Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T09:28:46.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japan's Indecision During the Boxer Disturbances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

I. H. Nish
Get access

Extract

Japan's actions during the Boxer crisis which resulted in the siege of. The foreign legations in Peking from June 20 to August 14, 1900, are the subject of debate among historians. Some argue that Japan's actions were “generally sound in dealing with the difficult international circumstances of the time; considering Japan's mission today as a bridge between east and west, they may be regarded as a historical fact of which the Japanese can be very proud.” Those who take this view would claim that Japan tried to balance her sympathy with China with her responsibilities to the powers and that she generally succeeded. On the other hand, others hold that while “Japan played a singularly conscientious role in the allied relief expedition to Peking to rescue the legation staffs in the summer of 1900, … the Tokyo cabinet was certainly not indifferent to its opportunities.” They would argue that, while Japan did not acquire territory in China during the Boxer disturbances, she thought of doing so and took steps to that end. The published archives of the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs show the extent to which she acted in line with the expansive temper of the powers in China at the time. This paper will consider the projects which were undertaken by the Japanese, the motives for them, and the reasons why they were not followed through.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 1961 , pp. 449 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kazuo, Kawamura, “Hokushin jihen to Nihon” [The Boxer Rebellion and Japan], Nihon gaikõshi ken-kyũ—Meiji jidai (Tokyo, 1957), pp. 117, 118.Google Scholar

2 Jansen, M. B., “Opportunists in South China during the Boxer Rebellion,” Pacific Historical Review, XX, 1951, pp. 241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Professor Jansen, follows up this theme in The Japanese and Sun Yat-Sen (Cambridge, Mass., 1954)Google Scholar.

3 The long series of Nihon gaikõ bunsho [Japanese diplomatic documents] contains four relevant volumes: one deals with general foreign policy for 1900 (XXXm, Tokyo, 1956); and supplementary volumes deal with the Boxer disturbances, two for 1900 (XXXIII/II and XXXIII/II, Tokyo, 1956) and one primarily for 1901 (XXXIII/III, Tokyo, 1957).

4 Iichirõ, Tokutomi, Kõ shaku Yamagata Aritomo den (Tokyo, 1933), III, 424Google Scholar.

5 The strength of the relieving force in August 1900 was estimated at 8000 Japanese, 4500 Russians, 3000 British, 2500 Americans, etc.

6 Iichirō, Tokutomi, Kōshaku Katsura Tarō den (Tokyo, 1917), I, 901, 902Google Scholar.

7 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/II, No. 989 ff. Kentaro, Kaneko, Itō Hirobumi den (Tokyo, 1943), III, 432–434 and 436–438.Google Scholar

8 I.e., the straits of Taiwan (Formosa).

9 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXHI/III, No. 2370. Memorandum by Yamagata, August 20, 1900.

10 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXI/I, No. 437, Yano-Nishi, April 29, 1898.

11 Nihon gaikō.5 bunsho, XXXI/I, No. 442, Yano-Nishi, May 8, 1898.

12 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, No. 232, Memorandum from Aoki to Yamagata dated February 1, 1900, with appendix and note.

13 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, Nos. 233–240.

14 C. C. Tan, The Boxer Catastrophe (New York, 1955), chapter 3 passim.

15 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, Nos. 21–32 on the Open Door notes. Treat, P. J., Diplomatic Relations between United States and Japan 1853–1905 (Stanford, 1938) 86–88Google Scholar.

16 Nihon gaikō.5 bunsho, XXXHI/I, Nos. 879–885. Amoy was a treaty port; it is an island in the bay of that name, the former foreign settlement being on the adjoining island of Kulangsu.

17 Nihon gaikō bunsho XXXIII/I, No. 889, Yamamoto-Aoki, August 14, 1900. Yūsuke, Tsurumi, Gotō Shimpei (Tokyo, 1937), II, 456–458 (hereafter referred to as Tsurumi)Google Scholar.

18 Tsurumi, II, 459, 460.

19 Tsurumi, II, 464.

20 Tsurumi, II, 461–463. Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, Nos. 894–900.

21 Tsurumi, II, 464–469.

22 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, No. 901, Aoki-Ueno, August 28, 1900.

23 Tsurumi, II, 469, 470.

24 British Blue Book, China (1901), Correspondence Respecting the Disturbances in China, No. 308, Mansfield (Amoy)—Salisbury, September 7, 1900.

25 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, No. 917, Gotō-Katsura/Aoki, August 29; No. 918 Aoki-Ueno, August 30; footnote by Uchida Yasuya.

26 Tsurumi, II, 478–481.

27 Tsurumi, II, 479, Gotō-Kodama, September 6.

28 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, No. 903, Ueno-Aoki, August 28, 1900.

29 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, No. 913, for example Whitehead-Aoki, August 29, 1900.

30 Itō Hirobumi den, in, 457, 8, 463. Itō was in Tokyo for the inauguration of the Seiyukai on August 15 and again on August 25.

31 Tsurumi, II, 480.

32 Tsurumi, II, 480, 481.

33 FO Japan, 528, Whitehead-Salisbury, private, October 4, 1900.

34 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/III, No. 2369, Item 4, 495–497. Memorandum by Yamamoto (navy minister) on north China situation dated June 24, 1900, with its attachment: recorded discussion by Yamamoto. This record is undated, but it is presumed by the editorial staff to belong to August 29, 1900. I am indebted to members of Nihon gaikō bunshoshitsu at the Japanese Foreign Ministry for elucidation of this point.

35 The Russian intimation was dated August 25, but was only passed to Japan's minister to Russia, Komura, on August 29 and was not passed on by him until August 30.

The intimation from the Russian minister in Tokyo was not made to the Japanese Foreign Ministry until September 1. Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, No. 532, 734–738. Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/II, No. 1711–1722.

36 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXII, No. 118; Nos. 123–156.

37 A. Malozemoff, Russian Far Eastern Policy 1881–1904 (Berkeley, 1958), 145.

38 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/II, Nos. 1271, 72.

39 Segai Inoue Kō den (Tokyo, 1933–34), v, 3, 45 Kōshaku Katsura Tarō den, I, 1047.

40 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, 699–705, from which all references in the following pages are taken. The documents contain an incomplete set of telegrams which passed at this time between Tokyo and St. Petersburg and between Tokyo and Berlin. Use has also been made of the summaries of other telegrams (which have not been preserved) as contained in the incoming and outgoing registers of telegrams maintained by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

41 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, Nos. 195 and 196, Hayashi (Seoul)-Aoki, April 19, 1900.

42 Romanov, B. A., Russia in Manchuria (1892–1906), English Edition (Ann Arbor, 1952), pp. 207Google Scholar and 432, quoting Krasnii Arkhiv.

43 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIH/III, No. 2370.

44 It is known that Yamagata's memorandum was circulated, at any rate, to his foreign minister.

45 Itō Hirobumi den, III, 465, 466.

46 M. B. Jansen, The Japanese and Sun Yat-Sen, 99.

47 FO Japan, 528, Whitehead-Bertie, August 15, 1900.

48 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/II, No. 1023, Aoki-Inoue, August 25, 1900.

49 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/III, No. 2370, Memorandum by Yamagata, August 20, 1900.

50 Yamagata Aritomo den. III, 426.

51 Tsurumi, II, 477–479.

52 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII/I, No. 938, Aoki-Murota, September I, 1900.

53 Koshaku Katsura Taro den, I, 928–934.

54 Itō Hirobumi den, II, 465, 466.

55 Romanov, op. cit., p. 217 ff; MalozemofT, op. cit., p. 131 ff. Neither mentions this approach in July and August

56 Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War, II, Nos. 11–17.

57 Ibid., II, No. 32 ff.

58 Nihon gaikō bunsho, XXXIII, Nos. 242–249. In November 1900 the U. S. Secretary of State asked China and then Japan for the free and exclusive use of Samsa Bay in the north of Fukien as a naval port. Despite the strong recommendation of the Japanese minister in Washington, Japan asked America to abandon its demand, and, when it disclosed its rights of non-alienation in Fukien, this was agreed.