Cai Sheng: Reconstructing the Discourse System for the Main Eastern Theater [1] within the Horizon of Global History
Comrade Mao Zedong profoundly pointed out: "The great Chinese War of Resistance is not only the affair of China and the East, but also the affair of the world." China's War of Resistance made indelible contributions to the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. However, as the historian Rana Mitter has recognized, the Chinese battlefield is often treated as a secondary theater in mainstream narratives. This requires us to break free from the shackles of Western-centrism and determine the historical coordinates of the Chinese battlefield from the perspective of global history.
From Fragmentation to a Complete Timeline
Western narratives of World War II history typically take Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 as the starting point, excluding the early period of the Chinese theater and viewing it merely as an adjunct to the Pacific theater. This narrative mode fragments the continuity of the global expansion of fascist forces and diminishes the character of the Chinese War of Resistance as a protracted struggle. In fact, from the September 18th Incident [1] in 1931 to the Japanese surrender in 1945, the Chinese battlefield was the only main battlefield that persisted throughout the entire World Anti-Fascist War.
The global historical outlook emphasizes examining historical processes from an integrated perspective. Japan’s occupation of Northeast China, along with Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia and Germany’s annexation of Austria, constituted key links in the global expansion of the Axis powers. Therefore, the 1931 September 18th Incident should be regarded as the starting point of World War II, placing the Chinese battlefield within the historical context of fascist expansion and global resistance. The tenacious resistance on the Chinese battlefield forced Japan into a long war of attrition, delayed its alliance-building process with Germany and Italy, and bought precious strategic preparation time for the World Anti-Fascist Alliance.
China’s War of Resistance can be divided into three stages of strategic value: The first stage was the "Containment of Expansion" (1931–1937). As the beginning of the World Anti-Fascist War, the resistance in Northeast China effectively pinned down the pace of Japanese expansion, consumed its war resources, and obstructed its aggressive plans. The second stage was "Solitary Resistance" (1937–1941). The Chinese battlefield remained the sole theater of the Anti-Fascist War in the East, tying down the main forces of the Japanese Army for a long period and creating favorable conditions for the Soviet Union to avoid a two-front war. The third stage was "Allied Cooperation" (1941–1945). After the outbreak of the Pacific War, the Chinese battlefield, as the Oriental main battlefield, continued to pin down the main forces of the Japanese Army and a large number of naval and air forces, providing powerful support for Allied operations in the Pacific theater.
A complete timeline highlights China's full-process blockade against fascist strategy. The Chinese nation remained unwavering throughout 14 years of resistance, depleting Japanese war resources through protracted war [2] and disrupting the rhythm of fascist expansion. The Chinese battlefield was always an essential component of the World Anti-Fascist War.
From Isolation to a Linked Spatial Network
The Chinese battlefield held a unique strategic position during World War II. Situated at the intersection of the eastern end of the Eurasian continent and the western shore of the Pacific, it was not only the core of the Eastern resistance against Japanese aggression but also a key strategic fulcrum for the Allies’ global anti-fascist strategy. However, Western-centric narratives simplify the Chinese battlefield to the "Far East Theater" or even consider it a "local conflict," severing its connection with the European and Pacific theaters.
From the perspective of global history, the Chinese battlefield was a core node in the global strategic game between the Axis and the Allies, as well as an important strategic fulcrum and rear base for the Allies. First, regarding strategic containment, the Chinese battlefield tied down the Japanese Army for a long period, effectively disintegrating the strategic coordination of the Axis and shattering the plot of Germany, Italy, and Japan to carve up the globe. The fact that the main forces of the Japanese Army were deeply mired in the Chinese battlefield for so long meant Japan was unable to respond to Germany's plan for a "pincer attack on the Soviet Union from East and West," and was forced to repeatedly delay its "Southern Advance" plan, ensuring the smooth implementation of the Allies’ "Europe First" strategy. The Japanese General Staff Office discussed withdrawing troops from China to support other battlefields on several occasions, but all such attempts were abandoned due to the continuous pressure from the Chinese battlefield.
Second, regarding cross-theater collaboration, the Chinese battlefield formed close strategic coordination with other theaters. In the Southeast Asian theater, the Chinese Expeditionary Force entered Burma in 1942 to fight, defending the Yunnan-Burma Road—a vital strategic passage—while powerfully pinning down the main Japanese forces, delaying their attempt and pace to advance west into India, and buying precious time for the British forces to reorganize their defensive lines. Within the Chinese battlefield, the anti-Japanese base areas [3] led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) continued to grow, effectively containing and consuming large numbers of Japanese troops, making it impossible for Japan to redeploy its main forces to reinforce the Pacific theater. This cross-theater collaboration proves that the Chinese battlefield did not exist in isolation but was an indispensable link in the Allies' global strategic chain.
Finally, in terms of material support, China did not become Japan’s "Grand Rear," but instead became an important rear base for Allied operations against Japan in the Asia-Pacific region, providing the Allies with vast amounts of strategic materials and military intelligence. For example, China provided airfields in regions such as Chongqing, Chengdu, and Kunming for Allied operations against Japan and for the offensive against the Japanese home islands. China also exported scarce strategic raw materials, such as tungsten and tung oil, to the United States and the Soviet Union, supporting the military production systems of the Allies.
The spatial downplaying of the Chinese battlefield in Western narratives is essentially a continuation of the colonial view of history. Reconstructing its strategic status requires breaking down prejudices and clearly seeing the connecting role of the Chinese battlefield on the grand map of World War II; it is a strategic bridge connecting a community with a shared future for humanity. From a geostrategy perspective, the Chinese battlefield was both a barrier preventing the Axis powers from joining forces and a bond linking various Allied theaters—a dual strategic value that became increasingly prominent in the later stages of the war.
From Singular to Multidimensional Value Dimensions
As the Oriental main battlefield of the World Anti-Fascist War, the historical value of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression is reflected not only in the dimension of defending national sovereignty but also in multiple contributions, such as promoting the collapse of the colonial system and participating in the construction of the post-war international order. However, Western mainstream narratives often judge the Chinese battlefield only from a military perspective, ignoring its multifaceted contributions.
In the anti-colonial dimension, the Chinese battlefield fundamentally shook the legitimacy of colonial rule. The 14 years of resistance beginning in 1931 not only shattered Japan’s false propaganda of being the "Liberator of Asia" but also established the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial nature of the struggle through programmatic documents such as the "August 1st Declaration" [4] and the "Ten-Point Program for Resisting Japan and Saving the Nation."
In terms of reconstructing the international order, China actively advocated for and promoted the establishment of the World Anti-Fascist United Front. As a major victorious nation, China became a founding member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council. It participated in drafting the Charter of the United Nations, actively engaged in international affairs, and protected the interests of smaller and weaker nations, fully demonstrating the capacity of non-Western countries to participate in international governance. This breakthrough progress stemmed directly from the strategic value demonstrated by the Chinese battlefield.
The successful experience and historical wisdom of the Chinese battlefield present special value at the level of mutual learning among civilizations. The "three-thirds system" [5] of democratic political power implemented in the anti-Japanese base areas, the Anti-Japanese National United Front that united all social strata, and the strategic thinking of On Protracted War formed a complete system of experience in the resistance. These practices not only provided institutional guarantees and strategic guidance for the victory of China's resistance but the wisdom of "the weak defeating the strong" and the spirit of united resistance also became an important model for national independence movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America after the war.
The historical contributions of the Chinese battlefield further establish the important position of the Oriental main battlefield in the narrative of global history. In the anti-colonial struggle, the Chinese battlefield took the lead in breaking the colonial system; in the construction of the international order, China participated in rule-making as an equal; in civilizational exchange, China provided experience for the struggles of smaller nations. This multidimensional re-evaluation of value both corrects the one-sided perceptions of Western-centrism and reveals the complete face of World War II history.
Facing the world's great changes unseen in a century [6], we urgently need to break through the historical narrative framework of Western-centrism and reposition the historical coordinates of the Oriental main battlefield with a broader global vision. This requires us to: first, establish the time coordinate of 1931 as the starting point of the World Anti-Fascist War to restore the original historical face of China’s resistance; second, rebuild the spatial connections between the Chinese battlefield and the global battlefield to highlight its status as a strategic hub; third, construct a value assessment system encompassing military, political, and civilizational dimensions. The 14 years of arduous resistance by the Chinese people not only achieved national liberation but also made an irreplaceable historical contribution to the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. Currently, against the backdrop of profound changes in the global governance system, reinterpreting the historical status of the Oriental main battlefield with a global history perspective is not only an objective restoration of World War II history but also provides an important historical mirror for building a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for humanity. This scholarly effort is both a respect for historical truth and an inspiration for future development.
(The author is a professor at the School of Marxism, Anhui Medical University) Source: Chinese Social Sciences Net - China Social Sciences Today, September 3, 2025 Web Editor: Tongxin