Re: OT-Wrong port arthur

On Thu, 08 February 2001, "Alan and Carmel Brain" wrote:

> Don't worry about being diplomatic, though your diplomacy is certainly
> appreciated.

Well, there is no sense NOT being civil! *L* And I'm not so much
doubting you as showing a healthy skepticism. I think, online, a lot of
people don't know how to show the distinction.

I'm thoroughly capable of being convinced (and it would be an
interesting excercise in P.R. if it is, indeed, true!).

> > to "actually happened", particularly when the reference is to a
tender and
> not
> > the destroyers themselves.
> 
> Torpedo Boats - we're talking 150 tonnes max here, steam launches
rather
> than ships.

That was clearly my mistake! I didn't even mean "destroyer" but "torpedo
boat destroyer". The Japanese TBDs ran about 350 tons. So I had the
wrong class of boat as well as the wrong name! *L*

Japanese torpedo boats averaged around 150 tons. They had one class in
the 200 ton area. (For the general list watching this thread, most were
much smaller. The second class torpedo boats ran an average of about 80
tons, and the third class about 50 tons. They COULD be mistaken for
fishing boats, and vice versa.)

> In looking for some sources on the web, I found
> http://www.navy.ru/history/hrn10-e.htm
> which has astoundingly little on the epic voyage from the Baltic to
the
> Pacific.
> A good vignette is provided at
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1905coaling.html

I did a web search myself. All I could find was information on the
battle, with a little bit about the voyage. I checked the online book
stores and there's very little out about the war. I do have (Corbitt's?
Sorry, I've got most of my books packed for moving at the moment) two
volume history of the war. It came out soon after, but was re-printed by
the US Naval Institute Press a few years ago. Of course, it's a
contemporary account and doesn't have the secret information in it.

> Remember the Russians had to pay reparations too, after an
International
> Tribunal
> found that they'd made a huge gaffe. Sleeping Dogs and all that. And
who,
> except for
>  a few (we happy few.. we band of brothers...) like us are interested
in
> what happened
> nearly a century ago, anyway?

Yes, us, and historical researchers. That period of history isn't a
biggie, particularly in North America. It's a fascinating period,
though. 
 
> I'll see what I can find in the ADFA library, but as I said, your best
bet
> is newspaper archives and
> released UK cabinet Documents. They'll be the prime source.

Thanks, Alan. I'll look into it. The motive was definitely there. I
suppose, too, if Russia was in better shape it might want to clear up
its name on this account. I'm sure, though, that they just want to keep
Czarist history dormant. It will be interesting to see if anything else
comes out in the next 3 or 4 years, for the anniversary. And I certainly
hope the historical conventions use this as a theme in 2004/2005.

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________