Initially to start off the readings and information for this week, I decided to go on and watch the video that was added. My initial reaction to the topic of this week was a little overwhelming, due to the nature of evidence presented in the video. Upon further analysis of the readings, the content does not get much easier to bear. Whether it be the gruesome and heinous details provided in the video and from Iris Chang’s “The Rape of Nanking”, to the disheartening denial of Taanaka Masaaki’s, “What Really Happened in Nanking”. These two articles, with Masaaki’s being written in direct response to Chang’s, have the definition of polar opposite perspectives. One side having the support of the world, the other having a defensive deniability failing to contain any real evidence.
The common theme I have noticed throughout the video and the article from Chang is that the evidence provided is based on experience. With the video being the accounts from soldiers and the comfort woman, and Chang going into detail with the experiences she learned from her parents. In her article she states, “Neither of my parents witnessed it, but as young children they had heard the stories, and these were passed down to me. The Japanese, I learned, had sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths, they said; the Yangtze river ran red with blood for days” (Chang, pg. 8). This quote from Chang shows that the accounts and recollections of this event were spread throughout China and continued to have a lasting effect on the Chinese people as the manner in which Chang’s parents described these events to her.
Additionally, Masaaki also tries to use experience as evidence, however it is weak and not credible. The excuse he uses is, “I learned that Gen. Matsui had been charged with Class A war crimes, and had been incarcerated at Sugamo Prison in Tokyo. I travelled from Nagano three times to visit him. He told me that he had never heard a word about a massacre in Nanking until the Tokyo Trials began” (Masaaki, pg. 5). However, General Matsui ended up being convicted of those war crimes, so not a terrific look for the credibility of Masaaki. Already, the bias seemed to cloud the judgement of Masaaki as his perspective nullified his argument, and this quote serves as evidence against his argument, due to the fact that Matsui was in fact found guilty of those ‘supposed war crimes’ he was denying.
There are two parts to this story that I am legitimately incapable of wrapping my head around. The first, being just how it was possible for these Japanese soldiers to carry out these horrific and devastating acts against other humans, with no initial remorse. The second, being how the Japanese government has successfully dealt with the sweeping of this significant event underneath the rug, and consistent denial of any serious wrongdoing. How do more people not know about this? The defensive manner in which the Japanese have carried themselves has certainly played a role, even though their statements lack any convincing evidence to use in their favor. For example, in Masaaki’s article one case of this can be seen by him stating, “Would an officer as honorable and ethical as Gen. Matsui have ordered or sanctioned the massacre of 300,000 Chinese?” (Masaaki, pg. 4). For reference, the evidence that Masaaki was using in justification of this claim, was statues and other forms of monuments that were meant to serve as an honor to both the dead Chinese and Japanese soldiers from the war. That seems like the most basic attempt of performative behavior, and anyone who believes these claims are severely misguided. Additionally, the excerpt I quoted can be classified as gaslighting, in the sense that Masaaki is trying to force the reader into believing him, not by using logic or reason, but by the guilt in which he presents his claims.
On the other hand, the evidence presented from Chang to justify her argument seems to contain a plentiful amount of logic and reason. One quote from her article states, “The broad details of the Rape are, except among Japanese, not in dispute… When the city fell, on December 13th, 1937, Japanese soldiers began an orgy of cruelty seldom if ever matched in world history” (Chang, pg. 4). This evidence provided from Chang goes on to be emphasized and further detail is applied. However, although Chang is critical of the Japanese and the events they carried out, Chang is simply providing evidence and not guilting the reader into believing her side. This is important in maintaining the credibility of the author, because Chang clearly also contains a legitimate amount of bias, coming from Chinese ancestry. Due to the fact that she is able to use logic and reason as evidence to support her argument, as opposed to Masaaki who relied on emotion, Chang’s article is able to be considered valid and useful in maintaining the true history of the events that took place in Nanking.
This topic has certainly been one of the more captivating subjects covered so far, as this was a significant event in the history of the war that I was completely unaware of. Not only is this baffling to me, it is also disheartening. To realize that the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people has gone unnoticed for well over half a century, makes me question everything and wonder what other historical events I am lacking. The radicalization and significant disparity between these two articles was also eye opening, in the fact that it helped really hammer home the concept that Japanese people truly believe that they did nothing wrong, and the Chinese are simply exaggerating and even consider the mention of this event propaganda. This week has been a useful tool in historiography, after being forced to analyze both sides of this debate and consider the arguments both authors and their respective sides have made, and will continue making.
I often find myself asking how people can commit such acts as the Rape of Nanking without having remorse. The fact that I have come to understand is that the remorselessness stems from perception. This is much the same for Nazis in Germany and slaveowners in the American South. It is far easier to treat people with intense brutality and inhumanity when they do not perceive the individual as human. The Japanese soldiers chose and/or were conditioned to view the Chinese as less than human, a fact that made it easier for them to treat them as less than human.
The Rape of Nanking was one of the most brutal atrocities to occur in human history. It deserves to be talked about more, but unfortunately gets swept under the rug. I was shocked to learn that so few people learned about this event in high school. People need to remember that the Nazis were not the only people who committed genocide during WWII.
In regards to your confusion as to how so many Japanese troops could possibly get on board with carrying out this massacre, I think a possible/likely explanation could be that they must have been practically brainwashed by their superiors to see the Chinese as less human more animals that needed to be slaughtered. Military cultures often stifle individual thought, and this wouldn’t be the first time that those with power manipulated their troops to commit an atrocity like this.
You did a great job at summarizing both readings and how their views on the event shaped their books. The Rape of Nanking should be taught globally so as to help others learn the truth about the past. I believe in Chang’s book she references that the Germans were not allowed to forget about the Holocaust and as a result they were able to move past it and learn from it. Also, for your question as to how something like this can happen with little remorse, brainwashing was rampant in the Japanese Empire, so they were to believe that everyone was below the Japanese people and often disregarded other nationalities as subhuman.
I completely agree with you, it was extremely difficult to understand how human beings could be so cruel to other human beings. (It seems that history contains numerous accounts of inhumanity that are difficult to understand.) I do think its a little easier to understand how the Japanese have covered-up or “re-visioned” their history. Being an American from the South, I believe that nationalism and tradition can lead a population to re-imagine history in different ways to help individuals cope with the truth, or to run from justice.