No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
William L. Langer, the eminent scholar of imperialism, has succinctly defined the nature of the Russo-Japanese War:
The Russo-Japanese War still remains the classic example of a conflict waged for purely imperialistic motives. There was no sentiment, no tradition involved. The Japanese and the Russians were equally disliked by the population of the territories which they desired to control. At bottom it was merely a question of which nation should victimize the moribund Korean and Chinese Empires.
1 Langer, William L., ‘The Origin of the Russo-Japanese War, ’ in his Exploraiwn in Crisis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Kumatarō, Honda, Tamashii no gaikō (A Diplomacy of the Spirit) (Tokyo: Chikura Shobō, 1951), pp. 225–6.Google Scholar
3 ‘Manshu ni kansuru Nisshin kōshō dampan hikki’ (Minutes of the SinoJanpanese Negotiations on Manchuria) in Gaimushō, (comp), Nihon gaikō bunsho (Diplomatic Papers of Japan) (Tokyo: Nihon Kokusai Rengō Kyōkai, 1958), Vol. No. 38, I, pp. 202–406.Google Scholar
4 Ibid., p. 288.
5 With regard to China's consent to the Japanese demands, Jerome Ch'en has written: ‘From [Yuan's] personal point of view, this was an expression of friendship to the country he had offended during his terms of office in Seoul from 1883 to 1895.’ Yuan Shih-kai, 1859–1916 (Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 94.Google Scholar In fact, Yuan stoutly resisted Japan at the conference. For the influence of nationalism and public opinion on late Ch'ing foreign policymaking, see Iriye, Akira, ‘Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Case of Late Ch'ing China,’ in Feuerwerker, Albert, Murphey, Rhoads, and Wright, Mary C. (eds), Approaches to Modern Chinese History (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 216–38.Google Scholar
6 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 147–9.Google Scholar
7 Gaimushō, (comp.), Komura gaikō shi (A History of Komura Diplomacy) (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1966), p. 700.Google Scholar
8 This sentence appeared in an inscription on a bronze statue of Komura. Although signed by Matsuoka Yōsuke, president of the South Manchuria Railway Company, the inscription was originally drafted by Honda Kumatarō. Honda, Tamashii no gaikō, frontpiece.
9 Yasunobu, Somura, ‘Komura Jutarō to Nichi-Ro sensō’ (Komura Jutarō and the Russo-Japanese War) in Kazuo, Ōkochi and Sōichi, Ōya (eds), Kindai Nihon o tsukutta hyakunin (One Hundred Builders of Modern Japan) (Tokyo: Mainichi Shimbunsha, 1965), Vol. 1, p. 236.Google Scholar
10 Masakuma, Uchiyama, ‘Komura gaikō hihan’ (Komura Diplomacy Reconsidered) in his Gendai Nihon gaikōshi ron (On Modern Japanese Diplomacy) (Tokyo: Keiō Tsūshinsha, 1971), p. 98.Google Scholar
11 Komura Shōji (Komura's second son) has described his father as ‘a historian-crusher, for he has left no private papers at all’. ‘Chichi no omoide’ (My Father) in Kasumigasekikai kaihō furoku (A Supplement to the Kasumigaseki Club News) (February 1962), p. 12. Komura detested writing letters and neglected even the New Year's greetings. Uhei, Masumoto, Shizen no hito, Komura Jutarō (A Man of Nature, Komura Jutarō) (Tokyo: Rakuyōdō, 1914), p. 259.Google Scholar My careful examination of archives of such Meiji leaders as Itō Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo, Katsura Tarō, and others, all of whom had close dealings with Komura, uncovered no letters to or from him. Despite the hospitality and kindness extended to me by a number of people in Obi, my visit to Komura's hometown produced no documents on him.
12 Komura Shōji, ‘Pōtsumasu kaigi no zengo’ (At the Time of the Portsmouth Conference), Nihon hyōron (Japan Review), April 1929, p. 148; Gaimushō, Komura gaikō shi, p. 711.
13 Jutarō, Komura, ‘“Makoto” no ichiji’ (Sincerity) in Takeo, Nakayama, Komura Jutarō den (A Biography of Komura Jutarō) (Tokyo: Shin Kō-Asha, 1940), pp. 163–4.Google Scholar
14 Ibid., pp. 171–2.
15 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, p. 359.Google Scholar
16 Honda, , Tamashii no gaikō, p. 40.Google Scholar
17 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, p. 42Google Scholar
18 Gaimushō, , Komura gaikō shi, p. 22.Google Scholar
19 Yoshie, Ōmachi and Matazō, Ikari, Sugiura Jūgō sensei (A Biography of Sugiura Jūgō) (Tokyo: Seikyōsha, 1924), p. 226.Google Scholar
20 Gaimushō, , Komura gaikō shi, p. 36.Google Scholar
21 Ibid., p. 260; Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, p. 97.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., p. 64.
23 Gaimushō archives.
24 Iichirō, Tokutomi, Waga Kōyūroku (My Acquaintances) (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1938), pp. 348–9.Google Scholar
25 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, P. 231.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., p. 659. Lasswell, Harold D., Power and Personality (New York: The Viking Press, 1962), pp. 7–107.Google Scholar
27 Berutsu, Toku (Toku Baelz) (ed.), Berutsu no nikki (Baelz Diary) (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1955), Part 2, No. 2, p. 102.Google Scholar
28 Shōji, Komura, ‘Pōtsumasu kaigi no zengo,’ p. 148.Google Scholar
29 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, p. 137.Google Scholar
30 Kenkichi, Yoshizawa, Gaikō rokujūnen (Sixty Years of Diplomacy) (Tokyo: Jiyū Ajia Sha, 1958), pp. 42–3.Google Scholar
31 Jutarō, Komura, ‘“Makoto” no ichiji’ pp. 167–8.Google Scholar
32 Gaimushō, , Komura gaikō shi, pp. 23–4.Google Scholar
33 Shōji, Komura, ‘Jutarō hishi’ (An Untold Story of Komura Jutarō), Nihon hyōron (June 1949), p. 292.Google Scholar
34 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vol. 35 (1957), p. 54.Google Scholar
35 Honda, , Tamashii no gaikō pp. 169–70.Google Scholar Hagiwara Moriichi, sometime consulgeneral at Mukden, judged that Komura's ideas were ‘a bit conventional’ while Itō was ‘thoroughly progressive.’ Seishū, Kubota (comp.), Hagiwara Moriichi shi tsuikai roku (Reminiscences of Hagiwara Moriichi) (Tokyo: n.p., 1913), p. 354.Google Scholar
36 Kasumigasekikai kaihō furoku, p. 10.Google Scholar
37 Honda, , Tamashii no gaikō, pp. 279–85.Google Scholar
38 Shigematsu, Kusano and Sentarō, Namiki (comp.), Sohō bunsen (Writings of Tokutomi Sohō) (Tokyo: Minyūsha, 1915), p. 1152.Google Scholar
39 Taichirō, Mitani, Nihon seitō seiji no keisei: Hara Takashi no seiji shidō no tenkai (Establishment of Party Politics in Japan: The Development of Hara Takashi's Political Leadership) (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1967), pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
40 There is some disagreement as to Mutsu's influence on Komura. See, for instance, Hyakunenshi, GaimushōIinkai, Hensan (ed.), Gaimushō no hyakunen (A Century of the Japanese Foreign Ministry) (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1969), Vol. I, pp. 399–400.Google Scholar I have relied on Hara's observation: ‘Komura died and today I attended his funeral. He also spent many years in obscurity, but when Count Mutsu elected him to be first secretary of the Peking legation, his fortune turned for the better. Thereafter, greatly valued by the bureaucratic faction, he even achieved the rank of marquis. A lucky person he was.’ Keiichirō, Hara (comp.), Hara Kei nikki (Diary of Hara Takashi) (Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan, 1965), Vol. 3, entry of December 2, 1911, pp. 190–1.Google Scholar
41 Hara Kei nikki, Vol. 2, entry of June 13 1903, p. 68.Google Scholar
42 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, pp. 226–7Google Scholar; Gaimushō, ,Komura gaikō shi, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., p. 60.
44 Ibid., p. 67; Shōji, Komura, ‘Jutarō hishi,’ pp. 303–4.Google Scholar
45 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vol. 33 (1956), Supplement 1, Boxer uprising, Pt 1, pp. 372, 536, 570, and 587.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., Vol. 34, p. 524: Seizaburō, Shinobu and Jiichi, Nakayama (eds), Nichi-Ro sensō shi no kenkyū (A Study of the History of the Russo-Japanese War) (Tokyo:Kawade Shobō Shinsha, 1959), p. 109;Google ScholarJun, Tsunoda, Manshū mondai to kokubōhōshin (The Manchurian Question and Japan's National Defense Policy) (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1967), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar
47 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vols 37 and 38 (1960), Supplement, Russo-Japanese War, Pt 5, pp. 297–302.Google Scholar
48 Iriye, Akira, ‘The Ideology of Japanese Imperialism: Imperial Japan and China,’ in Goodman, Grant L. (comp.), Imperial Japan and Asia (New York; The East Asian Institute, Columbia University, 1967), p. 36.Google Scholar If we accept Marius Jansen's view that ‘the inclusion of the commercial clauses in the Shimonoseki Treaty’ was a manifestation of [the datsu-A] attitude,’ then Komura was its first practitioner, for it was he who prepared the draft proposal demanding them. Marius B. Jansen, ‘Japanese Views of China During the Meiji Period’, in Feuerwerker, Murphy, and Wright, Approaches to Modern Chinese History, p. 173. bunsho, Nihon gaikō (1953), Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 193–6 and 732.Google Scholar
49 Iriye, , ‘The Ideology of Japanese Imperialism,’ p. 36.Google Scholar
50 Usui Katsumi, ‘Hirota Kōki ron’ (On Hirota Kōki), in Kokusai seiji: Nihon gaikōshi kenkyū-gaikō shidōsha ron (International Politics: A Study of the Diplomatic History of Japan—Foreign Policymakers) (1966), p. 41.
51 Honda, , Tamashii no gaikō, pp. 55–6.Google Scholar
52 Gaimushō, , Komura gaikō shi, p. 213.Google Scholar
53 bunsho, Nihon gaikō Vol. 36 (1957), No. 1, p. 2.Google Scholar
54 Gaimushō, ,Komura gaikō shi, pp. 206–15.Google Scholar
55 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, pp. 657, 703, and 373.Google Scholar
56 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vols. 37 and 38, Supplement, Russo-Japanese War, Pt 5, pp. 59 –63 and 69–72.Google Scholar
57 Ibid., Vol. 41 (1960), No. 1, p. 76.
58 Wright, Mary Clabaugh, ‘Introduction, The Rising Tide of Change’, in China in Revolution: The First Phase, 1900–1913 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 1.Google Scholar
59 Gaimushō, Komura gaikō shi, p. 46Google Scholar; Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, P. 220.Google Scholar
60 Shigeichi, Shukuri, Komura Jutarō Pekin hen (Komura Jutarō: His Peking Days) (Tokyo: Shunjūsha-Shōhakukan, 1943), p. 418.Google Scholar
61 Masumoto, , Shizen no hito, p. 446.Google Scholar
63 For example see Kankōkai, Konoe Atsumaro Nikki (comp.), Konoe Atsumaronikki (Diary of Konoe Atsumaro) (Tokyo: Kajima Kenkyūjo Shuppankai, 1968), Vol. 3, p. 418.Google Scholar
64 Yamaza Enjirō papers, in the Kindai Rippō Katei Kenkyūkai (Study Groupn on Modern Lawmaking), College of Law, University of Tokyo; bunsho, Nihon gaikō, Vols. 37 and 38, Supplement, Russo-Japanese War, Pt 5, p. 305.Google Scholar
65 Iinkai, Uchida Yasuya Denki Hensan (ed.), Uchida Yasuya (Tokyo: Kajima Kenkyūjo Shuppankai, 1969), pp. 91–109.Google Scholar Concerning Komura's other sources of information, see Imai Shōji, ‘Nichi-Ro sensō to tai-Shin seisaku no tenkai’ (The Russo-Japanese War and the Development of Japan's Policy toward China), Kokusai seiji: Nihon gaikōshi kenkyū–Nichū kankei no tenkai (International Politics: Studies of the Diplomatic History of Japan–The Development of Sino-Japanese relations) (1961), pp. 17–28.
66 Torajirō, Naitō, Nait¯ Ko'nan zenshū (hereafter cited as NKZ) (The Complete Works of Naitō Torajirō) (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1972), Vol. 6, pp. 369–93Google Scholar: Shinagaku (Sinology) (February, 1934) Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 4; Miyakawa, Hisayuki, ‘An Outline of the Naitō Hypothesis and Its Effects on Japanese Studies of China,’ Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4 (08 1955), pp. 533–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I have received kind suggestions from Professors Banno Masataka and Etō Shinkichi concerning the relations between Komura and Naitō. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for my interpretation of Naitō's ideas.
67 NKZ, Vol. 6, pp. 696–701.Google Scholar
68 Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 493.
69 For Naitō's background, see Taisuke, Mitamura, Naitō Ko'nan (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1972)Google Scholar; Tamaki, Ogawa (comp.), Naitō Ko'nan (Toyko; Chūō Kōronsha, 1971)Google Scholar; postscripts by Naitō's son to NKZ volumes.
70 NKZ Vol. 1 (1970), p. 441.Google Scholar
71 Ibid., pp. 453, 483–9.
72 Ibid., Vol. 2 (1971), p. 214.
73 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 434–6.
74 Ibid., p. 523; and Vol. 2, p. 317.
75 bid., Vol. 3 (1971), p. 190.
76 Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 127–35.
77 Ibid., p. 235.
78 Ibid., p. 140–3, 151–6, 489–91, and 622–4.
79 Ibid., p. 610–16.
80 Ibid., p. 611.
81 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 283–304.
82 Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 146–50.
83 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 258–60.
84 Ibid., Vol. p. 420.
85 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 748.
86 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 51.
87 Ibid., pp. 37 and 41–3.
88 Ibid., pp. 308–9.
89 Ibid., p. 359.
90 Ibid., p. 117. On the meaning of the slogan ‘maintenance of China's integrity’ (Shina hozen) as proclaimed by such groups as the Tö-A Dōbunkai and the Kokumin Dōmeikai, see Sakai Yūkichi, ‘Konoe Atsumaro to Meiji sanj¯ nendai no taigaikōha’ (Konoe Atsumaro and the Advocate of a Strong Foreign Policy in the Decade after 1897), Kokka Gakkai zasshi (Journal of Political Science), Vol. 83, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 188–257, particularly pp. 220–4.Google Scholar
91 NKZ Vol. 4 (1971), pp. 26–8.Google Scholar
92 This is a phrase that Komura often used to express his attitude toward China. Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 106, and Vol. 41, No. 1, p. 76.Google Scholar
93 NKZ Vol. 4, pp. 179–80.Google Scholar
94 Ibid., pp. 177–8.
95 Mitamura, , Naitō Ko'nan, p. 193.Google Scholar
96 NKZ, Vol. 6, pp. 390–2.Google Scholar
97 Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 506–7.
98 Some of Itō's ideas concerning postwar Manchuria may be found in Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, Harold (eds), British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914, Vol. 4 (London, 1929), pp. 64–6.Google Scholar
99 Sohō, Tokutomi (ed.), Kōshaku Katsura Tarō den (A Biography of Prince Katsura Tarō), Vol. 2 (Tokyo: Hara Shobī, 1967), p. 312;Google Scholar Inoue Kaoru Kō Denki Hensankai (comp.), Segai Inoue Kaoru kō den (A Biography of Marquis Inoue Kaoru), Vol. 5 (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1968), pp. 11–13.Google Scholar Paul Hibbert Clyde struck only a half-truth when he wrote: ‘One fact would seem to stand out pre-eminently. Had Japan possessed a deep-seated and sinister scheme of continental aggression… it is difficult to explain why the Katsura government… came near to disposing of half of its interests in the Manchurian railway to American capitalists. Until such time as more evidence is brought forward…we are forced to conclude… that there was little, if any, substance to the so-called continental imperialism.’ International Rivalries in Manchuri, 1689–1922 (New York: Octagon Books, 1966; first published in 1928), pp. 153–4.Google Scholar
100 Pooley, A. M. (ed.), The Secret Memoirs of Count Tadasu Hayashi (London: Eveleigh Nash, 1915), p. 254.Google Scholar
101 Kasumigasekikai kaihō furoku, p. 9.
102 Nihon gaikō bunsho, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 76–7.Google Scholar
103 Kōichi, Nomura, ‘Tairiku mondai no imēji tojittai’ (Images and Realities in the China Question), in Bunsō, Hashikawa and Sannosuke, Matsumoto (eds.), Kindai Nihon seiji shisō shi (A History of Modern Japanese Political Thought) (Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 1970), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar
104 Michie, Alexander, The Englishman in China during the Victorian Era (Taipei: Ch'eng-wen Publishing Co.; reprinted in 1966), Vol. 2, p. 165.Google Scholar