this Russian mistake, inexcusable in a
government not browbeaten by political turmoil, is that it was made in
time of peace, in the face of conditions threatening war. In fact, as is
often the case, when war came it was already too late to remedy
adequately the blunders or neglects of peace. More than twenty years ago
the present writer had occasion to quote emphatically the words of a
French author, “Naval Strategy”—naval strategic considerations—“is as
necessary in peace as in war.” In 1904, nearly a decade had elapsed
since Japan had been despoiled of much of her gains in her war with
China. Since then Russia had been pursuing a course of steady
aggression, in furtherance of her own aims, and contrary to what Japan
considered her “vital interests and national honor.” It is not necessary
to pronounce between the views of the two parties to see that the action
of Russia was militarily preposterous, unless her fleet grew in
proportion to that of Japan, and of her own purposes, and was kept in
hand; that is, kept concentrated. It would have mattered little whether,
being united, the outbreak of war found it in the Baltic, or in
Vladivostok. That it could come, as did Rozhestvensky, but in double his
force, would have been a fact no less emphatic when in the Baltic than
in the farther East.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account