Emil Lederer on The Real Conflict between China and Japan (1939)

Emil Lederer’s scholarly book review assesses Harley Farnsworth MacNair’s 1938 study of the ideological foundations of Sino-Japanese conflict. It moves from an appreciative account of MacNair’s explanation to a pointed criticism of his treatment of Japanese politics. Lederer endorses the book’s challenge to explanations based solely on territorial acquisition, wealth, employment, or power: divergent world outlooks shape political goals and intensify conflicts whose material stakes alone cannot explain their course.

On the basis of rich material, the author shows that the age-old, seemingly merely ideological, differences imply in fact different politics; and that therefore more than material or political aims enter into the conflicts.

The decisive move is to treat ideology as constitutive of politics, rather than as an ornamental justification for interests already formed. Lederer praises MacNair’s documentation, but the review does not reproduce the book’s evidence or specify the contrasting Chinese and Japanese doctrines. Instead, it draws out a general implication: state objectives rest on inherited, irrational commitments as well as calculations of advantage.

The dynamic nature of the state, in other words is never abstract, but always historical, and that means tinged with an ideological element.

This formulation makes historical interpretation indispensable to understanding state action. Lederer also notes an inconsistency among statesmen who reject materialistic interpretations of history yet resist recognizing “ideological wars.” His point is not that material interests disappear, but that they cannot exhaust the meaning or momentum of international conflict.

The review’s second movement tests this insight against Japanese expansionism. Lederer finds MacNair’s presentation of the Japanese outlook valuable, while arguing that its political consequences require stronger emphasis.

Perhaps it should have been more emphasized that a political system in which pride, prestige, and unlimited ambitions are the main motives is nervous and unbalanced.

For Lederer, such a system defeats the premise of appeasement: delaying Japan’s pursuit of its ultimate goals would increase its determination and daring rather than moderate its ambitions. He consequently challenges MacNair’s apparent willingness to credit Japanese forces seeking a “sensible” policy. Their possible existence is less important than their necessary powerlessness within the political system. The review’s distinctive contribution lies in this shift from ideological explanation to structural diagnosis: understanding ambitions also means asking whether a regime permits effective restraint.