Ghosts of 1945 are being recruited in US-China contest over Asia

Why in the News

At their Washington meeting, the US President and the Chinese President affirmed that the United States and China were victorious allies in World War II. The claim shows the memory of 1945 being used to reshape Asia’s great-power order, a debate India’s strategic community has largely ignored.

How are the great powers using the memory of 1945?

1. History as politics: The past is reinterpreted to serve present politics, so references to the war are “rarely innocent”.
2. Washington’s use: The US President invokes wartime cooperation with Russia and China. Critics see this as cover for his direct outreach to their leaders, which unsettles US allies.
3. Moscow’s use: Victory supports Russia’s claim to a leading role in European security and a return to the “Yalta System”, the US-Soviet order of post-war Europe.
4. Beijing’s use: Posing as a victor of 1945 helps China undermine the “San Francisco System” of US alliances that defined the post-war Asian order.
5. The takeaway: Wartime memory is now a tool for claiming a say in today’s order.

Why does the claim unsettle Taiwan and Japan?

1. Which China: Washington’s wartime ally was the Republic of China (RoC) under Chiang Kai-shek, which now endures in Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) emerged only in 1949.
2. Taipei’s charge: Taiwan accuses Beijing of “narrative diplomacy”, using history to erase its separate identity.
3. Tokyo’s unease: Imperial Japan, the common enemy, is now Washington’s principal Asian ally, and its Prime Minister sought reassurance.
4. Militarism charge: Japan is raising defence spending in response to China’s military edge. Casting Japan as the defeated aggressor lets Beijing brand this as militarism.
5. Enemy state clauses: China opposes Japan’s call to remove the UN Charter’s obsolete “enemy state” clauses against Japan, Germany and Italy. The UN had earlier agreed to drop them.

What does China gain by recasting the war?

1. Targeting the alliance: The San Francisco System, built on the 1951 peace settlement with Japan, centres US strategy on Japan. Beijing wants to weaken it and nudge the US towards a “China-First” Asia policy.
2. Victim narrative: Under Mao the war was awkward, because Chiang’s Nationalist armies did most of the conventional fighting. From the 1980s it anchored a victim story of China’s “century of humiliation”.
3. Victor narrative: Today commemorations, parades and textbooks stress China’s place among the powers that defeated Japan and founded the United Nations.
4. Claim to authority: Historian Rana Mitter shows this memory supports China’s claim to the apex of the global hierarchy, since victory claims a right to shape the order.

Why is India missing from the debate over 1945?

1. Wartime mobilisation: 2.3 million Indians served under arms, from North Africa and Italy to Burma, and 14 million worked in war production.
2. Denied recognition: At a Russia-India-China (RIC) foreign ministers’ meeting, India’s External Affairs Minister called India’s neglect in the post-war order an uncorrected “historical injustice”.
3. Divided movement: The Congress opposed the war and launched Quit India. The Communists backed the war after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Subhas Chandra Bose sought Axis help.
4. Elite neglect: Indian elites ignore how the war shaped Partition and India’s post-war marginalisation, so strategic debate leans on abstract concepts instead of this history.

Challenges

1. Narrative as leverage: China’s victor story gives it grounds to question Japan’s defence build-up and US alliances in Asia.
2. Alliance uncertainty: US outreach to Beijing leaves Indo-Pacific partners, including India, unsure of Washington’s priorities.
3. India’s missing claim: Without an agreed account of its war role, India cannot use 1945 to back its case for a larger global role.

Way Forward

1. Official war histories: The Ministry of Defence should publish accessible histories of Indian campaigns abroad.
2. Commemorative diplomacy: India should mark Burma campaign anniversaries jointly with Southeast Asian partners.
3. Link to UN reform: India should cite its wartime contribution in its case for a permanent UN Security Council seat.

Conclusion

The contest over who won the Second World War is a contest over who shapes Asia’s order now. India’s wartime sacrifice will count only when an agreed account of it backs India’s claim to a larger global role.

About the post-1945 world order

1. Yalta Conference (February 1945): Allied leaders planned Germany’s final defeat and the shape of the post-war order.
2. Founding of the UN: India was an original signatory of the UN Charter in 1945, before independence.
3. Hub-and-spoke alliances: The US signed separate treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and New Zealand, not one NATO-style Asian bloc.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2025, GS2, 10 marks] With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.”