The Rape of Nanking as a Case Study of Historiography

“Our perception of history derives from past events as transmitted via the written word, not from the events themselves” (Masaaki vii).

The connection between history and historiography can be a trepidatious one. While the opinions of those involved in events first hand can yield valuable insight into the feelings of the time, they can also cloud facts and result in inaccurate pictures being formed. That distortion can further increase when those primary sources are further analyzed and interpreted by modern day historians. How can one determine whether a portrait of an event is accurate or riddled with fallacies? Masaaki argues that an inaccurate picture of the Rape of Nanking was formed due to this ‘writers bias’ and Chinese propaganda. However, many others argue the opposite. They argue that the Japanese government has gone to great lengths in order to cover up the massacre for the sake of preserving Japanese national pride. As a result, one must ask, where does the truth lie?

Unfortunately, this becomes a difficult question to answer, as Takashi Yoshida states, “frequently, the chief objective in the intensifying debate seems not to have been reaching consensus as to truth, but the assertion and preservation of national pride and a positive sense of ethnic identity” (Yoshida). Meaning that the Japanese have gone out of their way in order to hide the atrocities they committed during war times in order to maintain feelings of pride in Japanese youth. This assertion is supported by the fact that the Japanese have censored textbooks following the incident. As Lenagu Saburo, a Japanese Professor and textbook writer, states in “In the Name of the Emperor” the Japanese government censored his writing which resulted in his eventual protest. This censorship lends support to the argument that the Japanese are distorting the narrative, not the Chinese.

However, Tanka Masaaki argues that it was the initial telling of the event that was distorted rather than the later Japanese interpretation. He goes further by stating that the depiction of the incident was exaggerated as a result of Chinese propaganda. He argues that, “[Japanese scholars] were painfully aware of their responsibility toward the written word, and could not sit by in silence while the minds of the people of the world were being clouded by vicious Chinese propaganda” (Masaaki ix). He argues that the incident surrounding Nanking was not a massacre but actually a simple act of war. He justifies the killings by stating “a major battle was fought in Nanking, and it claimed the lives of a large number of soldiers” he then goes on to compare it to Iwo Jima stating that no one considers it to be a massacre even though more individuals died (Masaaki 7). In saying this Masaaki questions what qualifies as a massacre and whether it is the right of historians to argue after the fact as to whether to condemn nations or not.

The severed heads of victims of the Nanking Massacre.

In conclusion, at what point does verbiage cease to matter? As the picture above depicts there were certainly lives lost and many unnecessarily murdered at Nanking. As with any other event in history transparency becomes important, and in order to achieve this transparency individuals will have to examine the primary sources themselves and develop their own opinions. However, in order for this to be possible individuals must have the opportunity to be exposed to all sides of the argument, meaning that censorship must end. Only once censorship ceases will we be able to reach what “most closely resemble[s] the truth” (Masaaki viii).