From 1931-1932, the Japanese Imperial army took over Manchuria, and in July of 1937, the Second Sino-Japanese War began. In December of this war, a battle occurred in Nanking between the Chinese and Japanese. Or was it a massacre of the Chinese by the Japanese? In her book, “The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of WWII,” Iris Chang claims that not only was it a massacre of the Chinese, but it was unbelievably brutal. Interviews found in Nancy Tong’s documentary, In The Name of the Emperor, aids in confirming Iris Chang’s claims. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum is Tankashi Yoshida who asserts that the massacre never occurred, and furthermore, to call it a “massacre” is a huge injustice to Japan, all in his book, “What Really Happened in Nanking.” It is the job of scholars of the past, as well as the present, to determine for themselves what really happened in Nanking.
Iris Chang writes that the best way to form an objective opinion for yourself is to read a story from the viewpoints of the alleged victim and culprit, as well as any eyewitnesses (Chang, 14). Using the three sources I have mentioned, I am going to attempt to do just that. Tankashi writes that General Matsui, the commander in charge of the Japanese Imperial Army in 1937, erected two statues of goddess, a shrine, and a tablet honoring fallen soldiers. Tankashi asks, “Would an officer as honorable and ethical as Gen. Matsui have ordered or sanctioned the massacre of 300,000 Chinese” (Tankashi, 4)? While there is no denying Gen. Matsui was a man of honor, the next question one must ask themselves is what else brought honor to a Japanese man? According to Nancy Tong’s documentary, following the orders of the emperor brought a man glory and honor. One interviewee belonging to the Japanese army at the time explained that the emperor at the time was worshipped as a god and the imperial army had no option, but to obey, which usually meant to harm or kill the Chinese (Tong).
Tankashi’s next reasoning for claiming the massacre was a fabrication was that the Chinese fought too (Tankashi, 7). To say it was a massacre would be ignoring the fact a battle was fought. While I am convinced that there would have been Chinese men fighting against the oncoming Japanese, Tankashi does not entirely convince me that this is enough of a reason to dismiss the word “massacre”. The images Chang uses in her book, as well as the videos Tong uses in her documentary are a large part of this. For example, Tong’s documentary portrays an image of a Chinese man wounded from what was described as Japanese bayonet practice.
~unfinished~
You point out some major flaws in your analysis on Tankashi’s argument against the massacre. I like how you are trying to evaluate both sides and I agree with your reasonings. The argument on a man’s honor is not enough to argue whether someone did an action or not in my opinion. Though honor is culturally a big deal, it holds no standing historically in an argument. It is merely opinion. So again, I agree with you!
I agree with Kendall that you did well to analyze fairly both sides. I definitely was left feeling very unconvinced by Masaaki’s argument, yet it is still important to engage with it and present it fairly
I agree that it is important to see both sides of the argument that the event may or may not have happened. However, it is my belief that the evidence clearly shows that the event did happen and to think otherwise is to disrespect those who were slaughtered by the Chinese.
Japanese*
I like how you presented the material, by evaluating both sides before making a judgement. I had less of a problem with Masaaki’s argument as I did his tone and word choice. While I tried to follow along with his argument and see his side, I could not help but get sidetracked by his accusatory tone. To me, his article came across more as propaganda or a review of Chang’s work, rather than a piece of Historiography in it’s own right.
I like how you bring up the subject of honor in the Japanese military, as it is a vital part of their culture; that what is honorable may not be humane is an important thing to remember when looking at morals as evidence of possible wrongdoing.
Also, I believe the author of “What Really Happened in Nanking” is Tanaka Maasaki, not Tankashi Yoshida who wrote “The Nanjing Massacre. Changing Contours of History and Memory in Japan, China, and the U.S.”
Thanks Lily! My full and updated blog is on my personal site, this was, unfortunately, my earliest draft.
You brought up a point by raising a question about how Japanese men win honor. When you ask whether a man as honorable as General Matsui could be capable of allowing such acts to take place, you open up the question about whether any man is capable of such barbaric acts. No man, no person, would outright claim to be dishonorable, and especially in the military each man is trained to act with honor. In the incidents associated with the Nanking massacre, is it better to judge each man as being dishonorable, or is it easier to judge that military itself as acting dishonorably? The points that you mention about the military having no choice but to obey worship the Emperor as a god and having to obey orders are strong in raising the question about whether individuals were responsible or whether the massacre was a result of a collective failure. Also, the point that the Chinese military had been in the city gives the massacre context as it could be argued that the Japanese did not only target civilians and were instead attempting to target Chinese military in hiding and made no discrimination between civilians in the city and the hiding soldiers.