The Pioneering Work That Shaped Historical Understanding

The foundation for modern scholarship on Japan’s foreign policy from the Bakumatsu period through the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) was laid by an anonymous 1904 publication from the Korean Governor-General’s Office: Studies on Modern Japanese-Korean Relations in two volumes. Later revealed as the work of historian Tabohashi Kiyoshi, this monumental study examined not only Japanese, Chinese, and Korean perspectives but incorporated Russian archival materials and Western diplomatic records. Its rigorous analysis of King Gojong’s interactions with Russia established factual baselines that remained influential when republished in 1963-1964. This work marked the first systematic attempt to understand Northeast Asian geopolitics through multinational sources rather than nationalistic narratives.

Postwar Reckoning with Imperial Expansion

In postwar Japan’s academic landscape, the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) initially attracted limited scholarly attention. The 1960s saw breakthrough works like Furuya Tetsuo’s The Russo-Japanese War (1966) and Yamabe Kentarō’s Brief History of Japan-Korea Annexation (1966), which critically examined Japan’s imperialist aggression. These studies reflected growing discomfort with Japan’s colonial past amid Cold War tensions and domestic debates about remilitarization.

Concurrently, diplomatic historian Tsunoda Jun produced The Manchurian Question and National Defense Policy (1967), analyzing documents from the Boxer Rebellion through the Russo-Japanese War. His work reinforced traditional views of Russian southward expansion as the primary cause for conflict while highlighting intra-government debates between “pro-conciliation” elder statesmen and “pro-war” younger officials like Katsura Tarō and Komura Jutarō. This interpretation would later face significant revisionism.

New Perspectives on the Sino-Japanese War

The late 1960s-1970s brought fresh examinations of the First Sino-Japanese War through Nakatsuka Akira’s Research on the Sino-Japanese War (1968) and Fujimura Michio’s The Sino-Japanese War (1973). Both works emphasized Japan’s aggressive expansionism, challenging earlier triumphalist narratives. Their arguments gained traction amid growing Japanese pacifism and scrutiny of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

A methodological leap occurred in the 1980s when Sasaki Yō at Saga University incorporated Russian materials from the Red Archives alongside British and Chinese diplomatic records. Meanwhile, Moriyama Shigetoku’s Studies on Modern Japan-Korea Relations (1987) advanced Tabohashi’s research using newly available Korean documents, though it relied heavily on Malozemoff’s existing Russian scholarship without original contributions.

The Revisionist Turn and Its Critics

The 1990s witnessed paradigm-shifting challenges to conventional wisdom. Kyoto University’s Takahashi Hidenao argued in The Road to the Sino-Japanese War (1995) that Meiji Japan had no inherent continental expansion agenda, characterizing the war as a disruptive departure from Japan’s “small government” fiscal policies rather than imperial inevitability. His controversial thesis questioned whether:
1) Meiji Japan consistently pursued continental expansion
2) Such expansion was necessary for capitalist development
3) Japan faced a binary choice between imperialism or colonization

Takahashi’s focus on decision-making processes overlooked structural factors, inviting critiques about oversimplifying the complex interplay between domestic politics and international pressures.

Simultaneously, scholars like Chiba Isao and Itō Yukio reassessed Russo-Japanese relations. Chiba’s analysis of Osaka Mainichi Shimbun-translated Russian documents revealed that both nations desired compromise over Manchuria-Korea exchanges but failed to communicate effectively, making war “avoidable through better diplomacy” (1996). Itō’s Constitutional Government and the Russo-Japanese War (2000) similarly argued that Japanese leaders misread Russian willingness to de-escalate.

Russian historians joined this revisionist wave. Inoue Chiharu contended that Japan’s military leadership actively chose war, while Hirano Yoshihiko demonstrated Foreign Minister Komura’s genuine peace efforts through British diplomatic correspondence.

The Security Dilemma Framework

Keio University’s Yokote Shinji offered a mediating perspective in History of the Russo-Japanese War (2005). Introducing the “security dilemma” concept, he explained how mutual distrust amplified defensive actions: “As one nation increased its security, it inadvertently heightened the other’s insecurity.” Yokote emphasized Japan’s perceived strategic inferiority while critiquing revisionist optimism about avoided conflict.

Yamamoto Yūzō’s Century of the Russo-Japanese War (2005) further expanded the discourse by situating the conflict within global imperial rivalries and uncovering previously overlooked transnational connections.

Archival Revelations and New Narratives

The war’s centennial (2004-2005) spurred archival breakthroughs. Researchers like the author uncovered Russian military attaché Konstantin Vogak’s reports—which actually praised Japanese military organization, contrary to Japanese accounts of Russian dismissiveness. Examination of Bezobrazov Circle documents in St. Petersburg archives revealed complex factional dynamics within Russian decision-making.

Key findings included:
– Vogak’s 1894 reports warning Russia about Japan’s military modernization
– Naval attaché Aleksandr Rusin’s strategic assessments
– Newly discovered materials from the Kuropatkin Papers and Nicholas II’s archives

These discoveries enabled reconstruction of Russian perspectives absent from earlier Japan-centric histories.

Enduring Questions and Evolving Methodologies

Contemporary scholarship continues grappling with fundamental questions:
1) Agency vs. Structural Determinism: Were leaders truly capable of avoiding war given systemic pressures?
2) Perception Gaps: How did cultural misunderstandings and intelligence failures contribute to conflict?
3) Transnational Approaches: Moving beyond bilateral frameworks to include Korean agency and global contexts

The trajectory from Tabohashi’s foundational work to 21st-century multinational archival research demonstrates how each generation reinterprets historical events through contemporary concerns—from postwar guilt to globalization. What remains constant is the recognition that Northeast Asia’s modern conflicts emerged from interconnected decisions in Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Seoul, and Beijing, demanding scholarship that transcends national boundaries.