Why is China horrendously underrepresented in WWII discussion?

[KaiserDave]

The Second Sino Japanese War, which became the Chinese theatre of the Second World War was perhaps the most brutal, intense, and largest front of the war in sheer numbers (second perhaps in all of these things to only the Eastern Front). The Republic of China had waged a 14 year war of resistance which was characterized by massive atrocities, pitched battles, and while perhaps not the most decisive theatre of the global conflict, was undoubtedly an important part of the story of the Second World War.

So why is this theatre underrepresented in WWII discourse and media? While this is minor in the grand scheme of things I find that China's non existence in WWII video games is ridiculous considering the grand scale of the theatre. Alas WWII games in general fail to grasp the nature of the truly global conflict and usually just turn it into an America-Germany thing alone.

[SevenEleven]

Cold War era propaganda revisionism and Western Bias.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think there are three primary reasons.

First, including the whole of the Second Sino-Japanese War in World War II means it begins before 1939.

Second, in many respects, the Second Sino-Japanese War is mainly part of the broad sweep of conflict in China that followed the 1911 Revolution rather than part of World War II. It only got tied into World War II because Japan decided to attack the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. Indeed, had Japan left alone the United States, they might well have not only succeeded in their attempt to secure the Southern Territories, but kept their conflict from being seen as part of World War II.

Third, there's not much film of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

[KaiserDave]

I think there are three primary reasons.

First, including the whole of the Second Sino-Japanese War in World War II means it begins before 1939.

Second, in many respects, the Second Sino-Japanese War is mainly part of the broad sweep of conflict in China that followed the 1911 Revolution rather than part of World War II. It only got tied into World War II because Japan decided to attack the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. Indeed, had Japan left alone the United States, they might well have not only succeeded in their attempt to secure the Southern Territories, but kept their conflict from being seen as part of World War II.

Third, there's not much film of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Yes, the war is part of a broad series of conflict that engulfed China, but it was brought into World War Two, which was an entirely global war which incorporated many existing conflicts into it. Everything you're saying is correct, and I didn't know about the film shortage.

But...I don't think this is the reason why it's underrepresented in media and discourse. I think Sev has got a good point here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

China had wars pretty much nonstop from 1912-1953 (counting the Korean war).

[Beet]

A combination of cultural bias, and the lack of decisive battles in the China theater.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Cold War era propaganda revisionism and Western Bias.

You hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

Of course the Cold War revisionism (denialism?) starts with never actually prosecuting Hirohito, Shiro Ishii (!), and the like.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cold War era propaganda revisionism and Western Bias.

You hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

Of course the Cold War revisionism (denialism?) starts with never actually prosecuting Hirohito, Shiro Ishii (!), and the like.

Of course the myth is that the Japanese surrender had everything to with the US nukes and nothing to do with the Soviet Union invasion and that the Emperor was a figurehead who had nothing to do with the war. It worked out well for the emperor and the US. The irony is that the deadliest one day bombing of a city in world history was Japan in 1945, but Tokyo with conventional weapons. The nukes just didn't have the impact we like to imagine.

[SevenEleven]

Cold War era propaganda revisionism and Western Bias.

You hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

Of course the Cold War revisionism (denialism?) starts with never actually prosecuting Hirohito, Shiro Ishii (!), and the like.

Of course the myth is that the Japanese surrender had everything to with the US nukes and nothing to do with the Soviet Union invasion and that the Emperor was a figurehead who had nothing to do with the war. It worked out well for the emperor and the US. The irony is that the deadliest one day bombing of a city in world history was Japan in 1945, but Tokyo with conventional weapons. The nukes just didn't have the impact we like to imagine.

Uhh. Not that I would wish this, but I can guarantee if that Tokyo were nuked instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the effects would have been far more devastating for Japan, even such that their ascent post-WW2 would've been greatly hindered. Whether or not dropping nukes was the right call, declining to nuke Tokyo absolutely was and war doesn't need to be a contest of who killed more and when. The sheer capability demonstrated by nuclear weapons at the time was enough to have the necessary impact, and had the US dropped nukes on Nazi Germany is an interesting theory play for history buffs to consider.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In general, I'd like to hear more about WWII in Asia--I'm particularly fascinated by Japan's use of local nationalists as allies or even colonial administrators (IIRC). Why this gets no play in the West seems obvious.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The British and the Americans, especially the British, generally didn't get along well with Chiang Kai-shek.  So even during the war, Chinese accomplishments were downplayed and Chinese soldiers were underestimated by the other allies.

Interestingly, China was included in Civ 3's WWII scenario.

[buritobr]

Cold War can explain the underrepresentation of the eastern european front.
But China was ruled by the Kuomitang during the WW2.

[palandio]

Does the question refer to US American WWII discussion or to WWII discussion in general?

Because it should be obvious why China (and the Asian-Pacific theater in general) is horrendously underrepresented in European WWII discussion.

Regarding US American WWII discussion there seem to be the following reasons:
- A higher affinity towards countries and areas with similar culture, wealth, economy, politics and ancestry (A part of what others have called Western bias)
- American troops involved in the Pacific area, but not mainland China, combined with a general tendency to overemphasize the military role of the US in WWII

"Western bias" seems to me like an immensely ambigous term when speaking about WWII historiography. It could either mean the higher affinity mentioned above resulting in just not caring about what happens in "exotic" (non-Western) parts of the world. Or it could mean overestimating the role of Western actors in defeating the Axis at the expense of non-Western actors. These are two different points, both valid.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think one issue is a lot of people tend to write about WW2 in China as merely a prelude to the resumption of the Civil War and the Revolution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cold War can explain the underrepresentation of the eastern european front.
But China was ruled by the Kuomitang during the WW2.

Maybe de jure, but a major reason Japan involved itself in China is that some Army officers thought they could take advantage of the conflict between the KMT and the CCP to take control of China.

[AtorBoltox]

I may be wrong, but it seems the CCP itself has not elevated WW2 into a central part of the national mythos, probably because the bulk of the fighting was done by the Kuomintang.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I may be wrong, but it seems the CCP itself has not elevated WW2 into a central part of the national mythos, probably because the bulk of the fighting was done by the Kuomintang.

You're wrong. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a three-sided mess. The KMT certainly had the more traditional forces involved of the two Chinese factions.

[dead0man]

I may be wrong, but it seems the CCP itself has not elevated WW2 into a central part of the national mythos, probably because the bulk of the fighting was done by the Kuomintang.

You're wrong. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a three-sided mess. The KMT certainly had the more traditional forces involved of the two Chinese factions.

wiki tells me that the ROC lost more than 8 times the men than the Commies did. (1.3M killed vs 160k)  Either the ROC did the bulk of the fighting or the Commies were a lot better at not getting killed (seems unlikely).

[KaiserDave]

I may be wrong, but it seems the CCP itself has not elevated WW2 into a central part of the national mythos, probably because the bulk of the fighting was done by the Kuomintang.

You're wrong. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a three-sided mess. The KMT certainly had the more traditional forces involved of the two Chinese factions.

The bulk of the fighting against Japan was undoubtedly the KMT/NRA and not the CCP/PLA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I may be wrong, but it seems the CCP itself has not elevated WW2 into a central part of the national mythos, probably because the bulk of the fighting was done by the Kuomintang.

You're wrong. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a three-sided mess. The KMT certainly had the more traditional forces involved of the two Chinese factions.

wiki tells me that the ROC lost more than 8 times the men than the Commies did. (1.3M killed vs 160k)  Either the ROC did the bulk of the fighting or the Commies were a lot better at not getting killed (seems unlikely).

Yes, when it came to stand up battles against the Japanese, the NRA did more of that than the PLA. It's a lot easier for a guerrilla force to avoid being slaughtered in an uneven fight. There's also the fact that dying and fighting aren't the same thing.

[Agonized-Statism]

Eurocentrism and embarrassment about American actions relating to the Asian theater of the war (Japanese-American internment camps, racist propaganda, allowing the situations that led to the Korean and Vietnam Wars to happen, growing objection to the "necessary evil" line when it comes the atomic bombings) compared to the universally respected glories of the European theater. With China increasingly relevant I expect the Asian theater will get more attention in history.

[vitoNova]

Because very few Americans saw action in Chyna--relatively speaking--outside of a few flyboys. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course, the Western ignorance of the conflict partially helps the Chinese reputation: few people today speak of the Yellow River flood, despite it being one of the more grotesque actions comitted by any side in WW2.

[gerritcole]

To what extent is American/Western involvement represented in Chinese WWII discussion?

[Meclazine for Israel]

They weren't Anglo.
No one could figure out what was going on.
Translation services on Google were not yet developed.

As for computer games, BF4 had some awesome Chinese maps and military theatres.