Near Port Arthur: falsifications in the defense of the fortress of the Russo-Japanese War

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On November 26, 1904, the Russian garrison of the Port Arthur fortress, which had been holding out for 10 months, repulsed the fourth - general - assault. The Japanese army was ground near Port Arthur (110 thousand dead). The defense of this fortress became a landmark event in the entire Russo-Japanese War. Many contemporaries compared it with the defense of Sevastopol in the Crimean War, and the heroes-defenders were put on a par with the Sevastopol residents. The importance of Port Arthur in Russian military history, and in general in the history of Russia, is very great. Books and films are devoted to this episode, and in general, the epic with the defense of Port Arthur became one of the central events in the Russo-Japanese War.

Alas, at present the Russo-Japanese War and the defense of Port Arthur are not well known to the population of Russia. The Russian Military Historical Society conducts consistent educational and educational work, organizing lectures within the framework of "Historical Saturdays", seminars and round tables to perpetuate the memory of the heroes of the Russo-Japanese War.

How did Port Arthur become a Russian fortress in the Far East? Why were the Japanese and their Western patrons haunted by the growing Russia in the region? How were the land and sea battles of the technologically new war conducted? And why can the defenders of Port Arthur be called real heroes of the Russo-Japanese War? The correspondent of the Istoriya. RF portal asked these questions to the military historian, candidate of historical sciences, head of the department of the Russian State Military Historical Archive Oleg Vyacheslavovich Chistyakov.

From "Zheltorossiya" to the rehearsal of the First World War

Oleg Vyacheslavovich, to begin with, I would like to ask you about the situation as a whole: why did the defense of Port Arthur begin?

- The siege of the city itself began on May 1. It is believed that the first assaults and battles begin with the close imposition of the fortress. It was required to protect it, mainly because Russia needed an ice-free port on the Pacific Ocean. Port Arthur itself was captured by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War, but later the great powers forced them to abandon this acquisition. So Port Arthur went to Russia. The Japanese, of course, did not accept this. They especially did not like the Russian project of penetration into China: as you know, we built the Sino-Eastern Railway, Russia received a concession for the construction of the southern branch of the Chinese Eastern Railway (later known as the South Manchzhur Railway), which was supposed to provide access to the Far Eastern Railway (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lushun). The Zheltorosiya project was actively discussed. All this became the main reason for the Russo-Japanese War. And one of its main goals, the Japanese saw the return of Port Arthur, even though in general it is not so convenient for a naval base. Now in the Pacific there are better options, but, nevertheless, China still has its base there.

Didn't our huge empire at that time have more suitable places for a naval base?

- Vladivostok is still an excellent base, but you see that the key factor at that time was precisely the ice-free port. The technology was still not so developed, and the ships needed a year-round ice-free port. That is why I drew attention to this feature of Port Arthur. There were other projects, but they chose Port Arthur, which was leased from China for 25 years with the possibility of extension.

Did the war start treacherously?

- It is true that the attack in the Korean port of Chemulpo on the cruiser Varyag and the gunboat Koreets happened before the declaration of war. Despite the well-known heroic battle, the forces were unequal, and our ships, after receiving critical damage, were flooded by the crews. At night, an attack on our ships took place on the outer roadstead of Port Arthur, 3 ships were damaged. And they learned about the war only in the morning.

Describe the beginning of hostilities. Why did they go so badly that the enemy was able to reach Port Arthur?

- First of all, it is the remoteness of the theater of military operations. Russia did not have a sufficient number of troops in the Far East, and one newly built Trans-Siberian Railway still could not provide sufficient throughput to accumulate reserves in a short time. Therefore, the Japanese, having landed in Korea, were able to launch an offensive into Manchuria, towards Port Arthur. At this time, their fleet, which saw the main danger in the Russian ships of the Port Arthur squadron, constantly tried to find ways to damage our ships or destroy them. When this was not done immediately, they chose the tactic of closing the exit from Port Arthur. Several times the enemy tried to sink his fire-ships in the fairway so that our fleet could not go to sea, but all these attempts were repelled. However, it was not possible to contain their land offensive. And by May the enemy approached the fortress of Port Arthur. Her siege began.

This was one of the first wars of the modern era, with battleships, machine guns and other novelties in military affairs?

- Yes, this is one of the first such wars. Before it was the local Sino-Japanese War, the Spanish-American and the Anglo-Boer. But all of them were not so large, and indeed, we can consider the Russo-Japanese War as a rehearsal for the First World War. New types of ships, torpedoes, sea mines were used … By the way, on our mines set by the Amur minelayer, the Japanese lost 2 battleships, Hatsuse and Yashima, which was a very sensitive loss for them. In Port Arthur, even a submarine was built by the forces of enthusiasts under the leadership of engineer Naletov. But they had to blow it up so that the enemy did not get it. Machine guns and their ersatz variants, invented by Captain Shmetillo, were used: 10 rifles were united by one design, and one soldier could fire from them. Captain Gobyato and naval officer Vlasyev, invented the prototype of the mortar, actively using it in defensive battles. Large-caliber artillery was widely used, which became the scourge of comfrey in the First World War, and the unexploded 210 mm., Our Japanese shells were sent back to them, already with Russian fuses.

Why were the actions of our field army so unsuccessful that in 10 months we were unable to unblock the heroic defenders of the fortress?

- Not all actions of the field army can be considered unsuccessful. This is due, first of all, to the fact that the army has not fought for a long time. In the era of Alexander III, who was called a "peacemaker", there were practically no major wars, there was no experience, the campaign in China can be ignored, since it took place in very easy conditions for the armed forces. But even despite this shortcoming, now we see that Japan would still lose this war. The decision to make peace was more of a political one, driven by the outbreak of the 1905 revolution. Kuropatkin (commander of the field army in the Russo-Japanese War), has already accumulated enough forces and reserves. And the Japanese, in turn, just went broke. The country was on the edge. But there is a revolution, the fall of Port Arthur, and therefore the war ended in such a peace.

Each Russian carried away four Japanese

A few words about sea battles. Was the Port Arthur squadron strong enough?

“Although it was inferior to the combined Japanese fleet, it did battle at sea, the famous battle in the Yellow Sea, in June. Moreover, in fact, the battle was not lost, the defeat was "technical": if not for the accidental death of Admiral Vitgeft, commander of our squadron, and the confusion that followed, the outcome could have been on our side. In general, there are a lot of annoying accidents in this war, and we were always unlucky. Remember the same case with Admiral Makarov, and many other points. Most of the ships simply returned to Port Arthur, some interned in neutral ports. Later, the Japanese were able to shoot ships in the roadstead with heavy guns, when they were able to adjust their fire …

Returning to the defense of the fortress: was it divided into several major stages, assaults?

- Right. There were three assaults, which were repulsed with heavy losses for the Japanese, and the fourth, final assault, after which the fortress was surrendered. Officially, according to the documents, the siege lasted from May 1 to December 23, according to the old style.

How did Russia prepare for defense? And let's touch on the topic of command from our side: was there really some confusion?

- The so-called Kwantung fortified area was created for defense. The area included the fortress itself, its pre-fortified suburbs and some nearby areas. It was headed by General A. M. Stoessel, formerly the commandant of Port Arthur. But he did not manage to leave the city, or did not want to, the exact reason is unclear … General K. N. has already been appointed Commandant of Port Arthur. Smirnov. Because of this, there was confusion. One could say there was a dual power, which was further aggravated by the fact that Stoessel simply ignored the direct orders of Commander Kuropatkin. Thus, in fact, the defense was led by Stoessel, enmity with Smirnov along the way. The defenders had at their disposal 2 infantry divisions, of 8 regiments. One was commanded by General Fock, the second by General Kondratenko, who later became the soul of the defense. In addition to them, there was a separate regiment, East Siberian riflemen, and smaller units - border guards, sappers, Cossacks and other units that had retreated to the fortress. In fact, R. I. Kondratenko headed the ground defense of the fortress, but, unfortunately, he was tragically killed, and also by accident, by a direct hit of a heavy shell in the dugout, where he was holding a meeting with other officers. After him, the defense was headed by A. V. Fock, but it was already the agony of the fortress.

What do you think, was it not in vain that contemporaries compared the defense of Port Arthur with the defense of Sevastopol?

- Of course, the fortress defended just as heroically, and for the same long time. The fleet also took part in the defense, crews of sailors were removed for battles on land. Many young officers who became famous in the future took part in the defense, the same A. V. Kolchak, for example, who fought on destroyers and on land. Again, it should be understood that the system was such that the fleet did not obey the ground command, and vice versa, which also greatly complicated the defense and interaction between these types of forces. Probably, it would be better to centralize the command, since these mistakes had to be atoned for with massive heroism, which our soldiers, sailors and their officers really showed. Indeed, the Japanese suffered huge losses in the assault. We can assume that every Russian soldier took with him at least 4 Japanese.

The most famous source about Port Arthur is falsified

It is believed that the Japanese lost about 110 thousand soldiers and officers just at the walls of Port Arthur?

- Yes, this is approximately the correct figure. Of course, the Japanese tend to underestimate their losses, and there are several controversial points for specialists. However, the fact remains that General Nogi, who commanded the siege of Port Arthur from the Japanese side, then committed suicide precisely because of the high losses. It was a Pyrrhic Victory. He asked the emperor for permission to make himself a sepukka, but Emperor Mutsuhito refused him, and only after the death of Emperor Nogi, with his wife (!), He committed suicide. Nogi described the siege of the fortress as follows: "… The only feeling," he wrote, "which I currently experience, is shame and suffering that I had to spend so many human lives, ammunition and time on an unfinished enterprise."

How did the Japanese manage to take Port Arthur - after all, we successfully repulsed the first three assaults?

“Of course, the siege has turned into a long and bloody undertaking for them. They slowly, step by step approached our fortifications, dug their trenches, suffering losses. The Russians used all the possibilities, both their new fortifications and the old Chinese ones. In fact, the first three assaults were three major battles won, with losses of 15-20 thousand enemy soldiers each. For comparison, during the field battle near Mukden, the Japanese also lost 25-28 thousand. Moreover, even the fourth assault did not lead to a complete collapse of the defense, the fortress surrendered on its own, since Stoessel considered that the possibilities for defense were exhausted, and in the military sense to defend its meaning was gone. Having occupied the heights, the Japanese were able to conduct accurate and deadly artillery fire. There were still provisions and ammunition, but scurvy was already raging in the garrison, there were no vegetables and vitamins, and there were big problems with bread. But the most important thing was the moment with the loss of the High Mountain, it was she who became the key to the surrender of the fortress. The enemy began to shoot ships in the port and hit all the targets they needed.

After that Stoessel decides to surrender the fortress?

- Not entirely single-handedly, after all, he is gathering a council of war after repelling the fourth assault, again with heavy losses for the Japanese. The council decides to surrender. There were also supporters of defense to the last opportunity, but the decision to surrender was supported by more senior officers. These people were ready to die with honor, but even in military terms, there was no point in this.

The well-known book of Stepanov paints a completely different picture for us, and in general Stessel was tried … Wasn't he such a picturesque anti-hero of the defense?

- No, you know, I wasn’t. Regarding Stoessel, we can say that he was elected a "scapegoat", and at first he was awarded, met as a hero, knew all over the country, and was tried later. He was made guilty. Interestingly, judging by the memoirs and documents, the soldiers loved him, which does not fit with his bookish image. Yes, he was an outspoken careerist, but he was no traitor or even a mean person there. I had the opportunity to study his biography in sufficient detail to say this.

In Soviet times, it was believed that he almost took money from the British …

- This is at the suggestion of the same Stepanov, whose biography is largely falsified. He had never been to Port Arthur, was not a boy there during the siege, and later never served there. It should be understood that the book was written at a certain time and under certain conditions, and it could not be otherwise. Everything that appears in the preface of his book is largely falsified, which, however, does not diminish his merits as the author of a fiction book, which can be found simply by checking the information along the way. Specialists have done a lot of work on this, there are already several articles analyzing Stepanov's biography, so you should not be guided by him. Thus, Stoessel became guilty, and Kondratenko was raised to the shield, because "the dead have no shame." Although I emphasize that all the officers of Port Arthur were decent and honest people, patriots of their country.

Captured - according to knightly rules

How was the surrender?

- After the decision to surrender is made, the civilized surrender of the fortress takes place. The Japanese allowed the officers to keep their weapons, the officers on parole not to fight with Japan were released home, Emperor Nicholas II allowed them to be given. Some of the officers went home, some went prisoner, not wanting to leave their soldiers. Moreover, the Japanese did not take the wounded prisoners, they let them all go home. Everything happened according to European, then to some extent, knightly rules.

If we touch on the general human losses in the war …

- The losses for Japan were, if not colossal, then very significant. Port Arthur is just one of the theaters, and there was also Manchuria with major battles. First of all, Mukden. The fact is that Japan was at war on debt. Her resources and finances were depleted, she urgently needed peace, otherwise she would have simply crumbled financially. No one then concealed that they fought with American and British money. But, unfortunately, the fall of Port Arthur, Tsushima takes place and the revolution begins. All these defeats in a political sense did not give us the opportunity to continue the war and demanded an urgent conclusion of peace. Tsushima could have been avoided, and we didn't want to, the squadron went to Vladivostok, but the Japanese imposed a battle on us, which ended so unhappily that it became the last straw in our bad luck in this war.

Returning to Port Arthur, I would like to point out that this was a truly genuine example of heroism. The mere fact that during the entire defense there were no voluntary surrenders with weapons testifies to this. Of course, this war played a big negative role in the fate of Russia, pushed for the revolution, and its significance for us is very great. We came to disappointment from the capricious moods. Russian society responded vividly, according to tradition, they collected a lot of charitable aid to the army, through the Red Cross society. Well, the opposition circles, from the very beginning, wished defeat for their own country. Someone even sent congratulations to the Japanese emperor on his victory. There were other bad examples … And it is interesting that V. I. Lenin was called precisely "The Fall of Port Arthur": he did not choose the whole war, but this example, believing that the "fall" of the entire state system in Russia began with him …