Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910
Manchuria came into the modern world history during the last third of the nineteenth century. It was an epoch of great colonial expansion. Before then, the aim in expansion had been commercial. With a superior technology in firearms, the United Kingdom, the United States and France had imposed on bo...
保存先:
| 出版年: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/cjs, |
|---|---|
| 第一著者: | |
| フォーマット: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| 出版事項: |
Cipango - French Journal of Japanese Studies
2017
|
| 主題: | |
| オンライン･アクセス: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:cjs_952 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
Transsibérien guerres navales question d’Extrême‑Orient Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) Transsiberian naval warfare problems of the Far East Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) |
| spellingShingle |
Transsibérien guerres navales question d’Extrême‑Orient Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) Transsiberian naval warfare problems of the Far East Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) Vié, Michel Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| description |
Manchuria came into the modern world history during the last third of the nineteenth century. It was an epoch of great colonial expansion. Before then, the aim in expansion had been commercial. With a superior technology in firearms, the United Kingdom, the United States and France had imposed on both China and Japan unequal treaties and open ports. However, limited in power, this superiority did not allow for large scale, conquest type of war. Hong Kong and Shanghai symbolized the success and limitations of this politic. Associated with China, neighbouring with Korea, cut off the Japanese sea by the Russian projection, Manchuria that has no decisive economic attraction, stay out of the pivot. However, in less than a decade, the combination of the new conditions would drag it in the middle of hard conflicts. The irruption of war would be explained by the progress of railways and steam navigation, to which the natural environment of Manchuria was favourable, because of the central plain and the ports open to the south. But the decisive factor for the march to war is revealed in the choice of same and therefore concurrent policies, taken by China, Japan, and Russia, based on the desire to catch up with western military, responsible for a kind of globalization in which survival depended on strength. Hence a colonization for the sake of securitarism, and a peace regime through balance of power and well equipped armies, small reproductions of European militaries from 1871 to 1914. The symbols of this new colonization in Asia are then the Transmanchurian railroad and Port Arthur. Between these two colonialisms, trade or securitarism, interaction is inevitable, given their geographical juxtaposition. But the difference persisted. It is in the two Eastern Asia wars of 1894 and 1904 that we could see the prefiguration of what would be Europe battles of 1914 on. |
| author |
Vié, Michel |
| author_facet |
Vié, Michel |
| author_sort |
Vié, Michel |
| title |
Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| title_short |
Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| title_full |
Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| title_fullStr |
Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 |
| title_sort |
manchuria and the “far eastern question”, 1880‑1910 |
| publisher |
Cipango - French Journal of Japanese Studies |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/cjs |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/cjs.952 https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/cjs/952 |
| _version_ |
1877242171640250368 |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:cjs_952 https://doi.org/10.4000/cjs.952 urn:doi:10.4000/cjs.952 https://journals.openedition.org/cjs/952 2017-11-27T01:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/e1ir https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Manchuria and the “Far Eastern Question”, 1880‑1910 Cipango - French Journal of Japanese Studies INALCO info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/2268-1744 URI:https://journals.openedition.org/cjs Vié, Michel Transsibérien guerres navales question d’Extrême‑Orient Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) Transsiberian naval warfare problems of the Far East Gotō Shinpei (1857‑1929) Port Arthur Russia Korea Manchuria came into the modern world history during the last third of the nineteenth century. It was an epoch of great colonial expansion. Before then, the aim in expansion had been commercial. With a superior technology in firearms, the United Kingdom, the United States and France had imposed on both China and Japan unequal treaties and open ports. However, limited in power, this superiority did not allow for large scale, conquest type of war. Hong Kong and Shanghai symbolized the success and limitations of this politic. Associated with China, neighbouring with Korea, cut off the Japanese sea by the Russian projection, Manchuria that has no decisive economic attraction, stay out of the pivot. However, in less than a decade, the combination of the new conditions would drag it in the middle of hard conflicts. The irruption of war would be explained by the progress of railways and steam navigation, to which the natural environment of Manchuria was favourable, because of the central plain and the ports open to the south. But the decisive factor for the march to war is revealed in the choice of same and therefore concurrent policies, taken by China, Japan, and Russia, based on the desire to catch up with western military, responsible for a kind of globalization in which survival depended on strength. Hence a colonization for the sake of securitarism, and a peace regime through balance of power and well equipped armies, small reproductions of European militaries from 1871 to 1914. The symbols of this new colonization in Asia are then the Transmanchurian railroad and Port Arthur. Between these two colonialisms, trade or securitarism, interaction is inevitable, given their geographical juxtaposition. But the difference persisted. It is in the two Eastern Asia wars of 1894 and 1904 that we could see the prefiguration of what would be Europe battles of 1914 on. La Mandchourie entre dans l’histoire mondiale au moment de la grande phase d’expansion coloniale du dernier tiers du xixe siècle. Antérieurement, le but visé était commercial. Une meilleure technique dans l’emploi des armes à feu avait permis à l’Angleterre, aux États‑Unis et à la France, d’imposer à la Chine et au Japon des traités inégaux et l’ouverture des ports. En revanche, des effectifs militaires limités ne favorisaient pas les guerres de conquête. Hong Kong et Shanghai symbolisaient le succès et les limites de cette politique. Associée à la Chine, voisine de la Corée dans le monde sinisé, coupée de la mer du Japon par l’avancée russe, la Mandchourie, sans attrait économique décisif, restait excentrée. Or en moins d’une décennie, une conjonction de données nouvelles la projette au centre des conflits les plus vifs. L’irruption de la guerre s’explique par le progrès des chemins de fer et de la navigation à vapeur, auquel le milieu naturel de la Mandchourie était favorable : plaine au centre, facilités portuaires au sud. Mais l’essentiel est ailleurs : dans le choix, par la Chine, le Japon, la Russie, d’une même politique fondée sur la volonté de combler leur retard militaire dans une mondialisation occidentale où la survie dépendait de la force. De là une colonisation visant la sécurité et un régime de paix armée, reproduction en petit de celui de l’Europe de 1871 à 1914. Les symboles de cette nouvelle colonisation en Asie sont alors le Transmandchourien et Port‑Arthur. Entre ces deux colonialismes, commercial et sécuritaire, l’interaction est inévitable, vu leur juxtaposition géographique. Mais la différence persiste. C’est dans les deux guerres extrêmes‑orientales (1894 et 1904) que l’on put voir la préfiguration de ce que devaient être en Europe les batailles de 1914. |