The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 2 (of 2) / Being Historical and Critical Comments on the Military Policy and Power of Russia and on the Campaign in the Far East

by A. N. Kuropatkin

CHAPTER XI

Suggested measures for the improvement of the senior ranks; for the improvement of the regulars and reservists; for the reorganization of the reserve troops; for increasing the number of combatants in infantry regiments—Machine-guns—Reserve troops—Troops on the communications—Engineers—Artillery—Cavalry—Infantry—Organi­zation generally.

Our recent experiences have furnished ample material by which we may be guided in our efforts to improve the war training and increase the efficiency of our forces. The War Ministry, assisted by officers who served in Manchuria, and by articles which have appeared in the military Press, has already embarked upon numerous reforms. I shall here merely express my own opinion upon the points I consider most important, and which should be settled first of all. Amongst these are measures for—

1. The improvement of the senior ranks.

2.  The improvement of the regular soldiers and reservists.

3. Reforms in the organization of the reserve troops.

4. Increasing the number of actual combatants in our infantry regiments.

5. Enlarging the war establishment of regiments, brigades, divisions, and corps, and, by means of decentralization, making them more independent.

As regards the first: Our three wars of the last fifty years have disclosed many shortcomings in our officers. Most of these have undoubtedly been due to the undeveloped state of the nation, and to the general conditions of life and labour, which have affected the army as an integral part of the whole population. Any serious attempt to improve our officers as a body, therefore, is only likely to be successful if and when a general improvement sets in in our social conditions. It has pleased the Tsar to inaugurate many fundamental reforms for the betterment of the civil status of all classes of our population in every walk of life, and reforms in the officer class should be instituted at the same time.

Why is it that, with so many capable, keen, and intelligent men as we possess among our junior officers and those in comparatively subordinate positions, we have so few original-minded, keen, and competent seniors? As I have said, the standard of all ranks of the army entirely depends on that of the nation. With the growth of the moral and mental faculties of the people at large there will be a corresponding growth in that of the military class; but so long as the nation suffers from a paucity of well-informed, independent, and zealous men, the army cannot well be expected to be an exception. If the uniform attracted the pick of the population, out of a nation of many millions, however backward, there would be at least hundreds of the very best men—in every sense—quite capable of commanding troops in war. It would therefore seem necessary—

1. To adopt a military uniform such as will attract the flower of our youth.

2. To insist that the best of those privileged to wear the uniform should serve in the army, and there acquire the military knowledge and strength of character necessary for war.

GENERAL GRIPPENBERG

In the first of these two particulars we have succeeded, for in Russia the military uniform has been particularly honoured for years; but we have by no means approached near the second desideratum. The majority of the best men wearing military uniform have not only never served in the army, but are absolutely unconnected with it. In the eighteenth century a custom crept in of dressing the sons of grandees in military clothes, and they could get promotion at an age when they were riding toy horses round drawing-rooms. Then, little by little, military uniform, military rank, even that of General, ceased to become the absolute prerogative of the army, or, indeed, to denote any connection with war. The members of the Church were the only people not arrayed in it. Members of the Imperial Council, Ambassadors, Senators, Ministers of the different departments and their assistants, Governor-Generals, Governors, Mayors, Superintendents of Police, officials in the various Government departments and in the military institutions, all wore military uniform, and were graded in different ranks. With few exceptions, all that they had to do with the army was to be a source of weakness to it. Amongst the many names in the long list of generals, only a few belong to officers on the active list, and, what is worse, those who are serving in the army get superseded in rank by, and receive less emoluments than, those who are not. Consequently, the best elements in the service are naturally anxious to leave. The posts of Minister of the Interior, of Finance, of Ways and Communications, of Education, and of State Control, used to be held by generals and admirals, as well as the appointments of Ambassador at Constantinople, Paris, London, and Berlin. Service uniforms were therefore conspicuous at all diplomatic and ministerial gatherings. Military clothes also had a great attraction for other departments, and several of them tried to assimilate their uniforms as much as possible to those of army officers. The worst offender in this respect was the Ministry of the Interior, which adopted a uniform for police-officers and even for constables which could hardly be distinguished from that worn by military officers. The private soldiers were naturally unable to make anything of this multitude of uniforms, and never knew whom to salute or obey; indeed, the police-officers’ great-coats and caps with cockades were enough to puzzle the most discriminating. This all seems incomprehensible; but the ambition to wear military uniform is easily explained. It is largely due to the ignorance of the people. Not long ago, anyone wearing even a hat with a cockade was taken in the country for a person in authority; caps were doffed to him, and in winter heavily laden sledges would be turned into snow-drifts to give him the road, while his vulgar abuse would be patiently accepted.

Thirty years ago, when a young officer, I spent about a year on service with the French in Algiers, and travelled a great deal. I was astonished to find that it was found convenient, even under republican rule, to keep to a system of semi-military government for the native population—Arabs and Kabyles. It was, in this case, entrusted mainly to army officers, and those civilians who were also appointed had to adopt a uniform similar to that worn by the military. These officials told me in all seriousness that their spurs and the gold braid round their caps assisted them in their dealings with the Arabs, in collecting taxes, settling land questions, and other matters. It was so in our case. Undoubtedly the wearing of military clothes did facilitate the difficult work which our police-officers have to do; but a great change has recently come over the country, and a uniform alone is not now enough to command obedience. It is sometimes a drawback, if not a danger. It is, of course, to be hoped that such an unnatural state of affairs will not last; but it is very desirable to take advantage of the present indifference displayed by the civil population to uniform to take it from all who are not actually serving in the army. The time has come when the prestige appertaining to our uniform should be restored, and the status of those serving in the army should be raised.

With the same object in view, we must continue to try and improve the material position and prospects of the corps of officers. An important matter, and one to which I have given much attention—so far without entire success—is that service on the staff, in offices and in branches of the War Department, should not pay better than service with the troops. Many of the officers now so employed in semi-civil duties can well be replaced by civilian officials. It is, moreover, essential that service in the Frontier Guards, in the Customs, police, gendarmerie, on the railway, and as tax-collectors, should cease to be financially preferable to service in the army.

As senior officers get on in the service, they must not be allowed to forget what they have previously learnt, a thing which is now only too common. It is essential that they should be practised in peace in commanding troops, and not be mere administrators, inspectors, spectators, and umpires. They should therefore be in a position to spend most of their time with troops in the field and in cantonments. With our military system the command of troops is at present almost entirely in the hands of the regimental, brigade, divisional, corps and district commanders.[31] Thus our infantry and cavalry regiments used to be under five masters. But, in the words of the proverb, too many cooks spoil the broth, and in war all was not for the best in all our regiments. Often while the ingredients and the fire left nothing to be desired, the cooks did not know what to do. How can such a state of things be explained? It will be said that the selection of commanders was not always happy. That is true; but it must be remembered that selections had to be made from those men who were qualified according to the regulations and the reports drawn up by various commanding officers. In some cases seniority was considered to be by itself a qualification for promotion. Efforts of a sort were undoubtedly made to get the best men we had, but they were insufficient. All the commanders in the five degrees of our military hierarchy are so occupied with their daily work of routine and correspondence, while many are so overburdened with the administrative details of their appointments, that they have little time to attend to the business of actual war. Yet, as they get on in the service, more knowledge of war is required of them. The short periods of concentration in summer, with only a few days of instructional work on both sides, give little practice in command, and at other times the number of responsible duties connected with administration places that art on a far higher plane than mere soldiering. And what is most important is that the whole of our service—of our lives almost—is spent doing things which do not go to form character. Of the five posts above mentioned, only two—the divisional and corps commanders—are in any way independent, and their occupants are immersed in office work. The relative amount of time spent on the different sorts of duties tends to turn the regimental commander into an administrator rather than a fighter, while a brigade commander has absolutely no independence; in fact, his absence or presence is scarcely noticed. Finally, the same tendency to produce office men and bureaucrats is noticeable even in the work of those on the highest rungs of the ladder—the general officers in command of military districts. Instances might be multiplied of men who, though long in charge of military districts, never once commanded troops on manœuvres, and for several years never even got astride a horse. How can this impossible state of affairs be remedied, and a body of leaders, constantly practised in the execution of those duties in command of troops that would be required of them in war, be formed?