Published unsigned as a leading article in the New-York Daily Tribune, No. 4416, June 14, 1855, p. 4, under the heading “From the Crimea”; dated May 31, 1855, and attributed to Friedrich Engels by MEGA² (I/14), which first identified him as its author. Text from the original newspaper (Library of Congress, Chronicling America). Traducción al español.
The news by the Atlantic is full of successes gained by the Allies in the Crimea. The British journals fairly throb with exultation; and the British public, long despondent and hopeless of any profitable result from the present campaign, have suddenly regained the most joyous confidence. In imagination they behold the Crimea already conquered, Sevastopol laid in ruins, Russia suing for peace on any terms, and the war brought to a triumphant and glorious termination. Let us see how far these anticipations are justified by the facts.
First among the events which have thus reversed the current of public feeling in Western Europe is the occupation of Kertch and the Sea of Azoff by the allied naval and land forces. This was all accomplished without any show of opposition on the part of the Russians. Neither at Kertch nor at Arabat were there any considerable fortifications or other means of resisting an attack. Indeed, with our present information, it is difficult to understand how the Russians could have neglected to fortify places of such importance, and so exposed as these were. The loss is certainly a serious blow to them. Not only is it accompanied by the destruction or capture of a great quantity of provisions and other stores, as well as of all their vessels in the sea of Azoff, but it cuts off the channel on which they have mainly relied for supplies. Henceforth they must draw everything of that nature, beyond what is furnished from the Crimea itself, by the more remote route of Perekop, or the road across the Sivash shallows. This will of course be a great inconvenience, but that it will at once reduce the Russian army to famine or force them to surrender is not so certain.
The British journals pronounce this affair to be glorious. In ordinary war glory is acquired by overcoming resistance and accomplishing an end in the face of overwhelming difficulties and dangers. But since this Crimean campaign began many old notions have been unlearned, and many new ones have got an entrance into men’s minds. Among the latter is the glory of leading 20,000 troops against a place with neither men nor forte to defend it, and actually succeeding in its capture. To our judgment, on the other hand, the self-gratulations at this exploit in the sea of Azoff should rather be drowned in shame at its not having been consummated months ago. Why have the Russians been allowed to hold undisturbed possession of the straits of that sea till now? Why was no step ever taken to prevent their using the sea for the transportation of reënforcements and supplies? Why has no part of the allied fleet ever been sent there to interrupt the communications, clear the sea of every Russian vessel, and hold every port in blockade? It is a striking illustration of the imbecility which has marked the prosecution of this war on the part of the Allies that so obvious, so advantageous, and so easy a measure, for which with their great number of ships they have constantly had the means, should never have been undertaken before. It is true that it has not before been possible for them to spare 20,000 soldiers to garrison Kertch and Arabat; but that was not necessary; a few vessels and gunboats might have cut off the Russian communications quite as effectively without these garrisons as with them. Nor is it by any means clear that the Allies can even now afford to spare the division of Sir George Brown from the army with which they are now commencing in the field. Their superiority in numbers is far from being so great that they can wisely distribute themselves in this manner at remote points about the peninsula.
The next great success is the capture of a place d’armes, which the Russians had prepared in front of the Redan and Malakoff bastions, between their lines and the French, to assemble in for important sorties. As we have not heard of this before we must infer that it was a new construction, and of a purely offensive character. In other words, the besieged instead of being more and more weakened by the besiegers and restricted to defending themselves, are still in a position to extend their means of assailing and damaging the latter. This place was attacked by the French about 15,000 strong on the night of May 23, and, as Pelissier reports, was partially carried; Gorchakoff says the Russians held it, but with a loss of 2,500 men. The next night the combat was renewed, when the Russians were driven out and the entire place occupied. But this appears to be a merely negative victory, depriving the Russians of a means of doing injury, but not doing anything toward silencing the defenses of the town. The allied trenches were not carried forward a yard by it, nor does it afford the least ground for expecting that assault forever promised, but never realized.
The third new and victorious movement is that of 25,000 Frenchmen upon the line of the Chernaya. In respect of this we are also favored with some splendid exaggerations, which give it all the pretensions of a great triumph. The truth is that it is but the first step of the operations in the field which must now begin. This force is probably thrown forward to occupy the Russian army, while another allied division will march by Alupka and the paths of the hills to turn the Russian intrenched position now occupying the main road to Sympheropol. That the Russians would thus withdraw from the Chernaya was a matter of course. They must reserve themselves for the fight behind their intrenchments, where, according to an Austrian telegraphic dispatch, the Allies are about to attack them 100,000 strong—which we shall believe when we see it. A battle on the Chernaya would have been folly for them, especially if their numbers are so much inferior as they are represented. But we have little faith in these representations, and shall wait for facts to justify that sanguine scorn with which The London Times speaks of the slight resistance which the Allies will probably have to encounter henceforth, before we admit its propriety. It remains to be seen whether the long disaster of the siege is now to be crowned by a brilliant and facile coup de main, rendering the Western Powers at once masters of the entire Crimea. But at any rate we may now expect exciting news from that quarter. If it does not now show us war on the grandest scale it will certainly be on the most active.