ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)

Sakhalin occupies a special place in the history of relations between Russia and Japan. Depending on the times, the island has been a battlefield or a place for cooperation; the rivalry over Sakhalin was often an agenda-setting factor for bilateral relations. The island could be set as a sort of “cr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:Japanese
English
Published: 北海道大学スラブ・ユーラシア研究センター
Subjects:
290
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84283
id fthokunivhus:oai:eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp:2115/84283
record_format openpolar
spelling fthokunivhus:oai:eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp:2115/84283 2023-05-15T18:08:33+02:00 ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年) The Russian Revolution and the Issue of Sakhalin: Transition From Russo-Japanese to Soviet-Japanese Relations (1917-1922) シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84283 jpn eng jpn eng 北海道大学スラブ・ユーラシア研究センター http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84283 スラヴ研究, 67: 59-81 290 bulletin (article) fthokunivhus 2022-11-18T01:06:51Z Sakhalin occupies a special place in the history of relations between Russia and Japan. Depending on the times, the island has been a battlefield or a place for cooperation; the rivalry over Sakhalin was often an agenda-setting factor for bilateral relations. The island could be set as a sort of “crossroad,” where Russia and Japan interacted variously; a “mirror,” reflecting the condition of Russo-Japanese contact. The situation over Sakhalin was particularly dynamic in the first half of the twentieth century. The island became the last battlefield in the Russo-Japanese War, and then the final crucial problem at the peace conference. According to the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, Sakhalin was divided between the two empires, which created a precedent of revising the Russo-Japanese borderline with military force?since 1905, it has been changed only by wars. Still, the demarcation of a new border took place in a peaceful atmosphere, symbolizing the cooperative trend in the bilateral relations after the war. The situation seemed to have been resolved. Yet the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 rendered Sakhalin the subject of Russo-Japanese bargaining again. Then, with the outbreak of civil war in Russia, Japan took an active part in intervention, deploying the largest contingent of troops to Siberia and the Far East. The center of Sakhalin Oblast, Nikolaevsk, was occupied by Japanese troops in 1918. After the clashes with partisans and annihilation of the Japanese garrison and its inhabitants in 1920 (the “Nikolaevsk Incident”), Japan occupied Northern Sakhalin, making it the hostage of settlement with Russia. After the USSR was established and Soviet-Japanese negotiations launched officially, Sakhalin became the key problem, particularly at the final stage. After reaching a compromise on this issue, the Peking Convention was signed in 1925. A new “Soviet” Russia repossessed Northern Sakhalin, and the USSR was officially acknowledged by Japan, which carved out concession rights for Sakhalin oil and coal, effective ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Sakhalin Siberia Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers (HUSCAP)
institution Open Polar
collection Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers (HUSCAP)
op_collection_id fthokunivhus
language Japanese
English
topic 290
spellingShingle 290
シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ
ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
topic_facet 290
description Sakhalin occupies a special place in the history of relations between Russia and Japan. Depending on the times, the island has been a battlefield or a place for cooperation; the rivalry over Sakhalin was often an agenda-setting factor for bilateral relations. The island could be set as a sort of “crossroad,” where Russia and Japan interacted variously; a “mirror,” reflecting the condition of Russo-Japanese contact. The situation over Sakhalin was particularly dynamic in the first half of the twentieth century. The island became the last battlefield in the Russo-Japanese War, and then the final crucial problem at the peace conference. According to the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, Sakhalin was divided between the two empires, which created a precedent of revising the Russo-Japanese borderline with military force?since 1905, it has been changed only by wars. Still, the demarcation of a new border took place in a peaceful atmosphere, symbolizing the cooperative trend in the bilateral relations after the war. The situation seemed to have been resolved. Yet the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 rendered Sakhalin the subject of Russo-Japanese bargaining again. Then, with the outbreak of civil war in Russia, Japan took an active part in intervention, deploying the largest contingent of troops to Siberia and the Far East. The center of Sakhalin Oblast, Nikolaevsk, was occupied by Japanese troops in 1918. After the clashes with partisans and annihilation of the Japanese garrison and its inhabitants in 1920 (the “Nikolaevsk Incident”), Japan occupied Northern Sakhalin, making it the hostage of settlement with Russia. After the USSR was established and Soviet-Japanese negotiations launched officially, Sakhalin became the key problem, particularly at the final stage. After reaching a compromise on this issue, the Peking Convention was signed in 1925. A new “Soviet” Russia repossessed Northern Sakhalin, and the USSR was officially acknowledged by Japan, which carved out concession rights for Sakhalin oil and coal, effective ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ
author_facet シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ
author_sort シュラトフ, ヤロスラブ
title ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
title_short ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
title_full ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
title_fullStr ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
title_full_unstemmed ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
title_sort ロシア革命とサハリン : 日露関係から日ソ関係へ(1917-1922年)
publisher 北海道大学スラブ・ユーラシア研究センター
url http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84283
genre Sakhalin
Siberia
genre_facet Sakhalin
Siberia
op_relation http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84283
スラヴ研究, 67: 59-81
_version_ 1766180837048451072