This thesis explores the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) selective manipulation of historical narratives to maintain ontological security while navigating strategic foreign relations. Focusing on China’s divergent responses to Japanese and Russian historical transgressions, it analyzes why the CCP encourages anti-Japanese sentiment while actively suppressing Russophobic discourse, despite both countries’ historical roles in China's territorial losses. Drawing on the theory of ontological security—originally developed in sociology and later applied to international relations—the study argues that China, as a state actor, seeks narrative continuity to preserve a stable sense of self. The CCP constructs and sustains a national identity grounded in victimhood and heroic resurgence through a curated “Century of Humiliation” narrative, which selectively amplifies certain historical grievances while erasing or minimizing others. Through discourse analysis of history textbooks, media productions, and popular cultural materials, this study reveals how Japan is portrayed as the primary antagonist of modern Chinese history. Textbooks and war dramas vividly detail Japanese wartime atrocities, portraying Japan as a brutal aggressor whose legacy continues to justify territorial claims over Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands. In contrast, Russian imperialist actions—such as the 19th-century annexation of Outer Manchuria—are mentioned only briefly and in neutral language, while Soviet-era cooperation is emphasized. Events like the Blagoveshchensk Massacre or the 1969 Sino-Soviet border clashes are either downplayed or omitted entirely from educational and media narratives. This selective memorialization serves dual purposes: it consolidates CCP legitimacy by promoting a coherent and emotionally resonant historical identity, and it facilitates China’s strategic partnerships by avoiding narrative tensions with geopolitical allies like Russia. The thesis concludes that the CCP's management of collective memory is not merely a propaganda strategy, but a sophisticated means of reinforcing state identity while advancing realpolitik interests. Ultimately, the Chinese case underscores how ontological security concerns drive states to edit their pasts—not to pursue historical truth, but to ensure a stable national self-concept compatible with contemporary goals.