[Zyx]

Be sure to leave a copy with us, Lucko.

Would you permit us to quote it?

[Rei Murasame]

It's also worth mentioning that it is an extremely touchy subject within Japan, many people will deny the whole thing, others will downplay it, and people have received death threats for talking about Japans role in it.

I'm going to need to see some proof for this, I'm not aware of 'many people' being told that they must deny that it actually occurred.

I don't doubt that there are disputes over the size and scope of the atrocities, but flat-out denial as far as I know is a strictly fringe phenomenon, akin to how in Europe holocaust denial is a fringe phenomenon that is rarely taken seriously.

the Japanese haven't been particularly good at honestly acknowledging their role in WWII.

What would you like them to say?

[William_H_Dougherty]

I'm going to need to see some proof for this, I'm not aware of 'many people' being told that they must deny that it actually occurred.

I've never heard someone from Japan deny it, but they definately get very uncomfortable about talking about it.

It wasn't an issue of "denial", but of the Japanese Government having not officially recognized the massacre (at least when I was back in high school this hadn't happened). Of course, it boils down to money. You apologize or even recognize wrong doing, you open yourself up to financial liability.

I don't doubt that there are disputes over the size and scope of the atrocities, but flat-out denial as far as I know is a strictly fringe phenomenon, akin to how in Europe holocaust denial is a fringe phenomenon that is rarely taken seriously.

+1.

What would you like them to say?

Sorry?

Rei, I'm with THX40 on this one. The Japanese Government during World War II was criminal, and there is a whole list of atrocities (not just against the Chinese, also including crimes against Americans and Commonwealth troops and even non-combat personel) that the Japanese Government and State has not come to terms with. The Japanese people, well, they seem to be very uncomfortable even discussing it. Which is understandable I suppose, as I'm not sure how I'd deal with my country engaging such shameful behaviours.

Perhaps this is a cultural thing, because when I meet Italians and Germans from the WW2 era, they are openly apologetic about the war, an implicit awknowledgement that the people of a state are responsible for the crimes of that state.

- WHD

[Rich]

American's, British and many Germans were genuinely shocked when "the" Holocaust was revealed. It was very much a European Christian thing. They were totally shocked that other civilised people could even contemplate doing things like this. What some tribe did in the Congo wasn't shocking. It wasn't shocking if supposed savages behaved like er savages. So the Armenian genocide, the Rape of Nanking and even the latter day Rwandan genocide were not really shocking in the same way and have never incited the same fascination in Europeans. Europeans believed that they were on a path of moral improvement, things like the rape of Nanking only confirmed this. It was the Jewish holocaust which smashed the European identity in the psychological testicles.

[Smilin' Dave]

...Armenian genocide, the Rape of Nanking and even the latter day Rwandan genocide were not really shocking in the same way...

I think you are underestimating the shock and outrage contemporaries expressed about these events. If they were seen as proof of European superiority as you imply, there wouldn't have been such shock as it would have been expected behaviour (in much the same way people don't dwell on repression in the PRC). The relative emphasis on the Holocaust can be attributed to
- It was closer to 'home'. It's hard to mentally associate with places and people you've never really heard of.
- The scale and method. The Holocaust in terms of scale is hard to beat, and often larger genocidal efforts appear almost elemental, beyond comprehension. The industrial, precise and deliberate action of the Holocaust is quite confronting.
- Media. We remember genocides that appear in the media. We remember Stalinist deportations because they get lots of press, few are even aware of earlier deportations under the rubric of Decossackisation. Where I will differ from Qatz on this is that this media attention isn't a conspiracy, it is simply an extension of the first two points, and extension of modernity (how many genocides etc. do you know of pre-1900? It's not like they didn't happen).

[yagyujubei]

Does anyone here know the following open questions for Hu Jintao, President of PRC? What do you think of it?


OPEN QUESTIONS FOR HIS EXCELLENCY HU JINTAO,
PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

May 5, 2008

As enthusiastic supporters of friendly relations between Japan and the PRC, we would like to extend the warmest of welcomes to President Hu Jintao on the occasion of Your Excellency’s visit to Japan.

For some years, our organization has been engaged in an investigation into the events that transpired in Nanking in connection with the Battle of Nanking, which took place in December 1937. We are profoundly concerned about the PRC’s position on and approach to these events. Additionally, we are exceedingly uncomfortable with the duplicity of the PRC in its pursuit of friendship with Japan on the one hand, and actions that are most unfriendly in nature — the expansion and renovation of the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall in 2007 — on the other. Recent research has proven that there is absolutely no basis for the claim that there was a massacre in that city. We respectfully request Your Excellency’s responses to five important questions, which follow.

1. Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong never referred to a massacre in Nanking. He made exactly one mention of the Battle of Nanking during a lecture delivered at Yan’an six months after the conflict, reproduced in On Protracted War. Chairman Mao criticized the Japanese for failing to annihilate Chinese troops after having surrounded them. If there had been slaughter in Nanking of a magnitude so great (300,000 civilian victims) as to prompt the description “holocaust of the century,” there is not the slightest chance that he would have been silent on the matter. What are Your Excellency’s thoughts on the facts presented here?

2. In November 1937, during the Second United Front and prior to the Battle of Nanking, the Nationalist Party established a new section at the Central Propaganda Bureau — the International Propaganda Section. We would like to direct Your Excellency’s attention to a top-secret document entitled “Outline of International Propaganda Operations,” which states that the International Propaganda Section held 300 press conferences in Hankou between December 1, 1937 and October 24, 1938 (a period that includes the Battle of Nanking); they were attended by 35 foreign journalists and diplomats, on the average. How does Your Excellency explain the fact that not once during any of these 300 conferences was a statement or announcement made to the effect that a massacre had been perpetrated, or that prisoners of war had been unlawfully killed in Nanking? Does Your Excellency, too, find these circumstances extraordinary?

3. The International Committee administered to the civilians remaining in Nanking, who were gathered in the Safety Zone. Records of the International Committee’s activities were published in 1939 as Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone by a British company in Shanghai, under the auspices of the Nationalist Government’s Council of International Affairs. According to those records, the population of Nanking prior to its occupation by the Japanese was 200,000. That figure remained unchanged, at 200,000, throughout the remainder of 1937. By the end of January, it had increased to 250,000. These statistics completely and utterly destroy the credibility of any accusation of a massacre that claimed 300,000 victims. What are Your Excellency’s views on this matter?

4. Among the records in the aforementioned Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone are detailed complaints about misconduct attributed to Japanese military personnel. They include a total of 26 murders, only one of which was witnessed (to that account is appended a note describing the “murder” as a lawful execution). Can Your Excellency reconcile these records with the PRC’s claim of a massacre with 300,000 victims?

5. Photographs purported to be evidence of a massacre in Nanking are on display at the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, at other exhibitions, and in printed publications. However, Analyzing Photographic “Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre by Higashinakano Shudo (Soshisha, 2005) and other recent scientific research reveal that there are no photographs attesting to a massacre in Nanking. If Your Excellency is aware of photographic evidence of a massacre, please have it forwarded to us so that we may examine it.

On the basis of the factual information contained in these five questions, we are completely and totally convinced that there was no massacre in Nanking. We would greatly appreciate Your Excellency’s responses to our questions. Please note that we have selected the open-question format precisely because the matter at hand is clearly one of the prime concerns of many citizens of Japan and the PRC. Our hopes for friendly relations between our two nations, for all generations to come, rest in Your Excellency’s hands.

COMMITTEE FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS ABOUT NANKING

Chairman: KASE Hideaki
Secretary-General: FUJIOKA Nobukatsu
Auditors: TOMIZAWA Shigenobu, MOTEKI Hiromichi
Members: ARA Kenichi, UESUGI Chitoshi, KOBAYASHI Taigan,
SUGIHARA Seishiro SUGIYAMA Kouichi, TAKAIKE Katsuhiko, TAKAYAMA Masayuki, HANAOKA Nobuaki,
HIGASHINAKANO Shudo, NISHIMURA Kohyu,
MIZOGUCHI Ikuo, MIYAZAKI Masahiro

[Smilin' Dave]

1. Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong never referred to a massacre in Nanking...If there had been slaughter in Nanking of a magnitude so great (300,000 civilian victims) as to prompt the description “holocaust of the century,” there is not the slightest chance that he would have been silent on the matter.

Mao probably didn't commentate on every single thing that happened during the war with Japan. He was relatively isolated during the war so he might not have even known it happened at the time. Finally when one looks at Mao's writings, he rarely makes issue of massacres. This is the guy who as a youth cheered on the excesses of some of China's worst warlords. His not commenting could be explained by his someone unusual psychology, so there is every chance he would have over looked the incident.

2. In November 1937, during the Second United Front and prior to the Battle of Nanking, the Nationalist Party established a new section at the Central Propaganda Bureau — the International Propaganda Section. We would like to direct Your Excellency’s attention to a top-secret document entitled “Outline of International Propaganda Operations,” which states that the International Propaganda Section held 300 press conferences in Hankou between December 1, 1937 and October 24, 1938 (a period that includes the Battle of Nanking); they were attended by 35 foreign journalists and diplomats, on the average. How does Your Excellency explain the fact that not once during any of these 300 conferences was a statement or announcement made to the effect that a massacre had been perpetrated, or that prisoners of war had been unlawfully killed in Nanking? Does Your Excellency, too, find these circumstances extraordinary?

So what did they report during those 300 conferences?

3. The International Committee administered to the civilians remaining in Nanking, who were gathered in the Safety Zone. Records of the International Committee’s activities were published in 1939 as Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone by a British company in Shanghai, under the auspices of the Nationalist Government’s Council of International Affairs. According to those records, the population of Nanking prior to its occupation by the Japanese was 200,000. That figure remained unchanged, at 200,000, throughout the remainder of 1937. By the end of January, it had increased to 250,000. These statistics completely and utterly destroy the credibility of any accusation of a massacre that claimed 300,000 victims. What are Your Excellency’s views on this matter?

Civilian populations in war time are notoriously hard to track. How did the International Committee go about collecting these statistics?

4. Among the records in the aforementioned Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone are detailed complaints about misconduct attributed to Japanese military personnel. They include a total of 26 murders, only one of which was witnessed (to that account is appended a note describing the “murder” as a lawful execution).

The diaries of International Committee leader John Rabe, a German citizen, make numerous references to murder, robbery and rape. How come the incidence of rape hasn't been raised in these questions yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe#Diary_entries

5. Photographs purported to be evidence of a massacre in Nanking are on display at the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, at other exhibitions, and in printed publications. However, Analyzing Photographic “Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre by Higashinakano Shudo (Soshisha, 2005) and other recent scientific research reveal that there are no photographs attesting to a massacre in Nanking.

Where cameras commonly available in Nanking during this era, and would you think it safe to wander around photographing Japanese soldiers, especially if they had in fact been massacring people? John Magee's film on the topic is criticised by deniers for not showing any actual acts of massacre... but there wasn't much in the way of photographic evidence of massacres in action from the Holocaust either.

Now I have a question for you: why are there Japanese citizens, often soldiers and journalists who were present, who claim war crimes were committed at Nanking?

Since we are nitpicking here, I thought I would check the names from this committee.

KASE Hideaki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideaki_Kase - same guy?

FUJIOKA Nobukatsu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujioka_Nobukatsu

has been quoted as saying that he "stand(s) for a viewpoint of history with an emphasis on national interest," [1] and that the study of Japanese history is "subject to the ultimate moral imperative of whether or not it serves to inculcate a sense of pride in being Japanese." He has also said that to "write [a history] based only on verified historical truths makes...[it] insipid and dry. I had no choice but to write from my own imagination to a great extent."

SUGIYAMA Kouichi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugiyama_Kouichi - real scholarly background this guy... actually, it seems his qualification to contribute was because he is a noted nationalist.

HIGASHINAKANO Shudo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudo_Higashinakano
His work 'discrediting' photographs purporting to be of a massacre in Nanking is cited in the five questions. But:

Shūdō Higashinakano (東中野 修道, Higashinakano Shūdō?, born October 19, 1947) is a professor of intellectual history at Asia University who maintains that the Nanking Massacre (Rape of Nanjing) is a hoax. He was ordered on 5 February 2009 by the Supreme Court of Japan to pay JPY 4 million in damages to a woman who he libelously discredited in his book.

Higashinakano and his publisher Tendensha lost their appeal against an 80-year-old woman Shuqin Xia, for having defamed her by writing that she had not been a witness of the Nanking massacre and had not been filmed by John Magee. Higashinakano was unable to prove that Mrs. Xia and the girl in the film were different persons, contrary to what he had claimed in his book.

Apparently Japan's own courts didn't agree with some of his claims.

[ThereBeDragons]

Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History

'No massacre in Nanking,' Japanese lawmakers say

Okinawans Protest Japan’s Plan to Revise Bitter Chapter of World War II

I propose the United States, Korea, and China jointly invade Japan and beat this revisionist tendency out of them.

[yagyujubei]

I've forgotten to add just one thing to the previous post: the Committee have received no response from the President of the PRC yet.

Assuming that all the source materials cited in the letter are readily accessible by the PRC officials and their legitimacy can also be readily verified, the fact that the Committee have received no response seems very indicative.

You cited the profiles of some of the Committee members presumably with an intent to give the readers a skewed impression that they are all nationalists ready to lie for national interests. But I think it doesn't matter who wrote the letter. It's the credibility of the sources cited in the letter that matters. The primary sources cited in the letter seem to have the highest level of credibility for the reasons I mentioned just above. Citing forged sources would be totally meaningless in this case.

Some of your questions seem to be out of focus and others don't seem very refutative. So I'll just answer your question No.4 and the final question:

There are certainly not a few testimonies on the murder and rape cases witnessed by John Rabe and some Japanese soldiers or journalists. But there are also a number of contradicting testimonies that that sort of things didn't really happened, except for some sporadic cases. In addition, even if someone testified that 1000 people were killed in a single incident, or if you show me a photo of 1000 bodies lying in a ditch, where are the rest of the alleged victims of some 29,9000?

The letter seriously questions if a massacre in a scale of 300,000 people really happened in the city of Nanking. And every question in the letter to President Hu Jintao strongly suggests that it was not the case.

We Japanese were the victim of the atomic bombs dropped over the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was unquestionable atrocities. We tracked the identity of every and each victim and registered their names in the list books that are buried under the memorial monuments. The name lists register 258,310 victims identified in Hiroshima and 152,276 identified in Nagasaki as of 2008. Every year the people of the two cities still hold memorial services for them.

I've heard that a number of Nanking Massacre Memorial Halls have been built all over China and more than 10 films on a massacre have been made, in an effort to accuse atrocities allegedly perpetrated by the Japanese army. But I've never heard that the Chinese government have made any serious efforts to compile a name list of 300,000 victims of a massacre that would have provided the hardest evidence of the incident of that scale.

If China insist that a massacre of 300,000 people really happened, they should give us more convincing evidences to prove that it really happened, instead of just hanging a sign board bearing the number 300,000 in the facade of every Memorial Hall and displaying photos of unrelated atrocities there. It seems as if their efforts speak themselves that a lie repeated 100 times turns into a truth.

[yagyujubei]

ThereBeDragons, you've revealed that you are Korean by [redacted]? I'm not a racist.

Warning issued. Proving you are not racist by insulting an entire ethnic group isn't really accepted here - SD

[ThereBeDragons]

I didn't call you a racist.

[Smilin' Dave]

I've forgotten to add just one thing to the previous post: the Committee have received no response from the President of the PRC yet.

Assuming that all the source materials cited in the letter are readily accessible by the PRC officials and their legitimacy can also be readily verified, the fact that the Committee have received no response seems very indicative.

How do you know they have actually read it, how was it sent to them? I'm pretty sure Hu Jintao doesn't read PoFo for example. It's a faulty piece of logic repeated throughout the earlier piece as well, that if somehow one error is found then the whole story must be wrong.

You cited the profiles of some of the Committee members presumably with an intent to give the readers a skewed impression that they are all nationalists ready to lie for national interests.

One of them explicitly stated himself that he thinks history should be written to suit political objectives, instead of objective facts etc. Another has had some of his work tested at court and was found to be lacking. Another appraently has no background in history and is instead known for his work with computer games. I haven't skewed anything, it is pretty clear that these are nationalists and not exactly the committee of experts they portray themselves to be.

Some of your questions seem to be out of focus and others don't seem very refutative.

I'm going to make some assumptions here, do correct me if I'm wrong:
- You don't know the answers to the questions I raised. These doubts don't trouble you because you have already made up you mind.
- The Committee hasn't made the material it has based its work on readily available, but apparently expects people to make judgements based on this evidence.
You mentioned the importance of sources and arguing about the evidence in your own post... yet I'm not sure you actually know much about the sources cited beyond what this statement by the Committee has provided. I'm not dismissing the claims made, I just think we should have more information before making a judgement.

Oh, returning to the faulty logic noted before: clearly your refusal to address each and everyone one of my points is proof you are wrong about everything

except for some sporadic cases

How many, and what were the circumstances? What sources are you drawing upon?

In addition, even if someone testified that 1000 people were killed in a single incident, or if you show me a photo of 1000 bodies lying in a ditch, where are the rest of the alleged victims of some 29,9000?

A massacre of 1000 people would be irrelevant to you? You haven't approached this as a dispute as one of details, but have instead consistently claimed that no crime took place. Now you seem to imply that there were crimes, but not enough to meet some unknown standard.

We Japanese were the victim of the atomic bombs dropped over the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was unquestionable atrocities. We tracked the identity of every and each victim and registered their names in the list books that are buried under the memorial monuments. The name lists register 258,310 victims identified in Hiroshima and 152,276 identified in Nagasaki as of 2008. Every year the people of the two cities still hold memorial services for them.

This is negationist tactics 101. "They aren't victims we are". It is irrelevant to the facts of what did or did not happen in Nanking during this time period. You were concerned we were out of focus, so lets focus on the topic.

But I've never heard that the Chinese government have made any serious efforts to compile a name list of 300,000 victims of a massacre that would have provided the hardest evidence of the incident of that scale.

Eight volumes of work isn't serious enough for you? Apparently they are fairly details, and an ongoing project.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK32068120071204
I can't comment on the quality of these texts as a source, but it was incorrect for you to claim that no effort had been made at all.

It seems as if their efforts speak themselves that a lie repeated 100 times turns into a truth.

At this rate you'll need to make at least 97 more posts to test your theory

[pikachu]

If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 per cent chance of not surviving the war; the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 per cent.

well duh, you've excluded the most prominent and high-casualty group, thus you get the difference. Perhaps if you exclude the Chinese from Japan's POW data you'll get a similar figure.

[ThereBeDragons]

Perhaps if you exclude the Chinese from Japan's POW data you'll get a similar figure.

It's still abysmal. The death rate for Western prisoners in Japanese hands was about one in three.

I expect that Japanese didn't take Chinese prisoners unless some very high rank was involved.

[Smilin' Dave]

well duh, you've excluded the most prominent and high-casualty group, thus you get the difference. Perhaps if you exclude the Chinese from Japan's POW data you'll get a similar figure.

On the other hand differentials between survival rates of POWs from different nations actually discredits the usual explanation for high POW mortality: that there were general shortages of food/medicene/whatever and this just happened to pinch the prisoners worst. If some prisoners are treated better than others, it basically suggests a policy of killing off certain groups.

Out of curiosity I looked up mortality rates of Australian POWs in Japanese detention, and found this:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~ ... t787024806
Which suggests varying mortality rates between 1 and 20%. Without being able to read the full article I can't say whether varying mortality reflected policy or the harshness of local conditions.