![\"\"](\"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/364\/2024\/01\/unnamed-5-203x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Image Source: The Chinese Boxers, Le Petit Parisien. <\/span>Wikipedia Commons.<\/span><\/a> 1900.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Introduction:<\/b><\/p>\n In this paper, I seek to explore and understand voices of opposition within the Russian Empire to colonialism in East and Central Asia, particularly within the context of the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War in the Manchuria region. I examine Lenin\u2019s \u201cThe War in China\u201d and contrast it with imperialist thought, as well as the work of other socialists and writers during the time period. Sources on contemporary imperialist ideas in Russia included Sergei Witte\u2019s statements about the Russian Empire\u2019s economic and military goals in Asia, in addition to the ideas of contemporary diplomats, generals, and explorers, such as Fedor Martens and Mikhail Venyukov, on East Asian conflicts. Finally, I discuss other voices of dissent against imperialism during the time, including poets Aleksandr Blok and Yosano Akiko, and their relationship to Lenin.<\/span> <\/p>\n The Russian and Chinese empires followed a significantly different trajectory for much of their history. In the 19th century, however, owing in part to Russia\u2019s rapid westernization and expansion, the border between the two empires experienced increasing militarization. In the mid-19th century, Russia acquired significant tracts of Siberia and Asia following two treaties with the Chinese empire.<\/span> During this time period, the Russian empire also explored opening trade with China.<\/span><\/p>\n In the late 19th century, the Russian empire began construction on the Chinese Eastern Railroad, part of the Trans-Siberian Railway, on land that it had previously acquired from China.<\/span> At the time, the Chinese empire experienced an anti-foreign movement. In the early 20th century, the Boxers, a militant group of insurrectionists, resisted foreign influence in China with the support of the imperial court.<\/span> Notably, the Boxers sabotaged the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railroad, attacking workers and dismantling significant portions of the railway. Their efforts cost the Russian imperial government tens of millions of rubles and significantly delayed progress on the railroad\u2019s construction.<\/span><\/p>\n As a result, Russia sought to suppress the Boxer Rebellion, joining Japan, as well as several European powers, notably Great Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary in a military alliance.<\/span> A great number of soldiers that participated in this conflict against China were citizens of the Russian Empire, and Russians were the first to enter Peking prior to the occupation of the city.<\/span><\/p>\n The conflict was also a very significant subject of discourse in the Russian Empire during the early 20th century. Russian newspapers published a great number of articles surrounding the events in China. In addition, the conflict was an area of major concern for Tsar Nicholas II and Sergei Witte, then finance minister of the Russian Empire. The construction of the Eastern Chinese Railroad as well as the creation of a \u201cRussian City\u201d in Manchuria (Dalian; Chinese: \u5927<\/span>\u8fde<\/span>) were in fact part of Witte\u2019s plan for Russian involvement and economic development in China.<\/span><\/p>\n As a result, 20th century Russia saw a number of imperial officials, military figures, and writers provide political commentary on the empire\u2019s involvement in Central and East Asia. Much of the material published during the time was in support of Russian imperial ambitions. However, especially during the Russo-Japanese War, voices of dissent emerged within Russia against imperialism and colonialism in Asia. Perhaps one of the most notable of these was that of Vladimir Illyich Lenin, who published articles in response to both the Boxer\u2019s Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War.<\/span> Although his ideas were initially censored in Russia, they later became significant following the Russian Revolution. Examining Lenin\u2019s ideas regarding the Boxer\u2019s Rebellion and Russian imperialism in Asia in comparison with his contemporaries is especially important in understanding Russia\u2019s transition from imperialism to socialism in the early 20th century.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Russian Official Policy and Involvement in China<\/b><\/p>\n In the early 20th century Russian Empire, the dominant viewpoint supported the expansion of Russia into China. Sergei Witte, as finance minister, sought this expansion mostly on economic grounds with the purpose of controlling trade in China. In the long-term, however, Witte believed in a complete acquisition of China by the Russian Empire. In 1900, he wrote in favor of an expansion into Southern China:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRussia\u2019s expansion into Southern China will prove to be an event of historical proportions; as such, there is no reason for us to pitch our fences in Manchuria. All of China should be included in our expansion policy as the bulk of China\u2019s wealth is concentrated in the south. Therefore, all of China will be ours someday.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Witte\u2019s colonial ambitions in the Chinese Empire would be very significant towards shaping Russian involvement and military aggression in the region. During Witte\u2019s tenure, the Russian Empire undertook several significant projects in Manchuria, including the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railroad. This led to the militarization of the region, as the Russian Empire had to defend the railroad from attacks by Boxers and robber gangs.<\/span><\/p>\n Russian colonialism in China was further supported by the popular notion that the Boxers and other \u2018internal forces\u2019 were taking advantage of the Chinese population. In the late 19th century, for instance, the Chinese Empire requested the Russian Empire end its occupation of Chinese Turkistan. In response, the Russian Empire attempted to deceive Chinese diplomats by offering the Treaty of Livadia, which ceded only part of the land along the Ili River.<\/span> When the Chinese Imperial government refused to ratify the treaty, Fedor Fedorovich Martens, a Russian diplomat, wrote to then Tsar Alexander II that this refusal was the result of anti-foreignism in China:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe military party, which forced the Beijing government to refuse to ratify the treaty signed in Livadia, obviously took advantage of the muted but deep unrest that had long gripped the population of China and was directed against foreigners and all European nations that had ever before concluded international treaties with China… The present misunderstanding would never have arisen \u2026 if the Chinese had not been forced to hate foreigners who constantly disrespect their most indisputable rights…”<\/span><\/p>\n In his analysis, Martens specifically places blame on the Chinese government for the failure of the Lividia Treaty. Despite the unfair terms of the treaty itself, Martens suggests that the underlying reason for the refusal of the Chinese Empire was its anti-foreign ideology and the promotion of this ideology among its people. Martens\u2019 analysis likewise supports the idea that Chinese citizens, during the time period, were portrayed as \u2018docile\u2019 subjects with little of their own political agency.<\/span><\/p>\n Similar patronizing beliefs about Chinese civilization were likewise a factor that motivated Russian imperialism in China. In the early 20th century, \u201cAsian backwardness\u201d was a commonly held belief throughout Europe. For instance, Mikhail Ivanovich Venyukov, a Russian general, wrote that Russia\u2019s success in its conquest of Central Asia will be decided by its \u201csuperior\u201d civilization:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe should succeed in Asia not due to our force of arms or by the large Russian population, or even due to economic and political superiority, but rather due to our moral and intellectual superiority. We have overlooked that of all the forces of conquest, the strongest is the exchange between the defeated and the victors in the field of intellectual development, as was the case in the Roman Empire. Despite our political contradictions with England, we have one common historical mission – to civilize the distant East.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly to other colonial beliefs, such as the racist ideologies that drove the conquest and subjugation of indigenous people in the Americas, the Russian Empire\u2019s ideologies clearly placed the Chinese empire and its citizens in a position of inferiority. Venyukov\u2019s writing shows that the Russian Empire\u2019s colonization of China was not only motivated by economic and political factors, but also by a claim of Western superiority over the East. Importantly, Venyukov writes from the perspective of the Russian military, which implies the use of this ideology as a justification of the occupation of China.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Vladimir Illyich Lenin: Views on Colonialism and the Boxer Rebellion<\/b><\/p>\n Lenin\u2019s article \u201cThe War in China\u201d is expressly anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, as well as a direct response to the Russian Empire\u2019s official policy in Manchuria during the time. Lenin begins his argument specifically by referencing \u201cRussia\u2019s civilising mission in the Far East.\u201d<\/span> He then criticizes the Russian empire\u2019s claim of \u201cdisinterest\u201d in conquering China, comparing it to England\u2019s actions in India and China. Lenin opines that every capitalist nation is a colonial one, and that the war in China is just another way in which the bourgeoisie are exploiting and benefiting from the lower class.<\/span><\/p>\n Lenin\u2019s argument about the \u201cChinese War\u201d stands in direct contrast to Witte, Martens, and Venyukov\u2019s ideas. Firstly, throughout his article, Lenin criticizes anti-foreignism as a justification for occupation. He supports violence as a means of resistance, highlighting that the Boxer Rebellion is the result of previous European imperialism in the region. He further mocks the Russian Empire\u2019s aim of \u201ccivilization\u201d of the Chinese people, writing:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThey [Europe] began to rob China as ghouls rob corpses, and when the seeming corpse attempted to resist, they flung themselves upon it like savage beasts, burning down whole villages, shooting, bayonetting, and drowning in the Amur River unarmed inhabitants, their wives, and their children. And all these Christian exploits are accompanied by howls against the Chinese barbarians who dared to raise their hands against the civilised Europeans.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Lenin also writes that these claims of \u201ccivilization\u201d are part of a propaganda campaign on the part of the Russian press to silence opposition to the war and to create hostility between the Chinese and Russian people.<\/span><\/p>\n As discussed above, Lenin\u2019s opposition to colonialism relies on the relation between what is considered \u201ccivilization\u201d in the 20th century and capitalism, which he shows by examining European activity in China. In many of his other writings, Lenin further develops this idea, claiming that capitalism halts technological, societal, and economic progress. For example, in his article \u201cCivilised Barbarism\u201d, Lenin discusses the construction of an underground tunnel (The Channel Tunnel) between Britain and France.<\/span> He states that members of the British bourgeoisie, who would lose business following the construction of the tunnel, are engaging in fearmongering, attempting to frighten the British people about a possible invasion. Lenin claims that this has led to a significant backlog on the construction of the tunnel. Notably, Lenin\u2019s discussion regarding the role of the press in both cases is quite similar: he states that the bourgeoisie leverages their power over the press to further their colonial and capitalist ambitions.<\/span><\/p>\n In his discussion of the use of the press by the government to influence the people\u2019s perception of the war, Lenin also writes about racism as a strategy to generate support for the war. He specifically cites that \u201cthe press is conducting a campaign against the Chinese; it is howling about the savage yellow race and its hostility towards civilisation.\u201d<\/span> Jinyi Chu, assistant professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Yale University, argues that Lenin took an anti-racist socialist position in his essays on contemporary Asian issues. Chu notes that Lenin explicitly equates racism with capitalism; Lenin also believed that socialism and an end to racism were deeply related.<\/span><\/p>\n Notably, several other of Lenin\u2019s contemporary socialist thinkers supported this viewpoint. For instance, Leon Trotsky, writing in opposition to the Russo-Japanese War, expressed a similar disdain for the use of racist propaganda by the Russian Imperial government.<\/span> In his book \u201cOur First Revolution\u201d, Trotsky writes that racist propaganda in Russia was important to create a sentiment of nationalism throughout the empire:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe aim of the response was thus clear: to turn the war into a national enterprise, to unite \u201csociety\u201d and \u201cthe people\u201d around autocracy\u2026, to create an atmosphere of devotion and patriotic enthusiasm around tsarism\u2026 [the response] sought to kindle feelings of patriotic indignation and moral indignation by mercilessly exploiting the so-called treacherous Japanese attack on our fleet. It portrayed the enemy as insidious, cowardly, greedy, insignificant, inhuman. It played on the fact that the enemy was yellow-faced, that he was a pagan. It thus sought to evoke a surge of patriotic pride and disgusting hatred of the enemy.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Here, Trotsky posits that the justification of imperial attitudes was essential in order to stabilize the position of Tsar Nicholas II and the bourgeoisie during the war. Much of this justification occurred through the press\u2019 use of racist and nationalistic ideology to dehumanize and alienate Asian people.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition to his discussion of race, Trotsky states that religious discrimination was another target of propaganda.<\/span> The press sought to contrast East Asians with the \u201ctypical\u201d Russian person, portraying Chinese and Japanese people as pagan. Lenin emphasizes this tactic throughout his essay, mocking the Russian Empire\u2019s \u201cChristian unselfishness.\u201d<\/span> Comparing the Russian Empire\u2019s actions in the region to historic cases of imperialism, Lenin also alludes to the Second Opium War, which he states was justified on religious grounds.<\/span> Overall, the themes of race, nationalism, and othering that appear in both Lenin and Trotsky\u2019s works not only support Chu\u2019s argument that these topics had become very important to socialist thinkers, but they also suggest a paradigm shift in attitudes towards war and national identity.<\/span><\/p>\n In \u201cWar in China\u201d, Lenin makes it no secret that his anti-colonial attitudes are an argument for the establishment of socialism in Russia. Throughout his essay, he seeks to agitate the ordinary person and position them against the government by bringing to light the governments\u2019 wrongdoings. Lenin thus does not focus on the individual impact of war or its morality; rather, he puts the spotlight on government corruption as well as the impact of the war on the collective. In effect, Lenin writes a political criticism of predominant attitudes during the time, such as those held by Witte, Martens, and Venyukov, with the motive of advancing socialist ideas among the Russian people.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Literary and Humanistic Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War<\/b><\/p>\n The Russo-Japanese War, beginning soon after the Russian Empire\u2019s suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, was likewise a major imperialistic conflict in East Asia in the early 20th century. In this case, however, both sides, the Russian and the Japanese Empires, waged war with the same imperial goal: to gain control of the Manchuria region.<\/span> As per the discussion of Lenin and Trotsky\u2019s writing above, the official policy of the Russian Empire during the Russo-Japanese War closely reflected that of the War in China. Yet, the scale of the war was far greater. In total, the war involved over one million soldiers on both sides and lasted over one-and-a-half years.<\/span> The war did not only generate socialist opposition. In both Russia and Japan, writers and artists criticized the war, calling for an end to violence in the region. Critics differed from Lenin and Trotsky in that they took a more humanistic view of the war, taking the perspective of the \u201cordinary person.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n One notable voice of dissent from within the Russian Empire was Aleksandr Blok. At the start of the Russo-Japanese War, Blok published a short poem, aptly titled \u201cWar\u201d (Russian: \u0412\u043e\u0439\u043d\u0430) in which he expressed his opinion about the inhumanity of violence. The poem depicts the horrors of the Russo-Japanese War, with the imagery of death and sinking ships, and also equates the war with \u201cvengeful pride.\u201d<\/span> In the last four lines of his poem, Blok writes:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cYet in the howling of the mighty storm,<\/span><\/p>\n In the dreams of the warrior and in his blood<\/span><\/p>\n Dwells the inspirer of the Furies,<\/span><\/p>\n And she sighs about Love.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In this passage, Blok highlights the futility of war and its meaningless nature to soldiers. He directly states that the soldiers do not want to fight in the war and do not see the meaning in \u201crevenge\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n In reality, Blok\u2019s poem could be written about any war, something the author himself captures with his \u201cgeneric\u201d title. The poem\u2019s pacifistic message, however, is important in the context of imperialist discourse in Russia, especially given Blok\u2019s social status. Blok was born into the Russian intelligentsia and can be considered a part of the Russian bourgeoisie.<\/span> Blok believed that war, in principle, was immoral, an idea that reappears in several of his later works. While his poem is not literally anti-colonialist, his rejection of the Russo-Japanese War could be certainly seen as discontent with Russian imperial policy. In fact, one of the central themes Blok explores in this poem is the meaningless nature of war to the ordinary person, an idea shared by Lenin in many of his political essays.<\/span> Thus, Blok\u2019s discontent towards the Russo-Japanese War implies a general shift in attitudes towards imperialism throughout all of Russian society, as even the bourgeoisie began to question the government\u2019s policy in East Asia.<\/span><\/p>\n In the Japanese Empire, a similar trend could be seen in anti-war attitudes. Famous Japanese poet Yosano Akiko published a poem titled \u201cDon\u2019t Lay Down Your Life\u201d (Japanese: \u541b\u6b7b\u306b\u305f\u307e\u3075\u3053\u3068\u306a\u304b\u308c). The poem was written to her brother, who had been conscripted earlier that year and sent to fight in the Russo-Japanese War. The poem is deeply personal to Akiko, who wishes for her brother to return home.<\/span><\/p>\n Importantly, Akiko dismisses Japanese imperialism. She instead emphasizes the personal and emotional toll of war. She writes:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cYou were born into a long line<\/span><\/p>\n of proud tradespeople in the city of Sakai;<\/span><\/p>\n having inherited their good name,<\/span><\/p>\n don’t you dare lay down your life.<\/span><\/p>\n What does it matter if that fortress<\/span><\/p>\n on the Liaotung Peninsula falls or not?<\/span><\/p>\n It’s nothing to you, a tradesman<\/span><\/p>\n with a tradition to uphold.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In this stanza, Akiko directly states that a person\u2019s life is more important than the success of the Japanese military. This is quite significant, given the honor and significance traditionally attached to serving the Emperor in Japan. In fact, Akiko later calls into question the Emperor himself, writing that \u201cThe Emperor himself doesn’t go to fight at the front; others spill out their blood there.\u201d<\/span> This statement is remarkably similar to Lenin\u2019s claims about the Russian autocracy and the bourgeoisie, who he states exploit and send the people to reinforce their position of power, such as by the suppression of violent resistance.<\/span><\/p>\n Nationalism was a significant driving force behind support for the war in both the Russian and Japanese Empires in the early 20th century. Both Blok and Akiko directly challenge the propaganda spread by both imperial governments to justify their colonial ambitions. Their ideas are not so much broad political statements, like Lenin\u2019s works, but rather their personal beliefs, based on contemporary ideas about morality and personal experiences. Yet, their works are deeply intertwined with Lenin\u2019s, as their resistance to imperialist ideas, such as those expressed by Witte, Martens, and Venyukov, set the stage for a period of significant political and ideological global change.<\/span><\/p>\n Not just ten years later, World War I changed the meaning of \u201cWar\u201d forever. A few years later, the Russian Empire, which had been affected significantly by its losses in the Russo-Japanese War, experienced a revolution and became a socialist state. In subsequent years, it would challenge Lenin\u2019s ideas about colonialism and imperialism. Still, Lenin, Blok, and Akiko\u2019s writing continue to remain important in discussions of foreign policy and pacifism today.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion:<\/b><\/p>\n In this essay, I explored contemporary dialog in early 20th century Russia on colonialism and imperialism. I showed that Lenin, in his political essays on the Boxer Rebellion, adopted an anti-colonialist viewpoint, in response to contemporary imperialist ideas. For Lenin, anti-colonialism became synonymous with socialist resistance, while imperialism was synonymous with capitalism. Further, Lenin\u2019s ideas overlapped with those of writers and poets of the time, many of whom were part of the intelligentsia. While Lenin\u2019s critique was based on his political ideas, most contemporary writers who spoke out in criticism of the war did so on moral grounds. Yet, they all shared a similar disdain for imperialism. This growing anti-imperialist sentiment was paramount to the next several decades of world affairs.<\/span><\/p>\n Bibliography<\/span><\/p>\n Primary Sources:<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Akiko, Yosano. \u201c\u541b\u6b7b\u306b\u305f\u307e\u3075\u3053\u3068\u306a\u304b\u308c\u201d [Don\u2019t Lay Down Your Life]. Last modified 1904.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Blok, Aleksandr. “\u0412\u043e\u0439\u043d\u0430.” [War] Last modified 1905.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lenin, Vladimir Illyich. “Civilised Barbarism.” Marxists. Last modified September 10, 1913. https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1913\/sep\/10b.htm.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014. “The War in China.” Marxists. Last modified December 1900. https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1900\/dec\/china.htm.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Martens, Fedor Fedorovich. <\/span>\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f \u0438 \u041a\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0439<\/span><\/i>. N.p.: The printing house of I. Gaberman, 1881.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n<\/span> Understanding contemporary imperialist thought and resistance in Russia in the early 20th century is important, given the significant global changes that occurred during the time period. In general, the early 20th century was a time of imperialism. Russia, however, at the time, was a \u201cdying empire\u201d; a decade later, it would become a socialist state and significantly change its \u201cofficial policy\u201d towards colonial and imperialist ideas. This change was brought about largely by Lenin\u2019s interpretation of socialism, which he developed and explored through his political essays. Lenin composed much of his work and developed much of his socialist ideology, as global events, such as the Russo-Japanese War and Boxer Rebellion, challenged the Russian imperial government. As such, examining Lenin\u2019s \u201cThe War in China\u201d is essential to understanding the attitudes of the Russian autocracy, bourgeoisie, and proletariat at the turn of the 20th century.<\/span><\/p>\n
![Wikipedia Commons.<\/span><\/a> 1900.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nIntroduction:<\/b><\/p>\nIn this paper, I seek to explore and understand voices of opposition within the Russian Empire to colonialism in East and Central Asia, particularly within the context of the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War in the Manchuria region. I examine Lenin\u2019s \u201cThe War in China\u201d and contrast it with imperialist thought, as well as the work of other socialists and writers during the time period. Sources on contemporary imperialist ideas in Russia included Sergei Witte\u2019s statements about the Russian Empire\u2019s economic and military goals in Asia, in addition to the ideas of contemporary diplomats, generals, and explorers, such as Fedor Martens and Mikhail Venyukov, on East Asian conflicts. Finally, I discuss other voices of dissent against imperialism during the time, including poets Aleksandr Blok and Yosano Akiko, and their relationship to Lenin.<\/span>\n<\/span> Understanding contemporary imperialist thought and resistance in Russia in the early 20th century is important, given the significant global changes that occurred during the time period. In general, the early 20th century was a time of imperialism. Russia, however, at the time, was a \u201cdying empire\u201d; a decade later, it would become a socialist state and significantly change its \u201cofficial policy\u201d towards colonial and imperialist ideas. This change was brought about largely by Lenin\u2019s interpretation of socialism, which he developed and explored through his political essays. Lenin composed much of his work and developed much of his socialist ideology, as global events, such as the Russo-Japanese War and Boxer Rebellion, challenged the Russian imperial government. As such, examining Lenin\u2019s \u201cThe War in China\u201d is essential to understanding the attitudes of the Russian autocracy, bourgeoisie, and proletariat at the turn of the 20th century.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nThe Russian and Chinese empires followed a significantly different trajectory for much of their history. In the 19th century, however, owing in part to Russia\u2019s rapid westernization and expansion, the border between the two empires experienced increasing militarization. In the mid-19th century, Russia acquired significant tracts of Siberia and Asia following two treaties with the Chinese empire.<\/span> During this time period, the Russian empire also explored opening trade with China.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the late 19th century, the Russian empire began construction on the Chinese Eastern Railroad, part of the Trans-Siberian Railway, on land that it had previously acquired from China.<\/span> At the time, the Chinese empire experienced an anti-foreign movement. In the early 20th century, the Boxers, a militant group of insurrectionists, resisted foreign influence in China with the support of the imperial court.<\/span> Notably, the Boxers sabotaged the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railroad, attacking workers and dismantling significant portions of the railway. Their efforts cost the Russian imperial government tens of millions of rubles and significantly delayed progress on the railroad\u2019s construction.<\/span><\/p>\nAs a result, Russia sought to suppress the Boxer Rebellion, joining Japan, as well as several European powers, notably Great Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary in a military alliance.<\/span> A great number of soldiers that participated in this conflict against China were citizens of the Russian Empire, and Russians were the first to enter Peking prior to the occupation of the city.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conflict was also a very significant subject of discourse in the Russian Empire during the early 20th century. Russian newspapers published a great number of articles surrounding the events in China. In addition, the conflict was an area of major concern for Tsar Nicholas II and Sergei Witte, then finance minister of the Russian Empire. The construction of the Eastern Chinese Railroad as well as the creation of a \u201cRussian City\u201d in Manchuria (Dalian; Chinese: \u5927<\/span>\u8fde<\/span>) were in fact part of Witte\u2019s plan for Russian involvement and economic development in China.<\/span><\/p>\nAs a result, 20th century Russia saw a number of imperial officials, military figures, and writers provide political commentary on the empire\u2019s involvement in Central and East Asia. Much of the material published during the time was in support of Russian imperial ambitions. However, especially during the Russo-Japanese War, voices of dissent emerged within Russia against imperialism and colonialism in Asia. Perhaps one of the most notable of these was that of Vladimir Illyich Lenin, who published articles in response to both the Boxer\u2019s Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War.<\/span> Although his ideas were initially censored in Russia, they later became significant following the Russian Revolution. Examining Lenin\u2019s ideas regarding the Boxer\u2019s Rebellion and Russian imperialism in Asia in comparison with his contemporaries is especially important in understanding Russia\u2019s transition from imperialism to socialism in the early 20th century.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nRussian Official Policy and Involvement in China<\/b><\/p>\nIn the early 20th century Russian Empire, the dominant viewpoint supported the expansion of Russia into China. Sergei Witte, as finance minister, sought this expansion mostly on economic grounds with the purpose of controlling trade in China. In the long-term, however, Witte believed in a complete acquisition of China by the Russian Empire. In 1900, he wrote in favor of an expansion into Southern China:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cRussia\u2019s expansion into Southern China will prove to be an event of historical proportions; as such, there is no reason for us to pitch our fences in Manchuria. All of China should be included in our expansion policy as the bulk of China\u2019s wealth is concentrated in the south. Therefore, all of China will be ours someday.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nWitte\u2019s colonial ambitions in the Chinese Empire would be very significant towards shaping Russian involvement and military aggression in the region. During Witte\u2019s tenure, the Russian Empire undertook several significant projects in Manchuria, including the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railroad. This led to the militarization of the region, as the Russian Empire had to defend the railroad from attacks by Boxers and robber gangs.<\/span><\/p>\nRussian colonialism in China was further supported by the popular notion that the Boxers and other \u2018internal forces\u2019 were taking advantage of the Chinese population. In the late 19th century, for instance, the Chinese Empire requested the Russian Empire end its occupation of Chinese Turkistan. In response, the Russian Empire attempted to deceive Chinese diplomats by offering the Treaty of Livadia, which ceded only part of the land along the Ili River.<\/span> When the Chinese Imperial government refused to ratify the treaty, Fedor Fedorovich Martens, a Russian diplomat, wrote to then Tsar Alexander II that this refusal was the result of anti-foreignism in China:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThe military party, which forced the Beijing government to refuse to ratify the treaty signed in Livadia, obviously took advantage of the muted but deep unrest that had long gripped the population of China and was directed against foreigners and all European nations that had ever before concluded international treaties with China… The present misunderstanding would never have arisen \u2026 if the Chinese had not been forced to hate foreigners who constantly disrespect their most indisputable rights…”<\/span><\/p>\nIn his analysis, Martens specifically places blame on the Chinese government for the failure of the Lividia Treaty. Despite the unfair terms of the treaty itself, Martens suggests that the underlying reason for the refusal of the Chinese Empire was its anti-foreign ideology and the promotion of this ideology among its people. Martens\u2019 analysis likewise supports the idea that Chinese citizens, during the time period, were portrayed as \u2018docile\u2019 subjects with little of their own political agency.<\/span><\/p>\nSimilar patronizing beliefs about Chinese civilization were likewise a factor that motivated Russian imperialism in China. In the early 20th century, \u201cAsian backwardness\u201d was a commonly held belief throughout Europe. For instance, Mikhail Ivanovich Venyukov, a Russian general, wrote that Russia\u2019s success in its conquest of Central Asia will be decided by its \u201csuperior\u201d civilization:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cWe should succeed in Asia not due to our force of arms or by the large Russian population, or even due to economic and political superiority, but rather due to our moral and intellectual superiority. We have overlooked that of all the forces of conquest, the strongest is the exchange between the defeated and the victors in the field of intellectual development, as was the case in the Roman Empire. Despite our political contradictions with England, we have one common historical mission – to civilize the distant East.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nSimilarly to other colonial beliefs, such as the racist ideologies that drove the conquest and subjugation of indigenous people in the Americas, the Russian Empire\u2019s ideologies clearly placed the Chinese empire and its citizens in a position of inferiority. Venyukov\u2019s writing shows that the Russian Empire\u2019s colonization of China was not only motivated by economic and political factors, but also by a claim of Western superiority over the East. Importantly, Venyukov writes from the perspective of the Russian military, which implies the use of this ideology as a justification of the occupation of China.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nVladimir Illyich Lenin: Views on Colonialism and the Boxer Rebellion<\/b><\/p>\nLenin\u2019s article \u201cThe War in China\u201d is expressly anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, as well as a direct response to the Russian Empire\u2019s official policy in Manchuria during the time. Lenin begins his argument specifically by referencing \u201cRussia\u2019s civilising mission in the Far East.\u201d<\/span> He then criticizes the Russian empire\u2019s claim of \u201cdisinterest\u201d in conquering China, comparing it to England\u2019s actions in India and China. Lenin opines that every capitalist nation is a colonial one, and that the war in China is just another way in which the bourgeoisie are exploiting and benefiting from the lower class.<\/span><\/p>\nLenin\u2019s argument about the \u201cChinese War\u201d stands in direct contrast to Witte, Martens, and Venyukov\u2019s ideas. Firstly, throughout his article, Lenin criticizes anti-foreignism as a justification for occupation. He supports violence as a means of resistance, highlighting that the Boxer Rebellion is the result of previous European imperialism in the region. He further mocks the Russian Empire\u2019s aim of \u201ccivilization\u201d of the Chinese people, writing:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThey [Europe] began to rob China as ghouls rob corpses, and when the seeming corpse attempted to resist, they flung themselves upon it like savage beasts, burning down whole villages, shooting, bayonetting, and drowning in the Amur River unarmed inhabitants, their wives, and their children. And all these Christian exploits are accompanied by howls against the Chinese barbarians who dared to raise their hands against the civilised Europeans.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nLenin also writes that these claims of \u201ccivilization\u201d are part of a propaganda campaign on the part of the Russian press to silence opposition to the war and to create hostility between the Chinese and Russian people.<\/span><\/p>\nAs discussed above, Lenin\u2019s opposition to colonialism relies on the relation between what is considered \u201ccivilization\u201d in the 20th century and capitalism, which he shows by examining European activity in China. In many of his other writings, Lenin further develops this idea, claiming that capitalism halts technological, societal, and economic progress. For example, in his article \u201cCivilised Barbarism\u201d, Lenin discusses the construction of an underground tunnel (The Channel Tunnel) between Britain and France.<\/span> He states that members of the British bourgeoisie, who would lose business following the construction of the tunnel, are engaging in fearmongering, attempting to frighten the British people about a possible invasion. Lenin claims that this has led to a significant backlog on the construction of the tunnel. Notably, Lenin\u2019s discussion regarding the role of the press in both cases is quite similar: he states that the bourgeoisie leverages their power over the press to further their colonial and capitalist ambitions.<\/span><\/p>\nIn his discussion of the use of the press by the government to influence the people\u2019s perception of the war, Lenin also writes about racism as a strategy to generate support for the war. He specifically cites that \u201cthe press is conducting a campaign against the Chinese; it is howling about the savage yellow race and its hostility towards civilisation.\u201d<\/span> Jinyi Chu, assistant professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Yale University, argues that Lenin took an anti-racist socialist position in his essays on contemporary Asian issues. Chu notes that Lenin explicitly equates racism with capitalism; Lenin also believed that socialism and an end to racism were deeply related.<\/span><\/p>\nNotably, several other of Lenin\u2019s contemporary socialist thinkers supported this viewpoint. For instance, Leon Trotsky, writing in opposition to the Russo-Japanese War, expressed a similar disdain for the use of racist propaganda by the Russian Imperial government.<\/span> In his book \u201cOur First Revolution\u201d, Trotsky writes that racist propaganda in Russia was important to create a sentiment of nationalism throughout the empire:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThe aim of the response was thus clear: to turn the war into a national enterprise, to unite \u201csociety\u201d and \u201cthe people\u201d around autocracy\u2026, to create an atmosphere of devotion and patriotic enthusiasm around tsarism\u2026 [the response] sought to kindle feelings of patriotic indignation and moral indignation by mercilessly exploiting the so-called treacherous Japanese attack on our fleet. It portrayed the enemy as insidious, cowardly, greedy, insignificant, inhuman. It played on the fact that the enemy was yellow-faced, that he was a pagan. It thus sought to evoke a surge of patriotic pride and disgusting hatred of the enemy.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nHere, Trotsky posits that the justification of imperial attitudes was essential in order to stabilize the position of Tsar Nicholas II and the bourgeoisie during the war. Much of this justification occurred through the press\u2019 use of racist and nationalistic ideology to dehumanize and alienate Asian people.<\/span><\/p>\nIn addition to his discussion of race, Trotsky states that religious discrimination was another target of propaganda.<\/span> The press sought to contrast East Asians with the \u201ctypical\u201d Russian person, portraying Chinese and Japanese people as pagan. Lenin emphasizes this tactic throughout his essay, mocking the Russian Empire\u2019s \u201cChristian unselfishness.\u201d<\/span> Comparing the Russian Empire\u2019s actions in the region to historic cases of imperialism, Lenin also alludes to the Second Opium War, which he states was justified on religious grounds.<\/span> Overall, the themes of race, nationalism, and othering that appear in both Lenin and Trotsky\u2019s works not only support Chu\u2019s argument that these topics had become very important to socialist thinkers, but they also suggest a paradigm shift in attitudes towards war and national identity.<\/span><\/p>\nIn \u201cWar in China\u201d, Lenin makes it no secret that his anti-colonial attitudes are an argument for the establishment of socialism in Russia. Throughout his essay, he seeks to agitate the ordinary person and position them against the government by bringing to light the governments\u2019 wrongdoings. Lenin thus does not focus on the individual impact of war or its morality; rather, he puts the spotlight on government corruption as well as the impact of the war on the collective. In effect, Lenin writes a political criticism of predominant attitudes during the time, such as those held by Witte, Martens, and Venyukov, with the motive of advancing socialist ideas among the Russian people.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nLiterary and Humanistic Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War<\/b><\/p>\nThe Russo-Japanese War, beginning soon after the Russian Empire\u2019s suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, was likewise a major imperialistic conflict in East Asia in the early 20th century. In this case, however, both sides, the Russian and the Japanese Empires, waged war with the same imperial goal: to gain control of the Manchuria region.<\/span> As per the discussion of Lenin and Trotsky\u2019s writing above, the official policy of the Russian Empire during the Russo-Japanese War closely reflected that of the War in China. Yet, the scale of the war was far greater. In total, the war involved over one million soldiers on both sides and lasted over one-and-a-half years.<\/span> The war did not only generate socialist opposition. In both Russia and Japan, writers and artists criticized the war, calling for an end to violence in the region. Critics differed from Lenin and Trotsky in that they took a more humanistic view of the war, taking the perspective of the \u201cordinary person.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nOne notable voice of dissent from within the Russian Empire was Aleksandr Blok. At the start of the Russo-Japanese War, Blok published a short poem, aptly titled \u201cWar\u201d (Russian: \u0412\u043e\u0439\u043d\u0430) in which he expressed his opinion about the inhumanity of violence. The poem depicts the horrors of the Russo-Japanese War, with the imagery of death and sinking ships, and also equates the war with \u201cvengeful pride.\u201d<\/span> In the last four lines of his poem, Blok writes:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cYet in the howling of the mighty storm,<\/span><\/p>\nIn the dreams of the warrior and in his blood<\/span><\/p>\nDwells the inspirer of the Furies,<\/span><\/p>\nAnd she sighs about Love.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIn this passage, Blok highlights the futility of war and its meaningless nature to soldiers. He directly states that the soldiers do not want to fight in the war and do not see the meaning in \u201crevenge\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nIn reality, Blok\u2019s poem could be written about any war, something the author himself captures with his \u201cgeneric\u201d title. The poem\u2019s pacifistic message, however, is important in the context of imperialist discourse in Russia, especially given Blok\u2019s social status. Blok was born into the Russian intelligentsia and can be considered a part of the Russian bourgeoisie.<\/span> Blok believed that war, in principle, was immoral, an idea that reappears in several of his later works. While his poem is not literally anti-colonialist, his rejection of the Russo-Japanese War could be certainly seen as discontent with Russian imperial policy. In fact, one of the central themes Blok explores in this poem is the meaningless nature of war to the ordinary person, an idea shared by Lenin in many of his political essays.<\/span> Thus, Blok\u2019s discontent towards the Russo-Japanese War implies a general shift in attitudes towards imperialism throughout all of Russian society, as even the bourgeoisie began to question the government\u2019s policy in East Asia.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the Japanese Empire, a similar trend could be seen in anti-war attitudes. Famous Japanese poet Yosano Akiko published a poem titled \u201cDon\u2019t Lay Down Your Life\u201d (Japanese: \u541b\u6b7b\u306b\u305f\u307e\u3075\u3053\u3068\u306a\u304b\u308c). The poem was written to her brother, who had been conscripted earlier that year and sent to fight in the Russo-Japanese War. The poem is deeply personal to Akiko, who wishes for her brother to return home.<\/span><\/p>\nImportantly, Akiko dismisses Japanese imperialism. She instead emphasizes the personal and emotional toll of war. She writes:<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cYou were born into a long line<\/span><\/p>\nof proud tradespeople in the city of Sakai;<\/span><\/p>\nhaving inherited their good name,<\/span><\/p>\ndon’t you dare lay down your life.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat does it matter if that fortress<\/span><\/p>\non the Liaotung Peninsula falls or not?<\/span><\/p>\nIt’s nothing to you, a tradesman<\/span><\/p>\nwith a tradition to uphold.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIn this stanza, Akiko directly states that a person\u2019s life is more important than the success of the Japanese military. This is quite significant, given the honor and significance traditionally attached to serving the Emperor in Japan. In fact, Akiko later calls into question the Emperor himself, writing that \u201cThe Emperor himself doesn’t go to fight at the front; others spill out their blood there.\u201d<\/span> This statement is remarkably similar to Lenin\u2019s claims about the Russian autocracy and the bourgeoisie, who he states exploit and send the people to reinforce their position of power, such as by the suppression of violent resistance.<\/span><\/p>\nNationalism was a significant driving force behind support for the war in both the Russian and Japanese Empires in the early 20th century. Both Blok and Akiko directly challenge the propaganda spread by both imperial governments to justify their colonial ambitions. Their ideas are not so much broad political statements, like Lenin\u2019s works, but rather their personal beliefs, based on contemporary ideas about morality and personal experiences. Yet, their works are deeply intertwined with Lenin\u2019s, as their resistance to imperialist ideas, such as those expressed by Witte, Martens, and Venyukov, set the stage for a period of significant political and ideological global change.<\/span><\/p>\nNot just ten years later, World War I changed the meaning of \u201cWar\u201d forever. A few years later, the Russian Empire, which had been affected significantly by its losses in the Russo-Japanese War, experienced a revolution and became a socialist state. In subsequent years, it would challenge Lenin\u2019s ideas about colonialism and imperialism. Still, Lenin, Blok, and Akiko\u2019s writing continue to remain important in discussions of foreign policy and pacifism today.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nConclusion:<\/b><\/p>\nIn this essay, I explored contemporary dialog in early 20th century Russia on colonialism and imperialism. I showed that Lenin, in his political essays on the Boxer Rebellion, adopted an anti-colonialist viewpoint, in response to contemporary imperialist ideas. For Lenin, anti-colonialism became synonymous with socialist resistance, while imperialism was synonymous with capitalism. Further, Lenin\u2019s ideas overlapped with those of writers and poets of the time, many of whom were part of the intelligentsia. While Lenin\u2019s critique was based on his political ideas, most contemporary writers who spoke out in criticism of the war did so on moral grounds. Yet, they all shared a similar disdain for imperialism. This growing anti-imperialist sentiment was paramount to the next several decades of world affairs.<\/span><\/p>\nBibliography<\/span><\/p>\nPrimary Sources:<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\nAkiko, Yosano. \u201c\u541b\u6b7b\u306b\u305f\u307e\u3075\u3053\u3068\u306a\u304b\u308c\u201d [Don\u2019t Lay Down Your Life]. Last modified 1904.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nBlok, Aleksandr. “\u0412\u043e\u0439\u043d\u0430.” [War] Last modified 1905.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nLenin, Vladimir Illyich. “Civilised Barbarism.” Marxists. Last modified September 10, 1913. https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1913\/sep\/10b.htm.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. “The War in China.” Marxists. Last modified December 1900. https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/lenin\/works\/1900\/dec\/china.htm.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nMartens, Fedor Fedorovich. <\/span>\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f \u0438 \u041a\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0439<\/span><\/i>. N.p.: The printing house of I. Gaberman, 1881.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nTrotsky, Leon. “\u0412\u041e\u0419\u041d\u0410 \u0418 \u041b\u0418\u0411\u0415\u0420\u0410\u041b\u042c\u041d\u0410\u042f \u041e\u041f\u041f\u041e\u0417\u0418\u0426\u0418\u042f” [War and Liberal Opposition]. Marxists. <\/span>https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/russkij\/trotsky\/works\/trotl103.html<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nVenyukov, Mikhail Ivanovich. \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f \u0438 \u0412\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043a. [Russia and China] Collection of Geographical and Political Articles. 1877.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nWells, David. “Three Russian Poems on the Battle of Tsushima.” <\/span>Japanese Studies<\/span><\/i> 11, no. 1 (1991): 85-87. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10371399108521952.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nSecondary Sources:<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n“Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Blok.” Britannica. Last modified November 24, 2023. https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Aleksandr-Aleksandrovich-Blok.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nAnan’ich, B. V., and S. A. Lebedev. “Sergei Witte and the Russo-Japanese War.” <\/span>International Journal of Korean History<\/span><\/i> 7 (February 2005): 109-31. https:\/\/ijkh.khistory.org\/upload\/pdf\/7_05.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n“Boxer Rebellion.” Britannica. Last modified October 17, 2023. https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Boxer-Rebellion.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n“China and the Trans-Siberian Railway.” 1870to1918. Last modified April 1, 2014. https:\/\/1870to1918.wordpress.com\/2014\/04\/01\/china-and-the-trans-siberian-railway\/.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nChu, Jinyi. “Civilizational Myth and Class Politics.” <\/span>Comparative Literature<\/span><\/i> 75, no. 2 (2023): 140-52. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1215\/00104124-10334490.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nEgorov, Boris. “How the Russians captured Beijing.” Russia Beyond. Last modified August 23, 2021. https:\/\/www.rbth.com\/history\/334124-how-russians-captured-beijing.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nMitchell, T. J.; Smith, G. M. Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1931.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nRadchenko, Sergey. “What Are the Legacies of Sino-Russian Relations?” International Center for Defense and Security Estonia. Last modified June 6, 2023. https:\/\/icds.ee\/en\/what-are-the-legacies-of-sino-russian-relations\/#:~:text=Whereas%20early%20encounters%20between%20Russian,of%20land%2C%20including%20the%20sizable.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n“Russo-Japanese War.” Britannica. Last modified November 15, 2023. <\/span>https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Russo-Japanese-War<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nSemyonov, Yuri. Siberia, its Conquest and Development. (Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, 1963).<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nTikannen, Amy. “Ili crisis.” Britannica. https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Ili-crisis#ref1079985.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Image Source: The Chinese Boxers, Le Petit Parisien. Wikipedia Commons. 1900. Introduction: In this paper, I seek to explore and understand voices of opposition within the Russian Empire to colonialism in East and Central Asia, particularly within the context of the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War in the Manchuria region. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5368,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-132","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5368"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":144,"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/132\/revisions\/144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/his360-f23\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:The_Chinese_Boxers,_Le_Petit_Parisien.JPG\"){kind=link}