From Shanghai's Defiance to Nanjing's Tragedy: How Three Months of Resistance Shaped a Massacre
- mitchirion
- Oct 16
- 8 min read
The Japanese military expected Shanghai to fall in three days. Instead, Chinese forces held out for three months in savage urban combat that cost Japan over 40,000 casualties. When the Imperial Army finally broke through and marched toward Nanjing in late November 1937, they carried with them a rage born from humiliation, unexpected losses, and shattered illusions of racial superiority. While nothing can excuse or justify the Nanjing Massacre, understanding the Battle of Shanghai helps explain how a modern military descended into barbarism. The fierce Chinese resistance didn't cause the massacre—Japanese choices did—but it created the psychological conditions that enabled one of history's worst atrocities.
The Three-Day War That Became Three Months
In August 1937, Japanese military planners assured Emperor Hirohito that Shanghai would fall within three days and all of China within three months. This wasn't mere optimism—it reflected deep-seated beliefs about Japanese racial superiority and Chinese military incompetence. Japan had easily defeated China in 1894-95 and had seized Manchuria in 1931 with minimal resistance. Chinese armies were seen as poorly equipped rabble that would flee before the disciplined might of the Imperial Army.
On August 13, 1937, this illusion collided with reality. Chiang Kai-shek had committed his best German-trained divisions to Shanghai's defense, including the elite 87th and 88th Divisions equipped with German helmets, weapons, and tactics. These weren't the warlord armies Japan expected but modern military units prepared to fight to the death.
The battle immediately turned into a meat grinder. Japanese naval landing forces found themselves pinned down in urban combat where their advantages in mobility and firepower were neutralized. Chinese troops, fighting for their nation's survival, displayed unexpected courage and tenacity. The "three-day war" stretched into weeks, then months.
The Humiliation Factor
For the Japanese military, steeped in a culture where face and honor were paramount, the prolonged resistance was more than a strategic setback—it was a profound humiliation. Several factors made this particularly galling:
International Observation: Shanghai was China's most international city, with large Western concessions and a foreign press corps documenting every day of Japanese struggle. The world watched as the supposedly inferior Chinese army held off the "invincible" Imperial forces.
Casualty Shock: Japanese casualties mounted horrifically—over 40,000 killed and wounded by November. Many units suffered 50% casualties or higher. The Japanese public had been told this would be a quick "incident," not a costly war.
The "Dare to Die" Corps: Chinese suicide squads strapped with explosives threw themselves at Japanese tanks and positions. This tactic, while costly, demonstrated that Chinese soldiers were willing to sacrifice everything—contradicting Japanese propaganda about Chinese cowardice.
Loss of Elite Units: Japan had to commit its finest divisions to Shanghai, including elite units meant for potential conflict with the Soviet Union. These prestigious formations were being bled white by an enemy they'd been taught to despise.
The Warehouse That Became a Symbol
No episode better exemplified Chinese defiance than the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. In late October, as Chinese forces withdrew from Shanghai, the 524th Regiment (about 400 men, though they claimed to be 800 to boost morale) remained behind in a six-story warehouse on the Suzhou Creek. For four days, this lone battalion held off repeated Japanese attacks while the entire world watched from the International Settlement across the creek.
The warehouse became a symbol of Chinese resistance. Citizens stood on the opposite bank cheering and sending supplies. A girl guide named Yang Huimin swam across the creek under fire to deliver a Chinese flag, which the defenders raised despite Japanese threats to destroy the building. The message was clear: China would resist even when hopeless.
For Japanese commanders, the warehouse siege was infuriating. A single building held by "inferior" Chinese troops was making the Imperial Army look incompetent before international observers. When the defenders finally withdrew under international pressure, Japanese rage was palpable. Officers who had lost face in Shanghai would seek to restore it in Nanjing.
The Psychology of Frustrated Expectation
Modern military psychology recognizes that troops whose expectations of easy victory are frustrated often become increasingly brutal. The Japanese military had indoctrinated its soldiers with beliefs about their divine mission and racial superiority. When reality contradicted these beliefs, cognitive dissonance created psychological pressure that sought release.
Several factors compounded this psychological strain:
Dehumanization Through Propaganda: Japanese soldiers had been taught that Chinese were "chancorro" (subhuman). When these "subhumans" fought effectively, it challenged the worldview that justified the invasion.
The Bushido Distortion: The militarist interpretation of Bushido taught that surrender was the ultimate dishonor. When Chinese soldiers surrendered after fighting bravely, Japanese troops often felt contempt rather than respect, seeing surrender as proof of inferior character despite the courage shown in battle.
Vengeance Mentality: As casualties mounted in Shanghai, Japanese units developed a collective desire for revenge. Company commanders who had lost half their men wanted someone to pay. The Chinese military had withdrawn, but Chinese civilians remained.
The March to Nanjing: Discipline Collapses
The 300-kilometer march from Shanghai to Nanjing in late November became a preview of horror. Japanese discipline, already strained by the brutal Shanghai fighting, began to collapse entirely. Several factors accelerated this breakdown:
Supply Line Failures: The Japanese advance moved faster than supplies. Troops were told to "live off the land"—military euphemism for looting. Hungry, exhausted soldiers stripped the countryside bare.
No Prisoner Policy: Unable or unwilling to handle large numbers of POWs, many Japanese units adopted an unofficial "take no prisoners" policy. Chinese soldiers who surrendered were routinely executed.
Competition Between Army Units: The Japanese Army and Navy had fierce institutional rivalry. Army units, humiliated by needing Navy support in Shanghai, raced to redeem themselves by reaching Nanjing first. This competition discouraged restraint and encouraged aggressive action.
Officer Encouragement: Many middle-ranking officers, seeking to restore honor lost in Shanghai, explicitly encouraged harsh treatment of Chinese. Some organized "killing competitions" to boost morale and demonstrate warrior spirit.
The Matsui Problem
General Iwane Matsui, commander of the Central China Expeditionary Force, presents a historical paradox. He genuinely advocated Pan-Asianism and hoped to liberate China from Western influence. Yet his failure to control his troops enabled the massacre.
Matsui was sick during much of the campaign, weakening his command authority. More importantly, he faced a Japanese military culture where middle-ranking officers often acted independently, believing they understood the "true will" of the Emperor better than their superiors. These officers, many radicalized by Shanghai's casualties, saw terror as a tool to break Chinese will.
When Matsui entered Nanjing on December 17, four days after the massacre began, he was reportedly appalled by what he saw. Yet his earlier failure to establish clear rules of engagement and his inability to control subordinate commanders made him ultimately responsible for the atrocities.
December 13: When Frustration Became Atrocity
When Japanese forces entered Nanjing on December 13, they carried three months of accumulated rage, frustration, and humiliation from Shanghai. The city's fall seemed to offer a chance for cathartic release and restored honor through dominance.
Several specific factors from Shanghai influenced behavior in Nanjing:
Revenge for Specific Units: Regiments that had suffered heavily in Shanghai were given free rein in Nanjing. The 16th Division, which had taken massive casualties, was particularly brutal.
Contempt for Surrender: After Chinese forces' fierce resistance in Shanghai, their chaotic surrender in Nanjing triggered contempt rather than mercy. Japanese soldiers saw it as proof that Chinese would only fight when cornered.
Restoring Face Through Terror: Officers who had been humiliated by Chinese resistance sought to restore their honor through demonstrations of power over helpless victims.
Breaking Chinese Will: Some Japanese strategists believed that extreme brutality would break Chinese will to resist. If Shanghai showed Chinese could fight, Nanjing would show the futility of resistance.
The Killing Competitions
Nothing better illustrates how Shanghai's frustration morphed into Nanjing's sadism than the notorious "killing competitions" between Sub-Lieutenants Mukai and Noda. Newspapers in Japan reported their "contest" to kill 100 Chinese with swords as sport, with score updates like baseball statistics.
These officers had both served in Shanghai where Japanese military superiority had been challenged. The killing competition represented a grotesque attempt to restore warrior pride through the murder of defenseless prisoners and civilians. That Japanese newspapers celebrated this reveals how deeply the Shanghai humiliation had affected national psychology.
Chinese Resistance: Agency and Tragedy
It's crucial to understand that Chinese resistance in Shanghai was both necessary and heroic. China was fighting for national survival against an aggressive invader. The three-month stand at Shanghai:
Demonstrated Chinese determination to the world
Bought time to move industry and government inland
Shattered Japanese illusions of easy victory
Inspired continued Chinese resistance
To suggest Chinese resistance "caused" the Nanjing Massacre would be morally obscene—it would blame defenders for the crimes of aggressors. The massacre happened because Japanese military culture, racist ideology, and command failures created conditions where mass atrocity became possible. Chinese resistance may have frustrated Japanese forces, but Japanese choices created the massacre.
The Counterfactual Question
Would the Nanjing Massacre have happened without the fierce Shanghai resistance? We cannot know, but we can observe that Japanese forces committed atrocities throughout their invasion of China, whether they faced resistance or not. The Massacre's scale and intensity, however, seem directly connected to the psychological state of an army that had expected easy victory and instead suffered humiliating losses.
Other factors beyond Shanghai also contributed:
Japanese military culture that glorified violence
Racist ideology that dehumanized Chinese
Institutional rivalry between military branches
Weak civilian control over the military
The decision to use terror as strategy
Shanghai's resistance didn't create these factors but it activated and intensified them, creating a perfect storm of conditions for atrocity.
Lessons for Understanding Atrocity
The Shanghai-Nanjing connection offers important lessons about how military atrocities develop:
Expectation Management: When military forces are indoctrinated with expectations of easy victory over "inferior" enemies, fierce resistance can trigger psychological breakdown and extreme violence.
The Danger of Dehumanization: When armies teach soldiers that enemies are subhuman, it becomes easier to commit atrocities when frustrated.
Command Responsibility: Military discipline must be actively maintained, especially after costly battles. Leaders who allow revenge-taking create conditions for war crimes.
The Escalation Dynamic: Violence tends to escalate when military honor becomes entangled with the need to dominate previously defiant enemies.
The Moral Clarity
While understanding the psychological journey from Shanghai to Nanjing is historically important, moral clarity remains essential: nothing justifies the Nanjing Massacre. The murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and POWs, the systematic rape, the sadistic violence—these were choices made by Japanese military personnel who could have chosen differently.
Chinese resistance in Shanghai was legitimate defense against invasion. Japanese atrocities in Nanjing were war crimes. The connection between the two events helps explain the psychological context but never excuses the moral failure.
Contemporary Relevance
The Shanghai-Nanjing dynamic remains relevant today. When military forces convinced of their superiority meet unexpected resistance, the risk of atrocity increases. Modern military training increasingly emphasizes:
Realistic expectation setting
Maintenance of discipline after costly battles
Clear rules of engagement
Command responsibility for preventing atrocities
Recognition that enemy effectiveness doesn't justify brutality
Understanding how frustration and humiliation can lead to atrocity helps military institutions build safeguards against such breakdown.
Conclusion: Resistance and Responsibility
The Battle of Shanghai demonstrated Chinese determination to resist invasion despite overwhelming odds. The Nanjing Massacre demonstrated how a frustrated military, poisoned by racist ideology and freed from restraint, can descend into barbarism. The connection between these events is real but must be understood carefully.
Chinese resistance didn't cause the massacre—it revealed the moral rot within the Japanese military system. An army that turns to mass atrocity when faced with legitimate resistance has already lost its moral compass. The three months of Shanghai created conditions that enabled the six weeks of Nanjing, but the responsibility lies entirely with those who chose to commit, order, and allow war crimes.
The tragedy is that Chinese courage in Shanghai, which should have earned respect, instead triggered rage in an army that could not accept being challenged by those it deemed inferior. This dynamic—where the resistance of the oppressed triggers greater brutality from the oppressor—appears repeatedly in history. Understanding it helps us recognize and prevent future atrocities.
The heroes of Shanghai who held out for three months and the victims of Nanjing who suffered six weeks of horror are part of the same story—a story of Chinese resistance and Japanese aggression, of courage and cruelty, of how war can bring out both the best and worst in humanity. Remembering both parts of this story, and understanding their connection, honors the memory of all who suffered while warning future generations about the dangers of militarism, racism, and unchecked power.
Comments