The article provides a detailed description and preliminary analysis of materials about Taiwan as a Japanese colony that appeared in the Soviet open press in the 1920s and 1930s. Questions about the sources of information contained in them, the reliability of the reported facts are considered, and the characteristics of their authors are given. The influence of Soviet and Comintern ideology and orthodoxy on the subject, content, and level of Oriental studies in the USSR is considered on the example of works on Taiwan.

Keywords: Taiwan, USSR, Comintern, colony, agriculture, geopolitical situation, anti-Japanese struggle, communist movement.

One of the first Soviet articles about colonial Taiwan opened with a confession: "Information about Formosa and the situation of the oppressed and exploited natives of this colony very rarely reaches us" [Formosa. Sugar plantations..., 1927, p. 13]. The revolution, Civil War and intervention in the Far East led to the cessation of information about Taiwan in Petrograd and Moscow. In the absence of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Japan until January 1925 and the irregular receipt of even secondary information about the situation in this country (especially in its colonies), the main source was the Comintern channels.

"The first contacts between the Comintern and the Taiwanese opposition are established soon after the Comintern begins its activities in the Far East" [Tertitsky and Belogurova, 2005, p.42]. In 1920-1921, a group of Comintern workers led by G. N. Voitinsky was in Beijing and Shanghai, where they were in contact with representatives of the Taiwanese anti-Japanese movement. At the end of 1921, the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) created the Far Eastern Secretariat, then the Eastern Sector and the Eastern Department headed by K. B. Radek and Voitinsky.

The earliest identified Comintern document dealing specifically with Taiwan is the anonymous reference Formosa or Taiwan 1, submitted to Voitinsky and dated August 1, 1923. It contains information from open sources ("Japan Year Book", newspapers" Yomiuri "and" Tokyo niti-niti", "Information of the American Consul in Taihoku"), grouped under the sections " General information "("Geographical location", "Population", "History"), "Economic life" ("Agriculture", "Mountain wealth of Formosa", "Communication routes", "Monopolies", "Trade and Budget") and "Management of Taiwan" [Tertitsky, Belogurova, 2005, pp. 258-265]. The actual data are combined with anti-Japanese attacks, which is typical of Comintern analysis, even if it is intended for official use:

"The Japanese colonialists marked the beginning of their rule with incredible cruelties, bribery, debauchery, all sorts of lawlessness, drunkenness, etc .-

1 In cases where the tgo name was used at the time described, it was written without the currently accepted soft sign.

page 28
The government of Taiwan is a nasty parody of the system of government in indigenous Japan, with its "self-government" even less progressive than the tsarist zemstvo" (Tertitsky and Belogurova, 2005: 259, 262). The reaction of Voitinsky and the ECCI leadership to the note is unknown, but it could have given the impression that there was a situation on the island, if not a revolutionary situation, then prerequisites for the deployment of anti-colonial and communist activities.

The signing of the Convention on Basic Principles of Relations between the USSR and Japan in Beijing on January 20, 1925, and the establishment of diplomatic relations had little impact on the situation with the receipt of first-hand information about Taiwan in Moscow, since the question of opening any Soviet representative office or institution there was not raised.

One of the first Soviet-era scientific papers on Taiwan was the article "On the Agrarian Question on Formosa", which was written by Oleg Viktorovich Pletner, a professor at the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies (MIV) and an employee of the International Agrarian Institute, a Japanese economist (1893-1929). It contained extensive statistical data on the colony's economy and recognized the "extraordinary economic recovery" and "significant industrial growth" achieved there, while stating that " Formosa is a predominantly agricultural country." Pletner made the following conclusions:

"Japanese sources indicate that with the arrival of the Japanese, agriculture on the island has significantly increased. This statement is not entirely accurate. The total agricultural output rose, but this growth was mainly due to those industries that the Japanese themselves were engaged in; as for the industries that the natives are engaged in, in most cases they have fallen significantly during the Japanese rule. < ... > When the Japanese, pointing out the growth of agricultural production, sing the praises of their cultural and educational abilities and if it is said that they have benefitted the Formosan population , then these statements are not to be believed, since all the increase in agricultural production is received not by the Formosans, but by the Japanese.<... The population of Formosa, which is mostly peasant, suffers double oppression. It is exposed not only to the usual influence of capitalism, which is ruining the broad peasant masses, but also to the most severe foreign oppression associated with it (one of the main theoretical propositions of the Comintern - V. M.). The role of native capital in enslaving the masses is negligible. Formosa has been put into operation by Japanese concerns, and this operation is carried out almost without any cover."

Pletner noted that in the matter of "non-economic influence on economic relations," Japan "does not lag behind other countries, and perhaps even goes ahead of them. <...> The peasants are proletarianized with the stroke of a pen and they are forced to work on the lands taken from them by "non-economic influence." All these influences apply, of course, exclusively to the natives." In this analytical work, there are also journalistic passages that "Formosa is a long-suffering island", that "schools are built for the Japanese, they prefer to build prisons for the Formosans", and "some of the inhabitants of Formosa are not considered people by the Japanese at all" (Pletner, 1927, pp. 75-84).

From a historiographical point of view, the following note by Pletner is of interest::

"Unfortunately, among the authors who publish about Japan in the USSR, there are some who have not yet fully realized the "kulturtrager" role of the Japanese in the colonies. G. Yurkevich in his book "Modern Japan" claims that " their (Formosa) unsightly customs, such as: bandaging the feet of women and smoking opium they are gradually disappearing, giving way to the local tendency to assimilate with the Japanese." The author of these naive lines imperceptibly turns into an apologist of Japanese imperialism; he does not want to believe the "fables" that Japan teaches the population to drugs by encouraging opium smoking, he is firmly convinced that the Formosans are trying to merge with the Japanese as soon as possible, etc. " [Pletner, 1927, p. 84].

page 29
Let's turn to the book that provoked a rebuke from Pletner, who did not stop at political accusations in his polemic. It is entitled " Modern Japan. Economic and Geographical review based on modern Japanese sources" (emphasis added).) and belongs to the pen of Trofim Stepanovich Yurkevich (1891-1938) (Pletner or the magazine made a mistake in the first initial). A graduate of the Tokyo Theological Seminary, a graduate of the Eastern Institute, a Kolchak officer, a translator in the Japanese headquarters and at the same time a Bolshevik intelligence officer, Yurkevich combined work "in the line of Intelligence" with scientific and teaching work from the beginning of the 1920s [Kulanov, 2012]. His book is a brief overview, rich in factual data and almost devoid of assessments and ideological "stuffing". Working in Vladivostok, Yurkevich had more access to the latest Japanese publications than his colleagues in Moscow and Leningrad. The section on Taiwan (Yurkevich, 1926, pp. 116-125) was the first in the Soviet literature to describe the island's geographical characteristics, natural resources, flora and fauna, and provide data on its economy and economy. Uncharacteristic of the publications of those years is the assessment of the colonial administration regime based on Japanese sources:

"In view of the proximity of the Formosa region to the Chinese province of Fujian (Fujian-V. M.) and the overwhelming majority of its population of non-Japanese origin, in some parts even hostile to Japan, the Japanese quite rightly call the island of Formosa the southern threshold of Japan. In accordance with this, the method of managing the region is also distinguished by its comparative severity, which is expressed in the application of weapons to recalcitrant actions first, and then by education " [Yurkevich, 1926, p. 125].

In the second half of the 1920s, Soviet publications about Taiwan were mostly "more propagandistic than scientific in nature", since "the main suppliers of materials about the Japanese colonies - Korea and Formosa — were referents of the Comintern and Profintern, who received the press of their respective countries" (Toder, 1993, p.52). The author of several of them was Maria Ivanovna Lukyanova (1904-1977), later Doctor of Economics and head of the Japan Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Anonymously published, but possibly written by Lukyanova, a survey of the island's labor movement stated that "the seizure of peasant land and the use of plantations organized by capitalists has caused an influx of landless peasants into the cities, creating cheap labor" and that "since 1914, Formosa's industry has been growing at a fairly rapid pace", so "at present, on the territory of the island, the population of In Formosa, we have quite a significant stratum of the proletariat." Having shown the difference in wages between Japanese and Taiwanese, the author writes that this "expresses the exploitative attitude of the Japanese-winner to the Formosan-defeated. Capitalists usually attribute this difference to a higher or lower degree of qualification. Before the Soviet reader, it is hardly worth refuting this version."

The author paid special attention to the state and prospects of the organization of the working-class movement, noting that "due to political oppression, the entire mass of workers on Formosa was completely unorganized until recently" and "only since 1926 have tendencies towards organization been gradually outlined and workers' unions are beginning to be formed." "The Formosa workers have not yet managed to create such cohesive organizations that could successfully resist the capitalists. However, from the reports coming out of Formosa, it can be concluded that the Formosa working class is not frozen in immobility. On the contrary, revolutionary "dangerous ideas" are increasingly making their way in its midst; and at the same time, the process of organizing and rallying the working forces is proceeding, albeit slowly" [Formosa..., 1927, pp. 12-14]. Noting that "almost from the very beginning of its emergence, the Formosa trade union movement shows a process of stratification into three groups: right, left, and centrist", the author of another anonymous article

page 30
a review in the same journal (possibly by Lukyanova) revealed the" attitude " of the Profintern: "The task of the left elements is to strengthen their ranks, to wrest the best proletarian elements grouped around the bourgeois-nationalist leaders from their influence, and to launch a struggle for a united front of the working masses of Formosa" [Formosa..., 1928, p. 22].

The problems of colonial and semi-colonial countries and the prospects for intensifying the revolutionary struggle there were discussed at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern (July 17-September 1, 1928). " The Comintern believed that the upcoming revolution in Taiwan would be anti-imperialist and agrarian. The proletariat, the peasantry, and the petty bourgeoisie were supposed to be the driving forces in the revolutionary movement, but the Taiwanese national bourgeoisie could also take part in it; in these conditions, it was necessary to ensure the hegemony of the proletariat" [Tertitsky and Belogurova, 2005, pp. 91-93]. These provisions were reflected in two review publications on Taiwan.

The author of the article" Modern Formosa", who took refuge under the pseudonym "Nikkel", began by stating that "of all the localities of the Far East, Formosa enjoys the least attention of literature, both general and special" and that "if you take the Soviet Oriental literature, then in it Formosa is in the full sense of the word" unexplored land"" . The article does not contain references to the literature used, so it remains to assume that it is based on foreign sources available to the author, most likely through the Comintern and Profintern. It differs from other Soviet publications on this topic in its academic tone and emphasis on "the geopolitical significance" and "the role that Japanese imperialism assigns to Formosa in its plans." Referring to the "future Pacific conflict", the author called Taiwan "a strategic point of primary importance", one of the islands that will help Japan "ensure uninterrupted and completely secure communication with the east coast of the Asian mainland, which will be the only source of food, fuel and raw materials (primarily iron) available to Japan in the event of war"..

"The importance of Formosa is not limited to defensive issues. It is the front line of Japanese expansion to the South. There is no need to think about Japan's military expansion now, but the idea of it is not completely abandoned, and under favorable conditions (for example, in the case of the resumption of the Anglo-Japanese alliance) it may come to the surface again. <...> Formosa is already a base for economic expansion in this direction " [Nikkel, 1929, pp. 82-89].

M. I. Lukyanova's article " Japanese rule and the struggle against it on the island of Formosa "(Lukyanova, 1929, pp. 445-449) is also an overview, but it focuses on the "situation of the proletariat" and the "liberation movement", as can be seen from the general title and paragraph titles. In terms of form and content, it differs little from the anonymous publications analyzed above, which makes it possible to consider them as texts of the same author. Lukyanova's conclusions were consistent with the Comintern approach. Recognizing that "the dispersion of the proletariat (the absence of large-scale industry), the high percentage of women and children, the brutal political oppression of the military-feudal regime, and the inhumane exploitation of labor still greatly complicate the work of organizing the workers," she noted their growing "consciousness of the need to rally and unite their forces" and concluded with the appeal: "The task of the left elements is master the spontaneously revolutionizing masses of workers and peasants, wrest them from the influence of nationalist organizations, and lead them with a united front against Japanese imperialism"2 [Lukyanova, 1929, p.449].

A summary of the Soviet publications of the second half of the 1920s can be considered the chapter "Japanese imperialism in Taiwan" in the book "Japanese Imperialism. Poly-

2 Lukyanova's article published under a "Japanese" pseudonym has a similar content [Asagiri, 1929, pp. 7-9].

page 31
tico-economic essay", published under the pseudonym "G. Gastov" (Gastov, 1930, pp. 66-79). Its author was the political analyst and journalist Georgy Aleksandrovich Astakhov (1896/1897-1942), from March 1925 to 1927 he was head of the press bureau of the embassy in Tokyo. According to G. Z. Besedovsky, an adviser to the embassy and charge d'affaires, and later a "non-returnee", Astakhov "was very interested in Japan, studied Japanese, knew Japanese domestic life well", "knew Japan very well, spoke Japanese and English, and had extensive acquaintances in Tokyo" (Besedovsky, 1997,p. 4). pp. 183-184]. It has not yet been established whether he visited Taiwan.

"Japanese Imperialism" is a popular science work for the general reader, without specifying sources. It is marked by a desire for picturesqueness (for example, in describing the nature of Taiwan or reprisals against the natives), which is accompanied by inevitable rhetoric.: "The local population accounts for only scraps of Japanese profits from foreign trade." However, the author could not completely ignore the material progress on the island:

"Traveling through Taiwan, the tourist is first struck by the ebullient and creative work of imperialism. He sees neat little towns lined with electricity, running water, and hospitals; he is struck by the rush of freight trains and powerful express trains through fields where recently there were impenetrable bamboo thickets; he is fascinated by the spirals of narrow-gauge mountain tracks and awestruck by the sight of factory chimneys and steamboat horns. He is ready to bow before the power and organizational talents of imperialism, which has created a cultural hotbed out of a wild island, bursting with sparks of creative energy. But when he takes a closer look, looks deep into the country, carefully deciphers the garrulous reports and statistical tables, he will understand the alluvium and tinsel of this culture. Even in the coastal strip, all the benefits belong only to the Japanese. The local population is left with only the most insignificant intermediary and working role. Then he will see that only a narrow strip of land along the western shore of the island is" culturally " combed. Only here, in the coastal plain that makes up 1/6-1/7 of the island's total area, can imperialism shine with cobbled streets and sumptuous hotels, museums, government buildings, botanical gardens, and a few ostentatious native villages that he, like Potemkin in Catherine's Russia, hastens to show off as proof of his cultural work. But there, a little deeper, on 5/6 of the territory, there, behind the curtain of difficult mountains and police cordons, the so-called "wild zone" begins - tourists are usually not allowed there. There, between the highest ridges, in the swampy lowlands of gorges, in the thickets of tropical jungles, naked people nest. < ... > They do not know any medical care, no school, no clothes. Firearms are replaced by primitive wooden bows. But they know sake, tobacco, and opium. These" cultural " skills were quickly passed on to them by the Japanese. They die of starvation and malaria, they surreptitiously slaughter the Japanese who inadvertently fall into the mountains, in some places not disdaining, they say, even to eat their corpses. < ... > Occasionally detachments of researchers or tourists pass there under armed guard, and the rest of the time the entire huge island, replete with unknown riches, silently slumbers under the shadow of the highest mountains. Only the cries of monkeys break its silence, and the single shots of Japanese police posts scattered along several trails remind humiliated, angry naked people of the forest thickets that they are slaves " (Gastov, 1930, pp. 76-78).

Astakhov's remark that "the example of Japanese colonization in Taiwan illustrates all the indications of the ICCI theses (on the colonial question - V. M.), compiled on the basis of the experience of various countries, although the latter is never mentioned in the theses" (Gastov, 1930, p. 76), is noteworthy.

At that time, it was almost impossible for a Soviet citizen to see Taiwan with his own eyes. In 1926, the Japanese authorities did not allow the writer B. A. Pilnyak to go there, but three years later they made an exception for academician N. I. Vavilov, who was on a research trip. Therefore, Vera Dmitrievna Pozdneeva (married Plotnikov; 1906-1943), who in 1929 trained in Japan as a graduate student at the Leningrad Oriental Institute, visited the Taiwan exhibition in Tokyo, dedicated an article to her, explaining: "For us, all this is completely new, since the southern island of Japan

page 32
very little known in the USSR. I want to try, therefore, to take readers on a trip to Formosa without leaving Tokyo." Stating that "the island of Formosa should be viewed as one of the most interesting corners of the globe for a Marxist researcher," the author acknowledged that "Japanese industrial and then financial capital imposed its heavy hand on Taiwan, and the exploitation of the island took on enormous proportions", but the author's further presentation and conclusions differed markedly from Comintern and pro-international publications.

The first part of the article was "A brief description of Taiwan" (according to Japanese sources) from the point of view of economic geography, the second - an imaginary trip to the island. "There is no doubt about the success of trade, industry, shipping, urban development, urban improvement, the flourishing of electrification of production and the entire capitalist culture of Japan on Formosa, "Pozdneeva stated —" < ... > The exhibition illustrates to us the most brilliant successes of Japanese management in the plane of the economic conquest of the island by Japanese capital. < ... > with Chinese labor, the transformation of Formosa into an industrial area is entirely possible." At the same time, she - again on the basis of Japanese sources-noted that " the establishment of Japanese power over Formosa, firstly, is far from peaceful, and secondly, it cannot yet be considered complete."... The savages are waging the fiercest and most irreconcilable struggle against the Japanese. < ... > Anti-Japanese uprisings have always been suppressed with equal cruelty" [Pozdneeva, 1929, pp. 339-359].

"This work, as in no other text of the Soviet period, provides information about the actions of the Japanese administration to modernize Taiwan; at the same time, the author (a second - generation Japanese scholar-V. M.) does not have any illusions about the rigidity of the colonial regime. < ... > The appearance of this text shows that among Russian orientalists in the 1920s and 1920s, the author ofThere were people who were able to fairly objectively assess the events that took place in Taiwan. However, in the conditions of that time, the work of V. Pozdneevoy remained unclaimed" [Tertitsky, Belogurova, 2005, p. 142].

The secondary nature of the information received in Moscow about Taiwan can be seen from the responses of the Soviet press to the" incident in Wushe " (Japanese: Musya jihen) - a bloody conflict in Taichu province between the Atayal aborigines and the Japanese police in October 1930. Starting with a domestic quarrel, it turned into an anti-Japanese uprising, which was suppressed by the police and army with the help of the use of aviation and toxic substances. The authorities discouraged press coverage of such events, especially since the Wushe area was considered a model of Aboriginal policy. Materials of the Soviet press indicate a lack of information about what was happening, so most of the texts were a retelling of general information about the situation on the island and the brutal exploitation of the local population [Petrovsky, 1930, pp. 22-24]. 1,500 people took part in the uprising, which in one of the TASS reports turned into 15,000, until the magazine "World Agriculture and Peasant Movement" pointed out an error [Uprising on Formosa, 1930, pp. 20-21].

Without mentioning the conflict that started the "incident", Lukyanova called the reasons for the uprising "bullying of Japanese timber producers who refused to pay them (the aborigines - V. M.) for felling and transporting wood" and the fact that "under the pretext of building a power plant in Jitsugettan, they were forced to vacate the square and go to all four sides." "Japan's military might," she concluded, "is strong enough to deal with a handful of 'savages' who dare remind them of their rights." The article's finale echoed Comintern attitudes: "The proletarians of Japan must understand that in their struggle against the Japanese bourgeoisie, the more closely they link their forces with the growing revolutionary upsurge of the Japanese colonies. United with the revolutionary peasant masses of Korea

page 33
and the Formoses against a common enemy, they will best secure victory. The Formosa uprising must not pass by the Japanese proletariat, which must carefully study the current situation and clearly reveal its attitude to this issue "[Lukyanova, 1931, p. 16-18].

Perhaps the speech of the Taiwanese aborigines would have attracted more attention, but it was overshadowed by subsequent events: the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army in the second half of September 1931, the creation of the" independent state " of Manchukuo, which was a Japanese protectorate, in 1932, Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933. In the first months of the conflict, he remained neutral and even offered Japan a non-aggression pact on December 31, 1931, but during 1932 relations between Moscow and Tokyo deteriorated, and after Japan refused the pact proposal, they turned into an open information and propaganda conflict. No later than October 21, 1933, J. V. Stalin instructed V. M. Molotov and L. M. Kaganovich to "begin a long solid (uncritical) training of the reader against the scoundrels from Japan," explaining:

"It is time to begin a broad, meaningful analysis of the public opinion of the USSR and all other countries about Japan and in general against the militarists of Japan. It is necessary to expand this case in Pravda, partly in Izvestia. It is also necessary to use GIZ (State Publishing House V. M.) and other publishing houses to publish relevant brochures and books. It is necessary to acquaint people not only with the negative, but also with the positive aspects of everyday life, life, and conditions in Japan. It is clear that the negative, imperialist, aggressive and militaristic sides should be exposed prominently" [Stalin, 2001, p. 396].

In response to the instructions, a number of books on Japan (not counting newspaper and magazine articles) were prepared and published within a few months, even with scientific materials that had a pronounced political connotation. For example, a reference article on Japanese colonies noted that "Formosa is of great strategic importance as an advanced outpost for military aggression by Japanese imperialism", and the aborigines "have been waging an incessant guerrilla war against the Japanese invaders until recently" (Gorshenin, 1934, pp. 129-131). Taiwan has rarely been written specifically, with the exception of B. A. Alexandrov's article "Formosa in the Grip of Japanese Imperialism" (Aleksandrov, 1934, pp. 74-95).

Noting that Taiwan "receives unusually little attention in both foreign and Soviet literature," the author gave an overview of the island's history during the colonial period and its current position according to the traditional scheme.: Territory. - Population. - Agriculture. - Industry. - Foreign trade. - Finance. - Message paths and communication. - Management. - Military and strategic importance of Formosa. - Imperialist policy of Japan. - Japanization of the native population. - The situation of the Formosa proletariat. New were the characterization of the events of 1895 as the " Formosa Revolution "and the statement of the fact that"the experience of capturing and conquering Formosa largely formed the predatory methods of Japanese imperialism and formed its system of colonial robbery."

For the first time in the Soviet press, the policy of "Japanization" was characterized as "one of the most effective means of conquering the natives and adapting them to fulfill the tasks of Japanese imperialism." The author's remark that "the Japanese imperialists strictly protect the secular character of the Formosa school and forbid teaching religion in the school or even touching on religious issues in general" is noteworthy in order to " combat the European and American influence that seeps into Formosa through missionaries." Otherwise, the article repeated the well-known statements about Taiwan as "a typical colonial agricultural and raw materials appendage of the capitalist metropolis", "a raw material base for Japanese industry and at the same time an important market for its products"," extremely important military and strategic importance " of the island and "a regime of horror and cruel exploitation-

page 34
which forever dug a chasm between Japanese imperialism and the native Chinese and Malay peoples."

As noted by a prominent expert on Taiwan, Fanny Alexandrovna Toder (1911-2000), who began her research at the time described, the then Soviet literature "could not provide a more or less adequate picture of what is happening in Taiwan" [Toder, 1993, p.52]. Although in those years Japanese political literature was almost not published in the USSR, in 1934 the State Socio-Economic Publishing House published a translation of the book "Formosa under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism" by the Japanese economist and specialist on the colonial question Yanaihara Tadao (1893-1961) [Yautihara, 1934] (the author's surname is mistakenly transcribed "Yautihara"). The output data (submitted on June 16, signed for publication on August 5) suggest that the anonymously published translation was prepared in compliance with Stalin's instructions and that it was carried out by the editors of the book: economist Dmitry Petrovich Zhukov (1904-1937), who had experience in Japan and was head of the Special (Japanese) Sector of the Leningrad Institute of Oriental Studies; economist, specialist on Japanese colonies Daniil Mikhailovich Sklyarov (1907-1939), post-graduate student of the Institute of Oriental Studies; information about the third editor of the Institute of Oriental Studies. I don't have Ostrovskaya at my disposal.

Declaring Yanaihara-in accordance with the "general line" - a "social fascist", Sklyarov explained in the preface the purpose of publishing the book:

"The author is considered one of the greatest experts in the Japanese colonies, has many works written on these issues, and no doubt has a wealth of factual knowledge in this area. But in presenting concrete material, the author strives not to go beyond the social-fascist worldview, and therefore is not able to build it into a coherent system. The author in his" theoretical " conclusions does not proceed from a scientific analysis of the facts, but on the contrary, tries to fit the facts to his conclusions. This resulted in a mushy, haphazard arrangement of the material. At the same time, the facts presented, drawn from reality, are in themselves the best indicator of the colonial methods of exploitation of Japanese imperialism. Based on this, the publishing house considered it necessary to publish this book in Russian translation for the Soviet reader. The author's" theoretical " propositions can easily be exposed by our elementary politically literate reader. But since they clutter up the book and complicate the assimilation of factual material, we considered it necessary not to introduce these verbose arguments of the author into the Russian translation. Having freed ourselves from them, we found it possible and necessary, without introducing any new material, limiting ourselves exclusively to the material given in the book, to redistribute its presentation in order to transform it from a crude, unsystematic collection of materials into a system of facts exposing the true character of Japanese imperialism" [Sklyarov, 1934, p.VII-VIII].

Comparison with the original (Yanaihara, 1929) shows that in the Russian version the book is not only tendentiously abridged (without denoting notes), but also recomposed, so that this "translation" is nothing more than a compilation bordering on falsification.

"The last serious pre-war work on Taiwan "[Toder, 1993, p. 53] was the article " The Bloody Fortieth Anniversary. (Formosa 1895-1935)", published in the journal of the Pacific Cabinet of the Institute of World Economy and World Politics "Pacific Ocean" under the signature of "A. A.". Rosen." Under this pseudonym, Yan Petrovich Bremen (1898-1938), the head of the Eastern Sector of the Foreign Department of TASS and a teacher at the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, who in 1930-1932 was the head of the department of the Soviet trade mission in Tokyo, took refuge.

"Japanese imperialism is celebrating the fortieth anniversary of its rule on Formosa. The official press in Japan and on Formosa is full of high-flown articles praising the" beneficent " role of Japanese imperialism. Of course, it is not the masses of Formosa who will be celebrating this "jubilee," the author began, and these words leave no doubt about the tone and conclusions of the article. - <...>However, this "jubilee" will not pass unnoticed for the masses of Formosa either. It will force the oppressed masses of Formosa to once again look back on the terrible path of forty years of barbaric management by the Japanese conquerors and join even more strongly in the joint struggle of the masses of Japan, China and Korea against their common enemy - Japanese imperialism" (Rosen, 1935 (1), p.105).

page 35
Following Comintern orthodoxy, the author sometimes gave out wishful thinking, but summarized extensive material, not only obtained through the channels of the special services and the Comintern, but, I believe, collected during his service in Tokyo. In an effort to give the work a generalizing character, Rosen began an essay on the history of Taiwan since the 17th century. For the first time in Soviet literature, he considered its political status and concluded that throughout this time the island was a colony ("Formosa is one of the oldest colonies in the world"), including being part of China: "China pursued a purely colonizing policy on Formosa" (Rosen, 1935(1), p. 105). Drawing attention to this thesis, the researchers noted: "The idea of Taiwan's independence was theoretically justified and became quite logical" (Tertitsky and Belogurova, 2005, p.234).

Rosen's assessment of Japanese policy on Formosa was only negative. Calling the work on drawing up the land cadastre "the most grandiose land robbery", and the introduction of state monopolies - "the next form of robbery", the author concluded that the main goal of the colonial administration "was to adapt Formosa agriculture to serve the needs of the metropolis". He compensated for the data on the increase in acreage and the growth of agricultural products by saying that "Japanese imperialism has turned Formosa agriculture into a purely monocultural one" and "it is absolutely clear that under such conditions agriculture cannot but degrade" (Rosen, 1935(1), pp. 108-112). The statistics were accompanied by "revealing" comments:

"As for opium, its cultivation is also forcibly planted by the Japanese, who use it not only to sell it on the world market as a medicine, but also, perhaps, mainly for smuggling and drugging the Chinese. <...> The whole world knows how Japanese opium, with the full support of the Japanese military, floods not only the Chinese, but also the Chinese. Manchuria and the so-called "demilitarized zone", but also all of Northern China and Fujian. There is no doubt that these revenues from" contraband " opium are many tens of times higher than the official revenues of the Formosa monopoly "(Rosen, 1935(1), p. 113).

The administration has been described as "an exceptionally brutal, barbaric colonial regime": "The whole of Formosa is nothing but a large prison." All facts and data are adapted to this thesis: for example, achievements in the field of education are called "conscious cultivation of illiteracy and barbarism" (Rosen, 1935 (2), pp. 86, 89). Rosen argued that colonial policy was determined solely by the economic interests of Japanese big capital (he gave little space to the island's military and strategic significance), and that officials and the military were corrupt:

"The Japanese military and the monarchical bureaucracy, working tirelessly for the benefit of financial capital, do not remain in the dark. Perhaps nowhere is the interweaving of the bureaucracy and the military with the concerns more pronounced than on Formosa. Every official and officer on Formosa can be sure that "in his old age" (if not earlier) he will get a warm place at one of the enterprises of a particular company" [Rosen, 1935(1), p. 119].

The author emphasized that "the social support of Japanese imperialism on the island has remained extremely small until recently", since "Japanese imperialism conducts its predatory policy openly, without caring about disguise, and relies on the strength of its bayonets to a greater extent than can be observed in other colonial powers" (Rosen, 1935 (2), p. 86]. According to Rosen, Japanese colonialism is "worse than others": "Such a regime as the Japanese established for aborigines does not exist in any of the other colonies of the world" [Rosen, 1935(2), p.88], although Soviet authors who wrote about different parts of the world resorted to this technique. Drawing a bleak picture of poverty, "double oppression - Japanese colonialists and" their "landlords",

page 36
Rosen, in accordance with the line of the Comintern, concluded that there was a lack of police repression and inefficient, predatory management.:

"The current situation on Formosa has prepared exceptionally favorable ground for combining the anti-imperialist national liberation revolution with a powerful agrarian revolution. < ... > The proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party is becoming the hegemon of the national liberation revolution of the oppressed masses of Formosa.<... The growth of the revolutionary movement in the colonies, the explosion that is brewing in them, will deal a crushing blow to Japanese imperialism "[Rosen, 1935(2), pp. 94, 96-97].

Conclusions based on the dogmas of the "headquarters of the world revolution" turned out to be erroneous, and the work itself indicates a decline in the level of "open" Soviet analytics. After Rosen's article, only two anonymous notes about colonial Taiwan appeared in the pre-war Soviet press, as far as it was possible to establish: one mentioned the admission of Taiwanese and Korean volunteers to the Japanese army [Reception of Korean..., 1938, pp. 112-113], the other - about anti-Japanese speeches on the island [Anti-Japanese speeches..., 1938, p. 114-115]. "Both articles," the researchers note, "are distinguished by a small volume and internal primitivism" [Tertitsky, Belogurova, p. 236]. The collection of information continued, but even "closed" analytics on this topic are unknown. The years of the "Great Terror"dealt a heavy blow to the study of Taiwan, as well as to the entire Soviet Oriental studies. Of the authors mentioned above, T. S. Yurkevich, G. A. Astakhov, D. P. Zhukov, D. M. Sklyarov, A. Rosen, as well as N. I. Vavilov, B. A. Pilnyak, and N. A. Nevsky, who visited Taiwan in 1929, were shot or died in prison; as the daughter and wife of "traitors to the Motherland" she lost her job and the opportunity to engage in research activities of V. D. Pozdneev.

The analytical works of Soviet authors of the 1920s and 1930s on colonial Taiwan were created in conditions where it was impossible to obtain information about the situation on the island "first-hand", but using Japanese and other foreign literature, as well as materials and data collected in Japan. Most of the publications in the open press were not only under strict ideological and censorship control, but also reflected the" general line " of the CPSU (b) and the Comintern in relation to Japan and the colonial countries. However, despite the limited sources and well-defined theoretical propositions and conclusions, most of the works reviewed in the review show a good familiarity with the available information, and in some cases (O. V. Pletner, V. D. Pozdneeva, Nikkel) the ability to analyze it and draw conclusions, the value of which went beyond the service of Agitprop. When further studying this topic, one should pay attention to the possible perception of these publications in the scientific, party, diplomatic and Comintern environment, as well as to the search for "closed" analytical materials about colonial Taiwan and to establish their connection with open press publications.

list of literature

Alexandrov B. Formosa in the grip of Japanese imperialism // Modern Japan. Sat. 2. Moscow: IMHiIP, 1934.

Anti-Japanese speeches on Formosa / / Pacific Ocean, 1938, No. 3.
Asagiri. Rabocheye i natsionalno-osvobozhitelnoe dvizhenie na Formosa [Labor and national liberation Movement on Formosa]. 1929. № 34.

Bsssdovsky G. Na puti k thermidoru [On the paths to thermidor]. Moscow: Sovremennik, 1997.

Revolt on Formosa / / World agriculture and peasant movement. 1931. № 1.

Gastov G. Japanese imperialism. Politiko-ekonomicheskiy ocherk [Political and Economic Essay], Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochy Publ., 1930.
Gorshenin I. Japanese colonies. Collection of articles, Moscow: Sotsekgiz Publ., 1934.

Kulanov A. E. Trofim Yurkevich-agent " R " / / Japan of our days. 2012. No. 4 (14). Moscow, 2013.

Lukyanova M. Yaponskoe vlad'stvo i borba s nim na ostrov Formosa [Japanese rule and the fight against it on the island of Formosa]. 1929. № 6.

Lukyanova M. Vosstanie na Formosa [Uprising on Formosa]. 1931. № 1.

page 37
Nikksl. Modern Formosa / / World Economy and World Politics. 1929. № 2.

Petrovsky V. Vosstanie "dikarei" na Formosa [The Uprising of the "Savages" on Formosa].
Plstner O. On the agrarian question on Formosa // On the agrarian front. 1927. № 5.

Pozdnssva V. Formosa Island or Taiwan, Izvestiya Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva, Vol. LXI, Issue P. L., 1929.

Reception of Korean and Formosa "volunteers" in the Japanese Army / / Pacific Ocean, 1938, No. 3.
Rosen A. A bloody fortieth birthday. (Formosa 1895-1935) // Pacific Ocean, 1935(1). No. 3.
Rosen L. A bloody fortieth birthday. (Formosa 1895-1935) // Pacific Ocean, 1935 (2). No. 4.
Sklyarov D. Preface / / Yautihara Tadao. Formosa under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism, Moscow: Sotsekgiz, 1934.
Stalin and Kaganovich. Correspondence. 1931-1936 / Comp. O. V. Khlsvnyuk, R. U. Davies, L. P. Koshslsva, E. L. Ris, L. L. Rogovaya. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001.

Tsrtitsky K. M., Bslogurova A. E. Taiwanskoe kommunisticheskoe dvizhenie i Komintern (1924-1932 gg.) [The Taiwanese Communist Movement and the Comintern (1924-1932)]. Issledovanie. Dokumenty [Documents], Moscow: Vostok-Zapad Publ., 2005.
Todsr F. A. Istoriya izucheniya Taiwana v Rossii [History of studying Taiwan in Russia]. 1993. № 5.

Formosa. Sugar plantations are stained with the blood of peasants // International Labor Movement. 1927. № 5.

Formosa. Rabocheye dvizhenie [Working Class movement]. 1927. № 47.

Formosa. Movement in favor of the unification of workers ' unions / / Mezhdunarodnoe rabocheye dvizhenie. 1928. № 18-19.

Yurksvich T. S. Modern Japan. Economic and geographical review based on modern Japanese sources. Vladivostok, 1926.

Yanaihara Tadao. Teikokushuka - no Taiwan (Taiwan under the rule of imperialism). Tokyo, 1929.

Yautihara Tadao. Formosa under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism, Moscow: Sotsekgiz, 1934.
page 38

Permanent link to this publication: