March 10, 2025, Beijing Great Hall of the People—A security guard stands at the entrance before the closing ceremony of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. (WANG ZHAO/AFP via Getty Images)
[People News] Xi Jinping’s narrative at this year’s “September 3rd Military Parade” about the victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan was recently refuted by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung as a falsification of history. On September 17, Xinhua reported that Xi Jinping convened a special Politburo Standing Committee meeting to summarise the so-called successful experience of the September 3rd parade. At the meeting, he once again declared that “the Chinese Communist Party led the entire nation in the heroic war of resistance and victory.” Analysts point out that if one really wants to “tell the story of China’s resistance well,” the truth must be told: it was the Nationalist government of the Republic of China that led the war of resistance.
In his parade speech, Xi stated: “Under the banner of the anti-Japanese national united front initiated by the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese people, with iron wills, fought against a powerful enemy and built a Great Wall of flesh and blood, achieving the first complete victory against foreign invasion in modern times.”
On September 15, Deutsche Welle reported that Neue Zürcher Zeitung’s culture section published an article titled Xi Jinping Falsifies History, offering a historical analysis that directly challenged the CCP leader’s narrative at the 80th anniversary celebration of the “anti-fascist war victory.” The author reviewed the historical context of China’s resistance, including the so-called “united front” and the fact that the CCP used the anti-Japanese battlefield to expand its own strength. The article concluded:
“China fought Japan’s empire for eight years. On its own, China could hardly have defeated an enemy with superior industry, technology, and military strength. Ultimately, Japan only surrendered after the United States dropped atomic bombs, ending this brutal war. At the same time, it was Japan’s war of aggression that drained Chiang Kai-shek’s strength and created a vacuum, which the Communist Party exploited. U.S. historian and diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1962: ‘Without the Second World War, it is hard to imagine Mao Zedong would have succeeded.’”
Independent commentator Wang Jian has also analysed Xi Jinping’s speech, pointing out three lies:
First: The War of Resistance against Japan was led by the Republic of China government, under Chiang Kai-shek. The Communist army was absorbed into the 18th Army.
Second: The victory over Japan was not won by Chinese forces defeating the Japanese. It was the United States and the Allied forces that defeated Japan. China’s armies did not secure victory on their own. Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, and in the China theatre, Japanese troops surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek. The surrender documents were accepted on behalf of the Allies by China’s Army Chief of Staff, He Yingqin. These documents are still preserved in Taiwan.
Third: The Nationalist army was the main force, the backbone of resistance. The Communist forces’ role in the entire war was negligible.
On the day of the parade, U.S. President Donald Trump also posted on Truth Social, raising a pointed question: Would Xi Jinping acknowledge the enormous support and “blood” the United States gave to help China “win freedom from a hostile foreign invader”? Many Americans died during China’s struggle for victory, Trump noted, and their bravery and sacrifice should be rightly remembered.
He added: he hoped Xi Jinping and the Chinese people “have a great and lasting day of celebration,” but also warned, “while you plot against America, please pass along my warmest regards to Putin and Kim Jong-un.”
On September 17, Xinhua revealed that Xi had convened a Politburo Standing Committee meeting to review the parade.
In his speech, Xi said the commemoration was “grand and magnificent, deeply moving.” He stressed the need to fully utilise the “positive energy” inspired by the parade, and to “draw wisdom and strength from the great victory of the whole nation, united under the leadership of the CCP, in the war of resistance.”
A commentary on Radio France Internationale on September 17 observed that Xi was more than satisfied with himself.
The article noted that historical facts and independent historians’ research have already reached a consensus: the Nationalist government led the war of resistance, the Nationalist army fought on the main battlefronts, while the Communists, holed up in Yan’an, only maintained guerrilla forces.
On Xi’s call to “tell the story of the Chinese resistance well,” the article remarked: in truth, this is simple—just tell the historical facts. But observers note that in China, clarifying even this not-so-distant history is difficult. Anyone who questions the claim that “the CCP led the resistance” will be labelled a “historical nihilist.” Xi himself has repeatedly stressed the need to “firmly oppose historical nihilism.”
The highest recognition the CCP has ever granted to the Nationalists’ role in the war came in 2005. On September 3, 2005, then-CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, in a speech marking the 60th anniversary of victory, said: “The anti-Japanese forces led by the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, respectively, took on the tasks of the main battlefront and the enemy’s rear, forming a joint strategic posture against the Japanese invaders. On the main battlefront, led primarily by the Kuomintang army, a series of major battles were fought—particularly in the early stage of the nationwide war of resistance at Shanghai, Xinkou, Xuzhou, Wuhan, and others—dealing heavy blows to the Japanese army.”
This was the first time the CCP had acknowledged the Nationalists’ role and status on the main front.
So what is the historical truth of the War of Resistance?
Archival records show that the Nationalists organised 22 battles involving over 100,000 troops on each side. In addition, they organised 1,117 large-scale campaigns (tens of thousands of troops each) and 38,931 smaller engagements involving thousands to tens of thousands of troops.
Meanwhile, Nationalist casualties exceeded 3.41 million, with 206 generals sacrificing their lives. Over 4,300 pilots died, 2,468 aircraft were shot down, and the navy was virtually wiped out. The Nationalists lost 75% of their military strength during the war.
In comparison, according to the CCP’s own statistics, Communist anti-Japanese forces suffered about 610,000 casualties. Among high-ranking commanders, only Zuo Quan died in battle.
Confronting the CCP’s claim to be the “backbone” of the resistance, historian Xin Haonian, author of Whose New China?, raised this question in a 2005 public lecture:
“Let me ask: during the Battle of Shanghai, the Republic of China committed 700,000 troops, while Japan committed 500,000. A total of 1.2 million men clashed in Shanghai in a decisive battle. I ask you, in northern Shaanxi, three or four thousand kilometres away, with only 13,000 rifles, 20,000 men, and the resources of three counties, could Mao Zedong’s Red Army possibly have led a million-man decisive battle like the Battle of Shanghai?”
Other evidence shows the CCP not only failed to seriously resist but even colluded with Japanese forces, betraying the Nationalists.
In December 2015, Professor Endō Homare, Director of the International Exchange Centre at Tokyo University of Social Welfare and honorary professor at Tsukuba University, published Mao Zedong: The Man Who Conspired with the Japanese Army. The book argues that during the war, Mao leaked Nationalist military intelligence obtained through the United Front to Japan in order to weaken Chiang Kai-shek’s army. Mao exploited the war to expand the CCP's power, laying the groundwork for later defeating the Nationalists.
Soviet Comintern envoy and TASS correspondent Peter Vladimirov, in his 1973 book The Vladimirov Diaries (Yenan Diary), also described CCP collusion with Japanese forces. He wrote:
“I accidentally came across a telegram from the New Fourth Army headquarters. The report clearly confirmed that Mao and others maintained long-term contact with the Japanese Expeditionary Army’s Supreme Command. The telegram also undoubtedly indicated that reports of this liaison with Japanese commanders were regularly sent to Yan’an.” △
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!