Was the death toll in China inflated?

[manfredzhang]

Japanese Central China Area Army had a strength of about 200K. Per Lewis Smythe’s survey, which was reinforced by Zhang, Lianhong’s in 2006, there were around 30K civilian deaths by the Japanese at the most, roughly around 2% of the civilian population of the city of Nanking and her rural area. This translated into roughly 1 civilian death for every 15 Japanese soldiers in a time span of six weeks. This is anything but UNINTERRUPTED atrocities.
For comparison purpose, roughly a battalion sized German force murdered 33K Jews in Babi Yar in two days. Averagely, every German killed dozens of Jews each day. This in my view can be called UNINTERRUPTED. Mr. Mitter either needs to learn history from ABC or he needs to go back to primary school to improve his English.
I have stated many times, my decency was within historical context. Compared with Chinese, yes, even Nanking incident was much decent than Changsha fire, Yellow River Flooding etc, etc, etc...
Nanking Massacre was a special term used primarily by ChiCom suggesting Japanese high command and government’s intentions to deliberately mass murder civilians and POWs. This has already been proven no base at all, as a quarter million civilians largely survived within the Nanking city safety zone. Another one million civilians in the rural area also survived the so called six week uninterrupted killing spree. Nanking incident is a much appropriate term to describe the event.
Regarding biological warfare (and chemical warfare), Japan is no match with Western Powers who extensively used chemical weapons in WWI.
British Army intentionally sent smallpox contaminated carpet to Native Indians during the Siege of Fort Pitt and caused outbreaks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... al_warfare
As I said, if you want to establish a universal standard without considering historic context, then no country/force on this plant can be called decent.

[manfredzhang]

You tried to present the Japanese war crimes explicitly as inevitable misconduct of the troops, which is, in my opinion, missing the whole point.
--------------------
Japanese Army lacked the necessary logistic support to advance from Shanghai to Nanking. Their supplies especially food supplies thus had to rely heavily on local civilians. The atrocities were largely arisen due to the conflict with local civilian when they tried to grab food and other supplies while locals were unwilling to cooperate. As mentioned above, about 2% of the civilian were killed in the process. This is NOT a result of intentional killing but rather sporadic events. Japanese Army did bear the responsibility of not enforcing disciplines, but this is not a mass murder policy as done by the Nazis to the Jewish population.

What you don't seem to understand here is that Japanese forces were not invited to China
----------------
Was British invited to occupy Hongkong and India, US invited to occupy the Philippines, French invited to occupy Indochina? You want to tell me Japanese occupation of China was not decent but UK occupation of Hongkong and India, US occupation of the Philippines and French occupation of Indochina were?


Empires usually used local collaborator elites to do the "dirty job" for them, but it does not mean that "they killed each other, we have nothing to do with it".
---------------------
Get it right. Changsha fire, Yellow River Flooding and forced conscription had nothing to do with so called Empires usually used local collaborator elites to do the "dirty job".
These were done by the Chinese government with clear intentions and goals.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Manfredzhang,

I think you didn't read Ritter properly. On p.130 of China's War with Japan 1937-1945, The Struggle for Survival, in a chapter entitled "Massacre at Nanjing" he says: "From the first hours of the occupation, the Japanese troops seem to have abandoned all constraints. For the next six weeks, until the middle of January 1938, the soldiers of the Japanese Central China Area Army embarked on an uninterrupted spree of murder, rape and robbery. Far from establishing a new, if temporary, order in the city, the army seemed determined to reduce Nanjing to utter chaos."

Murder was not their only, or even most time consuming, questionable activity during this period of uninterrupted spree of murder, rape and robbery..

By all means, let's do some number crunching using the 30,000 figure. Six weeks is 42 days. This would mean that, on average, some 700 Chinese civilians were murdered every day for a month and a half. One could argue that a massacre of 700 people occurred EVERY day for six weeks. That is an average of one death every two minutes. And you want to put this on a "decency" scale, not an indecency scale?

"Massacre" does not imply a master plan to kill lots of innocent people, though in this case the extended six week uninterrupted spree of murder, rape and robbery must make one wonder wonder to what degree the Japanese military authorities were actually disapproving. A massacre just requires a number of defenceless people to be killed. In this case they were - apparently by the high hundreds every day for six weeks.

The fact that the Chinese Communists also call it a "massacre" doesn't disqualify it from being one, however much you may despise them personally. In your repeated reference to a party that was not an active participant at Nanking, I suspect we are learning more about you than events there.

You post, "Regarding biological warfare (and chemical warfare), Japan is no match with Western Powers who extensively used chemical weapons in WWI." Biological weapons? On prisoners? Tell us more.

Your small pox blankets example is a viable illustration of an action on the indecency scale, but a terrible example of a massacre as there were no demonstrable deaths as a consequence. However potentially horrible in intent, I guess it was more one of your "incidents" than a massacre.

You post, "if you want to establish a universal standard without considering historic context". Here I don't. I am talking about the Japanese in China at a specific time, as per the thread title. If you want to open another thread on comparative beastliness through the ages, feel free and I will happily participate.

You post, ".....then no country/force on this plant can be called decent." It depends entirely on the event we are talking about. Here we are talking about the Nanjing massacre, Unit 731, etc., none of which do anything to enhance Japan's reputation for "decency" at that time.

Cheers,

Sid.

[manfredzhang]

Who told you it’s six weeks? Let me remind you Lewis Smythe’s work once again.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/War_Dama ... _Mar._1938

The title made very clear War Damage in the Nanking area Dec. 1937 to Mar. 1938.
That is four months Not six weeks. Is Mr. Mitter’s BS that attractive? Get the fact right first Ok?

30K in four months for Japanese vs 33K in 2 days of the Germans. 200K Japanese army soldiers vs a battalion sized German force. You want to argue uninterrupted? Aside from killing, German forces also took all the belongs of the dead Jews. The most exaggerated claim is Japanese forces committed 20K rapes in Nanking, a number largely unverifiable. Even using this number, Japanese’s crime can not be described as uninterrupted. And after all, intercourse is definitely something that has to be interrupted before Viagra and Cialis have been invented. And we are talking about 1930s not 2000s.
And the British and Americans killed 37K German civilians in the Hamburg bombing within a week time. You want to tell me they are more decent than Japanese?

I made very clear early that the word massacre has implication that the killing is deliberate. Nanking Massacre is a special term used primarily by ChiCom regime. When they used the term, they often claim Japan deliberately killed civilians and POWs as a government policy.

However potentially horrible in intent, I guess it was more one of your "incidents" than a massacre.
-----------------
So as long as not many people dead, biological warfare and human experiments are decent? You came back to numbers again?

I am not talking about Nanking incident nor unit 731 with you. I am talking about which forces were more decent in Sino-Japanese war. Both Changsha fire and Yellow River Flood killed more Chinese than Nanking incident and unit 731. Period. And these are deliberate actions.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Manfredzhang,

You ask, "Who told you it’s six weeks?"

Rana Mitter on p.136 "By late January 1938 the arbitrary murders and rapes were lessening in number."

I think if you read Lewis Smythe’s work once again, you will find that he reports much the same thing. For example, how do you interpret Table 4?

The title of Smythe's work is War Damage in the Nanking area Dec. 1937 to Mar. 1938. This does not necessarily mean that the murders continued throughout that period, just that that was the period his report into war damage covered.

But let's just suppose the murders did continue for four months, as you suggest, rather than a month and a half. That wouldn't make it any better. The death total would remain the same. However, if the murders and rapes really did continue undiminished for four months, it makes collusion by the Japanese authorities even more likely.

You post, "I made very clear early that the word massacre has implication that the killing is deliberate. Nanking Massacre is a special term used primarily by ChiCom regime. When they used the term, they often claim Japan deliberately killed civilians and POWs as a government policy." Well, according to you the murders and rapes in China's then capital lasted four months - so long that not only could the Japanese authorities hardly claim ignorance, but so long that the suspicion of collusion in them by senior Japanese authorities is reasonable.

You ask, "So as long as not many people dead, biological warfare and human experiments are decent?" That is the exact opposite of what I posted. Read it again. Nobody is known to have died and I described the action as indecent.

You post, "I am not talking about Nanking incident nor unit 731 with you." I can live with that!

You post, "I am talking about which forces were more decent in Sino-Japanese war." Again, you are not describing actions on the decency scale, but actions on the indecency scale. Please stop trying to whitewash some pretty horrific events with inappropriate use of words. Neither the Japanese nor Chinese are likely to win too many marks for decency in any of the incidents we have covered.

Cheers,

Sid.

[manfredzhang]

Rana Mitter on p.136 "By late January 1938 the arbitrary murders and rapes were lessening in number."
-------------
Right. A garbage in garbage out book. As mentioned above, even UK and US killed 37K German civilians in Hamburg within one week time. What uninterrupted?

This does not necessarily mean that the murders continued throughout that period, just that that was the period his report into war damage covered.
--------------
Sorry, When Lewis Smythe published his work, this is the period he covered NOT six weeks. Also, per Lewis Smythe, Chinese civilians and soldiers also engaged in looting and some time killing.
Here I am quoting his work again:
“Also, there has latterly grown up in the rural areas a serious banditry which currently rivals and sometimes surpasses the robbery and violence by Japanese soldiers.”
So sorry, even the 30K were not all killed by Japanese soldiers. Lewis Smythe also mentioned, he could not judge whether all the killings are legit or not. So the 30K is total deaths not total unlawful killings. Unlike the case of Babi Yar and Hamburg bombing where almost all civilians are considered unlawful killings.

However, if the murders and rapes really did continue undiminished for four months, it makes collusion by the Japanese authorities even more likely. so long that not only could the Japanese authorities hardly claim ignorance, but so long that the suspicion of collusion in them by senior Japanese authorities is reasonable.
----------------
The battle of Nanking did not end until Dec 13th after which mopping up operation was going on. It makes sense for Japanese authority to place military operation on higher priority than enforcing disciplines. Eddie Gallagher was allegedly to kill an ISIS soldier unlawfully in 2010. He was not tried until 2019. Are you telling me it’s the US policy to encourage unlawful kill of all ISIS members?

Nobody is known to have died and I described the action as indecent.
-----------------
Really? How many victim names you can call out for Nanking incident? I bet you not even five. So the rest can be called unknown dead? Can I call it incident now?

Please stop trying to whitewash some pretty horrific events with inappropriate use of words. Neither the Japanese nor Chinese are likely to win too many marks for decency in any of the incidents we have covered.
--------------------
Right, only Germans, Britons, Americans, and perhaps Frenchmen can be called decent. Decency only belonged to the Noble Whites not Yellow Monkeys right?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi manfredzhang,

To answer all the well informed, rational, on-thread parts of your last post that did not engage in irrelevant "Whataboutism":








Cheers,

Sid.

[manfredzhang]

Hi manfredzhang,

To answer all the well informed, rational, on-thread parts of your last post that did not engage in irrelevant "Whataboutism":


Cheers,

Sid.

To reject the so called Whataboutism is to apply double/triple standards...

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi manfredzhang,

You post, "To reject the so called Whataboutism is to apply double/triple standards..."

Nope, it is to stay on thread and on subject.

If you want to draw comparisons, start a comparative thread, where it would be both on thread and on subject.

"Whataboutism" is always deployed as a diversionary tactic in an effort to shift a discussion away from an awkward subject, as here.

Cheers,

Sid.

[manfredzhang]

Hi manfredzhang,

You post, "To reject the so called Whataboutism is to apply double/triple standards..."

Nope, it is to stay on thread and on subject.

If you want to draw comparisons, start a comparative thread, where it would be both on thread and on subject.

"Whataboutism" is always deployed as a diversionary tactic in an effort to shift a discussion away from an awkward subject, as here.

Cheers,

Sid.

This post was about whether China inflated the death toll

Nothing to do with Nanking incident nor unit 731.

If you want to talk about Nanking incident or unit 731, open a new thread.

People rejecting Whataboutism are the same people applying double standards.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi manfredzhang,

Ahhhh, now the old "copy-it-back-to-them-even-if-doesn't-make-any-sense" ploy! Always a favourite second line of defence for Whataboutists! Good to see it again.

Quite right. Now that all the "..........the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflicts is indeed the Japanese" stuff seems to have subsided, we should return to the main theme of the thread.

So, what do you reckon, was the death toll in China inflated?

Cheers,

Sid.

[manfredzhang]

Hi manfredzhang,

Ahhhh, now the old "copy-it-back-to-them-even-if-doesn't-make-any-sense" ploy! Always a favourite second line of defence for Whataboutists! Good to see it again.

Quite right. Now that all the "..........the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflicts is indeed the Japanese" stuff seems to have subsided, we should return to the main theme of the thread.

So, what do you reckon, was the death toll in China inflated?

Cheers,

Sid.

Define which China, What conflict, Who were responsible first please...

[David Thompson]

This unproductive thread is locked until further notice.