Between Rhetoric and Reality: Nationalist China’s Tibetan Agenda During the Second World War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes use of both Chinese and English primary sources to reassess China’s agendas concerning Tibet during the Second World War. Previous researches have suggested that the Japanese invasion of China proper and the emergence of a group of powers allied with China in its struggle against Japan provided Nationalist China with an opportunity to advance its claims to the “lost” border regions and restore China’s past territorial glory. Scholarly works have also argued that, being a member of the “Great Four” after Pearl Harbor, the Chinese government talked volubly about restoring China’s authority over traditional frontier peripheries. In addition, it is suggested that, with regards to Tibet in the early 1940s, Chiang Kai-sheks wartime regime in Chongqing was even prepared to resort to military force to bring the long-lasting Tibetan issue to an end. This research intends to offer a different story. Here it is suggested that efforts made by the Chinese Nationalists during wartime to assert their rights in the southwest frontier peripheries were primarily based on considerations of regime security and military strategy. These considerations were felt to be more important than the ideological contours of Chinese nationalism shaped as early as Sun Yat-sen’s era. As revealed in this paper, Chiang Kai-shek and his regime were actually taking a far more pragmatic stance towards the Tibetan issues. This paper further suggests that, as late as the early 1940s, the formulation of a definite and clear Chinese territoriality, with Tibet unconditionally included, remained a pending and unresolved issue for China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".