A Comprehensive Examination of the Positioning of China's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression in Western Discourse

China's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression was a great struggle for national salvation and survival, and also an important component of the World Anti-Fascist War. However, for a long time, Western academia has exhibited systematic bias in its scholarly positioning of the status of China's War of Resistance. Although this situation has gradually changed in recent years (for example, Oxford University Professor Rana Mitter published *China's Forgotten Ally: The Second World War, 1938-1945*, and Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Hans van de Ven proposed “putting the Chinese experience into the concept of World War II”), overall, in terms of the historical status and world significance of China's War of Resistance, there remains bias in Western academia's positioning of it. Therefore, Chinese academia needs to conduct a critical examination based on a comprehensive review of relevant research, and establish a theoretical system for the War of Resistance that seeks global recognition based on Chinese discourse.

中国的抗日战争是中华民族救亡图存的伟大斗争，也是世界反法西斯战争的重要组成部分。然而，长期以来，西方学术界对中国抗战地位的学术定位存在系统性偏差。尽管近年来这种情况已经在逐步改变（如英国牛津大学教授拉纳·米特出版了《中国，被遗忘的盟友：西方人眼中的抗日战争全史》，剑桥大学副校长方德万提出“把中国经验放进二战概念里”），但整体来说，从中国抗战的历史地位和世界意义而论，西方学术界对中国抗战的定位还存在偏差。因此，中国学术界需要在全面梳理相关研究的基础上，进行批判性检视，并建立基于中国话语寻求全球认同的抗战理论体系。

Cognitive Bias in the West Regarding China's War of Resistance

西方对中国抗战的认知偏差

The cognitive bias in Western academia's positioning of China's War of Resistance mainly includes the following four aspects. First, “marginalization of the Eastern battlefield” in global historical narratives. The study of World War II history in Western academia has long followed a “Western-centric perspective”. For example, William Hill believed that “China's struggle, compared to the great battles in Europe, was merely a supporting role”. Gerhard Weinberg argued that although China's resistance pinned down Japanese forces, it did not significantly alter the strategic balance in the Pacific theater. Entering the 21st century, with reflection on Western-centrism, global history perspectives emerged, and a China-centered view was widely used in Western studies of Chinese issues, but the strategic positioning of the “Eastern main battlefield” has still not gained scholarly attention. Although Rana Mitter proposed that China was the “forgotten ally”, he still narrates the Chinese theater within the framework of the “Pacific War”, inadequately assessing the significance of the Chinese theater.

西方学术界对中国抗战定位的认知偏差主要包括以下四方面。一是在全球史叙事中的“东方战场边缘化”。西方学术界的第二次世界大战史研究长期以来遵循“西方中心观”，如威廉·希尔认为“中国的抗争相比于欧洲的伟大战役，只是一个配角”。格哈特·温伯格认为中国的抵抗虽然牵制了日军，但未显著改变太平洋战区的战略平衡。进入21世纪，随着对西方中心观的反思，全球史观兴起，中国中心观也在西方学术界的中国问题研究中广泛运用，但是“东方主战场”的战略定位仍未得到学者的重视。拉纳·米特虽然提出中国是“被遗忘的盟友”，但仍将中国战场置于“太平洋战争”框架下叙述，对中国战场的意义评估不足。

Second, the positioning of China's War of Resistance as a “war of attrition”, weakening its strategic value. For a long time, while Western academia has acknowledged the ferocity and resilience of China's War of Resistance, it has inadequately evaluated China's contribution, with a persistent theoretical tendency to simplify China's War of Resistance as a “war of attrition”. Haseki argued that China's role in defeating Japan was more one of attrition than of strategic victory. In *Shanghai 1937*, Peter Harmsen confers on the Battle of Shanghai the significance of a “model of modern urban warfare”, but limits its strategic value to a battle of attrition that “bought time for Britain and the United States to prepare for war”. Richard Frank of the U.S. Naval War College simplifies the Chinese theater to a “tripwire” that held back the Japanese army. Rana Mitter emphasizes that “although China's resistance to Japan was not an independent decisive military victory, it was crucial in draining vast Japanese military resources, preventing the Japanese military from deploying its full strength to other theaters.” This narrative of indirect contribution not only weakens the strategic value of the Chinese theater, but also reflects Western historiography's cognitive bias regarding the Eastern theater.

二是弱化中国抗战战略价值的“消耗战”定位。长期以来，西方学术界尽管承认中国抗战的惨烈和韧性，但是对中国抗战的贡献评价不充分，长期存在将中国抗战简化为“消耗战”的理论倾向。哈斯基认为中国在击败日本中的作用更多是消耗战，而非战略性胜利。何铭生在《上海1937》中虽赋予淞沪会战“现代城市战典范”的意义，却将其战略价值限定为“为英美争取备战时间”的消耗性战役。美国海军战争学院理查德·弗兰克将中国战场简化为拖住日军的“绊马索”。拉纳·米特强调“尽管中国对日本的抵抗并不是一场独立的决定性军事胜利，但它在消耗日本大量军事资源方面至关重要，阻止了日军将其全部力量投入到其他战区”。这种间接贡献的历史叙事，不仅弱化了中国战场的战略价值，更折射出西方史学界对东方战场的认知偏差。

Third, a lack of holistic understanding of China's War of Resistance, misunderstanding the nature of “people's war”, and neglecting analysis of the internal complexity of China's War of Resistance. Western academia overly focuses on the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, ignoring the social diversity of China's War of Resistance, such as the participation and sacrifice of local governments and ethnic regions. In *The Search for Modern China*, Jonathan Spence, when discussing the War of Resistance, neglects the part where all social strata and political forces fought together. Jonathan Fenby's research on the War of Resistance overlooks the importance of national unity and cooperation throughout the war. Andrew Kennedy, when discussing China's War of Resistance, attributes the nature of China's “people's war” to a political strategy of the Communist Party. Michael Lynch believes that the concept of people's war was tactically necessary for the Communist Party, but it did not fully reflect the mobilization of the entire Chinese people. This perception is a misunderstanding, even a slander or smear, of the image of China's War of Resistance.

三是对中国抗战缺乏整体性认知，误解“人民战争”的性质，忽视对中国抗战内部复杂性的分析。西方学术界过分聚焦于国共两党的关系，忽略了中国抗战的社会多元性，如地方政府、民族地区的参与和牺牲。斯宾塞的《寻找现代中国》在涉及抗战时，忽视了中国各阶层和各个政治力量共同抗战的部分。芬比对中国抗战的研究忽视了整个抗战过程中民族团结与合作的重要性。安德鲁·肯尼迪在论及中国抗战时，将中国抗战的“人民战争”性质归结为共产党的一种政治策略。林奇认为人民战争的概念对于共产党来说是战术上的必要，但它并未完全反映中国全体人民的动员。这种认知是对中国抗战形象的误解，甚至是抹黑或者污蔑。

Fourth, the exaggeration of the role of foreign aid. Allied aid was important for China's War of Resistance, but the autonomy and endurance of China's War of Resistance cannot be erased or downplayed. Foreign aid was important, but not decisive. In *How the Far East Was Lost*, Anthony Kubek constructs a “U.S. aid determinism”, attributing China's victory in the War of Resistance to external factors such as the “Stillwell Road”. John Dower's *War Without Mercy* discusses how U.S. aid changed the situation of China's War of Resistance, but does not fully consider the autonomy of China's War of Resistance and the strategy of protracted warfare. This exaggeration of foreign aid reduces the status and significance of China's War of Resistance.

四是夸大外国援助的作用。盟国的援助对于中国抗战而言作用重要，但中国抗战的自主性和持久性不能被抹杀或淡化。外援是重要的，但并非决定性的。安东尼·库贝克在《远东是如何丢失的》中构建“美援决定论”，将中国抗战胜利归因于“史迪威公路”等外部因素。道尔的《无情的战争》讨论了美国的援助如何改变了中国抗战的局势，然而并未充分考虑中国抗战的自主性和长期抗战的战略性。这种夸大外国援助的论断降低了中国抗战的地位和意义。

Political and Academic Factors Leading to Cognitive Bias

政治与学术因素导致认知偏差

The cognitive bias in Western academia's positioning of China's War of Resistance is not merely a temporary phenomenon; it has deep-seated ideological prejudice, academic theoretical shackles, and selective bias in the acquisition and interpretation of sources.

西方学术界对中国抗战地位的认知偏差，并不仅仅是一种暂时现象，而是具有深刻的意识形态偏见、学术理论桎梏，以及资料获取与解读的选择性偏差等方面的原因。

First, Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice. Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice against Communist China have become important factors for

一是冷战思维与意识形态偏见。冷战思维和对共产主义中国意识形态的偏见，成为部分西方学者不承认中国抗战国际地位的重要因素。拉纳·米特直言不讳地指出，西方对中国在第二次世界大战中的作用了解甚少，部分原因在于冷战初期中国由抗日盟友转变为对立阵营的一员，这使得西方学者在客观研究中国抗战史时面临困难。目前，这种意识形态的偏见仍然根深蒂固地存在于西方学术界，也是中国学术界需要面对的最根本问题。

Second, the theoretical shackles of Western-centrism. The start and development of research on the history of World War II in Western academia are grounded in a Western-centric perspective, placing great emphasis on the European theater and the role of the United States in the Pacific War while consistently disregarding China's War of Resistance. For example, John Keegan, in *The Second World War*, situates China's War of Resistance outside the European and Pacific theaters, calling the China theater "a peripheral battlefield." [1]1 John Keegan (1934–2012) was a prominent British military historian; *The Second World War* (1989) is one of his major works. Moreover, under the influence of John King Fairbank's "impact-response" model, modern China is depicted as passively responding to various shocks, and China's War of Resistance is reduced to a linear narrative of "passively responding to Japanese aggression." Although this situation has been somewhat ameliorated under the influence of global history perspectives, breaking the theoretical shackles of Western-centrism still requires more collaborative international research efforts.

二是西方中心主义的理论桎梏。西方学术界二战史研究的起步和发展立足于西方中心观，高度重视欧洲战场和美国在太平洋战争中的作用，对于中国战场的抗战向来漠视。如约翰·基根在《第二次世界大战》中将中国抗战置于欧洲和太平洋战场之外，认为中国战场是“一个边缘战场”。此外，在费正清的“冲击—反应”模式影响下，近代中国被描述为被动回应各种冲击，中国抗战也被简化为“被动回应日本侵略”的线性叙事。尽管在全球史观的影响下，这种局面已经得到一定程度的改变，但打破西方中心主义的理论桎梏仍需更多国际合作研究的共同推进。

Third, selective bias in the use of research materials, especially archives. When Western scholars initially studied the history of World War II, they concentrated on the use of Western sources, leading to a tendency in their research to emphasize the West and disregard the China theater. With the digitization of Japanese-related documents, Western scholars have shown a tendency in their research to strengthen the narrative weight of the Japanese perspective. This has resulted in an insufficient highlighting of the extent of China's international contribution and its status as the main Eastern battlefield. In the twenty-first century, the opening up of Chinese-language sources, represented by the Harvard-Yenching Institute's *Diaries of Chiang Kai-shek*, has played a certain role in pushing back against this phenomenon. [2]2 The Harvard-Yenching Institute's *Diaries of Chiang Kai-shek* refers to the diaries of the former Chinese leader (1887–1975), held and made accessible by the Harvard-Yenching Library. Thus, Chinese academia can devote more effort to opening, organizing, and digitizing relevant archival materials, thereby changing the passive "voiceless" state of research on China's War of Resistance caused by selective bias in materials.

三是研究资料尤其是档案利用的选择性偏差。西方学者研究二战史，最初集中使用西方资料，其研究表现出强调西方、漠视中国战场的倾向。随着日本相关文献的数据化，西方学者在研究中体现出强化日方视角的叙事权重。这导致中国战场的国际贡献度和东方主战场地位的彰显不足。进入21世纪，以哈佛燕京学社《蒋介石日记》为代表的中文资料的开放，对于改变这一现象有一定的推动作用。由此可见，中国学术界可在相关档案资料的开放、整理和数据化上付出更多努力，改变因为资料选择性偏差而导致的中国抗战研究被动“失声”状态。

Paradigm Shift: From "Other-Shaping" to "Self-Shaping" [3]3 "Other-shaping" (他塑) and "self-shaping" (自塑) are terms contrasting how a subject’s image is formed by external discourse versus formed autonomously.

从“他塑”到“自塑”的范式转型

General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized: "Compared to the historical status and historical significance of the Chinese people's War of Resistance, and compared to this war's impact on the Chinese nation and the world, our research on the War of Resistance is still far from sufficient; we must continue to conduct in-depth and systematic research." [Quoted from Xi's speech.] Chinese academia should fully leverage its own institutional advantages and regional characteristics. By building digital archival projects such as the Document and Data Platform on the War of Resistance and Modern Sino-Japanese Relations, establishing transnational research communities, and fully engaging in academic dialogue with the participation of domestic and foreign scholars, it can create an autonomous knowledge system for the history of the War of Resistance that possesses both historical depth and a global perspective.

习近平总书记强调：“同中国人民抗日战争的历史地位和历史意义相比，同这场战争对中华民族和世界的影响相比，我们的抗战研究还远远不够，要继续进行深入系统的研究。”中国学术界应当充分发挥自身的体制优势和区域特色，通过建设抗日战争与近代中日关系文献数据平台等史料数字化工程，组建跨国研究共同体，充分开展国内外学者共同参与的学术对话，建立兼具历史纵深与全球视野的抗战史自主知识体系。

The struggle for historical discursive power is essentially a contest of civilizational narrative capacity. American scholar Elizabeth J. Perry has pointed out: "For a long time, Chinese research has been in a stage of theoretical input, and has not yet entered a stage of theoretical output." [4]4 Elizabeth J. Perry is an American political scientist and China scholar, currently at Harvard University. Chinese academia must discard simple theoretical followership or even theoretical transplantation, independently explore innovations in research paradigms, and construct an autonomous and interpretively powerful theoretical framework for the study of China's War of Resistance at the international academic level. We might consider taking the "Rejuvenation Paradigm" as an attempt to construct an autonomous discursive system and to "self-shape" China's image. [5]5 The "Rejuvenation Paradigm" (复兴范式) is a proposed analytical framework for studying the War of Resistance from the perspective of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, as put forward by the author. This paradigm adheres to the guidance of Marxist historical materialism, is rooted in traditional Chinese historiography, draws on existing research paradigms from both China and the West, and is grounded in the arduous journey of the Chinese people, led by the Communist Party of China, toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It adopts a long-term historical perspective, a global vision, a China-centered approach, and diverse methods; it emphasizes both grand narrative and respect for micro-level empirical research, thus integrating and coordinating existing paradigms.

历史话语权的争夺本质上是文明叙事能力的较量。美国学者裴宜理指出：“在很长时间内，中国的研究处于‘理论输入阶段’，尚未进入‘理论输出阶段’。”中国学术界需摒弃简单的理论跟随甚至理论移植，自主探索研究范式创新，在国际学术层面上构建中国抗战研究自主的、具有解释力的理论框架。我们不妨将“复兴范式”作为一个建构自主话语体系、“自塑”中国形象的尝试。这一范式坚持马克思主义唯物史观的指导，植根于中国传统史学叙事，借鉴中西方既有研究范式，立足中国共产党领导中国人民实现民族复兴的艰辛历程，采取长程的历史观、全球视野、中国中心、多元方法，既注重宏大叙事，又尊重微观实证，是对既有范式的整合和统筹。

While constructing an autonomous Chinese knowledge system, Chinese academia's history of the War of Resistance needs to actively incorporate the global historiography of anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, and anti-colonialism, and to reveal in all dimensions the paradigmatic significance of China's War of Resistance for the World Anti-Fascist War and for global national liberation movements. When Western scholars begin to acknowledge that "China also became another model, namely, as a non-European nation-state, it successfully championed the idea of anti-imperialism—not only against Japan, but also against Britain," we need to prove to the world even more: the China theater was not only the main Eastern battlefield in geographical space, but also a spiritual high ground that shaped the modern world civilizational order.

中国学术界的抗战史需要在建构中国自主知识体系的同时，积极纳入全球反法西斯、反帝国主义、反殖民主义的史学叙事，全方位揭示中国抗战对世界反法西斯战争、对全球民族解放运动的范式意义。当西方学者开始承认“中国还成为了另一个典范，即作为一个非欧洲的民族国家，它成功地倡导了反帝国主义的理念——这不仅仅针对日本，还包括英国”，我们更需要向世界证明：中国战场不仅是地理空间上的东方主战场，更是塑造现代世界文明秩序的精神高地。

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund General Project "Research on China's War of Resistance in Western Discourse and Its World Significance" (23BDJ074).)

（本文系国家社科基金一般项目“西方话语中的中国抗战及其世界意义研究”（23BDJ074）阶段性成果）

(The author is a professor in the Department of Marxism, Shandong Normal University.)

（作者系山东师范大学马克思主义学部教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心