Введение
Резня в Порт-Артуре, ныне Далянь, Китай; резня в Тасмании 1996 года. Резня в Порт-Артуре произошла во время Первой китайско-японской войны, начиная с 21 ноября 1894 года и в течение трех дней, в китайском прибрежном городе Порт-Артур (ныне район Люшанькоу города Далянь, провинция Ляонин). Хотя китайским военным кораблям удалось высадить войска недалеко от китайско-корейской границы. После поражения флота Бэйян, японские военно-морские силы начали осаду Порт-Артура, в то время как японская Вторая армия продвигалась к городу через Маньчжурию, а японская Первая армия перешла реку Ялу, чтобы сформировать еще одно наступление по суше. После серии сражений на полуострове Ляодун, Первая дивизия Второй армии под командованием генерала Ямадзи сосредоточилась у Порт-Артура в конце ноября. 18 ноября 1894 года японское продвижение по полуострову было временно остановлено, и вернувшись, они обнаружили, что их оставленные раненые солдаты были жестоко изуродованы: им отрезали руки и ноги. Других сожгли заживо. Город был эвакуирован, и жители бежали на запад по суше или морю вглубь Китая. Правительство Цин объявило награды за военнопленных, их головы или другие части тела; во время китайско-японской войны награда составляла 50 таэлей. Некоторые китайские солдаты изуродовали трупы японских солдат и выставили их у городских ворот, что вызвало гнев японцев. Масштаб и характер убийств до сих пор остаются предметом споров. Оценки варьируются от 2600 до 60 000 погибших. Японские участники сообщали о горах трупов, однако точное число погибших так и не было официально подсчитано. Коуэн, являвшийся свидетелем, сообщал, что "на улицах лежали сотни, возможно, тысячи трупов, мы не могли их пересчитать", и что "в воде было еще больше". Крильман, также свидетель, утверждал, что было убито до 60 000 человек, при этом лишь 36 были спасены. Согласно разведывательному докладу, отправленному вице-королю Ли Хунчжану местным чиновником Лю Ханьфаном (劉含芳) вскоре после резни, в городе было убито от 2600 до 2700 мирных жителей. Десять лет спустя де Гервилль пересмотрел эту точку зрения, заявив, что, хотя около 120 мирных жителей были убиты, это все же нельзя назвать резней. Иностранным репортерам приходилось ждать, пока они покинут район, прежде чем они могли опубликовать свои материалы, которые в противном случае могли быть подвергнуты цензуре со стороны японцев. Поначалу инцидент не привлек особого внимания: в The Times от 26 ноября было опубликовано сообщение в одном предложении: "Сообщается о крупной бойне". Джеймс Крильман первым сообщил о резне в статье на первой полосе, в которой говорилось:
the 1996 massacre in Tasmania
The Port Arthur massacre took place during the First Sino Japanese War from 21 November 1894 for three days, in the Chinese coastal city of Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou District of Dalian, Liaoning), though the Chinese troopships were successful in landing their troops not far from the Sino Korean border. With the Beiyang Fleet defeated, the Japanese Navy began a siege of Port Arthur while the Japanese Second Army advanced on the city through Manchuria and the Japanese First Army crossed the Yalu River to form another advance by land. After a series of battles on the Liaodong Peninsula the First Division of the Second Army, led by General Yamaji, drew up around Port Arthur in late November. On 18 November 1894, the Japanese movement down the peninsula was temporarily frustrated and returned to find that their abandoned wounded troops had been severely mutilated, with hands and feet cut off. Others had been burned alive. The city was evacuated with residents fleeing westward by land or sea into China. The Qing government placed bounties on prisoners of war, or their heads or other body parts; during the Sino Japanese War the bounty was 50 taels. Some Chinese soldiers had mutilated several Japanese soldiers' dead bodies and displayed them at the entrance of the city, infuriating the Japanese.]] The scale and nature of the killing continues to be debated. Estimates range from 2,600 to 60,000 dead altogther. Japanese participants reported mountains of corpses, yet the number of dead was never officially calculated. Cowan, who was a witness, reported that the "bodies of men strewed the streets in hundreds, perhaps thousands, for we could not count" and that there were "more in the water." Creelman, also a witness, asserted that up to 60,000 were killed, with only 36 spared. According to a scouting report sent to Viceroy Li Hongzhang by the local official Liu Hanfang (劉含芳) soon after the massacre, 2,600~2,700 civilians were killed within the city. Writing a decade later, de Guerville amended this view, claiming that though some 120 civilians were killed it still had not been a massacre. Foreign reporters had to wait until they had left the area before they could file their stories, which the Japanese censors would otherwise have suppressed. At first, the incident garnered little attention: a one sentence report in The Times on 26 November stated: "Great slaughter is reported to have taken place." James Creelman was the first to report on the massacre in a front page article that declared:
Other newspapers soon followed with detailed reports. The reports hurt Japan's international image and threatened the progress of negotiations with the United States to bring an end to the unequal treaties Japan had been made to sign in the 1850s. Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu announced an investigation, publishing these intentions in the New York World, and promised not to interfere with foreign correspondents. On 16 December, the Foreign Ministry released a statement to the press, asserting the atrocities were exaggerations:
The Japanese press generally avoided reporting on the massacre, or dismissed it, as when the lt=''Jiyū Shinbun called allegations "an invidious desire to detract from the glory of the Japanese Army". The accused Westerners of exaggerating the extent of the atrocities, and of hypocrisy in light of the atrocities they had committed throughout the East, stating that "the history of savage nations that have come in contact with Christian Occidentals is all but written in blood". Some questioned Creelman's reliability, and a rumour spread that he left for Shanghai after the fall of Port Arthur to work for the Chinese government. The Japan Weekly Mail, on the other hand, castigated the Japanese army in several articles. Attempts to launch an inquiry met resistance from those who wanted it covered up. The inquiry resulted in no punishments given out. Domestic instability kept the Chinese government under pressure to conceal the defeat, rather than castigate the Japanese for the atrocities. The China Gazette reported on the attempted cover up: "Telegraphic notices have been sent all over the empire by the officials saying that a wicked report has been set on foot by the enemy that they have captured Port Arthur, but it was utterly untrue, the place being garrisoned by 30,000 brave Chinese soldiers who would never give it up to the Japanese." As late as a month later, the China Gazette reported the defeat remained unknown even to many government officials. The pro Japanese North China Herald attempted to defend the perpetrators of the massacre by proposing "The circumstances were such as might have taxed the control of any invading force." The incident strained the delicate foreign relations Japan had been dealing with. The war itself hurt Japan's relations with Britain, and threatened to hurt Japan's renegotiation of treaties with the US. The incident coloured Western perceptions of Japan as barbarians under a thin veil of civilization. These perceptions contributed to anti Japanese sentiments in North America in the early 20th century, which would continue through World War II.
Другие газеты вскоре последовали с подробными репортажами. Эти репортажи нанесли ущерб международному имиджу Японии и поставили под угрозу прогресс переговоров с Соединенными Штатами о прекращении неравноправных договоров, которые Япония была вынуждена подписать в 1850-х годах. Министр иностранных дел Японии Муцу Мунемицу объявил о проведении расследования, опубликовав свои намерения в New York World, и пообещал не препятствовать работе иностранных корреспондентов. 16 декабря Министерство иностранных дел опубликовало заявление для прессы, в котором утверждалось, что сообщения о зверствах были преувеличены:
the 1996 massacre in Tasmania
The Port Arthur massacre took place during the First Sino Japanese War from 21 November 1894 for three days, in the Chinese coastal city of Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou District of Dalian, Liaoning), though the Chinese troopships were successful in landing their troops not far from the Sino Korean border. With the Beiyang Fleet defeated, the Japanese Navy began a siege of Port Arthur while the Japanese Second Army advanced on the city through Manchuria and the Japanese First Army crossed the Yalu River to form another advance by land. After a series of battles on the Liaodong Peninsula the First Division of the Second Army, led by General Yamaji, drew up around Port Arthur in late November. On 18 November 1894, the Japanese movement down the peninsula was temporarily frustrated and returned to find that their abandoned wounded troops had been severely mutilated, with hands and feet cut off. Others had been burned alive. The city was evacuated with residents fleeing westward by land or sea into China. The Qing government placed bounties on prisoners of war, or their heads or other body parts; during the Sino Japanese War the bounty was 50 taels. Some Chinese soldiers had mutilated several Japanese soldiers' dead bodies and displayed them at the entrance of the city, infuriating the Japanese.]] The scale and nature of the killing continues to be debated. Estimates range from 2,600 to 60,000 dead altogther. Japanese participants reported mountains of corpses, yet the number of dead was never officially calculated. Cowan, who was a witness, reported that the "bodies of men strewed the streets in hundreds, perhaps thousands, for we could not count" and that there were "more in the water." Creelman, also a witness, asserted that up to 60,000 were killed, with only 36 spared. According to a scouting report sent to Viceroy Li Hongzhang by the local official Liu Hanfang (劉含芳) soon after the massacre, 2,600~2,700 civilians were killed within the city. Writing a decade later, de Guerville amended this view, claiming that though some 120 civilians were killed it still had not been a massacre. Foreign reporters had to wait until they had left the area before they could file their stories, which the Japanese censors would otherwise have suppressed. At first, the incident garnered little attention: a one sentence report in The Times on 26 November stated: "Great slaughter is reported to have taken place." James Creelman was the first to report on the massacre in a front page article that declared:
Other newspapers soon followed with detailed reports. The reports hurt Japan's international image and threatened the progress of negotiations with the United States to bring an end to the unequal treaties Japan had been made to sign in the 1850s. Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu announced an investigation, publishing these intentions in the New York World, and promised not to interfere with foreign correspondents. On 16 December, the Foreign Ministry released a statement to the press, asserting the atrocities were exaggerations:
The Japanese press generally avoided reporting on the massacre, or dismissed it, as when the lt=''Jiyū Shinbun called allegations "an invidious desire to detract from the glory of the Japanese Army". The accused Westerners of exaggerating the extent of the atrocities, and of hypocrisy in light of the atrocities they had committed throughout the East, stating that "the history of savage nations that have come in contact with Christian Occidentals is all but written in blood". Some questioned Creelman's reliability, and a rumour spread that he left for Shanghai after the fall of Port Arthur to work for the Chinese government. The Japan Weekly Mail, on the other hand, castigated the Japanese army in several articles. Attempts to launch an inquiry met resistance from those who wanted it covered up. The inquiry resulted in no punishments given out. Domestic instability kept the Chinese government under pressure to conceal the defeat, rather than castigate the Japanese for the atrocities. The China Gazette reported on the attempted cover up: "Telegraphic notices have been sent all over the empire by the officials saying that a wicked report has been set on foot by the enemy that they have captured Port Arthur, but it was utterly untrue, the place being garrisoned by 30,000 brave Chinese soldiers who would never give it up to the Japanese." As late as a month later, the China Gazette reported the defeat remained unknown even to many government officials. The pro Japanese North China Herald attempted to defend the perpetrators of the massacre by proposing "The circumstances were such as might have taxed the control of any invading force." The incident strained the delicate foreign relations Japan had been dealing with. The war itself hurt Japan's relations with Britain, and threatened to hurt Japan's renegotiation of treaties with the US. The incident coloured Western perceptions of Japan as barbarians under a thin veil of civilization. These perceptions contributed to anti Japanese sentiments in North America in the early 20th century, which would continue through World War II.
Японская пресса в целом избегала освещения резни или отвергала ее, как, например, когда газета "Дзию Симбун" назвала обвинения "стремлением принизить славу японской армии". Западных обвиняли в преувеличении масштабов зверств и лицемерии, учитывая зверства, которые они сами совершили на Востоке, утверждая, что "история диких народов, вступивших в контакт с христианским Западом, почти написана кровью". Некоторые ставили под сомнение достоверность Крильмана, и распространился слух, что он покинул Порт-Артур после его падения, чтобы работать на китайское правительство. С другой стороны, в нескольких статьях в Japan Weekly Mail была высказана критика в адрес японской армии. Попытки начать расследование встретили сопротивление со стороны тех, кто хотел скрыть правду. Расследование не привело ни к каким наказаниям. Внутренняя нестабильность заставляла китайское правительство скрывать поражение, а не осуждать японцев за зверства. В China Gazette сообщалось о попытке сокрытия: "Чиновники по всей империи разослали телеграфные уведомления о том, что враг распространил злобный слух о захвате Порт-Артура, но это совершенно неправда, поскольку в этом месте находится гарнизон из 30 000 храбрых китайских солдат, которые никогда не сдадут его японцам". Даже спустя месяц China Gazette сообщала, что о поражении не знали даже многие правительственные чиновники. Прояпонская North China Herald попыталась защитить виновников резни, заявив: "Обстоятельства были такими, что могли бы испытать самообладание любой вторгшейся армии". Инцидент осложнил деликатные внешние отношения Японии. Сама война нанесла ущерб отношениям Японии с Великобританией и угрожала срыву пересмотра договоров с США. Инцидент повлиял на западное восприятие Японии как варваров, скрывающихся под тонкой маской цивилизации. Эти представления способствовали антияпонским настроениям в Северной Америке в начале 20-го века, которые сохранялись и во время Второй мировой войны.
the 1996 massacre in Tasmania
The Port Arthur massacre took place during the First Sino Japanese War from 21 November 1894 for three days, in the Chinese coastal city of Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou District of Dalian, Liaoning), though the Chinese troopships were successful in landing their troops not far from the Sino Korean border. With the Beiyang Fleet defeated, the Japanese Navy began a siege of Port Arthur while the Japanese Second Army advanced on the city through Manchuria and the Japanese First Army crossed the Yalu River to form another advance by land. After a series of battles on the Liaodong Peninsula the First Division of the Second Army, led by General Yamaji, drew up around Port Arthur in late November. On 18 November 1894, the Japanese movement down the peninsula was temporarily frustrated and returned to find that their abandoned wounded troops had been severely mutilated, with hands and feet cut off. Others had been burned alive. The city was evacuated with residents fleeing westward by land or sea into China. The Qing government placed bounties on prisoners of war, or their heads or other body parts; during the Sino Japanese War the bounty was 50 taels. Some Chinese soldiers had mutilated several Japanese soldiers' dead bodies and displayed them at the entrance of the city, infuriating the Japanese.]] The scale and nature of the killing continues to be debated. Estimates range from 2,600 to 60,000 dead altogther. Japanese participants reported mountains of corpses, yet the number of dead was never officially calculated. Cowan, who was a witness, reported that the "bodies of men strewed the streets in hundreds, perhaps thousands, for we could not count" and that there were "more in the water." Creelman, also a witness, asserted that up to 60,000 were killed, with only 36 spared. According to a scouting report sent to Viceroy Li Hongzhang by the local official Liu Hanfang (劉含芳) soon after the massacre, 2,600~2,700 civilians were killed within the city. Writing a decade later, de Guerville amended this view, claiming that though some 120 civilians were killed it still had not been a massacre. Foreign reporters had to wait until they had left the area before they could file their stories, which the Japanese censors would otherwise have suppressed. At first, the incident garnered little attention: a one sentence report in The Times on 26 November stated: "Great slaughter is reported to have taken place." James Creelman was the first to report on the massacre in a front page article that declared:
Other newspapers soon followed with detailed reports. The reports hurt Japan's international image and threatened the progress of negotiations with the United States to bring an end to the unequal treaties Japan had been made to sign in the 1850s. Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu announced an investigation, publishing these intentions in the New York World, and promised not to interfere with foreign correspondents. On 16 December, the Foreign Ministry released a statement to the press, asserting the atrocities were exaggerations:
The Japanese press generally avoided reporting on the massacre, or dismissed it, as when the lt=''Jiyū Shinbun called allegations "an invidious desire to detract from the glory of the Japanese Army". The accused Westerners of exaggerating the extent of the atrocities, and of hypocrisy in light of the atrocities they had committed throughout the East, stating that "the history of savage nations that have come in contact with Christian Occidentals is all but written in blood". Some questioned Creelman's reliability, and a rumour spread that he left for Shanghai after the fall of Port Arthur to work for the Chinese government. The Japan Weekly Mail, on the other hand, castigated the Japanese army in several articles. Attempts to launch an inquiry met resistance from those who wanted it covered up. The inquiry resulted in no punishments given out. Domestic instability kept the Chinese government under pressure to conceal the defeat, rather than castigate the Japanese for the atrocities. The China Gazette reported on the attempted cover up: "Telegraphic notices have been sent all over the empire by the officials saying that a wicked report has been set on foot by the enemy that they have captured Port Arthur, but it was utterly untrue, the place being garrisoned by 30,000 brave Chinese soldiers who would never give it up to the Japanese." As late as a month later, the China Gazette reported the defeat remained unknown even to many government officials. The pro Japanese North China Herald attempted to defend the perpetrators of the massacre by proposing "The circumstances were such as might have taxed the control of any invading force." The incident strained the delicate foreign relations Japan had been dealing with. The war itself hurt Japan's relations with Britain, and threatened to hurt Japan's renegotiation of treaties with the US. The incident coloured Western perceptions of Japan as barbarians under a thin veil of civilization. These perceptions contributed to anti Japanese sentiments in North America in the early 20th century, which would continue through World War II.
Дополнительные источники
Аллан, Джеймс. Под знаменем дракона. Лондон: Уильям Хайнеманн, 1898. (Утверждается, что это правдивый рассказ о резне, написанный молодым англичанином, оказавшимся в городе во время его падения.) Крилман, Джеймс. На Великой дороге: Странствия и приключения специального корреспондента. Бостон: Издательство Лотропа, 1901. Де Гервилль, А. Б. В Японии. Париж: Альфонс Лемерр, 1904. Де Гервилль, А. Б. "В защиту Японии. Опровержение утверждений о зверствах в Порт-Артуре", Leslie’s Weekly (3 января 1895). Дорварт, Джеффри М. "Джеймс Крилман, газета New York World и резня в Порт-Артуре", Journalism Quarterly, 50 (4) (1973):697–701. Хардин, Томас Л. “Американская пресса и общественное мнение в Первой китайско-японской войне”, Journalism Quarterly, 50 (1) (1973):53–59. Кейн, Дэниел С. "Каждый по-своему: Факторы, лежащие в основе противоречивых свидетельств о резне в Порт-Артуре", Journalism History, т. 31 (1) (Весна 2005):23–33. Вильерс, Фредерик. "Правда о Порт-Артуре", The North American Review, т. 160, № 460 (март 1895):325–331.