It is interesting to read both accounts of what happened in Nanking, China during World War II. Growing up and attending various history classes during high school and college, you continuously learn about the Rape of Nanking and the Nanking Massacre. It has become common knowledge that this horrific event did actually happen. I had never once heard that this event was faked or exaggerated until reading the account by Tanaka Masaaki. I was very skeptical at first while reading the account, but after I completed it, it makes sense and the evidence does a good job of supporting Masaaki’s opinion. An interesting point he made in his account What Really Happened in Nanking- The Refutation of a Common Myth, is that “our perception of history derives from past events as transmitted via the written word, not from actual events themselves. It is possible for us to obtain an accurate understanding of past events?” Masaaki claims that the events at Nanking were faked, and that Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking- The Forgotten Holocaust of WWII, succeeded in being propaganda for forcing the Japanese to pay war reparations for what happened. According to Masaaki, when the Japanese went to take Nanking, the general, Matsui Iwane, said, “The entrance of the Imperial Army into the capital of a foreign nation is an historic event. The attention of the world will be focused on you. You are to observe military regulations to the letter, to set an example for the future.” How could an general who appears to be recognizing all military doctrine condone a massacre? Something that is also interesting is that according to Masaaki, the Japanese held memorial ceremonies for the fallen Chinese soldiers as well. They also erected a memorial statue with equal tablets with the names of fallen Japanese and Nationalist soldiers.
Another thing that is interesting to note about Masaaki’s account is that he claims the photographic evidence of the Nanking Massacre were also faked. He provides several examples of photos used as evidence, and explains that some of the photos were either faked completely, or were photos that had nothing to do with Nanking all together. One example was the photo of dead Chinese soldiers on the coast of a river. This photo was taken after an intense battle. Masaaki’s point is that the photo was taken during a war, not a massacre. The photo is shown below.
In contrast, Chang’s account details the horrors of the Rape of Nanking. She says, “Tens of thousands of young men were rounded up and herded to the outer areas of the city, where they were mowed down by machine guns, used for bayonet practice, or soaked with gasoline and burned alive.” This is very different from what Masaaki says. Masaaki also notes how Chang relates Hitler and the Holocaust to the Nanking Massacre and talks about how it was worse than the mass killing of the Jews. She says, “It is certainly true that in this century, when the tools of mass murder were fully refined, Hitler killed about 6 million Jews, and Stalin more than 40 million Russians, but these deaths were brought about over some few years. In the Rape of Nanking, the killing was concentrated within a few weeks.” It is interesting to hear her talk about how the scope of what happened in Nanking was much larger and more terrible than even the most gruesome massacres in history.
The comparison between Masaaki and Chang’s accounts of the Nanking Massacre show that the Chinese and Japanese viewed what happened very differently.
In your second paragraph you state: “Masaaki’s point is that the photo was taken during a war, not a massacre.” I think this is a very important distinction to make but it hinges on our understanding of the terms “massacre” and “war” as well as our understanding of the Chinese as noncombatants or something else entirely. If they are definitively noncombatants, then the brutal acts committed against them are considered war crimes, plain and simple. I understand that Tanaka is framing his narrative around a different understanding of these terms but it fundamentally changes whether this incident is problematic or not. Is it just war like any other, or is it distinctly different? For that matter, are massacres just a part of war? I would hope not. Also, I read Chang’s comparison to the Holocaust differently. I thought that she brought it up to illustrate the scale of destruction. I think that it is always dangerous and inappropriate to try to compare any form of human suffering, especially mass genocides, but I feel that in this instance, for the sake of context, it is helpful to compare it to the Holocaust in terms of destruction. This is because, in my opinion, it is the most well-known genocide in the Western world, which happens to be Chang’s audience.
I think you definitely can see how their biasses within their histories. But it makes me wonder how much of the story is actually true. Could the reality of this event be somewhere between each of these writer’s biases? I feel something did happen but whether the event was exaggerated or intentionally hidden is a different story.
I thought you did a good job of bringing in and explaining the different perspectives about the massacre. I definitely think that it is wrong to attempt to cover up history. Not only does the Japanese government try to intimidate those who are willing to speak out but the media also plays a role in that too.