In the early days of the founding of the PRC, one of the biggest obstacles to the implementation of industrial priority development strategy was the shortage of housing for workers. Obviously, workers’ residential planning originated in Europe and the United States is the most mature, but this has led to a contradiction: while distinguishing from the architectural form of capitalist countries, it also develops industry efficiently. Therefore, the only way is to learn from the Soviet Union, which is also a socialist country. But in fact, after the establishment of the Soviet Union, the source of its residential planning was the UK and the United States. Through the transformation in conformity with the socialist ideology, the Soviet Union created a spatial model of residential planning that emphasized symmetrical composition and central zone. On this basis, China has launched a series of development applications. It can be said the modern residential planning theory is presented in China after a double translation.

　The author investigated the contents of residential planning that appeared in the architecture professional books that were widely referenced at that time. The comparison found that when China first referred to the Soviet Union’s architectural professional book “Soviet Workers’ Residential District Design”, many problems appeared due to the lack of architectural knowledge of Russian translators. At the beginning of the First five-year plan, Chinese architects quoted a lot from the former in their re-edited" General Layout Design of Factory and Workers' Residential District". However, it corrects the wrong translation of professional vocabulary, adds the practical experience of residential design in Northeast China, and discusses the problems of greening and the form of residential buildings.

　During the First five-year plan period, the construction of the residential planning of Beijing No.2 textile factory was very likely to be affected by professional books at that time. According to surveying and mapping, it was discovered that an additional green belt was set up in the center of the main road in the residential district, and the road width exceeded the Soviet standard. At the same time, the main road not only serves as the north-south axis of the block to connect the entrance and the central zone but also opened in the middle of the green belt connects the east-west blocks, which strengthens the relationship between the residential groups. These all design methods that have not been seen in Soviet residential planning. Instead, some of them are mentioned in the “General Layout Design of Factory and Workers’ Residential District”.

　It can be said that during the First five-year plan period, the design of workers’ residential planning in China showed creativity. In professional books, you can see that designers are trying to combine Soviet experience, actively discussing design methods more suitable for China, paying attention to the local climate and living environment, and looking for more economical methods for residential planning. The central zone of the green belt, which integrates greening, public space, and transportation, presents a unique characteristic of Chinese workers’ residential planning. These show possibilities of how a modern settlement theory entered China and internalized the Chinese modern residential planning theory.

This paper intends to clarify the regional characteristics of the Shanghai residential area since the 1950s. Shanghai’s residential construction was active before the founding of New China, and after the introduction of the neighborhood unit theory, it has developed more significantly through the planning of small parks and the space between residential buildings. Subsequently, the satellite city development gave rise to the “ChengJieChengFang” theory, which connects the surrounding areas with residential areas. The influence of the Soviet’s “superblock” is extremely weaker than in the north because the southern cities referred to residential areas before 1950s and the neighborhood unit theory.

This essay reveals how the newborn Soviet government as the first socialist government in history treated the properties and property rights of foreigners, including concessioners, who were entitled to invest their properties in Soviet Russia. The private property system was the most important issue in the antagonism between socialist and capitalist regimes; therefore, by tracing Soviet policies on foreigners’ properties, we can ascertain how the Soviet government compromised, however insufficiently, its socialist mission to coexist with the capitalist West and then ended those compromises to build socialism in one country.

The Soviet government, created by the Bolsheviks upon the October Revolution in 1917, embarked on the abolition of the private property system through policies such as the socialization of land, the nationalization of banks and enterprises, and removing the inheritance system. The government also cancelled all foreign debt for the sake of the revolution. Further, the Bolsheviks dropped out of World War I in March 1918 to make a separate peace treaty with Germany, leaving its former Entente allies behind. These actions were met with anger and distrust by the Entente, and the U.K., France, and other former allies even militarily intervened in Russia’s revolution, further intensifying its civil war. Though its government survived this war, it left Soviet Russia economically exhausted and diplomatically isolated.

Despite mutual distrust between Soviet Russia and the West, economic and diplomatic relations were soon restored after the civil war. The Soviet government wanted foreign capital for economic recovery and further development, while the West sought stability in international relations and investment destinations. Particularly, Western countries demanded that Soviet Russia secure conditions for normal capitalist economic activities under its socialist government. In response, the Soviet government guaranteed property rights under certain restrictions and restored the inheritance system by enacting the Civil Code in 1922. The Bolsheviks understood this partially rebuilt Soviet market economy as a compromise with the socialist revolution.

The Soviet government further called for concession projects from foreign countries and in turn granted concessions to foreigners for their economic activities. However, Soviet authorities, loyal to their socialist cause, often obstructed the concessioners to confront the concessions administrations. Furthermore, by the mid-1920s, Soviet leadership felt the country’s relations with the West were beginning to strain, which only increased the hostility to concessioners and fueled intra-party struggles. This led to Soviet Russia’s radical industrialization and construction of socialism under the first five-year plan. Accompanying this plan, most of the concessions were liquidated in the course of nationalization. The Soviet Union thus became increasingly isolated because of its soured economic and political relations with the West.

In the 1960s, when students were protesting against authority, domestic political conflicts and the transformation of the Cold War were closely interrelated. The student protests as a transnational phenomenon occurred not only in the Western Bloc but also in the Eastern Bloc. Because the social dynamics of the 1960s cast a shadow on the years from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, the period came to be known as the “Long Sixties”. Did a similar phenomenon occur in the Third World? How did Japan’s diplomacy react to it?

This paper reappraises the anti-Japan riots that broke out in Thailand and Indonesia in 1974 from the perspective of the Cold War and student movements in the Long Sixties. During Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka’s visit to Southeast Asia in January 1974, students in Thailand organized demonstrations and subversive activities. In Indonesia also, protests against Tanaka were radicalized, resulting in the Malari incident with many deaths and arrests.

Previous studies have argued that Japan’s excessive economic presence, so called “over-presence”, induced the riots. However, some studies using newly declassified historical records argue that the riots were outbursts of public opposition to the developmental dictatorships in the two Southeast Asian countries, and that Japan’s economic expansion was used as a scapegoat by protesters. However, these studies focus on their bilateral economic relations with Japan and their domestic political systems without shedding light on the transformation of the international order in Southeast Asia or the structural changes in domestic societies.

In contrast, this paper argues that the anti-Japan riots were consequences of the loss of legitimacy of the pro-U.S. anti-communist administrations in Thailand and Indonesia caused by the transformation of the Cold War, and of civil resistance to authoritarian rule propelled by social modernization. This paper, therefore, argues the anti-Japan riots were part of the transnational student movement in the Long Sixties because it was brought by civic-minded students who were against social injustice under authoritarianism.

This paper also reveals that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) chose “over-presence” theory as the basis to promote cultural diplomacy, which was a new policy toward Southeast Asia. In addition, without taking into account the actualities of Long Sixties on these countries, MOFA tried to alleviate anti-Japan sentiment by focusing on practical measures in the economic and cultural spheres. This policy and the diplomatic concepts of Takeo Fukuda fused into the Fukuda Doctrine. When the Fukuda Doctrine was announced, however, the Long Sixties in both countries had come to an end without producing any fundamental political change.