On the Contemporary Relevance of the Manchurian Incident
by
Gary Leupp
On September 18, 1931 (70 years before the Sept. 11 attacks), the opening
salvoes of World War II were fired in Manchuria. As I have been reading Bush's
comments comparing Saddam to Hitler, and German justice minister Herta
Daübler-Gmelin's remarks comparing Bush to Hitler, in this season of tortured
analogies, the following comes to mind.
Manchuria as of 1931 was internationally regarded as part of China, a
sovereign country, although like most of China it was governed by a warlord
rather than an effective central government. Japan's incipiently fascist
government had acquired treaty rights to station forces in Manchuria,
protecting its railroad, port and other interests. Japan was a major imperialist
power, having wrenched Taiwan from China in 1895, established its rule over
Korea in 1905, and acquired a slough of Pacific islands during World War I.
(The "international community" had endorsed such colonizing activity,
the U.S.
exchanging its nod for Japan's acceptance of its imperial dominion over the
Philippines and Guam, the French trading their recognition for Japan's
acceptance of French colonialism in Indochina, etc.)
From Sept. 18 Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria, having provoked an
"incident" with local military forces, fanned out from Mukden and
in short order
conquered the whole Chinese province. The action was not authorized by the
Prime Minister, Diet, or even the High Command in Tokyo, but undertaken after
careful conspiratorial planning by a small cabal of field-rank officers who
had a
vision of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Tokyo had to go along
with it, insisting, on the global diplomatic stage, that its forces had been
provoked.
But this attack of the regional superpower on the weak nation of China met
with international indignation, particularly as Japan established an imaginary
state called Manchukuo. The Japanese sought League of Nations approval for
the fait accompli, but the Lytton commission, in a carefully balanced statement
(prepared by a British lord not at all disposed to oppose imperialism in
principle), condemned it. So the Japanese delegation walked out, helping seal
the fate of the League.
What did Japan need, after all, from a body inherently suspicious of it,
unsympathetic to its national security interests, unable to comprehend its
racial destiny? Why should the League's condemnation prevent Japan from
bringing its superior way of life to the benighted Manchurian people, and from
taking advantage of its mineral resources and the Lebensraum it could
provide Japan's expanding population? Japan's act of war was in fact an act
intended to secure the peace in a troubled region.
One thing let to another, and six years later Japanese forces got into a
full-scale war with China which resulted in such unpleasantries as the Rape
of
Nanking. To prosecute the war effectively, Japan required oil that the U.S.
refused to supply, which meant Japan needed to attack and conquer the Dutch
Indies, which meant having to take out Pearl Harbor, bases in the Philippines,
Singapore, Hong Kong. All hell broke loose, and ultimately, the Japanese
people paid the price in the form of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and conventional
bombing of Tokyo and other cities that was equally destructive.
Just goes to show: stage an unprovoked attack; lie about it; ignore the
world's sentiments; let policy be set by a cabal of fanatics with visions of
grandeur; encourage racist, condescending views of other peoples; and things
can spin out of control. The world today is a far cry from the world of Herbert
Hoover, Chiang Kai-shek, and Wakatsuki Reijirô, men at the helm in their
nations as of Sept. 1931; there is only one superpower whose leaders'
provocations, ignorance, fanaticism and racist condescension can trigger
another world war. Not a war between evenly-matched blocs, this time, but
one nation's war against the world, defined at the outset as endless.
Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts
University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
And similarly, see amother comparison with the situation in the Middle East:
The way things are going in Israel now reminds me of the process that led to
the collapse of the
Japanese empire.
The road to the downfall of this great empire began with the Manchurian Incident
in 1931--a
surprise attack by elements of the Kwangtung Army, a unit of the Imperial Japanese
Army, on a
Chinese garrison in today's Shenyang, northeastern China.
At that time, Japanese diplomacy was based on the policy of strictly maintaining
the peaceful
status quo as stipulated in the 1922 nine-power agreement on China in Washington
and the
promotion of international cooperation.
The fact that Japan, under diplomacy formulated by Foreign Minister Kijuro Shidehara,
was an
exemplary state in abiding by the world order had been acknowledged prior to
the Manchurian
Incident by such figures as U.S. Secretary State Henry Stimson and U.S. envoy
to China John
MacMurray.
But for the Chinese, it was only natural that they would harbor a grudge against
the imperialist
countries that had trampled them under foot. Thus for China, the new world order
was not
worthy of respect. It viewed it as unjust framework that should be rent asunder.
However, lacking the wherewithal to change the situation itself and without
the legal grounds to
do so, China's Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) chose to attempt to change the
status quo by
launching an anti-Japanese popular movement.
The nationalists intended to make the Japanese living in China realize they
were unwanted by a
variety of methods, such as throwing stones at and beating women and schoolchildren,
and
spitting upon them. In addition, many Chinese retailers refused to sell goods
to the Japanese.
This was much the same as the recent Intifada--the call to resistance--in the
Middle East
conflict, which has made the prospects for Israel's permanent occupation of
Gaza and the West
Bank difficult. Needless to say, the anti-Japanese movement angered Japanese
living in China and the
Kwangtung Army, which responded by perpetrating the Manchurian Incident. As
a result, an
outgunned China lost Manchuria.
The Tables Turned in 1936
However, by the onset of the Sino-Japanese War that broke out in 1937 things
had changed.
By this time, China was growing stronger--as was its military. The pent-up anti-Japanese
sentiment among the Chinese people had reached a level at which the country
would no longer
hesitate to retaliate against Japan. This nationalistic feeling had been fueled
over the past
years by the insolent military activities conducted by the Imperial Japanese
Army in North
China.
These actions had antagonized the Chinese so much that Chinese nationalists
and communists
formed a united front against Japan following the Xian Incident in 1936 in which
Nationalist
Party head Chiang Kai-shek was compelled to accept the principle of the united
front after being
arrested by one of his army commanders.
Prior to 1936, the bombing assassination of Manchurian warlord Zhang Zoulin
by Imperial
Japanese Army officers in 1928 and subsequent provocative activities leading
up to military
maneuvers by the Imperial Japanese Army in North China were all deliberately
staged to concoct
an excuse for the use of force.
However, there is no trace of Japanese involvement in the provocative incidents
that took place
during and after 1936, including the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, a clash between
Japanese and
Chinese troops, in 1937. Even the International Military Tribunal for the Far
East, more
commonly known as the Tokyo Tribunal, that was held after World War II did not
take issue over
this point.
These incidents must have been either the isolated actions of Chinese people
who could no longer
tolerate the overbearing attitude of the Japanese, or by certain groupings of
people in the
Nationalist Party who acted out of control. Or, more probably, they could have
been machinations
planned by the communists to turn the hostility of the Nationalist Party away
from them and
toward Japan.
Revolts By Chinese Guards
A pivotal event was the revolt staged by Chinese security guards that had been
formed under
Japanese supervision to protect Japanese people living in China. The incident
occurred in
Tongzhou, east of Peking, now Beijing--a city full of Japanese that was governed
under Japanese
rule.
The Chinese security guards began their revolt as soon as Japanese troops left
the city to
protect the Japanese living in Beijing in the aftermath of the Marco Polo Bridge
Incident. About
200 Japanese were killed in this incident, and atrocities on women were horrifying.
The key to success for Japan's "nonescalation policy" after the Marco
Polo Bridge incident
depended on how to prevent belligerencies from spilling out over Shanghai. Such
hope was
dashed, however, when Imperial Japanese Navy Lt. Isao Oyama was killed in a
volley of shots
fired by Chinese security guards in Shanghai.
The situation became hopeless as Japanese throughout China were exposed to the
danger of
imminent bloodshed. There were only two choices left for Japan: Japanese residents
could
abandon their assets accumulated over the years and withdraw from China, or
Japan could go to
war with no prospect of victory in sight.
History tells us that Japan chose the latter course and the Japanese empire
fell.
Although Japan lost its empire on the Asian continent, it was still able to
come back to the
Japanese archipelago.
However, the case of Israel is different: It is surrounded by Arab countries
that refuse to
acknowledge its existence as a sovereign state. Furthermore, Israelis are exposed
to threats of
unpredictable terrorist suicide bombings within their own country.
Japan's Justification for Expansion
Japanese expansionist cited both economic necessity and moral imperatives in
justifying Japan’s actions in East Asia. The following was written
by an extremist military leader in the late 1930s. Note this combination of
motives.
Hashimoto Kingoro, The Need for Emigration and Expansion
We have already said that there are only three ways left to Japan to escape
from the pressure of surplus population. We are like a great crowd of people
packed into a small and narrow room, and there are only three doors through
which we might escape, namely emigration, advance into world markets, and
expansion of territory. The first door, emigration, has been barred to us
by the anti-Japanese immigration policies of other countries. The second door,
advance into world markets, is being pushed shut by tariff barriers and the
abrogation of commercial treaties. What should Japan do when two of the three
doors have been closed against her? It is quite natural that Japan should
rush upon the last remaining door.
It may sound dangerous when we speak of territorial expansion, but the territorial
expansion of which we speak does not in any sense of the word involve the
occupation of the possessions of other countries, the planting of the Japanese
flag thereon, and the declaration of their annexation to Japan. It is just
that since the Powers have suppressed the circulation of Japanese materials
and merchandize abroad, we are looking for some place over seas where Japanese
capital, Japanese skills and Japanese labor can have free play, free from
the oppression of the white race. We would be satisfied with just this much.
What moral right do the world powers that have themselves closed to us the
two doors of emigration and advance into world markets have to criticize Japan’s
attempt to rush out of the third and last door?
If they do not approve of this, they should open the door that they have closed
against us and permit the free movement overseas of Japanese emigrants and
merchandise. . . .
At the time of the Manchurian incident, the entire world joined in criticism
of Japan. They said that Japan was an untrustworthy nation. They said that
she had recklessly brought cannon and machine guns into Manchuria, which was
the territory of another country, flown airplanes over it, and finally occupied
it. But the military action taken by Japan was not in the least a selfish
one. Moreover, we do not recall ever having taken so much as an inch of territory
belonging to another nation. The result of this incident was the establishment
of the splendid new nation of Manchuria. The Powers are still discussing whether
or not to recognize this new nation, but regardless of whether or not other
nations recognize her, the Manchurian empire has already been established,
and now, seven years after its creation, the empire is further consolidating
its foundations with the aid of its friend, Japan.
And if it is still protested that our actions in Manchuria were excessively
violent, we may wish to ask the white race just which country it was that
sent warships and troops to India, South Africa, and Australia and slaughtered
innocent natives, bound their hands and feet with iron chains, lashed their
backs with iron whips, proclaimed these territories as their own, and still
continues to hold them to this very day.