China’s national-level research institution, the Chinese Academy of History, published an article stating that there is a tendency in public discourse and academic research to exaggerate the Kuomintang’s (KMT) role in the War of Resistance Against Japan. People who refer to themselves as “KMT army fans” one-sidedly emphasize the KMT’s contribution to the war of resistance. “These views not only go against historical facts but also turn truth on its head.”
The Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan last Thursday (August 14) issued a press release on its official website, stating that during the Republic of China’s war of resistance against Japan, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) adopted a self-serving strategy of “one part resisting Japan, two parts coping with the National Government, and seven parts strengthening itself,” and criticized that “the CCP regime has in recent years repeatedly distorted facts, claiming that the war of resistance against Japan was led by the CCP.”
The MAC further stated that during the period when the “Republic of China” was resisting Japan, the People’s Republic of China did not exist at all. On that same day, the MAC announced a ban on government officials and former personnel of national defense, diplomacy, mainland affairs, and national security from attending relevant events, warning that violators would be punished according to the law.
Lianhe Zaobao reported on the 23rd that the Chinese Academy of History, affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, published an article on the official WeChat public account of its periodical Historical Review on the 22nd, titled “The KMT’s Role in the War of Resistance Cannot Be Exaggerated.”
This article, written by Associate Professor Guo Yang of the School of Marxism at Nanjing University of Science and Technology, said that in recent years there has been a tendency in public discussion and academic research to exaggerate the KMT’s role in the war of resistance. Some people who call themselves “KMT army fans,” through editing historical footage and adapting film and television plotlines, one-sidedly emphasize the so-called contribution of the KMT to the war of resistance.
The article contends that certain studies have overly elevated the importance of the main battlefront, beautifying the KMT’s image in the war of resistance, while issues of the KMT’s “passive resistance and military blunders” are either avoided or blamed on the CCP’s separatism and friction. “These views not only run counter to historical fact, they are a reversal of black and white.”
The article elaborates these points from three perspectives: extremely unsteady will to resist, implementing a one-sided resistance line, and rampant internal corruption.
It states that exposing the KMT’s negative issues during the war of resistance does not deny the role of the main battlefront or the sacrifices made by patriotic KMT officers and soldiers, “but is a refutation of the historic nihilistic viewpoint of exaggerating the KMT’s so-called contribution to the war of resistance.”
Previously, on Thursday (August 21), the Chinese Academy of History published an article titled “The Chinese Communist Party as the Decisive Force in Securing Victory in the War of Resistance” on its WeChat official account, criticizing “historical nihilists who promote fallacies such as sitting on the sidelines, preserving strength, and taking the opportunity to expand one’s power, in an attempt to erase the CCP’s contribution to the war of resistance.”
According to its official information, the Chinese Academy of History was established on January 3, 2019, with the main responsibility of organizing and guiding historical research work nationwide. Historical Review was founded in January 2020, and is “the first nationwide historical journal established in the new era under the care of central leadership,” focusing on commentary on major historical issues, analysis of historical challenges, and guidance of historical topics.
The Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan last Thursday (August 14) issued a press release on its official website, stating that during the Republic of China’s war of resistance against Japan, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) adopted a self-serving strategy of “one part resisting Japan, two parts coping with the National Government, and seven parts strengthening itself,” and criticized that “the CCP regime has in recent years repeatedly distorted facts, claiming that the war of resistance against Japan was led by the CCP.”
The MAC further stated that during the period when the “Republic of China” was resisting Japan, the People’s Republic of China did not exist at all. On that same day, the MAC announced a ban on government officials and former personnel of national defense, diplomacy, mainland affairs, and national security from attending relevant events, warning that violators would be punished according to the law.
Lianhe Zaobao reported on the 23rd that the Chinese Academy of History, affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, published an article on the official WeChat public account of its periodical Historical Review on the 22nd, titled “The KMT’s Role in the War of Resistance Cannot Be Exaggerated.”
This article, written by Associate Professor Guo Yang of the School of Marxism at Nanjing University of Science and Technology, said that in recent years there has been a tendency in public discussion and academic research to exaggerate the KMT’s role in the war of resistance. Some people who call themselves “KMT army fans,” through editing historical footage and adapting film and television plotlines, one-sidedly emphasize the so-called contribution of the KMT to the war of resistance.
The article contends that certain studies have overly elevated the importance of the main battlefront, beautifying the KMT’s image in the war of resistance, while issues of the KMT’s “passive resistance and military blunders” are either avoided or blamed on the CCP’s separatism and friction. “These views not only run counter to historical fact, they are a reversal of black and white.”
The article elaborates these points from three perspectives: extremely unsteady will to resist, implementing a one-sided resistance line, and rampant internal corruption.
It states that exposing the KMT’s negative issues during the war of resistance does not deny the role of the main battlefront or the sacrifices made by patriotic KMT officers and soldiers, “but is a refutation of the historic nihilistic viewpoint of exaggerating the KMT’s so-called contribution to the war of resistance.”
Previously, on Thursday (August 21), the Chinese Academy of History published an article titled “The Chinese Communist Party as the Decisive Force in Securing Victory in the War of Resistance” on its WeChat official account, criticizing “historical nihilists who promote fallacies such as sitting on the sidelines, preserving strength, and taking the opportunity to expand one’s power, in an attempt to erase the CCP’s contribution to the war of resistance.”
According to its official information, the Chinese Academy of History was established on January 3, 2019, with the main responsibility of organizing and guiding historical research work nationwide. Historical Review was founded in January 2020, and is “the first nationwide historical journal established in the new era under the care of central leadership,” focusing on commentary on major historical issues, analysis of historical challenges, and guidance of historical topics.