From late 1937 to early 1938, a genocide occurred in Manchuria, China and is named the Rape of Nanjing. There exists enormous evidence to support this statement in the form of photographs, oral histories, public records, diary accounts, and more. The Rape of Nanjing consumed the lives of between 40,000 and 300,000 Chinese civilians, noncombatants, and unarmed combatants; these deaths were not quick or in any way humane, as records show widespread torture and inhumane treatment on the part of the Japanese soldiers.
Yet, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, public Japanese officials deny the Nanjing Massacre as an event. For western perspective, this is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust happened. Until the 1980’s there raged a debate in Asia whether the Nanjing Massacre happened, as Japan alleged China fabricated the event for political reasons and denied evidence.
“How can an entire country deny its involvement in a genocide filled with rape and torture?”, “Why did the Japanese not accept the evidence?” and “How can Japanese today deny such an infamous and heinous crime?” are some questions one may ask while diving into this subject. Looking, however, at how the rest of the world ignored this event can shed light on why people deny it today. As the Cold War was waged in East Asia, capitalism and communism fought to become the dominant ideology in the minds and policies of governments and leaders. This means that both Communist China and Capitalist America wanted Japan to follow them and, as people and nations are prideful, if either country’s officials pressed the Rape of Nanjing there was a chance the other would successfully court Japan; it became convenient for everyone to forget it happened in the battle to gain an ally.
As other powerful nations allowed the Rape of Nanjing to be ignored, Japan gained the freedom to change the past. The Japanese government had and has authority to regulate the content of textbooks given to Japanese students, allowing the Japanese a chance to forget and ignore their atrocities. Without the Japanese youth learning about these events, the Rape of Nanjing could potentially be devoid of meaning in Japan. This possibility sparked outrage from other Asian nations, calling for an end to Japan’s textbook censorship of events that would illuminate Japan’s atrocities and evils. From the 1970’s until modern times, Asian countries invaded and conquered by Japan have protested the exclusion of Japan’s war crimes in Japanese textbooks. As the main Asian aggressor during World War Two, Japan’s war-time actions negatively affected millions of people and should be held accountable and responsible for its actions, just as Germany and Nazis were held accountable for the Holocaust.
It really is quite appalling that Japan censors their textbooks so strictly. I wonder if it would have been brought to light without people like Prof. Ienagu Saburo of Japan. As we discussed in class, he sued the Japanese government for censoring textbooks and he only gained a minor victory after a 28 year lawsuit. People like Prof. Ienagu Saburo give hope to half of Japan who believe that the only way to truly learn from the past is to study history.
I think you make a really valid point about how the Japanese used the fact that no one was talking about what they had done to cover it up. You really tie things together in your blog. Good job!
I think it is interesting that you portray the Western powers as essentially ignoring the Rape of Nanjing in order to gain an ally in Japan. However, at the time, the United States did not really need to “gain” an ally because of the occupation by US forces. The policies and plans enacted by the US officials in Japan helped set them on track for a successful future that we see today in modern Japan. I believe that everyone was so eager to finally end the war that they were truly not concerned with numerous war crimes trials as we’ve seen in Germany. Sure, some Japanese were tried for war crimes, but some of the most prominent figures such as the general who oversaw the siege of Nanjing was not.
Yes, but due to the domino theory American officials and public feared that Japan would fall to communism. With a geographically close and then politically similar potential ally in China, it is not unthinkable that America and the west would be willing to ignore a massacre that did not affect them in order to secure Japan’s ally-ship.
I like your inclusion of Cold War politics in the Nanking massacre. It certainly did play a big role in the decisions of American and Chinese leaders at the time. I do believe that the younger Japanese generations should be made aware of their their wartime atrocities. This would also probably help in gaining a much fully and more complete analysis of what occurred in Nanking in the 1930s.
It is interesting that the shear existence of the massacre was in doubt until relatively recently while the Holocaust in Europe has not been seriously doubted. Did the removal of visibility of the Chinese people due to the Chinese fall to communism in 1949 lead to a situation in which Japan was able to raise doubt about the existence of the massacre? I find it amazing that a country as technologically, economically, and politically advanced as Japan would be capable of maintaining a likely fabricated story of the non-existence of the massacre for over 40 years after the event. I like your point that the Japanese government can sensor textbooks given to students in order to exclude the massacre from being taught. If allowed to continue for several more generations then the first hand witnesses to the war crimes would have died out and then the existence of the massacre could have been cast into further doubt. With Japan becoming an important US strategic ally during the Cold War it possible that the alliance led to the US deliberately looking past Japanese indiscretions in China from during the war, especially because of the strength of the Japanese-American Alliance and the fact that the Chinese became communist. I think it likely that the US would have pushed for more information sooner if the Japanese had not become such good allies during the Cold War and China had not fallen to communism. If a similar event had occurred in France during the German occupation then it likely would have received much more publicity.