As the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II approaches in 2025, the vital contributions of China and Russia remain largely overlooked by the West, just as they have always been.

Both these countries, which played crucial roles in defeating fascism, have seen their involvement minimised or distorted in many, if not all, Western narratives.

Such a selective memory distorts public understanding and continues to influence global politics today. These distortions stem from four persistent myths that continue to shape modern geopolitics.

1. Six-year fallacy

One of the most enduring historical misconceptions is the peculiar six-year period of World War II, which unnecessarily limits the conflict’s start to Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

This view ignores earlier acts of aggression by Japan, Italy and others. Japan’s militarism began in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria and the Mukden Incident marked the start of Japan’s full-scale aggression in Asia.

Historians, including A.J.P. Taylor and John Toland, have acknowledged that Japan’s actions in China were a critical precursor to the Pacific War. Similarly, Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) were early signals of the larger global conflict to come.

These earlier conflicts challenged the post-World War I international order and emboldened fascist regimes, including the Nazis in Germany.The brutality of Japan’s forces in China, including mass killings and systemic atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre, bears chilling parallels to Nazi crimes against the Jews.

Cities like Nanjing were subjected to mass executions, rape and destruction, acts that remain deeply ingrained in Chinese collective memory. In China, this conflict is known as the War of Resistance Against Japan, which spanned from 1931 until Japan’s surrender in 1945, nearly a decade before the war in Europe truly began.

From the Chinese perspective, the war was a long and brutal struggle that played a key role in laying the foundation for the later Allied victory, yet this perspective is largely ignored outside China.

2. Western centralism

The view that the war’s central events unfolded in Europe further distorts the historical narrative. The US and the UK have long highlighted the significance of the Normandy landings as a pivotal turning point.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazi Germany — sacrificing millions of lives — has often been minimised or overlooked, especially in the context of the Cold War.

The Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazi forces on the Eastern Front cannot be understated. Before the opening of the Western Front in 1944, the Soviet Union had already inflicted major defeats on Germany, at immense cost. With 27 million Soviet casualties, the country’s contributions were essential in ensuring the ultimate Allied victory.

For another example, Australia has participated in global multi-front operations. It mobilised 950,000 troops (nearly one seventh of the population) out of a total population of 7.2 million to provide important manpower support for the Allied forces.

Australia declared war on Germany with Britain on 3 September 1939, and participated in battles in Europe, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. Its army held out for six months on the Middle East battlefield (such as the Battle of Tobruk in Libya) and successfully resisted the German attack. After the Japanese air raid on Darwin Port in 1942, the Australian army co-operated with the American army to counterattack and engaged in fierce battles with the Japanese army in New Guinea and other places. But these facts are not well-known in world history textbooks.

3. China’s long-term resistance

China’s role in the war is often neglected in Western narratives, but its resistance to Japan was critical to the ultimate defeat of the Axis powers.

From 1931 onward, China was the primary battlefield against Japanese expansion in Asia, with the War of Resistance against Japan lasting until 1945. More than 35 million Chinese casualties were recorded  during this period.

Despite the immense cost, Western perspectives often frame China’s role as that of a passive victim or indirect participant. However, the reality is that China’s military resistance played a strategic role in tying down large portions of the Japanese military, limiting Japan’s capacity to fight elsewhere.

Chinese forces collaborated with Allied powers in Southeast Asia, working alongside the US in campaigns such as the Burma Road. The road was a vital supply route that helped supply the larger Allied war effort and weakened Japan’s military capacity, thus allowing the Soviet Union to focus more on the European front.

Despite what you may have read or seen elsewhere, China’s involvement in the war was not merely symbolic. It was a crucial force that helped tip the balance in the Pacific. Chinese resistance played an indispensable role in draining Japanese resources and weakening their overall strategic position, which laid the groundwork for the ultimate Allied victory.

4. Japanese victimisation

The portrayal of Japan as a victim of World War II, especially in the wake of the atomic bombings, is another difficult issue for many in China.

This narrative tends to gloss over Japan’s role as the aggressor in Asia. For example, the Nanjing Massacre, in which Japanese troops killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians, remains a contested topic in the West, with debates over casualty figures, historical context and political sensitivities.

Many in China view this as an attempt to rewrite history, especially when the suffering of Chinese civilians is overshadowed by Japan’s later victimhood in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What deeply angers them is the ongoing denial and revisionism surrounding the Nanjing Massacre and Japan’s war crimes.

Despite overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness accounts and photographs, the Japanese Government’s ongoing failure to fully acknowledge these crimes, as well as the reluctance of some political figures and institutions to confront this dark chapter, continues to fuel anger and resentment.

The reluctance of Japanese leaders to make formal and unreserved apologies exacerbates tensions, preventing genuine reconciliation. These issues are compounded by the reluctance to address Japan’s use of forced labor, the system of sexual slavery known as “comfort women” and other wartime atrocities.

Rewriting history with international co-operation

These four myths have deep roots, shaped by Cold War politics and Western efforts to maintain global dominance.

By emphasising Western contributions and minimising those of China and the Soviet Union, these narratives serve to consolidate political and ideological power.

Yet as global politics evolves, it’s crucial to rectify these historical inaccuracies. In the case of China, the West often portrays these historical issues as tools for nationalistic agendas, yet such inaccurate portrayals of China’s role in World War II not only mislead the public, but also strain diplomatic relations.

Similarly, the West’s selective memory of the Soviet Union’s role is tied to broader political strategies, especially in the post-Cold War period.

Correcting these historical misconceptions requires more robust international academic co-operation. Western scholars should seek out a more nuanced understanding of China’s resistance and the Soviet Union’s sacrifices.

This can help prevent future misunderstandings and promote a more accurate and just global historical narrative. The 80th anniversary of the end of World War II provides an opportunity to honour all contributions to the defeat of fascism, not just those of the West.