Assignent Solutionnurs

In 1911, the Qing government lacked the resources to fund railway lines. They obtained the financing “with strings attached,” but all went south due to the loans and railway companies disbanding. This led to local investors feeling cheated, eventually causing civil unrest, a revolt, and civil war. Multiple provinces broke ties with the Qing dynasty. Yuan Shikai turned against the dynasty, Sun Yat-sen became provisional president of the revolutionary government, and a compromise was struck. The compromise led to Yat-sen stepping down and Shikai assuming the presidential role of China’s republic.
Yuan had little to no restraints, becoming a dictator. He had gone back on agreements and only allowed 5% of the population to vote. He became a bully to parliament, getting Song Jiaoren assassinated and dismissing governors. Yuan ended up agreeing to Japan’s “Twenty-One Demands” minus the fifth group, “which would have reduced China to a virtual Japanese satellite” (465). This brought with it “a wave of anti-Japanese protests and boycotts.” His attempt to usher in a new regime, reminiscent of the old emperorship, was met with hostility to such a degree it only lasted about three months. Three months after that, Yuan died. With Yuan’s death Sun Yat-sen, who had been in exile, returned to China.
What followed was the Warlord Era. China, or rather Duan Qirui, declared war on Germany. The government received Japanese loans, warlords fought against and with each other, and conditions varied all over China. When they finally reached a somewhat peaceful state, it was still plagued by things, such as insecurities for the lesser people, and “economic developments failed to destabilize the economy enough to bring about either a fundamental breakdown or a breakthrough to growth” (466). Further sections include and discuss more information on China that followed, including but not limited to Intellectual Ferment, Cultural Alternatives, and the Nationalist Government getting established.
The next chapter covers Imperial Japan’s Late Meiji and Taisho Periods. The Late Meiji period lasted from its founding in 1895 to the death of its emperor in July 1912. During this time, Japan desired national security and national status equality. What they settled for was a compromise that would never come to pass because of public demands to put an “end to extraterritoriality.” Nevertheless, Japan ended up reaping the benefits of extraterritorial rights due to a clause in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ended the first Sino-Japanese war. During the war, some political opponents were on the same side. After it, political struggles resumed.
China was unable to tend to its own industries in an adequate manner due to all the nations using the most-favored-nations treatment. Also, Russia continued to be a pest for most of East Asia. Exhausted from the Russo-Japanese war; and frequent fighting, both sides agreed to the US’s offer to mediate, resulting in the Portsmouth Treaty. With its citizens unaware of their own country’s inability to keep fighting, citizens rioted in disappointment.
Furthermore, the Japanese economy experienced growth from both wars. However, one must keep in mind that not everyone benefited from said growth. Following this information is a section titled “Literature and the Arts,” where modern Japanese literature and visual arts get spoken of. This includes authors and artists. After which, we delve into the Taisho Period, “which began and ended in crisis” (490). The chapter continues since it covers Imperial Japan up to 1931. That includes Japan during the first world war, politics, and cultural aspects.
We wrap up with part of chapter 21, covering ‘The Manchurian Incident,’ further politics in Japan, and Nanjing. The opening of the chapter explained all of the information in a hyper condensed fashion. Japan and China’s fates became one upon Japan’s seizure of Manchuria. Militaries in both countries were seizing power, and the world turned a blind eye to Japan’s aggressive atrocities. Something important that applies, even in our times, is how other governments have an “inability or unwillingness…to do more than pay lip service.”