The Short Victorious War: The Russo-Japanese Conflict, 1904-5

This is a quick-moving history of the Russo-Japanese war which. almost exactly a century ago, gave a sort of preview to some of the themes of the first half of the 20th Century. With many similarities in tactics to WWI, this war also can be seen as the first successful example of the colonized nations fighting back to regain their pride and autonomy after the centuries in which European conquest spread around the world.The author is interested mainly in the military dimension, and the major combats by land and sea are covered. Critical events flowing from the war - the Portsmouth peace conference, the effect of Russia's defeat on the revolution of 1905, and the effect of Japan's victory in China and elsewhere in Asia, all are mentioned but inadequately discussed. The writing is good and, with the inherently dramatic story being told, makes for a highly readable book. As history it suffers from the fact that the author apparently knows neither Russian nor Japanese, and has used sources in neither language. Direct accounts of the major battles by the men who fought, which surely exist in both languages, would have greatly improved the book. Considering the emphasis in this book on military tactics, the maps included are inadequate both in number and detail.In spite of these faults, the author has succeeded in his goal of writing an interesting and useful history of these important events for the general reader.

The war between the Japanese and Russian empires fought in 1904 and 1905 had many consequences. The near total Japanese victory made Japan the prominent power in Asia and was a major step leading towards the Japanese involvement in World War II. The victory bolstered the radical nationalist elements in Japan, increasing the drive for further territorial expansion by force of arms. While the defeat led to few internal political changes in the Russian empire, it did cause the focus of their foreign policy to be shifted west and south to the Balkans and the tottering empire of Austria-Hungary. The Russian involvement in that area was one of the major factors that turned what should have been a routine political assassination into a world war. The war of 1904-5 was also the first one where large numbers of men armed with rapid firing weapons engaged in battles. Such a critical war should not be neglected by anyone interested in the history of this century, which is why I recommend this book. It tells the tale of how the Japanese nation managed to defeat what should have been a superior foe. Much has been said about the Japanese sneak attack against the Russian navy, but that was only an opening skirmish, as the real war was won on the ground. The tenacity, dedication and discipline of the Japanese forces were incredible, showing how organization wins wars. The Russian naval defeats also demonstrated how obsolete most warships of the high seas fleets were. The Russian ships were totally outclassed in their battles, even though they nominally outgunned the Japanese. This was a lesson learned very well by the British, and led to the building of the mighty dreadnought class of battleships. The book is well-researched and the author is clear about the consequences of the events. However, there is one point where Walder totally misses the target. In describing the carnage of masses of men fighting with machine guns, he repeatedly says that the lesson of not attacking an entrenched enemy over open ground was not learned , and was repeated in the first world war. He seems to forget that it was the Japanese who did this and they were the victors. The incredible and often suicidal courage of the Japanese soldiers was the deciding factor and the history of the first world war is replete with the belief that one more push will win the day. The lesson was learned, it was just the case that it could not be applied a second time. I have read the book three times and each time I gained new insights into a war that changed the world more than most people realize. If the Russians could have avoided such a catastrophic defeat, subsequent events would have been quite different, even to the point that it is slightly possible that two world wars could have been avoided.