The Sino-Japanese controversy over Manchuria, 1931-32, in retrospect

Includes bibliographical references (pages 79-83)Among the many authors who have written about the Sino-Japanese controversy of 1931-32, few have been able, or even willing, it seems, to approach the story in an objective manner. This, of course, is true of any controversy in which the loyalties of both parties to a dispute tend to prevent objectivity or even rationality in some cases. Understandably, Japanese authors have only praise for Japan's actions while Chinese authors deprecate anything Japanese and hold that their point of view is particularly sound and true. Scholars from what have often been called "disinterested" countries have weighted their opinions in one direction or another, often asking their historical contributions sounding-boards for their own prejudices end social and political inclinations. Few gazed upon the conflict without a jaundiced eye. This study, with its particular interpretations, is the product of research ever the entire period of the Manchurian dispute end contains portions of what seem to be the major contributions of partisans and writers of the time, both here and aboard. The purpose of this effort has been to collect the varied opinions on many phases of the conflict and to comment on the significance of the differences presented. Where commonly accepted conclusions have seemed unwarranted, new or different conclusions have been advanced. The bibliography, a reflection of the thoroughness with which any study has bean made, is up to the reader to judge. However, considerable credit for Many of the sources used should be given to Dr. J.J. Martin, whose numerous suggestions have been eagerly employed and have supplied much enlightening information. Though not all of the sources listed in the bibliography have been quoted, all have been studied and have contributed to the general tone of the paper. Acknowledgment must be made of the helpful editing and criticism offered by Dr. Martin from time to time and without which this paper could have suffered seriously. Recognition also must be given to my wife, whose patience and understanding made it possible for her to interpret my longhand and type the final draft without serious complaint.M.S. (Master of Science