Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

History magazine - researches
Reference:

The significance of the Russo-Japanese War in the fate of Japan and Asia in the XX century

Eremeev Anton Alekseevich

ORCID: 0009-0007-4703-9833

Bachelor's Degree, Department of Chinese Studies, Far Eastern Federal University

690922, Russia, Primorsky Krai, village Ajax, Prospect Universitetskiy, 6.1

anton-eremeev@inbox.ru

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0609.2023.3.40551

EDN:

NHWCMQ

Received:

23-04-2023


Published:

04-06-2023


Abstract: The article examines the fact of Japan's victory in the Russo-Japanese War as the starting point of Japan's historical development in the XX century, which determined the vector of further changes in Japanese foreign policy and played a significant role in the fate of Asian nations. In modern Russia, the 1904-1905 war is often perceived as a problem exclusively of Russo-Japanese relations and a factor clouding the prospects of good neighborliness. The author of the article aimed to determine the historical significance of Japan's victory in this conflict as an important moral factor for Japanese society, which had a strong international influence in the future. For this purpose author studied materials about the Russo-Japanese War, events preceding the Russo-Japanese war, its prerequisites, directly on the Russo-Japanese War and its results. Based on the data obtained, the author suggests that the results of the Russo-Japanese War had a decisive influence on Japan's transforming into an imperialist state in the first half of the XX century, in what the main role belongs to the acquired from the war victory conviction about the right and ability of Asian nations to resist European colonialism. It is the point from where the further Japanese militaristic policy of the 1930s and 1940s proceeds, which was of great importance in the history of Asian nations, as well as Russia. The article is intended for a wide range of readers interested in Russian and world history, especially for those who want to learn more about the Russo-Japanese war and the non-obvious consequences of Russia's failure in the conflict with Japan.


Keywords:

Russo-Japanese War, Japan, Russia, colonialism, imperialism, Asian history, Port Arthur, Liaodong Peninsula, militarism, the beginning of the XX century

This article is automatically translated.

The modern appearance of international relations is largely determined by the results of the Second World War. The condemnation of Nazism and imperialism, the memory of millions of victims act as guarantees of non-repetition of crimes committed by the aggressor States in the 1930s and 1940s. However, to this day there are still controversial issues affecting the relations of states, for example, the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands.

After 1945, Russia (USSR) and Japan turned out to be parts of different world systems — socialist and capitalist. Despite this, relations between the two countries proceeded quite peacefully, and after 1991 repeated attempts were made to further develop and deepen them towards cooperation. All the more surprising is the fact that more than seventy-five years after the end of World War II, there is no peace treaty between Russia and Japan. The reason for this is the problem of the "northern territories". Since the beginning of the 1950s, the Japanese side has not stopped challenging the affiliation of the South Kuril Ridge to the Russian Federation, considering the possibility of a peace treaty only in connection with the transfer of these territories to it, as noted in the official brochure of the Japanese Foreign Ministry in 2014. The Kuriles, along with southern Sakhalin, became part of Russia as a reward for the victory over Japanese militarism, and Japan's loss of these territories is a consequence of Japan's militaristic policy before 1945. At the same time, the phenomenon of Japanese militarism itself did not arise by itself. It directly comes from the results of the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905.

The historical role of this conflict still has no unambiguous assessment. This issue is relevant in many respects because in Russia it is often perceived either as a private problem of Russian-Japanese relations, or as a phenomenon that has manifested Russia's internal problems, as a local conflict, with the prolongation of which Japan would inevitably lose [1, pp. 348-349]. Now the outcome of this war is recognized as a prerequisite for Japanese militarism, although little has been written about its long-term consequences, and the bulk of the scientific literature is devoted to the course of hostilities. It is important to see its international, global significance. This article examines the impact of Japan's victory in the Russian-Japanese war on the development of Japan and neighboring countries in the first half of the 20th century within the framework of the idea of Asian peoples' confrontation with an external, European threat — a concept in which Japan's conflict with Russia is defined as the initial link of anti-colonial processes in Asia.

The origins of the Russian-Japanese clash originate from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. On November 21, 1894, Japan captured the key point of the Liaodong Peninsula — the city of Port Arthur [1, p. 67], which it intended to leave under its control as one of the conditions of the peace treaty. The Russian Empire was seriously worried about the strengthening of Japan and its possible penetration into Manchuria close to the borders of Russia, another reason for interest was the desire to acquire a non-freezing port in the Far East [1, pp. 68-69]. Therefore, under the pretext of protecting China's sovereignty, together with Germany and France, Russia demanded that Japan abandon this fortress. Just three years later, part of the peninsula with Port Arthur was leased to Russia itself.

Historians' opinions on the development of Russian-Japanese relations in the pre-war years differ. Oleg Airapetov, a prominent specialist in the military history of Russia, believes that Russia's intervention in the conflict with China indicates the inevitability of a clash that had the character of a colonial redistribution [1, p. 9], American international relations specialist Benjamin Mainardi argues that Russia and Japan were equally unwilling to make concessions and intended to absorb Manchuria [2, p. 10], Japanese authors believe that both countries sought a peaceful settlement of the issue of spheres of influence [3, p. 18-19]. In general, from the Japanese point of view, what happened was Russia's interference in the internal affairs of Asian countries, affecting the interests of not only Japan, but also China and Korea.

It is important to remember here that ending Japan's self-isolation (sakoku policy) in 1854, it happened under pressure from the United States. For the Japanese, this was evidence of the danger of losing independence, especially against the background of foreign intervention in China during the Opium Wars. In the second half of the XIX century, the idea of "Asia for Asians" had not yet sounded: this political slogan was actively used only in the 1930s and 1940s. But the prerequisites for pan-Asian sentiments were generated by the obvious interference of European states in the affairs of Asian peoples, in particular, Russia's penetration into Manchuria and Russia's participation in suppressing the uprising of the Yihetuan in 1900-1901 [4, pp. 267-268]. Thus, the confrontation of Russia turned from a private aspiration of Japan into a factor uniting Asian countries in the face of an external threat. In modern Russia, participation in the global colonial redistribution is denied, however, at the beginning of the last century, Russian public opinion about the eastern neighbor practically copied the Western one, representing both admiration for Japanese elegance and its "original beauty" and contempt for the Japanese for their short stature and peculiar ethical norms [5, pp. 21-22]. The possibility of failing in the fight against Japan was not considered at all. This position was characteristic of the era, it expressed the attitude of the European states towards the peoples they considered "uncivilized". And despite the fact that trade and cultural ties between the two countries continuously developed after the abolition of Sakoku, the Russian Empire did not understand that its expansion to the East increases the hostility of the Japanese to Russia, did not take into account that attempts to strengthen themselves in Manchuria and Korea are felt by the Japanese as an immediate threat to their security [5, p. 6].

The problem of the Liaodong Peninsula has become a catalyst for the coming conflict. Russia's intervention in 1895 had already caused a surge of hostility in Japan [1, pp. 79-80], and the transfer of Liaodong under Russian jurisdiction in just three years further undermined trust. Russia itself explained its actions with security issues [1, p. 70; 19, p. 421]. Japan perceived this as double standards, especially since the Japanese side did not refuse the possibility of a peaceful solution to territorial issues, just as the St. Petersburg Treaty of 1875 was concluded [1, p. 79]. In fact, Russia, not seeking conflict in any way, pushed Japanese society to moral unification in front of the image of the enemy from the outside, in which Japan found support from Britain, which also did not want Russia to strengthen in Manchuria [6, pp. 419-420].

In the end, Japan attacked first in 1904, and after a year of battles, Russia ceded Port Arthur and southern Sakhalin to it. Now this event is often evaluated in favor of Russia, which has not suffered significant losses. Of course, the loss of Port Arthur and the defeat at Tsushima influenced the idea of the so-called "yellow danger" — fear of Asian expansion to the west. It was raised even before the Russian-Japanese war, mainly in the form of mystical and philosophical reflections [7, pp. 137-139], but at that stage such a turn of events was not yet obvious: Japan was significantly inferior to the European powers. In addition, Russia's military and financial losses did not cause major damage to the economy and the country's defense capability, although they became "a terrible warning about readiness for a modern war" [8, p. 105].

However, the importance of this war is determined not only by the fact that it was the first imperialist war and the first major intercivilizational clash of the XX century, as the famous Japanese historian Vitaly Sovasteev writes [8, p. 105], but by the impact that this war had on the worldview of Japan and its Asian neighbors. The fear of being turned into a puppet of Western countries has become a driving force for Japan, pushing it towards rapid modernization. The country adopted advanced European experience, including colonial expansion [9, pp. 6-7]. The Japanese used this experience against China at the end of the XIX century, which convinced them of the right to have their own empire. At that time, the West did not include Japan in its plans, and the Russian-Japanese war was considered by third countries as a means of fighting against Russia for dominance in Asia [5, p. 4], but Japan purposefully became more and more "Western" in order to become a new colonial empire itself [10, p. 20].

Describing the impact of the Russian-Japanese war on the perception of the Japanese, Israeli Japanese historian Rotem Kooner says that at the end of the XIX century in Japan there was a strong idea of Europe as the center of the world, and Japan's goal was to join it. The victory in the clash with Russia and the sharp advance of Japan as a colonial power created in European countries the perception of it as a source of danger, which for the Japanese resulted in a sense of disappointment in the possibility of achieving equal treatment, and further spurred the strengthening of pan-Asian views that existed in contrast to pro-European ones [11, pp. 36-37]. In this context, the significance of the Russian-Japanese war for both the Japanese and the Asian public is conveyed by the words of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe: "In the nineteenth century, <...>, waves of colonial domination rolled over Asia. Undoubtedly, the sense of crisis associated with this phenomenon has become the driving force of modernization for Japan. <...>. The Russian-Japanese war allowed many peoples of Asia and Africa, who were under colonial rule, to cheer up." The marked rise of pan-Asian sentiment is noted in works on this topic: for example, journalist Faisal Ali quotes the words of the world-famous pacifist Mahatma Gandhi about the Russian-Japanese war as an outstanding act of heroism and unity of Asians, an example for other peoples. In view of this, the attempts of the Japanese to create the appearance of "liberation" of Asian countries from European colonialism and how the "liberated" reacted to this are of particular interest. After entering World War II, Japan resorted to supporting the nationalist movements of the occupied countries within the framework of the concept of the "East Asian sphere of co-prosperity" and "Asia for Asians". This was the case in Indonesia, whose first post-war leader Sukarno worked as an employee of the Japanese occupation authorities and the conductor of its policy: Japan promised Indonesia independence in exchange for cooperation, and Sukarno hoped to use Japanese aid for his own purposes [12, pp. 222-224]. Similarly, Japanese agents attracted Burmese patriots to their side [12, pp. 218-219], for whom the arrival of the invaders was perceived as liberation from the British administration. Formally independent states, entirely subordinate to the Japanese army, were established in the occupied territories. By reinforcing nationalist movements in Asia, the Japanese probably expected to rely on them in the future, but after the war these movements became a real force in the liberation of Asian countries from European colonial authorities. It can be assumed that Japan's actions became a catalyst for the inevitable activation of Asian nationalism, one of the reasons for decolonization in the 1940s and 1950s.

With regard to the initial period after the Russian-Japanese war, Shinzo Abe's words briefly but clearly express the essence of the changes that have taken place in the minds of Asian peoples. For the first time, a European power was defeated by an Asian country. Firstly, it entailed satisfying the wounded feelings of China, Korea and Japan — underdeveloped countries facing the threat of colonization. The public opinion of the Chinese was formed by the fresh memory of the suppression by foreign states of the Yihetuan uprising, which for the Chinese looked like aggression. Therefore, the Chinese and Korean public often supported the actions of the Japanese troops [13, p. 94], cases of Chinese provocations and refusal of assistance were recorded [4, p. 269-270], and the Russian command seriously considered the danger of an attack by Chinese armies. Secondly, Japan's victory actually smoothed out its heavy military losses (between 120 and 300 thousand people, according to various estimates). In this context, if we combine the conflict of 1904-1905 and the armed aggression of Japan in Asia after 1937, we get a picture of a long period of anti-colonial struggle, where the Russian-Japanese war acts as the first step towards the final liberation of Asia from the Europeans.

What is important for Japan is that this victory gave it a sense of being on a par with Europe, a sense of confidence in the right to act like European powers. In this way, it was connected to the world colonial redistribution, which it would not be able to enter in case of defeat, and at the same time, as it were, acted as a luminary of hope for neighboring countries. For Russia, the outcome of the war became a source of strong national irritation: the deaths and injuries of 194,959 soldiers, sailors and officers [14], the loss of Port Arthur caused severe moral damage to the state, undermined Russia's prestige in the international arena [11, p. 5], and, according to Rotem Kooner, all this served as one of the main the causes of the revolution of 1905-1907 [11, p. 7] and political instability in China [11, p. 15]. For Korea, this was a step towards the final elimination of its statehood under the pretext of protection from Russian influence. In 1905-1910 . It was annexed to Japan, and then subjected to economic exploitation and cultural assimilation. After the Second World War, during the liberation of the peninsula, it was occupied by the Soviet and American armies, later splitting into two states, the enmity between which is dangerous for both Japan and Russia [11, p. 18], and the Japanese conquest is the reason that this happened. In 1931 and 1937, China became the object of aggression, for which the memory of the anti-Japanese war is now an important unifying factor, and from 1940 to 1945, intervention was carried out in Indochina, the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia under the guise of assistance in the anti-colonial struggle.

Reality has shown that Japan's goal was not to liberate Asia, but to conquer it. Many war crimes were committed in the occupied territories by the Japanese army, for example, the Nanjing massacre in the winter of 1937-1938, the experiments of Detachment 731 on living people in Northeast China, the forcible sending of Korean and Filipino women to brothels, etc. The final consequence of the imperialist policy was the defeat of Japan in direct confrontation with the Soviet Union and the United States. The country was subjected to atomic bombing and occupied, and to this day pursues a pacifist foreign policy, enshrined in the ninth article of the 1947 Constitution. Other Southeast Asian countries, thanks to the weakening of European colonial administrations, peacefully or by armed means established their statehood in the 1940s and 1960s.

Summarizing the above, it can be argued that the fact of Japan's victory in the war of 1904-1905 is the starting point of the historical fate of East Asian countries in the XX century, in which the most obvious consequences are the catastrophic events caused by Japanese militarism in 1931-1945, followed by the occupation and demilitarization of Japan, the split of the Korean Peninsula, the processes of decolonization in Asia, and so on. It is from the moral uplift experienced by Japanese society after 1905 and superimposed on the pan-Asian idea that the modern history of Japan and other Asian countries after World War II is formed.

References
1. Ayrapetov, Î. R. (2014). On the way to collapse. Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Military and political history. Moscow: LLC Trading House Algorithm.
2. Mainardi, B. E. (2019). The Russo-Japanese War: Origins and Implications. James Madison Undergraduate Research Journal, 5(1), 6-14.
3. Laktionov, A. (Ed.). (2004). Russo-Japanese War: The Siege and Fall of Port Arthur. Moscow: Tranzitkniga.
4. Shashkova, Y. O. (2015). Chinese attitude to Russian Army during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 through the eyes of Russian military. China: History and Modernity : Materials of the 8th International scientific and practical conference in Yekaterinburg, October 7-8, 267-271.
5. Barkhatov, M. E., Funke, V. V. (1907). The history of the Russo-Japanese War : in 5 volumes. Volume 1. (1907). Saint-Petersburg: R. Golike and A. Vilborg Partnership.
6. van Dijk, K. (2015). Pacific Strife. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
7. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, D. (2009). Toward the Rising Sun : Russian Ideologies of Empire and the Path to War with Japan. Moscow: New Literary Review.
8. Sovasteyev, V. V. (2003). Demythologization of the Russo-Japanese War. Russia and the Pacific, 4, 105-107.
9. Vasilevskaya, I. I. (1975). Japan's colonial policy in Korea on the eve of annexation (1904-1910 ãã.). Ìoscow: Nauka.
10. Steinberg, J. W. (2008). The Russo-Japanese War and World History. Education About Asia, 13(2), 19-24.
11. Kowner, R. (2007). The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War. London: Routledge.
12. Mozheyko, I. V. (2001). West wind — clear weather. Moscow: AST.
13. Kutsenko, B. O. (2020). China's influence on the events of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Manuscript, 8, 93-98. doi: 10.30853/manuscript.2020.8.15
14. Tarasov, M. O. (2018). Information about losses in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 in Russian historiography. Young Scientist, 20(206), 363-366.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

1. The topic of the article "The significance of the Russian-Japanese war in the fate of Japan and Asia in the XX century" (hereinafter - the Work) is relevant to the specialization of the journal Historical Journal: Scientific Research (hereinafter - the Journal). 2. The content of the Work corresponds to the topic stated in the title, but it is desirable to define a time frame in the title. The subject of the study is not defined, there is no problem statement and description of the methodology, only the main results of the study are highlighted. 3. The validity of scientific argumentation in the Work does not fully meet the requirements for scientific publications. Analyzing "the deep essence of the changes that have taken place in the minds of Asian peoples" and arguing "about the fateful nature of Japan's victory not only for its country, but also for its neighboring states," the author appeals not to academic research, but to the speech of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The scientific novelty of the Work is not reflected in the text. The main conclusions are logically based on the text of the Work, but the actual analysis of the "significance of the Russian-Japanese war in the fate of Japan and Asia in the twentieth century" in the text of the Work is not given enough attention. In this regard, the reliability and significance of the conclusions is not obvious. 4. There is no analysis of the current state of the problem under study in the Work. The work provides a historical retrospective of the actions of tsarist Russia in the second half of the XIX century in East Asia, which pushed "Japanese society and the public of East Asia to moral unification in front of the image of the enemy from the outside" and provoked the outbreak of the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The degree of research of the problem is not given locally, but is revealed by the author throughout the text of the Work. Of particular interest, in our opinion, is the coverage in the Work of Japan's attempts to "liberate" Asian countries from European colonialism, for which the Japanese resorted to supporting the nationalist movements of the occupied countries within the framework of the concept of the "East Asian sphere of co-prosperity" and "Asia for Asians". The literature and sources used by the author of the Work, from the point of view of their relevance, fully correspond to the problems of the study, but are not sufficient to reveal the theme of the Work. The bibliographic list consists of 13 sources in Russian and English (1 source), among which there is practically no scientific literature/sources, as well as publications in peer-reviewed journals. According to the requirements of the Journal, the list of references should contain "at least half of the works published in the last 3 years" and "the recommended volume of the list of references for an original scientific article ... should contain: at least a third of foreign sources, These requirements are not met. 6. The design of the work does not meet the requirements for the preparation of academic journal articles: there are no necessary structural elements, namely, dedicated to the relevance of the research topic, analysis of the state of the issue, formulation of the problem to be solved, research methodology, critical analysis of the results. At the same time, the volume of the main part of the text meets the requirements of the Journal and is practically sufficient to achieve the stated goal. The style of presentation of the Work is academic, the linguistic and stylistic characteristics are scientific, the text is informative. The design of the text, the reference apparatus and the bibliographic list, as indicated above, does not meet the requirements of the Journal. 8. The work does not look completely finished and at this stage it is quite problematic to judge the scientific novelty. Although the information presented in the Work, when finalized, may arouse the interest of readers.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

Russian Russian-Japanese War Review on the article "The significance of the Russo–Japanese War in the fate of Japan and Asia in the twentieth century" The subject of research is the study of the role and significance of the Russo-Japanese war in the fate of Japan and Asia in the twentieth century. The research methodology is based on the principles of science, objectivity and consistency. The work uses historical-genetic, historical-comparative and historical-chronological methods. The relevance of the topic is determined by the fact that the results of the Russian-Japanese war had a significant impact on Japan's domestic and foreign policy and also on the fate of Asia as a whole. The author notes that "the modern appearance of international relations is largely determined by the results of the Second World War," but nevertheless, controversial issues have not been overcome to date, in particular between Russia and Japan, in particular, the problem of the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands remains. . The condemnation of Nazism and imperialism and the memory of millions of victims act as guarantees not to repeat the crimes committed by the aggressor States in the 1930s and 1940s. However, to this day there are still controversial issues affecting the relations of states, for example, the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands. "The Kuriles, along with southern Sakhalin, became part of Russia as a reward for the victory over Japanese militarism, and Japan's loss of these territories is a consequence of Japan's militaristic policy before 1945. At the same time, the phenomenon of Japanese militarism did not arise by itself. It directly stems from the results of the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905.", The results of this war, the author writes, marked the beginning of Japanese militarism and to this day, in historical literature, the author notes, "little has been written about its long-term consequences, and the bulk of scientific literature is devoted to the course of hostilities." Therefore, the author of the peer-reviewed article emphasizes, "it is important to discern its international, global significance." The article "examines the impact of Japan's victory in the Russian-Japanese war on the development of Japan and neighboring countries in the first half of the 20th century within the framework of the idea of Asian peoples' confrontation with an external, European threat — a concept in which Japan's conflict with Russia is defined as the initial link of anti-colonial processes in Asia." The topic of the article is relevant and its relevance is beyond doubt. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the formulation of the problem and tasks. In fact, for the first time in historiography, an attempt is being made to study the impact of the Russian-Japanese war on Japan's domestic and foreign policy and on the development of neighboring countries. The novelty is also determined by the fact that the article for the first time examines the impact of Japan's victory in the Russian-Japanese war on neighboring countries "within the framework of the idea of Asian peoples' confrontation with an external, European threat — a concept in which Japan's conflict with Russia is defined as the initial link of anti-colonial processes in Asia." The style of the article is scientific, the language of the article is clear and the topic of the article will be understandable not only to specialists, but also to a wide range of readers. The structure of the article and the content are logically structured and aimed at achieving the purpose of the article and objectives. The title of the article corresponds to the content of the article. The article provides a small but comprehensive review of historiography on Russian-Japanese relations before the war and notes that Russian, American and Japanese researchers have different opinions on this matter. He writes that "a major specialist in the military history of Russia, Oleg Airapetov, believes that Russia's intervention in the conflict with China indicates the inevitability of a clash that had the character of a colonial redistribution, American international relations specialist Benjamin Mainardi argues that Russia and Japan equally did not want to make concessions and intended to absorb Manchuria, Japanese authors It is believed that both countries sought a peaceful settlement of the issue of spheres of influence." And he summarizes that, "from the Japanese point of view, what happened was Russia's interference in the internal affairs of Asian countries, affecting the interests of not only Japan, but also China and Korea." This gives the reader a deeper understanding of the topic under study as a whole. The bibliography of the article is diverse (these are works from the beginning of the XX century, the Soviet period and the works of Russian and foreign authors of recent years). In general, the literature provided in the bibliography is quite sufficient to prepare a good article on the topic under study. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of information collected during the work on the article. In addition, the bibliography of the work also serves as an appeal to opponents. The article is written on an actual scientific topic, has signs of novelty and will be of interest to both specialists and a wide range of readers.