Warcrimes in Nanking 1937

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#61

Post by Panzermahn » 30 Jul 2005, 16:46

Peter H wrote:They... seems to infer a collective response on the Japanese people that has not yet been established by anyone in the discussions so far.

I agree that while Japan has been limited in compensation to the victims of the war,its aid to other Asian countries post-1945 might be seen as a face-saving response to get around this dilemma.Which nation donated the largest amount to the Tsunami disaster fund?

Interesting that Communist China also refused Japanese compensation approaches in the 1960s.
A nation who donated large amount of money but had no intention to acknowledge its own military barbarianism in WW2 are nothing more than moralistic bribery attempt to whitewash its own past.

Giving large amount money during the Tsunami disaster however does not mean that the Japanese don't have to apologise and own up to her past

Regards
Panzermahn

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#62

Post by Panzermahn » 30 Jul 2005, 16:51

DXTR wrote:panzermahn wrote:
We should realised that not all Japanese soldiers are war criminals but the same thing cannot be said of the Bolsheviks.
while this is not a place to start a debate on russian war crimes, I must object to this overly generalisation unless panzermahn made a grammatical error.

So of the millions of russian soldiers you know that each and everyone was a war criminal? coudos to your research capabilities! I suspect it would be ridiculous to ask you for any substantial proof of such an allegation? According to your claim even the soviet soldiers who died on the very first day of barbarossa was a war criminal by default.... I did not know that all russian soldiers who died on the frontline june 22 1941 had either fought in finland, near Khalkin Gol or in the civil war. That is if your claim just by initial default had any merit...
Off-topic reply:

Not all Red Army soldier was a member of the Party and for your info I mentioned only about Bolsheviks, not Russians.

Regards
Panzermahn


User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#63

Post by Peter H » 30 Jul 2005, 16:59

List of Japanese war apologies so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#64

Post by Panzermahn » 30 Jul 2005, 17:17

Peter H wrote:List of Japanese war apologies so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan
None of the apologies by the Japanese leaders mentioned a single sentence of "comfort women"

Please bear this in mind that a general apology is different from a specific apology.

Regards
Panzermahn

User avatar
DXTR
Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 21 Jun 2005, 20:29
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

#65

Post by DXTR » 30 Jul 2005, 17:52

Not all Red Army soldier was a member of the Party and for your info I mentioned only about Bolsheviks, not Russians.
Ok being a member of the soviet communist party constitutes a war crime?... just curious... but that too is also an overly generalisation. Regarding membership of the soviet communist party as relating to war crimes please enlighten us with how you come to this conclusion... and if any moderators see this thread as being too unrelated to Nanking feel free to move it.

The only thing, Panzermahn, that I have a problem with is the undocumented as well as unrelated accusations, generalisation that you throw around. If you believe that membership of the communist party is in violation of the laws of war or you can relate it to a similar case at Nuremberg such as the case against criminal organisations such as the SS do so, separately.

But to save you the trouble of relating this issue to the ruling of SS as an illegal organisation the IMT ruled that:
“ A criminal organisation is analogous to a criminal conspiracy in that the essence of both is co-operation for criminal purposes. There must be a group bound together and organised for a common purpose. The group must be formed or used in connection with the commission of crimes denounced by the Charter. Since the declaration with respect to the organisations and groups will, as has been pointed out, fix the criminality of its members, that definition should exclude persons who had no knowledge of the criminal purposes or acts of the organisation and those who were drafted by the State for membership, unless they were personally implicated in the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter as members of the organisation. Membership alone is not enough to come within the scope of these declarations.”
(source:http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/greifelt5.htm)

So I would still like to see some support for your claim, now that we have limited the scope to organisations such as the soviet communist party.

Tycoon2002
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Jun 2005, 13:31
Location: London, UK

#66

Post by Tycoon2002 » 30 Jul 2005, 20:39

Peter H wrote:List of Japanese war apologies so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan
Do you think those apoligies are legimate? Just remember when they announce these fake apologies, they are at the war shrines meditating for these disgraceful men.

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 03:55
Location: S. E. Asia

#67

Post by Karl » 31 Jul 2005, 02:04

The apologies mean nothing.

All this flip/flop behaviour only sows discord and further distrust...

Karl

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#68

Post by Peter H » 31 Jul 2005, 12:35

Panzermahn wrote:
Peter H wrote:List of Japanese war apologies so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan
None of the apologies by the Japanese leaders mentioned a single sentence of "comfort women"

Please bear this in mind that a general apology is different from a specific apology.

Regards
Panzermahn
You obviously didn't bother to read any of the link.

Refer here:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/state9207.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9507.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund ... 107-3.html

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#69

Post by Panzermahn » 31 Jul 2005, 12:44

Peter H wrote:
Panzermahn wrote:
Peter H wrote:List of Japanese war apologies so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan
None of the apologies by the Japanese leaders mentioned a single sentence of "comfort women"

Please bear this in mind that a general apology is different from a specific apology.

Regards
Panzermahn
You obviously didn't bother to read any of the link.

Refer here:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/state9207.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9507.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund ... 107-3.html
Thanks for the links, Peter H.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#70

Post by Peter H » 31 Jul 2005, 12:45

Japanese Prime Minister's Address to the Diet,1995:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/pm ... s9506.html

Japanese PM,China,1997:
In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, the Government of Japan expressed its resolution through the statement by the Prime Minister, which states that during a certain period in the past, Japan's conduct caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, including China, and the Prime Minister expressed his feeling of deep remorse and stated his heartfelt apology, while giving his word to make efforts for peace. I myself was one of the ministers who was involved in drafting this statement. I would like to repeat that this is the official position of the Government of Japan.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/ ... rence.html

PM,Asian-African Summit,2005:

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/koizumi ... ech_e.html

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#71

Post by michael mills » 02 Sep 2005, 10:28

Here is a link to a fairly balanced article on the "Nanjing Incident", which points out the difficulties involved in defining exactly the scope of the "massacre". It also contains useful further links.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... ssacre.htm

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#72

Post by michael mills » 02 Sep 2005, 12:06

Another link to an absolutely first-rate article on the historiography of the Nanjing Incident, written by an Australian scholar.

http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/artic ... tml#_edn26

The article highlights the essentially fictional nature of much of Iris Chang's sensational book.

The author's conclusion is worth quoting:
A related trend is the recent attempt to overcome some of the limits of the mindsets that underlie much of the previous literature on Nanjing. For instance, one common (if subconscious) assumption that can be seen behind much of the English-language literature on Nanjing is the notion of Chinese as feminised and Orientalised "passive" non-actors. To give a single example, a large part of Nanjing was destroyed by fire during the early weeks of occupation. Despite the official Chinese scorched-earth policy, the well-known existence within the walls of Nanjing of large numbers of Chinese military personnel, and the fact that it was in the interests of the Japanese to maintain a viable urban centre once they had captured it (just as much as it was in the interests of the Chinese government to deny the Japanese this centre), this arson has long been implicitly if not explicitly assumed to be the sole responsibility of the Japanese. The examination of the possibility of a Chinese resistance movement within Nanjing also remains virgin territory. [30]

The existing literature has been very reluctant to examine certain topics that will (I suspect) increasingly become the focus of attention. For instance, the basic assumption that the Japanese were all evil and the Chinese all innocent victims, while emotionally satisfying, does not provide for a complete historical account. To reach a deeper understanding of the events in and around Nanjing, a number of disturbing questions will have to be asked. Was the Chinese decision to make a stand at Nanjing, despite the large numbers of civilians trapped within its walls, the correct one? Did the Chinese custom of using units of what were known as "plain-clothes soldiers" (soldiers fighting in civilian clothes) contribute to the execution of plain-clothed male civilians of weapons-carrying age? Did the Chinese military decision to change out of military uniform after Nanjing fell and hide among the civilian population contribute to such executions? Was the Japanese decision to execute men in civilian clothes found (in some cases at least) with weapons hiding among the civilian population legal? The English language literature here may well come into its own. The Japanese clearly would be extremely reluctant to tackle these issues, and many of these questions will remain taboo in the Chinese-language discourse for the foreseeable future. To ask these questions is not to deny the events that occurred in and around Nanjing, but merely to demonstrate that the causes of this incident are more complex than a black-and-white good-versus-evil position might initially assume.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have attempted to shed some light on the state of research of the Nanjing Incident today. In conclusion, I would like to make a number of points about researching Nanjing.

First, to put it mildly, Nanjing is a controversial topic. Although our understanding of the events of Nanjing do not even begin to approach our understanding of the holocaust, it is certainly possible to demonise anyone who budges from the orthodox position as being a denier on par with a David Irving. The problem is that the orthodox position is completely different in China and Japan, and within Japan itself there are three distinct orthodoxies. Although there is real debate in Japan, no one there now accepts the figure of 300,000 victims as plausible, while in China the figure is set in concrete (in both senses of the word) at the entrance of the Memorial for the Compatriot [Chinese] Victims of the Japanese Massacre in Nanjing. Unless the debate is to continue to run on parallel lines, never to come together to produce a deeper, more complete and transnational understanding of this historical event, this is not a situation to be welcomed. How to overcome it, on the other hand, poses a dilemma. As long as much of the debate is dominated by ideologues, the sensible option for historians may well be to keep their heads low and research other topics. That, however, cannot be a desirable outcome. Historians surely have an obligation to combat the trend to use Nanjing as a weapon in contemporary ideological and international contests.

Secondly, too many Japanese researchers in particular are either completely ignorant of, or do not care about, the fact that Nanjing for better or for worse has become a central plank in the construction of the modern self-identity of the Chinese. To discuss Nanjing is to threaten this self-identity. Once aware of this fact, all who participate in the debate need to show some sensitivity to it. I am not arguing that the Chinese orthodoxy needs to be accepted without question because the feelings of so many will be hurt if it is questioned. Indeed, I strongly believe that human beings have to come to terms with the "real" past and accept it, and that it is more dangerous (at least in the long term) to found national identity on a lie than to discover the truth and live with it. However, some effort does need to be made (on both extremes of the debate) to avoid the use of inflammatory language, and to show a much greater awareness of and sensitivity to the moral implications of historical inquiry.

Thirdly, as historians, it is our obligation to examine calmly the primary materials and reconstruct the history of Nanjing on the basis of what those materials say. Some clearly want to absolve the Japanese of all blame, while others want to depict the Japanese as a uniquely brutal and ruthless race. Neither position should form the starting point of any discussion of the events in Nanjing - although, of course, either might be the conclusion of any such examination. The publication of as many primary materials as possible is clearly a basic condition for this approach, so we need to encourage the discovery and publication of as much as possible.

Finally, a dialogue between historians working on the Nanjing Incident needs to be promoted. Again, I have great hopes for the forum provided by the English language, where researchers from both Japan and China can debate with researchers from third-party countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia. The problem with the Chinese and Japanese language discourses is that they are both so insular and the political environments are so charged. It is in the market of ideas and through constant debate (and perhaps the mediation provided by "neutral", third-party historians), that the truth will be approached.
I recommend the above article to the Chinese chauvinist members of this Forum.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#73

Post by michael mills » 02 Sep 2005, 12:26

Another version of the article by David Askew:

http://www.japanfocus.org/109.html

In this version, Askew gives more examples of the anti-Japanese falsifications that have infiltrated the discourse, for example:
A third trend is the increasing interest shown in the debate by Western academics who are aware of and well-versed in both the Japanese-language and Chinese-language literature. The work edited by Joshua Fogel is perhaps the best example of this, but others such as Timothy Brook and Bob Wakabayashi are also doing highly original research that is bound to change general perceptions of Nanjing. Wakabayashi, for instance, has recently published a paper on the story of the competition between two Japanese officers to see who could first kill (decapitate) a hundred Chinese with their swords.[55] This competition emerged as part of war-time Japanese mythology – the two officers were said to have charged enemy (Chinese) machine-gun positions, where each decapitated over a hundred enemy soldiers in combat – but in the post-war world was reworked into a competition to execute POWs, becoming a major part of the myth of Nanjing in both the English- and Chinese-language literature. Wakabayashi’s paper is the best piece of academic research on this competition in any language. A related trend is, as noted above, the increasing number of edited volumes of primary materials published in English.
Another example:
The debate in Japan underwent a sea change as the full implications of John Rabe’s diary were digested (Hata Ikuhiko among others speaks of the ‘Rabe effect’) and as Iris Chang’s book was absorbed. Although the flood of publications continues, there are signs of an emerging consensus. Rabe has clearly destroyed much of the basis for the more extreme casualty estimates of the Great Massacre School, but also makes it absolutely clear that he was convinced that the Japanese army was responsible for looting, arson, rape and the execution of thousands of men identified as ‘ex-soldiers’.[48] He has thus been most vigorously denounced by members of the Illusion School. However, it must be said that the greatest impact in the long term will probably be felt among the ranks of the Great Massacre School, members of which have already begun to revise their numbers downwards. For instance, in the recent English translation of his The Nanjing Massacre, the ‘corpse maximiser’ Honda Katsuichi has significantly reduced his estimate of the scale of the Japanese atrocities in and around Nanjing. As Frank Gibney notes in his introduction, Honda now believes that ‘a bit over 100,000’ is the true figure for the scale of the massacre during the Nanjing Incident.[49] Kasahara derives a similar figure based on Rabe’s estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 for both civilians and soldiers, including soldiers killed in action, to which is then added a second figure of 80,000 soldiers (this assumes that 90,000 soldiers died, of whom 10,000 died in action, and 80,000 were executed).[50] In other words, at least some members of the Great Massacre School appear to have accepted Rabe’s estimate, but use it for civilians only, despite the fact that Rabe clearly states that at least 30,000 of this estimate were soldiers killed in combat, and despite the fact that his estimate of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was ‘thousands’.[51] Although Honda’s revised estimate is a product of the Rabe Diary, the text itself contains an earlier, pre-Rabe estimate. Honda here asserts that ‘we need to treat as a single phenomenon the approximately three months from November through January of the assault on Nanjing’ – an assertion that matches his later arguments – but then goes on to state that, once the time-frame (and geography) is thus broadened, ‘we are dealing with too much time to say anything specific about the numbers of people killed, but no one can deny that the victims of the massacre numbered in the hundreds of thousands’.[52] The English translation of his work thus contains both the ‘old’ orthodox figure of ‘hundreds of thousands’ in the main text and the ‘new’ orthodox figure of 100,000 plus in the introduction.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#74

Post by Peter H » 02 Sep 2005, 16:38

Thanks--it is a first rate article.

Chang's suicide last year may have been prompted by some debunking of her findings?

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 03:55
Location: S. E. Asia

#75

Post by Karl » 03 Sep 2005, 10:38

This will have to wait.

Regards.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”