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~
