On Aug. 15 exactly 60 years ago, Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced an imperial prescript to end the war, and proclaimed the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, as the Potsdam Declaration demanded. Germany had already surrendered on May 2, 1945. Japan's move officially marked the end of World War II.
Historically, should this day be marked as the end of the war or victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan? The two represent different historical views on World War II. To be blunt, both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wanted bragging rights for the so-called "victory." In fact, late president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正) was not challenged on the issue when singing his own praises about it. Without the 2000 transfer of power, his claim would be the only version of history.
Nevertheless, from a historian's perspective, focusing on the victory against Japan rather than the end of World War II is like talking about the Sino-Japanese War without reference to World War II. This narrow perspective reduces the importance of World War II. Although the Sino-Japanese War was a part of World War II, the latter was in fact the focus. China was victorious not because it defeated Japan, but because the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, forcing it to surrender. Japan had met with virtually no defeats in China, and it surrendered only because of the attacks on its homeland. Therefore, China did not really win the war. It was able to be listed as a victorious nation thanks to the US and its allies.
From this perspective, Chiang's regime simply rode to success on others' coattails by listing itself as one of the world's leading powers. But it was not actually listed as one of the alliance's four leaders until the US declared war against Japan after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
Whether a country is a "power" or not depends on its actual strength. The UK was hardly considered a great power after World War II, let alone China. As British prime minister Winston Churchill commented at the Tehran Conference in November 1943, the poor little English donkey was squeezed between the great Russian bear and the mighty American buffalo. As least the UK was able to attend the Yalta Conference; China did not even have a seat.
Calling it China's eight-year war of resistance sounds good, but actually China was set to perish at Japan's hands. In his book The Second World War, the British war historian John Keegan described China's war of resistance as a battle to "keep their distance" from the enemy, and that they rarely threatened their opponent. He added that there was little difference in the performance of Chiang's troops and those of the communists.
During the war, Japan had a high level of control over China. It had established four successive puppet governments, and the government of the Republic of China (ROC) had all but ceased to exist. As Yale history professor Jonathan Spence has said, without World War II, China might have split in 1938. Chiang was undertaking a last-ditch fight, and was lucky to be able to hold on until Japan's defeat. Otherwise, he might not have had to wait until he fled to Taiwan to proclaim the death of the ROC.
This special day should be marked as the end of World War II, rather than the day of victory in the war of resistance. This is the historical fact. The KMT and the CCP, however, have come up with their own versions. No matter how they commemorate this day, they are merely writing a fake history. If they really want to discuss the Sino-Japanese War, they should first clarify the historical facts.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS