Talk:Russo-Japanese War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



The article claims 40000-70000 Russian casualties for the whole war, and 90000 for the battle of Mukden alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lithuanian press ban[edit]

I think that the fact that the beginning of this war was the final reason why Lithuanian press ban was revoked should be included somewhere. It would be nice if someone could do it.

Date the war started[edit]

The article starts saying the war started on February 10 (1904), but later it's said Japan first attacked on February 8 (a few hours before issuing a formal declaration of war), and later still the listed battles include Port Arthur (Feb. 8) and Chemulpo Bay (Feb. 9). Gazilion (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


with their inefficient and corrupt Tsarist government

Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a propagandist outfit but why make it so obvious? Could you people at least try to appear balanced? Corrupt from what perspective? Bolshevik? American? Nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous IP. Wiki has lots of problems, agreed. However, all objective histories list the blunders of Nicholas II, and the corruption of the Russian gov't at that time is beyond question. Look at the history of the Russian Empire within Wiki and you'll find many cites. You remember the REVOLUTION by Lenin, among others, that occurred in Russia? You think that happened because all was rosey within the Tsarist country?HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


it was implied that 'tsushima strait' was the risky passage as it is next to the japanese homeland. this is INCORRECT, all three passages go through japanese homeland. the other 2 passagesa re south and north of hokkaido respectives and much narrower -- i.e. could be hit by land based artillery. please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

casus belli[edit]

The casus belli realy isnt true, Manchuria wasnt a war aim for Japan at the beginning of the war, it was more a result of unexpected sucess. QUESTION; THE RUSSO-JAPANESE IMAGE BOX STATES THE RUSSIAN/JAPANESE MANPOWER STRENGTHS AS 400,000 AND 500,000 SOLDIERS. DOES THIS COUNT THE SAILORS TOO?

VERY Suspicious death totals.

It appears that the Austro-Prussian syndrome has struck again! (see discussion page on the Austro-Prussian War for detals) The Russian losses for the entire war are magically lower than the sum of the losses in the battles! How this is supposed to be I have no idea. Apparently the battle of Shaho was a completly unrelated incident for the losses not to be put on. I will fix this blatent error and until anyone gives data otherwise, I will keep the new data up. ELV

New-Style date[edit]

What are "New-Style" dates? Can we have a link to an appropriate explanatory page?

The Russian Empire still used the Julian calendar (Old Style), which was 11 days behind the Gregorian calendar (New Style) -- GABaker.


There are some repetitions caused by working in material from Edmund Morris. I'll be cleaning this further, especially the two 'TBDL' I added w/o that reference. Fabartus 08:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have many descriptions which are highly biased towards Japan. While some of the main ones have been highlighted and italicsed, there are still many left that could be corrected. Anom

In actual fact, the emphatic highlights are being very NPOV. A 'fair' article (verbatum) would list a litany of incompetance and cowardly inaction (Naval) on the part of the Russian Empire. The extant emphasis instead redirects the(se) articles to the salient fact for the modern reader... This war was Japan's coming out party in the new world order of it's day, and it's outcome leads directly to both WW-I and WW-II. But if you aren't going to sign, perhaps you should do your own research and discover this for yourself. Fabartus 22:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks more like a lack of NPOV due to the tone which is conveyed in the phrasing of the article. It reads like a news report being fed from propaganda from WWII, with some notable overtones of nationalistic biases and 'adventurous' prose, like reading a tourist guide.

You can point out which part you felt unfair, and if other readers feel the same, those parts may be modified. - 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up - RE-POLISHED 2007![edit]

I've cleaned the article up a bit. It was filled with redundant and duplicit information ("Immediate causes of the war" and "Nicholas II and the Russo-Japanese war"). I've removed these sections and moved the section "Importance of the war" to the end of the article. If these changes seem too radical to you, try reading the article as it was before and then as it is now. -- Sandius 21:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this only looks this way on my browser, but the table on the left-side of the article covers up part of the table of contents of the article. Many apologies for wasting your time if this only looks this way on my browser. --KalinArkhmanin

Thanks for pointing it out. I think it's fixed now. -- Sandius 21:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

how come this article dosen't mention how jewish bankers in the us helped float japanese bonds thus letting japan win the war because they didnt like russia because of the pale of setttlement and its polocies towards it (mentioned in The History Of The Jews In America 1992)

How much money did the Jewish bankers lend to Japan? If it was much enough, it'd be worth mentioning. (The expenditure for the war amounted 1,700,000,000 yen.) - 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to this page:, Jacob Schiff "extended a critical series of loans to Japan, in the amount of $200 million." This is a pretty substantial sum of money for this period. Worth noting, if only in passing. Bozu 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Foot Notes[edit]

Add some foot notes and more references and I think this article could be an FA. Coffeeboy 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Cowboy357==Casualties == Fixed casualties numbers. Used , Tables 17 and 26
Urlanis, Boris, Wars and Population, 1960
Козловский Н. Статистические данные о потерях русской армии от болезней и ранений в войну с Японией. 1904-1905 гг. - СПб., 1911, с. 15. --DonaldDuck 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those casualties don't make sense. According to those numbers, the Japanese had less numbers, and lost more troops. The Japanese WON the war.
True Oyo321 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Casualties of war are in contradiction of casualties of battles. For example Russian casualties in battle of Mukden = 26,500 killed, russian casualties in Russo-Japanese war = 25,331 killed. That is simply ridiculous. Also Japanese won the war. So i took new figures from Staberinde 11:41, 21 July 2006

I have recently seen an article in an extremely prestigious russian journal (Nauka i Zhizn') that supports the intitial psoters data - that Russia had less deaths than Japan in the war. The reason could be that Russia had less people killed but way more wounded, or perhaps one of the sides is severely mistaken/counting casualties differently. In any case I will try to find an authoritative source on the issue. BTW, casualties have no correspondence to victory. The Germans lost WWII and the Soviets won, but the casualties of the latter dwarf those of the former. Until later --Yarilo2 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference is, the Soviets had a larger force than the Germans. If you have a larger force, you can endure larger casualties. In this war, Japan had a smaller force. It wouldn't make sense for a smaller force to win if it had higher casualties. Malamockq 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Casualties would have been higher than Russian due to the fact that the Japanese were on the offensive throughout the entire war. The historical rule of thumb is that with 2 similar armies and 1 is fortified, the attacker will lose approximately 2 men for every 1 of the defender. This is why most early strategists attempted to have a 3 to 1 numerical superiority when on the offensive. I can't comment on the factual nature of the casualty numbers quoted... just that when viewed from a tactical and strategic perspective, it makes perfect sense that the Japanese suffered heavier casulties Cowboy357 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Above comment is correct. The higher casualty figure for the Japanese makes perfect sense. Broadly speaking, you lose a war because your resources or men, material or will power are exhausted, not because you are behind 108-97 at the pinger in the death basket count. Japan was fighting a war on its doorstep. Russia was fighting a war in an far eastern arena in which the Japanese had effectively destroyed its marine power and in which it was extremely difficult to resupply over huge distances across the Russian interior. Of course, there are many other factors, but this is just to make the point that simplistic equation of death count with victory is facile.

Buyo 21 October 2006

I'd agree with the above comments. The Japanese pushed forward recklessly at times to gain their objectives, and many of the battles were marked by tactical Russian retreats fought with rearguard actions, which naturally involved less Russians in the first instance. Furthermore, one of Kuropatkin's chief failures was his refusal to commit his full body of men to the action. Thus at Yalu and Liaoyang the sheer size of the Russian army was never fully brought to bear. Gunstar hero 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


  • The Japanese WON the war.
  • Also Japanese won the war.
OK. Now I see the problem here. Japan won zip. In fact at best it was a draw. The quotes culled above are evidence that the uyoku influence is evident here. The Japanese military won battles at sea (which the government ultimately lost at home—review the response they got over the peace treaty) and the Russians held them on land while punishing them with severe casualties. This is crucial for two reasons. One, since this was a war for territory on land, this basically meant that the Japanese were inflicting damage but not winning the war. Two, the Japanese had technical superiority at sea but that was the only ace in their hand. Those strategic naval wins were in fact what galvanised the western powers.




But go back and read the article. Japan was bankrupt. (They did the same thing in WWII. After Midway it became patently obvious their ability to rebuild was seriously crippled.) What the Japanese school books do not tell and the uyoku do not want to admit is that Russia was fighting the Japanese with one hand behind its back and then there were massive strikes and then a full blown revolution—all the while dealing with a new colonial power at the far end of their empire.
Had the war continued and the US not brokered a deal there is no telling what would have happened to Japan. If they continued to send troops to fight during the civil disturbances, the Russians could have dragged the war out for quite a while before being totally exhausted. This was not the case with Japan who had very limited resources and manufacturing capabilities. The pertinent question you need to deal with here is this, How long did it take Japan to build their new navy? You answer that and you will see why Japan had a year, maybe 18 months of fight in them and then they were through. (The same thing that happened in WWII.)
Had Russia resolved its own domestic problems, the Japanese archipelago would have easily fallen under the boot of the Tsar (or whomever won the domestic dispute) if they had decided to continue hostilities. Russia signed a peace treaty to forestall the domestic issues, which was fortunate for Japan since they were literally at the end of their tether. If anyone defeated Russia, they were Russians, not Japanese. The real winners were the western powers who had once again stymied the Russians advance into Asia just as the French and British and done over Russian’s designs on the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire.Malangthon 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a common line of argument, but it seems to be working against itself. For a start, Russians only really conceived of the war as a colonial one; there was no great national interest or ideological belief in it. It had been intended to help pacify domestic unrest but if anything the eventual news of defeats, and especially the (symbolic) loss of Port Arthur, created futher disaffection, as did the ongoing recruitment of soldiers for the front, many of whom were desperate to escape conscription (some contemporary sources list episodes of self-mutilation). The notion that 'if Russia had decided' to continue fighting, therefore, is somewhat fatuous. It assumes that a government - even if we take the counterhistorical line that the tsarist autocracy was overthrown and a popular government installed - would be able to mobilise its troops and instil a firm patriotic spirt into them. This in turn would demand the resolution of the greater social problems which had led to the 1905 situation, of which the war was only part catylst. I feel that this demands a rather tenuous string of causality and would have additionally taken a significant period of time in which Japan was strengthening its own position. Not only does almost every contemporary account note the dejection of the Russian forces in the field, and their chronic lack of morale following an endless string of defeats and tactical retreats, but the lack of sufficient numbers of trained troops and Cossacks to maintain domestic order became a serious problem. The Russian reservists were seriously unreliable and by the spring if 1905 recruitment had been abandoned in several provinces.
Russia itself was also in a perilous financial situation, along with Japan. Russia was not especially rich in the first place compared to its heavily industrialised neighbours, and had had to range several hundred-billion dollars' worth of loans beforehand, often with France as its backer. Seeing Russia's humiliation in battle, France was increasingly unwilling to sanction further loans and had its own fortunes to think about, especially in seeming to undermine the Anglo-French rapporachment by looking to further a bloody war, and also in draining its own resources in the face of Germany and its own fragile colonial presence. Before the Portsmouth treaty several Russian ministers - including the Minister of Finance - predicted that national bankruptcy was only months away. Again, it seems rather fatuous to suggest that Russia could have just 'sorted out' these problems had slightly different decisions been made.
This argument also depends on a rather rosy assessment of Russian military power, generally involving the totalling of respective armies and reservists to the point at which the Russian total exceeds the Japanese one, and thus - in what is actually an ironic nod to First world War thinking - victory is assured by strength of numbers. Assuming that the Trans-Siberian railway (the easiest target of all for the 1905 strikes) could maintain a military effort, and Russia's economy support it through resources and so on (the theatre of war could by 1905 provide very little sustenance), it does not take into account the massive losses Russia may have endured. Why would more men = victory? Had not Japan learnt costly lessons in the war itself? Japan may well have fought a tactical retreat if faced with swelling Russian forces. Who knows. What is known is that offensive actions in the war were tremendously bloody, and as combatants ( and machine guns/heavy artillery) grew in number toward the back end of the conflict, casualties increased in proportion. Japan had complete naval superiority after Tsushima. Russia had the ageing Black Sea fleet incarcerated by the British. Russia would take years to rebuild its navy. The idea that Russia could have taken Japan in any conceivable timescale can be roundly dismissed. This would have provoked international outrage in any case, and brought the British into the conflict via the terms of the Alliance. Indeed, there is no conceivable motive for Russia wishing to do this. For example, there would be very little point suffering mass casualties (and high they would be) to retake Port Arthur. There was no navy to station there, and the war had disproved the importance of strategic strongpoints.
A major factor - perhaps the most major of all - which is totally ignored by such historical and causal telescoping is the threat of Germany. Germany was more than willing to have Russia become absorbed in Japan. The Russo-Japanese war undoubtedly disturbed the balance of power in Europe. Japan's defeat of Russian armies, kicking Russia out of the Far East, and the resultant unwillingness or inability of Russia to seek recrudescence (and also the knowledge that Russia was no longer a naval power) dramatically increased Germany's relative power. The geopolitical imperatives resulting from this event contributed directly to the spectrum of factors leading Europe into the First World War. Europe did not 'win' at all by this turn of events, as many recognised. The stabilisation of East Asia was concomitant with a destabilisation in European politics and a focus upon serious international rivalries close to home, not the proxy game of colonisation. Russsia's military would not even be properly organised by 1914, and its rout by Germany would then led to the real revolution.
Finally, the notion of 'victory' needs to be placed in a broader context. Read any source of the time - the conviction that Japan had beaten Russia was universal. Russia thought it would triumph (well, some didn't) but it had been tactically and strategically beaten. Psychologically, of course, there is no question that this was a Japanese - even an Asian or 'Yellow' victory. The Russians did not 'hold the Japanese on land'. They simply fought a tactical retreat, and the combat of the time entailed that this would be more costly to an offensive force. Ergo, any Russian counterattack would be met with stiff resistance - as was the case at Sandepu. In that case the russians tried to mount a counteroffensive partly to instill morale. The battle lasted four days, or thereabouts, and the most recent scholarship shows that a 3:4 ratio of Japanese to Russian casualties, with a notably higher proportion of Russian dead (Kowner, 2005, p. 342). Japan never achieved the crushing land defeat, but they knew they could never defeat "Russsia" in a holistic sense (vica-versa with Japan). But this was a fact of modern warfare - only a selection of 20th century victories would result in the "total" defeat of a nation, and even then the nation itself survives in some form. Gunstar hero 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Spurious claims of Japan’s defeat of Russia

I was going to sort this out from my resources at hand and then I realised that the Wikipedia already has it. Japan did not come even close to getting the upper hand on the Russian Empire. Check out the wikipedia article on the Imperial Japanese Navy and go to the Russo-Japanese War. Japan did not build its navy nor did they develop its strategy. The strategy was French from the 19th century and the navy was predominantly European:

  • 6 battleships (all British-made)
  • 8 armored cruisers (4 British, 2 Italian, 1 German, and 1 French-made)
  • 9 cruisers (5 Japanese, 2 British and 2 US-made)
  • 24 destroyers (16 British and 8 Japanese-made)
  • 63 torpedo boats (26 German, 10 British, 17 French, and 10 Japanese-made).

The culminating event for this navy was the Battle of Tsushima fought on European decks with European guns in a European war against a European power all made possible by European—not Japanese—industry and wherewithal. Malangthon 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Japanese purchased most of their vessels from Western nations. But the Russians did not build all of their vessels either. The point at issue is the fact that Japan had modernised sufficiently to be able to finance the huge 10-year naval rearmament programme that began after the Triple Intervention, and evidently with incredible success. Producing your own ships is not a measure of your industrial power, but rather your national investment in shipbuilding facilities. Japan would not fully develop such facilities until after the First World war. It would be illogical, for example, to suggest that America lacks industrial power because it imports a huge amount of manufactured goods from China, where they can be produced en masse at a feasible unit cost.
In any case, even if we recognise Japan's industrial immaturity, it doesn't make thsi a 'European' victory. That is an arrogant Euro-centric argument that again looks to protect the mythical history of white supremacy from Asian encroachment. Japan helped European industry in the first place by purchasing ships, and thereafter had to train their crews to a high standard - something that Russia was categorically unable to do - over a short period of time. The war illustrated that technology did not belong to a 'race' and dismantled the notion that any particular nation was superior. With enough money and resolve, anybody could become a world power.
Of course, you could take the line that all global development after the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution is somehow a product of the dissemination of Western individuals, products, knowledge and techniques (by which the North Korean nuclear threat, for example, would be something produced by American); this does not seem like a sensible way to study history. Gunstar hero 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses the implications of Togo "capping the tee" without really explaining just what that is. As a military historian, I personally have no problem with it, but other more casual readers likely won't understand its significance. In addition, this battle is the "classic example" of the maneuver, often cited in other material, specifically the confrontation of the Japanese by Jesse Olendorff at the end of WWII. Unless someone objects, I'll take a shot at a brief, concise explanation of what it is and why it is/was significant. Wood Artist 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the above speculation and rationale is original research, and thus inappropriate to wikipedia. Credible sources must be cited for the casualties of both sides in this war. Currently, the existing citations are not appropriate. Malamockq 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


While this was the period of imperialism, Japanese interests in Korea were not specifically imperial until 1910. Remember that the policy of SeiKanRon was rejected by Iwakura and instead the area was treated as Gustav Meckel said: the dagger pointed at thea heart of Japan. I don't believe there was an intent to annex so early. They'd been burned on Liaodong and didn't want to get burned again. Their means of dealing with the geopolitical problem of Korea was to maintain their own influence as the strongest in Seoul. This meant signing the treaty of Kianghwa, fighting the Chinese, and then firghting the Russians. When the Koreans didn't play the way the Japanese wanted to, they decided the only way to control the geopolitical threat was to own it. I feel the article ought to be pushed a little away from the broad brush of "imperialism" and more towards the specific facts in the history.

That's true, but Imperial interests doesn't necessarily mean colonisation. Don't forget indirect colonisation was equally a form of Imperialism. Imperial powers did only wish to directly colonise countries where they felt doing so was either imperative to ensure control or to keep our rivals. Japan still wished to dominate Korea politically and commercially. Annexation in 1910 was virtually a formality, or the logical extension of earlier policies. Japan had had a rough time of it during the original attempts to govern Korea during the sino-Japanese war and was unwilling to opt for full control unless it became absolutely necessary. In 1894 the rhetoric was also of the 'civilising mission'; by 1910 Japan was not as concerned about intervention from foreign rivals, and thus was not necessarily required to justify her activities so assiduously.

Polish-Japanese cooperation[edit]

I added short sentence on cooperation between representants of Poland and Japan in regards to Russian Empire. While it mainly focused on intelligence gathering and diversion, but as tens of thousands of Poles were forced to serve in the army of Russian Empire that occupied Poland this is recalled sometimes in studies of the conflict. --Molobo 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats not a new story. Many civilzations have forced people of other ethinc groups to serve in their military (ex. Rome) Oyo321 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick...[edit]

...Japan strove to transform herself... What is with the herself? Should it be itself? I'm pretty sure it's a mistake but just to make sure if it's intended -- Henk65 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably intentional- countries are often referred to as 'she' in a variety of- particularly older- texts. --KatzMotel 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable description of the cause of the war, consider the following[edit]

The reign of Nicholas II was a colossal failure, the empire's entire population was alienated and disatisfied. The Czarist regime needed a diversion, it sought its diversion in a foreign adventure, hoping to unite the nation and restore the prestige of its rulers. The Czar had no respect for the Japanese; even in official documents he called them "monkeys." St. Petersburg turned aside every effort by the Japanese to work out some sort of accommodation. Count Witte had sought to head off conflict; his removal from the Finance Ministry in 1903 convinced the Japanese that the war was inevitable. That suited the Czar and his circle. "Russia's internal situation" required something drastic, said the Minister of Interior. "We need a little victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."

Excerpted from pages 129-130 of The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil Money and Power by Daniel Yergin

/*### (Questionable quotation, consider other sources) ###*/


A little known fact is that the small kingdom of Montenegro declared war on Japan alongside Russia out of gratefullness for Russia`s support in it`s struggles against the Ottoman Empire. It was only a moral support gesture since Montenegro had neither a navy nor logistic capabilities to send troops to the front, but there were some Montenegrians in Russian army including some officers. Since the country itself neither saw action with Japan nor had any interest in having relations with Japan at the time it never signed peace since it was technically on the losing side. In 1918 it became a part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, so that ended the story until when Montenegro declared independence. In 2006 the two countries finally siged peace according to these links. [1] [] It might be an interesting thing to mention in the article.

Veljko Stevanovich 30. 12. 2006. 20:00 UTC+1

Anyone else in Eastern Europe take Russia's part in the war? --Michael K. Smith 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states "On June 16, 2006, Montenegro and Japan officially declared a truce, effectively ending the war.", so shouldn't the date the war ended (at the very beginning of the article) have the date June 16, 2006 and not September 5, 1905? Are there any objections to me changing this date? CWPappas 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes it ended in 1905. It might be better to have a footnote at the 1905 ending date or better yet, next to Montenegro's entry incorporating the above info, because the entry of Montenegro in the combatants box would I think make any reader go what the hell?? --BrokenSphere 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


The page gives 24 844 killed, 146 519 wounded, 59 218 POW for Russia and 47 387 killed, 173 425 wounded, and no POW for Japan. According to (based on Urlanis), the casualties are: 25 331 killed, 146 032 wounded, 6127 dead of wounds (including 613 in captivity), 11 170 dead of disease for the Russian army and 6299 casualties for the Russian Navy. For Japan: same number of killed and wounded as in the article, plus 11 425 dead of wounds, 27 192 dead of disease and 2000 Navy casualties. Thus, the overall amount of people who died in this war is not 70 thousand, but about 130 thousand for the land campaign alone. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source. It's a russian source, and thus is probably biased. Malamockq 07:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well i think is not unreliable because is Russian maybe it could be unreliable if that numbers where published by communist Russian.
It's biased because it's Russian? I think that's a poor argument, especially considering that the casualty data we have for the Russians right now has a Russian source, from the same book that I proposed as a source (not Urlanis data though; Urlanis gives a smaller number - 48 vs 52 thousand). However, the total number of Russian deaths presented in the article only covers the KIA and dead of wounds for the army and all deaths for the navy, omitting 12 983 deaths from disease and other non-combat deaths, suffered by the army. The total number of Russian deaths is 52 501, not 39 518. Meanwhile, the Japanese deaths presented in this article are army KIA only (a corresponding Russian number would be 24 970), omitting further 38 617 deaths suffered by the Japanese army (dead of wounds+dead of disease) as well as the Navy casualties. Thus the article is comparing different things, and it should be fixed. Do you have any suggestions on how to include the other data (ie. add it all up, sort it out, or both)? With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, we aren't allowed to use non-english sources. This is an english wikipedia, not a russian one. Malamockq 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the time first online translators appeared, this is not a problem. You want to check the source - use an online translator. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But primary sources are very often not english. How could you justify discrediting a primary source?

He/she already did - it's unreliable because it's russian. I think such a justification is groundless. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
With respect, sources have to be in English. With respect. ScienceApe (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Not according to Wikipedia policy. With respect -- (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

In need of clean-up[edit]

All numbers for forces and casualties are incorrect. According to a verifiable source on wikisource, <url></url>, the forces in the battle Mukden alone rivals the total number forces listed on this page. The source is credible, so I'm removing the casualties and forces numbers in the battle box until we get some reliable citations. Malamockq 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Schiff[edit]

Someone needs to add a little something about the international banking consortium headed by Jacob Schiff that helped finance Japan in the war, thereby ensuring Japanese military victory. These were mostly Jewish bankers (most of them German, actually) who were retaliating against Russian pogroms & antisemitic policies generally. --Michael K. Smith 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jacob Schiff Japan borrowed heavily to finance their war against Russia. Anti-semitism motivated many Jews in the financial industry to loan Japan the money to finance the war. Also the it is nonsense that Teddy R. strong-armed the Japanese to give up their claims on Sakhalin Island. According to Warner's book, the Japanese cabinet was getting desperate for peace and ordered Komura to return ALL of Sakhalin Island to Russia to keep Russia from leaving the peace talks. Japan was running out of credit and manpower. Meanwhile Russia was getting stronger. More reinforcements and an improve supply systems had stiffened the Russian defenses. It was only a matter of time when Russia could launch a counter attack. In a war of attrition, Japan would eventually lose. The only advantages Japan had were control of the seas and the advantage of being on defense. The military technology at that time was such that the defender had significant advantages over the attacker. Japan blinked and Teddy R. was blameless for the Japanese perception that they were shortchanged at the peace talks. FelixNietzsche(JohnS) --Felixnietzsche 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

even Montenegro couldn't save Russia from defeat

How Reliable Article?[edit]

May I suggest that one goes to The Times archive and read a book published by The Times War Correspondents in 1906, which were allocated to both Armies Headquarters and in Togo´s flagship. You find from the book exellent describtion and maps of the main battles in land. In article not a mention of Japanese landing to Sahalin and the surrender of commanding Russian General there. The most worst enemy for the Japanese was, infact, Prince Hilkoff, who made it possible to increase the capacity of Siberian Railway from daily four pairs of trains to alone twelve pairs of military trains in addition to normal traffic along the line. The construction of Circum Baikal line (the missing part of the railway when the hostilities started) was the major advance of the Russian communications to the theatre of war in Manchuria when the two train ferries Angara and Baikal could be places aside and the through trains were able to run direct to Manchuria with 650 additional locomotives and rolling stock transferred from other Russian railways to Siberian and Chinese Eastern Railway. There is even a list of EACH Russian unit which participated. However, sometimes totally forgotten old sources are much more reliable than a new attemps to rewrite the history.

Regarding American Jewish banker Jacob Schiff´s actions and some other American business men who financed the Japanese, see Baldwin Locomotive Works locomotive deliveries (in credit) to the Japanese. Then you see the whole Russo-Japanese War from different view when you see who were involved.

Also the Japanese secret operations in Europe are not included, as sending arms to Finland nor any mention of those Russian warships which were, after Battle of Tshusima, able to steam to Shanghai or Manila and were interned there should be worth of mentioning as the importance of Japanese paid Chinese guerilla (bandit) units which operated behind the Russian lines against the Imperial Russian Army. The casuality figures were much more higher for the Russians than stated in the article. Only the attack to Port Arthur cost more Japanese lives than the Russian ones. And this only because the stubborness of the commanding Japanese General who felt quilty for sacrefying too many of his soldiers in the siege of Port Arthur and who committed for this reason Seppuku after the war. The Japanese treated the captured Russian soldiers with very human terms, allowing most of them even travel back home via Western Europe (including even surrendered Generals) after they made an oath not to participate the war again. Tsar Nikolai II accepted this and honoured this agreement.

The second Russian hero was Count Sergei Vitte who saved for the Russia the Peace Treaty in Portsmouth with accesiable terms and saved the northern half of Sahalin to Russia.


Reaction of Japanese public[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 18 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What did Japanese people think of war with Russia?K Limura 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Exxolon. Sorry i put question badly. I meant Japanese ordinary public.K Limura 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That section does contain some information about the people's responses. There are references to riots for a start - have a good read through! Exxolon 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, K, let's see now. To begin with it might interest you to know that Japanese success in the war against Russia created a set of preconceptions among the western powers, preconceptions that were to last well into the century: that the Japanese were a martial people, the Prussians of the east, fed from birth on the code of Bushido; a nation whose soldiers cared nothing for self-preservation, whose people sacrificed all for the emperor and the greater good. But the Japanese are as varied as people anywhere else, and the stresses and strains of the war produced a whole mixture of reactions. Among other things, there were complaints in the press about the lack of patriotism and the 'degeneracy' of modern youth. Consider this gem from September 1905;

"Recently male students have taken to wearing perfume and cosmetics and acting in a listless manner. Female students, by contrast, swagger about the city in tight-sleeved dresses, radiating energy. In a world where the loser [Russia] defeats the victor [Japan] in peace talks, one almost expects leaves to sink and rocks to float."

During the conflict itself there was a general mood of patriotism, and people did support the troops, though enthusiasm began to wane somewhat as the conflict was dragged out, and demands for contributions of money and goods got ever more irkesome. Organisations like the Patriotic Women's Association, set up to look after the families of those lost in action, were criticised for snobbery and class prejudice, attending to the dependants of officers but not men.

Government policy was also the subject of criticism. At first people were told to cut back on luxuries, like drinking and smoking. But by the close of 1904, as the financial pressures of the war mounted, a tax was placed on sake and tobacco, and a new emphasis placed upon consumption. This met with some ironic comment in the press, "Half a year ago, we were told, 'Think of the national emergency! Don't drink! Don't smoke!' Now, tobacco is a state monopoly and sake taxes go into the war effort. Now we are told, 'Think of the emergency! Drink and smoke your fill!' It would seem that smokers and drinkers are becoming true patriots!"

As always, and as everywhere, there was a growing gap between the official optimism and practical realism, especially when campaigns dragged on longer than expected. The mounting casualties in the battle for Port Arthur was also a cause of growing cynicism and war-weariness. By the time it was captured, after several hard months of combat, a new phrase had come into popular use, expressing a mood of disbelief, "The cheque is in the post and Port Arthur is about to fall." Even after the most heartening victories, like that of Tsushima in May 1905, other considerations sometimes outweighed feelings of patriotism. In the city of Gifu, for example, an entire ward refused to celebrate because of concerns over the mayor's use of war donations. In the end, despite all of their efforts and sacrifices, many people felt that they had won a war only to lose a peace. Clio the Muse 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

picture suggestion[edit]

In the Form 3 History text book in Malaysia, there is a drawing showing a samurai fighting a very big bear(Russia) that is used to personalize Japan's victory. I think its good.Azar2804 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese perspectives on the Russo-Japanese War[edit]

IMHO we should add in henceforth largely unknown (to the English-speaking world) Chinese perspective to the Russo-Japanese war in the article. In Chinese circles this war is viewed as largely a conflict over dividing the spoils of the aftermath of the Boxer Rebellion, and even though the Qing court declared neutrality, much of the war occured over Chinese soils and thus China suffered the most collatoral damages. (Quoting virtually in verbatim from school textbooks published in both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China) Many of the pre-Northern Expedition Chinese warlords, such as Zhang Zuolin, made their first forays into the military during this war when they acted as guerilla and spies for the Japanese. Much of the sympathy towards Japan by many Chinese at the time was due to the perceived more-benignedness of Japan over Tsarist Russia - of course events proved differently in the ensuing 40 years but that's another matter. The war is often concluded among modernn-day Chinese historians as the first bite that fed the beast of Japanese militarism, one which that cumulated in the War of Resistance (Second Sino-Japanese War). --JNZ (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First off all, the Japanese militarism you are talking only appeared in the 1920s/30s when the military took control of the civilian government(Imperial Way Faction,Sakurakai, February 26 Incident, Shōwa Restoration, March Incident and Imperial Colors Incident). AND I wouldn't recommend PR China text books most still claim that it was Mao/CCP who did that fighting against the Japanese while in reality it was the KMT, not to mention the censorship of the Tianamen Square Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

actually your dreaming in fantasy land. the KMT actually ordered troops deliberately not to fight the japanese, while the CCP guerillas tied down 1 million japanese in guerilla operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proud Queer, Gay, and Homo (talkcontribs) 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're the one whos dreaming, see Second Sino-Japanese war#Legacy: Who fought the War of Resistance?. (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually your the one whos dreaming, see Hu Zongnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

also see battle of nanking, generalissimo Chiang kaishek of the kuomintang ORDERED chinese troops to flee an not fight, resulting in a bloody massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking -

"However, the defense plan fell apart from the very beginning because the defenders were overwhelmed by Chinese troops fleeing from previous defeats such as the Battle of Shanghai"

"As Chiang Kai-shek and his staff such as Chen Cheng had realized, Chinese elite troops could not risk annihilation in a hopeless but symbolic defensive battle in the capital, so in order to preserve these forces for future battles, most of them were withdrawn."

Get your facts straight - The Nationalists did most of the fighting against the Japanese, thats why they lost the civil war afterwards. The communists held back their forces and became stronger as a result of the war. Chiang kai shek once said something along the lines: the Japanese are a cancer/disease of the skin while the communists are of the body. (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

US aid to Japan?[edit]

Koreans seem to think, that there was a massive United States finacial aid to Japan, to help them in the war.

Can someone confirm this, and if it's true, include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlesoviet (talkcontribs) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan had no aid. The US probably supported Japan, but not aid.Sai317 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple tags[edit]

While they may be justified, the tags above every section of text are overkill. It makes the article unduly hard to read and uninviting. Wouldn't a single tag at the beginning be enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean casualty[edit]

have anyone access to Korean casualty from this war? There was a lot of Koreans were drafted into both Russian and Japanese sides (perhaps more at Japanese side).--Korsentry 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

Reference for casualties.[edit]

I edited the casualties. Sorry I did it without concensus, but as of now, we do not need one, since there was no reference for infobox whatsoever, so, I added a reference, and edited. The source is Krivosheev of course. If someone finds something more accurate on Japanese casualties, then feel free, post the source, let's discuss, as for russian casualties, I referenced Krivosheev, and I think there will be no arguments, because regarding russian casualties, he is THE authority.-- (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1)Krivosheev may be "the authority" for Second War war Soviet casualties, but for Russo-Japanese war his work includes a mere compilation, not archival research per-se 2)Why don't we throw the number of POW's into the casualties box, to be fair? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The "strength" figures in the infobox are also unreferenced, and have today been changed from 400,000 each to 500,000/300,000 without citation. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian Revolution[edit]

Whilst it is tenuous to link the Russo-Japanese War to the 1917 Russian Revolution, it is wrong to overlook the February Revolution. The section previously said: "Twelve years later, that discontent boiled over into the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917". I have now changed it to read "February Revolution". The discontent in question was to do with the monarchy. The October Revolution had nothing to do with the monarchy, which were by then deposed. (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


"Many Russians leaders welcomed war as a means of distracting the populace from government repression and rallying patriotism in the aftermath of several general strikes". I'm very suspicious with this comment. I've learned from my professor Dr. Brooks in Russian Literature class, and other sources that Russian leaders in truth, opposed to this war. Nicholas II's advisor disagreed because of long transportation problem. However, Nicholas welcomed war because the war against Japan could be a huge boost in patriotism in Russia. He also underestimated the Japanese.

Also, the part "After this war, the US had begun to consider Japan as potential enemy of their navy. The US gave the UK pressure & made broke the alliance with Japan at the beginning of 1920s" is inaccurate and doesn't have source. The article The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero writes, "After courting the Japanese, Roosevelt’s decided to support the tsar’s refusal to pay indemnities, a move that policymakers in Tokyo interpreted as signifying that the United States had more than a passing interest in Asian affairs". This clearly displays that although US tended to support the Western sided Russia, it did not mean that US possessed hatred and hostility to Japan. The truth is that US wasn't alertly aware of Japan.

Finally, I'm slightly concerened that the whole article makes it sound like that the Treaty of Portsmouth, which was the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War, occurred due to Russia's fatal loss in the two consecutive major battles in each ground and sea. Where the real factor that broke Russia's spirit to fight was the Bloody Sunday, which occurred on January 22nd 1905 during the war. The Bloody Sunday isn't even mentioned in the article. In Wikipedia it says "," The defeats of the Russian Army and Navy shook Russian confidence. Throughout 1905, the Imperial Russian government was rocked by revolution. Tsar Nicholas II elected to negotiate peace so he could concentrate on internal matters". The internal matter is too vague.


I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but Wikipedia articles contradict each other on this matter. The main Russo-Japanese War article lists the Japanese casualties as: 47,152 killed, 11,424 died of wounds, 21,802 died of disease. However, I'm looking at the article for the Battle of Mukden and just for this battle, the Japanese casualties are: 15,892 killed, 59,612 wounded. Different sources are cited for these, so hopefully, somebody who is educated on the matter can eliminate one of them as being wildly inaccurate and keep every Wiki article on this war consistent. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for bringing this up. If someone could find out which figures are accurate (or rather, which one is inaccurate), we can fix this.--FifthCylon (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Courcelles (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Russo-Japanese WarRusso–Japanese War — "Russo" and "Japanese" should be separated by an en dash, not a hyphen. -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:ENDASH. Hyphen is appropriate here because Russo- is a prefix and not an independent element. --Kusunose 00:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Kusunose indicated, the "Sino-" example in WP:ENDASH is relevant here. YLee (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - And isn't "en dash" meant to signify "through" mainly? Wikkitywack (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

removal of Montenegro[edit]

Could someone re-add Montenegro as allied with Russia?--FifthCylon (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, Montenegro declared war on Japan and several montenegran officers fought in theater with russian troops.XavierGreen (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Forces returning 2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Forces returning 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 5, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Russo-Japanese War cartoon

Japanese woodblock political cartoon showing Tsar Nicholas II of Russia waking from a nightmare of the battered and wounded Russian forces, defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, which concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth on September 5, 1905. Shown here are a battleship, locomotive, cannon and telegraph, who, having been fed up with the number of false reports of Russian victories sent home, have returned to show the Tsar the true damage they have suffered.

Artist: Kobayashi Kiyochika; Restoration: Jake Wartenberg
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Violation of the British-Japanese Pact of 1902?[edit]

Unless there is evidence from a reputable historian/author such as Sir Julian Corbett, Richard Hough, to name a few, etc. to verify that another nation actively allied itself to the Tsars army or navy during the Russo-Japanese of 1904-05, then that contribution comes under the same heading as the "Hitler Diaries" that surfaced during the latter part of the 20th century, and which were ultimately was shown to be fabricated.

False military veterans have surfaced thru-out history. In the US, the situation became so bad that former US President Bush Jr. signed into law, that willfully impersonating a US veteran and/or falsly wearing (or in some cases possessing) US military medals became a Federal Offense.

If a foreign nation participated in the Russo-Japanese War, and if they sent "volunteers" to fight, but those "volunteers" fought under the Russian flag, then their nation was not at war. A Token declaration is just that, a token. The dictionary defines the military portion of war and a belligerent as an active combatant. If said foreign nation didn't show their flag; they weren't there.

In the US military, during the Vietnam War, one of the smallest commands was a company (Troop for cavalry and Battery for artillery). A US tank company in Vietnam only consisted of about 86 men, commanded by a captain. One US Cavalry troop (Troop A), commanded by a "captain", from the 4/12 Cav (4th Squadron 12 Armored Cavalry) was deployed to South Vietnam "by itself" (alone) to support the 1st Brigade of the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division (Only one cav trp was authorized to support a brigade). Australia deployed only one squadron (equal to one US battalion) of their Centurion tanks to South Vietnam. This Australian tank regiment only (initially) consisted of 26 Centurions, manned by only 104 crewmen. But the 12th US Cavalry and the Australians marched under their own flag. The Russian ally "Montenegro" (?) could have done the same thing. Did they? If not, why didn't they? If this nation in question had enough men to volunteer for the Russian army, then they had enough men to SHOW THEIR FLAG.

If they couldn't show their flag, they weren't there. If they had been there, Great Britain was obligated by their 1902 pact with Japan to enter the war. Britain didn't enter the war, that should say it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No Flag, No Credit[edit]

Agreed, if a nation is not present on the battlefield (or in the war) then they were not there. One does not promise to be at a fight, then not show up, and then years later want credit for being there. If a nation cannot show their flag on the field of battle, then it is not justified being shown in the history books (in this case the Wikipedia Encyclopedia). All Montenegro had to do was send just 50 men into battle under their own colors (national flag) and it might have been justified to consider that nation a belligerent in the Russo-Japanese War. They did not, so they cannot be considered a belligerent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Montenegrins fought in the Russian army as auxiliaries/allies and Montenegro formally declared war on Japan. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Army and Navy (Soldier and Sailor) Casualties Need to be Clearly Stated[edit]

The casualty portion of the article stated that "soldiers" had drowned at sea (thousands of them), so it was corrected to say "sailors"...then reading and re-reading the section over and over again, it was realized that the original writer of that particular topic "most probably meant" army personnel (soldiers) "being transported by ships" and becoming casualties when their "transport ship" was sunk.

This certainly does have an impact on casualty figures, but the writer wasn't clear on "soldiers" being transported by ships; it read like he meant sailors and not soldiers, but used the word "soldiers" instead. So those terms were corrected to "sailors." Futher re-reading caused the realization that the writer meant soldiers being transported, then drowned.

With todays 21st century readers all seemingly in the habit of referring to all military (and naval personnel) as "soldiers" it seemed reasonable to presume that this was also occurring to this particular topic. To avoid future confusion, its suggested that writers get out of the habit of calling all fighting men of the 20th century and earlier (all Air Force, Marine, and Naval personnel) soldiers, as this appears to be today's trend; because this can certainly impact statistical data in a most negative way.

For clarity, the words "transporting ships" were inserted into the article to explain how "soldiers" were "drowned" at sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


The article states that "The total number of army dead is generally stated at around 130,000.[34] China suffered 20,000 civilian deaths, and financially the loss amounted to over 69 million taels worth of silver". So according to the Wikipedia article on taels, one tael could be 37.8g. Could this be replaced? Or is the fact that it's a 'tael' of significance? It just seems needlessly ambiguous if the quantity is known in metric units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that a tael might have had a specific weight in silver, but as currency, the value of silver was probably much different than what it is now. To express it differently, if I go to an article on US-expenditures in a different-language Wikipedia, should I express the money spent in terms of dollars, or by weight of nickel and copper that composes, say, the quarter-dollar coins that equal the sum of money spent? It would not be practical to say "the Vietnam war cost the US [X] tons of copper and [X] tons of nickel, because that's what a large part of US currency consists of." Boneyard90 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Small details[edit]

The Jewish American banks were very sympathetic towards the Japanese as a result of the Russian pogroms against Russian Jews.

Wasn't barbed wire first used en masse in this war? No mention in the article.

There is a reasonably credible reconstruction of the battle now out on DVD "Battle in the Japan Sea".

Finally there was an account, the original source of which I cannot now recall. "After the war with Russia, there had been so many casualties that Japan was a land of young boys and old men". Maybe this is why the casualty figures are still arguedAT Kunene (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on Barbed wire says it was first used in the Spanish-American War (1898), then "extensively" in the Second Anglo-Boer War. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro and Fraud War Veterans[edit]

In 1992 Senator Tom Harkins stated that he had flown F4 Phantoms and F8 Crusaders in the Vietnam War. Investigations determined that he did not. Future politican William Archie "Bud" Akins stated that he had flown combat missions in the Vietnam War in A4 Skyhawks. He didn't. Of the dozens of authors about the Russo-Japanese war; Semenov, Grant, etc., and these are from 1907 thru the 21st century...not one ever mentions Montenegro! Now, from out of the blue and seemingly from a politican making a campaign speech during a convention...comes Montenegro. I deleted it as another "Politician seeking publicity." "IF" a reliable source can be cited for replacing this nation in the article, then Wiki contributors will welcome it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wh...what??? That is one fine conspiracy theory you've got there. NipsonAnomimata (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Montenegrins did fight, Russian wikipedia:,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Olender was the author... but what book?[edit]

In the references, there are several notes referring to a book by "Olender" with page numbers. But what book? It's not anywhere in references or sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More sources[edit]

Treatment of POWs in contrast to Nanking[edit]

  • Yamamoto, Masahiro (2000). Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-275-96904-2. Retrieved 2012-09-26. During the Russo-Japanese War, Japanese soldiers treated Russian POWs humanely and with dignity, and there were no reported incidents like the massacre of Port Arthur. 

Casualties discrepancy[edit]

On the main page it says the Japanese had about 70000 killed, wounded and missing. Yet on the page about the 2nd siege of port arthur and even the Battle of Mukden both has Japanese losses far exceeding the total amount killed, wounded and missing. Clearly the figure on the main page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Inchon landing?[edit]

Hello, all,

MacArthur is much lauded for generaling the landing at Inchon in 1950. However, I have read fleeting allusions to an earlier Inchon landing during the Russo-Japanese War.

Did the Japanese land at Inchon? If so, who was their commanding officer(s)? And if there was such a landing, is it important enough to include...if only for reference to MacArthur later on?

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who notices this?[edit]

There is an obvious bias in this wiki page towards Japan. I just removed a reference where they claim that Japan "shrewdly" cited a war that was nearly a century old. Do we cite WWI in today's warfare? That is not shrewd. Second, why would any unbiased historian describe a nation like that? (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to go look at the difference in edits, because I wasn't sure where you were coming from. I agree that the term had a POV, and it was a good idea to remove it. Don't see the problem with Japan's response citing precedent in a war a century earlier; however we conduct litigation now is not how it was conducted then, when "tradition" was a much more potent force. Laws of warfare had probably changed very little between 1809 & 1905, whereas laws of warfare have vastly changed in a short amount of time during the late 20th century, and with new technology has continued to change in the 21st. So, some apples & oranges going on there. Bottom line, your edit was a good thing, but don't stress too much. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Kinsu Maru[edit]

I read about a Jap ship with this name whom occupants made seppuku instead of surrending to Russian. Is it a real fact? -- (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, you should know that the word "Jap" is considered a slur these days, due to World War II propaganda and Anti-Japanese sentiment. See the article Jap. If you want to abbreviate, I recommend "Jpn". Second, about your question. I have not heard of that incident, and do not think that seppuku was common during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Perhaps it happened, and is more line with history, when the Soviet Russians went to war against Japan in 1945. See the article Soviet–Japanese War (1945). Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I did not know the sense of "Jap". I will use "Jpn". Thank you for your answer! (He was me, I posted without sign)--Adriano Esposito (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is the source about the Kinsu Maru facts: Buscaglino (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadweight Loss[edit]

What is "deadweight loss"? Why is the figure so exact? (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it since it was very unclear what was meant by 'deadweight loss'. I have never seen such a category before. Taran0 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Montenegrin Declaration of War[edit]

There is no credible source for any official declaration of war by the government of Montenegro on Japan. I've read that many Montenegrins volunteered for the Russian Army during the war, and since Montenegro was a small country and such a relatively significant proportion of its citizens went to fight in the war in Manchuria, it seemed like Montenegro itself was at war with Japan, hence where the myth that Montenegro had declared war on Japan arose. So since that it is unlikely that the Montenegro actually delcared war on Japan and there is no proof that it did( such as an actual written document declaring war on Japan by the Montenegrin government) Montenegro should not be included as one of the belligerents in the Russo-Japanese War. Spärde (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Deleted. More reputable evidence is needed for MN. Unless WWI accepts that country as a listed combatant, then it shouldn't be listed in the RJ war either. The wiki WWI does not list it, yet the Montenegro site says that it "signed as an ally with Russia" during WWI. IF WWI accepts Montegro, then the RJ war might have some validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C28:53E0:ECB3:1A27:7E68:7389 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The assumptions of this thread are not reasonable. In contrast, the fact of Montenegro's participation in this war is verified by cite support. The deleted text has been restored here --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The citations for Montenegrin participation in the war are honestly very flimsy. They are nothing but brief, obscure articles claiming that a truce between Montenegro and Japan had been declared ending the 100 year state of war. I have seen no official declaration of war by the government of Montenegro upon Japan, and in all my reading on the subject, I've seen no mention in contemporary sources of any kind of state of war between Japan and Montenegro. As I said before, it may have been a joke that so many Montenegrins had volunteered in the war against Japan, that Montenegro and Japan were actually at war, and the idea of a truce being declared between the two nations in 2006 was just a continuation of that joke. But it was nothing more than a joke, in reality many volunteers for the Russian army may have come from Montenegro, but Montenegro itself was never in a state of War with Japan, and therefor should be removed permanently as one of the participants in the war. Spärde (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The reasoning of Spärde's opinion is plausible, but no cite support for it is offered. In contrast, there is a context for the cites now included in the article:
It is reasonable for Montenegran participation in the Russo-Japanese War to continue to be mentioned -- see WP:Verifiability. --Enkyo2 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Those are the same flimsy and obscure sources that I have criticized before. One of those articles even uses Wikipedia as a citation, which brings further doubt upon it's credibility. They cite no official document of a declaration of war or any mention thereof in any contemporary works on the subject. Of all published works written on the subject in the hundred years since its end, there has been no mention of any kind of state of war between the two nations. If it were real, surely someone would have mentioned it, even in passing or as a foot note. But no, all we have are two tiny articles declaring a hitherto unheard of state of war between the two nations to be over because Japan recognized Montenegro's independence. Spärde (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand how do you want official declaration of war that was fought 100 years ago to be presented to you on a piece of paper ?!? Two states were indeed at war, and truce was actually not held at 2006, but during Communist regime.

Montenegrin volunteers were led by Jovan Lipovac

An article describing it in detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Because a declaration of war is what would prove that Montenegro was actually at war with Japan, but there is no mention of any kind of declaration of a state of war between Montenegro and Japan in any contemporary sources whatsoever. So a bunch of volunteers from Montenegro fought in the war, does it mean that Montenegro itself was at war with Japan? No. Does it mean Montenegro should be included as a belligerent in the article? No! There are many foreign volunteers from many countries fighting in ISIS right now against the Syrian government, should we count the countries those volunteers are from as belligerents on the side of ISIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:8983:FF89:5DFF:BB2C:23A4:89E0 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"russians poorly organised", or "russians suffered a military disaster"[edit]

34,000 Russians versus 58,000 Japanese (casualties) is counter proof to the above claims. We can not use such language to descrive the Russian defeat. Such language would imply that Russian forces performed poorly, which is not true. Also keep in mind this is a surprise attack and gives a natural advantage to Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

While the initial attack was a surprise attack, the Russian response did not fair well. The Battle of Tsushima, for example, was incredibly lopsided in favor of the Japanese, which cannot be blamed on "surprise." It was a Russian response with a fleet moved halfway around the globe, only to get there and get largely destroyed. Your numbers on casualties are also misleading, as it does not distinguish between deaths from war wounds and deaths from disease. 34,000 - 52,000 Russians died in battle or from war wounds, compared with 11,000 Japanese dying of war wounds. That means between 3-5 times more Russians died of battle related wounds than Japanese, very different than your numbers. Further tens of thousands on both sides died of disease, but that cannot be as easily counted towards a military defeat. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the numbers are: Russians: 34,000–52,623 killed or died of wounds Japanese: 47,152–47,400 killed, 11,424–11,500 died of wounds

I would take the lower (34,000) figure for the Russians because the Russian sources tend to give lower figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reason. That's POV pushing and a violation of policy. Even if true, it still means some three times more Russians died of battle related causes than Japanese, unlike your original insinuation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Canadian financial support to Japan?[edit]

Do we have any sources for that? While not impossible, was it a Canadian decision at govt level? Propose we leave till 16th jan then revert if nothing added Irondome (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pershing in commanders section?[edit]

Reverted that for a host of reasons. I do not believe P commanded units in the war! Seriously, it is untenable. Irondome (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"negotiations between Russia and Japan had proved impractical"[edit]

Is "impractical" really the intended wording? What would make negotiations "impractical"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Japanese Government Loan Issues on the London Capital Market 1870-1913 By Toshio Suzuki gives the cost of war to Japan as 186.5 million pounds, page 84 if anyone is interested in adding this to the Financing section. --DelftUser (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

First major military victory in the modern era of an Asian power over a European nation?[edit]

The statement "This was the first major military victory in the modern era of an Asian power over a European nation" is arguably incorrect, since the Maratha-Portuguese war of 1737-1739 led to a crushing defeat of the Portuguese Empire in its Northern Province of "Estado da Índia" in April 1739. This was the first time that an Indian power conquered a modern European built fortified city (Baçaim), besides the Northern Province's territory itself, dotted with other fortifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FFB4:6A01:8488:E:730:8869 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Montenegro is listed in the infobox as a belligerent but doesn't appear in the rest of the article at all. What is that about? (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)