China's Resistance War from a Global Perspective: An Interview with Professor Rana Mitter of the Harvard Kennedy School
Rana Mitter, a Fellow of the British Academy and Professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a renowned expert in the history of China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. From 2007 to 2013, he directed the "China's War with Japan: History and Memory" project at the University of Oxford. Since 2013, he has served as the Director of the University of Oxford China Centre, which has become one of the authoritative research institutions in Western Sinology. Since 2023, he has held the ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School. His representative work, Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945 (published in the UK as China's War with Japan), garnered widespread attention in Western academic circles and public discourse upon its release.
The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. As a major turning point in modern Chinese history, the War of Resistance was both a critical historical period for the Chinese people’s opposition to foreign aggression and a key stage of Chinese social and political transformation. It not only altered the domestic political landscape but also had a profound impact on the national identity and national spirit of the Chinese people, as well as their relationship with the outside world. Looking back at the struggles and revolutions since the dawn of modern China [1] at this commemorative juncture is a way to honor history and an aid to deeper understanding of the political, social, and cultural transitions within China’s modernization process. Clarifying the profound significance of the victory in the War of Resistance for China’s history and present reality from a global perspective is of great value for the academic community to deepen related research. To this end, we conducted an exclusive interview with Professor Rana Mitter, Fellow of the British Academy, Professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, and distinguished historian.
I. The War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the Leading Position of the Communist Party of China
▲ (Interviewer, hereinafter same): Professor Mitter, hello! Thank you for accepting our interview. How do you view the historical status of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression? Compared to other theaters during the Second World War, what was the uniqueness and importance of the Chinese theater?
● (Interviewee, hereinafter same): I have always maintained that the Chinese theater of World War II—what Chinese historians call the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression—is the most important yet most easily overlooked part of the global anti-fascist war by the West. Regrettably, even today, Western understanding of this period of history remains far from sufficient.
For over half a century, the Western understanding of the Second World War has failed to provide an objective evaluation and positioning of China's role. The significance of the Chinese theater has been severely underestimated, which, in my view, is unjustified. In reality, China was not only a major participant in the global anti-fascist war but also the nation that stood up earliest to resist the Axis powers during the most difficult times. China made an extremely significant contribution to the victory of the global anti-fascist alliance, a point that the entire world should recognize more clearly.
First, the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression made a major contribution to the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War.
After the July 7th Incident [2] in 1937, full-scale war broke out between China and Japan. In the early stages of the war, many Western observers believed China would quickly suffer defeat or even surrender, but the subsequent facts completely defied their expectations. The Chinese military, including ordinary civilians, demonstrated immense courage and resilience, resolutely refusing to bow to the aggressors. Particularly as the war entered 1938, China continued to fight alone, stubbornly resisting the Japanese military's offensive, and maintained this unyielding struggle until the victory of the War of Resistance in 1945. Why is this so important? We can imagine: if China had chosen to compromise in 1938 and signed an armistice with Japan, what would the consequences have been? It is almost certain that the consequences would have been catastrophic: Japan would have further invaded Southeast Asia, the Soviet Far East, and even British India. But none of this happened precisely because the Chinese theater pinned down huge numbers of Japanese troops, buying precious time and strategic space for Britain and the United States to later join the war. It can be said that without China's perseverance at that time, it would have been difficult for the subsequent global anti-fascist alliance to form, and the development of the war might have been completely different. This concerns more than just China's history; it might even have rewritten the fate of all of Asia and the world. Therefore, I believe the most important thing is to remember that the Chinese theater was always a core part of the overall situation.
Second, we must also affirm that China was the earliest nation to stand up and resist fascist aggression; there should be no controversy on this point. In the mainstream discourse of traditional Western historiography, the Second World War began with the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and ended with the American dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945. But we know that China's full-scale resistance had already broken out as early as 1937. If we trace back further, from the September 18th Incident [3] in 1931, the Communist Party of China was already leading anti-Japanese guerrilla warfare in the Northeast. Before the Pearl Harbor incident in 1941, the Chinese military fought alone, resisting highly militarized, elite Japanese units. Furthermore, it is worth noting that within the overall force deployment of the Allied powers, China's strategic position was also extremely important and unique. The Chinese military actually bore the heavy responsibility of fighting on multiple fronts: in addition to resisting the Japanese on the front lines [4] and in the enemy's rear [5], they also coordinated with Allied forces in western Yunnan and northern Burma. China's losses were catastrophic, and its contributions were immense.
I can say with certainty that the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression played a vital role in the global history of the Second World War. However, Western understanding of this history has long been insufficient. If we truly want to comprehensively understand the history of the Second World War, we cannot ignore the core status of the Chinese theater.
▲: You just mentioned that China's sustained resistance during the war made the Chinese theater a key locus of the Second World War. Under what strategic guidelines was the Chinese people's courageous resistance conducted?
●: The Communist Party of China (CPC) proposed the general strategic guideline of "protracted war" in the early stages of the resistance. In May 1938, Mao Zedong wrote On Protracted War, clearly setting forth the guideline of striving for final victory through a protracted war of resistance. This document is still regarded today as one of the most important works of strategic theory worldwide. In China, students in military academies and various schools are required to study this text; in the West, many people are also interested in it, and its ideas are passed through word of mouth—especially among those with military training who hope to gain a deeper understanding of guerrilla warfare. It has even been widely disseminated in regions like South America and Africa. This is because it discusses more than just China’s War of Resistance; more importantly, it demonstrates a type of warfare—how to respond to an enemy much stronger than yourself. In such circumstances, you must overcome layer upon layer of hardship.
Regarding the situation after 1938, I believe—to be frank—that Japan at that time possessed strong military power, economic strength, and political organizational capacity. Both the CPC and the Chinese Kuomintang [6] (KMT) recognized that it would be difficult for China to defeat Japan in the short term relying on its own strength alone; it was necessary to strive as much as possible for international aid and to unite with external forces for joint operations. In the early stages of the war, the Soviet Union provided loans and military supplies to China, and dispatched Soviet Volunteer Groups to fight side-by-side with the Chinese Air Force. After the outbreak of the Pacific War, in addition to material support, the United States maintained close military cooperation with China to fight Japan jointly. However, taken as a whole, China had to rely on its own strength to formulate a response strategy and carry out a sustained struggle. In this context, the thought of protracted war proposed by Mao Zedong was the correct response based on a profound grasp of the international and domestic situations at the time.
Why was Mao Zedong able to accurately grasp the wartime situation and make precise strategic judgments? I believe the reasons are multifaceted. First, Mao Zedong himself possessed high theoretical literacy in military strategy. He clearly realized that with the troops and resources China controlled at the time, it was difficult to defeat the Japanese military in conventional frontal warfare. Second, his strategic thinking was not confined to the military sphere from the very beginning. His overarching goal was not just to win the war, but also to realize a more profound social transformation. In this sense, he likely believed that the war could strengthen the people's consciousness of nationalism, and as part of that consciousness, people would collectively consider how to change their social conditions. Therefore, protracted war was not only a method of struggle against the enemy but also created the conditions for a future social revolution. In other words, war often forces people to make more fundamental political choices, and the extreme environment of war makes it easier for the people to generate doubt and reflection regarding the old social order. On this point, the research of the American scholar Chalmers Johnson is very enlightening. He proposed that the development of nationalism in the Chinese countryside provided the mass base for the CPC to seize power. Although some Western historians have raised questions about this in recent years, arguing that social reform and broader agricultural policies also played key roles, overall, Johnson’s judgment remains valid: the concept that the people themselves—and indeed the nation—were in crisis created the conditions for the growth of revolutionary forces and the occurrence of the communist revolution.
At the same time, it should be noted that this understanding of the situation during this stage did not mean the Chinese military took no proactive action. In fact, both the KMT military and the anti-Japanese armed forces led by the CPC launched multiple counter-offensives during this phase. For example, the Winter Offensive of late 1939 to early 1940 was a proactive strike. On the CPC side, although they mainly relied on guerrilla warfare, they also employed more comprehensive combat methods in certain regions. Overall, China's resistance was not a passive response, but an active search for opportunities under different conditions, demonstrating strong strategic resolve and flexible tactical methods.
▲: How did the Communist Party of China advance the process of the Chinese Revolution during the War of Resistance?
●: This is a question of profound historical significance. I believe Western scholars would also agree with my judgment: the period of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression was the key turning point for the final victory of the Chinese Revolution led by the Communist Party of China.
Before the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937, the CPC had just completed the famous Long March. Although they had to some extent reversed an unfavorable situation, their overall strength remained very weak. From the perspective of the conditions at the time, the CPC faced immense difficulties in continuing to advance the revolution. With the outbreak of the July 7th Incident and Japan’s launch of a full-scale war of aggression against China, the threat caused by Japanese aggression far exceeded the contradictions between domestic political parties. The national crisis became the overriding theme, which promoted the formal formation of the Chinese United Front Against Japanese Aggression [7].
The establishment of the United Front signified that China’s two great political forces—the Communist Party and the Kuomintang—set aside conflict to confront the greater threat of Japanese aggression. This meant that, under these circumstances, the overall goal of resisting foreign invasion was more important to both parties than their political differences. The formation of the United Front was significant for the CPC in two ways: on the one hand, it enabled the Party and the People's Army to concentrate their strength against the enemy; on the other hand, it provided the conditions for the CPC to extensively mobilize the masses. In the exceptionally arduous struggle, the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army under the leadership of the CPC grew and expanded rapidly, becoming vital forces in the Chinese people's resistance.
This war also played a major role in pushing forward the exploration of the political line and policies of the Chinese Revolution. For example, the well-known "three-thirds system" [8] of government structure was gradually formed and perfected during the Yan'an period. In rural areas, experiments to improve peasants' lives, such as rent and interest reduction and tax reforms, were gradually rolled out, accumulating experience for greater social transformations later on. Another example is the normalization of cadre education within the Party, represented by the Yan'an Rectification Movement, which unfolded against the backdrop of the war. During that time, Mao Zedong's leadership position was gradually consolidated, and the Party's ideology was further unified. Among the 22 documents designated for study by the entire Party at that time, seven were Mao Zedong's personal works and others were Central Committee documents drafted by him, totaling more than half; this reflects Mao Zedong's core role in the theoretical construction of the CPC.
Therefore, during the War of Resistance, the CPC was not only able to grow and expand, but more importantly, it had the opportunity to further explore a revolutionary path suited to China's national conditions, thereby promoting the Party's maturity in military, ideological, organizational, and policy aspects.
II. Social Mobilization and State-Building During the War of Resistance
▲: How do you view and evaluate the social mobilization of the masses by the Communist Party of China during the War of Resistance?
● The ultimate success of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was due in large part to its realization of a key objective: launching a large-scale peasant movement across China’s vast rural areas. To be frank, at that time, neither the CPC nor the Kuomintang (KMT) had truly succeeded in inciting a broad, grassroots revolutionary wave within the cities. However, in the countryside, the CPC carved out an effective path.
We often credit this success to Mao Zedong, which is certainly correct. Nevertheless, we should not forget that other CPC leaders in the Party’s earlier explorations also made great contributions—for instance, Peng Pai, Li Lisan, and Qu Qiubai [9]. They played roles that cannot be ignored in promoting peasant revolution and developing rural mobilization strategies. Their experience and methods were built upon a deep understanding of Chinese rural society. Mao Zedong’s Report from Xunwu [10] is a very classic example. Before this, Mao had also written the Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan in 1927, which was equally pioneering. Report from Xunwu was even more systematic and detailed; in today's terms, it was a sociological "field study" that revealed every facet of a county-level society, from its economic structure to its class relations. This profound insight into China’s grassroots social structure provided a solid theoretical and practical foundation for the CPC to launch a revolution in the countryside. Through these investigations, Mao Zedong and other CPC leaders gradually clarified which classes were most likely to become the reliable forces of the revolution and how to use class analysis to organize and mobilize the masses. These understandings were continuously deepened in practice, eventually constructing the CPC’s unique revolutionary path of "encircling the cities from the countryside and seizing political power by armed force."
More importantly, this revolutionary strategy was not just a theoretical model; it was an entire system that combined Leninist modes of political organization, sophisticated social analysis, effective propaganda strategies, and powerful grassroots mobilization. It was the organic integration of this series of elements that formed the solid foundation for the CPC to mobilize the people extensively in the countryside and accumulate revolutionary strength, becoming the decisive condition for the final seizure of national power.
▲ In what ways did the struggle during the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression embody the CPC’s thought on People’s War?
● The CPC creatively applied the thought of People’s War, using it as a vital weapon to coalesce the masses, advance the resistance, and unify thinking. In the context of modern warfare, especially total war, mobilizing the broad masses of the people carries immense strategic significance.
The practice of introducing political workers into the military system to carry out extensive work among the masses was not a CPC invention but was influenced by the Soviet Union. One could say that parts of the People’s War thought—particularly regarding the integration of political work with military practice—drew on early Bolshevik theory and the Soviet experience during the Civil War from 1917 to 1922. In the early stages of the War of Resistance, when much of the national territory was occupied by enemy forces and traditional frontal battlefield operations were difficult to sustain, these theories and experiences provided important inspiration for the CPC on how to persist in the resistance under extremely difficult conditions.
As I mentioned previously, guerrilla warfare is the most prominent military form within the thought of People’s War. There is a common Chinese saying, "becoming one with each other" (dacheng yipian [11]), which refers to the deep integration and inseparability of political cadres and the masses. In fact, both of the primary resistance forces in China at the time—the Communists and the KMT—conducted guerrilla warfare, but guerrilla war occupied a much more central position in the CPC’s strategic system. For the CPC, guerrilla warfare was crucial because it could continuously harass and weaken the enemy. As Mao Zedong said: "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue." This reflected the fact that this was a People’s War that would require a long duration. The invention of these guerrilla tactics also drew on the experience of early struggles such as the 1927 Autumn Harvest Uprising in Hunan, as well as traditional Chinese military wisdom, such as the ideas in Sun Tzu’s Art of War. While guerrilla warfare might not defeat the enemy immediately, as Mao Zedong put it, "a single spark can start a prairie fire" [12]; it can effectively pin down and disrupt enemy deployments, creating the conditions for the accumulation of strategic initiative.
In a sense, the CPC was more effective than the KMT in organizing guerrilla warfare. The CPC’s troops were more stringent in political training and discipline building, which was vital for winning the trust of the masses. Comparatively, the KMT military suffered heavy losses in the early stages of the war, leading to a shortage of manpower later on, with many soldiers lacking combat experience. The KMT also tried to organize guerrilla warfare in some regions, partly to ease their logistical burden by having troops forage for supplies directly from the countryside. However, due to a lack of strong political organization and disciplinary constraints, some KMT units harassed the local populace, which severely damaged their image and their mass base. By contrast, the CPC military, relying on strict political discipline, clear organizational principles, and an in-depth mass line, won broad support from the people. This is a concentrated expression of the thought of People’s War and became one of the important reasons the CPC achieved final victory.
▲ Are you aware of the costs the Chinese people paid to achieve victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression?
● This is an extremely important question. For a long time, China’s important status and enormous contribution to the World Anti-Fascist War have often been overlooked in Western countries. One of the goals of my research is to reveal historical facts that were not fully presented in the past, restore the truth of history, and allow the West to truly realize the tragic price China paid and the fearless sacrifice and active responsibility it demonstrated in achieving victory.
This war brought profound disaster to China. According to my knowledge, the Chinese people sacrificed between 15 million and 20 million lives for the victory, and between 80 million and 100 million people were displaced. By the time of victory in 1945, the Chinese economy was on the brink of collapse. I have consulted a large number of United Nations archives, which clearly show that post-war China was a scene of devastation, with a thousand things waiting to be done. To understand China’s positioning in the new post-war international order, one must recognize the massive sacrifices it made during World War II. Among Asian nations, China’s experience and contributions were unique.
By 1945, China’s infrastructure was almost entirely destroyed. Since the late Qing Dynasty, China’s industrialization process had progressed slowly; although there was some development in various aspects during the 1920s and 30s, it was quite limited, restricted to a few cities like Shanghai and not covering the whole country. Even these limited achievements were hit hard during the war. Due to frequent Japanese air raids, factory equipment was difficult to maintain or operate under extreme wartime conditions, even if it wasn't directly destroyed. After the fall of Shanghai in 1937, the Japanese stopped bombing the city, and some industrial facilities managed to persist with difficulty, but shortages of raw materials and lack of repair capacity rendered many factories essentially useless. Hinterland cities like Chongqing undertook a large amount of military production, but Japan’s strategic bombing, the instability of parts supplies, and the scarcity of energy and equipment made continuous production extremely difficult. Not to mention that China’s railways and highways were still in the early stages of construction; the war destroyed a vast amount of infrastructure, and many places had to be rebuilt from scratch after the war.
Furthermore, during the War of Resistance, many of China’s rivers were mined to block enemy ships, which brought water transport to a standstill. Agricultural land, transportation systems, and industrial production lines were either destroyed or lost their operational capacity. China in 1945 was either a landscape of ruins or superficially intact but completely stalled, suffering from an extreme lack of petroleum and chemical raw materials; even basic equipment could hardly be maintained.
After the war, the Nationalist government attempted to restore China’s industrial base but was limited by a severe lack of funds. The subsequent outbreak of the civil war further delayed economic recovery. After the CPC took power in 1949, they began to reconstruct infrastructure and national industry more systematically. Mao Zedong’s two visits to the Soviet Union after the founding of the People's Republic were partly motivated by an urgent need for financial and technical assistance. The aid provided by the Soviet Union laid the initial foundation for China’s industrial takeoff in the 1950s.
▲ How did the War of Resistance influence China’s modernization process?
● In a sense, the War of Resistance forced Chinese political forces to respond to a series of core questions regarding modernization.
In terms of technology and production, the pressure of war forced Chinese scientists to find ways to manufacture weapons, chemicals, and other basic industrial products themselves under conditions of extreme resource scarcity. This practice of "self-reliance" was an early manifestation of the later ideology of self-reliance. Because external aid channels were limited, wartime China was forced to explore the maximum utilization of local resources, which to some extent promoted the formation of indigenous scientific and technological capabilities.
From an ideological level, the War of Resistance largely pushed forward the modernization of the concept of the state. The war reinforced the idea that the state is not just a political community but should actively intervene in, organize, and serve all aspects of social life. Take women’s healthcare as an example: whether in Communist or KMT-controlled areas, this issue received unprecedented attention during the war, reflecting the state’s increasing emphasis on public health.
At the level of political institutions, the wartime period also witnessed the embryonic forms of modern political structures. For example, today’s Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) can trace its origins back to the efforts made by the CPC, KMT, and democratic parties around the time of the victory of the War of Resistance to seek new modes of cooperation. The concept of this "consultative politics" took initial shape during those explorations and was further developed and institutionalized under the leadership of the CPC after the war.
In summary, the War of Resistance was a struggle for survival by the entire nation, and the wartime period also became a critical era for the construction of the modern Chinese state and the evolution of its ideology and political institutions. Many of the institutional and policy arrangements made after the founding of the People's Republic in 1949 often have ideological roots and practical experiences that can be traced back to the complex environment of the war. Therefore, one can say that the War of Resistance period laid an important foundation for China’s subsequent path toward modernization.
III. The Preservation of History and Academic Research on the War of Resistance
▲ What limitations do you think exist in the understanding of the history of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression among Western academia or the Western public?
● The Western public, and even many scholars, know very little about the historical details of China’s resistance. Even among Westerners who consider themselves well-versed in the history of World War II, the vast majority are unfamiliar with China’s experience. People in every country view World War II from their own perspective. For example, to the British, WWII is the Dunkirk evacuation, the Normandy landings, or the Battle of El Alamein; to Americans, it is the Battle of Guadalcanal, Midway, or Iwo Jima in the Pacific theater; Germany and other European countries all have their own memories. Meanwhile, key battles very famous in China—such as the Battle of Taierzhuang, the Battle of Changsha, or the Hundred Regiments Offensive—are known by very few people outside of China. It can be said that China’s experience in World War II failed to enter the Western mainstream memory.
The root of this historical aphasia lies in the formation of the Cold War structure after World War II. After 1949, the newly founded People’s Republic of China was framed in the Western Cold War context as "Red China"—an ideologically opposed "Other." Meanwhile, as Japan was an ally of the West during the Cold War, its history of aggression was selectively forgotten or downplayed. Based on the need to cultivate Japan as an ally against the Soviet Union and China, the United States consciously shaped Japan as part of the "democratic camp." Therefore, the history of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance was not naturally "forgotten," but was marginalized, obscured, and even deliberately downplayed under the dual influence of the Cold War system and geopolitics. This still profoundly affects the Western society's understanding of China’s role and contribution in World War II.
▲ Where do you think academic gaps still exist in the research on the history of the War of Resistance?
●: In many respects. I believe that there remain a vast number of academic lacunae in the study of the history of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. If we are to speak of fields requiring in-depth study, the social history of the war period is undoubtedly a key direction. We still need more fieldwork and solid research to understand how the war shaped Chinese society, particularly the daily lives of ordinary people, changes in social structures, and the shifts in the roles of women—issues that are currently still insufficiently explored. Furthermore, there is an important research direction involving the comparison of governance methods among different political forces during the war, including how the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Nationalist Government, and the Wang Jingwei puppet regime [13] governed the populace and organized resources in different regions. Some preliminary research exists on these issues, but it is far from exhausted. At present, studies of the War of Resistance remain most concentrated in military and political history, especially within Chinese academic circles. However, even in these fields, there remains a massive amount of under-utilized material and topics.
▲: How do you view China’s current work in preserving, researching, and utilizing archives related to the War of Resistance?
●: Over the past thirty or forty years, the work of Chinese scholars at major universities across China (such as Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chongqing, etc.) has demonstrated how vital it is for archives across the country to open their materials. The opening of these archives has enabled Chinese historians to write a complete and detailed history of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. Without the sustained efforts of our Chinese colleagues, it would be difficult for those of us working overseas to achieve the research results we have today. I am very grateful for several of their major works; these studies laid the foundation for the establishment of this academic field. Any serious Western scholar researching this period of history should conscientiously reference the relevant materials and interpretations provided by Chinese scholars.
I believe the primary direction for future improvement is to strengthen the degree of archival openness and the level of digitization, making more materials available for consultation, more open, and more convenient for research. In major archives in the UK or the US, you don't even need to go there in person; everything has been digitized. What I want to say is that ensuring Chinese and foreign scholars have the most convenient access possible to historical materials is the best way to let the world know more about China's contribution to the Second World War. Both foreign and Chinese scholars want to tell this story well, and to tell it well, one must have historical sources. If China can further advance the opening of archives, telling the story of China's War of Resistance will become easier. All scholars engaged in War of Resistance studies are eagerly looking forward to this.
▲: Over the years, you have collaborated with many Chinese scholars and institutions. May I ask how transnational collaborative research related to the War of Resistance is progressing? What more can be done to encourage cooperation?
●: Transnational research on the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression has developed steadily over the past 20 years, but I still believe we need to do more. A concerning trend is that fewer and fewer young people in the West are entering this field of study. The number of young people learning Chinese, pursuing PhDs, and eventually joining this academic field is decreasing. I am very worried that in a few years, there will be no young people in the West researching this subject. In contrast, in China, many young people are engaged in this research. But the most crucial point is that there should be more interaction between the two sides. What we need to do is ensure that researchers in China, the US, Europe, Japan, and across the broader world can maintain continuous communication and cooperation. The most active period for transnational research was probably 10 to 15 years ago, when the links between all regions were quite close.
Regarding what more we can do to promote cooperation, I believe there should be more mechanisms and platforms for holding conferences and carrying out joint research projects. But more importantly, we must encourage scholars to ask genuine questions. The critical work regarding the study of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression has been completed by historians, particularly those in Nanjing, Chongqing, and Beijing; of course, overseas scholars have also played an important role in understanding and disseminating this history. To truly do this work well, we must be able to conduct candid and open discussions regarding this history.
▲: In recent years, China has committed itself to telling a more complete story of the War of Resistance, and the narrative of the war has become increasingly rich.
●: Yes, I believe this is one of the most important changes in the domestic Chinese interpretation of the history of the war. Looking back at the narratives of the 1950s and 60s and comparing them with research from the past thirty or forty years, we can clearly see an expansion of horizons. The vast majority of early research focused on the CPC and its role in the war, whereas today, writing on this history is more diverse in both theme and perspective, including investigations into the CPC, the Chinese Kuomintang (KMT), foreign allies, and various aspects of society, politics, and culture during the war. This reflects a broader research perspective and more diverse methodologies among scholars, while also signaling that War of Resistance studies are entering a deeper, more systematized new stage.
I will focus on the excavation of the KMT’s role and contributions during the war. Many famous battles on the frontal battlefield [14], such as the Battle of Shanghai, the Battle of Xuzhou, and the Battle of Changsha, were commanded by KMT forces. Of course, the Communists likewise had outstanding performances, such as the Hundred Regiments Offensive commanded by Peng Dehuai. But if we ignore the KMT’s sustained combat and enormous sacrifices on the frontal battlefield, we cannot fully understand China's War of Resistance. This expansion of recognition is reflected in important historical materials such as The Frontal Battlefield of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression edited by the Second Historical Archives of China, which systematically presents the combat situation of the KMT military and has allowed figures like Chi Fengcheng [15] in the Battle of Taierzhuang to re-enter the historical field of vision. This trend of incorporating different political forces into the narrative of the War of Resistance not only enriches China's own narrative but also allows us to more completely understand the war as a nationwide war of national liberation, within which national consciousness and social mobilization capacity were formed and accumulated.
IV. National Identity, International Image, and Global Narrative
▲: In terms of ideological concepts, what kind of influence do you believe the War of Resistance had on China?
●: I believe a very important point regarding the period of the War of Resistance is that, at a major historical juncture concerning the life or death of the nation, partisan differences were relegated to a secondary position, and the Chinese people demonstrated a powerful cohesiveness in uniting to resist the common enemy. During the war, different regions of China fell under different political systems, with the Great Rear [16] controlled by the Nanjing Nationalist Government, while Yan’an and other base areas were led by the CPC. But at that time, these political differences were placed in a secondary position, and the historical mission of establishing the Anti-Japanese National United Front to jointly resist foreign invasion rose to the primary position.
Even today, this point remains of great significance. If you observe the current commemorations of the war’s history across China, you will find that although the emphasis varies, they collectively manifest a respect for and inheritance of this spirit. Yan’an preserves the wartime revolutionary sites of Mao Zedong and other CPC leaders, becoming an important stop for "Red Tourism" [17]; Chongqing remembers the suffering and tenacity experienced as the wartime provisional capital through the site of the Great Bombing of Chongqing; the Sihang Warehouse War of Resistance Memorial Hall in Shanghai and the film The Eight Hundred together reproduce the dogged resistance of the Battle of Shanghai; and Nanjing, through the Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders, reminds people never to forget history. These commemorative venues show both the diversity of local memories and their complementarity—together they speak to a grander historical theme: the sacrifices and struggles made by the entire Chinese people for national independence and survival. This common memory, which transcends party and region, shapes a foundation for national identity that goes beyond specific regimes and still shapes China's contemporary understanding of the values of national unity and ethnic solidarity.
▲: You once said that Asia still lacks a consensus regarding the Second World War. How did this historical situation come about? What is your view on this?
●: I believe that the experience of the Second World War stimulated diverse localized memories across many countries and regions in Asia. The historical narratives of different countries vary. By contrast, Western Europe gradually developed a relatively unified historical narrative after the war. Countries like France, Germany, and Italy reached a basic consensus on the understanding of Nazism, the role of the Allies, and the postwar order. This unified narrative benefited greatly from the political integration and transnational collaboration of Western European countries in the early postwar period, including the establishment of NATO, the EU, and its predecessor organizations.
In contrast, in Asia, the Cold War arrived quickly; China's connection with the Western world was severed after 1949, while Japan became an ally of the United States. This rupture in the geopolitical landscape hindered postwar transnational dialogue regarding historical memory. Without exchange among historians, students, and political figures, it was difficult to establish a common memory similar to that of Europe. By the time China-Japan relations gradually normalized in the 1970s, nearly 30 years had passed since the end of the war, and the optimal window for forming a "shared memory" had already been missed.
Therefore, Asian countries have yet to form a consistent stance on commemorating the Second World War. China, South Korea, Japan, and even Southeast Asia each have their own war memories and historical narratives. Correspondingly, while Europe's collective memory is not perfect, it played a role in preventing the resurgence of Nazism and stabilizing the international order. Although Japan underwent US occupation and implemented constitutional reforms after the war, thereby avoiding the danger of a resurgence of militarism, a deep-level historical dialogue between China and Japan has always been lacking. Many geopolitical conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region today—from the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan to the Korean Peninsula issue—are actually related to the "unfinished" state of the postwar order after 1945.
From this perspective, commemorating the War of Resistance is not only a look back at history but also a concern for the future. This is a segment of history of paramount importance in the 20th century, and people should remember the lessons brought by this war. But it is also an undeniable fact that Asia still lacks a consensus on how to view this history. Perhaps, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, politicians and scholars in Asia should reflect on and answer this question: Can we gradually form a common understanding and construct a larger space for Asian historical dialogue that neither erases respective local memories nor avoids the establishment of a new historical consensus? In this sense, re-examining this wartime history is for the sake of considering what kind of future we wish to move toward.
▲: How can the history of the Chinese People's War of Resistance be integrated into a broader global narrative? What unique insights or contributions do you think China's experience provides to world history?
●: I believe the Chinese People's War of Resistance holds profound importance. First, if China had not sustained its resistance and had refused to surrender to Japan in the early stages of the war, particularly after 1938, then the entire landscape of the Second World War would have been rewritten. It was precisely because China pinned down Japan for a long period that the Pacific War was able to continue and the Allies were able to join, thereby securing victory in the Second World War.
More importantly, from the perspective of global history, China's war had a deep impact on the world. How a poor agricultural power managed to survive in the face of an opponent far superior in technology, industry, and military strength provided an important reference for other countries and regions. China's wartime experience revealed that the victory or defeat of a war does not depend entirely on technical superiority; it also involves deeper factors such as terrain, population mobilization, social structure, and national will. These experiences were validated again later in the Vietnam War, showing that a country’s capacity for protracted war often transcends the power of weapons and technology themselves.
In addition, the social changes in China during the war of resistance also deserve more attention. Although people's eyes often focus on the history of the battlefield level, in reality, exploration and practice regarding social reform never ceased during the war. Changes in wartime China in fields such as public health, the status of women, social welfare, and civic consciousness provided the intellectual preparation and institutional prototypes for postwar social construction. This is logically consistent with the efforts of the UK, the Soviet Union, the US, and other countries to promote social transformation during the same period. However, knowledge outside China about China's wartime social changes is very limited, and even within China, research in this area has long been neglected. Post-war China's socialist revolution likewise continued and absorbed the concepts of wartime change in many respects. In this sense, the War of Resistance was not only a war concerning the survival of the nation but also an important historical process that stimulated social change and promoted political reshaping.
▲: When your book, Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945, was published, the global situation was relatively optimistic, economic globalization was flourishing, and China-US relations were relatively stable. However, the situation has now changed. Currently, we see trade wars, tensions between China and the US, and a more fractured world. What would you like to say to readers picking up this book today?
●: I wrote this book because I have always believed it is vital to tell the story of this war that took place in China. China, its people, and its political parties did not choose to enter this war, yet they made extraordinary efforts when faced with a sudden invasion. In many cases, this war permanently disrupted their lives and brought years of violent upheaval—this was not their choice, nor was it their fault; nevertheless, they rose to the occasion with immense perseverance, courage, and determination. Even eighty years later, I still believe that this history has not yet received the attention and understanding it deserves within the global narrative of World War II.
Therefore, I hope this book can help the Western world gain a more comprehensive understanding of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and its significance. But I also know that this work is far from finished, and there is still much to be done. I hope people will continue to pay attention to and read this book or other related works to truly and deeply understand this period of history, which has been marginalized in the Western world. For me, this is not only academic research but also a historical responsibility.
Speaking of wartime propaganda, I would like to specifically mention a rather symbolic case. Hollington K. Tong (Dong Xianguang) was one of the National Government's [18] most important officials for external propaganda during the War of Resistance, and in the 1940s, he produced a large number of publications about China's war efforts for the Western market. In the book he edited, China: Seven Years of War, he created a fictional character named "Yu Kangming." The name's meaning alludes to "I fight fate" (Yu Kangming [19]), symbolizing the strong will and indomitable spirit of ordinary Chinese people during the war. Within the international context of that time, the dissemination of such an image was of great significance. This figure was intended to break the Western stereotype of Chinese people as being "meek and submissive" [20], emphasizing the proactive resistance and heroic struggle of the Chinese people during the War of Resistance. Although "Yu Kangming" was fictional, the spirit of resistance he carried on behalf of the Chinese people regarding this war was real and profound.