At Mukden we fought with a shortage in establishment of 300,000 men; we began the war with inconsiderable forces; we conducted it under the most unfavourable conditions, and without the support of the country; we were, moreover, weakened by disturbances in the interior, and were connected with Russia only by a single-track weak line. In these impossible conditions we put 300,000 of the enemy _hors de combat_, and had 600,000 rifles ready at Hsi-ping-kai at a time when they were beginning to flag. If we attained such results, can it be said that our army accomplished but little? Is it fair to continue applying the epithet “Disgraceful” to the war? It cannot be denied that both the troops and their leaders did less in the time at their disposal than they might have done if properly supported by the country; but by the summer of 1905 conditions had begun to change in our favour. The conquered are always judged severely, and the leaders should naturally be the first to bear the responsibility for disaster to the troops under them. We can only be judged as acquitted because of our readiness to continue the struggle—a readiness which was created, and grew stronger in the army in spite of disaster. We believed in the possibility and certainty of victory, and if it had not been for the serious internal disturbances in Russia, we should have undoubtedly been able to prove the truth of our belief in battle. Even the inhabitants of Moscow, where, in all the difficult times the nation has passed through, a manly and determined voice has always been raised in support of the honour and dignity of Russia, showed that their spirits had on this occasion fallen. It was with amazement and sorrow that we read of a certain action of the Moscow Town Council on June 7, 1905. The news had immense effect on the army, and on hearing of it I sent the following letter[59] to Prince Trubetski, the President of the Moscow nobility: