As the 80th anniversary of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East approaches, Chinese state media is revisiting a pivotal moment of legal and moral defiance. During the trials, the Chinese prosecution famously confronted Japanese defense efforts to reclassify the invasion of China as a mere 'incident' rather than a war of aggression. The retort by the Chinese prosecutor—'If that wasn't war, then what is?'—has become a cornerstone of China's modern historical narrative.
The Tokyo Trials, which began in May 1946, served as the Pacific theater's equivalent to Nuremberg, seeking to hold the leadership of Imperial Japan accountable for systemic atrocities. For the Chinese delegation, led by prosecutor Xiang Zhejun and judge Mei Ju-ao, the proceedings were about more than legal technicalities. They represented a long-awaited recognition of China’s immense suffering and its status as a foundational victor in the post-World War II order.
Japanese defense attorneys at the time attempted to leverage semantic loopholes, arguing that the lack of a formal declaration of war in the early 1930s absolved the state of specific legal breaches. This strategy was met with fierce resistance from the Chinese legal team, who provided exhaustive evidence of the Rape of Nanjing and other massacres. Their success in securing 'war' as the definitive legal term for the conflict remains a source of significant national pride in Beijing.
Today, the promotion of these historical anecdotes serves a dual purpose for the Chinese Communist Party: reinforcing domestic nationalism and exerting diplomatic pressure on Tokyo. By highlighting the moral clarity of the 1946 prosecution, Beijing continues to position itself as the guardian of the 'Correct View of History' against perceived revisionism in modern Japanese politics. This historical memory is not just a reflection on the past, but a tool used to define China's contemporary identity as a global power born from the resistance against fascism.