A matter of imperial defence : Arthur Balfour and the Anglo-Japanese alliance, 1894-1923
This thesis investigates Arthur Balfour’s policy towards Japan and the Anglo-Japanese alliance from 1894 to 1923. Although Balfour was involved in the Anglo-Japanese alliance from its signing to termination, no comprehensive analysis of his role in the alliance has been carried out. Utilising unpublished materials and academic books, this thesis reveals that Balfour’s policy on the Anglo-Japanese alliance revolved around two vital principles, namely imperial defence and Anglo-American cooperation. From the viewpoint of imperial defence, Balfour emphasised the defence of India and Australasia more than that of China. He opposed the signing of the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902 because it was not useful in the defence of India. The Russo-Japanese War raised the concern of Indian security. Changing his lukewarm attitude, Balfour took the initiative in extending the alliance into India to employ Japanese troops for the defence of India. Moreover, as an advocate of Anglo-American cooperation, Balfour made every effort to maintain good Anglo-American-Japanese relations. However, imperial defence and Anglo-American cooperation began to clash within the alliance during the Great War. Although the Siberian intervention was useful Japanese military assistance in the defence of India, America, who was not interested in India, hesitated to support it due to her suspicion against Japan. After the war, the alliance was still instrumental in defending India and Australasia, but its existence damaged the relations with America. Balfour tried to achieve both imperial defence and Anglo-American cooperation by developing the alliance into an Anglo-American-Japanese trilateral agreement with a military clause to revive a bilateral defensive alliance. But America and Japan did not support Balfour’s plan at the Washington Conference, and he had to accept the Four-Power Treaty without any military commitment.
A Tentative View of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1911
1911 saw the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Britain wanted to renew the alliance in an effort to eschew its obligation and involvement in a possible Japan-US war,while Japan 's nodding this military alliance without any military agreement stemmed from multiple considerations: avoiding its own isolation from the international community,balancing against Russia,rescheduling Anglo-American relations, and continuing its invasion into China.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.