Nicholas II and the Russo-Japanese War

[ysbel]

Certainly Nicholas did a lot of things wrong, though I think he is most similar to the last true King of France Louis XVI who inherited a land where the aristocracy were disenfranchised without the populace having the means or the social structures to govern themselves.

The Russian government was set up like the old French monarchial government to depend on the king or czar. There was no infrastructure underpinning the whole. When a country had a charismatic governor like Louis XIV, a small geographical area like France and pretty good economy and external political situation, then it could work but more often than not it didn't and even when Louis XIV made it work, he drove the country into debt so that his successors ending up paying for it. Louis XVI tried an assembly of the Estates Generales similar to the Duma but it ran away from him. The time of transition between the time the nobility loses its power and the common people gain their power and the infrastructure to support it is fraught with danger for the people and the state. The whole environment is insecure and can't easily be solved by a single policy.

In a nation the size of Russia, the problem was far worse than it ever was in France. The nation did not have a unifiying force. The czar tried to be but it was impossible to unite such disparate peoples.

For example, the Russians desperately needed the Port of Port Arthur on the Pacific to maintain its lands in the East; however the Russian Europeans had little interest for what happened in the East - it was too far away. Nicholas did see that danger correctly but he had little support, so they let it get away. The Russo-Japanese war was a failure but not because it was not worth fighting. It had no support in the European centric Russia.

 

[lexi4]

I don't think Nicholas was capable of uniting. That was part of the problem. There were certainly tsars before him that were capable of this, but he seemed to lack the flexibility it take to accomplish this. I don't think he knew how.

The Russo-Japanese war was a failure because Russia could not sustain it. The military was poorly equipped, there were logistical problems and then there was the incompetence of the High Command. Figes writes that this war could have been avoided had it not been for Alexander Bezobrazov whose main interest was protecting his lumber assets in Korea. He was one of several who convinced Nicholas to reject Japan's offer of a compromise which could have avoided war. The atmosphere in Russia during the war was plagued with racism against the Asians.

Nicholas saw the war as a way to increase patriotism and hoped that the Russian people would rally around their tsar. It was about political capital and Nicholas hoped it would strengthen/restore the bond between the tsar and his people. It might have worked, had Russia won.

 

[COUNTESS]

No one blames Nicholas as the big factor in revolution. Just one of the cogs. He did have chances to make changes and did not. The Russo-Japanese War was a failure because the Russians did not have the military and adminstrators to outwit and fight the Japanese. For some reason people would like to whitewash that period, probably, because, the Communists did so much damage during their time, that it is nostalgic to look back at the monarchy. Those who suffered under that monarchy are long gone and cannot, except in history, speak out for themselves. Louis XVI was also a poor leader. The lives of the French were, in that century, quite miserable. Small changes over periods of time would have changed the outcome, but both monarchs were true to their "destinies" as absolute rulers and brought their countries to revolution. France made out better in the long run.

 

[BorisRom]

I don't think Nicholas was capable of uniting. That was part of the problem. <...> Figes writes that this war could have been avoided had it not been for Alexander Bezobrazov whose main interest was protecting his lumber assets in Korea. He was one of several who convinced Nicholas to reject Japan's offer of a compromise which could have avoided war. <...> Nicholas hoped it would strengthen/restore the bond between the tsar and his people. It might have worked, had Russia won.

Lexi,
Do you read my post on forum C-H about the false myths and wrong stamps?
For example:
Nicholas II has not aspired to «small victorious war» against Japan.
1904, January. Russia on the Far East enters in a deep political conflict with Japan and the Great Britain.
Russia-Japan negotiations were conducted since August, 1903. Russia manoeuvred and gradually went on concessions that nevertheless did not suit Japan. On January, 13, 1904. Japan has presented the ultimatum to Russia. Japan has demanded an unqualified recognition the Japanese requirements and a recognition of the right of Japan and other powers in Manchuria.
On January, 16, 1904 the American envoy cabled to Washington, that Russian concede to Japan «in full, in all».
The imperial government has practically agreed with Japan’s ultimatum. On January, 20 the answer of Russia has been authorized by Nicholas II and sent by telegraph directly in Tokyo and to Port Arthur. On January, 22 the Japanese envoy in Petersburg has been put in popularity about this answer officially.
On January, 23, aspiring to outstrip the Russian answer, Komura (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan) has ordered: «to stop empty negotiations... » and to interrupt diplomatic relations with the imperial (Tsar's) government. The decision on the beginning of war against Russia was accepted in Japan at joint session of members of secret council and all ministers on January, 22 (on February, 4) 1904, and on the night of January, 23 (on February, 5) the order about landing in Korea and about attack against the Russian squadron in Port Arthur has been given. After this on January, 24 Japan has officially declared a severance of diplomatic relations with Russia.
(See Nicholas’s II Diary of 1904 too)
Nicholas remembered the predictions that a war with Japan can be heavy (predictions of Cheiro, monk Avel, Serafim Sarovsky, Dmitriy Oznobishin) and he did not want the war.

The expression «We need in small victorious war» belongs to Minister of Internal Affairs Pleve and it has been found by police in his personal diaries after his death (summer 1904). Nikolay never said these words. Nikolay and Alexandra have named Pleve «a unscrupulous policeman».
Even some leaders of bolsheviks (Trotsky) at first had recognized («through a teeth»), that the imperial government «in words used all efforts for prevention of war with Japan». Later in days of the USSR the Soviet historians have driven the false myth: «Nicholas II said - We need in small victorious war».

 

[BorisRom]

First of all "Bloody Sunday" was not the usual peace demonstration. It was organized by Father Gapon who was concerned about the conditions experienced by the working and lower classes. He drew up a petition to be presented to the Tsar, making clear the many problems and the opinions of the workers, who were not happy. This petition called for improved working conditions, fairer wages, and a reduction in the work day to 8 hours a day. It also, requested the end to the Russo-Japanese War and "universal sufferage". The previous December a large strike occurred at the Putilov plant. Sympathy strikes in other parts of St. Petersburg had 80,000 people involved. The demonstrators had hoped that the Tsar did care about them. They brought along their families. They were murdered. There were thousands of strike around the country and in many villages. They took place because of terrible conditions, not because they were happy.

Countess,
“Bloody Sunday” (January, 9 1905)
On January, 8, 1905 in Aleksandrovsky palace the meeting has taken place in connection with intention of Gapon to head a demonstration to the Winter palace. Two main problems were considered:
1. All last year and till last days Gapon was loyal to Tsar also polices. He was successor of Zubatov and headed loyal «the All-Russia working assembly». It was the most numerous in Russia the organization of workers. Representatives of socialist parties could not be accepted in this organization. There were no problems prior to the beginning of January, 1905.
However, on January, 3-5 the police has found out, that some socialists-revolutionaries have appeared in the nearest environment of Gapon. They were known polices as potential terrorists.
2. Nicholas II has received on January, 7 a copy of "Petition" (from Gapon) which they were going to hand over Nicholas II on January, 9 on the Palace square. This was very big petition and it contained absolutely unacceptable requirements also. All requirements were offered to be executed immediately. Obviously, it was influence of revolutionary( of Rutenberg). Gapon has got under their influence unexpectedly for police.
Under these conditions Nicholas II could not accept Gapon in the Winter palace and meet people (with demonstrators) on the Palace square. Later (during the stay in Europe) Gapon has answered the question that would be if Nicholas II has left to people on the Palace square. Gapon has told: «Rutenberg and his friends would kill tsar instantly». Gapon himself in the beginning of January, 1905 wanted to become «a minister from people» in the government of Nicholas II. He was "man of dream" which were used by revolutionaries in the purposes. He was not «a double agent». Now some historians consider, that on January, 9 the first shots have been made of crowd by revolutionaries provokers.
At meeting on January, 8 (in Alexander palace) the decision was accepted, that Nicholas II should not leave Alexander palace on January, 9. He had no other variant of the decision. However, certainly, he bears the responsibility for tragedy of Bloody Sunday as the authoritarian ruler of Russia.
According to official statistics on January, 9 there has been killed 76 person, wounded - 233. More likely, victims was more as their relatives have soon buried some killed, and separate wounded men, being afraid of reprisals, did not address for medical aid. Revolutionaries have taken advantage of a situation and have distributed hearsays, that actually was lost and is wounded about five thousand person...
The term «Bloody Sunday» was entered by English journalist Dilan.
All victims have been buried due to the state, widows have received pensions.
Certainly, Nicholas and Alexandra experienced this tragedy very much. I remind, that in March, 1905 Nicholas II tried to abdicate .

 

[BorisRom]

The lacks (and own mistakes) of Nicholas as the ruler of Russia.

The lacks (and own mistakes) of Nicholas as the ruler of Russia.
1. Self-isolation (moral and political alienation) of Imperial family from all other members of the House of Romanovs. It has begun with 1901-1903 and it amplified then. It had both objective (external), and the subjective (inside) reasons, however, - in any case - a ruler of any country has not the right to self-isolation and alienation from the nearest environment.
2. Rigid anti-Semitism of Nicholas II. It is inadmissible for any leader of any country (let alone awful moral aspect). It has brought huge harm of Russia.
3. Nicholas could not speak unpleasant things "face to face" to any interlocutor. He was always kind. Any minister could learn about the resignation in some hours after a kind conversation with him. It pushed away many clever and strong people from him and this quality created to him "glory" of the weak and artful intriguer.
4. Nicholas was not enough persevering in finishing some (his) important orders up to the end. For example, since autumn of 1916 till February, 1917 he three times (!) gave the order "to unload" Petrograd from 200 thousand unreliable soldiers of military parts. This order has not been executed. I think, just «the Military branch» ofMasonic plot sabotaged this order, but Nicholas has been obliged to achieve the finish of this order.
5. Nicholas has not restored Patriarchate (an independence of Church of the State) in 1905 when ROC asked him about it. By 1917 the ROC has been spoiled by two hundred year's dependence on the state.
6. Nicholas did not expect plot of generals. He too much trusted them. He should forbid a freemasonry in 1911. He has not made it. He should be especially vigilant against internal plots in 1916-1917. He was too trustful.
In 1917 Nicholas has lost authority not only for these reasons, but these six reasons had the basis in HIS OWN (personal) LACKS.
Several largest monarchy of the Europe have collapsed in 1917-1919. It was an objective course of history. I think, there are no reasons to support false myths about Nicholas (« weak, bloody» and etc) and to deny achievements of Russia of 1894-1917, made under HIS management.

 

[BorisRom]

I often read here and at other forums: «Nicholas was a weak ruler, - for example, - he could not suppress disorders in Petrograd in February 1917». However, when I remind opponents, that Nicholas has ordered to direct to Petrograd 40 thousand reliable soldiers for suppression of disorders, I read sometimes: «Oh! Bloody tyrant! He wished to drown Petrograd in blood! ». Or: «He has too trusted the Generals who have betraid him and who have stopped 40 thousand soldier on approaches to Petrograd» …
So, in opinion of the western democrats (and in your opinion, Lexi and Countess) Nicholas should be suspicious, bloody and ruthless - as Peter "the Great"?
Nicholas himself initiated elements of democracy in 1904 («publicity, reorganization, /"glasnost, perestroika!"/ and zemskaya assembly ») and only the disorders and terror of revolutionaries of the beginning of 1905 have stopped this process - and you accuse Nicholas of tyranny?! He has continued process of democratization of the country since October, 1905 - and you demand, that he has carried out FULL reforms from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy within short 12 years, during WAR, during WWI?!
One (unique) time an emperor in Russia became the kind and clever person (and a strong person!), a humanist - and you till now water him up and down with dirt! I do not cease to be surprised to logic of the western democrats!

 

[lexi4]

Lexi, Do you read my post on forum C-H about the false myths and wrong stamps?

Yes Boris, I read it. And as I have stated, I don't agree with it.

 

[lexi4]

No one blames Nicholas as the big factor in revolution. Just one of the cogs. He did have chances to make changes and did not. The Russo-Japanese War was a failure because the Russians did not have the military and adminstrators to outwit and fight the Japanese. For some reason people would like to whitewash that period, probably, because, the Communists did so much damage during their time, that it is nostalgic to look back at the monarchy. Those who suffered under that monarchy are long gone and cannot, except in history, speak out for themselves. Louis XVI was also a poor leader. The lives of the French were, in that century, quite miserable. Small changes over periods of time would have changed the outcome, but both monarchs were true to their "destinies" as absolute rulers and brought their countries to revolution. France made out better in the long run.

Agreed. It was the belief that they were entitled to rule that brought them down in the end. There is no room for compromise when one believes that all he/she does is the absolute will of God.

 

[BorisRom]

<...> The Russo-Japanese war was a failure because Russia could not sustain it. The military was poorly equipped, there were logistical problems and then there was the incompetence of the High Command...

Lexi,
In the summer of 1905 on road to the USA the prime-minister Vitte complained (in Berlin), that Nicholas demands from him impossible: in what to not concede to Japan and to conclude with them the honourable peace treaty, and that Nicholas refers to sacred Serafim Sarovsky's prophecy that «war with Japan will be heavy, but the peace treaty will be honourable for Russia».
Nicholas was right: he understood also, that Japan to spring of 1905 has very destruction of the economic and military resources, - and Russia could be at war as early as a year or two. The prophecy and the deep analysis have provided Russia the honourable peace. All world (and Vitte himself) have been very surprised, when Japan has agreed on the peace treaty on Nicholas's conditions.
By the way, military losses of Russian army in war against Japan were twice less than military losses of Japan. Inflation and taxes in Russia have increased during war, but this increase was in some times less, than in Japan! It is the fact.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think Nicholas was capable of uniting. That was part of the problem.

I'll take you one step further; I don't think ANYONE would have been capable of uniting the vast Russian Empire at the time of Nicholas. Even now the sattelite states are spinning off from the great vast land that Nicholas oversaw.

I'm afraid that I fall into the opinion that like COUNTESS romaticising the Romanovs and overstating their accomplishments is a distorting of history but I also think that distorting Nicholas' weaknesses and wistfully thinking, If only Nicholas had been a strong ruler, then everything would have been alright and Russia would have become a democracy is also a bit of fanciful daydreaming.

The truth as always lies in the middle. There were a lot of forces at work to bring down the Russian Empire and I would wager that the structural problems of one ruler ruling such a vast and diverse country was the main one no matter how capable or incapable that one ruler was. Could Nicholas have evolved Russia into a democracy? He, probably like Gorbachev, could have started the ball rolling but even Gorbachev's reforms ran away from him and he couldn't control them anymore. And you notice the natural evolution of Gorbachev's reforms was the natural devolution of the Russian state into several smaller and more manageable states. Now as a politician and a ruler, Gorbachev was very capable and he had the vast Russian bureacracy behind him but if Gorbachev with all this infrastructure in the Russian government couldn't keep a lid on all the Soviet sattelites that were once part of Russia proper, it would have been impossible for Nicholas to do so when the government exists with just the czar and some ministers. There was no infrastructure to the government in Nicholas' time and that would have been a problem for a democracy even more than it was a problem for the autocracy. Building an infrastructure to democratically rule a nation that vast is not a no-brainer and it is fraught with chances for failure.

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't know where you get your figures, but the Japanese lost about 47,000 in battle and adittional amount to disease, so their total is approximately 80,000. The Russians lost approximately 130,000. Probably more. Russia lost 2 of its 3 fleets. Only its Black Sea Fleet remained. The 1905 Revolution rocked the Imperial Government. President Theodore Roosevelt offered to mediate the peace. Witte represented the Russian delegation. He said and I quote "When a sewer has to be cleaned, they send for Witte". Russia recognized Japan's influence on Korea and agreed to evacuate Manchuria. Russia also signed over its 25 year leasehold rights to Port Arthur, including the Naval Base and the penninsula. Russia also ceded the southern part of the Sakhalin Island to Japan. The war was disastrous and disastrously managed, and created support for the revolutionaries at home. Russian esteem throuout the world was diminished. And, yes, Ysbel, the truth does lie in the middle. But the monarchy exposed themselves and thus their countrymen to the vagaries of war, unnecessarily. It started the descent to revolution and the horrors that brought.

 

[BorisRom]

Ysbel,
You are right once again … Just now I wished to compare Nicholas and Gorbachev too. You have outstripped me
Boris

 

[BorisRom]

I don't know where you get your figures, but the Japanese lost about 47,000 in battle and adittional amount to disease, so their total is approximately 80,000. The Russians lost approximately 130,000. Probably more. Russia lost 2 of its 3 fleets. Only its Black Sea Fleet remained. The 1905 Revolution rocked the Imperial Government. President Theodore Roosevelt offered to mediate the peace. Witte represented the Russian delegation. He said and I quote "When a sewer has to be cleaned, they send for Witte". Russia recognized Japan's influence on Korea and agreed to evacuate Manchuria. Russia also signed over its 25 year leasehold rights to Port Arthur, including the Naval Base and the penninsula. Russia also ceded the southern part of the Sakhalin Island to Japan. The war was disastrous and disastrously managed, and created support for the revolutionaries at home. Russian esteem throuout the world was diminished. And, yes, Ysbel, the truth does lie in the middle. But the monarchy exposed themselves and thus their countrymen to the vagaries of war, unnecessarily. It started the descent to revolution and the horrors that brought.

Countess,
They are data from Russian Wikipedia (that Japanese lost:/:Russian lost were 2:/:1). However, in English Wikipediathe military losses of Japan more than military losses of Russia too (and - 130 thousand are full losses of both countries):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
It is known also, that the "Portsmouthpeace" has been apprehended in Japan as national tragedy. Thousand indignant Japanese have crushed the center of Tokyo. People of Japan has counted the Portsmouthpeace as national humiliation.
However, the top-management of Japan understood, that continuation of war threatens with full collapse for Japan.

 

[ysbel]

It started the descent to revolution and the horrors that brought.

I think the descent started before that. A central problem of Russia was that its infrastructure and political institutions were backwards compared to the rest of Europe. Peter the Great realized it and tried by force to bring Russia into the 17th century with the rest of Europe. He succeeded in places and he didn't succeed in places. Alexander II's reforms were half thought out and he didn't realize the consequences of some of his reforms, some of which were violent, Alexander III tried to put a lid on revolution and during his reign, outrage at the conditions in Russia was felt in other parts of the world, then Nicholas tried to fill his fathers shoes and put a lid on things which didn't work for two reasons: he had not his father's temperament and 2) the pressure cooker in Russia was getting too combustible for a single autocrat to handle.

If Nicholas was going to be czar of all the Russias, he needed a Pacific port. The West did not want an Eastern power to gain supremacy in that area so there were a lot of vested interests in maintaining a Russian presence there, but as you say the Russians didn't have the infrastructure to carry out the war and it was unsupported at home. To say Nicholas was foolish for starting the Russo-Japanese war is a little bit off the mark. Other Western powers really wanted Russia to win because they were getting nervous about Japan. Everyone underestimated the Japanese however.

 

[BorisRom]

Yes, it was «the Greater policy» and «Greater game in Asia» in 1890-1905. Germany wished to develop aspirations of Russia from the West to the East; the Great Britain did not want a strengthening of Russia in the Far East and has helped Japan. The USA did not want excessive strengthening of Japan …
Whether you know, that in 1904-1905 Japan has allocated huge money for undermining of stability of Russia from within (inside Russia) and for Russian revolution? It was equivalent to one million dollars! (it is possible, more than 5-10 billion dollars at a modern dollars rate). This money went to Russian revolutionaries for the edition of newspapers, for purchase of the weapon, for financing the organization of strikes (first of all at military factories). It seems, it was a first case in history - when a revolution was financed from abroad!

 

[lexi4]

I'll take you one step further; I don't think ANYONE would have been capable of uniting the vast Russian Empire at the time of Nicholas. Even now the sattelite states are spinning off from the great vast land that Nicholas oversaw.

I'm afraid that I fall into the opinion that like COUNTESS romaticising the Romanovs and overstating their accomplishments is a distorting of history but I also think that distorting Nicholas' weaknesses and wistfully thinking, If only Nicholas had been a strong ruler, then everything would have been alright and Russia would have become a democracy is also a bit of fanciful daydreaming.

The truth as always lies in the middle. There were a lot of forces at work to bring down the Russian Empire and I would wager that the structural problems of one ruler ruling such a vast and diverse country was the main one no matter how capable or incapable that one ruler was. Could Nicholas have evolved Russia into a democracy? He, probably like Gorbachev, could have started the ball rolling but even Gorbachev's reforms ran away from him and he couldn't control them anymore. And you notice the natural evolution of Gorbachev's reforms was the natural devolution of the Russian state into several smaller and more manageable states. Now as a politician and a ruler, Gorbachev was very capable and he had the vast Russian bureacracy behind him but if Gorbachev with all this infrastructure in the Russian government couldn't keep a lid on all the Soviet sattelites that were once part of Russia proper, it would have been impossible for Nicholas to do so when the government exists with just the czar and some ministers. There was no infrastructure to the government in Nicholas' time and that would have been a problem for a democracy even more than it was a problem for the autocracy. Building an infrastructure to democratically rule a nation that vast is not a no-brainer and it is fraught with chances for failure.

Maybe no one else could have either Ysbel, but we are talking about Nicholas. Perhaps we could explore the role of other tsars on another thread?
And at NO TIME have I ever said that I thought everything would have been glorious or even ok for Russia had Nicolas been a better ruler. As Countess said, no one blames Nicholas, he was a cog in the wheel. Nor have I ever said that I thought Russia would have/ should have developed into a democracy. I have talked about it becoming more of a Constitution monarchy. But no one who has studied Russian history expected Russia to become a democracy in the early 1900s. I'm not sure it is even expected today.
I must be missing something, I am not sure why we are talking about Gorby. I thought this was a discussion of Nicholas.

 

[lexi4]

I don't know where you get your figures, but the Japanese lost about 47,000 in battle and adittional amount to disease, so their total is approximately 80,000. The Russians lost approximately 130,000. Probably more. Russia lost 2 of its 3 fleets. Only its Black Sea Fleet remained. The 1905 Revolution rocked the Imperial Government. President Theodore Roosevelt offered to mediate the peace. Witte represented the Russian delegation. He said and I quote "When a sewer has to be cleaned, they send for Witte". Russia recognized Japan's influence on Korea and agreed to evacuate Manchuria. Russia also signed over its 25 year leasehold rights to Port Arthur, including the Naval Base and the penninsula. Russia also ceded the southern part of the Sakhalin Island to Japan. The war was disastrous and disastrously managed, and created support for the revolutionaries at home. Russian esteem throuout the world was diminished. And, yes, Ysbel, the truth does lie in the middle. But the monarchy exposed themselves and thus their countrymen to the vagaries of war, unnecessarily. It started the descent to revolution and the horrors that brought.

It amazes me that anyone could argue with this. Those numbers are easily verified as is the territory etc. Russia had to give up.

 

[BorisRom]

It amazes me that anyone could argue with this. Those numbers are easily verified as is the territory etc. Russia had to give up.

Lexi,
Please, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War (Citations):

1. “Casualties (Citation): Sources do not agree on a precise number of deaths from the war because of lack of body counts for confirmation. The number of Japanese dead in combat is put at around 47,000 with around 80,000 if disease is included. Estimates of Russian dead range from around 40,000 to around 70,000. The total number of dead is generally stated at around 130,000.[8]”.
My comment: so,Countess was mistaken. Losses of Japan were more than losses of Russia.

2. “Assessment of war results (Citation): Although the war had ended in a victory for Japan, there was a noteworthy gap between Japanese public opinion and the very restrained peace terms which negotiated at the war's end.[9] Widespread discontent spread through the populace upon the announcement of the treaty terms. Riots erupted in major cities in Japan. Two specific demands, expected from such a costly victory, were especially lacking: territorial gains and monetary reparations to Japan. The peace accord led to feelings of distrust, as the Japanese had intended to retain all of Sakhalin Island, but they were forced to settle for half of it after being pressured by the U.S.[citation needed] Russia's defeat had been met with shock both in the West and across the Far East, that an Asian country could defeat an established European power in a large military conflict. Japanese historians consider this war to be a turning point for Japan, and a key to understanding the reasons why Japan may have failed militarily and politically later on. The acrimony was felt at every stratum of Japanese society and it became the consensus within Japan that their nation had been treated as the defeated power during the peace conference”.
My comment: so, You and Countess insufficiently objectively estimate the results of war and the attitude of Japanese to these results.
Let me to repeat also, that Russian revolution of 1905 was powerfully financed by Japan. Revolution would have much smaller scope and revolution would be suppressed much more quickly without the Japanese financing.
Regards
Boris
P.S. Of course, I do not challenge that fact, that Russia has lost for this war. Nicholas has been compelled to stop war because of internal disorders and mass discontent in the country. However, the Portsmouth peace treaty was good enough for Russia and was not enough good for Japan.

 

[lexi4]

Boris,
The problem with Wikipedia is that it is well...just that Wikipedia. Anyone can right and article and there isn't any kind of peer review or anything else to assure the accuracy of the information. Had I used anything from Wikipedia during my Masters work, I would have been given an automatic F. While the numbers may be in dispute, the fact are not. The war with Japan cost Russia dearly. General Dragomiov said: "The Japanese are beating us with machine guns, but never mind, we'll beat them with icons."

Consider this. The Baltic Fleet was dispatched on a seven-month trip to relieve Port Arthur. The only shots the squadron fired hit English trawlers which the command had mistaken for Japanese. Because of this incident alone, Russia was forced to pay 65,000 pounds. In the end, Russia lost Port Arthur and recognized Korea as part of the Japanese arena. Those were to serious blows to Russia.

 

[BorisRom]

Boris,
The problem with Wikipedia is that it is well...just that Wikipedia. Anyone can right and article and there isn't any kind of peer review or anything else to assure the accuracy of the information. Had I used anything from Wikipedia during my Masters work, I would have been given an automatic F. While the numbers may be in dispute, the fact are not. The war with Japan cost Russia dearly. <...>

Lexi,
Of course, I read many sources (tens). Data of English Wikipedia are the most negative for Russia. Other sources give the attitude of losses of Russia to losses of Japan as 1:2. I have not found any source where losses of Russia would be more than losses of Japan.
Really do you think, that I read only one English Wikipedia?

 

[BorisRom]

Boris

Lexi and Countess,
Why you do not wish to believe (to recognize), that military losses of the won Japan were twice more than military losses of the lost Russia?
I shall remind you, that in WWII the military losses of the won USSR were seven times more, than military losses of the lost Germany! By the way, in WWI the losses of Russia and Germany were approximately equal - to a question on quality of Nicholas's military management …

 

[Benedict XVI]

Nicholas I think was first of all to give the people more support for the monarchy and to gain glory for his name.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

This video summarizes how Tsar Nicholas II contributed to the 1905 Revolution.