The early Republican period in Chinese history witnessed the emergence of a new generation of academic professionals. These new professional historians criticized the centrality of ancient historical time in Chinese historical studies. In contrast, they embraced objectivity as a goal of historical practice and regarded intellectual autonomy as integral to the discipline. With the shift in focus of historical studies, in the 1920s, some new academic professionals carved out a niche for themselves by developing world history into a specific teaching field. By the early 1930s, world historians such as Lei Haizong dedicated themselves to placing China’s past and future within a world-historical context. This chapter contends that the pursuit of intellectual autonomy was, however, interrupted by the war with Japan. At this moment of crisis, world historians exemplified by Lei Haizong became increasingly nationalistic. These historians glorified the unique nature of Chinese culture to promote national identity at a moment of crisis. As a result, a binary opposition between China and the world gradually emerged in Chinese historiography.

In the early People’s Republic, the socialist state sought total control of history as a field of knowledge production. The state introduced Soviet concepts of Marxist historiography, established a standard curriculum, and put a new academic infrastructure in place that was characterized by a teaching and research unit (jiaoyanshi) system. This development placed the world-historical discipline in a difficult position and shaped the key dynamic for the later rise of nationalism among Chinese historians. This chapter analyzes the paradox facing world historians Lin Zhichun and Tong Shuye as they tried to negotiate this emerging and complex academic, political environment. On the one hand, as up-and-coming professionals eager to develop their careers, they were inclined to collaborate with the state; on the other hand, as academics, they still cherished the ideal of intellectual autonomy. Their experiences with the regime formed a sharp contrast to those who were less willing to be coerced by the regime, such as Lei Haizong and Wu Mi. The latter found themselves constantly facing the distrust, surveillance, and oppression of the totalizing state.