By This was no reporting on fighting in April.
The articles about the conflict center on two primary items: News of a 2nd Russian fleet moving to get into battle and Japan accusing France of breaking neutrality and France’s fear of what a Japanese victory will mean for its Far East possessions.
The articles on the 2nd fleet describe the move as being a potential game-changer that worries Japan after they had just had stunning successes on the ground and Russia looked like it was about to be knocked out of the war.
The only article in April I found worth presenting was this one on Korea:
28 April: Japanese Transform Korea
Wonderful is the spectacle of transformation in Korea.
The reforms already effected are remarkable and are an unmixed benefit to the people, but they are causing dismay to the Emperor and his corrupt Court…
Unmixed benefit — that would surely roll the eyes of most any Korean, and in fact, did roll the eyes of some Americans familiar with Korea who wrote books about the Japanese penetration back then.
I have heard nothing but praise for the Japanese troops, who are paying liberally for everything and have spent immense sums in the country.
I book I was reading written back then about the March 1st Movement also stated these facts, but it argued that the Japanese authorities and military changed their habits fundamentally the more the Japanese war effort prospered against Russian forces. It also said that large numbers of ruffian civilians from Japan came over as Japanese victory crept closer and they did much damage to Japan’s position in Korea in the eyes of most Koreans.
Civilian Japanese are pouring into the country. It is estimated that already 60,000 have come.
Most noticeable are the order and quiet attending the Japanese enterprises. Order is preserved with the smallest possible evidence of force, contrasting strangely with the large bodies of frontier guards Russia
needed to protect the railways in Manchuria, where the people were set at enmity by their harsh treatment.
The most difficult post of all, that of Adviser to the Foreign Office, has been intrusted to an American, D. W. Stevens, whose patience, tact, and ability have won praise from all nationalities.
Keep in mind — I don’t offer these articles as definitive statements about the events they cover: These are news articles and I don’t discount my distrust of the media’s ability to report “facts” without opinion just because they are old articles.
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Stevens – who was assassinated in SF in 1908 by two Korean-Americans who did not happen to appreciate the work he did for Japan in the Korean government…
2:24 pm on May 8th, 2009 1
Its easy to portray Stevens as a biased politically expedient of Japan, yet it also reflects the mood at the time between Japan and the US. Stevens view appears to be that of the Japanese, that the Koreans were a backward people in need of modernization that only Japan can deliver, regardless of the consequences to the populace. The breaking down of walls and old tradition would not only be prospeous to the Japanese, but to the Koreans. I tend to believe the US populace agreed to this idea as well.Regardless of cost. Apparently the Koreans didn't agree and he was assasinated.
3:01 am on May 9th, 2009 2
It sounds like this Stevens fellow was a prostitute for Japan. I wonder who sent the “Special Cable. Copyright 1905 Japanese Transform Korea. Sometimes newspapers print stories without checking out the facts. May have occurred in with this story. Jack London did visit Korea and write articles concerning the war.
http://www.jack-london.org/05-mat-warcorrespondet…
9:36 am on May 9th, 2009 3
American society's opinion was favorable to Japan. There were some notable exceptions that argued against the Japanese moves in Korea, but the majority was favorable to Japan.
However, even in that majority, they worried that Japan's remarkable reversal of fortune was leading it to follow the pattern of empire of the Europeans which they did not agree with. Some were comfortable enough with Japan's growing influence in Korea but balked at extending it to China. Some were worried about it in Korea too.
I think the thing about Stevens is – as far as I know, and I only know a little – that he was a private citizen who went to work for the Japanese government – and in a position to specifically help facilitate its growing power in Korea. In short, he was an agent of that government – of that colonial system.
12:21 pm on May 9th, 2009 4
"Stevens view appears to be that of the Japanese, that the Koreans were a backward people in need of modernization that only Japan can deliver, regardless of the consequences to the populace."
Sounds like a typical American expat in Korea today. Some things never change.
12:27 pm on May 9th, 2009 5
Are you an expat? Could you be more specific? Your comment doesn't make sense to me. A typical expat?