Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Port Arthur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this belong in this Article?

[edit]

I (re) wrote the ending of this page, esp. because the Russians in the person of the Tzar were decidedly reluctant to approach the peace table, and the previous ending, stating they had sued for peace thus gives an erroneous impression. (Blame Edmund Morris, not me!)

The following should obviously be included in the Russo-Japanese War ending, but it's late, I'm not sure either way, so I'm saving it here for comment (while it's in the cut buffer). Does it belong here as well? It needs some polish, but makes sense (I hope <g>):

The capture of Port Arthur, and the Japanese naval victory in the Battle of Tsushima five months later, did not convince the war-weary Russian government (Tzar Nickolaus II) to sue for peace but only a diplomatic tour de force by US President Theodore Roosevelt initiated after a secret request by the war weary Japanese government got the Russians to the Peace Table. The United States mediated and under the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth, New Hampshire in September 1905, the Russo-Japanese War came to an end which established Japan as the dominant power in Asia. President Roosevelt was awarded the Noble Prize for Peace for his offices as intermediary and mediator. In the face of Russian willingness to continue the conflict, Roosevelt got the Japanese to concede terms unwillingly (esp. reparations), and these generated riots in Japan as they were percieved as a loss of face, and these same perceptions (i.e. That America and other western powers had treated Japan as the 'defeated party' of the Russo-Japanese war) subsequently became part of the Japanese rationale for the infamous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, as they explicitly stated in the famously 'late delivered' comunication declaring war -- after the sneak attack began.

References

[edit]

Thanks Fabartus 07:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, someone placed a "citation needed" tag at the end of the introduction. First, it's been sitting there for two years, so it obviously isn't going to get acted upon. Second, I don't see the need for detailed citations in an introductory paragraph; either the article as a whole, with its internal citations, supports the introductory material, or the introduction should be rewritten. Citations at the introductory level aren't especially useful or interesting. Third, the whole structure of this article shows that it is basicially a rewrite or condensation of a fairly small number of book-length treatments. As such, those wishing further information need simply consult those larger works. Specific line-by-line citation, in such cases, is mere pedantry.

Accordingly, I've removed the tag. Poihths (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The first thing I would worry about is finding a second source. I assume Theodore Rex is a biography of Rooselvelt not a history of the Russo-Japanese war, so Morris is going to approach the subject from a Rooselvelt-a-centric view. What does a history of the war say on the subject? I guess the second question is how much of the discussion is needed here. For example, the fact that President Roosevelt was awarded the Noble Prize, and the long term effect on Japan and the start of WWII may not be needed here. Having said that, if the version above is more accurate than what was there before (and at least it has a citation) the change is a good idea. Andreww 09:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not quite an rebuttal It's been my experience (after a lifetime of reading history) that you get a far greater detail and feel for the actual decision factors in history from the painstaking detailed research a biographer performs than you do from a contemporary writer of history, composing so soon after the fact that not all information is available, or declassified. Mr. Morris won the Pultzer Prize for his first book on TR, and the second's research (nearly 25 years later) is to the same high standard. Having access to now declassified source materials s.a. Brittish Diplomatic records documenting TR's requests through the Brittish (diplomatic back channels) give his account information that no other historical writer has yet had a crack at, or compiled together. The Brits generally classify things for a minimum of 75 years. In the main, however, there is little disagreement as the treaty of Portsmouth is a well documented fact; what's significantly 'new' is that TR was looking to mediate early on, that he put out feelers to both sides, the give and take, and especially the view from the back room that is available only after the principles have died. Of their 'reads' of the diplomatic activity and of the opposing diplomats themselves... Morris spent two chapters building the case for the synopsis I presented here. I have no pretensions that it is perfect in any way, save one - Nicholas II was reluctant as hell to come to the peace table and his intransingence in part resulted eventually in our entry into WW-II.

As to other sources, I'll have no less than seven books ordered in by the weekend, not counting the half dozen encyclopedias and four general histories of Japan and Russia I surveyed this evening on the Russo-Japanese war. These verify hard facts, but are too abbreviated and too general to address the diplomatic backchannels. A biography isn't, even the one's I've read where the biographer was clearly no friend of his subject. I will add a bio of Nicholas II to my list, as you've just made me curious, but Morris's case is iron clad and explains more 'better' than contemporary explainations ever did.

wrt -"I guess the second question is how much of the discussion is needed here." That's the answer as to why I put it here first. Unfortunately, I answered the question for myself overnight as I added a similar but more expanded version to the Battle of Port Arthur article this (well, yesterday) afternoon... which is how I got to the library. The answer I came up with is that connections like this are the exciting secrets of history that are a delight to discover. Is the link to the attack on Pearl Harbor significant in studying these old battles in their own day? Not! Is it of intermediary historical importance -- certainly, ask anyone that died at Pearl Harbor! Is Pearl important to our place in history today? Sitting out WW-II would mean we live in an alternate universe, so the answer must be yes. History is a concantative assembledge wherein individual events interact and interrelate in complex and marvelous ways, are sometimes tragic, frequently taudry, or contemptable (Morris's discussion of Kaiser Wilhelm's machinations makes me grin when using that word!), or underhanded, or noble, but always in contrast to, and along side of other significant events. The great thing to me about wikipedia is that is not shackled by the economic restrictions of a printed work. It can be thourough and complete without significant adverse costs. In a decade, it will be an authoratative source of general knowledge, and by providing such glimpses of the magic interconnections inherent to history we can stimulate thousands -- and brighten their day doing it. Thus, a good section covering the historical implications of such matters are an ideal we should strive for across the board. Something should be put there to satisfy that goal, and my piece is a good start on that at least. Tonight I learned that Japan had also taken over the Russian's Lease of Terratories in Manchuria as part of the settlement. That and a few other things need added in a judicious manner Fabartus 06:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The Tide at Sunrise" is a lengthy (628 pages) history of the Russo-Japanese War. It is expensive ($125.00 at Amazon) but you can still find it in libraries.

Well No More Comments

[edit]
  • Since the above didn't generate any futher discussion, I'm posting in the Arty. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Copyvio? (August 2006)

[edit]

After the major rewrite in August 2006 much of the article seems to be copied from battlefieldanomalies.com. I have blanked the latest version and restored the version from 25 July 2006. -- Petri Krohn 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on a rewrite and submit in 2-3 days. However, arbitrarily blanking of an article without any prior discussion was a pretty abrupt step.220.104.154.59
I have restored the content based on last non-copyrighted version. -- Petri Krohn 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Warfare

[edit]

While the article seems to be dealing mostly with land operations, it does go into naval business when applicable. I think it would be well along the lines if we include a section dealing with sinking of japanese battleships "Hatsuse" and "Yashima" near Port-Arthur - especially considering that they were the only japanese battleships sunk by the russians in that war. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison gas

[edit]

I removed sentences concerning poison gas. I checked some evaluated books about Siege of Port Arthur or Japanese chemical warfare, but can't find any mentions. Please put back the sentences with appropriate sources.--Amagase 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of the shells thrown by the 11-inch howitzers

[edit]

I noticed some minor inconsistencies in the article shown by these three quotations:

"11-inch howitzers with 500-kilogram armor-piercing shells"

"the arrival of the first battery of huge Krupp 11-inch siege howitzers, replacing those lost on the Hitachi-Maru disaster. The massive Krupp howitzers could throw a 227 kilogram shell over 9 kilometers"

"Over 1000 of the 500-lb shells from the 11-inch Krupp howitzers were fired in a single day to support this attack."

I know nothing about artillery, but I'm betting someone who is reading this does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson44691 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some inaccurate descriptions in the sentences. These howitzers were not German-made, but Italian and its copies made in Japan. There were no howitzers lost in the sinking of Hitachi-maru. I can't find any appropriate sources about the weight by now. --Amagase (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Foch (beside being "incompetent"..) ? Shouldn't be "Fock" ?

[edit]

The article mentions several times a "Foch" but doesn't give any idea of who he was, except he was "incompetent". This may need a little more details and argumentation, maybe ?

He definitely is not the same person as Ferdinand Foch.

A quick search on Google would lead to conclude that it should have been Fock, not Foch. See for example some archives from the New York Times, this article, and a seemingly serious book on the subject

So it's probably an error; this error appears in a few pages (Roman Kondratenko, Battle of Nanshan, Anatoly Stessel) , all related to the same events, so probably from the same source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Result in Infobox

[edit]

I would like to propose that we change the Result from "Japanese Pyrrhic Victory" to "Japanese Victory" or something similar. By definition, a pyrrhic victory is one where the victor suffers losses so devastating in the achievement of victory that the result proves not worth the cost. I think it would be hard to argue such was the case at Port Arthur for the Japanese. Thoughts? Jrt989 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Pyrrhic" keeps being added to several battles of the Russo-Japanese War by an anon user, despite repeated warnings to desist by numerous editors. At best use of the word is POV, and it should be removed. --MChew (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first amoung eqauls

[edit]

How many of the firsts were barbed wire and bolt-action magazine rifles were used in the boar war. Maxim guns were also not introduced in this war, although this was the first was they were used in large numbers. Trenchwarfare is as old as the ACW. I rthink we really need sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kia

[edit]

Are the death totals right? Um, seems kind of high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.90.156 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obice 280K

[edit]

The Landships website is not a reliable source. What's most funny about it is that it says the Obice 280K is not designed by Krupp. If you know anything about 19th century Italian designations, you'd see how lame this is. Krupp made some "un-German" (in Landships terminology) breeches, including the ones on the 400/35 guns (also sold to Italy) and the Gamma Gërat.

From The Royal Engineers Journal, Volume 43, p. 718:


-- Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

Parts of this article seem to be based on the historical novel Saka no Ue no Kumo, or perhaps its TV adaption. Japanese Wikipedia has a large section in the Saka no Ue no Kumo article which says that its account of 203-Meter Hill and Kodama's relief of Nogi is entirely fictional and has no historical basis whatsoever. However, other parts of the article seem to be drawn from real historical sources and I am not sure what to do. I request anyone interested in this topic to review more reliable sources and edit or blank the article as needed. Shii (tock) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded and added footnotes. Per numerous sources, Kodama had been given written orders by Oyama to relieve Nogi of his command if required, but this proved unnecessary, as Nogi was amenable to accepting "advice" and agreed to follow Kodama's directive to concentrate his attack on 203-Meter Hill. However, (per Warner, Connaught and others) during the seesaw final assault on 203-Meter Hill, Kodama decided that he needed to take a more pro-active role and (with Nogi's acquiescence), began to issue orders directly to the front-line commanders. However, he never formally relieved Nogi of his command. --MChew (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clearing this up. Shii (tock) 02:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious inconsistency

[edit]

The Lüshunkou District article says that the Liaodong Peninsula was ceded to the Japanese under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, given back under pressure during the Triple Intervention, then a lease to Russia was "coerced". This version says that the lease was three days after the treaty was signed. This being history, I wouldn't be surprised if both were right, but somebody ought to figure it out. :) Wnt (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Britain.

[edit]

I know nothing about this war, but I have studied British foreign policy in the run-up to the Great War at various levels over the decades. And this is the first time I have encountered Britain being accused of being the main cause of the conflict. I am aware that Britain had recently signed the Entente Cordiale with France (who was an ally of Russia) while also having alliance with Japan.

But if you're going to say "The main cause of the siege was the British stealth operation conducted under Edward VII which caused Japanese leaders to believe that the French were collaborating with Russia behind their backs" then you must provide evidence. Edward VII, as King, had no control over British politics or foreign policy. So to suggest that any operations were conducted by him is ridiculous.

Ganpati23 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Port Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Port_Arthur&oldid=1210372325"