Talk:Mukden Incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are the Russians doing?[edit]

If anyone can add text/bibliography concerning the Soviet involvement in this incident I'd be very grateful!

Soviet Russia and its division of Communist Party of China (CPC) tried to create Soviet region in Manchuria by planed riot of December 11, 1930. But in November 9, Japanese police copped them and got many their documents. After 1932, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs started to publish the book of "The history of Communist Party of China". Here is the book of 1934 version: . the book says the general meeting of CPC central executive committee did not open for 3 years after January 1931. some primary sources are on Japanese Wikipedia but I don't know any good English resources or even Japanese resources. :/ -- (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be renamed as 918 Incident[edit]

In the West historical events are usually referred to by their content, places, or people involved -- events of a military nature are almost always described by their location. Using dates is uncommon (9/11 being the main exception I can think of). Brutannica 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) ==It was the original stealth invasion-attack, frequently practiced by Japannese, long before 9-11 occurred in 2001 in U.S.A.Reply[reply]

Japanese control over their army[edit]

While the Japanese government likely did not collaborate in the Mukden Incident, I find it hard to believe the Japanese government's claim of being unable to restrain its army.

First, if the Japanese government had truly wished to stop the invasion of Manchuria, it could simply freeze fund and supply to the Kwantong Army. This is before the Japanese militant seized total control, so this action would have been possible.

Second, if Japanese government was opposed to invasion of Manchuria, why did they leave the League of Nations after being insisted to withdraw from Manchuria?

Partially because they precieved that they were being treated unfairly by the League of Nations. England was being colonial in India, France owned "French Indo-China", and Italy was cutting off large pieces of north Africa. When the League of Nations censured Japan for its actions in Manchuria, but said nothing about the colonialism of other nations many in Japan saw this as evidence of racism on the part of the LN. At that time several members of the Japanese government were convinced that racial war between the "white" and "yellow" races was inevitable. When the League refused to adopt a racial equality clause when it was first formed this helped convince many Japanese that the League only existed to help the "white" races.

Note that there's been cases where Japanese Government would say one thing and do another (well that actually applies to most government). Such as Pearl Harbour (Japanese had assured it would not attack USA days before attack on Pearl Harbour).


It would be helpful if someone knowledgable could cite the evidence of 'major hanaya', with an online or offline source or whatever other evidence either way is existent


Controversies About Who Blew up the Railway[edit]

A view without any historical evidence should not be put in the text. Just kidding: I have a view that the bomb was planted by Alien from Mars, should this view also be added into the text?

The original document used the term "Terrorists" for the suggestion of Chinese blowing up the railway. Using said term is biased and questionable in neutrality, as China and Japan were at war during that period.

Also the section "Controversy" disagrees with the section "The incident". The incident section clearly indicates the Japanese military was responsible for the blast. If there are sources and evidence to support this, Controversy should be removed. Otherwise these two sections need to be merged somewhat to indicate that the Japanese military plot is one "competing theory"

I request a rewrite of the controversy section of the page. It almost completly vets all evidence and possibility of the bomb being planted by any other party than the Imperial Japanese Army. The comparisons to "holocaust denial" and "Nanking Denial" are absured. In both cases, it is unbelievably obvious that it was commited by the Axis powers against civilians, and requires absured ideas to justify it, like to deny Auschwitz would require one to believe that the Red Army kept thousands of people starved (ok, that in and of itself is not hard to believe, considering the supply situation of the Soviets) and created amazingly accurate and confimable IDs for the 'fake' Jewish deportees, and managed to construct a large complex within one day of seizing the area, and to top it all off, managed to find German POW's willing to play the role of the 'non-existant' SS and Camp command. Under such rediculous requirements, it is obvious to all but the most rabid and ignorant individual that the camp must be true and the genocide it wreaked in full swing until it was seized.

I the Mukden incident, it is far more uncertin. Unlike the outrageous requirements for the Russians to fake Auschwitz, this is a very simple matter: the bomb, it is agreed by anyone, was real. The damage was real. There is one, and I mean ONLY one difference between the stories: who planted it.

This is where the finger pointing starts. The fact is, despite her victory over the Russian Tsar almost 3 decades before this happened, the Japanese felt cheated becuase they did not get ALL of Manchuria, and it was common knowledge that they wanted to conquer China and most of the Orient. Their spies, including the sinister and digusting Kenji Doihara, had been operating in China and most of the Far East of decades and everyone knew it, the major question was WHO. There was no question about the WHY, because anyone with passing knowledge would know the WHY. And on the other hand, China was furious about the Empire of the Rising Sun's Rising prestige and good relations with the occidental powers while they were seen as weak pushovers worth only for their vast resources and manpower. They still remembered their humiliation in cedeing Korea to the Japanese, and they were further infuriated when Manchuria, then occupied by the Russians but still considered Chinese, was annexed by the Empire. They also further were aggrivated by constant Japanese Imperialist ambitions on their border.

OK, so both sides have motive. And this is where the case drops off, as noone knows FOR SURE who planted the bomb. Mao raised hell in a purge in 1955 when one of his minister suggusted commerating the "freedom fighters of the motherland that dared to humiliate the Japanese Imperialists and destroy their precious railway."

The fact is, we also cannot rule out 3rd parties: a random Japanese radical who believed the only way to jumpstart the 'Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere' was to break into the guarded military outpost and blow up a section of track to frame the Chinese without the knowledge of the military, a Korean nationalist who sought to undermine the Japanese occupation of Korea and bring China into the fray on the side of Korea, a Soviet spy who sought to curtail the Japanese ambitions into Soviet Manchuria? Noone knows. I am not saying that the Japanese were innocent, they obviously were not. Even if they did not plan the bomb, they obviously exploited it for all it was worth by conquering Manchuria. I merely wish that it be rewritten to show that there is genuine skepticism and uncertinty about who planted the bomb. ELV

In fact, the Japanese were never short of "incidents" for the manchurian campaign. There was a paper I need to dig up that lists the number of engineered incidents that the kwantung army could have used as a pretext for the invasion. The number was at least in the hundreds if I recall correctly, and the most famous before mukden was perhaps wanbaoshan. What if the bomb was indeed chinese in origin as some claim, does a broken railway segment still justify the invasion of an area roughly equal in size to western europe? BlueShirts 04:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the last bookend of my summary? It obviously does NOT, as I pointed out above. However, I am not trying to make the case that Tokyo had all moral justifications of conquering Manchuria. They did not. The case I wish to make is that noone knows who planted the bomb itself, be it IJA, KMT, CCP, USSR, SNLF, Korean rebel, Chinese patriot, crazy Japanese nationalist, or Mr. Czarnik the drunken runaway bellhop fron Warsaw. WE. CANNOT. PROVE. THE. IJA. PLANTED. THE. BOMB. DEFINITIVLY! I am not trying to exonerate the Japanese overreaction in the aftermath, I am trying to say we need a rewrite of the controversy section to show that we genuinly do not know who planted the bomb. Just because the Japanese were planning it does not mean that they were the ones who did it. It just means they were the ones who PROBABLY did it. ELV
This article and a few others say it's been long settled that the Japanese planted the bomb, especially from the IMTFE records. Misguided Intelligence: Japanese Military Intelligence Officers in the Manchurian Incident, September 1931 The Journal of Military History, Vol. 58, No. 3. (Jul., 1994), pp. 445-460. Point of contention is that how much autonomy did the kwantung army exercise from tokyo in carrying out its actions in manchuria. BlueShirts 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we really be putting so much weight on the IMTFE records? Everything I've ever heard about the post-war trials in Japan suggests that they were shoddily run to be charitable. Kensai Max 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no opinion about who blew up the railway and don't care in the least. It may be indeed probable that the Japanese were the culprets; what seems to me more important is the use that has since been made of the incident in the respective propaganda of both sides. However, the word "possibly" was removed without justification or comment on 2006-11-05, and later that day a {{Fact}}template (requesting citation) was removed from the same accusation again without justification or comment. Insistance on suppression of any doubt and refusal to allow requests for citation or evidence is clear POV and smacks of idiological POV. I object to this. Such behavior casts the whole article into doubt, and is not good for Wikipedia. O'RyanW ( ) 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay than, since nobody else wanted to clean up the controversy part, I began it. I removed some of the more propaganda-like parts (ie everybody who questions Mukden is an eeevvvieelll Nazi-Imperialist (and I am not exaggerating that as much as some may think)) but I left the information that could be actually USEFUL (even if relevence is foggy) alone. I, to be quite honest, would have to say that if I were to hazard an honest to goodness guess, this was written by somebody from the far-left, probably a card-carrying member of the CCP itself, though to be fair I cannot prove that asides from gut instinct. Now, the article previously acted like a gigantic smear against Mukden skeptics everywhere, equating those who raise questions about the airtightness of the Japanese guilty verdict with Neo-Nazis and Fascists. Some of that is justified, as a sizable amount of skeptics are the same radicals that declare that Aushwitz was a fabrication, that the Final Solution was too lenient, and do all this while reading verses from their holy book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. However, the entire skeptic community ranges from the ignorant radicals on the Right to many diehard Liberals on the Left. Me? I personally am 99% sure that Mukden WAS committed by the Japanese. It is that 1% that prevents it from being 'definitive.' The point that I am trying to make is not to exonerate the Japanese Imperialists (that would be a waste of my time even if I wished to) but to say that the only people who know who planted the bomb is/are the person/people who did it and (if they exist) the person/people who gave the order to do it. And before anybody accuses me of being a Right-Wing Conservative Radical, let me say that I AM a diehard Conservative Republican from the US, and a group of thugs from the local campus' chapter of the National Alliance certainly though I was a radical Jew because I (Gasp) blamed Black September for Munich. They should be getting out of Community service in a few weeks. Does that have any bearing on the discussion? No it does not, but I just wish to get that out in the open before somebody points the finger and calls "racist!" My point is, many people around the globe and across the political spectrum are advocating the idea that though the Japanese ALMOST CERTAINLY did it, but there is no proof thus far that can stand up to any amount of independant fact-checking that DEFINITIVLY proves Japan did it. ELV
You are also a persistent vandal, that does not read their own talk page: User talk: Gsd2000 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excusie Mua? I am a persistant contributer, and like anybody else I have made mistakes for which I have APOLIGIZED FOR. And I most certainly DO read my own talk page, as you are learning while reading this. The Previous controversy page was a massive smear against not just the radicals who would deny the existence of Anti-Semetism in the Third Reich if their party leadership told them too, but of ANYBODY who may think that culpibility for Mukden is impossible (as of now) with the evidence we have been allowed to see. I am not, nor will I EVER; try to exonerate Imperial Japan for its role in the most devastating War the world has ever known. What I ask is is there DEFINITIVE, 100%, Independantly-confirmed evidence that Mukden was committed by Japan. And if there is and you have, say, an antique film reel of the Generals of the Kwantung Army gathering around drinking sake in a carnival like enviroment complete with a massive cheer as the railway is blown up, than to be quite frank, I would like to see it. I am dead serious, if you have evidence that apparently nobody else knows exists, than I would like to see it. And IF it proves legit, I would be the first to withdraw my argument and concede the point. However, I doubt that you do. Thus, debate on the issue of who planted the bomb at Mukden will continue untill somebody is able to assuage the doubts of the vast majority of resonable people one way or another. ELV
(Apologies to everyone else, I have not been able to communicate with this contributor anywhere else - they did not respond on their talk page). ELV - firstly, it's spelt "excusez-moi" - it's French - but as your talk page states, you have a history of making up history. For example, here [1], here [2] (for which you got blocked) and here [3]. These are downright misleading lies, and a just three examples of many. Have you ever gone back to the articles you have "improved" to see if your edits have stood the test of time? Well, they haven't - virtually all of your edits are immediately reverted by other contributors, because what you write is patent nonsense, or because you change a long-standing article's facts without explaining why or citing sources, or because you write the most awful, unencyclopaedic and badly spelled English (e.g. capitalizing words mid-sentence for emphasis). Gsd2000 12:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, this is your talk page: Ever wondered why when you go to Wikipedia it says "You have new messages"? Gsd2000 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I "KNOW" Why I see the message sign often. I HAVE read my own discussion page. I have made mistakes, I admit it, and I have apoligized via e-mail. Also, you claim that "all" of my edits have been reversed. Take a look at Oskar Potiorek. At The Balkan front of WWI. On the Battle of Vittorio in Italy. Note to Gsd2000, not double checking things makes you look inept (I should know, I have sometimes been the victum of such things as haste) but spreading info you KNOW is false makes you look like a (censored by the poster.) Also, I would LOVE to know about my abuses on THIS topic. Can you cite any? I would honestly love to hear back from you. Take your time. ELV
(Again, apologies to everyone else).This is not the place for this kind of 1:1 discussion: you should be posting on my talk page, and then I will respond on your talk page. I'm not going to continue this discussion on this page any further with you. Gsd2000 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, this IS inherently linked with this article, as you have not taken up my offer to ID any of my "abuses" on this thread, as I invited you to. I do not believe that my political bias (and yes, I fully admit that I, like the rest of humanity, is biased) and more on the fact that I have yet to hear a rebuttal to the ACTUAL ISSUE: The Legit doubt that scientifically, there could be any number of factions who would like seeing the railway blown. THe overwheliming Japanese Saber-rattling and Circumstancial evidence leads one to believe that it is probable that the Japanese did it, but there is not 100% proof of it. Do I believe Japan is innocent? No I do not. However, I beleive that as of now, there is no direct evidence to completely and totally verify that the Japanese were guilty for this, So we have to do the thankless job of the devil's advocate (a fitting term considering the horrers of Japanese Imperialism). However, you have refused to continue the discussion and have instead wheeled off to cite my instances with the Wiki editors. Is it fair to bring them up? Yes it is, as everyone have flaws, and it is A-OK to cite my previous problems. However, you have carried on to the point that in you argument, it has completely eclipsed the debate, which is contrary to the reason of the is fourm. So no, I will NOT argue with you about it on you talk site, because THIS. IS. THE. ISSUE. NOT. MY. RECORD. So if you refuse to get back on the debate and continue to go "nuh-uh." than YOU. WILL. HAVE. SURRENDERED. THE. FIELD. Sinple as that. I look forward to any posts. ELV

League of Nations[edit]

Could someone add a section on actions of the League of Nations during the crisis? From my own knowledge, I know they dispached a team of investigators who took a long time to issue a moral condemnation. Can someone verify this as I am not certain this is true. Poorsod 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV and sourcing[edit]

This article says that the identity of the bombers is controversial, but earlier reports in detail that the Japanese army did so. This contradiction should be reconciled. Also, the article does not have any footnotes providing documentation for any of its claims. -- Beland 23:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hear hear. Is all this direct comparison with Holocaust denial and criticism of Western leaders for criticizing the Chinese for opening a museum designed specifically to stoke anti-Japanese, nationalistic sentiment really NPOV? Kensai Max 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rambling about neo-Nazis does seem a little extraneous at any rate. 10:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever is being talked about above, true or not, there is a definite NPOV problem with the phrase "the growing threat of totalitarian communism from the Soviet Union". It is the conceit, unthinking or otherwise, of a certain type of person that a simple e.g. "the growing threat of communist influence from the Soviet Union" wouldn't suffice -- and be much closer to a real NPOV. So if this is not changed, then the article will certainly not be NPOV.
Pazouzou (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it should be merged with Manchuria Incident[edit]

No one has the spare time to do this? its obviously needed. --Utmostevil 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copied the following text from manchurian incident,

The starting point of the Showa War [i.e. Sino-Japanese War of 1931-1945] was the Manchurian Incident that took place in September 1931. Who should be blamed for having caused the incident? The main instigators of the incident were Kanji Ishihara and Seishiro Itagaki, staff officers of the Kwantung Army, a unit of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Determined to conspire together to grab power and lead the country, they became the masterminds of the act of aggression into Manchuria (currently part of northeastern China) and literally dragged the nation into a series of wars.

At the core of Lt. Col. Ishihara's militarist thinking was the pursuit of the "Final World War Theory" to determine the No. 1 country of the world in a war between Japan and the United States, which he considered the greatest nations of the Eastern and Western civilizations, respectively.

In January 1928, at a meeting of the Mokuyo-kai (Thursday Society) group of elite officers who graduated from the Imperial Japanese Army's War College, Ishihara said, "The nation could stand being in a state of war for even 20 years or 30 years if we have footholds all over China and fully use them."

In June of that year, Daisaku Komoto, the predecessor of Itagaki, assassinated Zhang Zuolin, a Chinese warlord who had a strong influence in Manchuria, by blowing up the train in which he was traveling. This incident would become a model for the Manchurian Incident.

The Manchurian Incident took place as members of the Kwantung Army blew up a section of South Manchuria Railway lines in Liutiaogou (Lake Liutiao), outside Mukden (currently Shenyang). The army then took control of Mukden in a single day. The temporary mayor's post of Mukden was taken up by Kenji Dohihara, then chief of the Mukden Special Service Agency.

The Kwantung Army began advancing into Jilin Province beyond its original garrison areas. Shigeru Honjo, then commander of the Kwantung Army, initially opposed sending troops to Jilin. But he eventually yielded to Itagaki's persistence and decided to give the go-ahead to the deployment.

Senjuro Hayashi, commander of the Japanese Army in Korea, also decided to dispatch his troops to Manchuria without an order. He followed advice from staff officers of the Japanese Army in Korea, who had ties with Ishihara and Itagaki.

Kingoro Hashimoto, chief of the Russia group of the Army General Staff's 2nd Bureau, had close contacts with them.

Hashimoto formed the Sakura-kai (Cherry Society) group that comprised young reformist officers, and used the group as a foothold to lead two failed coup attempts called the "March Incident" and the "October Incident." The March Incident was aimed at installing War Minister Kazushige Ugaki as prime minister. Others involved in the incident included Kuniaki Koiso, chief of the ministry's Military Affairs Bureau.

The October Incident was linked to the Manchurian Incident, although it was poorly planned. However, it would be the forerunner for a series of coups and terrorist acts, such as the May 15 Incident of 1932 and Feb. 26 Incident of 1936.

Before the Manchurian Incident, War Minister Jiro Minami strongly advocated to take hard line stance on Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Without complaint, Prime Minister Reijiro Wakatsuki readily approved the dispatch of troops from the Japanese Army in Korea to Manchuria at its own discretion after being told about it by Minami.

The helplessness of [Japanese] politicians from being able to prevent military officers stationed outside the country from spinning out of control surfaced for the first time at this point.

It was the beginning of the 14-year-long Japanese Militarist invasion, occupation and colonization of Manchuria, the northeastern region of China.

Blueshirts 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07Apr07 Edit[edit]

I made the following changes based on Edward Behr's book "The Last Emperor": In "The Incident", changed statement placing the bomb "beneath the tracks".. Behr's book says it was placed nearby so as not to do any damage - the photo bears this out. Accordingly, changed "destroyed track" to "damaged track". Also, a citation is needed regarding Itagaki Seishiro as one of the planners, Behr's book does not mention him at all. In "Invasion", I reworded statement that the Chinese were "immediately framed"... poor usage. I think what is meant is they were "blamed". Also deleted "put up no resistance". 500 dead Chinese soldiers seems to indicate there was some resistance, at least at first. P. Moore 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just by the by[edit]

The peace museum in Hiroshima says the Japanese blew it up.

-- 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



"However, some Japanese Nationalists and those on the Japanese far-right, allege a variety of dissenting opinions, ranging from an inability to know accurately who planted the bomb, to accusations of Chinese militia members planting it."

unreferenced since February. User:Pedant 10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just like the Holocaust denial?[edit]

It stikes me that including the reference to Holocaust denial in the Contoversy section is editorializing:

"However, just like the Holocaust denial, the nationalistic Japanese establishment, such as the Yushukan Museum, which neighbors the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, places the blame on Chinese militias."

Any sources analyzing supposed parallels? Bigbadger79 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice article.[edit]

Someone should do a GA-nom...I'm in "study for finals" mode right now.--Xiaphias (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, this article will carry a GA tag the day an article denying the Holocaust qualifies. (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The morning of September 13, 1931[edit]

Are there any historical records indicating what time in the morning of September 13, 1931, the Japanese troops attacked the Chinese garrison of 7,000 soldiers? Did this happen before dawn? Was there fog or rain at the time? What kind of weather reports were available to the Chinese and Japanese military, respectively? (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinyin Error Right at the Beginning of the Article?[edit]

I apologize if I'm not doing this right (and I don't think I am, even though I searched the help files looking for instructions)--Just a tiny point on the Mandarin pinyinization of the incident which is currently written as "liu3 tiao2 gou1": why is the last character pinyinized as "gou1" the related character appears to be "hu2" and as far as I know, it only has one reading (hu2), shouldn't this be corrected? Didn't want to go and do it myself unless I'm mistaken. Weiming2 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False flag[edit]

The WP article: False flag uses this as an example of a false flag operation. There should probably be some cross-pollination (mention this as a false flag operation somewhere?) ~Eric F (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article's lead is OR[edit]

The "Manchurian Incident" (満州事変, Manshū Jihen) is the Japanese name for what English Wikipedia calls the "Japanese invasion of Manchuria". The link included on this page more correctly belongs on that article, and the two should probably be merged. I'm not a specialist in this area, so if someone could cite a source that actually says "The Manchurian Incident was a staged event engineered by rogue Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion in 1931 of northeastern China, known as Manchuria." I'd be willing to change my position. But I've checked two other encyclopedia articles with this title and both of them agree that what is being described is the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. This is of concern because I was recently under a provisional unblock preventing me from directly editing the History of Japan page, and I requested another user make an edit in my stead; that edit was, according to normal usage of the term "Manchurian Incident", perfectly acceptable; but this article appears to contradict it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I added the location. This is an original map.

Manchurian Incident Map

which matches the location of the museum. My coordinates may be out by 100m or so. Macgroover (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese secret agents in the Chinese army[edit]

A line in this wiki states "Japanese secret agents had permeated Zhang's command because of his past (and his father, Zhang Zuolin's) reliance on Japanese military advisers. The Japanese knew the Northeastern Army very well and were able to conduct operations with ease.", sourcing [17], Robert H. Ferrel - The Mukden Incident.

Can someone corroborate this? I just read the entirety of Ferrel's article and could NOT find discussion on 'secret agents', 'spies', or anything related to such theory in the entire article. If this line is incorrect, it should be removed. Thanks.