The Rape of Nanking has been forgotten by the majority of the world, denied by the Japanese, yet memorialized by the Chinese. The 1937 incident left an estimated 300,000 Chinese civilians dead in a matter of weeks. Sixty years later historians are still debating the facts of the massacre, from the death total to if it could even be considered a massacre at all. Chinese-American historian, Iris Chang, went as far as subtitling her book on Nanking as, “the forgotten Holocaust of World War II”(Chang 1). In contrast Japanese historian, Tanaka Masaaki, wrote in direct opposition to Chang. Calling Chang’s historiography work, “lies, hyperbole, and propaganda” (Masaaki 2).
Memorial for Nanking in China. Estimates 300,000 massacred.
The massacre at Nanking is unique in the way it has caused historians to dance around the topic. Chang notes in her book, The Rape of Nanking, Nanking was not discussed by historians until the late 1980s (203). High ranking Japanese officials have continually denied the Rape of Nanking. There is no denial that Japanese troops entered Nanking and subsequently occupied the city. That is rooted in indisputable historical fact. However, the Japanese government has continued to deny that any misconduct by Japanese soldiers took place. The Japanese denial about any wrong doings at Nanking displease many other scholars. Chang sites one journalists who claimed, “‘Japan’s denial of the rape of Nanjing would be politically the same as German denial of the Holocaust'” (201). Comparing the Nanking Massacre to the calculated extermination of the Jewish race appears to be a fallacy of association. It assumes that the Japanese murder of Chinese at Nanking was either systematic, or premeditated, or both, not just a reaction to unbridled freedoms expressed by Japanese soldiers low on the hierarchal scale.
Chang suggest that the Nanking Massacre was in part possible because of the structure of the Japanese military. Chang asserts that; “the modern Japanese army had great potential for brutality from the moment of its creation for two reasons: the arbitrary and cruel treatment that the military inflicted on its own officers and soldiers, and the hierarchical nature of Japanese society, in which status was dictated by proximity to the emperor” (217). This statement implies that brutality occurred at Nanking because of the social structure of the Japanese military. One flaw in the argument is that other nations have also carried out brutal massacre or invasions, but had different military structures. For example, Germany orchestrated the Holocaust during World War II, but had a military structure far different from Japan. Therefore, it is unfair to assume the only plausible explanation for Nanking was the structure of the Japanese military.
Another haunting aspect of Nanking is how the events have been covered up, recreated, and forgotten since 1937. In Japan heavily censored textbooks have limited the study of the event. However, even outside of Japan, people admit knowing very little about the war in the Pacific and even less about Nanking (Chang 200). This lack of fundamental understanding around Nanking and the events before and after make it easier for some scholars to dispute Chang and her colleagues’ work. Tanaka Masaaki, a Japanese historian, took strong opposition to Chang’s book. Masaaki claims that there was a lack of evidence to support Chang’s accusations that Nanking was even a massacre at all. Masaaki uses powerful, and at times, incredibly crass language in his writing. When describing the work of scholars who believed a massacre occurred he uses phases such as, ” their rummaging has been fruitless, which is not surprising, because none [evidence] ever existed”. In reference to faked photographs Masaaki writes, “this is another example of the depraved methods used to concoct ‘evidence’ ” (112-114). Masaaki’s tone makes him appear as though he has an agenda to uphold, and therefore makes him a less credible historian. The debate about what happened at Nanking is on going, but the answer will not be reached until all parties admit that something did happen.
Link to Photo:kentchemistry.com
