Fully Recognizing the Great Contribution of China’s War of Resistance to the World Anti-Fascist War

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. In the history textbooks of many Western countries, this day is recorded as the “official” starting point of the Second World War (hereinafter “World War II”). However, as early as 1987, Richard Overy, a professor of history at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and an expert on World War II studies, put forward a view different from the traditional academic consensus in the West: the true fuse of World War II had already been lit in 1931, when the iron hooves of the Japanese army shattered the tranquility of Northeast China, lifting the curtain on World War II. The Chinese military and civilian population, at the enormous national sacrifice of more than 35 million casualties, sustained the Eastern main battlefield of the World Anti-Fascist War. The Chinese theater long pinned down and resisted the main forces of Japanese militarism, annihilating a total of more than 1.5 million Japanese troops, about 70 percent of Japan’s dead and wounded in World War II, and played a decisive role in its complete destruction. In response to the fact that China’s decisive contribution to World War II has not been fully recognized in international academia, our reporter interviewed Overy.

1939年9月1日，德国入侵波兰。在许多西方国家的历史教科书中，这一天被记载为第二次世界大战（以下简称“二战”）的“官方”起点。然而，英国埃克塞特大学历史学教授、二战史研究专家理查德·奥弗里（Richard Overy）早在1987年就提出了一个与西方学术界传统看法不同的观点：二战的真正导火索，早在1931年就已点燃，日军的铁蹄踏碎中国东北的宁静，揭开了二战的帷幕。中国军民以伤亡3500多万人的巨大民族牺牲支撑起了世界反法西斯战争的东方主战场，中国战场长期牵制和抗击了日本军国主义的主要兵力，共歼灭日军150余万，约占日军在二战中死伤人数的70%，对其彻底覆灭起到了决定性作用。针对中国在二战中的决定性贡献在国际学术界未被充分认知等问题，本报记者采访了奥弗里。

Taking 1931 as the starting point

将1931年作为起点

to see the full picture of World War II

才能看清二战全貌

“Chinese Social Sciences Today”: What prompted you to break from the traditional framework of the Western academic narrative of World War II and trace its starting point to Japan’s occupation of Northeast China in 1931? How has Western historiography responded?

《中国社会科学报》：是什么促使您打破西方学术界二战叙事的传统框架，将二战的起点追溯至1931年日军侵占中国东北？西方历史学界对此有何反应？

Richard Overy: Dating the start of this global war to 1931 has actually been a view I have consistently held for decades. I put forward this view as early as the 1987 edition of my book *The Origins of the Second World War* (now revised to a fifth edition). Over the past 20 years, the development of imperial history and global history studies has profoundly influenced my opinion: World War II must never be seen merely as a European affair, but should be understood as the inevitable result of the frantic expansion of the three emerging empires of the 1930s—Japan, Italy, and Germany—in China, Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe respectively.

理查德·奥弗里：将二战这场全球战争的起点定在1931年，其实是我几十年来一贯秉持的观点。早在1987年出版的《第二次世界大战的起源》（The Origins of the Second World War，现已修订至第五版）一书中，我就提出了这一观点。过去20年来，帝国史和全球史研究的发展深刻影响了我的看法：二战绝不能仅仅被视为欧洲的事务，而应被理解为20世纪30年代的三大新兴帝国——日本、意大利、德国——分别在中国、非洲和中东欧疯狂扩张的必然结果。

This new imperialism directly threatened the global order then dominated by Britain and France, ultimately forcing Britain and France to declare war on Germany, the most dangerous of the three new imperialist powers. But the real beginning of World War II was the Mukden Incident [1]1 The Mukden Incident (September 18, 1931): a staged event used by Japan as a pretext to invade and occupy Northeast China. provoked by Japan on September 18, 1931. This was the first armed challenge to the international geopolitical order since 1919, and a major test for the League of Nations then dominated by Britain and France. When the League of Nations hoped to preserve the international structure through a policy of appeasement, Japan’s expansionist aggression against China did not cease. For this reason, 1931 was a key turning point: a global crisis erupted.

这种新帝国主义直接威胁到当时英国与法国主导的全球秩序，最终迫使英法对三大新帝国主义国家中最危险的德国宣战。但二战的开端其实是1931年9月18日日本挑起的九一八事变。这是自1919年以来，国际地缘政治秩序再次遭受武力挑战，也是对英国与法国主导的国际联盟的重大考验。当国际联盟希望通过绥靖政策保障国际格局存续时，日本对中国的扩张侵略步伐便不再停歇。正因如此，1931年是个关键转折点，一场席卷全球的危机爆发了。

The connivance of Britain and France toward Japan’s aggression against China directly pushed Italy to invade Ethiopia and Germany to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, until Germany’s blitzkrieg against Poland in 1939. By moving the starting point of World War II forward from 1939 to 1931, we can see the full picture of the war: it was the product of the resonance of three crisis zones—East Asia, Africa/the Middle East, and Europe. Many Western scholars now agree with this framework, but critics still insist that World War II was essentially a European war caused by the Treaty of Versailles [2]2 The Treaty of Versailles (1919) ended World War I and imposed harsh terms on Germany, widely seen as a cause of German resentment leading to World War II.—a view that lacks a truly global dimension. As research on the Chinese theater deepens, more and more people realize that 1931 was the starting point of this more-than-decade-long global geopolitical catastrophe.

英国和法国对日本侵略中国的纵容，直接推动了意大利入侵埃塞俄比亚、德国吞并奥地利和捷克斯洛伐克，直至1939年德国闪击波兰。把二战起点从1939年前移至1931年，我们才能看清这场战争的全貌：它是东亚、非洲/中东与欧洲三大危机地带共振的产物。如今已有不少西方学者认同这一框架，但批评者仍坚持认为二战本质上是由《凡尔赛条约》引起的欧洲战争，这种观点缺乏真正的全球维度。随着对中国战场的研究不断深入，越来越多的人意识到：1931年才是这场长达十几年的全球地缘政治灾难的起点。

The sustained resistance of the Chinese theater

中国战场的持久抵抗

made a major strategic contribution

作出重大战略贡献

“Chinese Social Sciences Today”: Have you noticed that the global literature on World War II underestimates the importance of the Chinese theater? If such a phenomenon exists, what might be the reasons?

《中国社会科学报》：您是否注意到全球二战文献对中国战场重要贡献的低估？如果存在这种现象，原因可能是什么？

Richard Overy: It is indeed the case that many conventional histories of China’s War of Resistance downplay the importance of this war. I think the core problem is that the English-speaking world has long lacked detailed research on the Sino-Japanese war. Although some relevant English-language works have appeared in recent years, only by translating and introducing the research findings of Chinese historiography to the West can Western historiography engage in a genuine dialogue with Chinese historiography on these issues. Similarly, due to language barriers, very few Western scholars have consulted Japan’s official war history archives. Another reason Western scholars have not effectively studied China’s War of Resistance may be the temporal and spatial span of the war: researchers must be proficient in Chinese geography to identify the key turning points, whereas the narrative of the European theater is relatively concise.

理查德·奥弗里：确实如此，许多关于中国抗战的常规史书都淡化了这场战争的重要性。我认为核心问题在于，英语世界长期缺乏对中日战事的细致研究。虽然近几年已有一些相关英文著作问世，但只有将中国史学界的研究成果翻译引介到西方，西方史学界才能在相关问题上与中国史学界展开真正的对话。同样，受限于语言壁垒，极少有西方学者参考过日本的官方战史档案。西方学者未能有效研究中国抗战的另一个原因或许是这场战争的时空跨度：研究者必须精通中国地理，才能辨别那些关键转折点，而欧洲战场的叙事则相对简明。

What I think needs to be emphasized is that the Japanese army never completely defeated the Chinese military and the guerrilla forces behind enemy lines. The sustained resistance of the Chinese theater ultimately prevented Japan from constructing a “New Order” in East and Southeast Asia—this in itself was a major strategic achievement for China. When Japan urgently needed to concentrate its forces against Britain and the United States, its main army was deeply bogged down in the Chinese theater, forced to fight on two fronts like Germany in the European theater.

我认为，需要强调的是，日军始终未能彻底击败中国军队和敌后武装。中国战场的持久抵抗最终阻止了日本在东亚和东南亚构建“新秩序”的计划——这本身就是中国的一项重大战略成就。当日本亟须集中力量对抗英国和美国时，其陆军主力却深陷中国战场，被迫像欧洲战场的德国一样两线作战。

Through transnational cooperation

通过跨国合作

to correct historical biases about World War II

纠正关于二战的历史偏见

“Chinese Social Sciences Today”: Regarding China’s role in World War II, what research areas do you think still need to be explored? How should future academic research correct the existing historical biases?

《中国社会科学报》：关于中国在二战中的作用，您认为哪些研究领域仍待深入？未来的学术研究应如何修正现存的历史偏见？

Richard Overy: It is difficult for researchers who do not know Chinese to fully assess China’s role in World War II. Chinese academia has already produced many new research results, which must cover many topics that Western scholars would like to explore in depth. For example, Western historiography has touched on the social history of China’s War of Resistance, but obviously there is more room for investigation.

理查德·奥弗里：不谙中文的研究者很难全面评判中国在二战中的作用。中国学术界已经取得了大量新研究成果，其中必然涵盖许多西方学者希望深入的主题。例如，西方史学界虽已触及中国抗战社会史，但显然还有更多可挖掘的空间。

For Western military historians, the mechanism by which the Chinese army was able to sustain prolonged resistance despite lacking advanced weapons and even insufficient production capacity for conventional weapons remains a puzzle. To this end, we may need a more complete wartime economic and military history of China. In addition, I believe that archival research on the base areas of the War of Resistance and the leadership of the Communist Party of China will powerfully supplement existing knowledge.

对西方军事史学者而言，中国军队在缺乏先进武器甚至常规武器产能不足的情况下仍能持久抗战的机制，至今仍是难解之谜。为此，我们或许需要一部更完整的战时中国经济军事史。此外，我认为基于档案研究抗日根据地和中国共产党的领导力，将有力补充现有认知。

Reversing historical biases has never been easy. Scholars may pursue objective and neutral discourse, but popular perception is often deeply embedded in national narrative traditions. With the gradual opening of Chinese archives and the deepening of collaborative research between Chinese and foreign scholars, this situation may slowly change, but it requires joint efforts from both sides. 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 [3]3 The Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1937–1945) and the World Anti-Fascist War are commemorated together; 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of their victory.; this important juncture may become an opportunity to promote more substantive transnational cooperation in the study of World War II history.

扭转历史偏见向来不是一件容易的事，学者或可追求客观中立的论述，但大众认知往往深植于国家叙事传统之中。随着中国档案的逐步开放与中外学者协作研究的深化，这种状况或许会慢慢改变，但这需要中外双方共同推动。2025年适逢中国人民抗日战争暨世界反法西斯战争胜利80周年，这一重要节点或将成为推动二战史研究实现更具实质性跨国合作的契机。

(Chinese Social Sciences Today reporter Chen Mirong)

（中国社会科学报记者 陈密容）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心