The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far EastKuropatkin, A. N. (Alekseĭ Nikolaevich)
History
The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far East
Kuropatkin, A. N. (Alekseĭ Nikolaevich)
Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905
“While we must be prepared to defend our interests upon the Pacific
Ocean, in Afghanistan, Persia, and Turkey, and also to fight at
sea, we cannot afford either the men or the money to be at the same
time equal in power to our western neighbours. We have given to
Germany and Austria a decided advantage by directing our attention
to the Far East. This disturbance of the balance of power menaces
the integrity of the Empire, and I sincerely believe that it will
not be permitted to continue by the Tsar. As the War Department’s
first task, therefore, I propose to develop the efficiency of our
forces on the western frontier, and to formulate a definite plan of
operations for them.”
From our Ally’s point of view, also, it was only right to attend to
this at once, for our comparative weakness on this side would in case
of war allow the Powers of the Triple Alliance to contain us with quite
a small force on our frontier and to crush France by overwhelming
numbers.
14. Our land forces bore the brunt of the national struggles during
this period. After Peter the Great’s time the rôle of the Russian
fleet in all the wars in which we were engaged was insignificant. In
the last two great wars of the last century we particularly needed
the co-operation of the fleet, but our sailors at Sevastopol fought
on land, owing to our naval inefficiency. In the war of 1877–78 the
Turks had no fleet on the Black Sea. Russia is undoubtedly a land
Power; the small part played in the past by the fleet, therefore, was
not accidental, but natural. If we had spent large sums in this period
on our navy, we should only have made our position worse, for it was
only by immense expenditure on the army that we were able to win.
History has taught us that we should follow in our fathers’ footsteps,
and, considering the army as Russia’s right arm, spend upon it the
larger part of the sums allotted by the Ministry of Finance for general
military needs. But our active ventures in the Far East forced us into
naval expenditure, which was arranged for in the last years of last
century by starving the army finances. The result is alarming. On this
point I wrote in my report of 1900:
“If in the future the fleet is to be increased at the expense of
the army, and if the increase of our forces on the eastern frontier
is to be made at the expense of those stationed on the western,
then our already weak position in regard to Germany and Austria
will become still worse. With the growth of our navy will arise
questions of coaling stations and ports, and as our expenditure
on these as well as on our ships grows heavier, it will entail
retrenchment on our most important frontier—that in Europe. Once
our fleet had destroyed the Turkish sailing fleet at Sinope, it
became impotent, despite its high _moral_, for it then had to
contend against steam, against which it was powerless.”
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