What's new

What China Means by a 'Correct View' on WW2 History

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
Xi Jinping wants more historical research done — but only on topics that fit the Party’s narrative surrounding the war.



As the August 15 anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II draws near, Chinese President Xi Jinping is determined that China’s role in the war not go unrecognized. On July 30, at a study session of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo focusing on what China calls the “Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression,” Xi called for stepped-up efforts to preserve and study the history of both Japan’s invasion of China and China’s resistance, saying the country needs a national-level plan to coordinate efforts.

Xi’s vision includes more academic research, more collection and organization of historical records, and more publicity (or propaganda) efforts to shape public discourse. In other words, except to see yet more books and TV shows about the war with Japan.

The end goal, as Xi put it, is both to “let history talk” and “use historical facts to speak.” But in Xi’s formulation, which emphasizes a “correct view of history,” it’s clear that the second function – using historical facts to spread Beijing’s message – is the more important one. That’s why Xi singles out three “important topics” for historical focus: The “great significance” of the War of Resistance; the “important status” of China’s War of Resistance in the World Anti-Fascist War (the Chinese government’s preferred name for World War II); and how the central role of the Chinese Communist Party was “the key to victory” in the War of Resistance.

These are not historical questions to be answered, but rather a preferred Party narrative that Xi wants grounded in historical research. Each of these points will be on display when China celebrates the end of World War II with its new national holiday on September 3, and each deserves separate consideration:

The “Great Significance” of the War of Resistance

The war against Japan undoubtedly played a seminal role in shaping modern China as we know it today, both politically and in terms of national identity. The CCP has ensured the influence of the war remains strong by emphasizing it as a touchstone in national discourse.

In last year’s September 3 commemorations, Xi praised the “great national spirit” of the Chinese people, forged during the crucible of the war, for the eventual victory. In some ways, the War of Resistance – China’s first victory after its “century of humiliation,” during which it repeatedly lost battles to foreign armies – marks the beginning of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” what Xi calls the “China dream.” It remains central to CCP discourse today, and thus its “great significance” must be upheld.

The importance of China’s War of Resistance in the World Anti-Fascist War

But in today’s historical narrative, Beijing wants to emphasize the War of Resistance not only as a unique Chinese experience, but as part of the shared global war against fascism. In this way, the CCP wants to remind Western countries that they fought together alongside Japan – and that Japan, on the side of “fascism,” was associated with Nazi Germany.

This is a twist to long-time narratives about the war, and it centers on China’s desire to win global support for its position that Japan should not be allowed to downplay historical atrocities. It’s also closely tied to China’s modern-day anxieties about defense reforms in Japan, which Beijing tries to paint as the beginnings of re-militarization. It’s also something of a retroactive attempt to play up China’s great power status, by rejecting Western narratives (which often gloss over China’s role) and claiming for China a central contribution to the ultimate Allied victory. With China one of the victorious Allies, the war “resurrected China’s status as a big power in the world,” according to Xi.

The CCP as the “Key to Victory”

With the War of Resistance thus portrayed as a period of “great significance” both domestically and internationally, all that remains is for the CCP to claim credit for that victory. For the Party, this may be the single-most important historical task.

Since the time of Mao Zedong, the CCP has promoted a narrative in which its forces lead the resistance against Japan’s invasion, and thus claim responsibility for the ultimate victory. This narrative was crystallized in the Cultural Revolution-era “model operas.” The most famous example is probably The Legend of the Red Lantern, which tells the story of underground Communist operatives working to defy Japanese occupying forces, but it’s Shajiabang (or Shajia Creek) that exemplifies this historical narrative. In the latter, KMT soldiers have surrendered to the Japanese; both sides are hunting the brave CCP soldiers who are carrying on the resistance.

This is exactly the sort of narrative Xi wants to see more of, but its authenticity is questioned by historians. The CCP role, in fact, was limited to guerilla warfare; the major battles between Chinese and Japanese troops involved KMT forces. Toward the end of the war, CCP forces even deliberately held back from actual fighting with the expressed goal of saving their strength for the coming Chinese civil war. (This is not to say that the KMT was completely committed to fighting the Japanese from the very beginning – KMT leader Chiang Kai-shek only agreed to focus his energies on the war with Japan after being kidnapped by one of his own officers in what became known as the Xi’an Incident).

Meanwhile, politicians in Taiwan, as the heirs of the war-era KMT, insist that their forces were the ones who should get the lion’s share of the credit for China’s eventual victory. Taiwan’s own commemorations of the war are designed partially to combat the CCP’s narrative. “China has to understand that it cannot distort the historical fact of the ROC’s predominant role in the triumph in the Second Sino-Japanese War,” CNA paraphrased a Taiwanese defense ministry official as saying in March.

Though the CCP has been more willing to acknowledge the KMT role recently – KMT veterans will be invited to the parade on September 3, for example, and Xi has called for more collaboration with Taiwan on preserving wartime history – it can’t give itself anything less than center stage in the wartime narrative, given how important the War of Resistance is to China’s national identity. To admit that the CCP was not, as Xi called it, “the backbone of the resistance force,” would threaten the Party’s political legitimacy.





Reference: The Diplomat
 
. .
The importance of China’s War of Resistance in the World Anti-Fascist War

But in today’s historical narrative, Beijing wants to emphasize the War of Resistance not only as a unique Chinese experience, but as part of the shared global war against fascism.

But the War of Resistance was indeed part of a global war against fascism. That's why it's called 'World War II'

In this way, the CCP wants to remind Western countries that they fought together alongside Japan – and that Japan, on the side of “fascism,” was associated with Nazi Germany.

But China and the West indeed fought on the same side. That's why they were called 'the Allies'.

It’s also something of a retroactive attempt to play up China’s great power status, by rejecting Western narratives (which often gloss over China’s role) and claiming for China a central contribution to the ultimate Allied victory. With China one of the victorious Allies, the war “resurrected China’s status as a big power in the world,” according to Xi.

But China was indeed central to the Allied role. Otherwise, why was China permitted a UNSC seat?

This is a twist to long-time narratives about the war, and it centers on China’s desire to win global support for its position that Japan should not be allowed to downplay historical atrocities.

I don't understand how any of China's positions are trying to 'twist long-term narratives'. The only way any of the above statements can be disputed is if you push Abe's Japanese revisionist account of history in which Japan was innocent and China was the aggressor. Truly scary and warped.
 
.
But the War of Resistance was indeed part of a global war against fascism. That's why it's called 'World War II'



But China and the West indeed fought on the same side. That's why they were called 'the Allies'.



But China was indeed central to the Allied role. Otherwise, why was China permitted a UNSC seat?



I don't understand how any of China's positions are trying to 'twist long-term narratives'. The only way any of the above statements can be disputed is if you push Abe's Japanese revisionist account of history in which Japan was innocent and China was the aggressor. Truly scary and warped.
Check it out about UNSC: United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The KMT held the seat until 1971. It is safe the say that US, Soviet and other countries considered them ally in WW2.
 
.
I will write an essay on the aspect of forgiveness and forgivingness. I think it is significant and in context to the author of the article. Bear with me, friends. I shall link it here.

Check it out about UNSC: United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The KMT held the seat until 1971. It is safe the say that US, Soviet and other countries considered them ally in WW2.



Forgiveness can be defined as the ‘forswearing of negative affect and judgment by viewing the wrongdoer with compassion and love, in the face of a wrongdoer’s considerable injustice”. Forgivingness is defined as “the disposition to abort one’s anger at persons one takes to have wronged one culpably, by seeing them in the benevolent terms provided by reasons characteristic of forgiving.

Thus forgiveness must be carefully distinguished from forgivingness. Forgivingness is an overall disposition to forgive, a disposition that manifests itself in most circumstances in life. Forgiveness , by contrast, only applies to particular circumstnaces (eg, a particular offense).

Paz, Neto and Mullet (2008) conducted a study that compared Chinese and Western European participants’ willingness to forgive and the researchers hypothesized that willingness to forgive would be more prevalent in Chinese (collectivistic) culture than in the Western European (individualistic) culture. However, this hypothesis, as the researchers noted, was not supported by the data. Between the two samples, the overall level of dispositional forgiveness was similar and, interestingly, acquiescence effects were present. Results showed that Chinese were substantially more unforgiving than the Western European samples.

The researchers also noted in their comparison of lasting resentment among Chinese and Western European participants and they hypothesized that lasting resentment would be lower among the Chinese participants than among the Western European participants. Paz et al (2008) then noted in data analysis that this hypothesis was yet again unsupported. Lasting resentment was higher among the Chinese than among the Western Europeans.

I believe that the results of this study gives an understanding for us in the Chinese political dialectic.



Regards,
@Nihonjin1051




Reference:

Paz, R., Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2008). Forgiveness: A China-Western Europe Comparison. Journal Of Psychology, 142(2), 147-158.
 
.
That is not true.

Mao and Zhou Enlai already thank you for invading China.

Mao say invading China is the best thing to happen to China and tell Japan no need apologize and China should say thank you.

I do not know how much Japanese can ask for.

Everyone should invade and rape Chinese women and be assure Chinese will say thank you. Then "some Chinese" will curse those (KMT) fighting to defend their country.

毛泽东:日本侵华不用道歉 无抗战中共不能夺权_卫视频道_凤凰网

I actually took the time to research that dialogue in Japanese academic journals as well as Chinese academic journals, for the latter, I am subscribed to the Beijing Law Review and Chinese Journal of International Law. Anyways, that dialogue was actually a paraphrase made by Zhou Enlai to the Japanese delegation and was a conciliatory remark in lieu of the 1972 Sino-Japanese Communique, wherein Japan formally recognized The People's Republic of China and endorsed the PRC's inclusion into the family of nations in the United Nations.

One has to differentiate diplomatic conciliatory remarks made in paraphrase from actual direct commentary.

Regards.
 
.
Unfortunately PDF PRC today is completely opposite to what their CPC fathers were for. CPC fathers keep licking up Japan, forgoing war indemnity, forgoing Okinawa, thanking invasion of China.....etc.

I think one has to differentiate ignorance from feigning ignorance. The latter is pertinent in that it may have been the case for China during the 1972 Sino-Japanese Communique. During that time, China did not have the political clout or the industrial / economic capability that it now has, so it was open to 'liberalization'. Fast forward some 40 years, China is no longer the politically weak, and economically disadvantaged nation that it was.

I quote Sun Tzu:

"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate."

I believe the leaders of the CPC still are shrewd as the early leaders. Shrewd.
 
.
.
The Chinese leaders in 1972 were soft on Japan for many reasons.

1. China had been internationally isolated by both superpower camps, and seek Japan's help to integrate into the world both economically and politically.

2. Japan was no longer seen as an existential threat to China. It was clear that Japan no longer has any ambition to colonialize asia nor gain a hegemonic position over asia. Postwar Japan was more than willing to play the role of a junior partner to the US, If that was what it took to regain the trust of the international comnunity.

3. USSR was the main existential threat to China, especially after the 1969 crisis. China needed all the help it can to balance against its northern superpower.

If post coldwar relations between china and japan deteriorated, it is because there was a structural change in geopolitics. The history problem of ww2 was always there, it was just suppressed for good reasons.
 
.
I suspect that CCP/CPC waited to be in the right condition to truly show what they want, which is why China at present is quite "aggressive."
 
.
If China succumbed to the Japanese invasion, Soviets far east would be conquered by Axis. Soviets would not be able to pull off Stalingrad, Kursk, etc. At best Europe would be under Third Reich, at worse, the whole Western hemisphere. Japan would easily have been able to take Australia and India.

After the war, China was offered the Ryukyu Islands and the smallest of Japan's home islands. Chiang Kai-shek turned it down. Big mistake. If we still occupied one of Japan's home islands, there would be permanent peace in East Asia.

The proper narrative is to recognize that China's great sacrifices entitle us to hegemony in East Asia. This is our birthright. Denied for too long. Japan that denies the Potsdam declaration means the war is not over. It resumes, part deux, with CCP as the protagonist not (weak) KMT.
 
.
If Japan could done everything like Germany for WWII, Chinese will not complain Japanese…
It is just because Germany had be liquidated thoroughly after war. Japanese have never felt real pain and still live in the illusion of self superiority. So they scorn to apologize to other Asians that they think are inferior to their Japanese and they once did great cruelty to. Time is our side, a trend will gradually show that the real revenge and liquidation will be massive and thorough forever.
 
Last edited:
.
Don't doubt what Chinese contributions to the Victory of last World War, if not China never be a permanent member of UNSC ... whatever ROC or PRC, there's still a seat for Chinese as Top5.
5103f581gbdd7842cabf3&690.jpg
 
. .
The more one attack and shit on PRC the better. Mao pity USA fuc too little. He offered USA 10 millions PRC women to let them fuc.

PRC and CPC is the most generous and forgiving. You kill them and they will send you their women to let you fuc.

China's Mao Offered to Send 10 Million Women to U.S. in 1973 - Bloomberg


I am getting extremely fed up with your bullshit. Constantly you take jests and offhand remarks By Mao and Zhou out of context to justify your hateful vendatta against the communist.

The "offer" by mao was so absurd so as to make it a jest. Only an idiot would take it seriously.

Your comment about offering Chinese women overseas is offensive and sick. Fcuk you, such comments are not to made lightly and only exposes your rotten core.

With the 70th anniversary of the victory around the corner, ALL Chinese people are proud for what they have achieved and overcame. It doesnt matter if a person is communist or KMT, the victory transcend such partisan divisions. Unfortunately, fcukers like you have to pick and cut at the fabric of Chinese wartime history and actively undermine the CHINESE and allied victory 70 years ago.


BTW, this is in the source you provided:

"Mao concluded the conversation by saying his comments on Chinese females were ``nonsense'' and ``begged the pardon of the women of China.''

You didnt even bother to read your own source properly. Mao was just fcuking around and you know it. Which makes you a liar, going around slandering the Chinese people.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom