The War of Resistance Against Japan in PRC’s School Textbooks (1949–1982)

1 Core Narrative

Between 1949 and 1982, the War of Resistance was taught in the PRC’s schools as a pivotal chapter in modern and contemporary Chinese history. This section will summarise the core narrative of the War of Resistance as depicted in these textbooks throughout the period.

Before delving into the specifics of the War of Resistance, it’s important to understand the broader context of textbook publication in the PRC. Prior to 1982, with exceptions such as the Cultural Revolution period (also known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement initiated by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1966 that lasted approximately 10 years until his death in 1976), textbook compilation, publishing, and distribution were centrally controlled by the state in the PRC. The People’s Publisher, administered by the Ministry of Education, issued the first PRC-produced textbooks in 1955. Subsequent textbooks were based on this 1955 edition with minor revisions until the 1990s, when a completely new series was introduced (Fang 2007; Shi and Li 2009; Zhang, Kang, and Huang 2004).

I have reviewed a selection of history textbooks used in PRC primary, secondary, and high schools. These textbooks cover the first Seventeen-year period (referring to the early years after the PRC’s founding in 1949, during which significant political, economic, and social transformations occurred under the CCP), the Cultural Revolution period, and the post-Cultural Revolution period (see Table 1).

The War of Resistance was typically divided into two periods in these textbooks:

1. The Pre-full scale war period: The war related events that occurred between 18 September 1931 and 7 July 1937, were incorporated into the ‘Second Civil Revolution War Period’ (referred to as the Land Revolution War Period during the Cultural Revolution). Textbooks usually start with a section providing background on this period, outlining Japan’s long-standing ambition to make China a colony, which was intensified by the Great Depression. Textbooks then criticized the KMT (the Kuomintang Party, which governed China from 1927 to 1949 and continued to operate in Taiwan after 1949; also knowns as the Chinese Nationalist Party) for its ineffective response to the external threat while focusing on fighting the CCP. Following this, the Manchurian Incident (which occurred in September 1931 in northeastern China; during the incident the Japanese military personnel detonated explosive near a Japanese-managed railway in Mukden, using the attack as a pretext for the subsequent occupation of Manchuria), and the Japanese invasion of Shanghai on 18 January 1932 were described. These textbooks emphasised that despite the KMT leader Chiang Kai-Shek’s order of non-resistance, Chinese resistance – whether spontaneous or led by the CCP – never ceased. The Volunteer Armies, Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army, guerrillas led by Kim Il-Sung and patriotic soldiers of the KMT’s 19th route army (who withstood the invading Japanese army in Shanghai in 1932) were frequently praised. The North China Crisis (referring to a series of events in the early 1930s that destabilized the North China region due to Japanese expansionism) and the December 9th Student Movement (a student-led protest against the KMT government’s capitulation to Japanese aggression in 1935), were also discussed in these textbooks. The latter was typically evaluated as a stimulus for a new wave of resisting the Japanese, as a national united front of resistance against Japan was formed after the movement. The period typically concluded with a description of the Xi’an Incident in 1936, during which Chiang Kai-shek was detained by his subordinates and subsequently compelled to resist Japanese invasion.

2. The War of Resistance Period (7 July 1937 – 2 September 1945): This period was introduced in textbooks with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, when the Japanese army started an all-out war with China on the pretext of a missing Japanese soldier. This period was subdivided into three phases within these textbooks.

The Strategic Defending Phase (July 1937 to October 1938): During this phase, according to the textbooks, the Japanese implemented a blitzkrieg strategy aimed at quickly conquering China, while the CCP and KMT fought bravely together under the national united front. Still, textbooks suggested two different approaches taken by the allies: the CCP adopted a comprehensive strategy of mobilizing the masses and all available forces – referred to as the people’s war – while the KMT relied on the government and military, fearing the power of the masses and restraining the actions of the CCP and the masses. The KMT’s disorderly retreat from Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Nanjing, and Wuhan, as well as the CCP’s role in the Battle of Pingxing Pass (September 1937; despite being outnumbered and outgunned by Japanese forces, the Chinese army inflicted heavy casualties on their opponents), and its tactics of infiltrating Japanese-occupied areas, conducting guerrilla warfare, and establishing anti-Japanese bases, were introduced.

The Strategic Deadlock Phase (1938 to 1945): This phase is characterized by the split between the CCP and the KMT. During this phase, according to the textbooks, the Japanese initially attempted to politically entice KMT leaders into surrender while continuing military attacks between 1938 and 1940. KMT leader Wang Jingwei publicly surrendered, and Chiang Kai-shek became more vacillating, adopting a policy of replacing the war of resistance with civil war. In contrast, the CCP’s Eighth and New Fourth Armies became the main forces in the War of Resistance, launching the Hundred Regiments Offensive that struck fear into the enemy. The Japanese then carried out policies of ‘searching the country and eliminating anti-Japanese forces’ and mopping up between 1941 and 1942. The situation in Japanese-occupied areas became exceptionally difficult, yet soldiers and supporters of the CCP continued to fight bravely. Ultimately, the Japanese prepared for a final stand in mainland China and to rescue isolated forces in Southeast Asia by launching a battle to break through the continental traffic line between 1943 and 1945. The KMT experienced another significant disorganized retreat, from Henan, Hunan, and Guangxi province to Dushan in Guizhou province. In contrast, through large-scale production campaigns and the Rectification Movement in Yan’an, the situation in the liberated areas of the CCP improved, and they also launched counterattacks in various regions.

The Strategic Counterattack Phase (August 1945): During this phase, the Japanese eventually acknowledged their impending defeat and surrendered unconditionally. Textbooks suggested that in this final moment of the war, while the CCP mobilized troops for counterattacks while the KMT sought to capitalize on the victory of the People’s War.

As Meisner concludes, the central theme of the Maoist era, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, was the concept of permanent revolution, with a primary focus on construction and class struggle. The principal external enemies were the United States and its ‘running dogs’ (which included the right-wing Japanese government), the KMT government in Taiwan, and eventually the USSR. Following Mao’s death, China experienced a brief period of political turmoil and sharp economic decline, often accompanied by violence. Deng Xiaoping returned to power after July 1977 and announced ‘reform and opening up’ as the new party line at the Eleventh Central Committee in 1978 (Kau and Marsh 1993; Meisner 1999; Yim 1980). Accordingly, a few adjustments were made to the textbooks over time, reflecting changes in the domestic and international environment between 1949 and 1982. Nevertheless, some aspects of the narrative of the War of Resistance remained consistent in these textbooks throughout the period. The next section will explore these adjustments and the enduring aspects in greater detail.

2 Adjustments and Enduring Aspects

Along with the changes in the PRC’s political climate and the country’s altered relations with its socialist ‘friends’ and capitalist ‘enemies’, the contents related to the War of Resistance in school history textbooks were also modified.

The first major adjustment occurred after the ‘leftist’ atmosphere in the PRC intensified. For example, while the left-wing literature movement and literature from the War of Resistance period were substantially discussed in history textbooks initially, these sections were omitted from textbooks published during the Great Leap Forward. For instance, two chapters in Chuji Zhongxue Zhongguo Lishi (1956) were dedicated to the left-wing literature movement and literature during the War of Resistance. However, these chapters were removed in the 1963 edition of the textbook. The left-wing literature movement and its supporters, such as Wang Ming, Liu Shaoqi and Tian Han, were heavily criticised in Beijingshi zhongxue Lishi (1973). During the Cultural Revolution, the left-wing literature movement reappeared in textbooks, but it was criticized and used to attack individuals involved in the movement. Similarly, the Battle of Pingxing Pass, led by Lin Biao (a CCP statesman and PLA general who died after an unsuccessful coup in 1971), was removed from textbooks after his fall. Although it was reintroduced after the Cultural Revolution in textbooks, Lin’s name was no longer associated with the battle.

The second major adjustment concerned the role of foreigners in the War of Resistance. In the 1950s and 1960s, PRC school history textbooks discussed the alleged American and British scheme to encourage Japan to invade China to preserve their interests and profit from ammunition trade. However, this narrative was rarely mentioned after the improvement in China’s relations with Western countries in the 1970s. Despite this improvement, wartime Westerners (e.g., the US, UK) were still criticized to some extent. For example, a middle school textbook printed in 1980 (after the PRC normalized relations with the US on January 1, 1979) included criticism such as: ‘With the help of American imperialist support, the diehards of the KMT … scrambled to claim the fruits of victory in the People’s War.’^[2]

Additionally, in the earlier years of the PRC, Chinese victory in the war was overwhelmingly attributed to Soviet assistance, as reflected in textbooks. As the Sino-Soviet alliance became increasingly unstable, the Soviet contribution to Japan’s defeat was gradually downplayed. This shift coincided with a process of indigenization of Chinese national identity following the Sino-Soviet split. As Dittmer and Kim argue, in the 1950s, the CCP regime promoted an international socialist identity to symbolize its solidarity with the Soviet Union. However, after the Sino-Soviet conflict, ‘international socialist symbols underwent a process of nationalization or indigenization,’ with a focus on celebrating China’s own past, including the history of the CCP, its leaders, and its martyrs (Dittmer and Kim 1993, 269). Despite this shift, the CCP regime did not entirely discard previous narratives; it continued to encourage gratitude for Soviet assistance led by Stalin during the war, even as the ‘revisionist Soviet Union’ was labeled an ‘insatiably avaricious socialist imperialist.’^[3] Furthermore, as the CCP fell out with some of its communist allies during this period, Canadian doctor Norman Bethune was consistently praised.

Compared to other aspects of war memory, such as memorial days, the content related to the War of Resistance presented in textbooks has shown greater stability. History textbooks, much like the national anthem, serve as crucial symbols of a nation, and their content is carefully chosen by the regime. Therefore, despite the limitations of textbooks in reflecting the full spectrum of War of Resistance remembrance in the pre-1982 PRC, their inherent stability and the regime’s careful selection make them valuable for exploring the CCP regime’s preferences regarding the War of Resistance. The following section will delve into which aspects of the War of Resistance were specifically favored by the regime by examining the consistent elements of the war narrative in textbooks.

Firstly, the narrative of the War of Resistance in school history textbooks was CCP-centric, according to the surveyed textbooks. For instance, while the textbooks initially depicted the CCP and KMT as united in resisting Japan, they suggested that the CCP’s efforts and strategies were both independent and superior to those of the KMT. Consequently, from the outset of the war, the KMT’s forces suffered quick defeats, whereas the CCP flourished by developing guerrilla forces in Japanese-occupied areas and achieving several victories. After discussing the deadlock phase, the textbooks focused on the CCP’s leadership role in China’s resistance against Japan and its puppet regimes, as well as its efforts to counter KMT anti-CCP campaigns and support democratic movements in KMT-occupied areas.

Then, the presentation of the War of Resistance in textbooks generally maintained a victorious tone. This victorious tone was also reflected in other realms of memory about the War of Resistance. For example, items showcasing the bravery of the People’s Liberation Army (founded in 1927 as the CCP’s military arm), militia soldiers, and ordinary Chinese people who supported the CCP were prominently featured in the Museum of the Chinese Revolution and the Military Museums of the Chinese People’s Revolution. Items like letters written by Zuo Quan, a notable Eighth Army commander killed by the Japanese in 1942, and a pistol used by him have been displayed in the Revolution Museum and the Military Museum since the 1950s. Similarly, captured Japanese equipment and small items belonging to the Japanese soldiers, such as weapons and a flag inscribed with buunchokyu (武運長久,meaning continuous luck in the fortunes of war), were permanent fixtures in these museums. A sword submitted by Okamura Yasuji during the Surrender Ceremony of the China Theatre and found by the PLA in the Office of the President in Nanjing was also displayed in the Military Museum from 1959 onward. Additionally, a boat used by CCP-affiliated militia to ambush Japanese vessels in Baiyangdian, Tianjin, was transferred to the Revolution Museum in 1959 and has remained on display. One of the times were a sword submitted by Okamura Yasuji as a token of surrendering his arms in the Surrender Ceremony of China Theatre. It was found by the PLA in the Office of the President in Nanjing and displayed in the PLA’s own weapon display hall. The sword was then turned over to the Military Museum in 1959 and has stayed there ever since. Additionally, a boat used by CCP-affiliated militia to ambush Japanese vessels in Baiyangdian, Tianjin, was transferred to the Revolution Museum in 1959 and has remained on display.^[4]

Despite the overall heroic tone, textbooks did mention Japanese atrocities to varying degrees, and narratives of these war crimes remained consistent between 1949 and 1982. Even in primary school textbooks, the brutality of the Japanese army was described: ‘The Japanese army brutally massacred many Chinese people, and humiliated Chinese women. Whenever Japanese army went, it would burn down the villages and loot all the assets there’.^[5]

Descriptions of Japanese atrocities were typically placed in three main sections of the textbooks. The first section followed the account of the Manchurian Incident, detailing the harsh Japanese rule in Northeast China to set up the main narrative of resistance led by the CCP. For instance, Gaojizhongxue Zhongguo xiandaishi (1960) said: ‘After having occupied North-east China, Japanese imperialists carried out cruel colonial rule of North-eastern people. From the central government of the fake “Manchukuo” to the local administrations were controlled by the Japanese invader. There, the ten-household-Tithing System --- one person broke the law, ten households would be punished --- was widely in practice. Japanese imperialist carried out slave education in order to suppress North-eastern People’s patriotism. It also encouraged people to plant and smoke opium, which destroyed North-eastern People’s health. Japanese army’s atrocities, like arson, killing, loot and rape were countless. Japanese imperialist monopolised the economic lifeline in North-east. It controlled the mines, factories, transportation and so forth, forced North-eastern people to work like slaves and grabbed the land as well as property of North-eastern people as it wish …’^[6]

The second section appeared after the account of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, where how the Japanese army brutally occupied Chinese cities was described to criticize the KMT’s one-sided resistance. The Nanjing Massacre was highlighted in a 1960 high school textbook and its subsequent editions.^[7] An accompanying reference book for teachers in Shanghai, which was based on other history books edited or written by some mainstream Chinese historians at the time, included more detail about this history, which indicates that the students might have received a different degree of teaching about the Japanese atrocities from their teachers. The reference book further pointed out cruelty was a feature of Imperial Japanese Army and the Nanjing Massacre was only a typical example.^[8] During and after the Cultural Revolution, the Nanjing Massacre was depicted with increasing graphic detail. For instance, Chuzhong Zhongguo lishi (1979) described: ‘The Japanese army carried out insane massacre after occupying Nanjing. Some of the peaceful citizens in Nanjing were used as the targets for practicing shooting, some of them were used as the objects for competing bayonet [skills], some of them were thrown gasoline on and burned to death, some of them were buried alive and the hearts as well as livers of some of them were dug out. Within one month, the amount of people killed was more than 300,000 and more than one-third of houses were burned. That period, in the city of Nanjing, skeletons were everywhere and rubbles heaped up,sinister wind was sad --- the whole city immediately became a hell on earth.’^[9]

The third section addressed that dare conditions faced by CCP bases in Japanese-occupied area. How the Japanese created a miserable world, where ‘there was no village which was not in mourning and where the noise of grief could be heard everywhere’ through brutal methods such as ‘burning all, killing all and looting all’ (the Three-Alls policy), would normally be described to demonstrate how great the soldiers and people of the liberation army were to have fought back bravely and overcome the difficulties.^[10]

In short, the alterations made to history textbooks in response to international and domestic changes primarily involved the evaluation of individuals and third-party countries. The core narrative of the war and the assessment of the Japanese invasion remained largely unchanged during this period. For example, the use of strong language against Japan persisted in textbooks even after the normalization of relations with Japan in 1972. In a textbook published in 1973, the term ‘Japanese bandits’ appeared five times in five sentences.^[11] This section reveals that the textbooks’ portrayal of the War of Resistance was both CCP-centric and victorious. Moreover, it also found that atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army were depicted in textbooks without hesitation, contradicting the argument in existing literature that the PRC discouraged a victimhood narrative during this period.

3 Conclusions

The portrayal of the War of Resistance in textbooks in mainland China did not undergo significant changes between 1949 and 1982. The alterations made by the regime were about the evaluation of the US, the USSR or individuals. While certain aspects of the war were emphasized or exaggerated for short-term purposes, the regime did not attempt to re-interpret the war as a whole or create entirely new narratives. Throughout this period, the core narrative of the war, the evaluation of the Japanese invasion, and the CCP-centric perspective remained consistent. Notably, both the heroic and tragic dimensions of the War of Resistance were integral to the regime’s nation-building efforts before 1982. By various means, a specific version of the War of Resistance – characterized by CCP-centric and tragic-heroic events – was promoted across China until 1982.