sign in sign up
<<
Home , Puppet state, Puyi

5 Issues in the History of Manzhouguo: Contemporary and Succeeding Perspectives

Higuchi Hidemi

Translated by Erik Esselstrom

Introduction Manzhouguo was born on March 1, 1932 as a result of the Manchurian Incident of the previous September, which erupted in the northeast region of (hereafter also called ). ’s , which had constructed a plan for the occupation of Manchuria since before the Manchurian Incident, staged the Liutiaogou Incident by setting off an explosion on the South Manchurian Railway outside of Mukden () on September 18, 1931, and then, blaming this on the Chinese army, began military operations of their own. In early 1932, having occupied the key areas of Manchuria, the army proclaimed the establishment of the of Manzhouguo with the last of the Qing as its head of state. Chinese and Japanese scholars’ perceptions of the nature of Man- zhouguo are not so divergent as they are with regard to issues discussed in other chapters of this volume. Scholars in both countries agree that Manzhouguo was a “ state” of Japan in the sense that it was a sort of “stringed doll.” In declaring that it was independent from Re-

Issues in the History of Manzhouguo 149 publican China with Puyi as its ruler, Manzhouguo was dressed up with the outward appearance of a formally independent state. However, as is clear from the course of events leading up to the foundation of the state, it was the Japanese, especially the Kwantung Army, that con- structed that appearance; and even in the determination of the policies of the Manzhouguo , it was not Puyi and other Chinese officials who possessed authority, but the Kwantung Army and Japa- nese officials who held real power.1 Even so, if we attempt to point out the differences between Chinese and Japanese perceptions, the Chinese side would likely identify not only Manzhouguo itself but also every element of organization, government, and law related to it with the prefix of “bogus.” In Chinese history text- books, phrases such as “bogus Manzhouguo,” “bogus State Council,” “bogus Legislature,” and “bogus law of government organization” ap- pear frequently. The use of the character “bogus” in this sense is not familiar to the Japanese. This is because even if one recognizes that Manzhouguo was a mere Japanese , it does not follow that one can deny the reality that the state of Manzhouguo did in fact exist for some time before the end of the Second World War. But this char- acter for “bogus” is not intended to mean fake or nonexistent, but rather to mean “unlawful” or “illegitimate,” which is to say, no matter how one might try to arrange the systems, laws, and organizations of Man- zhouguo and the form of independent statehood the Japanese put be- hind it, ultimately it was an unlawful political regime not recognized by the will of the Chinese people, and it did not amount to more than a fiction masking Japanese colonial rule. Put simply, then, since the Chi- nese side so strongly insists on applying the prefix of “bogus” to Man- zhouguo to indicate its puppet-state nature, we can probably say that ————— 1. Concerning extant scholarship related to Manzhouguo and relevant primary source material, see the following works: Yamane Yukio et al., eds., Zōho kindai Nitchū kankeishi kenkyū nyūmon [Introduction to Research on the History of Modern China-Japan Rela- tions, expanded edition], (Tokyo: Kenbun shuppan, 1996), 229–75, 497–503; Yamane Yukio, ed., Chūgokushi kenkyū nyūmon zōho kaiteiban [Introduction to Research on Chinese History, expanded and revised edition] (Tokyo: Kenbun shuppan, 1995), 433–41, 612–15; Tsukase Susumu, “Chūgoku ni okeru Manshūkoku shi kenkyū no genjō: 1990 nendai o chūshin ni” [The Present State of Research on the History of Manzhouguo in China], in Tōyō bunkō, ed., Kindai Chūgoku kenkyū ihō [Bulletin of Research on Modern China] 21 (1999).