Zhu Dingrui, a special commentator for CGTN, is an assistant research fellow at the Institute of Modern History under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zang Yunhu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a professor at the Department of History at Peking University. The article reflects the authors’ opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
On the night of September 18, 1931, Japanese forces from the Kwantung Army staged an explosion along a section of railway under their control near Liutiaohu in the northern suburbs of Shenyang, China. They then falsely accused Chinese troops of sabotage and used it as a pretext to launch a sudden attack on the Beidaying barracks of the Northeast Army and the city of Shenyang. This marked the beginning of Japan’s invasion of Northeast China and became known as the September 18 Incident.
The September 18 Incident was the inevitable outcome of Japan’s continental policy of aggression against China, particularly its so-called Manchuria-Mongolia policy. After World War I (WWI), while Japan appeared to uphold international cooperation on the “China question” under the framework of the “Washington System,” it nonetheless spared no effort in northeastern China to defend and expand its alleged special interests in Manchuria and Mongolia.
In 1927, the Tanaka Giichi cabinet convened the Eastern Conference, which formally adopted a policy of using the “separation of Manchuria and Mongolia” as both the starting point and focus for Japan’s step-by-step strategy of invading China and expanding its influence globally.
When the global capitalist system was rocked by the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, Japan plunged into economic turmoil. Amid this domestic crisis, the previously marginalized militarist forces regained prominence. They aggressively promoted the idea that China’s resource-rich northeast was Japan’s “lifeline” and “vital interest zone” necessary for overcoming its national crisis. After Japan’s Kwantung Army launched its war of aggression against China, Emperor Hirohito took no action to stop it, and the Japanese government subsequently endorsed and supported the military’s actions. Within less than half a year, Japanese forces had occupied all three northeastern provinces of China and set up the puppet state of “Manchukuo” to impose colonial rule.
The September 18 Incident thus marked not only Japan’s open defiance of the post-WWI international order, but also the beginning of its unilateral bid to dominate China through war. It was from this point that Japan became the principal origin of fascist military aggression in the East.
Following the September 18 Incident, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) government led by Chiang Kai-shek adopted a policy of “non-resistance and non-negotiation” toward Japanese aggression, placing unilateral hope on the League of Nations to mediate and resolve the crisis.
In February 1932, a League of Nations investigative mission, headed by Victor Bulwer-Lytton and composed of representatives from Britain, the United States, France, Italy and Germany, arrived in China to conduct an investigation. The resulting Lytton Report, released on October 2, condemned Japan’s military aggression but simultaneously acknowledged Japan’s so-called special interests in Manchuria. The report characterized the incident as the culmination of “years of conflict” between China and Japan.
After the League passed a resolution based on this report, Japan defiantly withdrew from the organization in March 1933, severing ties with the international community. Immediately thereafter, Japanese forces provoked clashes at Shanhaiguan, invaded Rehe and launched attacks along the Great Wall, further expanding the scope of its aggression under what came to be known as the “North China Incident.”
On February 26, 1936, Japanese fascist forces staged a military coup. The newly installed Hirota Cabinet subsequently adopted the “Fundamentals of National Policy” on August 7, which formalized Japan’s continental and maritime expansion strategies and laid the groundwork for a full-scale invasion of China.
Just one year later, the Konoe Cabinet initiated the all-out war of aggression against China, with the aim of building a “new order in East Asia.” The September 18 Incident was not merely the beginning of Japan’s large-scale war of aggression against China; it also marked the first flashpoint of localized warfare that would ultimately escalate into the broader conflict of World War II (WWII).
By launching the September 18 Incident, Japan swiftly created an irreversible fait accompli of territorial aggression in China. This brazen move not only shocked the international community but also emboldened fascist forces elsewhere in the world.
Japan’s rapid and unpunished seizure of Northeast China sent a powerful and instigative signal to other authoritarian powers. Benito Mussolini was reportedly encouraged by Japan’s aggression to pursue his own invasion of Ethiopia. Likewise, Adolf Hitler repeatedly cited the situation in the Far East in internal discussions, using Japan’s unchecked aggression as evidence of Western weakness. The Japanese example provided him with both the confidence and the strategic template to openly violate the Treaty of Versailles and remilitarize the Rhineland.
After 1935, Japan, Germany and Italy gradually formed what would become the Axis alliance, a coalition of fascist powers. The September 18 Incident thus ushered in an era in which fascist regimes launched unrestrained military aggression, dismantled the existing international order and faced little to no punishment for doing so. In this way, more countries and regions were drawn into the expanding crisis, ultimately setting the stage for the outbreak of a world war.
Just three days after the September 18 Incident, the Communist Party of China (CPC) issued a declaration calling for a national revolutionary war to drive Japanese imperialists out of China. It was also the first to point out that the September 18 Incident marked the beginning of WWII. The CPC urged the Chinese people to rise in armed resistance to achieve the true independence of the Chinese nation and the complete liberation of the working masses.
In its critique of the Lytton Report, the CPC pointed out that its “main line was an attempt to forge a united front of imperialist robbers, including Japan, to partition China.” Rallying under the banner of armed resistance, the Chinese people fired the first shot in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, thus marking the start of the global fight against fascism.
From the September 18 Incident in 1931 to the Lugou Bridge Incident in 1937, China experienced a period of localized resistance against Japanese aggression. This resistance unfolded mainly along two fronts: First, the CPC took the lead in organizing anti-Japanese activities in Northeast and North China.
On September 22, 1931, the CPC Central Committee decided to send a group of capable cadres to Northeast China to work with local volunteer forces and launch guerrilla warfare against the Japanese invaders. Beginning in 1933, the CPC consolidated small anti-Japanese guerrilla units into the Northeast People’s Revolutionary Army, which was later reorganized into the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army.
On December 9, 1935, under the CPC’s leadership, students in Beijing staged a large-scale demonstration demanding that the KMT government “end the civil war and unite in resisting foreign aggression.” This movement played a crucial role in laying the ideological foundation for the war, rallying public support and preparing a generation of dedicated cadres for the national resistance.
Second, within the KMT, a number of regional military leaders and patriotic officers, discontented with the government’s policy of appeasement toward Japan, took matters into their own hands and engaged in localized battles against the invading forces.
Notable among these were the Battle of Shanghai in 1932, the Defense of the Great Wall and the Chahar Campaign in 1933 and the Suiyuan Campaign in 1936. These engagements constituted critical components of China’s localized efforts to resist Japanese aggression.
China’s six-year period of localized resistance against Japanese aggression holds profound historical significance. First, it broke the constraints of Western appeasement policies and the prevailing doctrine of non-resistance at home, becoming the first in the world to raise the banner of armed struggle against fascism. In doing so, China charted the course of history for the global war against fascism.
Second, China was among the earliest in the world to develop and apply guerrilla warfare as a new form of resistance against fascist aggression. This pioneering strategy laid a crucial foundation for the CPC to open up vast rear-area battlefields following the Lugou Bridge Incident. It also provided valuable experience that was later adopted by other countries, ultimately becoming a vital form of resistance in the world war against fascism.
The September 18 Incident marked the beginning of the global war against fascism. It’s undeniable that historical facts challenged and dismantled the narrow Western narrative that defines the start of WWII solely through the outbreak of war in Europe.
In the 14 years that followed the September 18 Incident, the Chinese people, under extremely harsh conditions, sustained a determined resistance with immense national sacrifice, holding up the main Eastern battlefield of the world anti-fascist war.
The Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression was not only a struggle for national survival and sovereignty; it also effectively tied down the bulk of Japanese military forces, significantly easing the pressure on Allied forces in both Europe and the Pacific. In doing so, China made a profound and irreplaceable historical contribution to the eventual victory of the global war against fascism.
2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. To remember history, honor fallen heroes, cherish peace and create a better future, CGTN is launching the “Reframing the War: China’s Strategic Role and Historical Reckoning” series. This is the first article in the series.
