Discussion Main / SecondSino-JapaneseWar

Agreed. No one would deny the Nanking massacre and other atrocities, but to make it seem (as the page image does) that the entire war consisted of nothing but is nothing short of propaganda.

I hope the image I created in its stead is an acceptable compromise.

Actually, I would.

Many of the pictures offered as evidence for Nanking have been proven to be fakes. This ranged from minor details like supposed Japanese soldiers holding their swords in a Chinese stance (something that, plain and simple, wouldn't happen) abd wearing uniform incorrectly, to obvious things like photos so poorly edited that shadows are facing in different directions (in situations where they shouldn't, obviously). Couple this with the fact that the Chinese didn't kick up that much fuss about it until after Japan seemed to be outdoing China economically, and the Chinese governent needed someone to focus the displeasure of the population on, and the evidence in favour of Nanking starts to come apart at the seams.

Now, before anyone starts accusing me of being a far-right ultra-nationalist Japanese historical revisionist, I should point out I'm British. Also, I'm not defending Japanese military atrocities (although I do think people need to remember that what the IJA did was hardly representative of the Japanese people as a whole) as there is no doubt that they did some awful things, but I am saying that this particular incident appears to be either horrendously exaggerated or even entirely fabricated.

Denying the Rape of Nanking based on the photographic evidence alone (I'm ignoring the post-war awareness bit, as that's not germane to the issue) seems rather fraught, to say the least. I assume you're referring to Iris Chang's book, which has rightly been labelled poor history for its many exaggerations and stereotyping. However, you make no mention of any of the other forms of evidence, such as oral testimony from Chinese, Japanese, and neutral observers such as John Rabe, John Magee, or any of the foreign newspapermen who covered the initial stages of the massacre. What about the films taken at the time? Coupled with the vast amount of second-hand evidence that Japanese troops behaved in a similar manner throughout East Asia, why would anyone doubt that something terrible had occurred? I do not believe the numbers were nearly as high as the oft-quoted 300,000 dead, but even if it was a third of that, it's a horrific tragedy. Nothing excuses that sort of behaviour. Nothing.

People do need to remember that the IJA (and the IJN too, let's not leave out the Manila Massacre) were not representative of the Japanese people as a whole, but the mentality that allowed the IJA to commit widespread atrocities was very definitely institutional. The ritual brutality in the Japanese military was savage, with beatings dished out for relatively minor offences. Troops were instructed that "duty is heavier than a mountain, while death is lighter than a feather", and it's easy to see how an army accustomed to violence, convinced of the purity of their cuase, and with scant regard for human life, could act in such a manner.

Um, it really doesn't matter what ethnicity you are, if you hold a personal and hence biased (we all are) view on certain population then certainly you'd be more critical on claims made by them, and I'll have a not that Chinese are not the most revere and liked ethnic groups worldwide, that combined with Red Scare and notion that everything Communist do is wrong... Well, there you have it. Would the Japanese commander Iwane Matsui describe a "horrendously exaggerated" or fabricated incident as "a number of abominable incidents within the past 50 days" that would severely damage the army's reputation for years to come, and subsequently built a Buddhist statue after retirement to appease those who fell victim?

It's true that personal bias plays a large role in one's stance on nations, but that isn't acceptable in history. History is made by evidence, and not by personal feelings. What I think of China or Japan is irrelevant to what happened. Sorry if I come across as rather vehement, but I'm a historian and tend to get annoyed when I see poor historical method (sort of like a grammar nazi, but more history-based!)

At least some modern day ultra-nationalists are backed by companies who knew exactly what these fridge horrors are; some are major contributes in the fridge horrors themselves. Former prime minister Aso Taro even admits that his family company used POW in sweatshops. However I agree with your comment on not associating people with portions of people. Not all Americans are Ku Klux Klan, there.

They don't, but Chiang said the infamous quote before the Marco Polo incident. Afterwards it was more or less an Enemy Mine situation. Then again, history is written by the winners, but things are changing and newer textbooks are more accurate on that.

I see what you mean. But showing a pile of corpses is just boring and redundant, while a photo of a soldier with a naked woman suggests rape without actually showing it. And, as horrible as it sounds, mass rape is what this war is famous for.

Okay, found a better picture.

Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned this one works.