Abstract
This chapter reviews the development of the Nanjing Massacre studies, forms a rough view on the external constraints to the Nanjing Massacre studies, the after-war trials and the Nanjing Massacre, how to refute Japanese fabrication school and the issues concerning different common senses, quantitative research, evidence and photos, etc., and suggests the prospect of the Nanjing Massacre studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Although Niijima Atsuyoshi’s The Nanking Massacre was published one year earlier, the book was limited to common pamphlets printed by his group.
- 2.
鈴木明著『新「南京大虐殺」のまぼろし』, 東京, 飛鳥新社1999年6月3日第1版, 第31–32页.
- 3.
A Scrutiny of The Scrutiny of John Rabe’s Diary. Modern Chinese History Studies 2002(2): p. 166.
- 4.
The controversy over the “murder race” still remains today and the most detailed discussion in the 1970s was that by Yamamoto Shichihei. See『私の中の日本軍』下, 東京, 文兿春秋社1975年12月15日第1版.
- 5.
For example, upon the publication of The Fabrication of the “Nanking Massacre”, Japanese right-wing scholar Watanabe Shoichi who has long active in Japan, put in his comment that “those who use the word ‘the Nanjing Massacre’, if having read this book, will be labeled as anti-Japan left-wing forces.” See 田中正明『「南京虐殺」の虚 構———松井大将の日記をめぐって』腰封, 東京, 日本教文社1984年6月25日第1版.
- 6.
As for the name of “small slaughter school” and “middle slaughter school”, please see 石川水穗著『徹底検証「南京論点整理学」』,『諸君!』, 東京, 文藝春秋, 2001年2月号, 第147页.
- 7.
kuhiko Hata did not change the following statement in The Nanking Incident which has been reprinted many times: “ I as a Japanese apologize to Chinese” “for Japanese aggression against China, including the huge pain and loss Chinese suffered from the Nanjing Incident”. See 秦郁彦著『南京事件———虐殺の構造』, 東京, 中央公論新社1986年2月25日第1版, 第244页.
- 8.
『松井石根大!「陣中日誌」改篡の怪』, 『歷史と人物』, 東京, 中央公論社, 1985年12月号.
- 9.
秦郁彦著『南京事件———虐殺の構造』增補版第九章「南京事件論爭史」上, 東京, 中央公論新社2007年7月25日增補版, 第274页.
- 10.
As for the argument that the so-called “bodies enemies left” in Japanese documents were captives killed by Japanese army, please refer to my article A Study of the Massacre Order for Japanese Troops in Historical Research. [Chen Zhaoqi. A Study of the Massacre Order for Japanese Troops in Historical Research. Historical Research 2002(6).]
- 11.
See my article A Scrutiny of The Scrutiny of John Rabe’s Diary.
- 12.
上杉千年著「南京大虐殺派の天敵 板倉由明先生を偲ぶ」, 板倉由明著『本当はこうだった南京事件』, 東京, 日本図書刊行会2000年1月20日第2次印刷版, 第506页. It is clearly put on the cover that “this book indicates ‘the Nanjing Incident’ cannot equate to ‘the Nanjing Massacre”.
- 13.
See「南京事件の真実」, 『産経新聞』, 東京, 産経新聞社, 1994年7月1日.
- 14.
In the first “Study Session” of the Committee for the Examination of the Facts about the Nanking Incident held on February 26th, 2007, a total of 48 members and representatives of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party appeared and Nobukatsu Fujioka, the pioneer of the fabrication school, gave a lecture.
- 15.
Kasahara Tokushi said we then entered a period of “the politicization of ‘contention’”. See 笠原十九司著『南京事件論爭史』, 東京, 平凡社2007年12月10日第1版, 第226 227页.
- 16.
In a pay television called Japan Cultural Channel Sakura, which has been focusing on the topic of the Nanjing Incident, the host has repeatedly “invited” the slaughter school them to have a public debate in the program.
- 17.
東中野修道、小林進、福永慎次郎著『南京事件「証拠写真」を檢証する』腰封, 東京, 草思社2005年2月8日第1版.
- 18.
北村稔著『「南京事件」の探究———その実像をもとめて』第一部「国民党国際宣傳処と戦時対外戦略」, 東京, 文藝春秋社2001年11月20日第1版, 第25 64页.
- 19.
The Alleged “Nanking Massacre” published by Japan Conference in 2002 was written in both English and Japanese and subtitled “Japan’s Rebuttal to China’s Forged Claims”. Since then, there has frequently come out English versions of Japanese writings. For example, books such as written by Tanaka Masaaki and Higashinakano Shudo have been translated into English and widely given away to American politicians, media professional, universities and community libraries.
- 20.
The 65th Regiment of the 13th Division (whose head was Colonel Morozuno Sakuhajime).
- 21.
Kasahara Tokushi’s Nankin jiken ronsōshi: nihonjin wa shijitsu o dō ninshiki shite kitaka, a book of over 300 text pages, does not mention any work of Tsuda Michio, Matsuoka Tamaki and others. They not only disregard but also do not recognize each other’s works. For example, Nankinsen - tozasareta kioku o tazunete edited by Nankinsen - tozasareta kioku o tazunete was harshly criticized by members of Nankin Jiken Chosa Kenkyu Kai after the publication: Honda Katsuichi regarded it as “an unreliable book devoid of any truthful content” and “to the advantage of opponents”; Ono Kenji detailed the evidence, claiming that “it is rare to see so many mistakes and unbelievable statements in a book and that this book crossed the bottom line, although, as the say goes, to error is human” (see「南京大虐殺をめぐる二つの空しい書物」、「『南京戦』何が問題か」, 『金曜日週刊』, 東京, 株式会社金曜日, 2002年12月20日).
- 22.
You can get a brief idea of it from the fact that the Japanese reports on the China-Japan joint history research mostly adopt the viewpoints of Ikuhiko Hata.
- 23.
This book includes the following articles: “Foreword” by Charles Maler, who was then (the same below) a professor with the Harvard University), “Introduction: The Nanjing Massacre in History” by Joshua A. Fogel, a professor with University of California, Santa Barbara, “Aggression, Victimization, and Chinese Historiography of the Nanjing Massacre” by Mark S. Eykholt, a professor with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “A Battle over History: The Nanjing Massacre in Japan” by Yoshida Takashi, a doctoral student of the Columbia University and “The Challenges of the Nanjing Massacre: Reflection on Historical Inquiry” by Daqing Yang, a professor with Washington University. See ジョシュア·A·フォ—ゲル編『歴史学のなかの南京大虐殺』, 東京, 柏書房2000年5月25日第1版.
- 24.
「まぼろし派、中間派、大虐殺派三派合同大アンケ—ト」, 『諸君!』, 東京, 文藝春秋, 2001年2月号, 第164 203页。 中译见上引拙著附录之四第511–553.
- 25.
巫召鴻著『「ザ·レイプ·オブ·南京」を読む』, 同時代社2007年12月10日第1版, 第14–15页.
- 26.
Yamada Masayuki, who once “interpreted” ShoÌ koÌ Fu’s book, also said that translating the Rape of Nanking into Japanese is “a resistance force against oblivion” based on “conscience and duty”. See 山田正行解說《忘却への抵抗と良知の責務》, 巫召鴻著『「ザ·レイプ·オブ·南京」を読む』, 第151–189页.
- 27.
See Historical review 2002(3). And in Chen Zhaoqi. Study on the Nanjing Massacre. Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House. 1st Edition published in December 2002, pp. 264–270.
- 28.
Chapter 75 “Preface to Right Statements of the Shuwu Year”. In The Collection of Zhuwen Gong. In Four Series (Compact Edition), Vol. 7th. Shanghai Commercial Press, p. 1385.
- 29.
Zhu Xi also said he who leads to the death of my father or My Majesty is “my sworn enemy”. See Chapter 13 “Documents of Chuigong Years”. In The Collection of Zhuwen Gong, Vol. 1st, p. 188.
- 30.
Although “public opinion online” may not speak for all people, online posts, which allow free speech to the most extent, will not go farther from the reality than opinion polls published. And whether those opinions have been shaped is quite another matter.
- 31.
See “Section 1: The Issue of Nulla Poena Sine Lege”, “Section 2: The Issue of Conspiracy” and “Section 3: The Issue of Crimes against Humanity”. In Chen Zhaoqi. From the Film The Tokyo Trial to the Trial in Tokyo. Historical Review 2007(5). Also see “Section 1: Problems Pointed out”. In Chen Zhaoqi. Re-evaluation of Iwane Matsui’s War Guilt: Verifications of One of the Testimonies on the Nanjing Massacre Given by the Defendants at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Modern Chinese History Studies 2008(6).
- 32.
Tanaka Masaaki said the evidence presented by the prosecution was nothing more than “rumor, speculation and exaggeration in the Tokyo Trial” (see 田中正明『東京裁判とは何か』, 東京, 日本工業新聞社1983年5月20日第1版, 第195页). And Fuji Nobuo who was a staff in the Tokyo Trial and claimed to have been at the public gallery during most of court sessions said, “ As a Japanese with common sense, when examining the evidence presented by both parties, I felt that there were many problems, such as distortion, exaggeration and fabrication, with evidence presented by the prosecution while evidence presented by the defendants was much more reasonable (see 冨士信夫著『「南京大虐殺」はこうして作られた———東京裁判的欺瞒』, 東京, 展転社1995年4月29日第1版, 第348页).
- 33.
新田満夫編集『極東國際軍事裁判速記錄』第一卷, 東京, 雄松堂書店1968年1月25日第1版, 第751页.
- 34.
There is a great disparity between Chongshan Tang’s records and The Red Swastika Society’s records. Members of Chongshan Tang daily buried 150 bodies per capita while The Red Swastika Society’s daily record of bodies buried is merely 11 bodies per capita, even if the highest on record. And the burial records of the Red Swastika Society was made during the time of the incident but those by Chongshan Tang were made during the Nanjing Trial, ten years after the incident. Therefore, I am doubtful about Chongshan Tang’s records. For details of statistics, please refer to the 200th Note of “Section 1·Part II·The Value of Japan’s Historical Material”. In Research on Japan’s Existing Historical Material of the Nanjing Massacre. Shanghai People’s Publishing House. 1st Edition published in August 2008, p. 110.
- 35.
For example, in terms of death toll of the massacre, it is claimed to be “over 200,000” in the section of the Nanjing Atrocities, Chapter 8 “Conventional War Crimes” of the Judgement, and be “over 100,000” in the judgement for Matsui Iwane, Chapter 10 of the Judgement. And as put in the judgement for Hirota Koki, “Hundreds of people were killed every day” (see 新田満夫編集『極東國際軍事裁判速記錄』第十卷, 第768、797、800页). But the judgement for Hirota Koki in Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East translated by Zhang Xiaolin has changed the statement as “thousands of people killed” “every day” (People’s Publishing House. 1st Edition published in February 1986, p. 578) for some reason. These three records contradict with each other on a same period (almost five or six weeks), not matter the last record is “hundreds of” or “thousands of”.
- 36.
The judge says in the Judgement, “In order to justify the 27th cause of action, the prosecution has the obligation to present reasonable evidence from which we can infer that Matsui Iwanne had knew the nature of war as crime, but they failed” (see 新田満夫編集『極東國際軍事裁判速記錄』第十卷, 第800页).
- 37.
For example, Ikuhiko Hata once said, “The Nanjing Massacre can be a symbol for incidents where Japan was perpetrator” (秦郁彦、佐藤昌盛、常石敬一「戦争犯罪ワ—スト20を選んだ———いまなお続く『戦争と虐殺の世紀』を徹底検証」, 『文藝春秋』, 東京, 文藝春秋社, 2002年8月号, 第160页).
- 38.
渡辺久志著 「カ メ ラ が 目撃 し た 日中戦争」, 季刊 『中帰連』, 2006 年 10 月 2007 年 7 月, 第38–41期.
- 39.
田中正明著『南京事件の総括———虐殺否定十五の論拠』, 第179页.
- 40.
Cheng Zhaoqi. A Study on the Nanjing Massacre, p. 304.
- 41.
吉田裕『国際法の解釈で事件を正当化できるか』, 南京事件調查研究会編『南京大虐殺否定論13のウソ』, 東京, 柏書房1999年10月25日第1版, 第160–176页.
- 42.
『盧溝橋事件の研究』, 東京, 東京大学出版会1996年12月10日第1版.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cheng, Z. (2020). The Study on Some Issues Concerning the Nanjing Massacre. In: The Nanjing Massacre and Sino-Japanese Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7887-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7887-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-7886-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-7887-8
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)