January 28 Incident/Shanghai Incident
1932
Records in Chinese
INTENTIONS
Chinese records indicate that the Japanese wanted to provoke conflicts in Shanghai for two reasons. The first is to force countries with heavy financial interests in Shanghai like Britain and the U.S. to acknowledge Japanese occupation of Northeastern China, since if skirmishes continue in the city, those countries’ investments would be at jeopardy. The second is to end the boycott of Japanese products in China. As Shanghai was the largest industrial center, taking over its factories would render the Chinese to have no choice but to import goods from surrounding countries.
THE INCIDENT
In late January 1932, the Japanese in Shanghai provoked conflict by requiring that all civilian and student groups that protest and publish against Japanese occupation be disbanded by 6pm on the 28th. If not, the Japanese will take immediate actions. The Chinese Nationalist government conceded to this unreasonable request, and stated that they did as requested by 4pm on the 28th.
However, the Japanese further requested that all Chinese soldiers must leave the area around the Shanghai North Railway Station, or its army will immediately board Shanghai and drive off the Chinese soldiers. After receiving the order to concede, the stationed 19th Route Army was already retreating when they saw the Japanese launched an attack on Shanghai anyway. Outraged, the Chinese army decided to not retreat (without orders from the Nationalist government), and started fighting with the attacking Japanese by midnight.
While the Japanese anticipated to take over Shanghai in a day, they eventually had to wait for reinforcements. Around 200,000 Japanese soldiers attacked the 19th Route Army for more than a month before the Chinese army retreated on March 2.
As the Chinese retreated, the ceasefire treaty was extremely disadvantageous for the Chinese. From Shanghai to Suzhou and Kunshan became territory where China cannot station its own army in and left loopholes for the Japanese to occupy more territory than they had before the incident. More importantly, while conflicts were provoked as an extension of the September 18 Incident, nothing in the treaty redressed anything about the event. So while the January 28 Incident is seens as an example of the Chinese army’s bravery, it is also viewed as another military loss by the Chinese.
Records in English
THE INCIDENT
In English records, five Japanese monks of a nationalist sect were beaten by Chinese civilians, and Chinese soldiers went out of boundaries set by the Japanese and started fighting with the Japanese. The Japanese government then required and obtained money and apology from the Nationalist government, but still started bombing Shanghai on January 28, 1932.
The Nationalist government stressed the need for the 19th Route Army to hold Shanghai, and war between the Chinese and the Japanese continued despite Japanese reinforcements. The Chinese retreated in early March, and a ceasefire agreement was signed in May. The agreement required that China evacuate its army from Shanghai, Suzhou, and Kunshan, and those territories were effectively transferred into Japanese control.
Analysis on Differences
The Chinese and English records differed in two ways. In Chinese records, the Japanese were said to be the ones who provoked conflicts, whereas in English records, the Chinese seemed to have started conflicts. Which narrative to trust would be a personal choice. However, regardless of one’s choice, it was clear in both sets of records that Chinese protests, violent or not, originated because the Japanese occupied Chinese territory and set boundaries for the Chinese military in Chinese land. Whether the Chinese protested violently or not therefore does not change the narrative of Japanese invasion.
The second difference is whether the Nationalist government wanted the 19th Route Army to hold Shanghai when the Japanese attacked. The Chinese records could be biased against the Nationalist government as the CCP is in power (and the Nationalist government was KMT), and the English records could be biased for the Nationalist government as many western democratic countries dislike the CCP, and may therefore want to paint the once opposing KMT in a better light. Which side to trust would again be a personal choice.