Part 3 - Japan's Policies Toward China
Was the North China Buffer State Strategy an act of aggression?
Manchurian bandits, who had at one point numbered more than 200,000, were largely
wiped out within about a year of Manchukuo's founding. However, after Zhang Xueliang
was expelled from Manchuria, he formed a 40,000-man militia and occupied neighboring
Jehol Province to use as his base of operations against Japan and Manchukuo. To eliminate
this threat, the Kwantung Army launched an attack on Jehol and, in short order, pushed
Zhang Xueliang's forces south of the Great Wall. The policy of the Japanese military was to
not advance beyond the Great Wall, which made the situation very difficult for the
Kwantung Army when it was attacked by 50,000 soldiers from China's central army under
the command of He Yingqin, the Chairman of the Beiping Branch Military Council.
Strategically, the Kwantung Army had no option but to cross the Great Wall and expand thefighting into North China.
The conflict ended with the signing of the Tanggu Truce, which established a demilitarizedzone in the northeastern section of Hebei Province. Subsequently, the He-Umezu
Agreement of 1935 extended this demilitarized zone to the whole of Hebei Province. Thisagreement was to form a part of the Kwantung Army's operation to construct anautonomous buffer state in North China. This plan by the Japanese military to extend its
influence into Hebei has been called an act of aggression against China.
Nevertheless, the situation in China left the Kwantung Army with no other course of action.
The Kwantung Army was compelled to throw its weight behind pro-Japanese elements in
Hebei Province in response to repeated provocations by the Chinese Army and ongoinganti-Japanese agitation sponsored by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Government.
The following table, taken from a primary source document, should give the reader an ideaof how frequently attacks on Japanese citizens occurred in China due to anti-Japanesepolicies of the Nationalist Government. The Kwantung Army confronted the reality that theJapanese government was unable to devise any effective countermeasures against thisproblem.

Attacks on Japanese Citizens in China, late-1935 to 1936
Date
Place
Description
1935, November 9
Shanghai
Seaman First Class
Nakayama Hideo of the
Shanghai Special Naval
Landing Party is shot dead.
1936, January 21
Shantou
Police officer Tsunoda isshot dead at the Japanese11936, July 10

Shanghai1936, August 20

Changsha

1936, August 21

Beiping

1936, August 24

Chengdu1936, September 3

Beihai1936, September 17

Shantou

1936, September 19

Hankou1936, September 23

Shanghai1936, September 27

Changsha

1936, November 11

Shanghai2

consulate.
Kayo Kosaku is hit by asniper and dies soon after.
A bomb is thrown at aJapanese-owned inn in
Xiangnan. One Japanesecitizen receives minor
injuries.
Morikawa Taro, an ethnic
Korean, is beaten andseriously injured by a soldierof China's 29th Route Army.
Watanabe Kozaburo, areporter with the Osaka
Mainichi Shimbun, andFukagawa Keiji, an
employee at the Shanghai
office of the South
Manchuria Railway
Company, are murdered by amob. Two others arewounded.
General store owner Junzo
Nakano is murdered.
A bomb is thrown into
Kanshi Restaurant, owned
by a Japanese citizen, but it
does not explode.
Police officer Yoshioka isshot dead at the Japanese
consulate general.
Seamen First Class
Taminato Tomomitsu, acrew member of the warship
Izumo, is shot dead and twoothers are seriously
wounded.
Arsonists attack the office
and warehouse of the
Xiangtan Sino-Japanese
Steamship Company but
cause little damage.
Takase Yasuji, a Kasagi

Maru crewman, is shot dead.
Source: Toakyoku, Gaimusho Shitsumu Hokoku [Foreign Ministry Work Reports] (Tokyo:
Kuresu Shuppan, 1993), Volume 1, pages 48, 63, 66-67, 543-555, 613-618.
If the Japanese military had viewed the North China Buffer State Strategy as the first stepin its conquest of mainland China, then how could the Funatsu Peace Initiative, proposed in
the aftermath of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, have been put forward with the support ofboth the army and navy? The peace offer contained the following terms:(1.) The Tanggu Truce, the He-Umezu Agreement, the Qin-Doihara Agreement, and anyother extant military agreements in North China shall be cancelled.
(2.) Special areas were to be established as demilitarized zones.
(3.) The administrations in East Hebei and Hebei-Chahar were to be abolished. (These wereautonomous governments with a degree of independence from the Nationalist Government
which were seen as being under Japanese influence.)(4.) The strength of the Japanese forces stationed shall return to their status quo ante bellum.
Under this proposal, Japan offered to renounce almost all of the vested interests it had
acquired in Hebei Province since the time of the Manchurian Incident. Moreover, Japanwas not offering these terms from a position of desperation. Just the opposite, Japan was ina position of strength at the time it submitted the proposal, having just secured control of
the cities of Beijing and Tianjin with three divisions. Therefore, the original intention of theNorth China Buffer State Strategy could not possibly have been aggressive.
Essentially, Japan merely stated that if Chiang Kai-shek ceased his anti-Japanese activities
and entered into a cooperative partnership with Japan, then there would no longer be anyneed for Japan to detach North China from the Nationalist Government. Given these facts,
it is absolutely unreasonable to insist that the North China Buffer State Strategy carried any
aggressive intent.
Peace talks after the Battle of Shanghai and the Trautmann Mediation
On August 30, after the Battle of Shanghai had escalated into a full-scale state of war,
China reported Japan to the League of Nations for violations of the League of Nations’Covenant, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the Nine Power Treaty. China appealed to theinternational community to take necessary measures against Japan.
Even though the Chinese had wished for war, because it was not going their way, they took
the rather brazen step of demanding legal action against Japan. I have already shown that,the very next day, The New York Times identified China as the sole aggressor in the Battleof Shanghai. Furthermore, though it has often been assumed that China was abiding by the3spirit and letter of the Nine Power Treaty,1 John Van Antwerp MacMurray,2 an American
diplomat who was deeply involved in the inauguration of the treaty, stated at the time that it
was actually China that was responsible for the most serious ongoing violations.
The League of Nations passed a resolution of moral support for China, though by thenJapan was no longer a member of the League. It was also decided that a Nine Power Treaty
Conference be convened in Brussels, Belgium. The conference began on November 3, but
was ultimately unable to agree on any sanctions against Japan.
Meanwhile, on October 27, the Japanese government notified Great Britain, the UnitedStates, France, Germany, and Italy that it was preparing to enter talks with the Chinese
government through a friendly, third-party mediator. Ultimately, Germany was asked toserve as the mediator. Japan's peace conditions were almost identical to those offered in the
Funatsu Peace Initiative, and Germany, judging them to be very reasonable, passed them on
to Chiang Kai-shek on November 5 via Oskar Trautmann, the German ambassador to China.
As previously shown, Japan's peace conditions included no demands for any territory or
special rights. In spite of this, Chiang was still holding out hope that the Nine Power Treaty
Conference would impose sanctions on Japan, and so he rejected this peace offer. On
November 15, the final day of the conference, the Japanese government asked Joseph Grew,
the US ambassador to Japan, to persuade Chiang to negotiate, but this too came to nothing.
When, as already noted, the Nine Power Treaty Conference ended without sanctions,
Chiang found himself stuck in an even more difficult situation.
Japan's China policy after the First Konoe Statement
After this, Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro’s cabinet issued the First Konoe Statement,
cutting all ties with the Chiang Kai-shek regime, over the vehement opposition of the Army
General Staff Office. However, Japan renewed its offers for peace with China in the Second
Konoe Statement of November 1938 and the Third Konoe Statement of December 1938.
Although the cities of Canton and Wuhan fell to Japan in October 1938, the prospects ofending the war seemed as distant as ever. It was under these circumstances that theJapanese government released the Second Konoe Statement, advocating the establishmentof a New Order in East Asia. The statement asserted that the purpose of Japan's military
expedition in China was the founding of "a lasting New Order" under which Japan, China,
and Manchukuo would join forces to achieve international justice, joint defense against
communism, and economic integration throughout East Asia.

1

The Nine Power Treaty was signed at the 1922 Washington Naval Conference by nine nations: the USA, theUnited Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Japan, and China. The treaty confirmedthat each power was to respect China's sovereignty, the Open Door Policy, and equality of investment
opportunity in China.
2
MacMurray, an American diplomat, served in succession as Chief of Division for Far Eastern Affairs,
Assistant Secretary of State, and Minister to China. He was author of the book, How The Peace Was Lost
(Stanford, California: Hoover Press, 1992).

4

This statement was intended to revise the First Konoe Statement and open the door towards
improved relations between China and Japan.
In response to Japan's overture, a faction emerged in China around Wang Jingwei 3, seeking
to secede from Chiang's government in Chongqing and forge a partnership between China
and Japan within the framework of the New Order. Representatives of Japan and Wang
Jingwei signed the Sino-Japanese Consultative Record, the preamble of which committed
Japan and China to the establishment of "a New Order in East Asia based on the principles
of friendly relations with neighboring states, anti-communism, and economic cooperation".
The agreement upheld the following conditions as the means to achieve their aims:(1.) The signing of a Sino-Japanese anti-communist security pact, including provisions forthe stationing of Japanese troops in China to defend against communism.
(2.) Recognition by China of Manchukuo's independence.
(3.) Recognition by China of the freedom of Japanese citizens to live and conduct businesswithin China in exchange for consideration by Japan to repeal the extraterritorial rights of
its citizens in China and to return its concessions to China.
(4.) An immediate commencement of Japanese troop withdrawals from China following therestoration of peace, with the exception of troops stationed to defend against the communist
threat, and complete troop withdrawal within two years as law and order returns to Chinese
territory.
The Japanese government responded to this accord on December 22 by issuing the Third
Konoe Statement, affirming Japan's commitment to the principles of "friendly relations
with neighbors, anti-communism, and economic cooperation".
Wang Jingwei, who had escaped from Chongqing, entered into a series of discussions with
the Japanese government in the wake of the Third Konoe Statement, and finally, in March
1940, he founded the Government of the Republic of China in Nanking through unificationof the Provisional Government of China, which occupied North China, and the Reformed
Government of China. With the signing of the Sino-Japanese Basic Treaty, Japan
recognized the new government and ceded its concessions to China.
The Japanese government continued to send peace offers to Chiang Kai-shek through avariety of channels. The most important among these was the negotiations that started in
Hong Kong in December, 1939. In July of the following year, it was agreed that Itagaki
3Within the Nationalist Party, Wang ranked alongside Chiang Kai-shek as the successor to Sun Yat-sen's
legacy. In 1932, following the establishment of the Nationalist Government in Nanking, Wang served aspremier of China. After this, Wang parted ways with Chiang and became president of a pro-Japanese
government founded in Nanking.

5

Seishiro, the Chief of Staff of the China Expeditionary Force, would meet with Chiang Kaishek for peace talks next August in the city of Changsha. Wang Jingwei was also to
participate in these talks. Unfortunately, the plan fell through, most likely largely becauseof American pressure. It is no coincidence that the United States announced later in
December that it would provide Chiang's government with a loan of one hundred million
dollars.
Even after this, Japan made further attempts to broker a peace deal that would bring
together the rival governments of Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Jingwei. It is said that ChiangKai-shek's diary refers to more than ten such peace feelers. However, none of them came tofruition.
The Japanese Army's attitude towards China as seen in Orders for Officers and Menof the Expeditionary Force
Lastly, I would like to mention a document that will give readers an understanding of thegoals and policies of the Japanese Army in China and the mentality under which it fought.
On April 29, 1940, the pamphlet entitled Orders for Officers and Men of the Expeditionary
Force was issued in the name of China Expeditionary Force Chief of Staff Itagaki Seishiro.
The pamphlet's subtitle reads, "This concerns the true meaning of our crusade, and toprovide standards."
Its contents are divided into the following six chapters.
"(1.) Origins of the outbreak of the Incident""(2.) What are the objectives of the hostilities?""(3.) Infer His Majesty's will""(4.) How should the Incident be resolved?""(5.) How should officers and men of the Expeditionary Force comport themselves?""(6.) Orders for officers and men returning to Japan"
The text is written in a very refined style of writing. The complete document has beentranslated into English and can be read on the website of the Society for the Disseminationof Historical Fact at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/70_S4.pdf.
The following text appears within the section, "Basic notions for the resolution of the
Incident".

6

"The three general principles of neighborly friendship, cooperative anti-communist
measures, and economic cooperation (all of which are already national policies) arebeing advocated vis-à-vis the coupling of Japanese, Manchurian, and Chinese relations.
That is, the three countries will by morality be made into a base of cooperation, andthrough giving weight to cooperation in national defense and the economy, we will all
work together, giving mutual respect to the particular characteristics of the citizens ofeach nation. We will deepen the amity of cooperative friendship, with neighboring
countries defending each other materially against the influx of Sovietization, and longterm mutual compensations with a level economic exchange. We must preserve andexpand the original Asian moral culture by achieving mutual cooperation. This
relationship is the basis for rehabilitating East Asia, and it must set the example."I have also selected one further excerpt from the section entitled "Value the traditions andcustoms of the Chinese people".
"In China, there are Chinese traditions, and Chinese people have their own particularcustoms. It is an absolutely indispensable requirement to respect them, to understandthem, and to honor them. Along with Japanese being true Japanese, one also must
respect the Chinese for being true Chinese. Friendship requires tolerance andcompassion."
This was the mindset with which Japan's soldiers fought the war. As Ko Bunyu explainedin his essay, "A Grateful China Should Also Pay Respect to Yasukuni Shrine", it was thesame spirit which led them to aid farmers, build schools, provide technical assistance, andsponsor cultural activities in occupied China. It is often said that Japan forced its way into
Chinese territory to terrorize the people of China, but I hope earnestly that this book will
help the reader understand that these claims are pure fantasy.

Afterword
The military parade of September 3
On September 3, 2015, the People's Republic of China conducted an ostentatious military
parade in Tiananmen Square "in commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of our
victory in the War of Resistance against Japan".
Though China proudly trotted out its latest weapons of war for the event, its government
curiously insisted that this threatening demonstration was somehow "a parade for peace".
What was unusual was not that China would lie so shamelessly to the rest of the world, butrather, that the rest of the world seemed to have so little interest in calling China out for it.

7

The first lie was presenting the event as if the victor of the Second Sino-Japanese War was
the People's Republic of China.
It is true, as I have explained, that the same members of the CCP who went on to found thePeople's Republic were responsible for provoking the incident at Marco Polo Bridge which
led to war. Although the communists did participate in the Second Sino-Japanese War for atime as part of small units attached to the Nationalist Government, the only real battles thatthey fought were the Battle of Pingxingguan4 and the Hundred Regiments Offensive.5 As I
noted in Part 1 of this book, Mao Zedong himself ordered that seventy percent of their war
effort was to go towards strengthening their own forces, and only ten percent was to go
towards fighting Japan. The CCP's pretensions to being the author of victory in the Second
Sino-Japanese War are obviously fraudulent, but the world says nothing.
China has claimed from the outset that it was the victor of the war, but the Japanese Army
was not defeated in China. Japan actually achieved an overwhelming military victory,
winning forty-nine and drawing one of the war's fifty battles. Thanks to the military
victories of the United States and the Soviet Union, China managed to take a seat among
the victor powers, but that was only the result of the United States and Great Britain giving
Chiang Kai-shek his due.
Perhaps China's most brazen lies of all are its evangelization on "peace". Even though
China continues to build military airfields and undertake land reclamation work on the
Spratly Islands, as well as threatening neighboring countries like the Philippines, it stillinsists that its state-of-the-art military hardware is "for peaceful purposes".
A man who has not only failed to call out these flagrant lies, but also has been actively
supporting them, is former Japanese prime minister Murayama Tomiichi, known for his"Murayama Statement," which apologized for Japan's actions during World War II. Mr.
Murayama showed little shame in making a special trip to Beijing to participate in theparade. I hope that I am not the only one wondering if it really was Mr. Murayama's desirefor "peace" that inspired him to make this trip. Probably any normal Japanese person wouldfind Mr. Murayama's actions dubious at best.
The shameful act of the world's leaders
4

In September of 1937, a logistics unit of Japan's 5th Division marching through Shanxi Province was subject
to a devastating attack from the CCP's 8th Route Army led by Lin Biao in the mountain pass of Pingxingguan.
Communist propaganda played up the event as being the total annihilation of 10,000 enemy soldiers. In
reality, the Japanese unit was a mostly unarmed supply column which sustained over 100 casualties during thebattle.
5
The Hundred Regiments Offensive of 1940 was an all-out attack by the CCP targeting strategic targets suchas railway stations in Shanxi Province. The CCP even made unprecedented direct attacks on units of theJapanese Army, which sustained considerable casualties. Ultimately, the Japanese Army lost just under threehundred men, and railways and other facilities took damage, but the CCP's losses were more than ten times
those of the Japanese, and the Red Army never again undertook any major offensives.

8Thankfully, there was one youth who was not afraid to say the obvious. After the Japan
Broadcasting Corporation had finished airing the military parade in its entirety, it sought
out the views of some of the citizens of Beijing.
One young man said, "The world leaders who came to Tiananmen Square to see thismilitary parade have committed a shameful act. What they have seen, and what they havepraised, is the most wicked army in the world."
Remarkably, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation did not cut the young man off half-way,
but instead recorded all that he had to say without obscuring his face. Mr. Murayama had
apparently fallen ill and mercifully avoided the "shameful act" of appearing on stage at theparade. Still, it doesn't change the highly grotesque fact that a "pacifist" was lending moral
support to China's "wicked" army.
I can only hope that that young man's voice rouses the people of the world from theirslumber, and the ones who should hear him first are the people of Japan.
The historical fabrications of the movie Cairo Declaration
On November 22, 1943, three Allied leaders, President Roosevelt of the United States,
Prime Minister Churchill of Great Britain, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of China,
met in Cairo, Egypt, in order to discuss what their policies toward Japan would be
following the conclusion of the war.
Shortly before, on November 5-6, the Greater East Asia Conference took place in Tokyo,
bringing together representatives of seven independent Asian nations and the Provisional
Government of Free India. Together they issued the Greater Asia Declaration, arevolutionary statement enshrining the principle of racial equality. Following theconference's conclusion, the representative of India, Subhas Chandra Bose, travelled to
Nanking where he made a direct appeal to Chiang Kai-shek in Chongqing for peace withJapan. Bose's act had a big impact in China. It is said that Roosevelt planned the Cairo
Conference and invited Chiang to it out of fear that Chiang might reach a separate peacewith Japan.
And yet, believe it or not, reports say that the new movie, Cairo Declaration, produced by
a company affiliated with the People's Liberation Army of China for the seventiethanniversary of Japan's surrender, portrays CCP leader Mao Zedong as playing a key role atthe conference.
The Chinese government can tell even the most outrageous lies with a straight face, and thisis precisely why China has had no scruples about manufacturing one lie after another,including the Nanking Massacre, the Three Alls Policy,6 the 10,000-corpse pits,7 and the6

According to the Chinese Communist Party, during the Second Sino-Japanese War the Japanese Army
implemented the "Three Alls Policy," primarily against the operational bases of the 8th Route Army. Japan's

9200,000 comfort women,8 in order to denounce Japan. I would like sensible Japanesepeople to awaken to this problem soon, and to start confronting these lies directly instead of
meekly submitting to them. I urge readers to recall the words of the poet Yevgeny
Yevtushenko, who said, "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." We should
no longer stand by silently and allow lies to prevail over truth.
My hope is that this book might play at least a small role in empowering readers to win thebattle for truth.
September 25, 2015
-Moteki Hiromichi

alleged strategy was to "kill all, burn all, and loot all". However, the Japanese Army never used any such
expression in the first place, nor did it ever engage in mass murder or similar crimes. Even Mao Zedong
criticized the Japanese Army for, "encircling many Chinese soldiers but annihilating few." Though thismisinformation was intended for propaganda purposes, even so, many Japanese historians continue to treat
the “Three Alls Policy” as historical fact.
7
It has been said that the many Chinese laborers working at coal mines in Fushan and other places inManchuria who were rendered unable to work due to malnutrition, injury, or sickness were buried alive by theJapanese. The mass graves where the victims were buried were called "10,000-corpse pits". A memorial hall
was constructed at the "10,000-corpse pit" of the South Manchuria Mine where heaps of human skeletons areon display for public viewing. However, it has already been proven by many researchers that these stories are
simply hoaxes.
8
See Ka Mei's book Chugoku Kyogaku no Seidorei [China's Shocking Sexual Slavery] (Tokyo: Seirindo,2015), pages 31-32.

10