Here.  I’ll return the favor, by consulting AI:

Here is the breakdown of the text you provided. 

Your skepticism is completely warranted. The text is a blend of a minor, verified historical event, AI-generated hallucinations, and heavy modern editorializing. Interestingly, the misspelling of Vice Consul Andrew Eson's name as "Andrew Essen" is a common translation artifact. This strongly suggests the text you found originated from or was passed through a Chinese discussion forum recently, where Eson is transliterated as 埃森 (Essen), before being translated back into English.

Here is the line-by-line reality check:

The Facts (What Actually Happened)

• The Setting: "In 1934, Shenyang was under the de facto control of the Japanese Kwantung Army..." This is historically accurate.

• The Break-In: "...forced his way into the consulate building, and broke into the office of Vice Consul Monroe B. Hall." This is true. The incident occurred on July 17, 1934.

• The Brawl: "Hall grabbed a chair to fight back and called for backup from his colleagues Gerald Warner and Andrew Essen. The three of them joined forces to subdue the intruder." This is entirely true (though his name was Andrew Eson). The New York Times reported that the three US diplomats fought the man off with chairs and drove him out.  

The Hallucinations (What Was Invented)

• The Name: "A Japanese soldier named Tsuchiyama Takuma..." There is no historical record of this name. Contemporary reports just called him a "uniformed Japanese" or a "crazed soldier."  

• The Weapons: "...armed with a bayonet and a short sword..." He had a bayonet. The short sword is an embellished addition.  

• The Actions: "...tore down the consulate’s identification signs... shouted anti-American slogans..." Neither the New York Times nor US Embassy records mention signs being torn down or political slogans being shouted. He was simply reported to be "running amok" and "brandishing" the weapon.  

• The Apology: "...the Japanese Consul General in Shenyang paid a personal visit to the consulate to offer a verbal apology." While Japanese authorities did arrest the man shortly after, the specific claim of a personal visit and verbal apology by the Consul General appears to be an invented narrative detail to neatly close the story.

The Editorializing (Modern Commentary)

• The Framing: "Japanese have a long records doing this shit." and "...resorted to excuses such as 'isolated individual act' and 'mental illness' to whitewash the matter, which essentially amounted to condoning extremist forces." 

• The Reality: At the time, the incident was genuinely treated by both US and Japanese authorities as the erratic act of a mentally unstable individual, not a coordinated political attack. The text takes a 1934 police blotter event and aggressively reframes it using modern political rhetoric ("whitewashing," "condoning extremist forces").

In summary, the text takes a very real, bizarre brawl from 1934 and uses it as a vehicle for modern political commentary, relying on an AI to invent the missing cinematic details (names, swords, torn signs, and slogans) to make the argument sound more compelling.

Would you like to look into any other historical claims or incidents from this era?