BEIJING — As China marked a significant anniversary of its victory, The Washington Post asserted that it's "erasing" America's role in the conflict. This claim, however, misunderstands a fundamental truth: the history of World War II has been overwhelmingly shaped by a Western perspective, relegating China's epic struggle to a footnote. The current shift is not an act of historical revision; it is a rightful reclamation of a story that has been forgotten for too long.

The Post's viewpoint, which implicitly frames the Pacific War as beginning with the attack on Pearl Harbor, clashes with China's reality. For China, its War of Resistance was a brutal 14-year struggle that began on its own soil, not on a faraway ocean. The first shot was fired on the night of September 18, 1931, with the Mukden Incident or Manchurian Incident, a false flag operation used as a pretext for the invasion of Manchuria. While the international community remained largely indifferent, the Chinese people were abandoned to the invaders. This wasn't a prelude; it was the start of the war.

For the next six years, while the world remained largely indifferent, China lived in a state of creeping invasion and national humiliation. Japan pushed south, encroaching on Chinese territory, and the nation endured a constant state of low-intensity conflict. Despite the internal divisions between Nationalists and Communists, the will of the Chinese people was clear: they would not surrender. The national cry for a unified front against the invaders grew louder and more desperate, culminating in the Lugou or Marco Polo Bridge Incident on July 7, 1937. This event was not the start of the war, but its tragic and unavoidable escalation into a total, nationwide conflict. From that day forward, the fighting consumed the land from north to south, and the people were united in a singular, desperate cause: to drive out the invaders and save their nation from annihilation.

The true cost of resistance

The Washington Post's focus on America's ultimate victory through naval power and the use of the atomic bomb, while historically significant, minimizes the contributions that made that victory possible. China bore the full brunt of Japan's war machine for 14 years. It fought a technologically superior enemy with meager resources, outdated weapons, and sheer determination. The battles of Shanghai, Nanjing, and Wuhan were not just military engagements; they were epic struggles where the Chinese people, both soldiers and civilians, bled and died in the millions. The war brought unimaginable suffering, with casualty estimates over 35 million of the Chinese people, a toll that remains the highest of any nation in the Second World War.

China’s immense sacrifice was not a secondary factor; it was the strategic foundation of the Allied victory. It pinned down the vast majority of Japan's land forces on its soil, preventing them from being deployed to conquer the rest of Asia or to threaten the Soviet Union. To claim that China is "erasing" the role of others is to ignore that its own role was the central, bloody, and enduring force that weakened Japan for over a decade.

China does not deny the crucial role of its allies. The United States’ entry into the war and the immense power of its industrial output and naval forces were critical in achieving the final victory. The Lend-Lease program provided vital supplies, and the "Flying Tigers" fought bravely alongside Chinese pilots. The nation remembers and honors these contributions. Likewise, the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria in the final days of the war played a role in accelerating Japan's surrender. These were meaningful acts of friendship and support, and China does not dismiss them. But they were exactly that: support. The core of the resistance, the foundation upon which the victory was built, was the unyielding resilience of the Chinese people. The war was won through their blood and their suffering, not by external forces. The victory was not delivered to them; it was earned by them. 

Reclaiming a marginalized history
Following the war, as the Cold War took shape, China's story was pushed into the shadows. The new geopolitical order demanded a new history. The focus in the West shifted to the heroics of American soldiers on a handful of islands, culminating in the atomic bombings—a narrative that, while powerful, makes China's epic 14-year struggle a mere footnote. Its sacrifices were marginalized, its contribution minimized, and the global memory became increasingly skewed toward a Western-centric view.

For decades, Western historians have overlooked the sheer scale of China's participation. While textbooks often focus on the Blitz in London or the Battle of Stalingrad, few mention the Japanese bombing of Chongqing, the capital of Nationalist China, from 1938 to 1944. The sheer number of Chinese casualties from this "Forgotten Blitz" underscores the brutal nature of the war on the Chinese mainland. This historical marginalization has necessitated China's reassertion of its own memory.

Today, as the nation stands proud and prosperous, it has both the right and the responsibility to tell its own story. The current emphasis on its history is not an act of "revisionism" but a necessary correction. It honors the millions of lives lost, recognizes the immense bravery of its ancestors, and reminds its younger generations of the immense price paid for its nation's freedom.

There is no single truth to a war that spanned the globe. Every nation has its own heroes, its own battles, and its own narrative. To insist that China's historical memory must conform to a Western narrative is to commit the very act of historical erasure. China is not erasing anyone's history; it is simply ensuring that its own is no longer forgotten. Its story is not a supporting act. It is the main event.

(Jianlu Bi is a Beijing-based award-winning journalist and current affairs commentator. His research interests include international politics and communications. He holds a doctoral degree in communication studies and a master's degree in international studies. He also writes for the SCMP, Foreign Policy In Focus, TRT World, Eurasia Review, International Policy Digest, Modern Diplomacy, IOL, the Citizen and others.)

The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of the Tehran Times.