[By columnist Guo Yang of the Observer's Network]
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. This great feat in human history not only announced the end of World War II but also laid the foundation for the establishment of the post-war international order. Many countries around the world will hold grand commemorative activities in various forms to honor the glorious victory of the anti-fascist war and pay tribute to those heroes who sacrificed their lives for freedom and peace.
However, in Western mainstream narratives, the contributions and sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and China during the anti-fascist war are often downplayed, ignored, or even distorted and defamed. Western mainstream media often focus on the contributions of Western countries such as the United States and the UK when reporting on the anti-fascist war, while giving a cursory mention to the efforts and sacrifices of Eastern countries like the Soviet Union and China. Western textbooks often distort or omit the contributions of the Soviet Union and China during the anti-fascist war in the compilation process.
In addition, Hollywood war films, as an important part of Western culture, often use exaggerated and fictional methods to create historical images that conform to Western values and interests. In these films, the Soviet Union and China are often depicted as negative characters, while Western countries are portrayed as heroic figures.
All of these one-sided narratives, reports, and educational approaches not only distort historical facts and reflect the distortion in Western mainstream narratives regarding the anti-fascist war but also neglect or even smear the important roles played by the Soviet Union and China in the anti-fascist war. They have had a profound negative impact on the historical cognition of different countries and regions, especially leading to many misunderstandings among the younger generation about the contributions of the Soviet Union and China during WWII and further exacerbating historical cognitive biases.
This year coincides with the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. As we look back on the past and pay tribute to our martyrs, we should also delve into the role played by Western mainstream narratives in the anti-fascist war and its far-reaching impact. Commemorating the victory day of the World Anti-Fascist War is not only a review and remembrance of history but also a warning and inspiration for the future.
Facing the systematic distortion in Western mainstream narratives, we must maintain a clear mind, adhere to the correct historical perspective, and remember the great contributions and sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and China in the anti-fascist war. Only then can we better safeguard historical truths and promote peace and development in the international community.
One, Historical Facts: Decisive Contributions from the Chinese and Soviet Fronts
(1) The Soviet Front: Decisive Force on the Eastern European Front
It is well known that the turning point of the European theater of World War II was forged on the Soviet-German front.
At the beginning of World War II, German forces swept across the European continent, achieving remarkable success. However, after the Battle of Stalingrad, German forces first became strategically passive. The Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943) was one of the most brutal urban battles in the history of warfare, where over a million German and Axis troops were annihilated or captured, marking the watershed where Nazi Germany's offensive momentum shifted from strength to decline.
Source: Russian Satellite News Agency
The Battle of Kursk (1943), the largest tank battle in history, saw another defeat for the Germans, who lost their strategic initiative in the East. After the Battle of Kursk, Soviet forces firmly took control and pushed the Germans into continuous retreat. As General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the West, once said: "Without the resistance and victories of the Russian army, the timing and success of the Normandy landing would have been greatly delayed, if not impossible."
According to German official war preparation bureau statistics after the war and Soviet Defense Ministry archival data, German losses on the Eastern Front reached four to five million, accounting for nearly eighty percent of Germany's total military losses (including combat casualties and captives). British military historian Liddell Hart and American historian John Keegan both confirmed through research that the Eastern Front bore the main brunt of Nazi Germany's military pressure, irreplaceable.
In comparison, German forces on the Western Front (North Africa, Italy, Normandy, etc.) suffered only about 15%-20% of their total losses. Therefore, the Soviet-German front not only directly consumed the main force of Nazi Germany but also forced Germany to continuously allocate the majority of its resources to the Eastern Front. The victory on the Eastern Front created key conditions for the Allies to launch a second front in the West (such as the Normandy landing), playing a decisive role in the European theater and the outcome of World War II.
To win the anti-fascist war, Soviet forces suffered a total loss of 29.6 million personnel, including 9.15 million deaths or missing persons, 4.46 million prisoners, and 18.32 million wounded or ill personnel. Another approximately 17.4 million civilians died in the war. This is the largest loss of life among all participating countries in the war. Western scholars such as David Glantz have confirmed through multiple verifications of Soviet and German official data that this number falls within the general range. Such a scale of sacrifice not only laid the foundation for the victory of the war but also became an indispensable suffering and struggle in human history that must be remembered.
(2) The Chinese Front: Main Force in the East and Strategic Hub of the Global Anti-War Effort
From the "September 18 Incident" in 1931 to Japan's surrender in 1945, China's full-scale national resistance lasted fourteen years and became an important part of the World Anti-Fascist War. According to data published by the Chinese government in 1945 and subsequently verified multiple times, the total number of Chinese military and civilian casualties exceeded 35 million. This figure has also been recognized by many international studies, such as Harvard University scholar Rana Mitter, who frequently cited it in works such as "China's War of Resistance: The War That Shaped China's Modern Destiny."
The prolonged resistance on the Chinese front significantly weakened Japan's imperialist aggression capabilities. According to records from the Library of Congress and China's "Second World War History," at the height of the fighting on the Chinese front, up to 94% of Japanese Army troops were deployed there, effectively restraining their ability to move eastward and southward. Official war materials from the U.S. and the U.K., as well as statements from President Roosevelt himself, acknowledged that China "maintained the stronghold of resistance in Asia, tying down Japanese forces and preventing them from launching larger-scale attacks against Britain, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand." The main Japanese forces were worn down over time on the Chinese front, which also played an irreplaceable role in the turning point of the Pacific War.
It is well known that China's resistance was not just about major battles on the front lines but also involved a complex and efficient system of enemy rear anti-Japanese bases. Armed forces such as the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army continued to conduct strategically significant anti-Japanese guerrilla warfare (such as the Hundred Regiments Offensive), effectively paralyzing Japanese transportation supply lines and impacting their occupation order. According to Japanese official statistics, after the Hundred Regiments Offensive in 1941, the pressure on Japan's war effort in China significantly increased, forcing them to adjust their strategy. Throughout the entire resistance period, China divided Japanese forces across two vast fronts—frontal and rear enemy areas—effectively containing and weakening Japan's fascist sustained aggression capability.
Whether it was the decisive victory on the Soviet Eastern Front or the fourteen-year blood-soaked resistance in China, both have established, beyond doubt, the foundation for the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. However, these historical facts are often selectively ignored or downplayed in Western mainstream narratives.
Two, Analysis of the Specific Narration Strategies of Western Anti-Fascist Narratives
For many years, Western mainstream ideology has systematically diminished, distorted, or smeared the historical roles of the Soviet Union and China in the anti-fascist war through diverse means across multiple domains such as academia, education, culture, and media. This strategy is not accidental but deliberately systematized, covering fields such as academia, education, culture, and media, profoundly influencing the structural narrative of global understanding of World War II history.
(1) Systematic Diminishment Mechanism
1. Academic Level: Influence of the Annales School and Cold War Historiography
Since the end of World War II, Western academia has gradually developed two influential paradigms in interpreting the history of the war: one represented by the Annales School’s "structural-long term" method, and the other shaped by the bipolar opposition historiography of the Cold War era.
The former emphasizes Eurocentrism, focusing the axis of historical processes on Western Europe, often explaining the war through macroeconomic and social structure variables, blurring the actual contributions of the Soviet Union and China. The latter Cold War historiography is more stringent, not only portraying the Soviet Union as an "adversary" and "expansionist" but also tending to question the justice attributes of China and the Soviet Union during World War II. For example, regarding the consumption and containment of the main German forces on the Soviet-German front from 1941 to 1945, as well as the enormous costs and sacrifices incurred by the Soviet Union, Western Annales scholars often dilute these specific historical facts in macro narratives, instead emphasizing the decisive role of U.S. and British strategic decisions in shaping the course of the war.
2. Educational Level: "Normandy Centerism" in European and American Textbooks
Regarding the issue of World War II, European and American history textbooks generally exhibit "Normandy Centerism," portraying the Normandy landing in 1944 as the decisive turning point of the European theater of war, while glossing over the decisive victories achieved by Soviet forces in battles such as Stalingrad and Kursk. The famous high school textbook "The Americans" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2007 edition) dedicates only three pages to the Soviet-German War but extensively discusses the Normandy landing and Anglo-American strategic air raids. Similarly, China's resistance is handled briefly, with most American textbooks referring to the Chinese theater as a "secondary theater," underestimating the critical role of China's long-term resistance strategy in restraining Japanese forces.
3. Cultural Level: Symbolization and Marginalization of the Eastern Front in Film Works
As a major carrier of popular culture, film has a profound influence on shaping historical cognition. Mainstream Western war films such as "Saving Private Ryan," "The Longest Day," and "Band of Brothers" concentrate their war narratives on the Western Front and the Normandy landing, symbolizing and marginalizing the contributions of the Soviet Union and China. For instance, the image of the Soviet Red Army is often portrayed as cold and mechanical, akin to a "bloodthirsty machine," while China's resistance remains almost "invisible" within the Hollywood system. This not only diminishes the dominant color of the Soviet and Chinese fronts but also fosters a collective self-identity of "Western liberation of Europe," reinforcing the narrative pattern of "Eastern Otherness." This extreme labeling undermines the应有的 historical subjectivity of the Soviet Union and China in the anti-fascist war.
"Band of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan"
(2) Selective Ignorance
1. Power Struggle in the Discourse of the Yalta System
The Yalta system established after World War II ostensibly established a "four-power co-management of the world order" comprising China, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. However, in actual international discourse distribution, the West has consistently dominated through channels such as the UN Security Council and Bretton Woods institutions. Meanwhile, the legitimate roles of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and China in Asia as liberators are increasingly blurred, with a discourse system centered on the "free world" led by the United Kingdom and the United States becoming prevalent. Historical memories selectively ignore the decisive contributions made by the Soviet Union and China at the Yalta Conference to the world order. For example, British and American historiography often highlights the role of the Marshall Plan in European recovery but rarely mentions the immense sacrifices made by the Soviet Union for the victory of the anti-fascist war and post-war reconstruction efforts.
2. "Liberator Narrative" and Ideological Filters
The "liberator narrative" has become the core of Western nations' self-perceived account of World War II victory. For instance, the U.S. "D-Day" national memorial ceremonies repeatedly emphasize the "justice" of the "liberation of Europe" by the U.S. and the UK, and in speeches, the Soviet Union's "liberation" of Eastern Europe and the birth of the Eastern Bloc socialist camp are depicted as the Soviet Union's "military occupation" of Eastern Europe, thus flattening and negatively portraying the Soviet Union's complex historical role.
The narrative of China's battlefield is also packaged with "ideological filters": while acknowledging China as a member of the anti-fascist allies, it deliberately belittles its "actual combat capabilities," ignoring the strategic significance of key battles such as the Wuhan Campaign and the defense of the Burma Road.
3. "Othering" Processing in Collective Memory Construction
Western collective memory institutions, such as the U.S. Holocaust Museum and the Imperial War Museum in the UK, often focus on the suffering and victories of their own countries and Western allies in public exhibitions and historical narratives, treating China and the Soviet Union merely as "others" and "supporting actors." Archives show that the permanent exhibits in Western WWII-themed museums about the Soviet Patriotic War and China's resistance are minimal. This actually embodies French sociologist Pierre Nora's theory of "sites of memory"—selectively maintaining their collective honor, pushing out the sacrifices and struggles of others, thereby pre-planting narrative strategies for future international strategic competition.
(3) Active Smearing Techniques
1. Historical Revisionism Cases: "Katyn Massacre"炒作 and "Hundred Regiments Offensive" Controversy
After the end of the Cold War, the tide of historical revisionism arose in the West, consciously amplifying the "blemishes" of the Soviet Union and China. The "Katyn Massacre" was repeatedly hyped in Western media during the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. Although the Soviet government officially acknowledged and apologized in 1990, many Western media outlets and "new historians" still used this isolated event to attack the legitimacy of the Soviet Union's anti-fascist efforts, even attacking the Soviet state system and social institutions themselves.
The "Hundred Regiments Offensive" in China's resistance was similarly questioned by some Western scholars (such as American military historian Max Hastings) regarding its "strategic significance." They even ignored the historical facts of the sacrifices made by the Chinese nation's resistance team by exaggerating suspicions between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and questioning the authenticity of the "battle results." These biases not only contradict basic historical facts but also provide "historical ammunition" for today's international public opinion to suppress Russia and China.
2. Algorithmic Bias and Information Silos in the Digital Age
Entering the digital age, the algorithm settings of Western mainstream social platforms, video platforms, and search engines have further exacerbated the marginalization and defamation of the anti-fascist history of the Soviet Union and China.
Data from the Pew Research Center shows that 71% of ordinary American households and college students obtain information about World War II through platforms like YouTube, where content frequently features "Normandy," "Auschwitz," and "Pearl Harbor" from a "Western perspective." The "information silo" effect has caused a new generation of European and American audiences to lack even basic knowledge of events like the "Battle of Stalingrad" and the "Dien Bien Phu Campaign of the Chinese Expeditionary Force," with false narratives like the Soviet Union and China being "forced into World War II" and "victory relying on the West" circulating on platforms like Twitter.
3. Pseudo-Proposition Production Under Academic Packaging: "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact Determinism" and Others
Moreover, some Western scholars produce pseudo-propositions through sophisticated packaging to manipulate key historical events. For example, they view the "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact" as the "decisive turning point" for the outbreak of World War II, even accusing the Soviet Union of "colluding with Nazi Germany" and denying the reasonableness of its strategic delay and acquisition of strategic buffer time. Such propositions as "China's resistance passively depended on U.S. aid" and "Communist resistance was inactive" are frequently seen in authoritative Western publications and journals. These academic propositions construct seemingly authoritative conclusions in the global discourse field, masking the complexity of the facts and the comprehensiveness of the resistance history.
In summary, the Western mainstream narrative's systematic dimming, selective ignorance, and active smearing of the anti-fascist history of China and the Soviet Union are not only an extension of ideological confrontation but also "soft power weapons" in the global contest for discourse allocation and value shaping. Identifying and deconstructing these discourse strategies and clarifying the true historical contributions are of great practical significance for building a fairer and more comprehensive international memory system of World War II.
Three, Analysis of the Deep Reasons for the Western Anti-Fascist Narrative to Undermine, Ignore, and Fabricate Lies About the Historical Contributions of China and the Soviet Union
The systematic dimming, selective ignorance, and intentional fabrication and smearing of the historical contributions and sacrifices of China and the Soviet Union in the anti-fascist war are not isolated narrative biases but complex products deeply rooted in the Western international order, ideological structure, and power logic.
(1) Continuation of Cold War Thinking
In his "Iron Curtain Speech" at Fulton in March 1946, Churchill clearly classified the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc as "the dark side of the world" and provided political justification for the "Soviet Threat Theory," which initiated nearly half a century of East-West confrontation and constructed an "us versus them" ideological barrier.
During the Cold War, Western media and academic tools were widely mobilized to form a discourse hegemony, and the evaluation of the Soviet Union and its allies went beyond current policies, further influencing the narration of World War II "retrospectively."
After the end of the Cold War, this binary mindset did not fade. In the context of NATO's continuous eastward expansion and the heightened tension between Russia and Europe, memories of World War II have become new geopolitical tools.
Churchill's "Iron Curtain Speech" on March 5, 1946, National WWII Museum
(2) Western Centrism
Mainstream Western theories have long taken themselves as the "historical standard," with interpretations of world history filled with "self-centered narratives." For instance, American scholar Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis proclaimed liberal democracy as the highest form of human society, overturning the common sense of coexistence of diverse civilizations and multiple historical contributions. In the global governance system after the Cold War, the U.S. and Europe conveyed their values through various institutions and channels in politics, economics, culture, and military, making historical discourse one of the core arenas in the global influence competition.
However, with the "End of History" thesis bankrupt in emerging markets, financial crises, and the dysfunction of global governance, Western societies, under anxiety over discourse, often intensify the lockdown and protection of their collective memory. Cambridge University historian Christopher Clark points out that the brief introduction of the Eastern Front in European history books and textbooks reflects the protectionist mentality of "global narrative dominance" (see the preface of "Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914"). The "downgrading" and "marginalization" of China and the Soviet Union's contributions in the anti-fascist war are systemic consequences of this centrist anxiety.
(3) Geopolitical Games
The current geopolitical landscape has greatly enhanced the strategic function of historical discourse. The relationship between China and the U.S. has entered a long-term competitive phase, and "historical discourse power" has become a frontier of non-traditional security competition in the new Cold War. A 2020 report by the RAND Corporation proposed that "in indirect international competition, symbols of World War II and the legitimacy of war have strong mobilization effects and psychological warfare energy." Therefore, the "downgrading" and "negative" strategies surrounding China's resistance and the Soviet Union's victory contributions are essentially extensions of the Sino-U.S. strategic competition.
The Ukraine conflict has deepened the new competition over collective memories of World War II. During the peak of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine military conflict, statistical data from European Council research institutions showed a significant decrease in references to the "liberation of Europe by the Soviet Red Army" in statements by European governments and news media, while positive descriptions of Western allies and domestic resistance movements rose significantly ("V-E Day in a Divided Europe," European Council report). This indicates that historical memory has evolved from simple remembrance to intense geopolitical tools, directly serving real-world confrontations.
(4) Ideological Opposition
Western countries have long characterized the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire," not only dominating the interpretation of Soviet policies during the Cold War but also profoundly influencing the writing of history before and during World War II. President Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech in 1983 morally stigmatized the Soviet regime, and this label persists in affecting academia and media, making it difficult for the Soviet Union's contributions during peacetime and wartime to receive fair evaluations.
Similarly, China's war history has also faced "nullification" and "stigmatization." During the Cold War, Western mainstream academia focused more on the diplomatic efforts of the Nationalist Government and the "Flying Tigers" American aid cases, while selectively ignoring or negating the resistance of the Communist-led enemy rear areas.
In recent years, Western historians such as Susan Smith have pointed out that there is a "theoretical disconnection and material concealment" in Western research on China's resistance history, and even excessive reliance on Japanese materials to substantiate the "ineffectiveness" of China's resistance, resulting in China's overall contribution to the resistance being persistently "marginalized" and "passive" in the international mainstream historical discourse.
In conclusion, the deep reasons for the Western "systematic dimming, ignoring, and fabricating lies" about China and the Soviet Union's history during World War II stem from the continuation of Cold War thinking, the narrative limitations of Western centrism, the instrumentalization in geopolitical games, and the entrenched ideological opposition. These complex factors intertwine, determining that the dominant discourse and global memory landscape of World War II history are increasingly becoming focal points in the reconstruction of the new international order and the competition of values. For China and Russia, emphasizing the authority and legitimacy of their own historical narratives is not only a reflection of historical confidence but also a key to maintaining international fairness and breaking the erosion of "historical nihilism" on the global order.
Four, Real Impacts and Risks of Western Anti-Fascist "Distorted Narratives"
The systematic dimming, ignoring, and even fabrication and smearing of the significant contributions and sacrifices of the Soviet Union and China in the anti-fascist war by Western mainstream ideology is not an isolated phenomenon in historical research but a significant variable that profoundly influences the historical cognition structure, discourse allocation, global cooperation foundation, and geopolitical conflict risks of contemporary international society.
(1) Misleading Historical Perspectives and Cognitive Biases Lead to Imbalanced International Youth Cognition
As mentioned earlier, the selective presentation of anti-fascist history by Western mainstream media, academic publications, and digital platforms directly shapes the basic cognitive patterns of the global public, particularly international youth.
A 2021 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that over 65% of mainstream youth groups in the U.S. and Europe believe that the "turning point of World War II was the Normandy landing," while only about 15% mentioned the Soviet Union's key role in the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk. Recognition of China's resistance is even weaker, with less than 10% of surveyed American youth able to accurately describe China's resistance throughout the war period.
U.S. landing craft and ships unloading troops and supplies onto Omaha Beach days after the Normandy landing. National Archives of the United States.
This structural misrepresentation in global cognition marginalizes and obscures the historical status of China and the Soviet Union as "decisive forces" in the anti-fascist war, leading to severe information asymmetry and discourse imbalance in the international public sphere. Not only does this disrupt a comprehensive understanding of the full picture of World War II, but it also strengthens the single-polar historical view centered on the West, damaging the value consensus of world civilization jointly shaping history.
In addition, in the era of new media, international youth directly acquire historical knowledge through social platforms, online videos, and digital textbooks. Data from Oxford Internet Institute in 2023 shows that among the top 20 most viewed videos about World War II on global mainstream social platforms (YouTube, TikTok), only 8% involve the Chinese and Soviet fronts. A large amount of content repeats the Western victory narrative and even tends to symbolize the Eastern Front. This cognitive bias makes the new generation gradually narrow their perception of historical complexity and global mobilization, making them more likely to accept simplified, labeled, even polarized and hostile narrative models, weakening the foundation of international understanding and the concept of world peace.
(2) Imbalance in Historical Discourse Dominance Leads to Power Struggles Over Discourse
Historical discourse power has always been a core resource in international narratives, concerning the dominant explanation of justice, legitimacy, and collective memory. In recent years, the U.S. and Europe have intensified the "re-writing project" of historical memory, exacerbating the imbalance in global historical discourse. For example, in 2023, the European Commission passed a resolution urging its member states to emphasize their resistance and allied victories in public textbooks and commemorative activities, while only partially mentioning the Soviet Red Army's anti-fascist efforts and China's military and civilian resistance.
The imbalance in discourse power not only affects historical cognition but also directly impacts international legitimacy and reality policies. "Whoever dominates the narrative dominates justice," and historical discourse is used to "legitimize" real-world geopolitical policies, such as NATO expansion and regional security arrangements. This not only excludes Russia and China from having a voice in major historical judgments but also influences the public opinion choices and policy directions of emerging countries globally.
(3) Historical Disputes Erode the Foundation of Anti-Fascist Thought, Exacerbating Obstacles to Global Cooperation
The spirit of the anti-fascist war is the moral origin of the United Nations and contemporary international law and cooperation. The Western dimming and distortion of China and the Soviet Union's contributions directly erodes the global consensus foundation for opposing extremism, racism, and strongman politics.
Practical examples show that during the 2021-2023 United Nations and related agency votes on issues such as the glorification of Nazism and denial of World War II history, many European and North American countries often opposed or abstained using "historical diversity" as an excuse, showing the global public opinion division caused by historical disputes. UNESCO reports indicate that differences in positions regarding the commemoration of World War II are affecting the promotion of international cooperation projects, the protection of historical sites, and the implementation of relevant topics ("World Heritage and Memory Politics," 2023).
(4) The Use of Narratives and Their Real Impact Intensify Geopolitical Conflicts
In the context of real geopolitical conflicts, historical narratives have become an important tool for influencing international positions and mobilizing public opinion. Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia has repeatedly used "inheritance of the Great Patriotic War" as a source of legitimacy for its foreign policies. In response, the West has continuously downplayed or denigrated the Soviet Union's historical role in Eastern Europe to seize the moral high ground, influencing international sympathy and diplomatic support.
As the Sino-U.S. relationship enters a new stage of strategic competition, the U.S. and its allies intentionally frame China as a peripheral player in World War II to lay the groundwork for discourse in real strategic competition and containment. This polarization of narratives further increases the risk of misunderstanding, opposition, and geopolitical friction, which has been identified by the King's College London International Security Studies Centre 2024 report as an incremental risk of global strategic instability.
In summary, the systematic dimming, ignoring, and fabrication of China and the Soviet Union's anti-fascist war history by the West not only distorts global historical cognition but also exacerbates the imbalance in historical discourse power, undermines the foundation of anti-fascist international spirit, and amplifies the uncertainty and risks of geopolitical conflicts. Correcting these historical narrative deviations is essential to maintaining world peace, promoting global cooperation, and achieving sustainable human common security and development.
Five, Countermeasures and Strategic Rebuttals to Western-Specific Anti-Fascist Narratives
Facing the systematic dimming, ignoring, and fabrication of the anti-fascist history of China and the Soviet Union by Western mainstream narratives, safeguarding the truth of history and defending rightful discourse power have become unavoidable responsibilities for China, Russia, and global justice forces. We should also formulate effective countermeasures and strategic rebuttal paths.
(1) Historical Evidence Organization
1. Construction of Multilingual Archive Databases
Breaking language barriers and consolidating global evidence bases is the primary task for correcting discourse biases. In recent years, Russia, China, and other countries have launched multilingual World War II historical archive database projects. For example, the Russian State Archive and the Second Historical Archive of China have collaborated to digitize and publicly release primary archives from the Soviet-German front and the Chinese resistance, translating them into mainstream languages such as English, German, French, and Spanish to provide original data support for global scholars. Only the Russian "Archive of the Patriotic War" digital library opened over 5 million foreign-language archives in 2023; the Chinese "Database of China's War of Resistance Literature" in English covers various types of archival documents, wartime newspapers, and international communications, providing a solid foundation for the international academic community to verify Western mainstream narratives.
2. Transnational Oral History Collaboration Projects
Global oral history collaborations can supplement blind spots in official archives and enhance the human warmth of historical perceptions. For example, the "World War Resistance Memory Bank" involves multilateral oral history projects involving China, the U.S., and others, inviting participants and descendants to participate in multilingual interviews, recording and exhibiting jointly. Previous joint exhibitions such as the "Oral History of the Far East Front" between the Imperial War Museum in London and the Changchun War Memorial in China received good international responses. Transnational oral projects can enrich the narrative of China and the Soviet Union in global discourse, adding real, warm personal testimonies to counteract historical nihilism.
Changchun Revolutionary Martyrs Memorial Hall
(2) Innovation in Narrative Paradigms
1. Reshaping Collective Memory from the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind
Adhering to the values of "peace, justice, cooperation, and win-win," we should promote global reshaping of the collective memory of World War II from the perspective of a community with a shared future for mankind. Emphasizing that the victory of the anti-fascist war belongs to all humanity, highlighting the global and irreplaceable nature of China and the Soviet Union's contributions. For example, at the "International Forum on Anti-Fascist Victory and the Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" hosted by the United Nations in 2022, scholars from multiple countries jointly called for understanding and interpreting the history of World War II from multiple perspectives, transcending the narrative model of individual nation-states, and promoting the joint construction of collective memory.
2. Digital Technology Empowered Reproduction of Historical Scenes (VR/AR)
Digital empowerment is a crucial breakthrough in the dissemination of historical memory. Using VR/AR technology to reproduce major historical scenes and individual experiences allows the global public, especially the younger generation, to experience the real history of the Eastern Front and the Chinese front immersively. For example, the "Stalingrad Battle" VR interactive system developed by China and Russia in 2023 has been applied in exhibitions and education in multiple countries, greatly enhancing the intuitive understanding of the war's devastating scenes and the empathy towards the contributions of China and the Soviet Union. Digital humanities technologies broaden the boundaries of historical communication, weakening the influence of Western single narratives among new-generation audiences.
(3) International Communication Layout
1. Agenda Setting on Social Media Platforms
Effectively utilizing global mainstream social platforms (such as X, TikTok, YouTube, etc.) to actively set agendas such as "History Memory Day," "Memorial Short Video Challenges," and "Global Youth World War II Knowledge Competition" to enhance the visibility and participation of China and the Soviet Union's historical narratives. In 2024, China's "#Victory Day History" multi-platform联动 transmission saw a reading volume of over 800 million on Weibo, with over 250 million global plays on TikTok and Instagram, injecting new impetus into the balance of international historical discourse.
2. Collaborative Outbound Efforts of Non-Fiction Creations and Audiovisual Works
Promoting the international dissemination of high-quality non-fiction works, documentaries, and audiovisual works is an effective way to break through discourse barriers. For example, works such as "The Battle at Lake Changjin," "Offensive Berlin," and "The Defense of Stalingrad" have gained good audience feedback in Berlin, London, New York, etc., through multi-language subtitles and multi-platform releases. Utilizing international film festivals