Why Japanese set up Manchukuo as a puppet state?

Because they were trying to gain support from Manchus, Mongols and other ethnic groups to agains Republic Of China government at that time. To simply colonize such an area will just let the local people be side with ROC to against Japan.

Originally posted by The Charioteer the easiest yet difficult answer to this question from me would be "zui weng zhi yi bu zai jiu" (literally, liquors are not what the drunkard wants)

Originally posted by snowybeagle We could ask the question too why Hitler allowed the formation of Vichy France rather than incorporating France into Germany.

Originally posted by snowybeagle Originally posted by babyblue yeah but then Vichy France wasn't a true puppet of Germany in a sense that Manchukuo was to Japan. How were they different?

Edited by babyblue - 23-Jun-2006 at 01:30

Originally posted by snowybeagle If all Petain could do was to lodge an official protest, then I must say the difference is quite superficial, a matter of the Germans giving more face to the France on the surface, but in practice, they call all the shots. Puyi lodged his own protests for all the good it did him. � Coming back to the original question, when didn't the Germans occupy all of France but instead created the Vichy regime? There's a very similar parallel to Manchukuo as to why the Japanese didn't annex it outright.

    uhm...how could they be considered the same? The Manchukuo economy was pretty much directd and controlled by the Japanese, as well as foreign trade and the like. All Manchukuo high officials had Japanese advisors(we all know what those advisors are for). The military was set up and controlled by the Japanese, while the Kantogun maintains 300 000 troops there...and what's more, the Japanese settled hundreds of thousands of families from Japan to Manchukuo, outright colonisation! It's estimated over 100,000,000 hectares of land in Manchukuo has passed into Japanese hands since 1931
   All in all, the governement of Manchukuo and Puyi was virtually controlled by the Generals and young oficers of the Kantogun. Hell at least Vichy France was allowed, under the term of the armistice, to keep the powerful French navy, as long as it doesn't fall into Allied hands.

Originally posted by snowybeagle We're not talking about similarities in economy but how much of a puppet state Vichy France was to Germany and Manchukuo was to Japan.

    that's what the whole of my last post was about!!!
    I didn't for once in my last post talk about the Vichy economy nor did I give any example of what it was like...

Edited by babyblue - 27-Jun-2006 at 23:32

Based from black and white theather of war, they said invasion over manchuria is Imperial Japan phase 1 in world domination. In phase 1, Japan must control Manchuria for its huge amount of resources that can be use to support Japan during WW2. In phase 2, Japan will invade and control China. Japan hoped by controlling China, they can use the chinese people to aid Japan during the war. In phase 3, Japan will expand their territory into south, to Burma, Singapore, Malaka, and Indonesia. They even plan to invade Australia. However their plan leaked out, and their submarines were sunk in Sydney harbor. In phase 4, Japan will move eastward to USA. By making alliance with German and Italy, Japan didn't have to worry for Russian armies.

Only phase 1 was completed 100%, phase 2 turned out fail as they didn't manage to conquer China, and in phase 3, they didn't manage to conquer Australia. In phase 4, they only managed to control midway and attacked pearl harbor.

Originally posted by The Charioteer Thats exactly the nature of Manchu Qing dynasty, disguised as an unifier and inheritor of Chinese culture, but actually was as bad as the Japanese imperialist.

That is only from the perspective of Han chauvinism which defines Chinese to mean Han only.

Edited by snowybeagle - 01-Jul-2006 at 02:54

Originally posted by snowybeagle That is only from the perspective of Han chauvinism which defines Chinese to mean Han only.   But China is not exclusively Han anymore than France is exclusively Gaul, nor British being exclusively English.

 
Then one should perhaps see Dr Sun Yat Sen's revolution as a form of Han Chauvinism too.
 
"But China is not exclusively Han anymore than France is exclusively Gaul, nor British being exclusively English."
 
you can say Han-Chinese are not original HuaXia as well since various non-Chinese groups were assimilated into it during the course of history.
 
But its not necessarily Han-Chauvinism makes "outer Mongolia" became an independent country, a referendum was held in "outer Mongolia" , 100% of the electorate voted for independence, no one wanted to be part of China. If "outer Mongolia" can do it, i dont see why "inner Mongolia" should remain as part of China, "outer Mongolian" troopers did try to unite Mongolia by reclaiming "inner Mongolia", while Mongolian princes from "inner Mongolia" also tried to be unified with "outer Mongolia". The difference is that "inner Mongolia" is too close to China proper, and its will to be part of Mongolia rather than China was suppressed by Chinese regimes.
 
Maju is objective on this matter, i will quote his comment

Originally posted by Maju You can say that China is applying double standards to outer Manchuria and Mongoli on one side and to Tibet or sinkiang on the other - but that's because they can: no great power disputes them that.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10018&KW=russia
 
"outer Mongolia"s success in becoming an independent country was backed by a great power Russia, similarly, Manchuria in this sense was also backed by a great power of the time Japan, to these days, one may discover that Manchus who served Manchukou, now exiled to Japan are still thankful to the Japanese. What if Japan didnt attack the old European colony in Asia thus damage their colonial interests, what if Japan didnt attack declare war on America? Manchukou could gain its independence from China under Japanese protection, along with Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.
 
What if Wang jing wei became leader of KMT? China then would be under Japanese rule, does that mean China has the right to claim Japan after Japanese invaders were expelled? Should India then claim Britain since its ruled formerly by the British?
 
I dont see the necessary connection to this "Gaul-France" or "British-Britain" arguement based on ethnic reasoning, its the very reasoning "outer Mongolia" wanted to be independent, as with Manchukou, etc. Like what Maju noted, its more of political than ethnical factor decided that part of Mongolia became independent country, while the other part remained in Chinese hands.
 
 
Like what Flyingzone's original thread on this question mentioned

channel history into a very narrow passage

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11697&KW=russia
 
To use the term "Chinese"(zhong hua min zu) thats not exclusively Han-Chinese in order to maintain rule in these parts who all wanted independence during the "era of Manchukou".
 

Originally posted by Maju even if now it's a republic, it's size and ruling system compare better with an empire even today

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8252&KW=greatest+maintained+empire
 
To suppress these people's own will to be free and make them part of China by military might too can be interpreted as a form of Han-Chauvinism.
 
If Xinjiang for instance now can be given a referendum on the issue of independence without the bullying of China, i believe the result definately will be same to that of the case of "outer Mongolia". Which pretty much defys the nature of ethnical umbrella("Chinese" not exclusively to Han-Chinese) that the Chinese government trying to install.
 
Politically, former Yugoslavia was splitted by Axis powers during the WW2, today its again splitted into several independent states(recently been the state of Montenegro) under the back up of very different great powers.
 
Theoretically and similarly there is no reason why Tibet or Xinjiang or inner Mongolia or Manchuria cant do the same, and there are certainly people native to these parts of China want independence, they can certainly find supportors from western countries. In fact, its natural for Westerners see a split up of China after its communist regime is brought down, like what they have anticipated the Soviets.
 
As the Tibetan railway is up and running, people from "free Tibet" movement accuse this would intensify China's colonial rule in Tibet. One can argue America and Canada's building of their "pacific railway" functions the same. But like what an Indian chief once pointed out that whether they are siding with the British or French or American, they are fighting a losing war, the difference is that these people are too "primitive" to be eligible to set up their own independent Native American or Native Canadian states, they were brutally suppressed by "white" colonial powers. And there are "white" people using newest archaeological discovery(thats European has been to American continent during the ice ages) to justify their legitimacy, same thing some Han-Chinese chauvinist justify their country's legitimacy in owning Tibet by mentioning Princess WenCheng, JinCheng of Tang dynasty, etc.
 
Similarly, Li Zi Cheng's peasant revolt would set up a native Chinese dynasty, but was exploited by the Manchu invaders, if Manchu didnt invade Ming(China proper), rather exploit the other way, say became an independent country as what the Vietnam achieved during earlier period of Ming dynasty, then China will not has the chance and excuses to claim various territories it presently hold which are subsequently inherited from the Qing dynasty.

So i think its not Han-Chauvinism when i say Manchu Qing were as bad as the Japanese, they did cost alot of Chinese lives, Najing massacre took 300,000 lives, its seen as a perfect and extreme example of Japanese brutality during its conquest of China, the Manchu did no less brutal, when Manchu conquered cities like Yangzhou, they actually slaughtered many more than 300,000 lives, local accounts also record many sadistic rapings and killings by the Manchu army. The difference is that Manchu succeeded in conquering China whereas Japan didnt(Japan did fight for the prosperity of "greater East Asia", the likes of Li deng hui still cheers Japan's rule over Taiwan), just like the difference that "outer Mongolia" is independent while "inner Mongolia" isnt, we shouldnt see it as "Mongol-Chauvinism", or Manchukou as "Manchu-Chauvinism". We should not "channel history into a narrow passage" indeed, i've seen Indian American exclaiming that "this America and World was forced upon the Indian people", and aboriginal Australian once said"if i ever had guns, i'd be fighting for my country(An Australian state ruled by native people)". These individuals have the potential to parallel that of Kawashima Yoshiko.

Edited by The Charioteer - 02-Jul-2006 at 02:13