JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

H ATA N O S u m i oThis article was originally posted in the Toyo Bunko Repository(ERNEST) and is being carried on JIIA's website with the approval of
Toyo Bunko. Link to ERNEST is https://toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp/

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIPCONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE
SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIMECHINA (1937–1945)*
INTRODUCTION
Chinese-history scholar Uno Shigeaki 宇野重昭 wrote in 1987 that “forJapanese people, who are believed to be the perpetuators, objectively discussing the Sino-Japanese War as a research topic is extremely difficult.”
Thus, according to Uno, scholars in Japanese-Chinese relations have attempted to use the perspective that the Chinese people’s resistance to Japan’s aggression was “in essence, a nationalist movement” as a common
basis for debate. Considering the possibility of using this form of basis,
Uno, with regards to nationalist movements in China and Japan, equatedthe large-scale mobilization by leaders who believed in the necessity for
rapid modernization in response to the impact of the West to “top-down
nationalistic movements.”
The purpose of this review is to investigate the main research
trends and outcomes (mainly books) concerning the Sino-Japanese War(1937–1945) and wartime China, using works published in Japanese (ortranslations into Japanese) from the viewpoint of the Chinese side, sincethe 1990s. While there are many Japanese scholars among those who research Chinese history, their positions regarding research into the SinoJapanese War have fluctuated between the following two perspectives.

1

2

H ATA N O

The first perspective, which is similar to Uno’s viewpoint, takes the
position that the difficulties of researching the Sino-Japanese War canbe overcome. The other perspective emphasizes the heavy burden of theJapanese with regards to responsibility for the war and wartime criminalacts. The result, as pointed out by Imai Narumi 今井就稔 [2005], is that“for research concerning wartime China, ‘dominance’ research is discussed from the viewpoint of Japanese history and ‘resistance’ researchis regarded as Chinese history,” demonstrating a persistent trend that
implicitly recognizes a division of roles.
However, from the early 1990s, diversity in international researchexchanges and research methods progressed, and new assessments drawing on cultural studies and post-colonialism were actively pursued. In
consequence, research that did not concentrate on the polarities of occupation and resistance or dominance and subordination gained popularity. While the diversification of these perspectives advanced, there werealso debates that called for the necessity of shared perspectives concerning the “War of Aggression upon China” [Himeta 1993].

PARADIGM SHIFT
Iechika RyΩko 家近亮子, who began to research the Sino-Japanese war
in the 1980s, wrote in the introduction of her 2012 book that “while
there were serious questions raised about what was commonly believed
until the latter half of the 1970s that the Chinese Communist Party led
the anti-Japanese war and ushered it to victory, research was focused on
Chiang Kai-shek as the leader of the Nationalist government of China.”
Similar to Iechika, there were more than a few scholars who were unsatisfied with the predominately one-sided perspective of Chinese historicalresearch to date that focused on the Communist Party (the revolutionary
view of history). These scholars embarked upon research that objectively assessed the Republic of China era in terms of its system of governance, the modernization and democratization of the military, politics,
and society, as well as economic development. Particularly in the 1990s,
a shift from a “revolutionary paradigm” to a “nation-building paradigm”
occurred in Chinese historical research. With this, as China continues
to develop into a major world power, it can be said that there is a common interest in determining where modern China’s democratization andnation-building will lead.
As a beginning, we will examine two collections of joint research.
The first collection is comprised of research undertaken by Ishijima

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Noriyuki 石島紀之 and Kubo TΩru 久保亨 [2004], and the second collection has been undertaken by Chuo University’s Institute of Humanities Science (中央大学人文科学研究所) [ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku
Kenkyπjo 2005].
As the same authors are included in both collections, the topics ofindividual articles (rather than the titles) concerning the Sino-Japanese
War era and the authors of such articles are as follows: The relationshipbetween the military and the party (Liu Weikai 劉維開), a broad overview of the organizational structure of the Chinese Nationalist Party
and Nationalist government (SaitΩ Michihiko 斎藤道彦), the structure
and operations of the Nationalist government army (Kasahara Tokushi
笠原十九司), the historical role of the People’s Political Council (Zhou
Yong 周勇), local government and local government administrativereform (Ajioka TΩru 味岡徹), the relationship between the resistanceera and the Chinese Civil War (Inoue Hisashi 井上久士), the conflict
relationship between the local government leaders of Sichuan and
the Nationalist government of China (Imai Shun 今井駿), mining andmanufacturing policy and economic development (Kubo TΩru), tradecontrol (Zheng Huixin 鄭会欣), the structure of the National Spiritual
Mobilization Movement and general mobilization (Himeta Mitsuyoshi
姫田光義), aviation policy (Hagiwara Mitsuru 萩原充), the requisition
situation in rural communities in the Sichuan and social transformation(Sasagawa Yπji 笹川祐史), rural construction movements in the Gansu
Province (Yamamoto Shin 山本真), gag orders and information dissemination policy (Nakamura Motoya 中村元哉), the New Life Movement(Fukamachi Hideo 深町英夫), textbook policy (Takada Yukio 高田幸男), the liberalism of intellectuals in Kunming (Mizuha Nobuo 水羽信男), ethnic Chinese policies (Kikuchi Kazutaka 菊池一隆), activities of
the YWCA (Young Women’s Christian Association) and women’s mobilization (Ishikawa Teruko 石川照子), Nationalist China and international propaganda (Tsuchida Akio 土田哲夫), the Stilwell Incident andChiang Kai-shek’s response (KatΩ KΩichi 加藤公一), and the Japan-China
relationship regarding the Tanaka Memorandum (Hattori Ryπji 服部龍二). In addition, it should be noted that in the latter collection, Tsuchidadiscusses the structural character of the Chinese Nationalist Party andregional base.
Most of the researchers listed above have developed academic research in their respective areas and have taken the lead in investigating
the Sino-Japanese War.

3

4

H ATA N O

THE TOTAL WAR FRAMEWORK AND CHIANG KAI-SHEK
At the beginning of his 2004 book co-edited with Kubo, Ishijima suggests that the Nationalist government plunged into the Sino-Japanese
War without sufficient mobilization preparation, considering this war as
being a magnification of the fate of the Chinese people in the total war
effort. He notes that while the government hastened the creation of ageneral mobilization system, many obstacles stood in their way. For example, the existence of regional governments that were not under the administration of the Nationalist government, resistance of the Communist
Party of China, the military’s weakness, meager economic strength, andrural communities that strove to maintain the traditional order. Upon
analysis of China’s resistance capability and general mobilization system,
there was common agreement among Japanese researchers that thesevarious difficulties posed problems. For example, Himeta and Yamada
Tatsuo 山田辰雄 [2006] show that the independent governing systemsof various regional regimes had a complicated impact on the Nationalist
government’s mobilization and resistance mechanisms.
Furthermore, Ishijima [2004] notes that with regard to the creationof a general mobilization system, there was not only “top-down” controlof mandatory mobilization and economic society, but also people’s demands from the “bottom up,” raising public awareness through the constant expansion of democracy. Thus, the government sought a different
direction from Japan’s creation of a total war framework. This feature
was also pointed out by Kubo [2011] in his comparison of Japanese andChinese total mobilization systems.
The construction and operation of the Nationalist government’s
total war framework, rather than the system and decision-making structure, is largely due to the dictatorial leadership of Chiang Kai-shek.
In that sense, research concerning Chiang Kai-shek’s strategy vis-àvis Japan and mobilization preparations gathered attention, and works
were published by researchers such as Imai Shun [1997] and Iechika[2002]. Imai endeavors to reevaluate Chiang Kai-shek’s strategic position towards Japan as a “protracted warfare strategist,” and Iechika also
demonstrated that, from the perspective of constructing a resistanceframework, Chiang Kai-shek pursued an “endurance contest” agenda,
as he was committed to building up the country’s national defense wellbefore the Sino-Japanese War. Drawing on these academic perspectives,
Kasahara [2005], keenly analyzed Chiang Kai-shek’s wartime leadershipand strategies of the Nationalist government army, the Battle of Shanghai and the Battle of Nanjing as examples of tactical leadership, and the

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

actual conditions of mobilization.
What preparations did the Nationalist government undertake forthe war against Japan, and how did it respond to Japan’s military operations after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident? Research into these questions has advanced since the 2006 public disclosure of Chiang Kai-shek’s
diaries. Through an analysis of Chiang Kai-shek’s words and actions,
Huang Zijin 黄自進 [2011] portrays the Chinese leader as worried about
the dilemma of acquiring modernization from Japan while confronting
Japan’s invasion and its transformation into an enemy. Iechika [2012]refers to the conflicting emotions of China’s love-hate relationship withJapan, with aims to enhance China’s status internationally by battlingout an anti-Japanese war. In this regard, she notes that China had to be
most wary of the Soviet Union.
The edited volume by Yamada and Matsushige Mitsuhiro 松重充浩
[2013] emphasizes Chiang Kai-shek’s relationship with Japan throughsuch connections as his study experience and character development.
From the perspectives of his political and military philosophy as a revolutionary, politician, and militarist, as well as foreign policy and military
strategy, they portray a multi-dimensional Chiang Kai-shek.
In the latter half of the 1980s, Himeta [Himeta and Kubo 1986]
pointed out that because it was too obvious that Chiang Kai-shek’s administration was a military regime, that interpretation of its character iseven more difficult. The character of Chiang Kai-shek’s administration
may become apparent by international comparison with other authoritarian regimes.

BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP
Since the 1990s, as pointed out by Yamada [1996] and Yokoyama Hiroaki 横山宏章 [1996], the focus of research concerning Chinese political history has been on the problem of how to grasp the character ofthe relationship between authoritarian politics by the Chinese National
Party since the 1920s and democratic politics. According to Yamada, irrespective of the Chinese Nationalist Party or the Chinese Communist
Party, rather than the people’s spontaneous political participation, it wasa party-led political system akin to “representationalism” (proxyism 代
行主義) and this is regarded as a continuous feature of 20th-century Chinese politics.
Nishimura Shigeo 西村成雄 [2001] systematically portrays Chinesepolitical history from 1928 to 1949 as an interaction between the Chi-

5

6

H ATA N O

nese Nationalist Party’s one-party dictatorship as a type of “politicaltutelage” (訓政) and its reform sought through the movement for constitutional government. Nishimura positively evaluates the establishmentof the People’s Political Council (国民参政会) in 1938 by the Chinese Nationalist Party after the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War as opposing
the political tutelage framework and opening a path for political participation by the Chinese people.
On the other hand, Ajioka [2008], while associating the political tutelage framework with international confrontations such as the Manchurian Incident and the Sino-Japanese War, points out the necessity of cautiously reviewing its implementation process. Kubo and Saga Takashi 嵯峨隆 [2011] suggest that constitutional politics and authoritarian politics(political tutelage) should not be interpreted as being in competition, andthey assert the importance of their mutual interaction, as both politicalsystems share the common aspiration of building a nation-state possessing wealth and military strength.
Hirano Tadashi 平野正 [2000] draws attention to the “middle
power” (democratic faction), being those who belong to neither the
Chinese Communist Party nor the Chinese Nationalist Party. That the
pro-democracy movement that was deployed through the stage of thePeople’s Political Council had such middle power that became its central
core is an assessment that is being debated. In any event, the progress of
research in diverse forms of political power including the middle power
is a rich vein of study within the field of political history research concerning the Sino-Japanese War era.
Nakamura [2004, 2010, 2014] positively evaluates the movement
aiming at a constitutional system that embraced liberty and democracy
existing internally and externally within the Chinese Nationalist Party
in a wartime China that was heavily influenced by the United States. He
points out that after the war, this became the basis for the liberalist andconstitutionalist principles that were enacted in the Constitution of the
Republic of China.
Mizuha [2004, 2007, 2014] draws attention to the opportunity forsocial transformation during the Sino-Japanese war period, noting theliberalism movement among Kunming intellectuals. Mizuha positions
the political blueprint embraced by these intellectuals that appealed to“respect for individual liberty,” which valued political participation andcalled for a multi-party system to the point of the popular election of local assemblies, as a critical force towards the party-state system that was
pursued by both parties.
As described next, the surge in movements and debates concerning

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

political democratization during the Sino-Japanese War period are connected to social transformation in China.

SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE REFORM OF REVOLUTIONARYPOLITICS
Based on their research using the vast resources of the Sichuan Archives, Sasagawa and Okumura Satoshi 奥村哲 explained that the largescale requisition of military personnel and supplies (mobilization) by the
Nationalist Chinese government caused a major transformation in ruralsociety [Sasagawa and Okumura 2007; Okumura 2013]. Through the
adoption of a new county-governance system and the use of the Baojia
System (保甲制度), the Nationalist Chinese government strengthened its
control over even remote rural communities, and such forcible requisitioning resulted in social disruption. The unfairness of the burden was
magnified, and the farmers’ discontent erupted in various areas. As forthe requisition of military personnel, although a fair system of conscription had been introduced, draft evasion was rampant. As a result, pressure concerning “social homogenization” (mandatory homogenization or
Gleichschaltung) arose within the rural communities that were appealing
for fairness with regards to the wartime burden and rationalization, anda social base involving the theory of class struggle promoted by the Communist Party and acceptance of land reform was formed. Sasagawa [2014]
noted that throughout the Sino-Japanese War era, the Chinese Civil War
era, and the Korean War, for the base levels of rural society, the prospects of all-out war to urge social homogenization and social transformation continued to act.
Mitani Takashi 三谷隆 [2011] produced a volume of analyses of thechanges in the social structure of rural communities that endured for thelong period from the 1930s up to the Cultural Revolution. Within thisvolume, Iwatani Nobu 岩谷将 [2011] asserts that among the periods before and during the anti-Japanese war, as well as the Chinese Civil War
era, the anti-Japanese war period evinced the most dramatic change inthe character of rural governance. This period saw the fragmentationof the ties of social order and local communities under the county level,setting the stage for favorable conditions for penetration by the Chinese
Communist Party.
While it was pointed out by Tanaka KyΩko 田中恭子 [1996] that
farmers who lived within the traditional system were not necessarily
supportive of land reform and revolutionary struggle of the Communist

7

8

H ATA N O

Party, developments in research from the perspective of social change
engendered by mandatory mobilization are bringing about changes inrevolutionary history. As pointed out by Yamamoto Shin [2009], withregards to the rationale of the Chinese Communist Party to expand its
power through the Sino-Japanese War, Chalmers Johnson’s research
pointing out success in the monopolization of peasant nationalism andobservations by Mark Selden that the prospects of land reform in therural communities drew farmers to the Chinese Communist Party arebeing modified.
Takahashi Nobuo 高橋伸夫 [2006] analyzes the Fujian Province’s
base of reform from a social perspective, asserting that the Chinese Communist Party, rather than bearing down on rural collectives throughsheer force attracted rural communities through a loose and dispersed
party organizational structure. In addition, Yamamoto Shin [2009] also
points out the distractibility of the Chinese Community Party’s organizational structure that existed as a base within the Fujian Province, withthe cause being the economic structure in which equitable land distribution did not have a decisive effect on improving the farmers’ livelihoods.
Anami Yπsuke 阿南友亮 [2012], situating the Guangdong Province as
the eastern base of reform, points out that although the Chinese Communist Party aimed at expanding its power through land reform, theland distribution itself was not conducted well and rural farmers who received their allotments did not always necessarily participate positively
in the Red Army. He describes a situation wherein a mixed assortmentof armed people, rather than the rural farmers, comprised the Chinese
Communist Party’s military force, and the Red Army assumed the nature of a mercenary military force.
As shown by these research studies, the issue of land reform was
not effectively connected to the Chinese Communist Party’s mobilizationof the rural peasants. The research trend of negating the revolutionary
historical perspective has not succeeded yet in creating a new historical
viewpoint and, as suggested by Himeta [2012], there have been observations criticizing that de-ideological research trend.
How did the Chinese Communist Party mobilize the people, andthrough that, how did social change come about? Certainly, there is remaining scope for research in this area. For example, Maruta Takashi
丸田孝志 [2013] describes one means of mass mobilization as being
through the folklore and religion found in the North China base area.
As pointed out by Takahashi [2009], there is yet to be a sufficiently
persuasive answer as to how the Chinese communists could ultimately
wrest victory despite limited support.

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

GOVERNANCE OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES AND “PUPPETGOVERNMENTS”
China’s Wang Zhaoming (Wang Jingwei) regime has a well-establishedreputation of being a “puppet” or “traitor” government. On the other
hand, in English-speaking countries, research is progressing that attempts to objectively evaluate government administrations that cooperated with the Japanese during wartime through the concept of “collaboration.” Even in Japan, as in Kobayashi Hideo’s 小林英夫 book [2003],
there has been research into the Wang Zhaoming regime’s philosophy
and actions, as well as various aspects of its regime. In addition, withinglobal history studies, academic research is beginning to become conscious of international comparisons with similar government administrations. Shibata Tetsuo 柴田哲雄 [2009] analyzes the Wang Zhaoming administration’s ideology through comparison with the Vichy governmentthat was set up in Indochina. Horii KΩichirΩ 堀井弘一郎 [2011] pursued
research into the New Citizen’s Movement that permeated into the details of the public’s daily lives, ultimately becoming a mechanism thatmetamorphosed into a collaborative movement with Japan. Tsuchiya
Mitsuyoshi 土屋光芳 [2011] also raised the possibilities of comparative
collaboration.
With regard to the relationship between the Wang Zhaoming regime and Japan, in Liu Jie 劉傑 [2006b] suggests that while the Wanggroup was committed to the possibility of constructing a new nationstate through the Peace Treaty with Japan, in lacking the conditions for
self-reliance such as economic and military power, it had no choice but
seek Japan’s cooperation. On the other hand, in order to pursue the war
against China, Japan was only using the Wang Zhaoming regime. As
pointed out by Liu [2006a], Wang Zhaoming pondered the motives behind the establishment of a new Japanese-led administration in Nanjing.
Thus, there are many areas that should be examined in terms of determining what Japan expected from the Wang Zhaoming regime.
With regards to the governance policies of the occupied area froman economic perspective, Shibata Yoshimasa 柴田善雅 [1999] analyzed
the currency and financial policies of Manchuria as well as China as awhole. Shibata [2008] also analyzed the investment trends of Japaneseaffiliated companies as well. Furthermore, there is an important study by
Kaneko Fumio 金子文夫 [2001] who analyzed the activities of Japaneseowned small businesses based on factory surveys conducted in Northeast China. Kanemaru Yπichi 金丸裕一 [2006] notes that “there were not
only cases of Japanese people looting cultural assets, also Chinese people

910

H ATA N O

acted in union to take part in the ‘preservation of cultural property.’”
In his analysis of the currency and goods flows under the Wang
Zhaoming regime, Furumaya Tadao 古伯忠夫 [1993] suggests that the
New China Policy, which granted large-scale autonomy to the Wang administration, was used to mobilize people and goods, and triggered economic collapse in certain areas.
Uchida Tomoyuki 内田知行 and Shibata Yoshimasa [2007] conducted joint research regarding the Mongolian Puppet Regime, which
was located in the remote regions of the occupied territories and under
the strong influence of the Guandong Army. They examine the actual
conditions of the Mongolian Puppet Regime from a multifaceted perspective including the political system, financial and international revenues,
opium policy, infrastructure, Japanese denizens, corporate activities,
anti-Japanese activities, and relationship with the central government.
There is also research with regards to De Wang 徳王, undertaken by
Mori Hisao 森久男 [2000]. Hironaka Issei 広中一成 [2013] describes therise and fall of six puppet regimes including Manchuguo.

SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT
In Japan, there is a great deal of research concerning the Shanghai International Settlement that was retroceded to the Wang Zhaoming regime
in 1943. Furumaya [2004] published a volume that is the representative
research resource concerning the history of Shanghai. He examined theShanghai situation from a multifaceted perspective, noting that “theShanghai International Settlement is a mirror that reflects the international situation concerning the Sino-Japanese War.” It was not only thebasis for reform movements and economic activities, but also draws attention to the diverse lifestyles of the people living in Shanghai at thetime of the agreement. In Takatsuna Hirofumi’s 高綱博文 edited volume[2005], various themes are explored, such as Shanghai’s sustained roleas an “international city” (Takatsuna), refugee aid (Kohama Masako
小浜正子), the rise and fall of capital in the cotton trade between Japanand China (Imai Narumi), trade culture (Kikuchi Toshio 菊池敏夫), andschools for Japanese people (Chen Zuen 陳祖恩). Kohama [2000] notesthat although a network of private organizations in Shanghai, including
the refugee aid activities of the Red Cross Society of China, became partof the public functions of the city, during wartime, they began to assume
a political nature that was a symbol of wartime resistance against Japan.
Maruyama Naoki 丸山直起 [2005] situated the problems of handling

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Jewish refugees in Shanghai within the context of international relations
history. Astrid Freyeisen [2008] notes that with regards to the treatmentof Jewish refugees in Shanghai, Japan did not accept the German tendencies towards anti-Semitism.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
As outlined by Uchida [2002a], grass-roots movements during the resistance period towards the Chinese Nationalist Party, the Japanese Army,and the Chinese Communist Party, as the three forms of authority inthe occupied territories, each displayed different characteristics. Kikuchi
Kazutaka’s research concerning the Chinese Industrial Cooperative
Movement [2002] that spread in the Great Rear Area of northwest andsouthwest China from 1938 is a particularly important study. Alongwith situating the Chinese Industrial Cooperative Movement as part ofongoing democratic movements such as the People’s Political Council,
Kikuchi notes the significance of the cooperative movement in becoming part of the international anti-Japanese network. In addition, thereis important research by Duan Ruicong 段瑞聡 [2006] and Fukamachi[2013] who noted that even while the Chinese Nationalist Party was facing grave danger both internally and externally, there were “peculiar”
movements to enhance living conditions calling on people to improvetheir lifestyles and customs. Thus, each movement’s political character is
examined.
In terms of civil movements in the areas under the control of theChinese Communist Party, drawing on connections to religious influences, Baba Takeshi 馬場毅 [2001] is the first researcher in Japan to
examine the Boxer Rebellion and the similar Red Spears Movement interms of their relationship to the war of resistance against Japan. Uchida[2002b] investigates the Mutual Aid and Cooperation in Agricultural
Production Movement (1943–45) in the Shan-Gan-Ning Border Region
from the viewpoint of succession and discontinuance of the systematization of agricultural cooperatives in the People’s Republic of China era.
There has been basic research undertaken by Uchida [2002a] examining the relationship between the Chongqing Nationalist government
and Koreans’ independence movements against Japan. Fujiwara Akira
藤原彰 and Himeta’s edited volume [1999] and Kikuchi Kazutaka’s research [2003] investigate pacifist movements by the Japanese people
in wartime China. The former discusses the anti-war activities of Japanese captives organized by Nosaka SanzΩ 野坂参三 and his followers in

11

12

H ATA N O

Yanan, and the latter, using a combination of historical materials andinterviews collected in Japan, China, and Taiwan, examines Japaneseanti-war movements in Chongqing with an emphasis on the roles of Kaji
Wataru 鹿地亘 and Bai Chongxi 白崇禧.
While the slogan of “rebel against Japan and save the country,” washoisted jointly by the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Chinese Communist Party, the grass-roots movements in China were relatively smallin scale compared to other undertakings such as the nationalism movement, and why they failed to spread is an important area of research.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEGACY
The representative work concerning the shift towards a “nation-building
paradigm” is the research undertaken by Kubo TΩru [1999]. Based on aninterpretation of the character of the Chinese Nationalist Party regime asa party-led dictatorship (one-party dictatorship), Kubo examines the listof achievements in the Chinese Nationalist Party government’s movements towards economic independence in the tariff and monetary policy
areas during the period between the latter half of the 1920s up to themid-1930s. This research portrays a new dimension of the Chinese Nationalist Party as seeking economic independence as a means of achieving political independence. Focusing on the steel and railroad industries,
Hagiwara Mitsuru [2000] analyzes the interconnection between national
defense and economic construction and policy towards Japan.
During the Sino-Japanese War, rapid economic development
mainly in the munitions industry could be seen in the bases of Chinese
resistance against invasion in the Sichuan and Yunnan areas, and suchdevelopment occurred even in the Japanese-occupied territories of Manchuria, North China, and central China. In particular, heavy industry
facilities were taken over by the Chinese Communist Party government
through the Chinese Nationalist Party regime and played an importantrole in China’s economic growth after the war. The volume edited by
Kubo TΩru et al. [Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014] includes researchfrom this perspective on topics such as the banking industry (Hayashi
KΩji 林幸司), the insurance industry (Liu Zhiying 劉志英), foreign trade
involving the Chongqing government and Wang Zhaoming regime (Kigoshi Yoshinori 木越義則), the silk industry (Zhao Guozhuang 趙国壮),
and the problem of securing labor (Geng Mi 耿密).
In addition, Imai Narumi’s chapter discussing Shanghai’s economic
status during war is included in this volume.

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Following his controversial previous work entitled Shinryaku tokaihatsu 侵略と開発 (Invasion and development), which focused on the
Northeast region (Manchuguo), Matsumoto ToshirΩ’s 松本俊郎 [1988]
subsequent book published in 2000 specifically debates whether the ironand steel industry in Anshan during the Manchurian period was inherited by socialist China.
Appearing in Mori Tokihiko’s 森時彦 2005 volume, Tomizawa
Yoshia’s 富澤芳亜 chapter on the “Legacy of the Japanese cotton spinning industry in China” assesses the role played by resident Japanesetechnical experts in the spinning industry in postwar China.
Yang Daqing 楊大慶 [2009] discusses the activities undertaken by
Japanese technical experts who remained in China after Japan’s defeat incontributing to the construction of a new China, as well as the historicalsignificance of technology inheritance.1
Kubo [2011] points out the major significance of the many activitiesof the Commission for Development of Resources, which played a leading role in the Nationalist Chinese government’s controlled economy, asa legacy inherited by the People’s Republic of China. In contrast, Kubo
advocates careful consideration of the various elements that supported
Japan’s and China’s general mobilization systems as problems that havebeen inherited by postwar social and economic management.

MEDIA AND CULTURE
Against the background of research developments concerning Imperial
Japan’s administrative mechanisms including colonies and occupied areas, there is a great deal of research regarding various media functionsin the areas under Japanese rule. In his edited collection, noted media
historian Yamamoto Taketoshi 山本武利 [2006] writes that Chiang Kaishek and Mao Zedong surpassed the Japanese leaders in terms of media
strategy. In addition, within that volume, Kawasaki Kenko 川崎賢子
describes the film production network in Chinese-occupied territories
and Manchuria, noting that among requests to reinforce the general mobilization system and cooperate with the war effort, Shanghai-produced
films, unlike those made in Manchuria, demonstrate the diversity of cultures within the Japanese empire. In the edited volume by Kishi Toshihiko 貴志俊彦, Kawashima Shin 川島真, and Son Ansŏk 孫安石 [2006],
using archival documents from various areas in China, Kishi describes
the roles of radio and films in resistance education, as well as the role
played by Japanese prisoners of war responsible for Japanese broadcasts

13

14

H ATA N O

in the Chinese interior.
In addition, Kishi [2010] pursues the historical significance of various activities aiming at constructing an individualistic Manchurian
culture even while the buildup of a general mobilization system was progressing in the area.
In a chapter within Yamamoto Taketoshi’s 2006 volume as well as
his own work in 2008, Kawashima draws attention to the role of radio
as a means of transmitting culture in the Japanese-occupied area andmobilizing the public during wartime, and reveals the realities of the effects of radio broadcasts in Japan and China. Kawashima notes that after
the war as well, radio became an important means for nation-building,observing the possibility that media technologies such as the wartime
use of radio were then further passed on to other East Asian countries.
There are also volumes of collected research edited by Hirano
Ken’ichirΩ 平野健一郎 [2007] and Ezra Vogel and Hirano [2010] that
focus on the relationship between “culture” and war in a broad sense. In
Hirano’s 2007 volume, while the organizational integration of various
cultural groups in Manchuria progressed, Kishi [2007] analyzes the process by which they lost the opportunity to create their own culture andsuggests that Chinese people who had acquired a sense of “Japanese-ness”
through Japanese language education or study abroad in Japan developed into collaborators with Japan. Kawashima’s chapter that examines
the New People’s Society’s meaning of cultural policy in North China,
is also included in this volume. In addition, Misawa Mamie 三澤真美恵[2007] notes that the control of the film industry by the Chinese Nationalist Party, whose skillful use of the transboundary nature and popular
appeal of films contributed to the strengthening of China’s Nationalist
government. Takishita Saeko’s 瀧下彩子 chapter [2007] demonstrates
that the resilient and sustained activities of the manga artists who were
responsible for the anti-Japanese cartoons contributed to the formationof anti-Japanese images among the people.
In Vogel and Hirano’s 2010 volume, Poshek Fu discusses the significance of Opium War films in wartime Shanghai, and Sang Bing
桑兵 assesses the psychological wavering among intellectuals in Japanese-occupied Peipin (modern-day Peking).
There was a mass accumulation of films, literature, music, and other works with “anti-Japan” themes in both Japan and China. Recently,
research that has ventured into this area includes studies by Zhang Xinmin 張新民 [2015], who takes up the topic of propaganda films jointly
produced by the Japanese army and the New People’s Society (新民会)
in North China and by Hoshino Yukiyo 星野幸代 [2015], whose research

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

addresses the theme of dance as a means of resistance in Chongqing.
In his introduction to his edited volume, Hirano Ken’ichirΩ [2007]
suggests that the transformation of wartime Chinese society, rather
than being an attack against Japanese culture, gave rise to a “resistanceculture” for the purpose of enduring the war through acculturation. He
further raises the questions of what kind of new cultural elements werecreated through this “resistance culture” and how such elements became
legacies of wartime. Studies that respond to these issues are continuing
to advance.

DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
For a long time, there has been debate in Japanese academic circles as towhether to assess the period of Japan and China’s continuous relationship between 1931 and 1945 as the “15-year War” or to take the positionof concentrating on the full-scale war period after the Marco Polo Bridge
Incident as the “Eight-year War.” Focusing on this debate, Tobe RyΩichi
戸部良一 [2010] provides an accurate review of recent research trends inJapan that address the Sino-Japanese War. In addition, Yasui Sankichi
安井三吉 [2003, 2008] also assesses research trends concerning the Marco Polo Bridge Incident from the perspective of Chinese history. As such,
this review will mainly focus on aspects of diplomacy and international
relations of the war period following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
Even today, the principle foci of diplomatic and political relations
between Japan and China during the Sino-Japanese War are the establishment of the Wang Zhaoming Administration and the issue of peace
between Japan and the Chongqing Nationalist government. With regards
to these issues, Tobe’s research in 1991 focusing on Japan’s peace initiatives with the Nationalist government throughout the entire span of the
Sino-Japanese War period and Liu Jie’s 1995 research on the maneuvering in establishing the Wang Zhaoming Administration have raised thestandards of research in this particular area. Liu points out that the problem of choosing administration options between the Nationalist Chinese
government or the establishment of a new administration preoccupied
negotiations between Japan and China until 1938.
In recent research, Iwatani Nobu [2013] follows the activities ofKong Xiangxi 孔祥熙 in the Trautman Operation as the closest stratagem
towards peace between Japan and China, giving rise to a new academic
perspective. Based on the “Chiang Kai-shek Diaries,” Feng Qing 馮青[2010] discusses the relationship between Chiang Kai-shek’s anti-Japan

15

16

H ATA N O

military strategy and the peace process. However, there are many facetsof the Chinese Nationalist government’s responses towards Japan’s unremitting peace initiatives throughout the Sino-Japanese war period thatremain veiled.
In the field of international relations history, Irie Akira 入江昭[1991] examined why the Manchurian Incident as a bilateral dispute
between Japan and China evolved into the Asia-Pacific war as a global
war. As a third-power response to the Sino-Japanese war, Tajima Nobuo’s 田嶋信雄 series of volumes based on German archival materials[2008a, 2008b, 2011] that systemically cover the reciprocal relationshipbetween the pursuit of cooperation between China and Germany since
the Sun Yat-sen era and Nazi diplomacy in East Asia deserve attention.
Rather than using a framework based on “Allied countries versus Axis
countries,” Tajima locates the Sino-Japanese War within the four-nation multilateral relationship comprised of China, Germany, the Soviet
Union, and Japan, pointing out that China did not abandon the optionof cooperation with Germany and the Soviet Union until the start of the
Asia-Pacific War. The past that has sought a close relationship with Nazi
Germany, as a precedent that was not handed down to the Chinese Communist Party administration, has prevented the development of researchconcerning this area in China. As such, there is still room for advancing
research in the China-Germany-Soviet Union relationship during the
Sino-Japanese War period.
While Kasahara [1997b] examined the Panay Incident, noting that
it was a major shock to the American people and triggered a shift in
American public opinion regarding Japan, recently, there has not beenvery much attention paid to the issue of dealing with the responses of
the American and British governments to the Sino-Japanese War. Yetamong the existing research, Takamitsu Yoshie 高光佳絵 [2008] points
out that the American government’s de facto abandonment of its policy
of appeasement toward Japan and movement toward a hard-line policy
occurred after the spring of 1938 when the height of China’s capability to wage an endurance war was recognized. In terms of the problem
of appeasing Japan, Antony Best [2000] notes that while the U.K. wasdebating whether to shift its confrontational stance towards Japan at
the beginning of the European war, they were also seeking détente in arange that would not impair China’s resistance war against Japan and its
relationship with the U.S. In contrast to Best’s argument [2000],2 KihataYΩichi 木畑洋一 [2000] writes that even in the U.K., similar to the position held by Robert Craigie, the U.K. ambassador to Japan, there wasbelief that compromise with Japan was linked to a plan to strengthen

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Japanese “moderates” and, amid growing anti-Japan nationalism within
China, the U.K.’s options were limited.
Japan’s anti-British movements and the U.K.’s appeasement policy
towards Japan garnered early attention from Japanese scholars. Building
on work originally presented in 1984, Nagai Kazu 永井和 [2007] meticulously discusses the U.K.’s involvement in the blockade of the Tianjin
Concessions and the surge of anti-U.K. demonstrations within Japan,
and this research remains valuable even today. Against the backdrop of
research developments in comparative empire history and post colonialism, Matsuura Masataka 松浦正孝 [2010] demonstrates a new research
perspective in discussing the factors that led to the Sino-Japanese War
evolving into the “Greater East Asian War” (the Asia-Pacific War),drawing attention to the existence of a “pan-Asianism” ideology with“anti-U.K.” slogans that spread throughout Asia and the power of human networks.
Lu Xijun 鹿錫俊 [2007, 2009] suggests that as the Chinese Nationalist government made a transition from pinning its hopes on securing thebacking of the U.K., the Soviet Union, and the U.S., Chiang Kai-shek formulated a resistance strategy through the internationalization of the war
while weighing the balance of the U.K.’s policy of appeasing Japan and
the Soviet Union’s path of alliance with Germany.
The relationship between the international treaties formed in the
1920s for bringing stability to East Asia and the Sino-Japanese War has
garnered new attention from scholars such as Kobayashi Hiroharu 小
林啓治 [2002], IkΩ Toshiya 伊香俊哉 [2002], and Shinohara Hatsue 篠
原初枝 [2003]. They highlight how Japan’s actions against China wereregarded as illegal war activities contrary to international trends. In addition, each of these three scholars takes a different perspective in interpreting the role and historical significance of international norms andlaws that China relied upon, including the Treaty for the Renunciationof the War (Kellog-Briand Pact) and the Covenant of the League of Nations, in maintaining the international order within East Asia.
Incidentally, both Japan and China avoided formal declaration of
the Sino-Japanese War. KatΩ YΩko 加藤陽子 [1993] explains that Japan’s
rationale for not doing so was to avoid application of U.S. trade embargoes that were set out in the Neutrality Act of 1935. Using Chinese primary archival materials, Tsuchida Akio [2011] suggests that Chiang Kaishek, believing that the issue of war was contained within the Chinese
Nationalist government’s concept of achieving peace with Japan andconceiving of the Sino-Japanese War as a means of achieving “internationalization,” declared war in order to confirm China’s secure status as

17

18

H ATA N O

an Allied powers after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, Tsuchida [2010] verifies that in order to attract international support for China
and sanctions towards Japan, the propaganda activities of the informallyorganized American Committee for Non-Participation in Japanese Aggression, which was supported by the Chinese Nationalist government,
supplemented formal diplomatic activities with the U.S. as “the people’s
diplomacy.”
As an important research area, the precise situation of materials
supplied by the West and the Soviet Union to Chiang Kai-Shek’s administration and their effect remains unexplained.
After the outbreak of the Asia-Pacific War, the Chinese Nationalist
government, in order to secure its position as one of the four national
powers, played a proactive role by participating in the Cairo Conference
and the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. The volume edited by Nishimura [2004a] contains research that tracks this process. In addition to
Nishimura’s chapter focusing on the role of T. V. Soong, this volume
also contains two chapters by Ishiguro Ai 石黒亜維 on the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Cairo Conference.
Nishimura and Tsuchida contribute a new book edited by Hans Vande Ven et al.,3 which explains how China developed from a country that
hardly mattered internationally into the world power it is today.
Drawing on detailed analyses of events such as the Wannan Incident (the Southern Anhui Incident) in January 1941, Inoue Hisashi[2001, 2004] proactively evaluates the Sino-Japanese War’s disrupting influence on international relationships and the significance of theunited front against Japan in the conduct of the anti-Japanese war. On
the other hand, he notes that Chiang Kai-shek’s goal of unifying the state
and the military through the united front was carried over to the postwar period.
The chapters authored by Yang Kuisong 楊奎松, Li Yuzhen 李玉貞,
and Natakia L. Mamaev in the 2011 volume jointly edited by Nishimura
et al.[Nishimura, Ishijima, and Tajima 2011] examines how the reciprocal relationships among the U.S., China, and the Soviet Union weredeeply connected to international relationships within China. While
Yamagiwa Akira’s 山極晃 1997 research concerning the U.S.-China relationship during and after the war (1941–49) and Ma Xiaohua’s 馬暁華
2000 fascinating work remain the distinctives of its kind, even further
detailed research that includes trends in the Soviet Union is progressing.
While we have outstanding works as Ishii Akira’s 石井明 [1990,
2005] on the China-Soviets relations history, Yoshida Toyoko 吉田豊子
[2005] discusses the Mongol-Altai problem (the Altai Mountains being

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

located between Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia) that occurred during thelast phase of the war and its mutual influence on the relationship between China and the Soviet Union.
Rather than depicting the 1944 Stilwell Incident as clash between
Chiang Kai-shek and General Stilwell, Sugita Yoneyuki 杉田米行 [2004]
situates it within American confusion over China’s strategy. Kato KΩichi[2004] surmises that Chiang Kai-shek, given the background surrounding General Stilwell’s dismissal, focused on movements within the Chinese Nationalist government, and considered the necessity of unifying
the Chinese Nationalist government internally as well as being able tobe proactively involved in formulating the postwar order in Asia by improving its relationship with the Soviet Union.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN MILITARY HISTORY
Himeta [1999] and Ishijima [2004] point out that there is a lag in research into military history in Japan. Full-scale research into this area
started to develop from the mid-1990s, and representative works fromthe late 1990s include those by Hata Ikuhiko 秦郁彦 [1996] and Usui
Katsumi 臼井勝美 [1998, 2000]. Hata also inquires as to why an incidental clash between the Japanese and Chinese armies (referring to the
Marco Polo Bridge Incident) escalated into a major war. Hata mentions
that there was the possibility of two options that could have been used
to resolve the incident. The first option was to allow the situation to beresolved locally, and the second option was for both armies to halt the
dispatch of reinforcements. However, each army’s deep-rooted mutual
distrust prevented either choice. Usui’s work [2000], while referring toresearch also undertaken in China, provides an overview of the entire
war from diplomatic and military viewpoints and, as it relies on primarysources, it is considered a reliable source of information even today.
As a collection of research that includes analyses of military movements by the Chinese, editors Hatano Sumio 波多野澄雄 and Tobe [2006]
compiled the results of an international symposium held in 2004 concerning military history. In addition, the Military History Society of Japan published two special collections on the Sino-Japanese War in 1997
and 2008 [Gunjishi Gakkai 1997, 2008]. These collections discuss topics
such as strategic decision-making, military campaigns, military organization, leadership by commanders, intelligence activities, supplies and mobilization, and guerilla warfare in North China.
In the volume edited by Hatano and Tobe [2006], in a chapter that

19

20

H ATA N O

specifically addresses China, Hagiwara reveals that Chiang Kai-shek
emphasized the air force and adhered to plans to bomb the Japanese
mainland. Yang Tianshi 楊天石 analyzes Chiang Kai-shek’s strategic
leadership in the period leading up to the Fall of Nanjing and points tothe expectation of Soviet intervention as a reason for his reluctance towithdraw from Nanjing. Wang Chaoguang 汪朝光 and Momma Rira 門
間理良 discuss the conflicts between the Nationalist government army,
the Chinese Communist Forces, and the Japanese army before and after
defeat. Momma notes that immediately after defeat, the Japanese army,
responding to appeals from the Chinese Nationalist Party forces, repelled
the Communist troops in middle and North China. Because of this, theChinese Communist Forces moved to Manchuria, confiscated weaponsand equipment belonging to the Guandong Army and, with Soviet support, proceeded to build a base. TΩmatsu Haruo 等松春夫 analyzes themilitary strategies of each of the Japanese, Chinese, and U.S. militaryforces, noting that while the Japan-U.S. war in the Pacific had an influence on the Sino-Japanese War, conversely, the Sino-Japanese War did
not affect the development of the Asia-Pacific War. In other words,
TΩmatsu’s angle disputes China’s official view that the Sino-Japanese
War was part of the “global war against fascism.”
Two chapters in the Hatano and Tobe volume [2006] written by Yamamoto Masahiro 山本昌弘 and Baba Takeshi raise the topic of guerilla
warfare in North China. Yamamoto notes that through improvementsin people’s standards of living, the Japanese army effectively advanced
the development and acquisition of resources. However, after a major
offensive (The Hundred Regiments Offensive 百団大戦) by the Communist Party forces in 1940, the people were no longer the recipients, andinstead became the target of resource plundering and forced food requisition. This situation escalated and led to what was known among the
Chinese people as the “Three Alls Policy” (三光作戦) (“kill all, burn all,and loot all”). Baba explains that after the outbreak of the Sino-JapaneseWar, intent on the construction of a base of resistance against Japan in
Shandong Province, the Communist Party army had a clash with the
Nationalist government army which developed into a difficult guerillawar, and this was a factor in the expansion of its base. In a subsequent
research paper, Baba [2015] carefully considers the possibility of thesevarious factors in explaining the expansion of the Chinese Communist
Party forces. Kasahara [2010] points out that while guerilla warfare
waged by the Japanese army was aimed at achieving stability in governing the occupied territories, through the “Three Alls Policy,” it had the
opposite effect of driving the farmers to the side of the Chinese Commu-

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

nist Party.
Research concerning guerilla warfare in and central China continues to advance. Kikuchi Kazutaka [2006] explains in detail that within
Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s concepts of military strategy, guerilla
warfare that integrated the people occupied an important position, andboth the Nationalist Party forces and the Communist Party forces as regular armies had experiences in expanding guerilla warfare. Emphasizing
the battles of the Nationalist Party forces after 1937, Kikuchi publisheda historical overview of anti-Japanese military history from the perspective of the “Eight-year War theory” [Kikuchi 2009].
With regards to the guerilla warfare of the Eighth Route Army,
Huang Donglan 黄東蘭 [2007] mentions the Japanese army’s sweep
operation in Licheng County, Shanxi Province which undramaticallyentrapped farmers who were protecting their traditional autonomy andsubjected them to harsh treatment after the war. Miyoshi Akira’s 三好章
2003 analysis of the military operations of the New Fourth Army fromits inception until it was wiped out in the Wannan Incident is the only
full-scale research of its kind in Japan.
As a new field in military history, fundamental research concerning
intelligence activities and information warfare has begun. Kotani Ken
小谷賢 [2008] has analyzed the Japanese Army’s intelligence activities,
and Iwatani Nobu [2008], focusing on the Blue Shirts Society and the
C.C. Clique, has explored the Chinese Nationalist Party government’s information activities concerning Japan. In both of these research papers,
the authors show that the common denominator of Japan and China’s
intelligence activities was inadequacy of analyzing and acting upon theinformation that was gathered. There is also research by Sasaki TarΩ 佐々
木太郎 [2007] that discusses how part of the information propaganda activities conducted by the Chinese Communist Party were undertaken forthe purpose of drawing the U.S. into the war.
Hans van de Ven [2006, 2014] criticizes the Western approach toresearch concerning the Sino-Japanese War premised on modern technical capabilities and military formation, as well as the mainstream trendof military history research in China as the “story of the Sino-Japanese
War from the standpoint of its victims.” This research demonstrates
new facets of the anti-Japanese war in terms of the reality of military
mobilization and the role of the frontiers.

21

22

H ATA N O

ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIMES
A flood of serious research concerning atrocities committed during the
Sino-Japanese War, including the Nanjing Massacre, poison gas, biological warfare, and the Three Alls Policy, started to appear from the latter
half of the 1990s. With regard to the Nanjing Massacre, which has become a basic resource for patriotic education in China, Hata [1997], Fujiwara Akira [1997], and Kasahara [1997a] have authored representative
works. Hara Takeshi 原剛 [2008] examined Japanese soldiers’ diaries,
memoirs, and detailed battlefield records concerning the Nanjing Incident, estimating that close to 20,000 people were “illegally murdered.”Yang Daqing’s academic works [2006a, 2006b] assessing the Nanjing Massacre from the perspective of “constructive dialogue” between
China and Japan are valuable resources. Yang’s 2006b article points tothe causes of the bloodshed as being the chaotic state of the Japanesearmy’s discipline and order, their careless treatment of prisoners becauseof their lack of education in international law, and the spread of an ethnically-based sense of superiority. Yang also points out the need for bothcountries to accept the “interim facts,” such as China’s failure to calmly
consider a line of defense and disengagement, leading to at least tens of
thousands more Chinese people being unnecessarily murdered. In his
2006a article, Yang considers interpretations of the incident from theperspectives of both countries. From the Japanese side, it is necessary to
acknowledge the structure of the Japanese military as well as individual
responsibility. He also points out that from the Chinese side, it is necessary to understand China’s background of genocide throughout the war
and in its military, drawing attention to these factors as leading to themassacre.
In their co-edited volume, Kasahara and Yoshida Yutaka 吉田裕[2006] revisit the contemporary significance of research into the Nanjing
Massacre by noting that “in Japanese academic circles, deep-rooted negative reactions and aversion to debate about the issue of the Nanjing Massacre continue to persist.” This collection includes chapters by Yoshida,
who assesses the Nanjing Massacre from the standpoint of internationallaw, and Inoue Hisashi, who criticizes reports of the incident as “conspiracy theories.” In addition, Kawada Ayako 川田文子 discusses the
comfort women issue, emphasizing the difficulties of collecting evidence
in text form concerning this issue and demonstrating the value of oral
testimonies as historical resources. Various academic works concerning
the comfort women issue discussed below question the significance ofinterviews as historical sources.

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Ishida Yoneko 石田米子 and Uchida’s 2004 volume addresses the
viewpoint of “sexual violence” and uses a collection of 18 recordings ofhearings conducted between 1996 and 2003 in Meng County, Shanxi
Province. While comfort women in the Korean Peninsula have received
a great deal of attention, in fact, the situation in China was actually morewidespread. Nagai [2007] argues that while wartime brothels were positioned as rear facilities of the Japanese army, at the same time, they were
facilities that had to remain concealed. Zhu Delan’s 朱徳蘭 2005 work is
the first academic research that comprehensively addresses the topic of
Taiwanese comfort women.
The forced labor of more than 2 million Chinese people is comparable to the comfort women issue. Starting in 1942, in order to compensate
for labor shortages, the Japanese government forcibly mobilized Chinese
from North China, coercing them into working in Manchuria and Japan
under harsh conditions. This situation climaxed in June 1945 with theoutbreak of a riot at a mine in Akita prefecture, known as the Hanaoka
Incident. This incident has been thoroughly investigated by Nishinarita
Yutaka 西成田豊 [2002].
Studies that have examined the “Three Alls Policy” as an exampleof war crimes include research by Kasahara [1999], Ishida Yπji 石田勇治
et al. [2003]. Researchers and lawyers’ group of Ishida’s project have investigated such issues as the reality of the damages wrought by the “ThreeAlls Policy” in Hebei, comparisons with genocide, and the matters concerning international law. In addition to these, included in IkΩ Toshiya’s
book [2014], based on ten-volume set entitled Records of Sino-Japanese
War Criminals, are statements made by Japanese soldiers concerning theThree Alls Policy. Other than Maeda Tetuo’s 前田哲男 pioneering work
[2006] and a volume edited by the Study Group on War and Air Attack
Issues ( 戦争と空爆問題研究会) [SensΩ to Kπbaku Mondai Kenkyπkai2009], research concerning the Bombing of Chongqing has not progressed due to the scarcity of primary research materials in Japan.
With regards to the Chinese National government’s war reparations
policy towards Japan, in a detailed postscript, Yin Yanjun 殷燕軍 [1996]
traces the expansion of initiatives focusing on wartime reparations concerning Japan that started with the Cairo Conference and shows that the
government intended to exact extremely severe damages. Nevertheless,why did Chiang Kai-shek embark on a “magnanimous policy” (寛大政策)
towards Japan after its surrender? As revealed by Duan Ruicong [2013],
one persuasive interpretation is that Chiang Kai-shek was alarmed at thepossibility that communism could spread throughout East Asia if Japanwas completely destroyed.

23

24

H ATA N O

SURRENDER AND “WAR MEMORIES”
Why was it possible for a great number of Japanese people located inmainland China to be repatriated to Japan after the war? And, how wasit possible that the repatriation was accomplished quickly and smoothly?
Full-scale research locating this issue within the existing international
political dynamics of the time has been conducted by KatΩ YΩko [1995]
and KatΩ Kiyofumi 加藤聖文, with the latter appearing in a 2012 volume
edited by Masuda Hiroshi 増田弘 [2012]. In particular, in focusing on U.S.
policy towards China immediately following the end of the war, KatΩ
Kiyofumi suggests that the U.S. did not take a confrontational approachto either China or the Soviet Union. Rather, he suggests that the U.S.’s
conciliatory stance towards these countries was a factor in allowing
Japanese people to be repatriated quickly.
However, as discussed by ∂sawa Takeshi 大澤武司 [2009], the repatriation of the Japanese people occurred in the 1950s after the birth of
the “New China” and negotiations between Japan and China during theCold War period did not go well. As argued by Yang Daqing [2009], theJapanese people remaining in China fell into two distinct groups: The
first group were technicians or technical experts who stayed in China
to assist in building a Chinese nation-state; and the second group were
those left behind in various areas such as war orphans. While there is agreat deal of research concerning the permanent return to Japan by Japanese people who had remained in China after the war, Wu Wanhong 呉
万虹 [2009] presents a fascinating study regarding identity issues experienced by Japanese people who stayed in China.
Liu Jie [2000] assesses the events surrounding the traitor’s trials
conducted by the Chinese National government and aimed at collaborators with Japan. On the other hand, ∂sawa, in a chapter included in
Masuda’s 2012 edited volume, as well as in an earlier work published in
2008, uses primary historical materials from China to reveal that against
the backdrop of the Chinese Communists’ “magnanimous policy” withregards to Japan during the war crimes trials, the courts recognized aseparation between Japan and the U.S. and that China was strategicallyconsidering to aim at neutralizing Japan.
The topic of “war memories” has engendered a great deal of debate
in the twenty-first century. Sun Ge 孫歌 [2002] argues that issues concerning the figure of 300,000 people killed in the Nanjing Massacre are
not based on historical facts, but rather, according to Chinese people, areproblems related to “the emotions of the people who lived.” Thus, therepercussions of this issue have spread further. Ishii Yumi’s 石井弓 2013

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

research, which was inspired by that of Sun, continues to delve into this
topic. Using interviews undertaken in farming villages in Shanxi Province, Ishii investigates how people in rural communities did not accept
public war “memories” (war representation) as depicted via films or
television. Thus, as rural communities, they inherited self-constructed orautonomous memories of the war. In addition, in order to examine how
people in Yunnan Province remember the war, IkΩ [2014] conducted
fieldwork based on interviews and memoirs involving with Japanese andChinese people who were actually affected by the war. He notes that between Japan and China, there was a dimension of rivalry concerning the
war that resonated on both sides.
In addition of Matsumura Takao 松村高夫 et al.’s book [1997] on
the plague caused by the Unit 731, Nie Lili 聶莉莉 [2006], taking a cultural anthropological perspective, conducted in-depth interviews among
germ warfare victims in Changde, investigating the reality of their situations as well as the effect of the war on local communities.
Hattori Ryπji [2010] analyzes the “Tanaka Memorandum” that appeared in 1927, including how it was perceived in China as well as how
it was propagated even further to the entire world. Through his analysis,
we can trace Japan and China’s historical recognition of their divergenceand their efforts to overcome this gap. While in Japan, the “Tanaka
Memorandum” has long been regarded as a forgery, Hattori’s researchshows there is still strong belief in China that it is genuine.
TΩmatsu Haruo, who participated in Stanford University’s “Divided
Memories and Reconciliation” project,4 a comparative study of history
textbooks in Japan, China, and South Korea (among other countries),
contributed a chapter [TΩmatsu 2010] to a volume edited by Kobayashi
Michihiko 小林道彦 and Nakanishi Hiroshi 中西寛 that compared Japanese and Chinese history textbooks.
Using China’s “Teaching Charter” (教学綱領), a guidance manualused for history education in Chinese junior high schools, as well as history textbooks, Wang Xueping 王雪萍 [2010] analyzes how the SinoJapanese War has been taught in the Chinese compulsory education curriculum. In this article, Wang highlights the difference between the twocountries in terms of using history textbooks as a reflection of publicmemory, showing that China takes the moral perspective of the Sino-Japanese War as a “just war,” whereas in Japan, accounts of the war reflect
the diversity of historical consciousness with an emphasis on respecting
neutrality and balance.
With regard to the issue of the gap in historical awareness between
Japan and China, the outcomes of serious “dialogue” between young re-

25

26

H ATA N O

searchers in both countries have been examined in three edited volumes,
namely, Liu Jie, Mitani Hiroshi 三谷博, and Yang Daqing [2006], and Liu
and Kawashima [2009, 2013]. In these three edited collections, the authors discuss how “while aiming at sharing historical facts and records,
cultural, historical, and political factors contributed to the displacementof consciousness in the two countries.” Furthermore, the three volumes
suggest that the gap in historical consciousness that had existed since the
Meiji era expanded further during the Sino-Japanese War. In contrast,
Liu and Kawashima [2009] provide an interesting analysis by noting thata complex historical perception, which cannot be isolated simply into a
dichotomy between “winner” and “loser,” was formed in both Japan and
China immediately following the war.
An abundance of reference materials and academic works concerning the historical consciousness between Japan and China have been
published in Japan, and the above are only a sample of such works. Since
the 1990s, “dialogues” involving historians and educators as well as
joint research projects have advanced dramatically, with the result being
many published works. Thus, given these circumstances, it is clear that
historical problems are not only viewed as past reflections and apologies,
and we can say that there has been a paradigm shift in historical issues
as challenges of international cooperation.

NOTES
＊
1

2
3
4

I’d like to thank Prof. Leslie M. Tkach-Kawasaki, University of Tsukuba, who helped greatly for English writing of the historiography.
In addition, there is also Yang Daqing’s 2010 book concerning the
spread of telecommunications technology to mainland China (Technology of Empire: Telecommunications and Japanese Expansion in Asia,
1883–1945 [Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center]).
Also see Anthony Best, Britain, Japan, and Pearl Harbor: Avoiding war
in East Asia, 1936–41 (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).
Hans Van de Ven, Diana Lary, and Stephen R. Mackinnon eds., Negotiating China’s Destiny in World War II (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2014).
As one of outcomes of the project, which includes TΩmatsu’s contribution, see Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Snyder eds., History Textbooks andthe Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London: New York: Routledge,2011).

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY＊

In the Select Bibliography, the impressive work which didn’t refer tothe historiography is also included. Even if I referred in the historiography about each work which is included in collected papers by the
specific editor who took up in the bibliography, it wasn’t sometimes
carried in the bibliography because of limited space.

Ajioka TΩru 味岡徹. 2008.『中国国民党訓政下の政治改革』(Political reforms
under the Guomindang’s Tutelage). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin 汲古書院.
Amano Sachiko 天野祐子. 2007. 日中戦争期における国民政府の新県制：四川省の事例から (New prefectural system of the Nationalist Government during the Sino-Japanese War). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 87–131.
Anami Yusπke 阿南友亮. 2012『中国革命と軍隊：近代広東における党・軍・社会の関係』(Chinese revolution and military: Interrelations among party, military and society in modern Guangdong). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku
Shuppankai 慶応義塾大学出版会
Baba Takeshi 馬場毅. 2001.『近代中国華北民衆と紅槍会』(Peoples of North
China in modern times and the Red Spears). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.
̶ . 2006. 華北における中共の軍事活動, 1939–1945：山東抗日根拠地を例として (Military activities of the Chinese Communist Party in North
China). In Hatano and Tobe 2006, 219–48.
̶. 2008. 山東抗日根拠地における民兵 (Militia in the Shandong AntiJapanese Bases Area). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008, 259–74.
̶ , ed. 2015a. 『多角的視点から見た日中戦争：政治・経済・軍事・文化・民族の相克 (The Second Sino-Japanese War: Politics/economy/military affairs/culture/race). Fukuoka: ShπkΩsha 集広舎.
̶. 2015b. 治安強化運動と山東抗日根拠地 (The movement of strengthening the pacification of Communist subversion in the Shandong AntiJapanese Bases Area). In Baba 2015a, 235–65.
Best, Antony ( アントニー・ベスト). 2000. 対決への道：1931‒1941年の日英関係(The road to confrontation: The Anglo-Japanese relations, 1931–1941).
In Kihata et al. 2000, 29–58.
ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo 中央大学人文科学研究所, ed. 1993.
『日中戦争：日本・中国・アメリカ』(The Sino-Japanese War: Japan, China,
and the United States). Tokyo: ChπΩ Daigaku Shuppanbu 中央大学出版部.
̶, ed. 2005.『民国後期中国国民党政権の研究』(The Nationalist regime inlate Republican China, 1928–1949). Tokyo: ChπΩ Daigaku Shuppanbu.
̶ , ed. 2010.『中華民国の模索と苦境, 1928–1949』(The collapse andgrope of the Republic of China). Tokyo: ChπΩ Daigaku Shuppanbu.
Duan Ruicong 段瑞聡. 2006.『蒋介石と新生活運動』(Chiang Kai-shek and his
New Life Movement). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 2013. 太平洋戦争勃発前蒋介石の対外戦略 (Chiang Kai-shek’s external

27

28

H ATA N O

strategy before the outbreak of the Pacific War). In Yamada and Matsushige 2013, 433–66.
Enatsu Yoshiki 江夏由樹 et al., eds. 2005.『近代中国東北地域史研究の新視角』(A new perspective on the modern history of northeast China). Tokyo:
Yamakawa Shuppansha 山川出版社.
Feng Qing 馮青. 2010. 蒋介石の日中戦争期和平交渉への認識と対応：『蒋介石日記』に基づく一考察 (Chiang Kai-shek’s perception and attitudes toward
Sino-Japanese peace negotiations: An analysis based on Chiang Kaishek diary). Gunji Shigaku『軍事史学』(The journal of military history)
45, no. 4 (180):65–85.
Freyeisen, Astrid ( アストリート・フライアイゼン). 2008. 日本占領下の上海と二つの在留ドイツ人社会 (Two German societies in Shanghai under theJapanese occupation). In『日独関係史：1890‒1945』(The history of Japanese-German relations, 1890–1945), vol. 3,『体制変動の社会的衝撃』(Theimpact of system transformations on societies), ed. KudΩ Akira 工藤章
and Tajima Nobuo 田嶋信雄, 99–140. Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuoppankai 東京大学出版会.
Fujiwara Akira 藤原彰. 1997. 『南京の日本軍：南京大虐殺とその背景』(TheJapanese army in Nanjing: The Nanjing Massacre and its background).
Tokyo: ∂tsuki Shoten 大月書店.
Fujiwara Akira and Himeta Mitsuyoshi 姫田光義, eds. 1999.『日中戦争下中国
における日本人の反戦活動』(Some Japanese antiwar campaigns in China
during Sino-Japanese War). Tokyo: Aoki Shoten 青木書店.
Fukamachi Hideo 深町英夫. 2013.『身体を躾ける政治：中国国民党の新生活運動』(Politics to discipline the body: The New Life Movement of Chinese
Nationalist Party). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店.
Furumaya Tadao 古伯忠夫. 1993. 日中戦争と占領地経済 (The Sino-Japanese
War and the economy in occupied areas). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo 1993, 303–59.
̶. 2004.『日中戦争と上海, そして私：古伯忠夫中国近現代論集』(The SinoJapanese War and Shanghai, and me: Essays on modern and contemporary China of the late Professor Furumaya Tadao). Tokyo: Kenbun
shuppan 研文出版.
Gunjishi Gakkai 軍事史学会, ed. 1997.『日中戦争の諸相』(New perspectives
on the Sino-Japanese War after sixty years). Special issue, Gunji Shigaku 33, no. 2/3 (130/131). Tokyo: Kinseisha 錦正社.
̶, ed. 2008.『日中戦争再論』(The Sino-Japanese War revisited after seventy years). Special issue, Gunji Shigaku 43, no. 3/4 (171/172). Tokyo:
Kinseisha.
Hagiwara Mitsuru 萩原充. 2000.『中国の経済建設と日中関係：対日抗戦への序曲,
1927‒1937年』(The economic building of China and Sino-Japanese relations). Kyoto: Mineruva ShobΩ ミネルヴァ書房.
̶. 2006. 中国空軍の対日戦略 (The strategy of Chinese air forces against
Japan). In Hatano and Tobe 2006, 45–71.
Hara Takeshi 原剛. 2008. いわゆる「南京事件」の不法殺害：その規模と要因 (Il-JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

29

legal killing in the ‘Nanjing Atrocity’: Its scale and causes). In Gunjishi
Gakkai 2008, 139–55.
Hata Ikuhiko 秦郁彦. 1996.『盧溝橋事件の研究』(The Marco Polo Bridge incident and the coming of the war). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 1997.『南京事件：「虐殺」の構造』(The Nanjing Incident: The making
of massacre). Tokyo: ChπΩ KΩronsha 中央公論社. Enlarged ed., 2007.
Hatano Sumio 波多野澄雄 and Tobe RyΩichi 戸部良一, eds. 2006.『日中戦争の軍事的展開』(Military development of the Sino-Japanese War). 日中戦争の国際共同研究 (International joint study of the Sino-Japanese War) 2.
Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Hattori Ryπji 服部龍二. 2010.『日中歴史認識：「田中上奏文」をめぐる相剋, 1927‒
2010』(Understanding Sino-Japanese history: Conflict over the Tanaka
memorial, 1927–2010). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Himeta Mitsuyoshi. 1987. 日中戦争史研究への新しい視点 (New angle for the
study on the history of the Sino-Japanese War). Kokusai Mondai『国際問題』(International affairs) 328:14–25.
̶ . 1993. 総論：日本人と「対華侵略戦争」史観 (Overview: Japanese andview of the ‘War of Aggression on China’). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun
Kagaku Kenkyπjo 1993, 1–22.
̶ , ed. 2001.『戦後中国国民政府史の研究, 1945‒1949』(A study on the
postwar history of the Chinese Nationalist government, 1945–1949).
Tokyo: ChπΩ Daigaku Shuppanbu.
̶. 2011. 民国史論への道 (The path to the history of Republic of China).
In Kubo and Saga 2011, 237–54.
Himeta Mitsuyoshi and Kubo TΩru 久保亨. 1986. 総論 (Overview). In『中国国民政府史の研究』(A study on the history of the Chinese Nationalist government), ed. Chπgoku Gendaishi Kenkyπkai 中国現代史研究会,
5–35. Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.
Himeta Mitsuyoshi and Yamada Tatsuo 山田辰雄, eds. 2006.『中国の地域政権と日本の統治』(Regional regimes in China and Japanese rules). 日中戦争の国際共同研究 (International joint study of the Sino-Japanese War) 1.
Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 平野健一郎, ed. 2007.『日中戦争期の中国における社会・文化変容』(The socio-cultural transformation in China during the SinoJapanese War). Tokyo: TΩyΩ Bunko 東洋文庫.
Hirano Tadashi 平野正. 2000.『中国革命と中間路線問題』(Chinese Revolution
and the issues of middle line in Chinese politics). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
Hironaka Issei 広中一成. 2013.『ニセチャイナ：満洲・蒙疆・冀東・臨時・維新・南京』(Fake China: Six pappet governments in wartime China). Tokyo:
Shakai HyΩronsha 社会評論社.
Horii KΩichirΩ 堀井弘一郎. 2011.『汪兆銘政権と新国民運動：動員される民衆』(The Wang Zhaoming regime and the New Nationals Movement). Tokyo: SΩdosha 創土社.
Hoshino Yukiyo 星野幸代. 2015. 抗日舞踏と育才学校の接点：陶行知, 戴愛蓮, 呉30

H ATA N O

暁邦の合作 (Collaboration of anti-Japansese dance and the school for a

war orphan in Chongqing). In Baba 2015a, 314–36.
Huang Donglan 黄東蘭. 2007. 革命, 戦争と村：日中戦争期山西省黎城県の事例から (Revolution, war, and village). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 207–31.
Huang Zijin 黄自進. 2011.『蒋介石と日本：友と敵のはざまで』(Chiang Kai-Shekand Japan). Tokyo: Takeda Randum House Japan 武田ランダムハウス
ジャパン.
Iechika RyΩko 家近亮子. 2002.『蒋介石と南京国民政府』(Chiang Kai-Shek andthe Nanjing Nationalist government). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku
Shuppankai.
̶ . 2012.『蒋介石の外交戦略と日中戦争』(The diplomatic strategy of
Chiang Kai-Shek and the Sino-Japanese War). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Iijima Wataru 飯島渉, Kubo TΩru, and Murata YπjirΩ 村田雄二郎, eds. 2009.
『シリーズ20世紀中国史』(Twentieth-century China). Vol. 3,『グローバル化と中国』(China in globalization). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
IkΩ Toshiya 伊香俊哉. 2002.『近代日本と戦争違法化体制：第一次世界大戦から日中戦争へ』(Modern Japan and the movement for illegalizing war: FromWorld War I to World War II). Tokyo: Yoshikawa KΩbunkan 吉川弘文館.
̶. 2014.『戦争はどう記憶されるのか：日中両国の共鳴と相剋』(How is thewar memorized?: Sympathy and Conflict between China and Japan).
Tokyo: Kashiwa ShobΩ 柏書房.
Imai Narumi 今井就稔. 2005. 日中戦争期華中の政治・経済・社会：日本国内の研究
動向（1981‒2005）(Research trends in Japan (1981–2005) on the politics,
economy and society in central China during the Sino-Japanese War).
Higashi Ajia Chiiki Kenkyπ『東アジア地域研究』(East Asian area studies) 12:71–81.
Imai Shun 今井駿. 1997.『中国革命と対日抗戦：抗日民族統一戦線史研究序説』(The Chinese revolution and the anti-Japanese war). Tokyo: Kyπko
Shoin.
Inoue Hisashi 井上久士. 2001. 国共交渉と国民政府 (Negotiations between the
Chinese Nationalist and Communist parties and the Nationalist government). In Himeta 2001, 31–52.
̶. 2012 華北抗日根拠地における戦争動員と民衆：河北省中部の事例 (Mobilizing for war and the general population in the anti-Japanese strongholdof North China: Case study of Central Hebei Province). Kan Nihonkai
Kenkyπ NenpΩ『環日本海研究年報』(Annual bulletin of the Northeast
Asian studies) 19:34–45.
Irie Akira 入江昭. 1991.『太平洋戦争の起源』(The origins of the Second World
War in Asia and the Pacific). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai
Ishida Yoneko 石田米子 and Uchida Tomoyuki 内田知行, eds. 2004.『黄土の村の性暴力：大娘（ダーニャン）たちの戦争は終わらない』(Sexual violences in
the Ocher village: Endless war of Daniangs). Tokyo: SΩdosha.
Ishida Yπji 石田勇治 et al., eds. 2003.『中国河北省における三光作戦：虐殺の村・北 村』(Three Alls Strategy in Hebei Province). Tokyo: ∂tsuki Shoten.

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Ishii Akira 石井明. 1990.『中ソ関係史の研究, 1945‒1950』(A study of the SinoSoviet relations history, 1945–1950). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 2005. 第2次大戦終結期の中ソ関係：旅順・大連問題を中心に (The SinoSoviet relations after World War II, on the issue of Lushun and Dalian).
In Enatsu et al. 2005, 212–39.
Ishii Yumi 石井弓. 2013.『記憶としての日中戦争：インタビューによる他者理解の可能性』(The Sino-Japanese War as memories: The possibility of understandings through interviews for others). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
Ishijima Noriyuki 石島紀之. 2004. 総論：重慶国民政府論 (Overview: The
Chongqing Nationalist government). In Ishijima and Kubo 2004, 1–22.
̶. 2007. ナショナル・ヒストリーを超える日中戦争史をめざして (In search
for the history of the Sino-Japanese War beyond ‘national history’). Rekishi HyΩron『歴史評論』(Historical journal) 689:2–13.
Ishijima Noriyuki and Kubo TΩru, eds. 2004.『重慶国民政府史の研究』(History of the Chongqing Nationalist government). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku
Shuppankai.
Iwatani Nobu 岩谷将. 2008.「藍衣社」
・「CC団」
・情報戦：日中戦争下の暗闘 (Invisible struggle against Japan: The Blue Shirts, the CC Clique, and the code
breakers). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008, 339–59.
̶ . 2011. 臨汾における政治勢力とその統治 (Political power in Linfen,
Shanxi Province, and its governance). In Mitani 2011, 25–50.
̶. 2013. 日中戦争初期における中国の対日方針 (Chinese policy towards
Japan during the early stage of the Sino-Japanese War). In Liu and Kawashima 2013, 279–307.
Kaneko Fumio 金子文夫. 2001. 日本企業による経済侵略 (The economic aggression by Japanese enterprises). In Uno 2001, 23–46.
Kanemaru Yπichi 金丸裕一. 2006. 文化政策と占領地支配：中支建設資料整備委
員会を中心に (Cultural policy and the rule of occupied area: Centeringon the Commission of Materials on the Building of Central China). In
Himeta and Yamada 2006, 249–71.
Kasahara Tokushi 笠原十九司. 1997a.『南京事件』(The Nanjing Incident).
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
̶. 1997b.『日中全面戦争と海軍：パナイ号事件の真相』(Undeclared war:
The Japan-China War (1937–1945) and the Japanese Imperial Navy;
Why did the Japanese Navy plane attacked the USS Panay?). Tokyo:
Aoki Shoten.
̶ . 1999.『南京事件と三光作戦：未来に生かす戦争の記憶』(The Nanjing
Incident and the Three Alls Strategy: War memories for making use of
future). Tokyo: ∂tsuki Shoten.
̶. 2005. 国民政府軍の構造と作戦：上海, 南京戦を事例に (The structure of
the Nationalist Army and its strategy: The case of the battles of Shanghai and Nanjing). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo 2005,
229–96.
̶. 2010.『日本軍の治安戦：日中戦争の実相』(The military operations for

31

32

H ATA N O

pacification of Communist subversion in China). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kasahara Tokushi and Yoshida Yutaka 吉田裕, eds. 2006.『現代歴史学と南京事件』(The current historical science and the Nanking Incident). Tokyo: Kashiwa ShobΩ.
KatΩ KΩichi 加藤公一. 2004.「スティルウエル事件」と重慶国民政府 (The “Stilwell
Incident” and the Chongqing Nationalist government). In Ishijima andKubo 2004, 147–67.
KatΩ YΩko 加藤陽子. 1993.『模索する1930年代：日米関係と陸軍中堅層』(The1930’s groped: The Japan-U.S. relations and middleclass staffs in Japanese Army). Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha.
̶ . 1995. 敗者の帰還：中国からの復員・引揚問題の展開 (Demobilization
and repatriation of Japanese armed forces in China). Kokusai Seiji『国際政治』(International relations) 109:110–25.
Kawasaki Kenko 川崎賢子. 2006.「外地」の映画ネットワーク (The film network in ‘Outer Areas’). In Yamamoto Toshitake 2006, 243–77.
Kawase Chiharu 川瀬千春. 2000.『戦争と年画：「十五年戦争」期の日中両国の視覚的プロパガンダ』(The war and the new year pictures). Matsudo: Azusa
Shuppansha 梓出版社.
Kawashima Shin 川島真. 2006.「帝国」とラジオ：満洲国において『政治を生活すること』(Imperialism and the program ‘Politics in daily life’ broadcast
over radio in Manchuguo). In Yamamoto Toshitake 2006, 204–42.
̶. 2007. 華北における「文化」政策と日本の位相 (Japanese cultural thrustby ‘Xinminhui’ in Northern China). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 61–85.
Kihata YΩichi 木畑洋一. 2000. 失われた協調の機会？ (Why the chance ofcooperation between Japan and U.K. was lost?). In Kihata et al. 2000,
1–27.
̶ et al., ed. 2000.『日英交流史, 1600‒2000』(The history of Anglo-Japanese relations, 1600–2000). Vol. 2,『政治・外交 II』(The political-diplomatic dimension, 1931–2000). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Kikuchi Kazutaka 菊池一隆. 2002.『中国工業合作運動史の研究』(The Chinese
industrial cooperative movement during the anti-Japanese war: The
formation of social-economic base for resistance and international antifascism’s network). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.
̶. 2003.『日本人反戦兵士と日中戦争：重慶国民政府地域の捕虜収容所と関連させて』(Japanese pacifist soldiers and the Sino-Japanese War). Tokyo:
Ochanomizu ShobΩ 御茶の水書房.
̶. 2006. 中国戦線における非正規戦の諸相 (Aspects of irregular warfare
in Chinese Front). In Kurasawa et al. 2006, 89–117.
̶. 2009.『中国抗日軍事史：1937‒1945』(The anti-Japanese military history of China, 1937–1945). Tokyo: Yπshisha 有志舎.
Kishi Toshihiko 貴志俊彦. 2007. 満洲国の情報宣伝政策と記念行事 (The information and propaganda policies of the Manchuguo and memorial
events). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 13–60.
̶. 2010.『満洲国のビジュアル・メディア：ポスター・絵はがき・切手』(Man-JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)33

churia’s graphic media empire). Tokyo: Yoshikawa KΩbunkan.
Kishi Toshihiko, Kawashima Shin, and Song Ansŏk 孫安石, eds. 2006.『戦争・ラジオ・記憶』(War , radio, and memory). Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版.
Kishi YΩko 岸陽子. 2001. 日本占領下の上海文学：華文女性月刊誌『女聲』をめぐって (Shanghai literatures under the Japanese occupation). In Uno 2001,
191–229.
Kobayashi Hiroharu 小林啓治. 2002.『国際秩序の形成と近代日本』(The formulation of international order and modern Japan). Tokyo: Yoshikawa
KΩbunkan.
Kobayashi KΩji 小林弘二. 1997.『20世紀の農民革命と共産主義運動：中国における農業集団化政策の生成と瓦解』(The peasant revolution in the 20th century and communism movements). Tokyo: KeisΩ ShobΩ 勁草書房.
Kobayashi Hideo 小林英夫. 2003.『日中戦争と汪兆銘』(The Sino-Japanese
War and Wang Zhaoming) Tokyo: Yoshikawa KΩbunkan.
Kobayashi Hideo and Shibata Yoshimasa 柴田善雅, eds. 1996.『日本軍政下の香港』(Hong Kong under the Japanese military government). Tokyo:
Shakai HyΩronsha.
Kohama Masako 小浜正子. 2000.『戦時期上海の公共性と国家』(The “public”
and the state in modern Shanghai). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan 研文出版.
̶ . 2 0 1 0 . 戦時中国の救済工作：中国紅十字会と世界紅卍字会の救済ネット
ワーク (The measures for the relief of refugees in wartime China). In
Vogel and Hirano 2010, 197–213.
Kotani Ken 小谷賢. 2008. 日中戦争における日本軍のインテリジェンス (Anoverview of Japanese intelligence operations in China). In Gunjishi
Gakkai 2008, 325–38.
Kubo TΩru 久保亨. 1999.『戦間期中国＜自立への模索＞：関税通貨政策と経済発展』(China’s quest for sovereignty in the inter-war period: Tariff policy
and economic development). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶ . 2003. 今日の中華民国史研究：転換した中国現代史像 (Recent studies
on the history of Republican China). Rekishigaku Kenkyπ『歴史学研究』(Journal of historical studies) 779:2–7.
̶, ed. 2006.『1949年前後の中国』(China before and after the 1949). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.
̶. 2009. 統制と開放をめぐる経済史 (The history of planned and freemarket economies). In Iijima, Kubo, and Murata 2009, 207–27.
̶. 2011. 東アジアの総動員体制 (The total mobilization system in East
Asia). In『岩波講座 東アジア近現代通史』(Iwanami Koza: Modern andcontemporary general history of East Asia), vol. 6,『アジア太平洋戦争と「大東亜共栄圏」：1935‒1945年』(The Asia-Pacific War and the ‘Greater
East Asian Sphere’, 1935–1945), ed. Wada Haruki 和田春樹 et al., 47–
72. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
̶. 2014. 戦時中国の工業発展 (Industrial development of wartime China). In Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014, 13–39.
Kubo TΩru, Hatano Sumio, and Nisimura Shigeo 西村成雄, eds. 2014.『戦時34

H ATA N O

期中国の経済発展と社会変容』(The economic development of wartime
China and transformation of society). 日中戦争の国際共同研究 (International joint study of the Sino-Japanese War) 5. Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku
Daigaku Shuppankai.
Kubo TΩru and Saga Takashi 嵯峨隆, eds. 2011.『中華民国の憲政と独裁,
1912‒1949』(Constitutional government and dictatorship of Republican
China, 1912–1949). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Kurasawa Aiko 倉沢愛子 et al., eds. 2006.『岩波講座 アジア・太平洋戦争』(Iwanami Koza: The Asia-Pacific War). Vol. 5,『戦場の諸相』(Facets ofthe battlefield). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Liu Jie 劉傑. 1995.『日中戦争下の外交』(The diplomacy under the Sino-Japanense War). Tokyo: Yoshikawa KΩbunkan.
̶. 2000.『漢奸裁判：対日協力者を襲った運命』(Traitor’s trials). Tokyo:
ChπΩ KΩronsha.
̶. 2006a. 汪兆銘政権論 (A study on Wang Zhaoming regime). In『岩波講座 アジア・太平洋戦争』(Iwanami Koza: The Asia-Pacific War), vol.
7,『支配と暴力』(Rule and violence), ed. Kurasawa Aiko et al., 249–84.
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
̶. 2006b. 汪兆銘と「南京国民政府」：協力と抵抗の間 (Wang Zhaoming andthe ‘Nanjing Nationalist Government’: Between resistance and collaboration). In Liu, Mitani, and Yang 2006, 171–201.
Liu Jie and Kawashima Shin, eds. 2009.『1945年の歴史認識：「終戦」をめぐる日中対話の試み』(Reinterpreting early postwar Sino-Japanese relations: A
dialogue in history). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶, eds. 2013.『対立と共存の歴史認識：日中関係150年』(Between conflictand co-existence of historical understanding: Sino-Japanese relations
over 150 years). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Liu Jie, Mitani Hiroshi 三谷博, and Yang Daqing 楊大慶, eds. 2006.『国境を越える歴史認識：日中対話の試み』(Contending issues in Sino-Japanese relations: Toward a history beyond borders). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Lu Xijun 鹿錫俊. 2007. 世界化する戦争と中国の「国際的解決」戦略 (Globalization of the war and the Chinese strategy for ‘internarional settlements’). In『膨張する帝国 拡散する帝国：第二次大戦に向かう日英とアジア』(Expanding empire, diffusing empire: Japan, Britain, and Asia moving
towards the Second World War), ed. Ishida Ken 石田憲, 203–54. Tokyo:TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 2009. 欧州情勢への対応と日独ソ関係への対処：1940年前後, 太平洋戦争への中国の戦略 (The Japan strategy of China’s Nationalist government). In『太平洋戦争と連合国の対日戦略：開戦経緯を中心として』(The Japan strategies of the allies during the road to Pearl Harbor), ed. BΩei Kenkyπjo 防衛研究所, 99–118. Tokyo: BΩei Kenkyπjo.
Ma Xiaohua 馬暁華. 2000.『幻の新秩序とアジア太平洋：第二次大戦期の米中間の軋轢』(Illusionary new orders and the Asian-Pacific: The ChineseAmerican alliance in the war against Japan, 1941–1945). Tokyo:

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Sairyπsha 彩流社.
Maeda Tetsuo 前田哲男. 2006.『戦略爆撃の思想：ゲルニカ, 重慶, 広島』(Thoughtof Strategic bombings: Guernica, Chongqing, and Hiroshima). Tokyo:
Gaifπsha 凱風社.
Maruta Takashi 丸田孝志. 2013.『革命の儀礼：中国共産党根拠地の政治動員と民俗』(Revolutionary rites: Political mobilization and folk customs in Chinese Communist base areas). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.
Maruyama Naoki 丸山直起. 2005.『太平洋戦争と上海のユダヤ難民』(The Pacific War and the Jewish refugees in Shanghai). Tokyo: HΩsei Daigaku
Shuppankyoku 法政大学出版局.
Masuda Hiroshi 増田弘, ed. 2012.『大日本帝国の崩壊と引揚・復員』(The fall of
the Japanese Empire and the evacuation, demobilization). Tokyo: KeiΩGijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Matsumoto ToshirΩ 松本俊郎. 1988.『侵略と開発：日本資本主義と中国植民地化』(Japanese colonial occupation and the economic development in
China). Tokyo: Ochanomizu ShobΩ̶ . 2000.『「満洲国」から新中国へ：鞍山鉄鋼業からみた中国東北の再編過程,
1940‒1954』(From Manchukuo to the Communist China: The industrial
reconstruction of Northeast China observed through the iron & steel industry in Anshan, 1940–1954). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai
名古屋大学出版会.
Matsumura Takao 松村高夫 et al. 1997.『戦争と疫病：七三一部隊がもたらしたもの』(War and plague: What the Unit 731 brought about). Kawasaki:
Honno Tomosha 本の友社.
Matsuura Masataka 松浦正孝. 2010.『「大東亜戦争」はなぜ起きたのか：汎アジア主義の政治経済史』(Why did the “Great East Asian War” broke out?).
Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai.
Misawa Mamie 三澤真美恵. 2007. 抗戦期中国の映画統制：取締から積極的活用へ(From censorship to engagement: China’s regulation of motion pictureduring the anti-Japanese war). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 133–70.
Mitani Takashi 三谷隆, ed. 2011.『中国内陸における農村変革と地域社会：山西省臨汾市の近郊農村の変容』(Rural reforms in inland area of China andlocal society: Transfomation at the suburban village of Linfen City,
Shanxi Province). Tokyo: Ochanomizu ShobΩ.
Miyoshi Akira 三好章. 2003.『摩擦と合作：新四軍, 1937‒1941』(Conflict andunited front: The New Forth Army 1937–1941). Tokyo: SΩdosha.
Mizuha Nobuo 水羽信男. 2004. 昆明における抗戦とリベラリズム (The antiJapanese war and liberalism of intellectuals in Kunming). In Ishijima
and Kubo 2014, 323–40.
̶. 2007.『中国近代のリベラリズム』(Liberalism in modern China). Tokyo: TΩhΩ Shoten 東方書店.
̶. 2014. 戦国策派と中国の民主主義 (The Zhanguo Ce Clique and Chinese democracy). In Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014, 301–19.
Momma Rira 門間理良. 2006. 利用された敗者：日本軍武装解除をめぐる国共両党の駆け引き (The use of defeated: Maneuverings between the Nationalist

35

36

H ATA N O

and Communist parties regarding Japanese disarmament). In Hatano
and Tobe 2006, 367–87.
Mori Hisao 森久男. 2000.『徳王の研究』(A study on De Wang). Tokyo:
SΩdosha.
̶. 2015. 辻政信とチャハル作戦 (Cap. Tsuji Masanobu and the Chahar
Operations). In Baba 2015a, 123–53.
Nagai Kazu 永井和. 2007. 日中戦争と日英対立 (The Sino-Japanese War andAnglo-Japanese antagonism). In『日中戦争から世界戦争へ』(From the
Sino-Japanese War to the World War), 134–259. Tokyo: Shibunkaku
Shuppan 思文閣出版.
Nakada Takashi 中田崇. 2008 中国国民党中央宣伝部国際宣伝処の対米宣伝工作：
エージェントの活動を中心に (Chinese war propaganda: How KMT Central Publicity Board approached the USA). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008,
394–410.
Nakamura Motoya 中村元哉. 2004.『戦後中国の憲政実施と言論の自由, 1945‒49』(Constitutionalism and freedom of speech in China during the Civil
War period, 1945–49). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 2010. 国民党『党治』下の憲法制定活動 (Activities for establishment ofconstitution under the rule of Nationalist Party). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo 2010, 43–80.
̶. 2014. 戦時中国の憲法制定史 (The history of establishment of constitution in wartime China). In Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014,
275–300.
Nie Lili 聶莉莉. 2006.『中国民衆の戦争記憶：日本軍の細菌戦による傷跡』(Warmemories of Chinese people: Scars left by the biological warfare of theJapanese army). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten 明石書店.
Nishimura Shigeo 西村成雄. 2001.『中国ナショナリズムと民主主義：20世紀中
国政治史の新たな視界』(The Chinese nationalism and democracy: Newangle of 20th century’s nationalism). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
̶, ed. 2004a.『中国外交と国連の成立』(Chinese diplomacy and the establishment of the United Nations). Kyoto: HΩritsu Bunkasha 法律文化社.
̶. 2004b.『20世紀中国の政治空間：「中華民族的国民国家」の凝集力』(Political space in 20th century China: The cohesive power of the Chinese
peoples’ nation-state). Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.
Nishimura Shigeo, Ishijima Noriyuki, and Tajima Nobuo, eds. 2011.『国際関係のなかの日中戦争』 (The Sino-Japanese War in the international relations). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Nishinarita Yutaka 西成田豊. 2002.『中国人強制連行』(Forced immigration ofChinese to Imperial Japan). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Nishizawa Atsushi 西澤敦. 2008. 対中軍事援助とヒマラヤ越え空輸作戦：政治的効果と軍事的効果 (Over the hump: Military and political effects ofAmerican airborne assistance to China). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008,
275–95.
Nozawa Yutaka 野沢豊, ed. 1995.『日本の中華民国史研究』(The historicalstudies on Republican China in Japan). Tokyo: Kyπko Shoin.

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Okumura Satoshi 奥村哲. 1999.『中国の現代史：戦争と社会主義』(The Chinese
Communist regime in historical perspective). Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.
̶, ed. 2013.『変革期の基層社会：総力戦と中国・日本』(Grassroots societies
in changing age: Total war, and China, and Japan). Tokyo: SΩdosha.
∂sawa Takeshi 大澤武司. 2008.「人民の義憤」を超えて (Beyond “people’s righteous indignation” against the Japanese war criminals). Gunji Shigaku
44, no. 3 (175): 41–58.
̶. 2009.「ヒト」の移動と国家の論理 (Moving of ‘people’ and the logic ofnation). In Liu and Kawashima 2009, 143–70.
SaitΩ Michihiko 齊藤道彦. 2005. 孫文と蒋介石の三民主義建国論 (The Three
Principles of the People and the ideas on state-making of Sun Yetsen and Chiang Kai-shek). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo
2005, 49–104.
Sakamoto Tsutomu 坂本勉, ed. 2008.『日中戦争とイスラーム：満蒙・アジア地域
における統治・懐柔政策』(The Sino-Japanese War and Muslim: Japaneserules and conciliatory policies in Mongolia and Asian regions). Tokyo:KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Sasagawa Yπji 笹川裕史. 2005. 重慶戦時糧食政策の実施と四川省地域社会 (Thewartime grain levy policy of the Chongqing National government andSichuan local society). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo
2005, 415–51.
̶. 2014. 中国の総力戦と基層社会 (Chinese total war and the grassrootssociety). In Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014, 231–49.
Sasagawa Yπji and Okumura Satoshi. 2007.『銃後の中国社会：日中戦争下の総動員と農村』(Chinese society behind the guns: Total mobilization andrural communities under the Sino-Japanese War). Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Sasaki TarΩ 佐々木太郎. 2007. 中国共産党のインテリジェンス体制 (System ofintelligence of Chinese Communist Party). In『インテリジェンスの20世
紀：情報史から見た国際政治』(The century of intelligence: Intelligenceand international history in the 20th century), ed. Nakanishi Terumasa
中西輝政 and Kotani Ken, 87–107. Tokyo: Chikura ShobΩ 千倉書房.
̶. 2008. 太平洋戦争下におけるアメリカと中国共産党のインテリジェンス関
係 (The US-CCP intelligence relations during the Pacific War). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008, 360–76.
SensΩ to Kπbaku Mondai Kenkyπkai 戦争と空爆問題研究会, ed. 2009.『重慶爆撃とは何だったのか：もうひとつの日中戦争』(What was the Bombing of
Chongqing?: Another story of the Sino-Japanese war). Tokyo: KΩbunken
高文研.
Shibata Tetsuo 柴 田 哲 雄 . 2009.『協力・抵抗・沈黙：汪精衛南京政府のイデオロ
ギーに対する比較史的アプローチ』(Collaboration, resistance, and silence:
Comparative approach to the ideology of the Wang Jingwei Nanjing
government). Tokyo: SeibundΩ 成文堂.
Shibata Yoshimasa. 1999.『占領地通貨金融政策の展開』(The development ofmonetary and finance policies under the occupied areas). Tokyo: Nihon

37

38

H ATA N O

Keizai HyorΩnsha 日本経済評論社.
̶. 2008.『中国占領地日系企業の活動』(Activities of Japanese enterprises
under the occupied areas in China). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai HyΩronsha.
Shinohara Hatsue 篠原初枝. 2003.『戦争の法から平和の法へ：戦間期のアメリカ
国際法学者』(Forgotten crusade: The American scholars of internationallaw in the interwar period). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Sugita Yoneyuki 杉田米行. 2004. 1940年代アメリカの対中国政策の不確定性(Uncertainty of American policies towards China in the 1940s). In
Nishimura 2004a, 159–90.
Sun Ge 孫歌. 2002.『アジアを語ることのジレンマ：知の共同空間を求めて』(Dilemma of talking the war). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Tajima Nobuo. 2008a.『ナチス・ドイツと中国国民政府, 1933‒1937』(Nazi Germany and Republican China, 1933–1937). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku
Shuppankai.
̶. 2008b. 東アジア国際関係の中の日独関係 (The Japan-German relationsin international relations in East Asia). In『日独関係史：1890‒1945』(Ahistory of Japanese-German relations, 1890–1945), vol. 1,『総説／東アジ
アにおける邂逅』(Encounters in East Asia), ed. KudΩ Akira and Tajima
Nobuo, 3–75. Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuoppankai.
̶. 2011. 日中戦争と日独中ソ関係 (The Sino-Japanese War and JapanGerman-China-Soviet relations). In Nishimura, Ishijima, and Tajima
2011, 33–53.
Takahashi Nobuo 高橋伸夫. 1996.『中国革命と国際環境：中国共産党の国際情勢
認識とソ連, 1937年〜1960年』(Chinese Revolution and the international
environment: Perceptions on international situations of the Chinese
Communist Party, 1937–1960). Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
̶. 2006.『党と農民：中国農民革命の再検討』(Party and peasant: Re-examination of Chinese peasant revolution). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
̶. 2009. 社会主義下の党・国家と社会 (Party, state, and society under Socialism). In Iijima, Kubo, and Murata 2009, 15–35.
Takamitsu Yoshie 高光佳絵. 2008.『アメリカと戦間期の東アジア：アジア・太平
洋国際秩序形成と「グローバリゼーション」』(The U. S. and East Asia during the interwar period). Tokyo: Seikyπsha 青弓社.
Takatsuna Hirofumi 高綱博文, ed. 2005.『戦時上海：1937‒45年』(Wartime
Shanghai, 1937–45). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
Takishita Saeko 瀧下彩子. 2007. 抗日漫画宣伝活動と『国家総動員画報』の作家達：醸成される抗日イメージ (Creating images of resistance: The anti-Japanese cartoon movement and the contributors to “Guojia Zongdongyuan
Huabao”). In Hirano Ken’ichirΩ 2007, 233–61.
Tanaka Hitoshi 田中仁. 2002.『1930年代中国政治史研究：中国共産党の危機と再生』(A study of the Chinese political history during the 1930’s: Crisisand recovery of the Chinese Communist Party). Tokyo: KeisΩ ShobΩ.
Tanaka KyΩko 田中恭子. 1996.『土地と権力：中国の農村革命』(The land andpower: The agrarian revolution in China). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

Shuppankai.
Tobe RyΩichi. 1991.『ピース・フィーラー：支那事変和平工作の群像』(Peace feelers: Peoples of taking peace initiatives between Japan and China). Tokyo: RonsΩsha 論創社.
̶. 2010. 日中戦争をめぐる研究動向 (Research trends in the Sino-Japanese War, 1937–1945). Gunji Shigaku 46, no. 1 (181): 6–22.
TΩmatsu Haruo 等松春夫. 2010. 歴史は鑑か鏡か？ (Is history a mirror?). In『歴史の桎梏を越えて：20世紀日中関係への新視点』(Beyond the historical awareness: 20–21st century Japan-China relations), ed. Kobayashi
Michihiko 小林道彦 and Nakanishi Hiroshi 中西寛, 259–77. Tokyo: Chikura ShobΩ.
Tomizawa Yoshia 富沢芳亜. 2005. 在華紡の遺産：戦後における中国紡織機器製造公司の設立と西川秋次 (The legacy of the Japanese cotton spinningindustry in China). In『在華紡と中国社会』(The Japanese cotton spinning industry in China and Chinese society), ed. Mori Tokihiko 森時彦,
184–206. Kyoto: KyΩto Daigaku Gakujutsu Shuppankai 京都大学学術出版会.
Tomizawa Yoshia, Kubo TΩru, and Hagiwara Mitsuru, eds. 2011.『近代中国を生きた日系企業』(Japanese enterprises surviving in modern China).
Osaka: ∂saka Daigaku Shuppankai 大阪大学出版会.
Tsuchida Akio 土田哲夫. 2004. 中国抗日戦略と対米「国民外交工作」(Chinese
anti-Japanese strategy and ‘Peoples Diplomacy’ towards the U.S.). In
Ishijima and Kubo 2004, 127–46.
̶. 2010. 日中戦争期中国の対米「国民外交」(Chinese ‘Peoples Diplomacy’
towards the U.S. during the Sino-Japanese War). In Vogel and Hirano
2010, 215–32.
̶. 2011. 日中戦争と中国宣戦問題 (The Sino-Japanese War and the issueof Chinese proclamation of the war). In Nishimura, Ishijima, and Tajima 2011, 355–78.
Tsuchiya Mitsuyoshi 土屋光芳. 2011.『「汪兆銘政権」論：比較コラボレーション
による考察』(A study of ‘Wang Zhaoming’ regime). Tokyo: Ningen-no
Kagaku Shinsha 人間の科学新社.
Uchida Tomoyuki. 2002a.『抗日戦争と民衆運動』(Anti-Japanese war andpeople’s movements). Tokyo: SΩdosha．
̶ . 2002b. 陜甘寧辺区における農業生産互助運動 (Movement of mutual
aid and cooperation in agricultural production Shan-Gan-Ning borderregion). In Uchida 2002a, 31–72.
̶. 2005.『黄土の大地, 1937‒1945：山西省占領地の社会経済史』(Ochre soil,
1937–1945: The socio-economic history of Shanxi Province). Tokyo:
SΩdosha．
Uchida Tomoyuki and Shibata Yoshimasa, eds. 2007.『日本の蒙疆占領：1937‒
1945』(The occupation of Inner Mongolia by Japan: 1937–1945). Tokyo:
Kenbun Shuppan.
Uno Shigeaki 宇野重昭. 1987. 中国のナショナリズムと日本のナショナリズム：
近代化における未熟な国家の衝突 (Nationalisms of both China and Japan:

39

40

H ATA N O

Clash of two immature nations in modernization). Kokusai Mondai
328:2–13.
̶ , ed. 2001. 『深まる侵略 屈折する抵抗：1930年‒40年代の日・中のはざま』(The aggression deepened, the resistance warped: Between Japan and
China during the 1930’s–40’s). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
Uno Shigeaki and Amako Satoshi 天児慧, eds. 1994.『20世紀の中国：政治変動と国際契機』(China in the twentieth century: Political change and international stimulus). Tokyo: TΩkyΩ Daigaku Shuppankai.
Usui Katsumi 臼井勝美. 1998.『日中外交史研究：昭和前期』(A study on the diplomatic history between Japan and China: The first half of the Showaera). Tokyo: Yoshikawa KΩbunkan.
̶ . 2000.『新版 日中戦争：和平か戦線拡大か』(The Sino-Japanese War:
New version). Tokyo: ChπΩ KΩronshinsha 中央公論新社.
Usuki Eiichi 臼杵英一. 2008. 汪兆銘「南京国民政府」の法的地位と日中戦争：英国による不承認と国際法・英国外務省文書の検討 (The legal status of theWang Zhaoming ‘Government’ and the Sino-Japanese War: Non-recognition in international law as revealed in the British Foreign Office
Papers 1939–1945). In Gunjishi Gakkai 2008, 197–222.
van de Ven, Hans (ハンス・ヴァン・デ・ベン). 2006. 中国軍事史の文脈から見る日
中戦争 (The Sino-Japanese War as seen from the context of the militaryhistory of China). In Hatano and Tobe 2006, 417–43.
̶ . 2014. 抗日戦争の新たな歴史像の模索 (Search for a new history ofanti-Japanese war). In Kubo, Hatano, and Nishimura 2014, 373–98.
Vogel, Ezra (エズラ・ボーゲル), and Hirano Ken’ichirΩ, eds. 2010.『日中戦争期
中国の社会と文化』(Society and culture during the Sino-Japanese War).
日中戦争の国際共同研究 (International joint study of the Sino-JapaneseWar) 3. Tokyo: KeiΩ Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Wang Chaoquang 王朝光. 2013. 戦火での映像と人生：日中全面戦争下での重慶映画と映画人 (Film productions and lives of actors in Chongqing under
the Sino-Japanese War). In Liu and Kawashima 2013, 77–94.
Wang Xueping 王雪萍. 2010. 時代とともに変化してきた抗日戦争像 1949‒2005：
中国の中学歴史教科の「教学大綱」と教科書を中心に (Changing images of
the Sino-Japanese War in Chinese history textbooks, 1949–2005). Gunji
Shigaku 45, no. 4 (180): 23–45.
Wu Wanhong 呉万虹. 2009. 中国残留日本人 (Japanese people left behind in
China). In Liu and Kawashima 2009, 171–202.
Yamada Tatsuo, ed. 1996.『歴史のなかの現代中国』(Contemporary China inhistorical perspective). Tokyo: KeisΩ Shobo.
Yamada Tatsuo and Matsushige Mitsuhiro 松重充浩, eds. 2013.『蒋介石研究：政治・戦争・日本』(A study on Chiang Kai-Shek: Politics, War, and Japan). Tokyo: TΩhΩ Shoten.
Yamagiwa Akira 山極晃. 1997.『米中関係の歴史的展開：1941年‒1979年』(Historical development of the Sino-American relations, 1941–1979). Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
Yamamoto Eishi 山本英史. ed. 2011.『近代中国の地域像』(Images of regions in

JAPANESE-LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR AND WARTIME CHINA (1937–1945)

modern China). Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha.
Yamamoto Masahiro 山本昌弘. 2006. 華北の対ゲリラ戦, 1939‒1945：失敗の解析(Japan’s anti-guerrilla warfare in North China,1939–1945: Analysis of
the failure). In Hatano and Tobe 2006, 189–218.
Yamamoto Shin 山本真. 1998. 日中戦争期から国共内戦期にかけての国民政府の土地行政：地籍整理・人員・機構 (The land policy of the Nationalist Government from the Sino-Japanese War to the Civil War era). Ajia Keizai『アジア経済』(Monthly journal of Institute of Developing Economies) 39,
no. 12:29–55.
̶. 2009. 農村社会からみた土地改革 (Land reform as seen from rural societies). In Iijima, Kubo, and Murata 2009, 167–86.
Yamamoto Taketoshi 山本武利, ed. 2006.『岩波講座「帝国」日本の学知』(Iwanami Koza: Academic knowledges of Japanese Empire). Vol. 4,『メディアのなかの「帝国」』(Imperialism in the media). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Yamamuro Shin’ichi 山室信一. 2011. 通史 (General history). In『岩波講座 東
アジア近現代通史』(Iwanami Koza: Modern and contemporary general
history of East Asia), vol. 5,『新秩序の模索：1930年代』(The search forthe new order: The 1930s), ed. Wada Haruki et al., 4–41. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Yan Ni 晏䑍. 2010.『戦時日中映画交渉史』(The negotiation history between
Japan and China concerning films during the Sino-Japanese War). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Yang Daqing. 2006a. 南京アトロシティズ：建設的対話は可能か？ (The Nanjin
Atrocities: Is it possible to have a constructive dialogue?). In Liu, Mitani, and Yang 2006, 139–68.
̶. 2006b. 南京残虐事件：原因論の考察 (The Nanjing Atrocities: A studyof the causes). In Kurasawa et al. 2006, 181–214.
̶ . 2009. 中国に留まる日本人技術者：政治と技術のあいだ (Technical experts remaining China after the war: Between politics and technology).
In Liu and Kawashima 2009, 113–39.
Yasui Sankichi 安井三吉. 2003.『柳条湖事件から盧溝橋事件へ：1930年代華北をめぐる日中の対抗』(From the Liutiaohu Incident to Marco Polo Bridge
Incident: Confrontations between Japan and China over North China).
Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan.
̶. 2005.『帝国日本と華僑：日本, 台湾, 朝鮮』(The Japanese Empire andthe overseas Chinese in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea). Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.
̶. 2008. 盧溝橋事件研究の現状と課題 (Outcomes and problems of studies concerning the Marco Polo Bridge Incident). Rekishi Kagaku『歴史科学』195:1–11.
Yin Yanjun 殷燕軍. 1996.『中日戦争賠償問題：中国国民政府の戦時・戦後対日政策を中心に』(Problems concerning the reparations for the Sino-Japanese
War). Tokyo: Ochanomizu ShobΩ.
Yokoyama Hiroaki 横山宏章. 1996.『中華民国史：専制と民主の相剋』(The history of the Republic China: Conflicts between dictatorship and democ-

41

42

H ATA N Oracy). Tokyo: San Ichi ShobΩ 三一書房.
Yoshida Toyoko 吉田豊子. 2005. 第二次世界大戦末期の中ソ関係と中国辺彊：アルタイ事件をめぐる中ソ交渉を中心に (Sino-Soviet relations and China’s
frontier in late WWII). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo
2005, 529–71.
̶. 2010. 国民政府のヤルタ密約への対応とモンゴル問題 (The response to
the ‘Yalta Secret Agreement’ of the Nationalist Government and theMongolian problem). In ChπΩ Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyπjo 2010,
253–301.
Zhang Xinmin 張新民. 2015. 中国華北地域における『北支軍』映画工作と新民映画協会 (The film policy of the ‘North China Army’ in North China andthe New People’s Film Association). In Baba 2015a, 197–233.
Zhu Delan 朱徳蘭. 2005.『台湾総督府と慰安婦』(The Government-General of
Taiwan and the issues of comfort women). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.