[Vladimir Putin likes to talk about the second world war,
Russia’s best war, but the closest parallel is probably the Crimean
war, which dragged on for two and a half years, from 1853 to 1856,
before the exhausted belligerents worked out a peace agreement.]
[[link removed]]

RUSSIA-UKRAINE: FIVE LESSONS FROM THE 19TH-CENTURY CRIMEAN WAR  
[[link removed]]


 

Ted Widmer
August 21, 2022
The Guardian
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Vladimir Putin likes to talk about the second world war, Russia’s
best war, but the closest parallel is probably the Crimean war, which
dragged on for two and a half years, from 1853 to 1856, before the
exhausted belligerents worked out a peace agreement. _

The Valley of the Shadow of Death, Roger Fenton/Library of Congress

 

A century and a half ago, Russia lost a war it might have expected to
win. The consequences reached far and wide

The war in Ukraine
[[link removed]] will
reach a grim anniversary on 24 August, when we will be six months into
a conflict whose terminus we still cannot see.

Can history offer any clues? Vladimir Putin likes to talk about the
second world war, Russia’s best war, but the closest parallel is
probably the Crimean war, which dragged on for two and a half years,
from 1853 to 1856, before the exhausted belligerents worked out a
peace agreement.

An underachieving Russian military failed to achieve any of its goals.
But the British and French, who forged an alliance with the Turks,
encountered frustrations of their own as they groped toward a victory
that felt pyrrhic at times. Surprisingly, one of the war’s great
legacies was felt in the US, where an unexpected chain of events, tied
to Russia’s defeat, helped to end slavery.

Can any lessons be drawn from the Crimean war today?

Wars end differently than they begin

Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “In war more than anywhere else things do
not turn out as we expect.” Few expected war in 1853. When it came,
most predictions turned out to be inaccurate, including a belief that
the Russian army was invincible, especially when fighting close to the
Motherland.

The Crimean war began for the smallest of reasons, when Russian and
French monks quarreled over who held the right to a key to the Church
of the Nativity in Bethlehem. As it turned out, that key would unlock
Pandora’s box, leading Russia’s tsar, Nicholas I, to invade the
Ottoman empire with hopes of gaining Constantinople, now Istanbul.

The Ottomans were joined by France and Britain, which sent ships and
troops to the Black Sea. A war of attrition ensued, including naval
battles as far away as the Baltic and the Pacific.

Only a miracle can extricate him from the difficulties heaped on him
and Russia by his pride, shallowness and imbecility

Karl Marx on Nicholas I

Poorly trained soldiers fight poorly

Before the Crimean war, Russia’s huge army was feared throughout
Europe. But its weakness soon became evident. With demoralized troops,
many young conscripts or landless serfs, Russia lost most engagements
and ended the conflict with its military reputation in tatters. Its
weapons were vastly inferior to those of the British and French, who
had steam-powered frigates and rifles that fired accurately over long
distances.

Despite these advantages, victory came at a high price and there were
strains within the alliance. Serious tactical blunders stopped the
French and British winning more decisively and each side suffered
about 250,000 casualties, most of whom died from disease. That led to
a third lesson …

Roger Fenton’s mobile dark room. Photograph: Roger Fenton/Library
of Congress

It is difficult to wage an unpopular war

The invention of the camera and the telegraph allowed a new breed of
witness to cover the Crimean war in detail. There were still treacly
accounts of derring-do – an insipid memento of the conflict was
Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade
[[link removed]],
which turned a colossal act of stupidity – the rash order of a
general to attack an impregnable position – into a puddle of
Victorian piety.

But the spread of photography and rapid dispatches from the front
muted this old-fashioned kind of writing, much as cellphones have
blunted Putin’s efforts to brand his invasion a success, and focused
attention on possible war crimes. Working out of a wine wagon
converted into a mobile dark room, a British photographer, Roger
Fenton, was able to capture the visual story of the war with images of
stunning clarity. Journalists filed stories from the front, so readers
in London and Paris could experience the war from their armchairs.
That helped build support when the war was going well but it also
raised the pressure when it was not.

Even American readers were following the war, thanks to the remarkable
reporting of a London-based German reporter, Karl Marx, who filed 113
articles for the New York Tribune. Marx was a harsh critic of
Russia’s military adventure, pointing out its strategic vagueness,
its ineptitude and its utter waste of human life. Denouncing the tsar
as an “imperial blunderer”, he poured out vitriol that might make
Putin wince today: “Only a miracle can extricate him from the
difficulties now heaped on him and Russia by his pride, shallowness,
and imbecility.”

Abraham Lincoln, in an image taken in 1863. Photograph: Alexander
Gardner/Reuters

A vague peace will lead to new problems

The Treaty of Paris ended hostilities in 1856 but left unaddressed
many other concerns, including the porousness of south-eastern
Europe’s boundaries – the “Eastern Question” would plague
leaders until the first world war in 1914. After a relatively long
peace following the Napoleonic era, the Crimean war unleashed a new
volatility in great power politics. Europe would see a series of
small, nasty wars before the immense carnage of the 20th century.

Wars have distant consequences

Nicholas I died in 1855. His son, Alexander II, accepted defeat but
then did a remarkable thing. Looking at the causes of the disaster, he
recognized that Russia’s performance was related to its rigid class
structure and heavy reliance on serfs. Accordingly, he abolished
serfdom with a proclamation of emancipation on 3 March 1861.

By coincidence, that was the day before Abraham Lincoln was
inaugurated as president of the United States. Lincoln understood the
power of the precedent and issued an Emancipation Proclamation of his
own, on the first day of 1863.

In other words, a war that had nothing at all to do with freedom when
it started helped make possible one of the greatest manumissions in
history, on a different continent, a decade later.

The American purchase of Alaska was another legacy. After Crimea, the
young tsar knew he could not defend this distant frontier and decided
to sell it to a nation with a more realistic hope of populating it
someday.

In that, and in so many other ways, we continue to live in a world
shaped by a small, mostly forgotten war in south-eastern Europe.

_TED WIDMER [[link removed]] is a
distinguished lecturer at the Macaulay Honors College of the City
University of New York and the author of Lincoln on the Verge:
Thirteen Days to Washington, published in the US
[[link removed]] by
Simon and Schuster_

Your support helps protect THE GUARDIAN’s independence and it means
we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open for everyone
around the world. Every contribution, however big or small, is so
valuable for our future. Click HERE
[[link removed]]to donate to The
Guardian.

* Ukraine invasion
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Crimea
[[link removed]]
* war
[[link removed]]
* serfdom
[[link removed]]
* slavery
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]