Talk:Manchukuo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

changes to the intro

please do not add misleading information such as that former Qing officials created Manchukuo, with "help" from Japan. It is a stupid statement to make since Japanese expansionist directed the entire project. And don't add the nonsense that Puyi was "rightfully" restored to the throne. Plus Johnston was not a historian, but a former tutor to Puyi and don't use his opinions as the source. Blueshirts (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's your POV. Johnston was appointed Professor of Chinese in the University of London in 1931, a post based at the School of Oriental and African Studies. His testimony is primary source, Emperor Puyi sent a endorser on his book. Please read Twilight in the Forbidden City.--Bukubku (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes but what he wrote was a memoir and not a historical account. Like you said, it's a primary source, and one that is based on his first hand account and his own limited POV. The fact of the matter is it would be ludicrous to state or imply that Manchukuo was founded by the Manchus, with only administrative help from Japan. You don't present that as an indisputable fact, especially in the intro. That would be very misleading. Blueshirts (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, The book is historical testimony and Emperor Puyi put good word for his book. Manchukuo is papet or not, when the foundation time is Puyi's free will. And many countries recognized Manchukuo. Johnston is English, not Manchu, Chinese and Japanese. He is third person. ludicrous is your POV. Read the book, please.--Bukubku (talk)
No, you don't understand the argument. You have been engaged in quote mining in finding just one instance by Johnston in implying that Manchukuo was not a puppet state of Japan. This violates wikipedia's policy on giving undue weight to this minority opinion, when the vast majority of historical sources all have a consensus that Manchukuo was something that was established by the Japanese militarists, with Puyi and the rest of the Qing pawns installed to give it an air of legitimacy. That's why you don't present what you wrote in Johnston's book and put that in the intro as if it was the historical consensus. Do you understand this or should I make it more clear? Blueshirts (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
? Johnston critised Chinese Revolution and your favorite Chiang Kai-shek manytimes in his book. So your Point is not Johnston and Puyi. Manchukou was established by Japanese and Manchus, mostly by Japanese forces power. However my edition is no relevant. OK? Please read my edition and his book.--Bukubku (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not with Johnston, but with your presenting Johnston's viewpoints as the historical consensus when it clearly is not. Manchukuo was a puppet state and Puyi was a puppet, whether by force or not, and this fact must be made clear in the intro. Why don't you write what you intend to put in the main article here and see how we can trim it. Blueshirts (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my edition, I didn't delete first word puppet, I only deleted your additional puppet. too much.--Bukubku (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked your edits and moved them from the intro to the body of the article. Blueshirts (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Blueshirts, did you read my comment? Why did you add more and more puppet? Your edtion seems to the way of chinese 偽満洲国. There are many point exist, so I didn't delete first puppet'. However you added more and more. Shall I write Chiang Kai-shek as Fascist Chiang Kai-shek, every front of his name? ROC is not recognazed by most countries, I have to write all Taiwan related articles as Taiwan is PROC and puppet states occupied. And China is one of district of Qing Dynasty. Qing Dynasty's territories are China, Tibet, Uyghur, Mongolia and Manchu etc. In old time Qing Dynasty had Taiwan ,Korea and Siberia, also. Your edition is too one-sided.--Bukubku (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. I used the word puppet only in "puppet state" or "puppet government," which is perfectly normal. Do you see me writing "Puppet Manchukuo" (偽滿州國) as in Chinese? This is English and its syntax is different from Chinese or Japanese. Blueshirts (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My words were somehow unsuitable, sorry. Puppet is 傀儡. 偽 is disguise. OK I don't stick more about puppet this time. I revised getting more neutral. OK?--Bukubku (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bukubku banned

Bukubku is now banned indefinitely from this article and its talk page, in addition to Korea and Korea-related topics that he was banned from earlier this year. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

The svg map is misleading. Many other parts of China also enjoyed de facto independence when the Chinese nation was torn by warlordism, Japanese invasion, and civil war. See this map. 93.136.124.67 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not particularly object your claims, but in the significant time when Manchukuo existed, i.e. 1932-1945, China proper that is not occupied by Japan hase some level of control from Nanjing. The warlord era was mainly in the 1910-1920s, not applicable in our situation here.
That said, the current map (File:Manchukuo_map_1939.svg would easily cause controversy surrounding the status of Tibet, and I think some discussion is needed.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How about using broken lines, like: "- - - -" to note the diffrence between de facto and de jure controle of the KMT? If you guys agree I will make the request at the Map workshop‎.
Also, 93.136.124.67, please stop using the .png map, for it is undoubtably inaccurate.--SelfQ (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree-- however, should we make the map based on 1939 or 1942. Well, at neither time did KMT de facto control Xinjiang (Although Sheng Shicai claimed Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang, he resisted Nanking rule until 1942) and Tibet (Outside of the selection of Dalai Lama).--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well for Manchukuo it doesn't really matter, it stays uneffected, but seeing as alot of related articles use simaler maps that also need to be redrawn I'd go with 1939, its less work when all the other Japanese borders dont need to be redrawn/changed. which would mean increasing the chance of a editor willing to make the edits.--SelfQ (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This map is inaccurate, Yunnan didn't bordered India, and Tibet didn't have control over eastern Xikang province
I agree, There should be broken lines for Outer Mongolia and maybe for Tibet. According to Simla Convention [1] it is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory.(signed by Tibetan government). Xinjiang was under Sheng Shicai, he was just unruly Chinese warlord. And KMT had de facto control over Xinjiang(except 3 small portions on the north(now Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture) from 1944 to 1949. Catt79 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Any preteners to thone of this lost "nation"?

Are there any "preteners to the thone of this once "nation'?INNOBOY (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And current potential pretender to the Chinese throne is Prince Hengzhen Catt79 (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Provisional government.

I reasently read about the provisional government of Manchukuo which has (or had) a official link to this (Wikipedia-)page. Is it the actual provisional government?? and if yes, why isn't it statet in this article.

Excuse my bad English --82.134.154.25 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Manchu or Manchuria?

I would like to change the translation of 滿洲 from Manchu to Manchuria in several instances, especially in the intro paragraph. The reason is that 滿洲 specifically designate the geographical region of Manchuria, rather than the Manchu people originated from this region. Therefore, Manchukuo should better be translated as "State of Manchuria" rather than "Manchu State", and 大滿洲帝國 "Great Empire of Manchuria" rather than "Great Manchu Empire". Indeed, excepting the royal court, there was little about Manchukuo that is Manchu rather than Manchurian; it was a 滿洲 state rather than a 滿族 state. I will proceed with the changes in a few days if there is no objections. o (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Heads of State of Manchukuo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge Heads of State of Manchukuo to Manchukuo since it is mostly redundant personal info on Pu-Yi and history that belongs in the main article. Obviously, the list of Heads of State of Manchukuo will never grow, so this little bit of info can easily be merged. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge completed as per support above. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actual situation

As an uninformed reader, it is not clear to me from the text to which country the Manchukuo region belongs now. This should be more clearly stated. Also, maybe this parody should be mentioned under popular culture? H. (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is the People's Republic of China. But the actual process through which the situation became like it is today was a bit complicated, especially when it involved the Chinese Civil War between the then-ruling Nationalist government and the Communists who eventually prevailed and established the current ruling government of China.
Given the geography of Manchukuo and the strategic situation in the WWII Pacific theater, it is hard to imagine the plaubsibility for Manchukuo to have ruled tropical islands where carefree hotties wander around in bikinis as depicted in the strangely amusing video you shared.
Anyhow, I have tried to make it clearer in the intorductory paragraph, and I hope my editing works for that purpose.FU, En-Ping 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

"In early 1934, the total population of Manchukuo was estimated as 30,880,000, with 6.1 persons the average family, and 122 men for each 100 women. These numbers included 29,510,000 Han Chinese, 590,760 Japanese, 680,000 Koreans, and 98,431 of other nationality White Russians, Mongols, etc."

After deducting from 30,880,000 all the enumerated groups, I'm left with 809 people. Was that the number of Manchus left in Manchukuo? Probably not, so they are counted in another category by the Chinese author of this entry, either under Han or under "other nationality." Since the state was, at least on the paper, a pretext for preserving the Manchu people, should not this entry include demographic data on the Manchus living there, and any cultural activities such as teaching Manchu in schools. Was that done at all in Manchukuo? This is basic information users would want to know.

Karpaten1 (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


The infobox says Manchu language was discouraged. Why would a Manchu-led state of Manchuria discourage its native language?

The infobox says that Manchu langauge was discouraged, this statement has no reference source. Why would a Manchu-led state of Manchuria discourage its own native language? And even if one may respond "well it was a Japanese puppet state and followed Japanese orders", then why wouldn't Japan seek to legitimize the state by encouraging Manchu language as a means to legitimizing national self-determination of Manchus that would aid in rejecting Chinese claims to Manchuria? It is completely absurd that a Manchurian state led by Manchus would discourage their own native language.--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Re-Assessment

On behalf of WP: China, Japan, East Asia, and Military History, the article has been re-assessed as C-class, for its lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How many manchu were there

How many manchu were there?--Kaiyr (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fugu Plan

If the Japanese treatment of Jews seems odd — know that an American Jew helped with financing their war against Russia in 1905. In 1919, White Russians introduced the Japanese to the book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The Japanese called their plan for Jewish settlement "The Fugu Plan." "Fugu" is highly poisonous blowfish. After the toxin-containing organs are painstakingly removed, it is used as a food in Japan, and is considered an exquisite delicacy. If it is not prepared carefully, however, its poison can kill a person. Ten thousand displaced people were relocated to Shanghai during its implementation with two thousand Jews housed in the Kansai area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky (talk • contribs) Revision as of 03:35, 20 June 2004 (UTC)

NPOV "puppet state"

WP's central tenet is NPOV, or Neutral Point of View. Ethnic Chinese or 'Overseas Chinese' editors are heavily patrolling this entry to ensure categorization of Manchukuo as 'puppet state,' which is undefined, un-dictionary topic. Are the Ryukyu Islands a current 'puppet state' of Japan? Manchukuo was headed by the last emperor of China, Pu Yi, who headed a several centuries old dynasty of Manchu emperors. -Aerolit (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, no personal attacks. Address the content, and not the editor; don't make ad hominem statements against others based on who they are. WP:NPA is Wikipedia policy, please adhere to it.
Secondly, your comment "which is undefined, un-dictionary topic" makes no sense, because puppet state is a widely recognized geopolitical term. It is widely recognized in western academic literature that Manchukuo was a puppet state; there are plenty of history books and academic papers that mention this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
List of books that refer to Manchukuo as a "puppet state"
  • Marshall Cavendish, 2007. World and Its Peoples: China and Mongolia, Marshall Cavendish Corporation. ISBN 9780761476337
  • Mariko Tamanoi, 2009. Memory maps: the state and Manchuria in postwar Japan, University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 9780824832674
  • Roger Chickering, Stig Forster, 2003. The Shadows of Total War: Europe, East Asia, and the United States, 1919-1939, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521812368
  • Krystyna MAREK, 1968. Identity and continuity of states in public international law, Librairie Droz. ISBN 9782600040440
  • Prasenjit Duara, 2004. Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern, Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742530911
  • Annika A. Culver, 2013. Glorify the Empire: Japanese Avant-Garde Propaganda in Manchukuo, UBC Press. ISBN 9780774824385
  • Douglas Howland, Luise. White, 2009. The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253220165
  • Louise Young, 1998. Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism, University of California Press. ISBN 9780520210714
  • Louis G. Perez, 2013. Japan at War: An Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781598847420
  • Bruce A. Elleman, 2001. Modern Chinese Warfare: 1795 - 1989, Routledge. ISBN 9780415214735
  • Sven Saaler, Christopher W. A. Szpilman, 2011. Pan-Asianism: A Documentary History, 1920–Present, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781442206014
  • Narangoa Li, Robert B. Cribb, 2003. Imperial Japan and National Identities in Asia: 1895 - 1945, RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 9780700714827
  • Rotem Kowner, Walter Demel, 2012. Race and Racism in Modern East Asia: Western and Eastern Constructions, BRILL. ISBN 9789004237292
  • 貝雄文, 1998. 国を苛めて何になる, 文芸社. (in Japanese) ISBN 9784887371941
  • 大屋統貴夫, 2003. 昭和の戦争から学ぶ―戦中派の思い, 文芸社. (in Japanese) ISBN 9784835565354
  • 波多野勝, 2007. 昭和天皇とラストエンペラー:溥儀と満州国の真実, 草思社. (in Japanese)
  • 张志坤, 关亚新, 2006. 中国残留日本人孤児, 中信出版社. (in Chinese) ISBN 9787508509860
  • 陳水逢, 1988. 日本近代史, 臺灣商務印書館. (in Chinese) ISBN 9789570505801
  • 高明士, 梁國真, 2007. 中國通史, 五南圖書出版股份有限公司. (in Chinese) ISBN 9789571143125
List of academic papers that refer to Manchukuo as a "puppet state"
  • Han, Suk-Jung. "The Problem of Sovereignty: Manchukuo, 1932-1937." positions: east asia cultures critique 12.2 (2004): 457-478.
  • Lattimore, Owen. "Satellite Politics: The Mongolian Prototype." The Western Political Quarterly 9.1 (1956): 36-43.
  • Hall, Andrew Reed. Constructing a'Manchurian'Identity: Japanese Education in Manchukuo, 1931-1945. Diss. University of Pittsburgh, 2003.
  • Duara, Prasenjit. "NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM, FEDERALISM, AND THE EXAMPLE OF MANCHUKUO A Response to Anthony Pagden." Common Knowledge 12.1 (2006): 47-65.
  • Wilson, Sandra. "Bridging the gaps: New views of Japanese colonialism, 1931–1945." Japanese Studies 25.3 (2005): 287-299.
  • Ikegami, Masako. "New imperial China: a challenge for the US-Japan alliance." (2011).
  • Xiaoli, L. I. U. "Investigation of the Periodical Youth Culture in Puppet Manchuria State [J]." Journal of Shanghai Normal University (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition) 4 (2006): 013.
  • DuBois, Thomas David. "Inauthentic Sovereignty: Law and Legal Institutions in Manchukuo." The Journal of Asian Studies 69.03 (2010): 749-770.
  • Xiu-wu, C. H. E. N. "On the Founding Ideology of Manchukuo and the Idea of Japanese Colonial Enslaving [J]." Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 6 (2010): 018.

Please refer to the above texts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit-flooding is pointless. The term "ethnic Chinese" is not itself an attack or pejorative, unless the individual in question is ashamed of being Chinese. If I say, "that person is Lithuanian." is that an insult? if I say, "i have a Kenyan friend," is that insulting? only somebody feeling deep personal shame about their culture and background would believe the mere term "ethnic Chinese" is itself an insult or a curse. in short, the editor himself would claims "ethnic Chinese" is an insult, is himself guilty of racism and ethnic hatred. he believes the mere term 'Chinese editor' is itself negative. -Aerolit (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Try to stay at the top of this pyramid when making arguments.
Don't give me this nonsense. You know clearly what I mean. Don't make ad hominem arguments like you have done earlier. It's bad faith behaviour. If you really do have a reasonable point to make, it would be towards the content of my actions and/or arguments, and not who I am. I could be Adolf Hitler, as far as I'm concerned, but if your arguments are really silly, making a point about who I am does not further your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

in response to the arguments made, every single reference found is by a victorious allied power. we are wikipedia. we are NPOV. Russia and Japan both recognized Manchukuo. both russian and japanese wp define manchukuo as 'country of manchus' which is actually the chinese translation of the term manchukuo.' -Aerolit (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh, there are three japanese sources mentioned. Have I missed something that you refer to Japan as a victorious allied power? If you want to change the long time consensus, bring enough reliable sources for your point of view. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly this. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one who intends on changing the status quo. You need to establish WP:CONSENSUS before making any controversial edits. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Finally, Quote: "we are wikipedia. we are NPOV" - this is quite a stupid argument, because you are implying that WP:NPOV is more important than WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. NPOV is not the only Wikipedia policy, and it is not the most important one; there are other policies that share equal weight, and you are definitely ignoring them. You have not firmly established, with reliable sources that are verifiable by other contributors, that Manchukuo was not a puppet state, and that this is an indisputable fact that cannot be argued otherwise. Furthermore, I have provided justification that it is, with the list of texts above. All you are doing right now is making empty arguments with little substance; arguments with nothing to reinforce what you are saying. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you don't reply with another silly comment about "oh noes the books are written by WW2 victors, bias bias!", here are two German texts, both of which refer to Mandschukuo as a Marionettenregierung.

  • Stefan Talmon, 2006. Kollektive Nichtanerkennung illegaler Staaten: Grundlagen und Rechtsfolgen einer international koordinierten Sanktion, dargestellt am Beispiel der Türkischen Republik Nord-Zypern. Mohr Siebeck. (in German) ISBN 9783161479816
  • Bernd Martin, Susanne Kuss, 2003. Deutsch-chinesische Beziehungen, 1928-1937: "gleiche" Partner unter "ungleichen" Bedingungen ; eine Quellensammlung. Akademie Verlag. (in German) ISBN 9783050029856

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice: All the projects with banners at the top of this page were not notified about this discussion. I assume this was a simple oversight, and so I corrected that. All affected projects have now been notified. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Manchukuo is commonly referred to as a 傀儡国家 ("puppet state") in Japanese sources, as well. So I don't think there's any problem with the article's using it. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the term when it's used without specifics/clarification. I think it might be better to have the section beginning "Historians generally consider Manchukuo a puppet state of Imperial Japan because..." moved up from Politics to the overview give the term context. Cckerberos (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it might be a good idea to have a slightly more detailed clarification in the lede explaining why Manchukuo is commonly categorized so. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer Aerolit's overlooked question, Quote: "Are the Ryukyu Islands a current 'puppet state' of Japan?" - No, the Ryūkyū Kingdom was a tributary state of China and Japan and a vassal of Satsuma (not to Japan). Japan simply abolished the Kingdom and annexed its territory, making it a home province. The United States gave it back in 1972. It's like the State of Hawai'i, unless you consider it a "puppet state" too. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a number of scholars have rejected the term "puppet state" as being too vague to be of any analytic use--not just for Manchukuo, but more generally. "Client state" is used ore often than puppet state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.127.210 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Manchu transliteration?

Was there a Manchu name for the state? Can someone provide it?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, other articles such as Qing Dynasty use Manchu script, why isn't there any use in this page? Also there is no sources or use from Manchurians, I know a few Western historians have studied their texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk • contribs)

Why no history of the region/land of Manchuria before Japanese Puppet State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk • contribs)

See Manchuria. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Mostly because the country never used Manchu as its official language, by the 20th century most Manchurians have already forgotten their own language, including the ruling family (Qing/Ch'ing).
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Total number of Manchus?

Manchukuo#Demographics "In early 1934, the total population of Manchukuo was estimated as 30,880,000. These numbers included 29,510,000 Chinese (96%, which should have included the Manchurian population), 590,760 Japanese (2%), 680,000 Koreans (2%), and 98,431 (<1%) of other nationality: White Russians, Mongols, etc.[citation needed]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.126.252.89 (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

the whole population section has no citations and after 10 minutes searching online I cannot find any. must require some library access and actual research. I certainly hope it's not a case of someone just making stuff up from the whole cloth here.Happy monsoon day 23:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Regent

Pu Yi was Emperor, not "regent and emperor".Royalcourtier (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchukuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchukuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchukuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn't "State of Manchuria" be a redirect leading to this page, the same way "State of Japan" redirects to Japan? 66.215.84.193 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Name in Machu?

What's the name of Manchukuo in Manchu?--Kaledomo (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the name in Manchu is: (manju gurun) —this user (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

Under "Background" this paragraph should be moved up to "Terminology": "The Japanese had their own motive for deliberately spreading the usage of the term Manchuria..." Kortoso (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The entire discussion of Manchuria as a term is misplaced. This article is about a country known as "Manchukuo" in English. Even to the extent that "Manchuria" was a synonym, discussion of the origin and politics of the term belong at Manchuria. Everyone can agree that (like it or not, legitimate it or not) this administration existed and was known by this name. — LlywelynII 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Foreign names

shouldn't clutter up the WP:LEADSENTENCE when we have multiple infoboxes and a separate Name section (cf. inter alia WP:MOS-ZH).

Also, wtf is (Дай) Маншӯ Тейкоку doing as a "romanization" of Japanese? It's obviously not romanji, so I'm removing it there but does it belong anywhere else? It seems to be a cyrillization of Japanese, not the Russian or Mongolian name, but if it actually transcribes something useful kindly place it into the appropriate slot of the {{chinese}} template. Маншӯ-коку was listed as |cyrilization= but that's not actually a thing, so I'm removing that too. — LlywelynII 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

1934 Population

In the right hand box the article lists the 1934 Population as 85 Million yet in the demographic section it states the population is around 40M in 1934. I'm wondering what's the cause of such disparity between these numbers. Nieblham (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Reworded "Genocide" to "Abuse"

I have reworded the section "Genocide of Ethnic Minorities". The UN defines genocide as:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

"To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. "

source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

While the Japanese treated the people of Manchuria with apalling cruelty, I have seen no evidence that they had a deliberate policy of exterminating people like the Oroqen or Hezhen. The Japanese intention was to use them as subservient people to further the empire's war goals, training Oroqen men into forest rangers and using them to provide products for Japanese consumption. This, to me, does not constitute an "intent to destroy". Although it is an indisputable fact that their treatment of these people lead to a decline in their population, I would put this down to cruelty and neglect, but have seen no evidence that they had an intentional policy of eradicating these ethnic groups. Forced relocations, distribution of opium as a means of control, physical violence as a means of intimidation, and human experiments at the hands of Unit 731 were all things that the other ethnicities of Manchuria also experienced at Japanese hands, and I have seen no evidence that the Japanese deliberately singled out the Oroqen or Hezhen for special cruelty with intent to destroy their population. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I am happy to be proved wrong.

Komihama (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchukuo/Archive_2&oldid=1136986373"