150 likes | 452 Views
The Japanese Invasion of Manchuria 1931-3. Jo Schlemper, Carlos Vazquez, Philip Ender, Hanne Koska, Clara Lai, Hannah Rana. Motives of Japanese Aggressive Foreign Policies. The Great Depression and the weakness of Japanese Government led to the rise of militarism, protectionism in Japan
E N D
The Japanese Invasion of Manchuria 1931-3 Jo Schlemper, Carlos Vazquez, Philip Ender, Hanne Koska, Clara Lai, Hannah Rana
Motives of Japanese Aggressive Foreign Policies • The Great Depression and the weakness of Japanese Government led to the rise of militarism, protectionism in Japan • Japan was unsatisfied with the war gains and the Crisis could be seen as continuation of Japanese aggressive foreign polices after the defeat of Russia in 1905 • Japan was the main producer of silk and thus led to the Japanese policy of self-sufficiency. • Manchuria was rich in natural resources (minerals, forestry and rich agricultural land) which could support Japanese industrial growth.
Background After Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), Japan gained: • Korea • Liaotung Peninsula containing Port Arthur • South Manchurian railway in China Situations in China: • political instability and social and economic problems • Civil war between Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and nationalist Kuomintang KMT weakened the country
The Mukden Incident 1931 • 8 Sept 1931, bomb exploded near Mukden on the south Manchurian railway • Japanese planted the bomb to cause friction with the Chinese (debatable: as an excuse for invasion) • Japanese forces quickly advanced into areas of Manchuria beyond the railway • As a non- permanent member, China appealed to the League of Nations.
Reactions of the LofN • First asked Japan to withdraw its troops back into the railway zone but it was ignored • Then sent a Commission of Enquiry under the command of Lord Lytton (Great Britain) and formed from representatives of the USA, France, Germany and Italy • It took months before the Lytton Commission arrived in the area to investigate the Manchurian incident, and another several months in the region gathering information and interviewing witnesses * Cautious reactions of the LofN and delays worsened the situation for China
Japanese reactions • Japanese government seemed willing to help the League, but Japanese Army continued to move across Manchuria • Japanese Army was perceived as independent of Japanese government • By March 1932, Manchuria had become a Japanese puppet state called Manchukuo, with Pu Yi, the last Chinese Emperor, as ruler by name.
Picture of Japanese soldiers marching through a gate way in Southern Manchuria near Shengyang city
Conclusion of the Lytton Report • Recognised that Japanese had special rights in the region but refused to see Manchuria as an independent state and rejected the Japanese explanations that the Crisis was a result of independence movements in the region • Rejected the use of force by the Japanese and refused to see this as part of ‘police operations to protect Japanese in Manchuria • China was responsible for the deterioration of relations with Japanese as its internal instability had affected Japanese economic interests
Recommendations from the report • Japan withdraws its troops and recognise China’s sovereignty over Manchuria • Manchuria adopt self- government while remaining under China’s sovereignty • Japan and China open negotiations
Results • Japanese refused to accept the Report and withdrew from the League of Nations Assembly in March 1933 • The League of Nations failed to change the situation in China even with full support from its members and US agreement
Impacts • Failure to prevent Japanese expansion in China improved Japanese economic and strategic position • Encouraged Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1935
Why the league of Nations wasn't effective? • Manchuria was already firmly under Japans control • “... when the eagles fall out” – Britain and France didn’t take action • Question about Manchurias stability because of Civil War
Conclusion • This Crisis demonstrated the weaknesses of the league of Nations and other instruments of international diplomacy. • Kellogg-Briand Pact