Ab Imperio, 1/2018
Ivan SABLIN factor” and a participant of the inter-
Kimitaka Matsuzato (Ed.), Rus-
sia and Its Northeast Asian Neigh-
bors: China, Japan, and Korea,
1858–1945 (Lanham, MD: Lex-
ington Books, 2017). 206 pp., ills.
Index. ISBN: 978-1-4985-3704-9.
This edited collection of com-
prehensive case studies explores
the relations between the Russian
Empire/Soviet Union and China,
Japan, and Korea between the for-
mal arrival of the Russian state in
Northeast Asia after the Treaties
of Aigun and Tianjin in 1858 and
the radical reconfiguration of the
regional political and economic
landscape following the Japanese
defeat in World War II and Soviet
occupation of Manchuria and North
Korea in 1945. The volume is edited
by Kimitaka Matsuzato, a Univer-
sity of Tokyo professor specializing
in the history and politics of Russia
and Ukraine. As a leading Japanese
and international expert in the field,
Matsuzato has both the experience
and expertise required to compile
and edit such a collection.
The book consists of an intro-
duction and ten chapters penned
by scholars from Japan, Russia,
Germany, and Hong Kong. In the
introduction, Matsuzato outlines the
main goal of the book, which is to
inscribe Russia into the history of
Northeast Asia as both “a decisive
state community since 1858 (P. vii).
Matsuzato provides an overview of
English and Japanese historiogra-
phy on the subject, which is indeed
insufficient in its discussion of the
role played by the Russian Empire
and the Soviet Union in regional
politics and economy. The authors
of individual chapters include oth-
erwise rarely discussed East Asian
perspectives on Russia (such as the
discourse of the Russian threat in
Japan) in order to counterbalance the
much more frequent European and
Russian perspectives on East Asia
within the recurring theme of con-
temporary “yellow peril” discourse.
The Qing Empire is also discussed
in the volume as an imperial forma-
tion with its own agency, rather than
an object of foreign imperialisms
and a victim thereof. The introduc-
tion claims that the volume departs
from state-centered perspectives by
focusing on the dynamics within
imperial formations and exploring
public opinion apart from official
policies (P. xii).
Although the introduction right-
fully points at numerous gaps in
historiography, the book presents
a collection of essays, which are
different in their focus, period,
genre, theoretical approaches, and
methodology, rather than a coherent
monograph-like collective endeavor.
Most of the chapters deal with the
Russian Empire and, in fact, almost
345
Рецензии/Reviews
completely ignore Korea. The im-
perial formations in question – the
Russian Empire/Soviet Union, the
Japanese Empire, and the Qing
Empire/Chinese Republic – appear
somewhat static over the period,
and there is hardly anything on the
ruptures and their perception in the
region. A chapter (or chapters) on
regional roots and consequences of
the revolutions in the Russian and
Qing Empires (including Japanese
interventions in Russia and China)
would certainly have enhanced
the book. Despite the inclusion of
the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s in the
title, there is hardly anything on the
circulation of revolutionary ideas in
general and the Communist Inter-
national in particular in the volume.
Because of this, there seems to be too
much implied continuity between
the respective monarchies and the
troubled Soviet and Chinese repub-
lics in the region.
Despite these critical observa-
tions, the book presents an infor-
mative selection of empirical case
studies based on obscure or hitherto
unexplored archival materials. Thus,
they are a valuable contribution
to the fields of Russian, Japanese,
Chinese, Eurasian, and East Asian
histories. Furthermore, the volume
connects Japanese, English, and
Russian historiographies, which
alone can be seen as a tremendous
achievement given the separation of
national histories and respective area
346
studies in international scholarship.
The attention to institutions, popula-
tions, and press, treated separately
from governments, also makes the
book a welcome addition to the
scholarship of the region.
Following the introduction, the
volume is divided chronologically,
even though some essays overlap
in their time frames. The chapter of
Shinichi Fumoto (Niigata Univer-
sity), “Russia’s Expansion to the Far
East and Its Impact on Early Meiji
Japan’s Korea Policy,” focuses on
the consequences of Russian impe-
rialism for Meiji decision making
and, practically, the future of Korea.
Fumoto argues that the arrival of
Russia in the region triggered the de-
velopment of Pan-Asian discourse
on the need for Japan, China, and
Korea to cooperate against the West
(Russia in this case) – as early as
1874 (P. 2). The argument is backed
by Japanese sources, including such
fascinating documents as a summary
of talks between a Japanese official
and a Russian officer in 1875, in
which the latter spoke of the Russian
plans to colonize Manchuria and
Korea, which may have fueled the
development of Japanese defensive
expansionism (P. 4). Despite not be-
ing acquainted with Russian schol-
arship and sources on Korean settle-
ment in the Ussuri region (which is
evident from incorrect dating based
on Japanese sources [P. 3]), Fumoto
makes an interesting conclusion on

the impact this immigration had on
the Russian scare. The settlement
was seen as being sponsored by the
Russian officials in order to rela-
tivize the Russian–Korean border
and make future expansion easier.
Furthermore, the author provides
compelling evidence that the status
of Sakhalin and the anticipated
future of Korea were intertwined
(Pp. 8–9).
In the chapter “The Russian Fac-
tor Facilitating the Administrative
Reform in Qing Manchuria in the
Late Nineteenth and Early Twen-
tieth Centuries,” Susumu Tsukase
(Nagano University) discusses how
the arrival of Russia in the region
in 1858–1860 triggered the mod-
ernization of Qing governance of
Manchuria, namely the abrogation
of the Eight Banner System in 1907
(Pp. 15, 26–27). The discussion of
the Qing perception of the Russian
expansion and the effect the border
had on the indigenous peoples is
also very welcome (Pp. 22–23). The
supplementary argument that this
Russian expansion triggered Han
Chinese settlement of Manchuria
is backed by hard evidence and
therefore presents an interesting case
of effective Qing policy directed
against Western (Russian in this
case) expansionism (P. 24).
The question of nationality of
European settlers and sojourns in
East Asia is the main focus of the
chapter “Imperial Ambitions: Rus-
Ab Imperio, 1/2018
sians, Britons and the Politics of
Nationality in the Chinese Customs
Service, 1890–1937,” by Catherine
Ladds (Hong Kong Baptist Univer-
sity). Ladds makes a convincing
argument that colonialism in China
is best understood as a multinational
endeavor (rather than that of indi-
vidual empires) and discusses how
the largely foreign Chinese Maritime
Customs Service served as an instru-
ment of imperialism. The author
then compares the experiences of
Russian and British employees of
the service and concludes that na-
tional belonging did play a role in
the different status of Europeans in
China (Pp. 34–35). A reader may,
however, be left wondering if it was
not Russian nationality but the lack
of citizenship and extraterritorially
of the particular émigré employee
that proved especially important (P.
39) and thereby connected the case
to many other stories of stateless
people in supposedly privileged
positions elsewhere.
The chapter by Yukimura Sakon
(Niigata University), “Develop-
ment of Trade on the Amur and the
Sungari and the Customs Problem
in the Last Years of the Russian
Empire,” discusses the continuous
development of the border between
the Russian and Qing Empires after
the Treaty of Beijing of 1860 and
the changes in navigation rights on
the Amur and Sungari Rivers. The
dynamic perspective and the atten-
347
Рецензии/Reviews
tion to regional actors, at times with
interests and opinions different from
those of St. Petersburg or Beijing,
is a strong side of the chapter (Pp.
49–50, 52, 57). So is the argument
about the concessions the Russian
Empire made to the Qing Empire in
1910 following the Russo-Japanese
War, namely the abolition of the free
trade zone along the border in 1912
(Pp. 57–58). The study of this issue
enriches the understanding of gover-
nance in the Russian Far East in the
late empire, for the abolition of free
trade was seen by contemporaries as
an initiative of businessmen from the
European part of the empire rather
than as a consequence of interna-
tional relations.
The chapter by Masafumi Asada
(Tohoku University), “Making a
Vancouver in the Far East: ‘The
Trinity Transportation System’
of the Chinese Eastern Railway,
1896–1917,” presents a fascinat-
ing economic study of the Russian
colonization effort in East Asia.
Apart from scrutinizing Sergei
Witte’s blueprint for regional infra-
structure, which drew heavily on
Canadian experience (Pp. 65–66),
Asada refutes the long-standing as-
sumption about its ineffectiveness in
relation to Dal’nii by using statistical
sources. The author also analyzes its
later effects on the Russian Far East
proper, namely the dependency on
the Chinese Eastern Railway and
Manchurian imports (Pp. 69–73),
348
which certainly enriches the un-
derstanding of Far Eastern elites’
attempts to change official policies.
Asada’s rich study also provides an
overview of the impact of World
War I on Vladivostok (Pp. 74–75).
Here again the author convincingly
disproves the assumptions of the
city’s wartime prosperity due to be-
ing the only unobstructed major port
of the Russian Empire by exploring
the ineffectiveness of the railway
system, which lacked both train
engines and cars to either supply the
front or prevent the accumulation of
excessive materials in Vladivostok
(Pp. 76–77).
In the chapter “Japanese–Rus-
sian Kulturkampf in the Far East,
1904–5: Organization, Methods,
Ideas,” Dmitrii B. Pavlov (Institute
of Russian History, Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences) explores informa-
tion warfare – the competition of
Japanese and Russian propaganda,
mainly in China and Korea – dur-
ing the Russo-Japanese War (Pp.
89–90). Although the author makes
an interesting argument about the
conflict heralding the propaganda
wars of the twentieth century, there
seems to be too much projecting of
Cold War language onto the case. It
remains somewhat unclear why the
struggle was “ideological.” While
Pavlov convincingly demonstrates
how the Japanese claim to repre-
senting civilization intended for
European and American audiences

differed from the Pan-Asian message
sent to the Chinese and Koreans,
he does not discuss the content of
Russian propaganda in comparable
detail. At the same time, the analysis
of the journalists’ agency is a valu-
able contribution to the history of the
war (Pp. 90–92, 97, 107).
The chapter by Andreas Renner
(Ludwig Maximilian University of
Munich), “Captured or Captivated?
The War against Japan (1904–5) in
the Memories of Russian POWs,”
discusses a different group of ac-
tors experiencing the war – Rus-
sian prisoners of war in Japan.
The author certainly enriches the
history of the conflict by exploring
the psychological dimension of the
war and the experiences of the previ-
ously unknown modern situation of
internment (Pp. 117–120). Renner
analyzes captivity as a contact zone
that helped Russians encounter
Japan firsthand, thereby changing
the prewar stereotypes forever (P.
130). A reader, however, might
also have been interested in how
the experience affected the former
prisoners’ perception of the Russian
Empire, given that many of them
were susceptible to revolutionary
propaganda by émigré socialists in
Japan in 1905–1907.
The topic of nonstate actors is
continued by Yoshiro Ikeda (Uni-
versity of Tokyo) in the chapter
“From the Meiji Emperor’s Funeral
to the Taisho Emperor’s Coronation:
Ab Imperio, 1/2018
Reporting the Japanese Imperial
System in the Russian Press.” The
author discusses how the Russian
press contributed to the quick rap-
prochement between the two em-
pires during World War I, but also
used Japan as a proxy to discuss the
Russian political system in positive
and negative terms depending on the
political affiliations of the journal-
ists (Pp. 137–139, 142–143). The
use of Japan as a prism to look at
empire certainly provides a refresh-
ing perspective on the otherwise
Eurocentric histories of World War
I and prerevolutionary Russia. The
chapter could have been enriched by
a discussion of Russian progressive
Oriental studies and their effect on
the positive images of Japan con-
veyed, among others, by Dmitrii
Pozdneev (P. 145).
The chapter by Michiko Ikuta
(Osaka University), “Two Russias
in Harbin: The Émigré Commu-
nity and the Soviet Colony,” on
the imaginaries of prerevolution-
ary Russia and the Soviet Union
in post-1917 Harbin also explores
regional nonstate actors. The author
provides a comprehensive analysis
of a Harbin Russian identity and
unmasks the fluidity of the bor-
der between Russian émigrés and
Soviet citizens in Manchuria (Pp.
151–155). The study of the Russian
nationalist turn in the Soviet Union
of the 1930s on the Manchurian
sources is especially valuable (Pp.
349
Рецензии/Reviews
155–158). Although the essay is Each chapter of the volume
well-grounded, it could be viewed as enriches our understanding of the
overly centered on Russians. Indeed, region during the period of impe-
Ikuta acknowledges the diversity of rial transformations. Although the
both the émigrés and the Soviets (P. collection could have been more
152), but it is questionable whether coherent theoretically and balanced
the many Jews from the Russian thematically, it is undoubtedly a
Empire would fit into the émigré/ valuable addition to historiography.
Soviet dichotomy. I can wholeheartedly recommend
The volume concludes with individual essays and the book as
the chapter by Yaroslav Shula- a whole to students of the Russian
tov (Hiroshima City University), Empire and early Soviet Union, as
“V. L. Kopp and Soviet Policy to- well as to all those studying inter-
wards Japan after the Basic Conven- national relations in Eurasia and
tion of 1925: Moscow and Tokyo’s East Asia.
Failed ‘Honeymoon’?” on the con-
tradictions of early Soviet foreign
policy in the region. The author
focuses on the divergent opinions of
Victor Kopp, the first Soviet envoy
to Japan, and Lev Karakhan (and to
a lesser extend Georgii Chicherin)
on the desired course of action in
China (Pp. 167–168). The evidence
that there were Soviet officials who
aspired to cooperate with Japan
when defending Russian rights in
Manchuria certainly changes the
understanding of Soviet foreign
policy as preoccupied with the
revolutionary movement in China
(Pp. 174–176, 180–181). One may
wonder, however, to what extent this
policy was affected by the legacies
of the Japanese Intervention, includ-
ing the protracted withdrawal from
Sakhalin and the extensive conces-
sion rights granted to Japanese busi-
ness in 1925.
350