Second Sino-Japanese War

The Second Sino-Japanese War was fought between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan, with full-scale hostilities beginning after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident near Beijing on July 7, 1937, and ending with Japan’s surrender in 1945. Its broader historical background includes Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and subsequent expansion into northern China. Initially a regional conflict, it became part of World War II as the war in Asia and the Pacific widened in December 1941. (guides.loc.gov)

The fighting combined large conventional campaigns with resistance behind Japanese lines. Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces cooperated against Japan while retaining separate organizations and political objectives. Japanese occupation, atrocities, displacement, famine, and the destruction of homes and livelihoods made the conflict a major civilian catastrophe as well as a military struggle. China’s continuing resistance also shaped international diplomacy, foreign assistance, and the development of the Allied war effort against Japan. (iwm.org.uk)

The war ended with an Allied victory and the surrender of Japanese forces, but left China facing reconstruction and renewed conflict between Nationalists and Communists. Its history encompasses the origins and conduct of the fighting, occupation and resistance, civilian experiences, international involvement, and the postwar documentation and prosecution of war crimes. (visit.archives.gov)

Historical origins and the boundaries of the conflict

The conventional chronology, 1937–1945, identifies the Second Sino-Japanese War with the full-scale conflict that followed the Marco Polo Bridge Incident near Beijing on July 7, 1937. The broader 1931–1945 framework begins with Japan’s seizure of Manchuria and includes the intervening regional campaigns, occupation, and armed resistance; it does not imply that fighting had the same geographical extent or intensity throughout those fourteen years. Both chronologies end with Japan’s defeat in 1945. The conflict was distinct from the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895, fought principally over predominance in Korea between Japan and Qing China. That earlier war ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895, under which China ceded Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan. (en.wikipedia.org)

Japan’s position in northeastern China before 1931 combined commercial interests with territorial and military privileges. In the Kwantung leased territory it exercised extensive administrative authority; along the South Manchurian Railway it controlled railway settlements, policing, taxation, and public utilities. Its troops were stationed to protect these holdings, but officers increasingly sought to transform a limited, treaty-based presence into territorial domination. Railways were therefore more than commercial assets: they supplied military forces, linked garrisons, and provided a pretext for intervention in adjacent Chinese territory. The distinction between Japanese privileges within specified zones and Chinese sovereignty over Manchuria became central to the ensuing diplomatic dispute. (ibiblio.org)

On September 18, 1931, officers of the Kwantung Army blew up a short stretch of the South Manchurian Railway near Mukden, now Shenyang. The Mukden Incident was then used to justify attacks on Chinese forces and the occupation of Manchuria. Prime Minister Wakatsuki Reijirō’s cabinet initially adopted a policy against widening the operation, but the army continued its advance, demonstrating the limits of civilian control over forces in the field. Within months, Japanese troops occupied the principal centers of the northeast. In 1932, the army established Manchukuo, presented as an independent state but controlled by Japan, with the former Qing emperor Puyi as its nominal ruler. Japan formally recognized the regime that September. (ndl.go.jp)

China appealed to the League of Nations, which appointed a five-member commission headed by Victor Bulwer-Lytton, second Earl of Lytton. Its findings, published in October 1932, rejected the characterization of Japan’s operations as legitimate self-defense and concluded that Manchukuo was not the product of a spontaneous independence movement. The proposed settlement combined Chinese sovereignty with substantial regional autonomy and protection for legitimate foreign interests. On February 24, 1933, the League Assembly adopted recommendations affirming Chinese sovereignty and refusing recognition of Manchukuo; the Japanese delegation, led by Matsuoka Yōsuke, walked out. Japan announced its withdrawal from the League on March 27, 1933. Neither the investigation nor diplomatic nonrecognition reversed the occupation, and the League imposed no effective collective sanctions. (en.wikipedia.org)

Northern China became the next zone of expansion because it connected Manchuria with the Beijing–Tianjin region and routes into the Chinese interior. Japanese operations against Rehe and the Great Wall in 1933 were followed by the Tanggu Truce of May 31, which established a demilitarized zone south of the wall. These arrangements restricted Chinese military deployments near strategically important approaches and transport corridors. Meanwhile, Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Nanjing possessed only uneven authority over regional armies: Zhang Xueliang’s allegiance in 1928 had brought nominal reunification, not a uniformly controlled military state. Continuing regional rivalries and the Chinese Civil War complicated coordinated resistance. Japanese expansion thus proceeded through a combination of military occupation, pressure for local concessions, and exploitation of divided Chinese authority before the fighting widened into nationwide war in 1937. (usni.org)

Belligerents, leadership, and military organization

The Nationalist government’s war effort was directed by Chiang Kai-shek, chairman of the Military Affairs Commission, which exercised supreme command over the National Revolutionary Army (NRA). This administrative framework did not constitute a uniformly integrated army. Central-government formations coexisted with regional forces whose commanders retained substantial influence over appointments, recruitment, and the employment of their troops. Incorporation into the NRA therefore did not necessarily transfer effective control to Chiang. An official U.S. Army history gives China’s strength in 1941 as approximately 3.8 million men on paper, organized into 246 front-line and 70 rear-area divisions; these figures describe nominal organization rather than an equivalent number of fully equipped, combat-ready formations. Differences in strength, training, and political allegiance complicated the coordination of operations and the allocation of supplies. (en.wikipedia.org)

The Chinese Communist Party, led by Mao Zedong, maintained its own military leadership despite the formal incorporation of Communist forces into the NRA in 1937. The principal Red Army formations became the Eighth Route Army in August, with Zhu De as commander and Peng Dehuai as deputy commander. Its three divisions—the 115th, 120th, and 129th—were initially commanded by Lin Biao, He Long, and Liu Bocheng respectively. Each division’s authorized organization comprised two brigades, each with two regiments. Although subsequently designated the Eighteenth Group Army, the force remained widely known as the Eighth Route Army. Southern Communist guerrilla formations were reorganized into the New Fourth Army in October 1937, with Ye Ting as commander and Xiang Ying as deputy; its initial four detachments numbered approximately 10,000 troops. Nationalist designations did not extinguish Communist political and operational control, leaving two distinct command systems within the nominal common war effort. (mod.gov.cn)

In Japan, Emperor Hirohito occupied the constitutional position of supreme commander, while the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy maintained separate general staffs, ministries, and operational hierarchies. Imperial General Headquarters, established in November 1937, advised the emperor, formulated high-level strategy, and provided machinery for interservice coordination. It did not merge military command with the cabinet: a contemporary Japanese announcement explicitly preserved the distinction between the government’s responsibilities and those of the high command. Both services operated aircraft, and cooperation depended on agreements between their staffs and expeditionary commands rather than a single unified air-service headquarters. The army supplied the main land forces in China; the navy conducted maritime and naval-air operations and deployed landing forces. (history.state.gov)

Japanese theater organization changed as the geographical scope of operations expanded. The China Expeditionary Army was established at Nanjing in September 1939 under General Toshizō Nishio. Its initial subordinate commands included the North China Area Army and the Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Twenty-first Armies. It was intended to coordinate operations throughout China outside Manchukuo, where the Kwantung Army remained a separate major command. Even this consolidation preserved important exceptions: the North China Area Army and the Twenty-first Army retained discretion over operational details, while aspects of their supply arrangements remained directly subject to authorities in Japan. Thus, a common theater headquarters did not eliminate the autonomy of regional commands or produce identical administrative relationships throughout the occupied territories. (jacar.go.jp)

Material differences were equally uneven. Japanese forces generally possessed better training and stronger artillery and air support, but their capabilities varied by formation and mission. China’s large infantry establishment concealed severe shortages of modern equipment: the U.S. Army’s account estimates that perhaps forty divisions in 1941 had received European-manufactured weapons and foreign training, whereas many others were understrength and poorly trained. Chinese aviation depended heavily on imported aircraft, replacement equipment, and technical assistance, in contrast to Japan’s established aircraft-producing industry and separate army and naval aviation systems. Later American-supported training at Ramgarh in India and at centers in China improved selected Chinese formations rather than transforming the entire NRA. Equipment deliveries, maintenance capacity, and logistical access therefore mattered as much as aggregate manpower when assessing the forces available for a particular operation. (history.army.mil)

The outbreak of full-scale war and the campaigns of 1937–1938

On the night of July 7, 1937, Japanese troops conducting exercises near Wanping, southwest of Beijing, became involved in shooting near the Marco Polo Bridge. Reporting a soldier missing, Japanese officers demanded entry into the walled town to search; Chinese authorities refused unrestricted entry but offered to investigate. Fighting intensified early on July 8 between Japanese troops and units of the Chinese 29th Army. The Marco Polo Bridge Incident initially remained subject to local negotiation: an agreement was reached on July 11, and further truce arrangements followed. These settlements failed to contain renewed clashes and reinforcement movements. Fighting at Langfang and Guang’anmen on July 25–26 preceded a Japanese general offensive on July 28. Song Zheyuan’s 29th Army withdrew from the Beijing area, while resistance around Tianjin continued through July 29–30. The conflict had expanded beyond a dispute that local commanders could settle. (wwws.loc.gov)

The Battle of Shanghai opened on August 13, extending major operations to the lower Yangtze region. Chiang Kai-shek committed central-government divisions, including German-trained formations, against Japanese naval landing forces; Japan subsequently deployed an expeditionary army commanded by Matsui Iwane. Street fighting and attacks on fortified positions developed into a prolonged battle sustained by Japanese seaborne reinforcement, naval gunfire, artillery, and air superiority. By October, China had committed approximately seventy-one divisions and half a million men, according to historian Frederic Wakeman’s account. The decisive operational change came on November 5, when Yanagawa Heisuke’s Japanese Tenth Army landed near Jinshanwei on Hangzhou Bay, threatening the Chinese flank and rear. Chinese withdrawal during November ended nearly three months of resistance but left many of the Nationalist government’s best formations seriously depleted. (assets.cambridge.org)

Japanese forces pursued the retreating armies toward Nanjing, coordinating the Shanghai Expeditionary Army and Tenth Army under Matsui’s Central China Area Army. Tang Shengzhi commanded the capital’s defense, drawing on units whose condition had deteriorated during the Shanghai campaign. Japanese formations converged on the city during early December, attacking its outer positions and then its gates and walls. A withdrawal ordered on December 12 broke down amid confused instructions, restricted exits, and inadequate arrangements for crossing the Yangtze River. Japanese troops occupied Nanjing on December 13. The capital’s capture was a major military and political loss, but it did not produce the Nationalist government’s surrender; the subsequent massacre is treated separately in the atrocities section. (edb.gov.hk)

In northern China, the autumn campaign for Taiyuan threatened Shanxi’s provincial capital and important arsenal. Yan Xishan directed Chinese defenses, with Wei Lihuang commanding major operations at Xinkou; Japanese attacking forces included Itagaki Seishiro’s Fifth Division. Chinese resistance at mountain passes and defensive positions delayed the advance, but Japanese progress through the eastern approaches endangered the defenders’ communications and forced withdrawal toward Taiyuan. The city fell in November 1937, depriving Yan’s forces of their principal industrial and administrative center. This defeat weakened conventional defense in Shanxi without eliminating resistance in its rural and mountainous districts. (en.wikipedia.org)

The 1938 Xuzhou campaign focused on the junction of the north–south Tianjin–Pukou and east–west Longhai railways. Japanese advances from Shandong and the lower Yangtze sought to connect their northern and central fronts. Li Zongren, commander of China’s Fifth War Area, coordinated resistance with Bai Chongxi. At Taierzhuang in late March and early April, Sun Lianzhong’s troops defended the town while Tang Enbo’s forces operated against the Japanese flanks and rear. Chinese counterattacks compelled the attacking Japanese forces to retreat, producing a significant battlefield victory. Japan nevertheless renewed the broader offensive with additional forces. Li evacuated Xuzhou to avoid encirclement, and Japanese troops captured the railway junction on May 19; the local victory had delayed, rather than prevented, its loss. (chiculture.org.hk)

The next major objective was Wuhan, the three-city complex of Hankou, Wuchang, and Hanyang. Japanese advances along the Yangtze and overland threatened Chinese supply and withdrawal routes, prompting evacuation in October; Japanese troops entered Hankou on October 25. In a separate southern operation, a landing at Daya Bay led to the occupation of Guangzhou on October 21. The move to Chongqing had already been formally announced on November 20, 1937, although Wuhan retained important governmental and military functions until its evacuation. An October 25, 1938, Chinese Foreign Ministry statement explained the Wuhan withdrawal as a means of preserving forces and protecting the transfer of personnel and material to the interior, rather than concentrating the principal armies where they risked destruction. (hansard.parliament.uk)

Protracted warfare and the campaigns of 1939–1945

After the capture of Wuhan in October 1938, Japanese territorial advances no longer produced a corresponding collapse of Chinese resistance. The Nationalist government continued the war from Chongqing, while shortages of equipment and supplies limited its ability to expel Japanese armies. Occupation was geographically uneven: possession of cities, railways, and navigable rivers did not necessarily mean effective control of adjacent countryside. A February 1939 American diplomatic report from the Yangtze region described Japanese forces holding river towns and ports without penetrating deeply beyond their principal communications routes. The resulting stalemate was strategic rather than a cessation of combat; conventional campaigns continued alongside resistance behind Japanese lines. (ibiblio.org)

The battles of Changsha demonstrated both the possibilities and limitations of Chinese conventional defense. In September–October 1939, Japanese forces under Yasuji Okamura advanced into northern Hunan but withdrew after encountering resistance from the Ninth War Area, whose leadership passed from Chen Cheng to Xue Yue. Another offensive under Korechika Anami in September–October 1941 again ended without permanent occupation of Changsha. During the third campaign, beginning on December 24, 1941, Xue combined defense of the city with attacks against Japanese flanks and communications. Li Yutang’s Tenth Corps held the urban defenses while other formations threatened the attackers’ supply routes. Japanese troops withdrew in January 1942. These campaigns preserved an important Chinese position south of the middle Yangtze, but did not dislodge Japan from its established bases farther north. (chiculture.org.hk)

The Battle of Changde in November–December 1943 followed a similar pattern of Japanese penetration followed by withdrawal. The offensive threatened Chinese positions west of Dongting Lake and tied down forces while Chinese and Allied operations were developing toward northern Burma. Yu Chengwan’s Fifty-seventh Division defended Changde through close street fighting before its surviving troops broke out southward on December 3. Japanese occupation proved temporary: exhausted formations and supply difficulties contributed to a withdrawal beginning on December 9. Chinese forces pursued them and, according to the Republic of China Ministry of National Defense’s campaign account, recovered the lost positions in the Changde area by December 24. The battle therefore involved the temporary loss and recovery of a city rather than a lasting transformation of the regional front. (mnd.gov.tw)

Operation Ichi-Go in 1944 broke this pattern on a much larger scale. Its principal objectives were to connect Japanese-held railway corridors through China toward French Indochina and to capture Allied airfields in eastern and southern China. An overland route would also reduce dependence on shipping increasingly threatened by Allied submarines. The campaign advanced through Henan, Hunan, and Guangxi. The U.S. Army’s retrospective Ichi-Go Plan map distinguishes the Henan operation in April–May from successive southern phases in June–July, July–September, and October, clarifying that the offensive comprised several connected advances rather than one simultaneous movement. Luoyang fell on May 25; Changsha on June 18; and Hengyang, defended by Fang Xianjue’s Tenth Corps, on August 8 after prolonged resistance. (ibiblio.org)

By November, Japanese forces had taken Guilin, Liuzhou, and Nanning, disrupting Chinese defenses and forcing the evacuation of major American forward air bases. The new corridor nevertheless remained vulnerable, and Nationalist resistance continued beyond it. In western Hunan, Japan’s Twentieth Army opened another offensive on April 8, 1945, targeting the airfield at Zhijiang. The U.S. Army’s dated campaign map covers April 8–June 7: Chinese defenses halted the advance short of the airfield, then counterattacks against its flanks and rear forced the Japanese back to their starting positions. Regular ammunition deliveries, radio-linked liaison, and sustained air support strengthened Chinese operational coordination. (ibiblio.org)

Chinese territorial recovery during summer 1945 also reflected Japanese strategic redeployment. In mid-May, Japanese headquarters ordered withdrawal from the southern railway extending toward Guilin and Liuzhou, concentrating forces for defense elsewhere. Chinese troops recovered Liuzhou’s airfield on June 26 and advanced toward Guilin, which the Japanese relinquished by late July. These movements included pursuit and fighting against withdrawing formations, not the destruction of all Japanese forces in China; they preceded, and were distinct from, the surrender arrangements of August–September 1945. (ibiblio.org)

Nationalist–Communist cooperation and resistance behind Japanese lines

On December 12, 1936, generals Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng detained Chiang Kai-shek near Xi’an, demanding an end to campaigns against the Chinese Communists and a stronger commitment to resisting Japan. Zhou Enlai participated in the negotiations preceding Chiang’s release on December 25. The Xi’an Incident opened the way to a truce in the Chinese Civil War, but did not itself establish a complete military alliance. Negotiations continued into 1937, and the Second United Front took public form after full-scale war began that July. The Communist main forces were reorganized as the Eighth Route Army, subsequently designated the Eighteenth Group Army; southern Communist guerrillas formed the New Fourth Army. These formations entered the National Revolutionary Army’s nominal command structure and received some government financial support, while retaining Communist leadership and internal organization. Cooperation included liaison and participation in common campaigns, rather than the merger of the two parties or their armed forces. (en.wikipedia.org)

Resistance behind Japanese lines connected regular formations, mobile guerrilla detachments, and village militias. In his 1937 On Guerrilla Warfare, Mao Zedong argued that irregular operations should complement conventional warfare, not replace it. Communist forces developed rural bases, especially in northern China, from which they attacked isolated posts and communications while avoiding prolonged engagements against superior concentrations. Local intelligence networks supplied information about troop movements, roads, and garrison routines; villagers also provided guides, food, shelter, and recruits. Militias could defend settlements and support operations without remaining permanently mobilized. This dependence on rural communities made political organization and military discipline integral to resistance: maintaining supplies required relationships that extended beyond individual raids. (afe.easia.columbia.edu)

Those relationships varied by locality and cannot be inferred simply from Communist claims of popular support. An American diplomatic report dated October 13, 1944, described the New Fourth Army’s efforts to cultivate support through rent and interest reductions, assistance to soldiers’ families, and local political organization. It reported approximately 152,000 regular troops supported by a militia of 550,000 in spring 1944. These figures came partly from information supplied by Communist commander Chen Yi; the report explicitly cautioned that his account might exaggerate the army’s achievements. The document nevertheless illustrates the organizational distinction between full-time troops and a much larger local support structure, rather than treating every militia member as an equivalently armed combatant. (history.state.gov)

The Hundred Regiments Offensive, launched on August 20, 1940, under Peng Dehuai’s operational direction, temporarily concentrated Communist forces on a scale unusual for their behind-the-lines warfare. Its principal targets included the Zhengtai railway connecting Shijiazhuang and Taiyuan, bridges, tunnels, communications installations, and Japanese strongpoints. Initial railway sabotage was followed by attacks on garrisons and resistance to Japanese counterattacks during the autumn. The offensive disrupted transport and exposed weaknesses in Japan’s dispersed occupation forces, but did not permanently remove Japanese control of the principal corridors. Japanese counterinsurgency combined military sweeps with economic blockade and efforts to isolate resistance bases. Operationally, these measures restricted guerrilla movement and supplies; their civilian consequences included village destruction, looting, and killings, which should be distinguished from battlefield outcomes. (en.wikipedia.org)

Interparty cooperation deteriorated as both sides contested recruitment, territorial jurisdiction, and control of armed groups. The New Fourth Army Incident followed disputes over Nationalist orders to relocate Communist units in late 1940. In January 1941, Nationalist troops surrounded and defeated the army’s headquarters column in southern Anhui; commander Ye Ting was detained. Chiang ordered the army dissolved on January 17, while the Communists announced its reconstitution on January 20 under Chen Yi and political commissar Liu Shaoqi. The destruction concerned the headquarters column, not the entire dispersed army. The incident gravely weakened military cooperation, but did not end either party’s resistance to Japan: Communist forces continued operating behind Japanese lines while Nationalist armies continued conventional campaigns. Anti-Japanese warfare and armed Nationalist–Communist rivalry consequently persisted alongside one another. (en.wikipedia.org)

Japanese occupation and collaborationist administrations

Japanese occupation comprised several administrative systems rather than a single government covering all conquered territory. In northeastern China, Manchukuo, established in 1932, remained formally separate from the collaborationist administrations subsequently created south of the Great Wall. Puyi became its emperor in March 1934, but Japanese officials exercised “internal guidance” over its bureaucracy, while the Kwantung Army controlled its defense. The Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railway combined transport operations with extensive commercial and administrative activities; an industrial five-year plan began in April 1937. Chinese officials, police officers, and judges staffed much of the machinery of government, beneath a structure whose decisive authority remained Japanese. (nippon.com)

South of Manchukuo, occupation centered on northern cities and railway corridors, the lower Yangtze region around Nanjing and Shanghai, and additional urban and coastal enclaves. Northern China initially came under Wang Kemin’s Provisional Government, established in Beijing in December 1937; the lower Yangtze was administered by Liang Hongzhi’s Reformed Government from March 1938. Their formal incorporation into the Nanjing government in 1940 did not produce administrative unity: the North China Political Council retained substantial autonomy under Japanese military supervision, while the Japanese-sponsored Mengjiang administration in Inner Mongolia remained only nominally subordinate to Nanjing. These jurisdictions should not be equated with uninterrupted territorial control, particularly in contested rural districts. (en.wikipedia.org)

Wang Jingwei, a former senior Nationalist leader who advocated negotiated peace with Japan, inaugurated the Reorganized National Government in Nanjing on March 30, 1940. His administration appropriated Nationalist institutions, symbols, and the political legacy of Sun Yat-sen, presenting itself as the legitimate alternative to the government in Chongqing. Its dependence on Japanese power was institutionalized by the treaty signed on November 30, 1940. This authorized Japanese troop deployments in northern China and Inner Mongolia, naval stationing rights, cooperation in strategic-resource development, and compliance with Japanese military requirements for railways, communications, and waterways. A joint declaration recognized Manchukuo. The United States continued to recognize the Chongqing government rather than Wang’s administration. (en.wikipedia.org)

Security depended on overlapping Japanese military police, Chinese police, intelligence agencies, and collaborationist armed forces. Wang’s armies incorporated former Nationalist soldiers and units inherited from the earlier occupation governments; their principal functions included garrison duty, policing, and operations against guerrillas. Northern units frequently answered to the North China Political Council rather than Nanjing. Li Shiqun’s security service, associated with its headquarters at 76 Jessfield Road in Shanghai, acquired considerable political influence but shared control with Japanese intelligence agencies. Information control protected the regime’s public image as well as suppressing opposition: in February 1944, censors removed references to Wang’s illness from a speech reported by German journalists. (en.wikipedia.org)

Economic extraction combined military demands with commercial controls. Requisitioning operated alongside arrangements compelling cooperation over transport and strategic resources; occupation authorities also sought business assistance in mobilizing the lower Yangtze economy. Currency conversion provided another coercive instrument. In occupied Shanghai and Tianjin, Nationalist fabi notes had to be exchanged for Wang-government currency at a prescribed ratio of two to one before June 1, 1942, sharply reducing holders’ purchasing power. Access to transport, raw materials, and markets consequently depended increasingly on occupation institutions rather than ordinary commercial bargaining. (ibiblio.org)

The conduct of residents, officials, and businesses nevertheless cannot be reduced to a uniform choice between allegiance and resistance. Holding senior office in a Japanese-sponsored government constituted political collaboration; continuing employment or negotiating supplies could instead represent accommodation under constraint. Narumi Imai’s study of Shanghai cotton purchasing after the expansion of the Pacific war documents this distinction concretely. Japanese entrepreneurs sought dependable raw-cotton supplies, whereas Chinese participants sought to sustain domestic spinning and weaving. The ventures encountered conflicting interests and Chinese passive resistance rather than automatic compliance. Political commitments could also change: Gao Zongwu, an intermediary in Wang’s negotiations, defected to Chongqing in January 1940 and released documents exposing the proposed agreement’s terms. Commercial cooperation, administrative service, and covert opposition therefore require examination through particular actions and circumstances. (jstage.jst.go.jp)

Foreign assistance, supply routes, and the wider Allied war

German assistance before 1938 combined arms sales, industrial cooperation, and military advice rather than an alliance against Japan. Hans von Seeckt and Alexander von Falkenhausen helped Chiang Kai-shek reorganize selected Nationalist divisions, emphasizing infantry training, standardized equipment, and a smaller, better-equipped army. Germany remained an important supplier after fighting expanded in 1937, but Berlin’s alignment with Japan brought the recall of Falkenhausen’s mission in 1938. The Soviet Union became the principal external military supplier during the war’s early years. Following the Sino-Soviet nonaggression pact of August 21, 1937, it supplied aircraft, artillery, and other equipment, while Soviet volunteer aviators flew combat missions alongside Chinese personnel. Supplies traveled through Xinjiang and the northwestern highway network; Soviet purchases and deliveries were financed through successive credit arrangements. Assistance diminished as Soviet strategic priorities changed in 1941. (cambridge.org)

American support expanded from credits and purchases into Lend-Lease in 1941. An initial allocation of $45.1 million covered transportation and construction requirements; President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved 300 trucks on May 6, and the first shipment departed for Rangoon within a fortnight. Aid to China developed alongside restrictions on exports to Japan, whose military depended heavily on imported petroleum and metals. Japanese expansion into Indochina intensified the confrontation: the freezing of Japanese assets in July 1941, followed by restrictions that effectively stopped American oil exports, sharpened the diplomatic crisis. Negotiations foundered partly over Japanese withdrawal from China, which Washington sought and Japanese military leaders rejected. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, transformed American assistance into participation in a common war. (ibiblio.org)

China signed the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942, alongside the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union, establishing its place among the leading Allied powers. Military coordination nevertheless lacked a single integrated command. Joseph Stilwell served as Chiang’s chief of staff, commanded American forces in the China–Burma–India theater, and administered military assistance, but these responsibilities did not give him unrestricted authority over Chinese armies. Operations in Burma also involved British commands, subsequently headed by Admiral Louis Mountbatten’s Southeast Asia Command. Stilwell favored rebuilding Chinese ground forces and reopening land communications through Burma; Chiang disputed his proposed deployments and command arrangements, while Claire Chennault advocated greater investment in air operations from China. Competition for transport capacity made these strategic disagreements immediate questions of supply allocation. (un.org)

The Burma Road, opened in 1938, connected Lashio in British Burma with China’s southwestern interior and Kunming. Overseas cargo landed at Rangoon, moved inland by railway, and then continued by truck. Japan’s conquest of Burma in 1942 severed this route despite Chinese intervention alongside British forces. The alternative was the Hump, an airlift from northeastern India across mountainous terrain to Chinese airfields. Flights began in April 1942; the American Air Transport Command assumed responsibility in December. According to the National Museum of the United States Air Force, monthly cargo increased from 2,800 tons in February 1943 to more than 12,000 in early 1944 and 71,000 in July 1945. Fuel, ammunition, medicines, and spare parts shared limited aircraft capacity, making the airlift’s expansion central to Allied operations in China. (en.wikipedia.org)

The Ledo Road provided a new overland connection from Assam through northern Burma to the existing Burma Road. Construction began in December 1942, advancing behind forces that cleared Japanese positions. Chinese troops trained and equipped in India and American units, including Merrill’s Marauders, fought to secure the corridor; roadbuilding and supply transportation were distinct from these combat operations and from Britain’s wider campaign to reconquer Burma. The route opened in early 1945, but the Hump remained the principal supply channel. (achh.army.mil)

Chennault’s American Volunteer Group—the Flying Tigers—trained in 1941 and fought in China and Burma after Pearl Harbor. Its volunteer organization ended in July 1942, when regular American Army Air Forces units assumed its mission; the China Air Task Force became the Fourteenth Air Force in March 1943. Chennault’s fighters defended airfields and supply routes, while bombers attacked shipping and supported Chinese ground forces, their activity repeatedly constrained by fuel shortages. After Stilwell’s recall in October 1944, Albert Wedemeyer became commander of the separate American China theater and Chiang’s chief of staff. He concentrated on reorganizing and training Chinese forces, while the division of the former China–Burma–India command separated responsibilities in China from those in India and Burma. (nationalmuseum.af.mil)

Wartime economy, government, and cultural mobilization

Beginning in 1937, industrial evacuation transferred machinery, skilled workers, and technical knowledge from coastal manufacturing centers into the interior. One published tally records 448 relocated factories and mines between August 1937 and the end of 1940, including 254 moved to Sichuan. Chongqing became a concentrated center of armaments, steelmaking, machinery, textiles, and chemicals, alongside its governmental functions. Kunming developed an electrical-industrial complex: by 1939, the National Resources Commission had established power generation, copper smelting, and electrical-equipment production there. Relocation preserved productive capacity but did not remove supply constraints. Japanese control over northern French Indochina from September 1940 blocked the Haiphong–Kunming railway route for importing heavy machinery, increasing dependence on roads and scarce motor transport. (dangjian.people.com.cn)

The Nationalist government financed military expenditure through taxation, borrowing from banks, and expanded issuance of its paper currency, fabi. Japanese occupation sharply reduced customs, salt, and other revenues. An American diplomatic report recorded national currency circulation of approximately 9.6 billion Chinese dollars at the end of 1940, compared with less than 2 billion when hostilities began in 1937. Monetary expansion interacted with shortages and disrupted distribution to accelerate inflation, eroding salaries and savings. In 1941, the central government assumed control of the land tax and collected it in grain, supplementing taxation with compulsory purchases to provision troops. These were distinct from unauthorized local levies and military seizures, which increased actual household burdens beyond official assessments. Conscription likewise linked military quotas to civilian administration; a 1941 reorganization established fifteen army-control areas and 109 division-control areas, but evasion, coercion, and deficient administration complicated implementation. (history.state.gov)

Communist-controlled areas combined revenue collection, recruitment, and political organization, but their institutions varied by locality and previous revolutionary experience. In the Shaan–Gan–Ning Border Region, the cessation of Nationalist subsidies in July 1940 increased pressure on local resources. Figures reproduced by historian Joseph W. Esherick show grain taxation rising from approximately 1.28 percent of the harvest in 1937 to 13.8 percent in 1941. Authorities also required peasants and their draft animals to transport salt for sale outside the region, generating revenue but diverting agricultural labor. Village elections and cadre assessments provided mechanisms for mobilization and handling complaints, without eliminating coercion. Zhidan County reported replacing twelve of thirty-eight local cadres in 1940. Such records distinguish the region’s advertised participatory institutions from the practical demands of taxation and recruitment. (degruyterbrill.com)

The movement of higher education created overlapping inland academic centers. Chengdu’s West China Union University accommodated displaced institutions including the University of Nanking, Ginling College, and Cheeloo University, sharing teaching and medical facilities. Peking, Tsinghua, and Nankai universities first combined in Changsha in 1937, then moved to Kunming in 1938 as the National Southwestern Associated University, commonly called Lianda. Mei Yiqi, Jiang Menglin, and Zhang Boling shared its leadership; approximately 8,000 students attended during its wartime existence and nearly 4,000 graduated. Protection of cultural heritage involved similarly elaborate transfers. The Palace Museum began evacuating its collections from Beijing in 1933; renewed evacuation in 1937 divided shipments among three inland routes, ultimately dispersing holdings to protected locations in southwestern China. (scu.edu.cn)

Journalism, literature, theater, and film carried resistance messages beyond official proclamations. Traveling performers used short street plays with minimal scenery and direct audience participation; Chen Liting’s Lay Down Your Whip, originally written in 1931, became a widely performed wartime vehicle. Lao She headed the resistance writers’ association founded in Wuhan in March 1938 and promoted accessible songs and storytelling. The 1939 film Mulan Joins the Army, scripted by Ouyang Yuqian and starring Chen Yunshang, adapted a historical heroine to contemporary patriotic purposes. Cultural production also operated under political constraints: Nationalist censorship restricted publication, while Mao Zedong’s May 1942 Yan’an talks prescribed literature and art serving revolutionary objectives under party direction. (publishing.cdlib.org)

Women’s organizations connected propaganda with production and education. The Women’s Advisory Council of the New Life Movement, associated with Song Meiling, recruited activists from different political and professional backgrounds. Liu Qingyang directed cadre-training courses beginning in Wuhan in July 1938. Their work extended to rural mobilization and literacy rather than remaining confined to urban fundraising. In Sichuan, council-supported production projects included the Songgai textile experimental district and Leshan sericulture district, both established in October 1938, and the Baisha textile factory, established in January 1939. Spinning, weaving, sewing, and handicraft cooperatives made women’s labor an organized component of wartime economic mobilization. (orca.cardiff.ac.uk)

Civilian displacement, environmental destruction, and famine

The fighting of 1937–1938 produced several distinct forms of civilian displacement. Some residents sought nearby protection rather than leaving their region: historian Diana Lary records that more than 100,000 people entered Shanghai’s foreign concessions in October–November 1937. Others moved inland in successive stages. Wuhan became a major gathering point for refugees in spring 1938, but its capture that October forced further flight toward southwestern China, including Chongqing. Temporary evacuation could therefore become repeated displacement or years of resettlement away from home. Movement was not uniformly westward: urban residents sought shelter in surrounding rural districts, while villagers escaped fighting and environmental disaster by moving toward towns, transport routes, or unaffected counties. In Henan’s flooded districts, a government investigation in 1940 described families repeatedly returning to their villages and fleeing again as inundation recurred. (apjjf.org)

The Yellow River flood of 1938 resulted from a Nationalist military decision to turn the river into a defensive barrier. With Japanese forces advancing toward Zhengzhou after taking Kaifeng, Chiang Kai-shek authorized breaching the dikes to obstruct the Longhai railway corridor and protect the railway junction. After unsuccessful attempts at Zhaokou, troops opened the embankment at Huayuankou, north of Zhengzhou, on June 9, 1938. Warning to civilians was severely restricted to preserve military secrecy. Water spread southeast across eastern Henan and subsequently into Anhui and Jiangsu through the Huai drainage system. The diversion interrupted the Japanese westward advance toward Zhengzhou, but did not prevent the eventual capture of Wuhan. It also struck during the wheat harvest, destroying standing crops, stored grain, homes, tools, and livestock. (disasterhistory.org)

The destruction extended beyond the initial inundation. Sediment deposition obstructed drainage, while repeated breaches and military dike construction shifted the flooded area throughout 1938–1945. Displacement reduced the labor available to maintain water-control works, and demands for repair labor burdened already impoverished communities. Postwar investigations cited by historian Micah Muscolino estimated that 489,200 hectares—32 percent of cultivated land in twenty affected eastern Henan counties—had been inundated. The same body of postwar reporting put flood-related displacement across affected areas of Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu at approximately 3.9 million people. This was a retrospective estimate of people displaced by wartime flooding in those three provinces, not a nationwide refugee total or a count of deaths. (disasterhistory.org)

The Henan famine of 1942–1943 arose from interacting agricultural and military pressures rather than flooding alone. Drought and other damaging weather contributed to food production falling by approximately half in 1942, while years of warfare had depleted household resources. Grain taxation and military requisitioning continued despite diminished harvests; abrupt price increases further reduced access to food. Political division between Nationalist-, Japanese-, and Communist-controlled territory complicated movement and relief. Historian Mark Baker estimates approximately one million starvation-related deaths and perhaps three million people fleeing their homes across Henan during the crisis, treating mortality and displacement as separate categories. Families sold furniture, tools, and fuel to obtain food, consumed bark and other substitute foods, or attempted escape westward along the Longhai railway. Interrupted services left large crowds stranded outside Luoyang station. (press-files.anu.edu.au)

Relief expanded unevenly during spring 1943. Reporting by Theodore White and Harrison Forman brought additional attention to the famine. In an April 23 diplomatic dispatch, American chargé John Carter Vincent recorded reports of grain shipments from Shaanxi and the temporary dedication of railway services to food transport, but cautioned that quantities arriving remained small. Japanese bombing also disrupted civilian life far from the front. Chongqing’s shelter system had reached 510 public shelters, with stated capacity for 162,580 people, by February 1940, illustrating the scale of civil-defense provision required. Displaced children faced interrupted schooling and separation from support networks. The Nationalist government registered refugee students and established national middle schools inland; some relocated schools occupied Buddhist temples, provoking disputes with monks and local residents. These institutions preserved educational access for some children, but operated amid overcrowding, administrative abuses, and competition for scarce local resources. (history.state.gov)

Atrocities, prohibited weapons, and human losses

The Nanjing Massacre began after Japanese forces captured Nanjing on December 13, 1937. During the following six weeks, soldiers killed civilians and disarmed Chinese troops, committed widespread rape, and looted and burned property. Captured soldiers and men identified as former combatants were separated from other residents and executed; women and girls suffered sexual violence both inside and outside refugee shelters. The University of Southern California’s archive guide gives an estimated 200,000–300,000 people killed in the city and adjacent rural districts between December 1937 and February 1938, and approximately 20,000 women and girls raped. These are estimates for a defined area and period, not a complete enumeration of victims. Contemporary documentation includes missionary correspondence and diaries preserved at Yale, Minnie Vautrin’s accounts of conditions at Ginling Women’s College, and John Magee’s films of wounded civilians and refugee camps. Uncertainty about the total does not negate this evidence of mass killing and sexual violence. (libguides.usc.edu)

Massacres also occurred during occupation and counterinsurgency operations elsewhere. At Panjiayu in Hebei, Japanese and collaborationist troops killed villagers and burned their homes on January 25, 1941; the local memorial records 1,230 deaths and 96 wounded. Forced labor extended beyond occupied China into Japan’s wartime industrial economy. Facts reproduced in a Japanese Supreme Court judgment describe a November 27, 1942 cabinet decision authorizing the importation of Chinese workers, followed by the transfer of 37,524 workers between March 1944 and May 1945. In one documented case, 360 Chinese workers were delivered at Qingdao in July 1944 for work on the Yasuno power plant in Hiroshima Prefecture. Such transfers involved coercion and compulsory labor, rather than ordinary employment migration. Prisoner mistreatment also included beatings, torture, and executions, documented in Allied investigation files and testimony. (hsjyjd.hebccw.cn)

The Japanese military’s “comfort women” system institutionalized sexual exploitation in military “comfort stations.” The term translates the Japanese euphemism ianfu; it does not describe freely given consent. Stations existed in Shanghai by 1932 and expanded during the war, holding Chinese, Korean, and other women and girls recruited through deception, coercion, or abduction. Administration varied: some stations were operated directly by the army, while civilian operators managed others under military supervision. Military authorities organized transportation, regulated access, and oversaw medical examinations. Victims endured repeated rape, confinement, and physical abuse. The 1996 report of United Nations Special Rapporteur Radhika Coomaraswamy characterized the forced provision of sexual services to armed forces as military sexual slavery. Estimates covering the entire Japanese-controlled Asian system cannot be treated as counts of Chinese victims alone. (documents.un.org)

Unit 731, directed by military physician Ishii Shirō, conducted nonconsensual human experimentation at facilities near Harbin, including Pingfang. Prisoners were deliberately infected with diseases and subjected to vivisection and other lethal experiments. Associated organizations included Unit 1855 in Beijing and Unit 1644 in Nanjing. Biological warfare was not confined to laboratories: Japanese officer Imoto Kumao’s wartime journal corroborates operations in central China during 1940–1942. Chemical warfare is likewise documented by Japanese military records. The Narashino Military Academy compiled 56 case studies of chemical-weapons use in China, including mustard gas; a separate Japanese battle report records its use in Shanxi in winter 1942. These records establish experimentation and battlefield deployment without requiring acceptance of every subsequently proposed victim total. (archives.gov)

Human-loss figures require distinctions between deaths in combat, executions of prisoners, civilian killings, and deaths from famine or disease. Historian Rana Mitter estimated in 2014 that at least 14 million Chinese people died during the 1937–1945 war. This is an aggregate wartime death estimate, not a count of massacre victims or military battle deaths. Broader estimates necessarily address deaths arising from deprivation and disrupted civilian life as well as direct violence. “Casualties” may include wounded, missing, or captured people, depending on the source; consequently, a casualty total cannot be read as a death toll. Comparisons also require matching chronological and geographical boundaries, particularly whether a study begins in 1931 or 1937 and whether local counts include surrounding rural districts. (journals.sagepub.com)

Japan’s surrender and the immediate postwar settlement

In August 1945, Japan faced several converging military and diplomatic shocks. The United States carried out the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8 and opened its offensive in Manchuria on August 9, attacking the Kwantung Army and ending Japanese hopes of Soviet mediation. Soviet advances broke Japanese military control in northeastern China and brought down the Japanese-sponsored state of Manchukuo. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito’s recorded radio address announced acceptance of the Allied surrender terms. This announcement initiated capitulation; it was distinct from the subsequent signing of surrender instruments and the disarmament of dispersed Japanese forces. (history.navy.mil)

The formal instrument was signed aboard USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signed for the emperor and Japanese government, and General Yoshijirō Umezu for Imperial General Headquarters; General Douglas MacArthur accepted for the Allied powers. The instrument accepted the Potsdam terms and required Japanese forces and forces under Japanese control to cease hostilities and surrender. The China-theater ceremony followed on September 9 in the auditorium of the Central Military Academy in Nanjing. General He Yingqin, representing Chiang Kai-shek, accepted the surrender of General Yasuji Okamura, commander of Japan’s China Expeditionary Army. These three dates therefore mark different stages: the public announcement, the general Allied surrender, and its formal implementation in the China theater. (archives.gov)

General Order No. 1 allocated responsibility for receiving Japanese capitulations. Forces in China excluding Manchuria, in Taiwan, and in French Indochina north of latitude 16° north were directed to surrender to Chiang Kai-shek; those in Manchuria were assigned to Soviet commanders. Japanese units were ordered to remain in place, preserve military equipment, and hand over arms and installations to designated Allied authorities. This arrangement favored Nationalist acceptance of surrender rather than acceptance by Communist forces. American aircraft and naval transports moved Nationalist troops into formerly occupied areas, while nearly 50,000 United States Marines deployed to northern China in late September and early October, occupying ports and communications centers and guarding railway lines. The restoration of government authority consequently depended on transport capacity and access to cities and routes, not simply on the surrender announcement. (mofa.go.jp)

Disarmament and repatriation continued into 1946. The February 6, 1946, China-theater repatriation plan coordinated Chinese authorities, American commands, and Allied headquarters in Japan. Chinese authorities were responsible for bringing Japanese military personnel and civilians to embarkation ports; American assistance covered shipping and the organization of sea transport. The plan also assigned responsibility for food, medical provision, and reception in Japan. Repatriation thus required the assembly and movement of people from inland districts before ocean transport could begin, and its pace remained constrained by shipping availability and disrupted communications. It was an administrative operation separate from the ceremonies accepting military surrender. (history.state.gov)

The territorial framework came initially from wartime declarations. The Cairo Declaration, issued on December 1, 1943, stated that Manchuria, Formosa—Taiwan—and the Pescadores should be restored to the Republic of China. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, required implementation of the Cairo terms, and Japan accepted the Potsdam provisions in its surrender instrument. These declarations and surrender arrangements should be distinguished from subsequent peace treaties: the September 8, 1951, San Francisco treaty recorded Japan’s renunciation of Formosa and the Pescadores without naming a recipient. Meanwhile, the Republic of China signed the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945, and became a founding member of the United Nations, with a permanent seat on the Security Council. (history.state.gov)

The struggle over former Japanese territory and matériel developed alongside negotiations over China’s political future. Nationalist forces sought control of major cities and transport corridors, while Communist forces expanded from their rural bases and moved into Manchuria during the Soviet occupation. Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong met in Chongqing in 1945 to discuss a postwar government, including political participation and military unification. American mediation, subsequently led by General George C. Marshall, attempted to secure an agreement, but disputes over territorial authority and control of armed forces remained unresolved. Fighting expanded into full-scale civil war during 1946, after months in which negotiations and armed competition had proceeded simultaneously. (history.state.gov)

War-crimes proceedings, historical sources, and remembrance

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, established under Allied occupation authority in Tokyo, began hearings on May 3, 1946. Its eleven judges represented eleven Allied countries, including China. The tribunal’s charter distinguished crimes against peace—planning and waging aggressive war—from conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity, designated Classes A, B, and C respectively; these were legal categories, not ranks of severity. Twenty-eight Japanese leaders were indicted, and twenty-five received judgments in November 1948, all being convicted on at least one count. Seven received death sentences. The proceedings addressed aggression against China as well as atrocities: General Iwane Matsui was sentenced to death for failing to discharge his duty to prevent abuses by the forces that captured Nanjing. (archives.gov)

Separate Chinese military tribunals prosecuted Japanese defendants for offenses committed in their respective jurisdictions. Beginning in 1946, the Nationalist government established ten Class B/C courts, including those in Nanjing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Beijing, then called Beiping. Their work concerned responsibility for killings, torture, prisoner mistreatment, and other occupation-era offenses rather than the Tokyo tribunal’s central prosecution of wartime leadership for aggression. A representative case was Lieutenant General Tani Hisao, commander of the Japanese Sixth Division during the capture of Nanjing. The Nanjing court tried him on February 6, 1947, pronounced its judgment on March 10, and executed him on April 26. (wctwp.sjtu.edu.cn)

Accountability for biological warfare followed a different course. American investigators questioned Ishii Shirō and other personnel associated with Unit 731 after Japan’s surrender. Archival correspondence documents decisions to protect Ishii and colleagues from prosecution while obtaining their experimental information and keeping it confidential. In 1947, American interagency deliberations explicitly addressed immunity; Ishii was not prosecuted at Tokyo. The Soviet Union separately prosecuted Japanese personnel at Khabarovsk in December 1949, producing testimony and documents concerning biological warfare. These proceedings and American investigative files therefore preserve evidence absent from the Tokyo judgment: the absence of a conviction there cannot establish that the underlying acts did not occur. (archives.gov)

Historical reconstruction draws on military orders and operational reports, diplomatic correspondence, occupation administration records, diaries, photographs, trial exhibits, and survivor testimony. These materials answer different questions: an order can establish official instructions, whereas a diary or deposition may document what a witness observed at a particular place. Yale University Library’s Nanking Massacre Project brings together missionary correspondence, diaries, photographs, and films. Its collections include material from Miner Searle Bates and John Magee; Magee’s surviving film records injured victims and the consequences of violence. Trial archives additionally preserve interrogations, affidavits, prosecution exhibits, judgments, and reviews, allowing courtroom conclusions to be examined alongside their supporting evidence. (web.library.yale.edu)

The surviving record is uneven. Japanese military authorities ordered the destruction of documents on August 14–15, 1945, and afterward, eliminating portions of the administrative record. Translation also requires attention to military terminology, personal names, and whether a surviving text is an original, a contemporary translation, or a later transcription. Casualty comparisons require equally explicit boundaries: a count for Nanjing’s walled city cannot automatically be compared with one encompassing surrounding counties, nor can recorded killings be equated with aggregate deaths from combat, hunger, and disease. Oral history supplies experiences missing from official files, but interviews must be identified by their recording date and assessed alongside contemporary evidence rather than treated as interchangeable with it. (archives.gov)

Remembrance institutions combine historical collections with commemorative practices. The Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders opened on August 15, 1985, at the Jiangdongmen massacre and mass-burial site. Its establishment accompanied archaeological investigation and systematic collection of survivor accounts in 1984–1985. On February 27, 2014, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee designated December 13 as the national memorial day for the massacre’s victims; the first national ceremony followed that December. Exhibitions, monuments, names of victims, and ceremonies communicate remembrance, while the documents, objects, excavation records, and recorded testimonies held by a museum remain individually examinable sources with distinct provenance and evidentiary limits. (19371213.com.cn)

References

1. Second Sino-Japanese Waren.wikipedia.org
2. Takeover of Taiwan in Accordance with the Treatyarchives.ith.sinica.edu.tw
3. HyperWar: International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 5ibiblio.org
4. 4-1 Manchurian Incident of 1931ndl.go.jp
5. The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrinehistory.state.gov
6. Timeline — A Modern History of Japan, Fourth Editionlearninglink.oup.com
7. Lytton Reporten.wikipedia.org
8. Imperial Rescript to Withdraw from League of Nationsibiblio.org
9. Tanggu Truceen.wikipedia.org
10. Military Affairs Commissionen.wikipedia.org
11. China Defensivehistory.army.mil
12. Memoirs of Peng Dehuaimarxists.org
13. History of the PLA’s Ground Force Organisational Structure and Military Regionsrusi.org
14. Eighth Route Armyen.wikipedia.org
15. The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State, November 23, 1937history.state.gov
16. Strategy and Command: The First Two Yearshistory.army.mil
17. Japanese Monograph No. 166: China Incident Naval Air Operationsibiblio.org
18. Japanese Monograph No. 144, Appendix No. 10ibiblio.org
19. China Expeditionary Army General Headquartersjacar.go.jp
20. The Chargé in Japan (Dooman) to the Secretary of State, September 4, 1939history.state.gov
21. Judgment International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Part B, Chapter Vwwws.loc.gov
22. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1937, Volume III: Chapter II, July 8–25, 1937history.state.gov
23. HyperWar: International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 5ibiblio.org
24. Monograph 144, Chapter IIibiblio.org
25. The Shanghai Badlands: Sample Chapterassets.cambridge.org
26. The Nanjing Massacre: Previewapi.pageplace.de
27. The 70th Anniversary of the Victory of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression: Selections from the Hsu Chung Mao Collectionedb.gov.hk
28. Battle of Shanghaien.wikipedia.org
29. Battle of Xinkouen.wikipedia.org
30. Battle of Taiyuanen.wikipedia.org
31. China Defensiveibiblio.org
32. Historical Documents—Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, The Far East, Volume III, Document 758history.state.gov
33. China Offensiveibiblio.org
34. Xi'an Incidenten.wikipedia.org
35. Second United Fronten.wikipedia.org
36. Selections from On Guerrilla Warfare (1937) By Mao Zedongafe.easia.columbia.edu
37. FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfaremarines.mil
38. Japan-China Joint History Research Reportmofa.go.jp
39. The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State, October 13, 1944history.state.gov
40. Hundred Regiments Offensiveen.wikipedia.org
41. New Fourth Army Incidenten.wikipedia.org
42. Manchukuo: Imperial Japan’s Puppet Statenippon.com
43. Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1937–1940)en.wikipedia.org
44. Wang Jingwei regimeen.wikipedia.org
45. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1940, Volume IV, Document 330history.state.gov
46. Collaborationist Chinese Armyen.wikipedia.org
47. Wartime Shanghaidokumen.pub
48. From Traitor to Martyr: Drawing Lessons from the Death and Burial of Wang Jingwei, 1944cambridge.org
49. Sino-Japanese “Collaboration” in Shanghai during the Asian Pacific War: The Case of Raw Cotton Purchasingjstage.jst.go.jp
50. German Advice and Residual Warlordism in the Nanking Decade: Influences on Nationalist Military Training and Strategycambridge.org
51. Stilwell’s Mission to China, Chapter 1ibiblio.org
52. Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41history.state.gov
53. Preparatory Years: UN Charter Historyun.org
54. Stilwell’s Mission to Chinahistory.army.mil
55. The “Hump”: Lifeline to Chinanationalmuseum.af.mil
56. The Medical Department: Medical Service in the War Against Japan, Chapter VIIachh.army.mil
57. Historical Documents—Foreign Relations of the United States, 1941, Volume V, Document 657history.state.gov
58. Nationalist China at War: Military Defeats and Political Collapse, 1937–45dokumen.pub
59. Dawn of the Yan’an Eradegruyterbrill.com
60. 抗战故事之老华西：五大学风云际会 华西坝钟鼓和鸣scu.edu.cn
61. 辗转西南，离乱弦歌不辍tsinghua.edu.cn
62. War and Popular Culture: Resistance in Modern China, 1937–1945publishing.cdlib.org
63. Yellow River flood, 1938–47disasterhistory.org
64. The slow, the quick and the dead: Environment, politics and temporality in the Henan famine, 1942–43press-files.anu.edu.au
65. The Chargé in China (Vincent) to the Secretary of State, April 23, 1943history.state.gov
66. A Wartime Stampede: Renewing a Social Contract after the Great Tunnel Disaster of Chongqingcambridge.org
67. Defiant Retreat: The Relocation of Middle Schools to China’s Interior, 1937–1945journal.hep.com.cn
68. Nanjing Massacres — USC Shoah Foundation Visual History Archivelibguides.usc.edu
69. The Nanking Massacre Project: About the Projectdivinity-adhoc.library.yale.edu
70. Donated film reels contain footage from the Nanking Massacrenews.yale.edu
71. 潘家峪惨案纪念馆hsjyjd.hebccw.cn
72. Judgments of the Supreme Courtcourts.go.jp
73. Researching Japanese War Crimes: Introductory Essaysarchives.gov
74. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women: Report on the mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartimedocuments.un.org
75. The Second World War: Introductiondhjhkxawhe8q4.cloudfront.net
76. Japan Surrendersarchives.gov
77. Surrender of Japan (1945)archives.gov
78. The Chinese Revolution of 1949history.state.gov
79. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East: China, Volume X, Document 618history.state.gov
80. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East: China, Volume IX, Document 197history.state.gov
81. Foreign Relations of the United States, The Conference of Berlin, 1945, Volume I, Document 606history.state.gov
82. Potsdam Declarationen.wikipedia.org
83. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Korea and China, Volume VII, Part 2, Document 187history.state.gov
84. Japanese Interim Reportarchives.gov
85. Sitting in Judgmentarchives.gov
86. Library of Congress report on Japanese war-crimes trialstile.loc.gov
87. Tokyo Judgmentcrimeofaggression.info
88. 上海交通大学战争审判与世界和平研究院wctwp.sjtu.edu.cn
89. Historical War Crimes Trials in Asiatoaep.org
90. Researching Japanese War Crimesarchives.gov
91. Miner Searle Batesweb.library.yale.edu
92. 35年前，我们为什么要建纪念馆19371213.com.cn