The study of Japan's client state Manchukuo 满洲国 (1932–45) by historians of modern China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and broadly defined Northeast Asia is a fast-growing field. Yet writing a comprehensive history of Manchukuo remains a challenging enterprise, as during its fourteen-year history, this colonial “state” did not maintain fixed borders, its multicultural population was on the move, and its highly militarized government and ideology were in stark contrast with the daily lives of urban and rural communities. Competing nationalist narratives and interpretations of Manchukuo's history in China, Japan, and the Soviet Union during World War II persisted under new political regimes during and after the Cold War. Recently, social and cultural historians have turned their attention to the experiences of the Manchu, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian diasporas, while other historians have focused on elusive notions of modernity, defined by urban growth, economic development, and technological and scientific transformation, while downplaying the horrific crimes conducted by the Japanese military against the local, predominantly Chinese, population. The two books reviewed here focus on media, literary productions, and transnational experiences, opening new venues for the study of Manchukuo's history.

Manchukuo Perspectives: Transnational Approaches to Literary Production, edited by Annika A. Culver and Norman Smith, brings together eighteen multinational contributors—Chen Shi, Chen Yan, Jiang Lei, Li Zhenglong, Liu Chao, Liu Xiaoli, Wang Yue, Ying Xiong, Zhan Li, and Zhang Quan from the People's Republic of China; Ōkubo Akio and Wanatabe Naoki from Japan; Kim Jaeyong from South Korea; Olga Bakich and Norman Smith from Canada; and Junko Agnew, Stephen Poland, and Karen Thornber from the United States—from such fields as literature, history, cultural studies, and film. They analyze the personal lives and cultural impact of the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian intellectuals who lived in Manchukuo and pursued careers in literature, translation, and publishing despite ideological and regulatory obstacles imposed by authorities.

This volume's multidisciplinary and sociological approach to the study of Manchukuo's literary scene is inspired by French historian Gisele Sapiro's analysis of the challenges faced by writers in German-occupied Vichy France (1940–45).Footnote ¹ During China's War of Resistance against Japan (1937–45), Manchukuo's government put new restrictions on local writers and publishers, including the policy of Ba bu 八不 (Eight Abstentions), which banned negative depictions of the regime and its ideals. Despite these pressures, as the individual chapters demonstrate, Manchukuo's multinational writers often ignored or violated these regulations by using creative techniques to produce a bleak picture of daily life there.

The eighteen chapters of this book are divided into three parts. Part one, “Manchukuo's Print Media and the Politics of Representation/Translation,” looks at contrasting depictions of Manchukuo by various media outlets. While the official Manchukuo State Council's Chinese-language newspaper Datong bao 大同报 (Great Unity Herald), published from 1932 to 1945 in Xinjing 新京 (Changchun), disseminated official propaganda and optimism about New Manchuria's bright future (p. 19), its literary supplements, Datong Julebu 大同俱乐部(Great Unity Club) and Manzhou Xinwentan 满洲新文坛 (New Literary World in Manchuria), published resistance literature, for which many contributing editors and writers were persecuted (p. 46).

Part two, “Chinese Writers in Manchukuo and ‘Manchukuo’ Writers in Japan,” presents a complex picture of “border-crossing” Chinese writers, who were not a homogenous group. Some of them were inspired by the May Fourth literary movement in China in the 1920s, while others borrowed from European and Japanese literary traditions. Chinese writer Shan Ding 山丁(1914–95) reflected exclusively on the landscape and social conditions of Manchukuo. Chinese writers Gu Ding 古丁 (1909–64) and Mei Niang 梅娘 (1916–2013) were bilingual, contributing to Chinese and Japanese publications and cross-cultural dialogue. Gu Ding created a hybrid Chinese language by using the elements of the Japanese language to “capture Manchukuo society as broadly as possible, and appeal to readers from various social strata” (p. 100). Mei Niang gained prominence as a writer by giving voice to women in the highly patriarchal society of Manchukuo, exposing social inequality and ethnic hierarchies within the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Daitōa Kyōeiken 大東亜共栄圏) (p. 193). Living in Xinjing, Osaka, and Beijing, translating from Japanese and writing in Chinese, gave her a unique perspective on the colonial nature of the Manchukuo regime.

The careers of Chinese and “Manchukuo” writers and their literary productions are discussed in chapters 5–13, explaining the evolution of Chinese literature in Manchukuo. From 1932 to 1937, these writers formed different literary associations and competed with each other, while during wartime, control and censorship over Chinese-language publications intensified, and they had to operate within the framework of Japanese-controlled “national” organizations and literary events such as the Greater East Asia Writers’ Congress (Daitōa Bungakusha Taikai 大東亜文学者大会).

Part three, “Russian, Japanese, and Korean Writers in Manchukuo,” discusses the challenges faced by Russian émigré poets, who did not fit into the official pan-Asian motto “harmony of the five ethnicities” (五族协和); Japanese writers, some of whom shared a double burden of being colonizers and left-wing critics of the colonial regime in Manchukuo; and Korean writers, whose status as Japan's colonial subjects in Korea changed when they moved to Manchukuo, causing their conflicting attitudes toward the Japanese Empire, Manchukuo, and Chinese society.

Chapters 14–18 demonstrate that the variety of personal experiences and writings in multiple languages complicate the narrative of resistance-versus-collaboration in Manchukuo's cultural productions. Several authors in this groundbreaking volume argue that the literature of Manchukuo, marginalized for ideological reasons in postwar China and the Koreas, should be further studied and recognized for its contribution to modern Chinese and East Asian literary history. This volume, with original translations, comprehensive textual analysis, multisource research, and detailed social scrutiny recreate a colorful and vivid historical panorama of literary life in Manchukuo. It will be a standard reference book about Manchukuo's culture for years to come.

Susanne Hohler's Fascism in Manchuria: The Soviet-China Encounter in the 1930s analyzes the evolution of Russian fascists in Harbin, from their beginnings in the Law Faculty in 1925 and the establishment of their party (Rossiiskaia fashistskaia partiia) in 1931, to the peak of their activities in 1937 and subsequent fragmentation and decline.Footnote ² This is the second major study of the Russian fascists in English, after John Stephan's comprehensive study published more than four decades ago.Footnote ³ Hohler's study focuses on ideology, propaganda, and the social impact of Russian fascists on the Russian émigré society, organizations and youth in Harbin, only briefly mentioning the ties between Russian, Japanese, and Chinese militant political organizations, Manchukuo government and society.

In Fascism in Manchuria, Hohler argues that the Russian Fascist Party had a substantial influence on Harbin's Russian émigré society by engaging in aggressive propaganda and by infiltrating émigré organizations, societies, clubs, cultural and sports associations, the Orthodox Church, and education (p. 4). She employs the concept of “civil society” used by American political scientist Robert D. Putnam in his analysis of broken American society and the strategy to make it more democratic through acquiring social capital and building social networks.Footnote ⁴ Focusing “on the functions rather than narrowing the conceptual scope with a normatively charged definition” of civil society (p. 6), Hohler argues that there is a dark side to civil society and that the norms and values that people learn within a civil society organization can become racist and xenophobic and not democratic or universal (p. 7). Russian fascists exploited numerous civil society organizations in Harbin to their advantage by propagating their ideas, values and anti-Jewish sentiments.

Fascism in Manchuria is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the historical development of the Russian community in Harbin, which lost its privileges with the collapse of imperial Russia in 1917 but continued to grow until mid-1930s, receiving new émigrés and refugees from the Soviet Union. Japan's occupation of Manchuria in 1931 immediately affected the lives of Russian émigrés, contrary to the Hohler's statement that in the early 1930s, “Russian community structure and civil society remained mostly intact, apart from a few exceptions” (p. 36).

Chapter 2 discusses the evolution and ideology of the Russian Fascist Party in Harbin. Hohler distinguishes Russian fascism in Manchuria from the German and Italian brands, in that it combined European fascist theory with imperial Russia's glorious past and anticommunist/anti-Soviet rhetoric. This “exile and diaspora fascism” was based on ultranationalism and “the idea of mystical rebirth of the Russian nation through fascism” (pp. 60–61). Russian fascists saw themselves as part of a global fascist movement, but there is little discussion in the book as to their ties to other fascist organizations. The Japanese officials in Manchukuo supported Russian fascists only as long as they were useful (p. 64).

Chapters 3 and 4 analyze how the Russian Fascist Party used education and youth organizations to indoctrinate the émigré youth. To reach out to the adults, the Russian fascists took over the Russian Club, Harbin's major cultural center, turning it into a platform for attacking old leaders of the émigré community and “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.” (p. 109). Chapter 5 further discusses anti-Jewish agitation and propaganda from 1933 until 1937, when it reached its peak. Several leaders of Harbin's Jewish community left Harbin when the political situation in the city became intolerable.

This book raises further questions: Can stateless Russian émigré organizations and associations in Harbin after 1934 be considered “civil society,” when the Japanese military mission exercised control over Harbin's society? What were the links between the Russian and Jewish members of Harbin's “civil society” and their communities in Tianjin and Shanghai? What were the attitudes of the Russian émigré, Chinese, and Japanese communities in Harbin and Manchuria toward each other? While this book does not provide clear answers to these questions, it effectively portrays controversial political campaigns, associations, debates, and personalities of Harbin's Russian-speaking community. This book will appeal to those interested in the history of Manchukuo, fascism, Russian and Jewish diasporas, and transnationalism.

The two books discussed here offer new perspectives on Manchukuo culture, society, and politics. They use a variety of historical periodicals and publications in multiple languages, now scattered in private collections, libraries, and archives around the world. The full picture of Manchukuo's culture and society will be incomplete without further interdisciplinary research and international scholarly dialogue.