There was a Battle of Nanking but no “Nanking Massacre”

On the 75th Anniversary of
the Fall of Nanking

There was a Battle of Nanking but
there was no “Nanking Massacre”

Campaign for the Truth of Nanking

The “Nanking Massacre,” which was imprinted on the people’s mind through the Tokyo Tribunal, has long been tormenting the Japanese people. Now that it has been revealed to be a sheer lie?political propaganda jointly fabricated by a conspiracy of China, Europe and the United States–let us proclaim to the world the truth of the “Nanking Massacre”.

To those brave Japanese officers and soldiers who fought in the Battle of Nanking.

Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

There was a Battle of Nanking but
There was no “Nanking massacre”

Published by Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Shin Sakuma Bldg., 3F
2-13-14, Nishi-Shimbashi,
Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-0003
Japan

Copyright c. 2012 by Campaign for the Truth of Nanking
Original Japanese Edition
Published by Campaign for the Truth of Nanking
English translation rights c. 2013
Owned by Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
All rights reserved, including the rights of
reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Printed in Japan.

Note:
Japanese, Chinese and Korean personal names have been rendered surname first, in accordance with customs in those countries.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I Introductory part: What is the “Nanking Massacre”?

1. On opening of the Panel Exhibition “There was a Battle of Nanking, but there was no Nanking Massacre”
2. Do you know about the “Nanking Massacre”?
3. Nagoya City Mayor Kawamura’s courageous statement
4. Common facts prove that there was no “Nanking Massacre”
5. Nanking after its fall as reported in newspapers at that time

Part II What led to the capture of Nanking?

6. The Nanking Incident chronology?From the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to the Tokyo Tribunal
7. Why did Japanese military forces stay on the Chinese Continent?
8. Why did Japan fight against China?
9. The Second Sino-Japanese War was fought in conformity with international law and was not an act of aggression
10. How did the rest of the world see the conflict between Japan and China?
11. How did the Japanese Army fight to capture Nanking? (1)
12. How did the Japanese Army fight to capture Nanking? (2)
13. Testimony by former Japanese soldiers who fought at the Battle of Nanking
14. Recovery of public peace by the Japanese Army after the occupation of Nanking

Part III Did the “Nanking Massacre” actually take place? (Prior to the War)

15. What was the Safety Zone established within Nanking Castle?
16. Did a “massacre” take place within Nanking Castle and the Safety Zone?
17. Evidence to prove that there was no massacre committed within Nanking Castle and the Safety Zone
18. Execution of enemy soldiers in accordance to International Law is not a “massacre”
19. Did the “Nanking Massacre” actually take place? ?Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (1)
20. Did the “Nanking Massacre” actually take place? ? Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (2)
21. Did the “Nanking Massacre” actually take place? ? Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (3)
22. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (1)?The International Propaganda Activities Division of the Chinese Nationalist Party
23. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (2)?The Bates Memorandum and U.S. newspapers
24. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (3) ?Harold Timperley
25. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (4)?Bates and the International Committee
26. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (5)?Lewis Smythe
27. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (6)?George Fitch
28. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (7)?John Magee

Part IV The “Nanking Massacre” was fabricated through the Nanking War Criminal Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal (After the War)

29. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (8)?the Nationalist Party and the Nanking Tribunal
30. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (9)?The United States and the Tokyo Tribunal
31. The burial of 40,000 bodies was morphed into a massacre of 40,000 people
32. Did the “contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword” really take place?
33. China’s ambitious attempt to invade Japan, using the “Nanking Massacre” pretext
34. Open Questions for Chinese President Hu Jintao
35. Open Questions for Chinese President Hu Jintao (in the Chinese language)
36. Drastic change of the description of the “Nanking Incident” in the Japanese Dictionary Kojien
37. Simply astounding! Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports China’s study on the “Nanking Massacre”
38. Utterly strange! A trial held in China and then the execution in Japan?
39. Pro-“Nanking Massacre” Japanese disgrace Japan
40. Japanese scholars who have revealed the lies behind the “Nanking Massacre”

Part V Suggestions for future Japan

41. Textbook authorization conducted by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology overruled a description which denies the “Nanking Massacre” in the textbook published by Jiyu-sha
42. The Japanese Government should abolish the “Articles concerning neighboring countries” and refute the “Nanking Massacre”
43. There will be no future for Japan unless the disgrace of the “Nanking Massacre” is cleared

Part VI Commentaries on the “Nanking Incident”

A. New information, one after another, has exposed a lie that is called the Nanking Massacre by Moteki Hiromichi
B. Fabricated “Nanking Massacre” by Kato Hiroyasu
C. The Asahi Shimbun continues to claim that the “Competition of putting
100 Chinese men to the sword” actually took place by Mizoguchi Ikuo
D. The history of modern-time relationship between Japan and China
leading to the China Incident by Ishibe Katsuhiko

Introduction

In February, 2012, Nagoya City Mayor Kawamura Takashi stated that he personally believes that there was a battle fought between Japan and China but the so-called “Nanking Incident” never took place, referring to the historical view, which is regarded as a thorn that prevents a normal relationship between the two countries, during a friendship exchange with visiting Chinese Communist Party leaders from the City of Nanking, the sister city of Nagoya. Mayor Kawamura also expressed his sincere hope for having mutual discussion over this issue.
On the other hand, the City of Nanking responded to Mayor Kawamura’s suggestion by announcing the discontinuation of the sister-city exchange program with Nagoya. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party hinted at taking retaliatory measures, saying that “Japan is sure to pay for it” in The People’s Daily. Domestically, in Japan, there were some protests demanding the retraction of Kawamura’s statement.
However, it has been proved through the objective study over the past several decades, led by the “Nanking” Society of Japan, that the Nanking Incident never took place. Moreover, Mayor Kawamura did not intend to impose a personal view, but proposed to mutually discuss the matter. To suppress such an act is to rob one of free speech and the liberty to study history.
On our part, the Japan Society for History Textbook Reform has been dealing with this issue from the perspective of fact-based history textbooks, and called for an urgent assembly to support Mayor Kawamura’s statement. On the occasion of this assembly, those who share the same concerns have established a body called the “People’s Campaign for the Truth of Nanking” and Mr. Watanabe Shoichi became its Chairman.
The People’s Campaign placed paid advertisements stating our opinion, with Mr. Abe Shinzo and Mr. Ishihara Shintaro among advocators, twice, in August and September in newspapers with nation-wide circulation, actively collected signatures and held study groups across the country, together with other activities. As a closing event for 2012, on December 13, which marked the “75th Anniversary of the Fall of Nanking,” we held a People’s Assembly to announce the truth of the “Nanking Incident”.
This brochure is intended to directly print the panels which were newly exhibited at the assembly. Speaking of the “Nanking Incident”, related subjects and themes were wide and many, and various lies have piled up high. Under these circumstances, it is not at all easy to tell the truth. This brochure is hard-won work, taking on a difficult task. Based on the result of the latest studies, the “truth” is told in a very comprehensive manner. We sincerely hope that those truth-revealing panels will be exhibited throughout Japan and this brochure will be read widely.
Lastly, I would like to add that the production of the panels and this brochure was conceived and planned by the “People’s Campaign for the Truth of Nanking,” and the composition and actual production were entrusted to the “Japan Society for History Textbook Reform.”

December, 2012
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Supervisor
Fujioka Nobukatsu
Part I Introductory Part: What Is the “Nanking Massacre”?

1. On the opening of the Panel Exhibition “There was a Battle of Nanking, but there was no Nanking Massacre”

The apparently provocative remarks on the part of China claiming the Senkaku Islands and the Ryukyus as Chinese territory is a part of a strategy of maintaining the legitimacy of dictatorial rule by the Chinese Communist Party by fabricating history?namely, that it was the Chinese Communist Party that saved China from Japanese invasion during the Second Sino-Japanese War?and making Japan an enemy of China. The Chinese people, under the influence of an entirely anti-Japanese education, rationalize whatever actions taken against Japan as “patriotism is not a sin” and even on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the normalization of Chinese-Japanese diplomatic relations, violent mobs attacked Japanese enterprises, freely sacking and looting as Chinese police officials looked on.
In the process of spreading the anti-Japanese movement on the part of the Chinese Government, the most effective tool was the big lie which claimed “three hundred thousand victims of the Nanking Massacre.” The three hundred anti-Japanese War Memorials throughout China and the Nanking Massacre Memorial became a symbol of the anti-Japanese mentality and a tool for indoctrinating children. In China, the Second Sino-Japanese War and the “Nanking Massacre” were never historical issues in the past, but are grounds for carrying out a policy of territorial and historical invasion against Japan, which has been constantly promoted behind the false face of friendship between the two countries. Furthermore, the very existence of anti-Japanese Japanese within Japan, who would eagerly respond to Chinese policy, has helped to make the Chinese strategy effective, bringing a tremendous crisis to Japan.
On the other hand, the unlawful Tokyo Trials held immediately after Japan’s defeat in the War and the ensuing seven-year long governance by the United States, with the intention of a cunning psychological invasion of Japan resulted in turning the Sino-Japanese War, which was fought in accordance to international law, into a war of aggression that accompanying the Nanking Massacre. The Japanese people thus were infamously branded as atrocious citizens of an aggressive nation. Therefore, the Japanese have been obliged to remain reticent on Chinese tyranny, only to face the present crisis.
Fortunately, thanks to the highly devoted efforts made by those proud Japanese people who believe in their fathers and grandfathers who fought in the Sino-Japanese War as soldiers of a well-disciplined Japanese Army, the falsehood of the “Nanking Massacre” has now been perfectly proven as an incredible lie and a piece of political propaganda made up by anti-Japanese Chinese as well as European and American missionaries and newspaper reporters in order to denigrate Japan. Thus, infamy has been completely cleared.
We sincerely hope that you, visitors to this Panel Exhibition, will understand that there was a Nanking battle, but there was no Nanking Massacre, that the Sino-Japanese War was not a war of aggression, and that the soldiers of the Japanese Army fought bravely for their home country. At the same time, we would certainly like you to recover pride in our country and to be cautious in not being trapped by cunning Chinese diplomatic actions aiming to damage Japan in territorial and historical issues.
　

Covered with lies, anti-Japanese hall of “The Nanking Massacre Memorial.”

After the fall of Nanking, Japanese soldiers playing with Chinese children.
2. Do you know about the “Nanking Massacre” ??Knowledge is a step forward toward clearing the infamy

Do you know anything about the “Nanking Incident” or the so-called “(Great) Nanking Massacre”?
Choose a suitable answer from the following list, write the number of the answer and put your ballot into the ballot box below.

1. Know nothing about the matter.
2. A “massacre” never actually took place. The “Nanking Massacre” is political propaganda devised by China. In reality, no evidence proved that an actual of massacre was commitment by the Japanese military.
3. A “massacre” did take place. But even if so, the number of victims is estimated at 40,000 at the most, and is probably fewer than that.
4. A “massacre” did take place. The number of victims is estimated to be from 100,000 to 200,000 as stated by the judgment at the Tokyo Trial and others.
5. A “massacre” did take place. The Chinese people, who were victims of the massacre, stated that military and civilian casualties reached nearly 300,000, which is thought to be reasonably true.
6. A “massacre” did take place. Civilian casualties including women and children amounted to over 300,000, and besides, many military men supposedly fell victims to the massacre.
7. A “massacre” did take place. The “massacre” did not occur exclusively within the City of Nanking, but took place during the Japanese military advance from Shanghai to Nanking. The total victims are estimated at 300,000 military men and as many civilians.
8. A “massacre” did take place. The Japanese military, have been referred to as atrocious, and whatever atrocities were attributed to them should be no surprise. Some Chinese claim that the number of massacred victims reached a million.

Please put your ballot into the ballot box below.

3. Nagoya City Mayor Kawamura’s courageous statement

On February 20, 2012, Chinese Communist Party leaders from the City of Nanking, which is a sister city of Nagoya, paid a courtesy visit to Mayor Kawamura. On this friendly occasion, Mayor Kawamura stated the following in his welcome speech, regarding the “Nanking Incident,” referring to the wartime experience of his late father, Mr. Kawamura Kaneo, a corporal in the 101st Brigade Command while he was staying in Nanking.
“My father died twenty years ago. He saw the end of the War in Nanking. The troop he belonged to was stationed at Seika-ji Temple in Nanking for a while. There they were welcomed and received warm treatment from the people of Nanking. He was able to return home safe and sound. The War ended in 1945, while the so-called “Nanking Incident” took place in 1937. I, myself, quite closely studied the Nanking Incident. If there had been such an atrocious incident eight years prior to my father’s stay in Nanking, I don’t understand how the citizens of Nanking treated Japanese soldiers so warmly as my father remembered. I doubt whether the Nanking Incident actually took place, though I feel sorry to admit that ordinary combat actions were taken. With these thoughts in mind, unless the real facts are known, a truly good relationship will not be realized between Japan and China, as if a thorn is sticking between us.
“I urge all of you to hold a forum on this matter in Nanking. Let’s freely exchange our opinions, for it is so very important to further mutual understanding between us.”

Courageous Mayor Kawamura’s statement

Mayor Kawamura Takashi of Nagoya City called for discussions on the so-called “Nanking Incident”, a thorn that impedes an improved relationship between Japan and China, during an exchange of friendship with Nagoya’s sister city, Nanking City. This statement came from Mayor Kawamura’s moderate standing, based on his long record in promoting various works of friendship, and so there should not have been any backlash.
However, Nanking City declared the termination of their sister-city exchange with Nagoya, and the Chinese Communist Party even hinted at taking retaliatory measures, saying, “Kawamura is sure to pay for it.” Domestically, in Japan, there were also some demonstrations, demanding Kawamura withdraw his statement. This kind of unjust pressure should never be allowed to suppress free discussion. Whatever positions may be taken, freedom of speech and writing should absolutely be guaranteed. Mayor Kawamura’s statement proposing to have free discussions is very valuable and worth due respect. We expect everyone, regardless of party or faction, to support his statement and spread frank discussion among the Japanese people.

Let’s disseminate the truth of the “Nanking Incident” to the world

Behind this issue lies China’s diplomatic strategy toward Japan, which aims to make the most of a “historical view” based on the assertion that China was the victim of Japanese militarism, which caused the “Nanking Incident,” which was deemed official by the verdict of the Tokyo Trials.
On the other hand, in postwar years, Japan has been unsuccessful in outright refuting the fabricated “history card” China has been using and obliged to repeat ambiguous compromises over and over again, and avoid dealing with real diplomatic issues. The reality of the distortion of Chinese-Japanese diplomatic relations has been one of the major factors barring the formation of a truly good friendship between the two countries.
However, Mayor Kawamura’s statement justly pointed out that the more Japan escapes from true history in order to superficially maintain a friendly relationship with China, the further a true friendship recedes from realization. Though China will not at all cooperative in even talking with us, we cannot afford to stand with our arms folded, doing nothing. If things remain as they are, Japan will certainly be exposed to a Chinese invasion in terms of historical views and be labeled a criminal, genocidal nation, equal to the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust of the Jewish people. If China is not ready to talk with us, we must continue to disseminate the historical truth to the entire world.

4. Commonsense facts prove that there was no “Nanking Massacre”

* On December 13, 1937, Nanking fell and some Japanese forces entered the walled City, followed by as many as 150 newspaper reporters, photographers and others. Articles and photos dispatched one after another were all about “Peace-restored in Nanking”. Not a single reporter said that he had actually seen a massacre, even after the War was over.

* The Nanking Safety Zone was established by foreigners in Nanking and all the residents were accommodated within the Zone. According to the Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, the population at the time of the fall of Nanking was 200,000, and remained the same throughout December. On January 13, 1938, the population increased to 250,000. Where had the estimated victims of 300,000 been?

* According to a dairy of a Japanese soldier who entered the city, the city was so quiet and not a soul was to be seen, which made him fearful. Except those residents who had escaped from the city, the rest of them had all evacuated to the Safety Zone. Two days after the fall, street stalls were opened within the Safety Zone, and a soldier had his seal made for remembrance. (Refer to the Photo on facing page).

* Chairman Mao Ze-dong, the most influential figure of the Chinese Communist Party, had not even once referred to a “Nanking Massacre” during his entire lifetime. Five months after the Battle of Nanking, he gave a lecture on Battle of Endurance in Yanan, and referring to the Battle of Nanking, criticized the Japanese forces, that they carried out many sieges, but rarely achieved annihilation. The key criticism is that the Japanese Army did not carry out annihilation (or the “killing of all”).

* The International Propaganda Office of the Chinese Nationalist Party Government held 300 press conferences called “Tea Parties”, almost daily for a year during which the Battle of Nanking took place, inviting 35 or so foreign correspondents and reported on alleged atrocities committed by the Japanese military. However, the “Nanking Massacre” was not once mentioned in these press conferences. If the “Nanking Massacre” had actually taken place, would it have been possible not to mention the incident at all?

* On close examination of all pictures regarded as evidence of a massacre, not a single photograph witnessing a massacre has been found. All are fake, doctored pictures?composed, totally irrelevant, or in the case in which photographs taken by The Asahi Graph were used, captions were altered.

The Asahi Shimbun Dec. 20, 1937, eight days after the fall with a title “Peace Returns to Nanking”. (photo by Kawamura on Dec. 17th)

* Right: Japanese soldiers shopping without carrying arms.
* Top middle: Farmers returning to Nanking after working in the fields.
* Bottom middle: Chinese citizens returned to peace-restored Nanking.
* Left: Street barbers, noted scenes in China Town?Children and adults alike smiling, wearing a hand-made armband of the Rising Sun.

The photographs taken two days after the fall of Nanking.
“Chinese people approached Japanese photographers in the most friendly and welcoming manner, holding children. They were not at all fearful of Japanese soldiers or Japanese civilians.” (Photographer Sato Shinju, on Dec. 15th, 1937, two days after the occupation of Nanking, within the Nanking Safety Zone)

Buffalo horn seal, which Kondo Heidayu Corporal bought by having his name inscribed at a seal shop in Nanking.

5. Nanking after its fall reported in newspapers at that time?What truth is indicated by the peaceful scenery ?

The Asahi Shimbun issued eight days after the fall of Nanking with a title
“Warmth extended towards yesterday’s enemy”

*Top right: Chinese invalids receive medical treatment.
*Top left: Surrendered Chinese soldiers are warmly fed by Japanese soldiers.
*Middle: Japanese soldiers shop at stalls run by Chinese.
*Bottom right: Chief officer Yamada talks with Chinese Supervisory Unit’s Chief of Staff, Major Chen Boshi.
*Bottom left: Chinese civilians make themselves at home within the walls of the City of Nanking.

December 14: Women coming out of air-defense shelter are protected.

December 17: Chinese people make a “Banzai” welcome for Japanese military

December 27: A Japanese soldier hands bills to a Chinese.

December 18: Japanese soldiers distribute food rations

December 20: Joyous families receive goodies from Japanese soldiers

December 20: Japanese soldiers play with children

If the Japanese military had arbitrarily committed atrocities such as massacres, plunder and rape, what would have brought these bright smiles onto the faces of Chinese citizens? Advocates claiming that the “Nanking Massacre” actually took place are definitely requested to explain the contradiction.

Part II 　What Led to the Capture of Nanking?

6. The Nanking Incident Chronology–from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to the Tokyo Tribunal —Japan was led around by the nose by China

1937
July 7: The Marco Polo Bridge Incident, triggered by Chinese troops taking shots at the Japanese→The China Incident (The Second Sino-Japanese War) broke out.
July 29: The Tongzhou Incident→260 Japanese residents were massacred.
August 4: The appeasement policy of the Japanese Government with “Funatsu Peace Plan” (Japan was to abandon rights and interests obtained after the Mukden Incident.)
August 9: ?yama Incident→First Lieutenant ?yama was machine-gunned to death in Shanghai→Peace talks were suspended.
August 13: In China, a squad of Chinese soldiers dressed in civilian clothing shot at Japanese guard troops; by evening the Chinese Army initiated organized attacks and the Japanese Army counterattacked.
August 14: Chinese planes bombarded the Japanese and French concessions→729 persons were killed. Shelters for civilians were bombarded, which resulted in 1,021 deaths→Outbreak of the Second Shanghai Incident with the armed response by Japanese forces→A full-scale clash between Japan and China took place.
November 5: Japan asked Germany to mediate a peaceful solution→Chiang Kai-shek refuses a ceasefire.
November 7: The Central China Area Army was formed→General Matsui Iwane was appointed Commander.
November 11: Chiang Kai-shek decided to defend Nanking to the last and appointed Tang Sheng-zhi Commander of the Nanking Defense Corps.
November 12: Shanghai fell.
November 16: The Kuomintang Government in Nanking moved its capital to Chongqing.
November 19: Fifteen European and American residents in Nanking established the International Committee with John Rabe as chairman.
November 22: The International Committee announced the establishment of a Safety Zone for the evacuation of civilians.
November 23: Press conferences began being held in Hankou by the Kuomintang Government. In total, by the end of the October 1938, 300 press conferences were held, but the topic of the “Nanking Massacre” was not once mentioned.
November 28: The Kuomintang Government announced that as of then, the population of Nanking was 200,000.
December 4: Japanese forces advanced as far as the suburbs of Nanking.
December 7: Chiang Kai-shek fled aboard a plane. At one o’clock in the afternoon, Japanese troops began the attack on Nanking City.
December 9: Commander Matsui Iwane issued to the Chinese Army an appeal of surrender and the opening-up of the City. No response was forthcoming by the Chinese.
December 10: After confirming that Chinese forces ignored the appeal to surrender, at 13:00 sharp, Japanese forces began an all-out attack.
December 12: Nanking Defense Corps Commander Tang Sheng-zhi issued an order of withdrawal and he himself immediately fled.
December 13: Nanking fell. Sweeping of the city followed.
*The Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun (the Mainichi Newspaper) carried an article of a “kill 100 soldiers by sword” contest.
December 17: An entrance ceremony of the Japanese Army and Navy into the City of Nanking was held. Nine war correspondents of the Asahi Newspaper discussed the occasion in their paper.
December 18: The London Times, dated December 14, reported that there were many bodies scattered all over Nanking while no female body was found.
December 15: Correspondent Archibald Steele of the Chicago Daily News reported an account of a massacre by Japanese forces.
December 18: Correspondent Durdin of The New York Times reported the same account that Steele reported previously.
December 21: The Asahi Newspaper reported scenes of tranquility in Nanking after the war.
December 24: Japanese force started an operation to separate soldiers from civilians in order to find Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone.
1938
January 22: The North China Daily News reported that the number of those “illegally killed” was 10,000.
February 2: At the 100th session of the League of Nations, Chinese delegate Gu Weijun referred in his speech to an article in an English-language newspaper that in Nanking twenty thousand persons were massacred and “thousands of women” were raped.
March 19: The China Forum reported that 80,000 were “illegally murdered”.
June 8: John Rabe reported to Hitler that according to Chinese accounts, 100,000 civilians were killed, but that foreigners, including himself, estimated the number at 50,000 to 60,000.
July : What War Means: Japanese Military Atrocities in China was published, which claimed that during the battles fought in the central region of China alone, Chinese casualties amounted to at least more than 300,000 with as many civilian casualties. Bates provided the memorandum for What War Means. The Bates Memorandum said “Evidence from burials indicate that close to forty thousand unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanking, of whom some 30 percent had never been soldiers.”
1945
August 15: The Greater East Asian War ended.
December 8: The Asahi Shimbun reported that the number of victims of the Nanking Incident was 20,000.
1946
February : The Nanking District Court Report on Crimes Committed by the Enemy says that the confirmed number of victims was 340,000.
May 3: The Tokyo Tribunal opened.
September : Nanking District Court Report on Crimes Committed by the Enemy reported that the number of victims was 391,785.
Bates testified that out of 42,000 persons illegally killed, 12,000 were civilians and the rest were prisoners of war.
He Yingqin, Martial Rule Division chief, submitted yearly casualty statistics to the Tokyo Tribunal. According to the statistics, war casualties in 1937 were 124,130 persons, along with 243,222 persons wounded.
1947
A verdict was issued against Tani Hisao, Commander of the Sixth Division, by a Chinese Court Martial, which stated that he was responsible for mass murders of over 190,000 persons, individual killings of over 150,000 persons and in total for over 300,000 deaths.
　　　Division Commander Tani Hisao was executed.
1948
January 28: On account of an alleged contest of killing 100 Chinese soldiers by sword, Second Lieutenants Mukai and Noda were found guilty at a Court Martial held in Nanking. They were executed by a firing squad.
November: General Matsui Iwane was sentenced to death. As an individual, he was found guilty of the murders of 100,000 persons, and as commander, of murdering 200,000 persons.
December 3: General Matsui was executed by hanging.

7. Why did Japanese military forces stay on the Chinese Continent?to those hypocrites who claim this to be an act of aggression

(Right) Posed are representatives of the Eight Nation Alliance (except India) that fought against the Chinese Boxers with a Japanese soldier at far right. The Japanese Army saved people from massacre.
(Middle) Lieutenant Colonel Shiba Goro, who led Allied Forces.
(Left) Chinese Boxers.

Comparison of stationed troop strengths and the number of residents per solider
　Country
Stationed troop strength
Number of residents in North China
Residents/soldier
Japan
　　　5,600
33,019
5.9
Great Britain
1,008
3,000
2.98
United States
1,227
2,500
2.04
France
1,823
600
0.33

The Boxer Rebellion at the end of Qing Dynasty China

In China, bandits and quasi-bandit armed gangs were rampant everywhere, frequently attacking foreigners and seizing their money and goods?going as far as even taking their lives.
The well-known Boxer Rebellion took place in 1900. Facing this crisis, allied forces from eight countries, including Japan, jointly suppressed the rebellion to protect their residents. As a result, the Beijing Protocol, or the Xinchou Treaty, was concluded and each allied nation acquired the right to station their troops in China to protect their residents. Clearly, Japan was not the only country that had troops stationed in China.

The actual state of the Army of the Republic of China

In China, there was hardly any difference between the regular army and bandits. A frequent occurrence was that a gang of bandits was suddenly given regular army status and vice versa. Zhang Zuo-lin was a good example. He was originally the head of a gang of bandits. Even after the beginning of the era of the Republic of China, the Lincheng Incident (Shandong Province) took place in 1923. A violent mob forced a moving train to halt and twenty European and American passengers aboard the train were robbed and, furthermore, were abducted as hostages. (One person was killed.)

The Nanking Incident in 1927

In this year, another Nanking Incident took place. When the Kuomintang Army, on their way to the northern campaign, entered Nanking, soldiers attacked foreign residences and committed a most violent plundering, leaving serious casualties among the residents. The Japanese residents remained non-resistant to the end, barely escaping death. However, Japanese residents who evacuated to the Japanese Embassy were seized by Chinese soldiers, while all thirty females were stripped naked and their genitals were searched in the belief that jewels had been hidden there.

The Tongzhou Incident

Immediately after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the Japanese Army was preoccupied, such that local Chinese forces utilized the occasion to attack 260 Japanese residents in Tongzhou, in the suburbs of Beijing, almost all of whom were brutally murdered. It is too difficult to describe in words how savagely they were murdered and the way their bodies were treated thereafter, in particular, female corpses were hideously raped. The most savage manner of killing was derived from typical Chinese culture.
As these horrible incidents indicate, foreigners living in China were constantly exposed to such great danger that each country had its own troops station in China to protect their residents, in accordance with the previously agreed upon Beijing Protocol .

8. Why did Japan fight against China
― reaching the limit of her patience and self-restraint, Japan was dragged into war by Chiang Kai-shek

(Right) Newspaper article by correspondent Hallett Arbend of The New York Times dated August 30, 1937:
“The Japanese did not want a repetition of the fighting here and exhibited forbearance and patience and did everything possible to avoid aggravating the situation. But they were literally pushed into the clash by the Chinese, who seemed intent on involving the foreign area and foreign interests in this clash.”
(Left) Shanghai was bombarded by the Chinese Air Force, resulting in 2,000 civilians being killed. China expressed its regret, explaining that it was an accidental bombardment. Actually, it was not an accidental but a clearly intentional attack, aiming to attract international attention for war against Japan.

Chinese “revolutionary diplomatic strategy” against Japan that robbed Japan of her acquired rights and interests, not through negotiation but by military power

In the 1920’s, China advocated “revolutionary diplomacy”, trying to regain duly-acquired rights and interests of foreign countries (especially Japan’s) by using military force. Following the “5-4 Movement” in 1919, the “anti-Japanese campaign” among the Chinese public gained momentum. Behind it were schemes by the Comintern and the United States. In particular, anti-Japanese hostility was fomented by American Christian powers. After the establishment of “Manchukuo” in 1932, anti-Japanese movements further spread and the Chinese public wanted to go to war against Japan. Chiang Kai-shek himself thought that a war inevitable, in order to take back Manchuria. At the same time, Chiang Kai-shek was fully aware of the European and American animosity toward Japan (especially in the United States) and planned a strategy of conquering barbarians by using barbarians.
On the other hand, standing on Asian principles, Japan sought for a way to cooperate with Chiang Kai-shek. Namely, Japan intended to form a co-prosperity bloc, consisting of Japan, Manchuria and China. Chiang Kai-shek refused to go along with the idea, intending instead to fight against Japan in an alliance with European and American powers. However, Chiang Kai-shek thought that a war with Japan would come at a later time. The reason behind this was that he had yet to beat Communist forces within China. A civil war between Nationalist and Communist forces began in 1934, and by that time the Nationalist Army dominated over the Communists. At the time, Communist forces were secluded deep in the mountains of Yan’an and its collapse was merely a matter of time.

Japan’s patience and self-restraint and failed peace negotiation

Unfortunately, in December, 1936, the “Xian Incident” occurred in which Chiang Kai-shek was detained and was made to promise to fight against Japan, under the pressure from the Soviet Union. Though Chiang Kai-shek could not help but promise to wage a war against Japan, he was still negative about actually carrying it out.
Then on July 7, 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident occurred. This was a plot devised by the Chinese Communist Party, trying to goad Chiang Kai-shek into confronting Japan. On July 29, the “Tongzhou Incident” took place and as many as 260 Japanese residents were murdered. Though almost at the limit of her patience, Japan, patiently and prudently, still tried hard to both appease domestic anger and seek peace with Chiang Kai-shek. However, on August 9, the very day set for the first day of peace negotiations, First Lieutenant of the Japanese Navy ?yama and one other person were attacked and killed in Shanghai. Peace negotiations were forced to a stand-still. This was another vicious plot carried out by anti-peace powers.

The “Second Shanghai Incident” that dragged Japan into war

On August 13, the 30,000-strong Chinese Regular Army raided Japanese residential quarters in Shanghai. Defending against this attack was a 4,000-strong Japanese Naval Landing Force, hardly a match at all. This turned out to be another disaster following the Tongzhou Incident. The Japanese Government decided to send two Army divisions from Japan to China with haste. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek had been building a fortified position in the Shanghai suburbs over the past several years, following the instructions of a German military advisory group. The purpose was to entice the Japanese Army into the stronghold and annihilate it. Chiang Kai-shek had been fully preparing to fight against Japan. The China Incident began with this “Second Shanghai Incident”. Clearly, it was a war against Japan, intentionally waged by the Chinese side.
This fact was correctly reported by correspondent Arbend of The New York Times. Now that all of peace efforts failed, Japan had no option any longer but to fight the war.

9. The Second Sino-Japanese War was fought in conformity with international law and was not an act of aggression
?War is an extension of political efforts

(Clockwise from top left): One shot near the Marco Polo Bridge triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Nishiki-e picture depicting the Incident of the British Merchant Marine Kowshing.
Portrait of Togo Heihachiro.
Japanese Naval Landing Force in Shanghai.
The New York Times of August 30, 1937
“… the Japanese exhibited the utmost restraint under provocation, …although the move somewhat endangered Japanese lives and properties.”
The Asahi Newspaper of August 15 headline on the front page reads: Navy Declares Vital Decision?Patience worn out, Decisive Measures Shall be Taken

Speaking of international law in time of war, a decision made by Captain Togo Heihachiro of Japanese Navy cruiser Naniwa, prior to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, is well-known. Immediately before the outbreak of the war, the Incident of the British merchant marine transport Kowshing took place. Prior to August 1, when Japan declared war against China, on July 25, the Naniwa spotted the British transport Kowshing conveying 1,100 Qing Army soldiers to Inchon, Korea. Captain Togo ordered the transport to stop, undergo inspection and then to follow the Naniwa. Though the captain of the ship agreed to the order, he was not able to do as ordered, being intimidated by the Qing soldiers on board. Togo notified the captain, “Desert the ship. We will send you a boat,” and then ordered his men to fire at the ship. The Kowshing sank under cannon attack.

The fact that a merchant marine flying a British ensign was sunk evoked repulsion against Japan in Great Britain. However, scholars of international law, Thomas Holland Askin and John Wellesky, both maintained in The Times that Japan did not violate international law.

“The Kowshing was sunk after the war broke out. It is not at all illegal to start war without declaring it. This has been repeatedly tried and decided in British and American legal courts. Once a war started, the ships belonging to the belligerents can inspect all ships sailing on the high seas, and if a ship is found to load wartime prohibitive goods bound for the enemy whether the ship belongs to the enemy or the third-party country, the belligerent’s ship can confiscate, destroy or dispose of and if necessary, sink it. That is the right granted to the captain of the ship.”

Thus, British public opinions were mollified by this reasoning. Togo took firm action on the basis of international law.
Regarding the Second Sino-Japanese War, some claim that Japan slighted international law, which is not true.
In accordance with the “Beijing Protocol”, Japanese troops legally stationing in China, after previously having dutifully notified the time and place of military exercise, carried out an exercise on the riverbank near the Marco Polo Bridge. Immediately before the conclusion of the exercise, at 10:40 p.m., several shots were fired from behind. Following that, firing was repeated several more times. Seven hours later, at 5:30 of the following morning, Japanese troops began firing back. This was a counterattack, in observance of international law. (The Marco Polo Bridge Incident)

The Shanghai Incident started as an entirely unilateral attack by the 30,000-strong regular Chinese Army against the 4,000-strong Japanese Naval Landing Force, which was guarding Japanese residential quarters. The Chinese Army’s attack was in complete violation of the agreement which had been concluded after the First Shanghai Incident. Breaking such a mutual agreement was a gross violation of international law. This was clearly reported by The New York Times, which, ironically, was noted for its anti-Japanese stance (The New York Times of August 30, 1937 issue).

Those who say that Japan acted in Nanking in total disregard of international law do not know the truth. Central China Area Army Headquarters of the Japanese Army had jurisprudent Dr. Saito Yoshie as an adviser on international law and Commander Matsui Iwane consulted with Dr. Saito on every occasion.

To execute Chinese soldiers who illegally took off their uniforms and fled within the Safety Zone was perfectly right and a proper act, based on wartime international law.

10. How did the rest of the world see the conflict between Japan and China?Japan was surrounded by foes

(Right) The Comintern’s insignia indicates the Soviet Union’s intention to communize the world. The 7th World congress resolved to turn Japan into a communist country and support China.

(Middle) During the War, U.S. magazine Time put portraits of Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Song Mei-li on its cover. The magazine chose the Chinese couple as 1937’s “Person of the Year” and effectively stirred up pro-Chinese and anti-Japanese sentiment.

(Left) General Alexander von Falkenhausen of the German Army built a strongpoint composed of a network of 10,000 of pillboxes throughout the unarmed civilian sector of Shanghai. This eventually collapsed under fierce attack by the Japanese Army.

The Soviet Union

At the 7th World congress of the Comintern in 1935, a plan was devised to produce favorable circumstances to achieve Communist revolution in China by having the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang (Nationalist) Party work cooperatively and to bring about a war between Japan and Kuomintang China. Chiang Kai-shek intended to annihilate the Chinese Communists before starting a war against Japan. But with the outbreak of the Xian Incident in 1936, the Soviet Union forced Chiang Kai-shek to promise to wage war against Japan. The Soviet Union provided Chiang Kai-shek with huge amounts of military aid and yet Chiang Kai-shek was extremely hesitant about starting war. So, the Communists had their party members who had infiltrated the Kuomintang army cause the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, dragging Japan into total war.

The United States

President Roosevelt made his “Quarantine Speech” in the midst of the Shanghai Incident, in which he, directly referring to Japan by name, asserted that “When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.” With the Trautmann Mediation coming to a deadlock, Japan asked the United States to persuade Chiang Kai-shek into complying with negotiations, but the United States refused intermediation. The United States instead wanted to prolong the war.

Germany

The German Defense Force approached Chiang Kai-shek around 1932 and sent military advisers to instruct the Kuomintang Army. In Shanghai in particular they constructed a fortified position with creeks to surround it and as many as 10,000 concrete pillboxes and planned to entice the Japanese Army there and annihilate it. In fact, during the Shanghai Incident, many German officers headed by General Falkenhausen were actually directing battles. Additionally, Siemens AG sold a huge amount of arms to the Chiang Kai-shek Government. In spite of the fact that Germany concluded an anti-Communist defense pact with Japan in 1936, Germany betrayed Japan behind the scenes.

Great Britain, France and Italy

Superficially keeping neutral stances, these three countries assisted Chiang Kai-shek with materials and arms, using the pro-Chiang Kai-shek route from Southeast Asia. Italy supported the Chinese Navy by training it.

The League of Nations

Regarding the grievance claimed by Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang Government, citing the Japanese battle in Shanghai as “aggression”, the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution supporting China and condemning Japan on September 28.

11. How did the Japanese Army fight to capture Nanking? (1)

Major Divisions advance toward Nanking.
From left to right: Chiang Kai-shek in 1937, Commander Tang Cheng-zhi and General Matsui Iwane.

The Second Shanghai Incident was launched as a total war by the Chinese Army as a global appeal for support. However, Shanghai fell on November 9. In a three month-long battle, the Japanese Army suffered numerous casualties. The Battle of Shanghai, in its size and the number of casualties (43,000 persons dead and wounded), was as fierce and painful as the Battle of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese War.

However, the War was not over yet. Chiang Kai-shek refused peace proposals. Nanking was by then fully prepared with strong points and ready to fight at any moment. In order to end the War, it was absolutely necessary to capture the capital of Nanking. On December 1, the Central China Area Army Headquarters was formed and General Matsui Iwane became the Commander. The 120,000-strong Japanese Army lost no time in advancing to Nanking. The beeline-distance between Shanghai and Nanking was approximately 250 kilometers. The Japanese Army covered this distance in nearly nine days. Cities passed on the way had been totally burned to the ground and ruined, and bridges were all destroyed beforehand by the Chinese Army. The devastation was in accordance to the characteristic Chinese “Scorched-Earth” strategy which has a long history in China. In order not to allow the Japanese Army access to anything useful, food was taken from citizens, who were the brutally murdered by their own army, while houses and facilities were destroyed and reduced to ashes.

It was on December 9 that the Japanese Army besieged the walled city of Nanking. Key figures of the Chinese Kuomintang Government, including Chiang Kai-shek, had already fled to Hankou from Nanking. Within walled Nanking, under Commander Tang Sheng-zhi, a 50,000-strong Army of Defense kept guard, with 200,000 helpless citizens left with nowhere to go. Outside the walls of Nanking, to the north stood the Mufushan Battery, the Zijinshan Battery to the east and the Yuhuatai Battery to the south, each within fortified position, ready to meet the Japanese Army.

Commander Matsui wanted Nanking to surrender bloodless, upon which the War would be over. So, even though the enemy force kept up a continuously fierce bombardment, causing a great number of casualties among the Japanese Army, Commander Matsui ordered the entire Army to stop fighting, had a plane fly over the city and drop bills addressed to Commander Tang Sheng-zhi, advising him to surrender. The deadline to reply was set at noon, December 10, 24 hours later. Though the deadline was extended by one hour, still no answer arrived. At 13:00 on December 10, Commander Matsui ordered the entire Army to attack in full.
The walls surrounding Nanking was 35 kilometers long, equivalent to the length of the Yamanote loop Line in Tokyo. Therefore, the area inside the walls of Nanking was nearly as large as the area inside the Yamanote Line. Among the twenty castle gates surrounding Nanking, the Japanese Army set to attack the Zhongshan-men Gate in the east, the Guanghua-men Gate in the southeast and the Zhonghua-men Gate in the south, as well as the Wuding-men and the Shuixi-men Gates. Not only confronting enemy forces within the walls, the Japanese Army had to fight against enemy troops inside the forts of Mufushan, Zijinshan, Yuhuatai and elsewhere at the same time.

12. How did the Japanese Army fight to capture Nanking? (2)

(Clockwise from top left): Japanese soldiers climbing up the walls of Nanking. Map showing the route of retreat of the Chinese Army.
The Asahi Shimbun’s headline reads “The Rising Sun Banner streaming over the Zhongshan-men Gate of Nanking Castle”.
Japanese soldiers crossing a moat.
The Japanese Army blasting the Guanghua-men Gate.
Completely deserted city immediately after Nanking fell.

The walls of Nanking Castle were 20 to 25 meters high, and the width of the Gate passage was over 100 meters with the widest at Guanghua-men Gate, which actually consisted of four gates. Furthermore, all the passages were reinforced with sandbags. Outside the walls were moats, which were about 30 meters wide. Totally exposed to gunfire from the top of the walls, Japanese soldiers built a temporary bridge, which was immediately destroyed by the enemy, and then tried to build another to cross the moat to advance to the base of the walls. In the bitter cold of midwinter, some soldiers swam to cross the moat. Next, they put ladders together and climbed up the wall one by one, in the midst of gunfire from the top of the walls. On the way up, some soldiers were shot, but none were intimidated by gunfire–more and more soldiers continuously risked the climb. They were indeed as brave as those soldiers who had fought to capture 203 Meter Hill at Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War. No sooner had Japanese soldiers occupied the top of the castle gate and erected the Rising Sun Banner than enemy soldiers, far outnumbering the Japanese, took it back. Such fierce battles lasted for three days.

At daybreak on December 13, there were no sounds of enemy gunfire. Climbing up the walls, Japanese soldiers found the city empty, with enemy soldiers gone. Thus, the wall gates were occupied by the Japanese Army. What had actually happened was really appalling. The previous night, a panic seized those who were within the Castle. Around eight on the evening of the 12th, Commander Tang Sheng-zhi, with a handful of staff, fled from Nanking using the Yijiang?men Gate in the north, which was the only one open, deserting his men in the midst of combat. Knowing of their flight, soldiers tried to follow suit, scrambling one after another. Then, a strange thing happened. A special Chinese squad called Duzhan-dui (Supervisory Unit), noted for their cruelty and heartlessness, awaited at the Yijiang-men Gate to prevent soldiers from fleeing, and swept them with machine-gun fire. Panic-stricken Chinese soldiers were shot to death in advance and those retreating were crushed to death by on-coming soldiers. There the bodies piled up high. Later, in Europe and America, the dreadful scene was attributed to the Japanese Army, and became proof for the alleged and demagogic “Nanking Massacre”. Meanwhile, soldiers who stopped fleeing took off their uniform and escaped within the Safety Zone.

It was around noon of the 13th that the Japanese Army entered the walled City through the three castle gates after clearing sandbags and other obstacles from the passage. Inside each gate, many bodies of Japanese soldiers were found. They had been captured and then, while still alive, burned death. It was truly an outrageous battle. Within the Castle, it was so quiet and surreal. Not a soul was to be seen. Therefore, there cannot have been a battle of annihilation or a single action of combat. Advancing toward the Safety Zone, Japanese soldiers found many discarded Chinese Army uniforms scattered everywhere. It was clear that Chinese soldiers changed into plainclothes and lay hidden within the Safety Zone. All that was left for the Japanese Army to do was to pick up enemy soldiers who were in hiding. Though there was no battle at all within the walls, fierce combat raged for several days outside the walls.

13. Testimony by former Japanese soldiers who fought at the Battle of Nanking
?The Japanese soldiers were not only strong, but followed military discipline.

Mr. Furusawa Satoshi of Kumamoto 6th Division, Infantry 11th Brigade, Infantry 13th Regiment, 1st Battalion, 1st Company, 1st Platoon:

From November 5 till 15, a tough march in pursuit of the enemy from Kunshan to Yuhuatai continued. Occasionally we shot at fleeing enemy soldiers.
Battle at Yuhuatai was very fierce. As soon as shooting started, two of my comrades fell.
The town of Yuhuatai was in sheer ruins with nothing left after the enemy completed their scorched-earth operation. From the late hours of the 12th until daybreak, the enemy closed the castle gate and fled.
We entered Nanking. The Zhonghua-men Gate was a four-tiered tunnel with thick walls of sandbags inside.
Entering within the walls, we found no enemy soldiers. We wanted to annihilate the retreating enemy, but I heard that Division Commander Tani gave the enemy enough time to retreat and avoid random killing.

Mr. Kondo Heidayu of Kanazawa 9th Division, Infantry 18th Brigade, Infantry 36th Regiment, 3rd Battalion, 10th Company, 2nd Platoon, squad leader, Corporal:

Before dawn, just past 5 o’clock on December 9, we reached the outer moat of the Guanghua-men Gate and met the enemy’s fierce volley from the top of the castle wall with the squad’s cannon fire to clear a path for our charge.
At 17:00 on the 10th, with the order to capture the Guanghua-men Gate, Battalion Commander Ito ordered the charge and in one breath the 1st and 4th Companies rushed inside the castle wall.
Amid the fierce attack from the enemy from atop the castle wall, we counterattacked with hand-to-hand combat and managed to raise the Rising Sun Banner for the first time on the Guanghua-men Gate.
In order to recapture the gate, the enemy fiercely fought back. Bullets whined, hand grenades burst and more and more soldiers were killed and wounded. Battalion Commander Ito fought bravely, encouraging us to defend the Guanghua-men Gate to the last soldier, but at last he fell and died a hero’s death at 21:00. The rest of us defended this gate to the last until the 13th and before dawn that day, the enemy retreated and the Japanese Army completely controlled the gate.

Mr. Kita Tomeya of Kanazawa 9th Division, Infantry 6th Brigade, Infantry 7th Regiment, 1st Battalion, 2nd Company, Manchuria 414 Troop, Infantry Corporal:

We made two breakthrough points between the Zhongshan-men and Guanghua-men Gates and on the 13th, as the enemy fled, we entered.
For three days, from December 14 to 16, we swept for defeated straggling soldiers within the Safety Zone. On sweeping operations, the Regimental Commander ordered us to strictly follow these instructions: be attentive to foreign rights and interests, be considerate of citizens, be careful about intentional or accidental fires and to act according to the orders of officers.
The entrance of troops without purpose was banned and food for prisoners of war was to be requisitioned from Division. I went on patrols with a Chinese policeman, but I did not encounter any scenes of clustered bodies of refugees nor heard any gunshots.
In searching a house, we found hidden defeated soldiers with a lot of arms.

Mr. Inagaki Kiyoshi of Kyoto 16th Division, Munitions 16th Regiment, 6th Company, Army Veterinary Second Lieutenant Squad, Veterinary Officer:

We entered Nanking Castle on December 16. We often passed through the sites where alleged massacres had taken place, but never saw a single body nor or even the trace of one.
Those citizens who had escaped out of the Castle and returned, the City became busy and lively soon again during the remainder of December. Watch repair shops first opened and photography and Manju (cakes) shops followed. The Safety Zone was under the strict surveillance of the military police and security squads , and, therefore, violence, arson and massacre were fictitious.
After leaving Nanking, we moved to Anzhuang of Xuzhou, the next operational post, where we were assigned to keep 189 prisoners of war. We let the night guard loose and eventually all the POWs ran away, which was quite a familiar case by that time.

Mr. Nagata Hisatake of Kumamoto 6th Division, Infantry 11th Brigade, Infantry 13th Regiment, 3rd Battalion, Gunnery Platoon, Private First Class:

We had the hardest time from November 5 to 15, when we covered the area from Jiaozhou Bay to Kunshan. In order to cut the retreat route of the enemy, we were forced to march on muddy roads in the rain, carrying disassembled artillery.
The battle at Yhuatai was a truly fierce one and we were hit straight off by enemy machine-guns. The Chinese soldiers who had been chained to the concrete fort by the leg shot violently at us to the death. We entered Nanking on the morning of the 13th. Our major task was to dispose of things that the fleeing enemy had left. We approached what looked like the Safety Zone, where we found many citizens, and Japanese soldiers were standing guard against other intruding Japanese soldiers. We were stationed in Nanking outside the Safety Zone.
On December 17, we left for Fuhu. We were told that only the 3rd Battalion 10th Company remained in Nanking.

Mr. Ishikawa Jihei of Kyoto 16th Division, Infantry, 30th Brigade, Infantry, 33rd Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 5th Company, 1st Platoon, Sergeant:

Since we had departed for the front as a hometown squad, we tried our best not to incur shame or disgrace by our actions. We would never, under the evil cloud of criminals, return home with our heads held high. After we departed for the front, representing Japan, with this state of pride in mind, we dealt with enemy soldiers as well as Chinese citizens.
At one in the afternoon of December 13, we entered Nanking Castle when all the citizens were evacuated within the Safety Zone, and there was no room for violence to take place. On December 15 and 16, citizens had already opened up street stalls and the city was protected by Chinese policemen. The Japanese soldiers, even officers, were not allowed to enter the Safety Zone. We stayed in Nanking in December through the end of January, and we had never heard of a massacre.

Mr. Nonaka Shozaburo of Independent Munitions Soldiers, 2nd Regiment, 2nd Company, Private Second Class:

I majored in Chinese language while I was in university. I stayed in Nanking for five to six days in late July and early August of 1938.
I was ordered by my superior to inquire of the Nanking citizens’ sentiments toward the Japanese Army. I found that their sentiments toward Japan were generally favorable and Chinese women did not run away at the sight of Japanese soldiers. When we stepped sideways and knocked on the doors of houses, people did not look fearful, intimidated or resentful.
Within the city, it was nice and quiet, with many Japanese soldiers and a lot of Japanese stores on the Hanzhouglu Street. There were brothels and a Japanese-style public bath, where a woman from Kumamoto sat at the Bandai or watch stand.
Main streets were very busy with many people, carriages and trucks, but very few cars were running.

14. Recovery of the public peace by the Japanese Army after the occupation of Nanking?The Safety Zone became a den of plainclothes soldiers

(Clockwise from top left): The Rising Sun Banner waving over the castle gate, celebrating the establishment of the Autonomous Government Committee.
The Yomiuri Newspaper of January 3, 1938 reporting the celebration.
The members of the Autonomous Government Committee.
A Civilian Passport.
Issuing Civilian Passports after confirming citizenship.

Essentially, the Safety Zone should have been a neutral zone–however, many defeated Chinese soldiers pretending to be civilians became plainclothes soldiers. Prompt recovery of the public peace in Nanking was of top priority from an international perspective, and therefore, in order to keep the peace, it was absolutely necessary to get rid of these plain-clothed soldiers who were willing to fight, secretly possessing arms. Japanese Army strength was at about 70,000 to 80,000 men after the capture of Nanking, but in several days, almost all of the troops moved on to next theater of operation. So, the strength of the remaining guard units responsible for preserving public peace was about 4,000 within the walls and 1,000 within the Safety Zone. As of December 28, 23 Chinese officers、54 minor officers, and 1,498 soldiers were uncovered from foreign embassies and local houses. The Chinese continued to loot, rape and agitate for anti-Japanese disturbance. (Thorough Examination of the Nanking Massacre by Higashinakano Shudo)

Items concerning the recovery of the public peace

1937
November 19: The International Committee of the Safety Zone was established.
December 13: Nanking fell.
December 17: A ceremony was held to mark the entrance into Nanking.
December 18: A memorial service was held by the Central China Area Army
December 19: The18th, 101th Division (the 10th Army) and 6th Division moved toward other theaters of operation. Guarding of the Safety Zone was left to two battalions of the 7th Regiment–some 1,500 men
December 21: The Shanghai Dispatch Army was deployed elsewhere. Except for a part of the 16th Division, all left Nanking. The number of men left to guard the walled City was roughly 4,000 and some 1,000 were within Safety Zone.
December 23: Preparatory Committee for the establishment of the Self-Government Committee was set up. Chairman Tao Xishan, Vice-Chairmen Wang Chunsheng and Cheng Langpai, member Sun Shurong and others.
December 24: Operation to separate soldiers and civilians in the refugee zone began. Civilian passports were issued to 240,000 citizens.
1938
January 1: The Nanking City Autonomous Government Committee was established.
January 6: The Japanese Army demanded dissolution of the International Committee and the transfer of its business to the Autonomous Government Committee.
February 18: The International Committee was dissolved, changing its name to the International Relief Committee.

Part III Did the “Nanking Massacre” actually take place??Prior to the War

15. What was the Safety Zone established within Nanking Castle
?the missionaries sheltered Chinese stragglers

Map of Nanking Castle (made on the basis of East Asian Historical Dictionary published by Heibonsha in 1938)?Castle gates in Nanking City and main roads
The area within: 35 square kilometers The area of the Safety Zone: 3.86 square kilometers
A stand for regulating traffic on the main street, also used as a fighting position

How large was the Safety Zone?
In the northwest of Nanking Castle, the Safety Zone (Refugee Zone; the black shaded area on the map, with the surrounding thick line indicating castle walls) was established.
The area was 3.86 square kilometers, roughly 11% of the entire area, 35 square kilometers, within the castle walls.
The majority of Nanking citizens lived in the shopping and residential areas in the south and these areas were excluded from the Safety Zone, while major governmental offices, universities, foreign embassies (including the Japanese Embassy) and residential quarters for foreigners were designated within the Safety Zone.
Before the Japanese Army entered the Castle, nearly the entire remaining residents of 200,000 moved to the Safety Zone and except for the Safety Zone, the city was almost completely deserted.

The Safety Zone failed to function as a neutral zone

The International Committee of the Safety Zone, led by American missionaries, was formed with 15 members on November 19, nearly three weeks prior to the fall of Nanking. With German John Rabe as chairman, the Committee was mainly run by American missionaries and university professors. The Committee was completely lacking in providing security measures. As a contrasting example, in the case of the “City of South Shanghai Safety Zone”, established by French Father Jaquino, French soldiers stood on guard and prevented Chinese soldiers from intruding. On the other hand, as to the Nanking Safety Zone, it was separated only by roads and flags that were erected here and there indicating the Safety Zone. Neutral as it should have been, it was freely accessible by not only residents, but also by Chinese soldiers.

The City was a fortress of Nanking Castle

　 Nanking Castle was exactly that?a fortress with firm castle walls and installed within it were batteries and positions. (Refer to the photo)
Later, the Kanazawa 7th Regiment, in charge of the operation to sweep the Safety Zone, found a large amount of hidden weapons (8 twenty-centimeter guns, 960 small caliber rifles and 12 heavy machine-guns)1 Incidentally, the Japanese Army did not recognize the Safety Zone in view of a point of administration after the occupation, but respected it nonetheless as such.

16. Did a massacre actually take place within Nanking Castle and the Safety Zone?

(Clockwise from top left): The Japanese Army moving on Zhongshanlu Street, the area around the Kuomintang Military Headquarters, immediately after the occupation, refugees living in the Safety Zone on December 15, and 6,500 soldiers who tried to escape hiding among refugees.

On December 8, with the Japanese Army approaching Nanking, Commander Tang Shengzhi of the Nanking Defense Force issued a decree: “All the noncombatants must assemble within the Safety Zone under the international management.” Without a special permit, noncombatants were strictly prohibited from moving outside of the Safety Zone, “A Chinese newspaper reported that with the slightest suspicion, people were shot or thrust to death at random and the number of victims already reached 100.” (The Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper of December 8, Shanghai) Nanking at that time was extremely dangerous, except within the Safety Zone.
On December 13, when the Japanese Army entered Nanking Castle, a soldier wrote in his diary that not a soul was to be seen, which was perfectly reasonable, for all the residents were within the Safety Zone. Memo No. 9 from Documents of the Safety Zone of the International Committee, dated December 17, (in English) reads that “when your troops entered the city, we [International Committee] had nearly all of the civilian population gathered in [the Safety] Zone.” Therefore, had there been a massacre whatsoever, it would certainly have occurred in the Safety Zone. The 7th Regiment, 1st and 2nd Battalions, responsible for guarding the Safety Zone, did not carry out any sweeps on the afternoon of the 13th and after they inspected the Safety Zone at the night, they lodged in the southeastern part of the City. The sweep started on the 14th. During the operation, the rest of the troops were strictly forbidden to enter the Safety Zone. If this was true, then the Memorandum of Professor Minor Bates of Nanking Jinling University given to foreign correspondents, who left Nanking for Shanghai on the 15th, has to be 100% false. It says:
“Foreigners who have traveled over the city report many civilian bodies lying in the streets… A considerable percentage of the dead civilians were the victims of shooting or bayoneting in the afternoon and evening of the 13th, which was the time of Japanese entry into the city.”
Reporters Durdin and Steele wrote articles based on the false information contained within the Bates’ Memorandum in The New York Times and The Chicago Daily News, respectively, while Vice Consul James Espy of the United States Consulate in Nanking wrote in his report, regarding Chinese soldiers at the time when Nanking fell, “During the last several days before the Japanese Army entered Nanking, Chinese soldiers set on encroaching on citizens and their properties. [omitted] Deranged soldiers took off their uniforms, discarded them and in desperate need for civilian clothes, some even committed murder.” It was Chinese soldiers who killed civilians.

17. Evidence to prove that there was no massacre committed within Nanking Castle and the Safety Zone

(Left): Detailed map of the Nanking Safety Zone (the darkened area in the middle)

The area of the Safety Zone was 3.8 square kilometers (nearly 2 x 2 kilometers) and 200,000 evacuated residents were packed there. If a massacre had taken place within it as alleged, how could it have possibly escaped the 400,000 eyes that were present?
The International Committee of the Safety Zone left Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, and under the supervision of the Kuomintang Government, it was published by Kelly & Walsh in Shanghai. (As shown, top right.) The population of the Safety Zones was recorded as follows:
December 17, 1937= 200,000, December 18=200,000, December 21=200,000, December 27=200,000, January 14, 1938=250,000 and afterwards 250,000 was maintained
These figures eloquently demonstrate that there was no drastic drop in population caused by a massacre.
Included with the Documents was a list of complaints from Chinese people. According to the record, there were 26 cases (involving 53 persons) of murder, among which only one mentioned an eyewitness. Moreover, this eye-witnessed “murder” was annotated as a legally sanctioned execution. There was no confirmation of a corpse. Four hundred thousand eyes witnessed only one case of murder, which turned out to be legal.
A book entitled Eyewitnesses to Massacre was published by American publisher M.E. Sharpe. (Refer to Bottom right.) The book is composed of reports and letters written by ten American missionaries who lived in Nanking at that time and addressed to the organization to which they belonged and to their families. The documents were preserved at Yale University Library and then compiled into a book. In the book, Minor Bates and John Fitch wrote on the atrocities allegedly committed by the Japanese Army. The editor, eager to publish, probably thought that the written materials were the best “eyewitnesses to the Nanking Massacre”. However, major contributors to the fabrication of the massacre story, such as Smythe, Foster, Mills, Minnie Vautrin and Maggie, unintentionally revealed in their letters to family that they had actually witnessed not one case of murder between December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered Nanking and February 19382 The truth of the Bates’ Memorandum about the Massacre turns out to be a wicked fabrication and the very book with the ironic title becomes proof that no “Nanking Massacre” ever took place. As they say, “Even Homer sometimes nods”; they made a mistake. Whatever gloss may coat it, a lie is still a lie and it is sure to be revealed soon or later. The book is a typical example of this lesson.

18. The execution of enemy soldiers in accordance to International Law is not a massacre
?The Japanese Army was proud of its observance of International Law

(Clockwise from top left): Chinese soldiers who became prisoners of war led by one Japanese soldier.
A camp for prisoners of war.
The ratification paper of the Hague Law on Land Battles. It was ratified on November 6, 1911 and promulgated as a treaty on law and custom concerning land battles on January 13, 1912.

The policy of the Japanese Army against defeated soldiers was, following International Law, to annihilate those who resist, let go those who try to escape, take those who surrender as prisoners of war and expose and execute those who hide as guerrillas, whether within or without the castle.

The sweeping operation targeting Chinese stragglers who took off their uniforms and fled within the Safety Zone was initiated by the 7th Regiment on December 14. According to a chart of the results, those shot to death=6,670 persons, weapons seized=960 small caliber rifles (390,000 rounds of ammunition), 45 machine-guns, 103 pistols (260,000 rounds of ammunition), 55,000 hand grenades, 2,000 Qinglongdao swords, 4 tanks and many other weapons.
It has been often claimed since the 1980’s that to execute prisoners of war without putting the matter before a military tribunal was against International Law. However, in essence, combatants who do not qualified as prisoners of war can be executed without violating international law. Prof. Adachi Sumio maintains in his book, entitled On Modern War-time Laws:
“Armed troops have the right to attack or resist the enemy, using any measures which are clearly not prohibited by war-time law, and destroy them so as long as the enemy continues to resist.”
To execute enemy soldiers who surrender following due process is against international law; Chinese soldiers who fled into the Safety Zone did not surrender, but instead hid or disguised themselves as civilians. Thus they are eligible targets of a sweep. Outside the Castle, after December 15, fierce battles continued to be fought in many places and a war was on-going.
Combatants, as defined in the “Hague Law on Land Battles” (Hague Treaty), which was signed in 1907, were:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance.
3. To carry arms openly.
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with laws and customs of war.

Defeated Chinese soldiers who fled within the Safety Zone disguised themselves as civilians (plainclothes soldiers) and secretly carried weapons were soldiers without a leader, thereby violating every item stated in the Article above. They cannot be qualified as combatants, rather they are just a bunch of fighters violating international law and failed to become prisoners of war. They were dangerous and unpredictable as to what they would do and it was appropriate for the Japanese Army to deal with them as targets during the sweeping operation. This was a perfectly legal procedure. A military tribunal was to be held after not only disarmament was completed but also effectively securing the public peace. While battles went on under such a dangerous circumstance, to kill or to be killed, certainly no one could afford to hold a military tribunal at that time.
We should think hard about why the execution of prisoners of war (stragglers) became to be widely claimed as a violation of international law since the 1980’s. It was the time when an alleged massacre of 300,000 citizens turned out to be empty speculation with little if any convincing supporting evidence.
At the time of the battle of Nanking, members of the International Committee of the Safety Zone knew about the execution of defeated soldiers, as did the staff of European and American Embassies, who returned to Nanking in January, and their very partner in war, the Kuomintang Government. However, none of them used the executions as an accusation of a violation of international law. From the interpretation of international law at that time, the execution of defeated soldiers who did not qualify as prisoners of war was not illegal. Modern interpretations of law should not be made retroactive.

19. Did the Nanking Massacre actually take place?
?Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (1)

One hundred forty-three photographs said to be evidence of an alleged massacre were proven to be entirely fabricated!

Skillfully produced photos for demagogic propaganda

The photo at the top right was published in the October 4, 1937 issue of Life, an American photographic magazine. It was selected by readers as one of the ten “Pictures of the Year” for 1937. This photo was actually taken at South Shanghai Station, and not in Nanking. The photographer was Chinese American H.S. Wan.
The middle photo is captioned as “Father and son after evacuation” and put in a book entitled Real Record of Barbarian Japanese Atrocities. The man looked quite indifferent to his desperately crying son, not even trying to hold him up in his arms. At the very least, we can see that the crying infant was not left alone.
The photo on the left was a scene from an American propaganda film entitled Battle of China. A man is moving toward the tracks, holding the baby, while his father looks in the other direction. Thus, the sensational photograph at the right that attracted stormy global sympathy turned out to be a skillfully produced fabrication

Extracting a part of a photo and changing the time of shooting

The photograph above at the right was widely used as a propaganda photograph for a “Nanking Massacre,” with the caption reading “The man is desperately trying to make a dead child alive again.” However, this photo supposedly first appeared in the January 10, 1938 issue of Life. It was explained that the photograph was taken on December 6, a week prior to the “Nanking Massacre”. The photo on the left was the original version before a part of it was cut out. Judging from the military uniform, the man on the left is not a Japanese soldier, but a Chinese Kuomintang soldier.
In addition, in the picture titled “Bombing of USS Panay,” produced by news film maker Universal Picture, video of this photo was shown as a part of images of the City before the fall of Nanking. Consequently, it is clear that the photograph is not evidence to atrocities allegedly committed by the Japanese Army after the fall of Nanking.

20. Did the Nanking Massacre actually take place?
?Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (2)

Different season! (The angle of the shadow and light clothes)

The photo on the left, upon closer scrutiny, clearly shows a shadow under the heel. The angle formed by the line connecting the heel and the tip of its shadow and the ground is nearly 78 degrees, which means that the shadow was made not in December when Nanking fell, but around May or June, judging from the theoretical angle formed on a winter afternoon in Nanking. Moreover, had this been taken during the middle of a severely cold Nanking winter, showing soldiers and citizens wearing short-sleeved light clothing, the scene itself is indeed unreal. We must be very careful in dealing with alleged photographic evidence of the Nanking Massacre, for they are full of contradictions like this one.
Furthermore, if a public execution of this scale had actually taken place, there would certainly have been some record of it. But there is none. We can assume that it is highly possible that the photo was produced by the Central Propaganda Office of the Kuomintang Government.

The angle of the shadow indicates that the photo was taken in May or June.

Typical example of the distortion of a photograph’s caption

The above photograph was put into the Record of Atrocities Committed by the Japanese Enemy, published in China in July, 1938. In fact, the photograph appeared in the November 10, 1937 issue of Asahi Graph, with a caption saying “a group of women and children of the Rising Sun Village on their way back to the village, escorted by our Japanese soldiers.” According to the two enlarged shots on the left, both the boy and the girl are smiling.
This photograph had nothing to do with the Nanking Incident, and yet Kasahara Tokushi described in his book The Nanking Incident as “Chinese women of the Jiangnan District being taken away by Japanese soldiers.”
Honda Katsuichi also put this photograph in his book Honda Katsuichi Zenshu (The Whole Collection)Volume 14 (published by Asahi Shimbun-sha), describing “Japanese soldiers hunting and taking women and children. He also mentions that he was told by the Chinese side, “Victims of violent rapes and gang rapes range from little girls of 7 or 8 to old women over seventy years of age.” It is totally unforgivable that he swallowed whole what the Chinese told him without himself verifying the facts, thereby denigrating the Japanese people.

21. Did the Nanking Massacre actually take place?
?Evaluation of fabricated photographs that tricked the world (3)

Deleting the original caption and concocting another

The above photo on the right was a back cover of the December 5, 1937 issue of Shina Jihen Gaho (Chinese Incident Pictorial) (published by Asahi Shimbun-sha), prior to the fall of Nanking. The explanation for this photo was that a soldier advances holding chickens he had purchased from a local Chinese household.
In July of the following year, a book titled Record of Atrocities Committed by the Japanese Enemy, a propaganda book intended to publicize atrocities of the Japanese Army, used the same photograph, cutting out the lower part of the photo and adding a caption that stated that “Wherever the Japanese Army may go, their plundering leaves nothing behind, and even chickens and dogs disappear.” Similarly, in Honda Katsuichi Zenshu (Entire Collection) Volume 14, this same photo is used, with the lower part missing, and totally ignored the fact that the Japanese Army paid for them–he falsely asserts that domestic animals such as goats and chickens were plundered as war trophies. Honda Katsuichi is from the Asahi Newspaper and yet he was so careless as not to have read Chinese Incident Pictorial, which published by the Asahi Newspaper Co. This is appallingly shameful.

Diverting a photo and deleting its caption

The above photo is one of the exhibits at the Great Nanking Massacre Memorial in Nanking City.
The photograph was used in the opening gravure pages of the first edition of the Record of Forced Relocation of Koreans. The part circled with a dotted line says “Korean infants massacred by local bandit.”
It is probable that this is a photo of Korean children who were murdered in the Kanto or Hunchun Incident. With this explanation being cut off, the photo was concocted as evidence to the Nanking Massacre.
Incidentally, this photo seems to have been recently removed from the exhibit at the Great Nanking Massacre Memorial.

22. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (1)?The International Propaganda Activities Division of the Chinese Nationalist Party

The photo above is of the Chinese language edition of What War Means, written by Harold Timperley, an Australian correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, who pretended to be a fair and unbaised journalist, while fabricating tales of the “atrocious Japanese military”.

Top-secret telegram sent from Acting Consul Sato Shintaro in Shanghai to Japanese Foreign Minister Arita Hachiro, dated May 16, 1939

Kaji Wataru organized, under Chiang Kai-shek, “Japanese People’s Anti-War Union” in December, 1938 and engaged in anti-war activities toward Japanese soldiers.
Aoyama Kazuo, during the same period, organized Korean residents in Wuhan into “Korean Patriotic Corps”.

Right before the fall of Nanking, propaganda activities had begun!

A top secret document recording propaganda activities of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s Central Propaganda Bureau states as follows:
“Our anti-enemy propaganda bureau started its operation on December 1, 1937. At that time, our Army while retreating from Nanking and Shanghai was in the midst of bravely fighting the war. It was exactly the time for us to do our best in developing our operation and in sync with what is going on at the war front, to utilize the effect of propaganda to the fullest.” 3

Use foreign friends for propaganda

Zeng Xubai, chief of the International Propaganda Activities Division of the Central Propaganda Bureau of the Chinese Nationalist Party, wrote as follows:
“In our current international propaganda activities, we Chinese are not to act in front, but instead, we search out foreign friends and persuade them into acting as our agents. 4

European and American foreign friends

It was made clear that Harold Timperley (a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian) was an adviser to the Central Propaganda Bureau of the Chinese Nationalist Party and Miner Searle Bates (professor at Nanking University Jinling Women’s College) was an adviser to the Government of Republic of China, while George Fitch’s wife was a friend of Mrs. Chiang Kai-shek’s. In addition, Lewis Smythe (professor at Nanking Jinling University), George Fitch (YMCA), Magee (missionary), Archibald Steel (correspondent for the Chicago Daily News), Tillman Durdin (correspondent for the New York Times), McDaniel (Associated Press) and many others also became their agents.

Foreign friends in Japan

Kaji Wataru (Seguchi Mitsugu’s pseudonym) and Aoyama Kazuo (Kuroda Zenji’s pseudonym) cooperated in translating What War Means into Japanese. In March, 1938, Kaji became a member of the planning section, political division of the military committee, and in June, Aoyama became intelligence adviser to Chiang Kai-shek.5 The Japanese Consulate in Shanghai reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs Arita that both of them were traitors, acting against Japan in China. (Top-secret telegram of 1939, shown above left).

Two propaganda books that brought about a world-wide storm of anti-Japanese sentiment

“As a first step, we offered money and asked Timperley himself and Smythe, whom we let Timperley invite to join us, to write two books respectively as eyewitnesses to the Nanking Massacre committed by the Japanese military and we decided to print and publish them. Afterwards, following this decision, Timperley wrote What War Means and Smythe, War Damage in Nanking…. Thus, we have well accomplished the purpose of our propaganda operations.”6
23. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (2)?The Bates Memorandum and U.S. Newspapers

The reports of a “massacre” by foreign correspondents right after the fall of Nanking were based on the information of the memorandum written by Bates, advisor to the Government of the Republic of China.
Bates produced a memorandum stating that there were atrocious acts committed by the Japanese military between December 13 and 15 and handed it to foreign correspondents who were to escape from Nanking on December 15.
It was confirmed that ten Christian missionaries residing in Nanking at that time wrote in their letters to their families that for several days after the fall of Nanking, the city was extremely peaceful and that no one actually eye-witnessed a massacre being committed.

On the afternoon of December 15, the foreign correspondents, mentioned above, all left Nanking Castle. That is, all they saw and heard was about what took place during a restless one and a half days amid the preparation for evacuation after the fall of Nanking, starting the evening of December 13.

The Bates Memorandum written by Bates (an advisor to the Government of the Republic of China)
“At Nanking the Japanese Army has lost much of its reputation, and has thrown away a remarkable opportunity to gain the respect of the Chinese inhabitants and of foreign residents.”

Article by Steele
“Japanese brutality at Nanking is costing them a golden opportunity to win the sympathy of the Chinese population, whose friendship they claim to be seeking.”

Article by Durdin
“… the Japanese Army has thrown away a rare opportunity to gain the respect and confidence of the Chinese inhabitants and of foreign opinions there.”

Article by MacDonald
This article was written on the occasion of interviewing Bates at the pier of Xiaguan and overlapped the Bates Memorandum in context.

　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　Bates (Advisor to the ROC Government)
Bates Memorandum

Durdin
Correspondent for The New York Times

Left Nanking from Xiaguan on the Yangzi River aboard the USS Oahu on Dec. 15

On Dec.17, telegraphed to the US aboard the USS Oahu in port at Wusong-zou Port of Shanghai.

On Dec.18, his report appeared in The New York Times

　McDaniel
Correspondent for
The Associated Press

A brief letter
Left Nanking from Xiaguan, the letter probably was addressed to Consul General Gauss of the US Embassy in Shanghai

Telegraphed to US from the USS Oahu
Different contents from the Bates Memo were reported

On Dec.17, his article was printed

Steele
Correspondent for The
Chicago Daily News

On Dec.15, left Nanking from Xiaguan, telegraphed from the USS Oahu

The first report in The Chicago Daily News of Dec.15:
“The Nanking Massacre” “Four Days in Hell”

On Dec. 17, wrote article based on the Bates Memo as a report from Shanghai
MacDonald
Correspondent for The London Times

On Dec.15, after interviewing Bates at Xiaguan, left Nanking aboard the USS Oahu

On Dec. 17 from Shanghai telegraphed an article on the interview with Bates.
After the fall of Nanaking, did not enter the Castle, but remained at Xiaguan

On January 5, 1938, Clarence E. Gauss, Consul General of the US Embassy in Shanghai, sent correspondence addressed to the Secretary of State in Washington, D.C., which closely resembled the Bates Memo.

Article by MacDaniel (Different from the Bates Memorandum)
December 16, Nanking (sent wireless from gunboat USS Oahu, Associated Press)
The once proud capital was a shambles, dotted with corpses of soldier and civilian victims of the terrific Japanese air and land attack. All over the town, military uniforms scattered. Those uniforms were discarded by fleeing Chinese soldiers who changed into plainclothes in an attempt to escape death at the hands of Japanese forces.
Under fierce attacks from the Japanese military, the Chinese defense fell apart and collapsed and while retreating from Nanking, a small number of Chinese soldiers committed plundering. After they were gone, a few Japanese soldiers followed suit. The Japanese side tried not to bombard the Safety Zone, which was established under the advocacy of Americans and Germans residing in Nanking then. Over 100,000 Chinese evacuated to the Safety Zone. Though the Chinese Army was very slow in leaving the Safety Zone, the Japanese Army did not attack the Safety Zone. Some stray shells fell and killed several persons. Many of the Chinese policemen cast off their uniforms and were busy looking for used plainclothes in their underwear…
24. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre” (3)?Harold Timperley

(Right): The above chart indicates a part of Timperley’s propaganda operations in America.
Collaborating with John Magee and George Fitch, he conducted a campaign to protest the “Massacre”, raised funds and lobbied, through which he effectively promoted the anti-Japan cause and supported U.S. aid to China. The expenses for his operations were paid for by the Kuomintang government.
(Middle): Timperley was an enigma. He never presented himself at the Tokyo Trials and a photographic portrait of him is not available.
(Left):What War Means, edited by Timperley, was also published under the title of Japanese Terror in China.

Timperley played a leading role in Chinese international propaganda operations as an advisor to the Central Propaganda Bureau of the Nationalist Party

Harold Timperley (Tian Bailie in Chinese) was an Australian correspondent for the British paper Manchester Guardian. He fabricated the Nanking Incident in cooperation with the Kuomintang Government, disgraced Japan as the perpetrator of the “Nanking Massacre” and spread anti-Japanese sentiment throughout the world. He was truly one of the greatest contributors to the Chinese cause. Pretending to be a fair and unbiased journalist from a third-party nation, he deceived the world. Matsumoto Shigeharu, Shanghai Bureau Chief of The Domei-Tsushin (Press), saw Timperly as he appeared to be. However, the real Timperley was an agent, sent to Europe and America by the Chinese Kuomintang and actively engaged in propaganda operations. Later, he was appointed as an advisor to the Central Propaganda Bureau of the Nationalist Party.7
In fabricating the Nanking Massacre, Timperley and his cohort Bates played major roles. Reflecting the intention of the Central Propaganda Bureau, Timperley edited and published What War Means (Chinese translation edition titled, Japanese Military Atrocities Witnessed by Foreigners), and disseminated demagogic information throughout the world.
Zeng Xubai, Chief of the International Propaganda Activities Division of the Nationalist Party, wrote that he offered money to Timperley and Smythe through Timperley’s mediation, and had them write “eyewitness” accounts depicting the atrocious massacre committed by the Japanese Army in Nanking.8
Furthermore, as undercover supervisor of the CPB operations in America, under the cover of the Trans-Pacific News Service, he continued to send falsified information through offices established across the United States.9

Fabrication revealed by the editing policy of What War Means

Timperley and Bates were old acquaintances. In their exchange of letters, Timperley proposed to Bates, regarding the editing policy of What War Means, that “this book must be shocking and sensational. So, here, in order to produce dramatic effects, I think it is necessary to sacrifice academic sense of balance.”
It is also confirmed that Timperley was deeply involved in Smythe’s investigation on war damages in the Nanking area.
After the War, Timperley was summoned as a vital witness at the Tokyo Tribunal, but he never appeared at the court. Moreover, a photographic portrait of him was never made public.

25. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (4)?Bates and the International Committee

Miner Bates?a newspaper article around the time Nanking fell, indicating that Professor Bates (photographed) was an advisor to the Republic of China government.

Members of the International Committee: (from left) Ernest H. Forster, Wilson P. Mills, John Rabe (Chairman), Lewis Smythe, Edward Sparling and George Fitch.

John Rabe.

Nanking Safety Zone International Committee.

The true identity of Bates, an advisor to the Nationalist government, and a string-puller behind the fabrication of the “Nanking Massacre” reporting

Bates was an American missionary, history professor at Nanking Jinling University and influential member of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone. He was also an “advisor” to the Chinese Nationalist government.10
This Committee was established on November 19, prior to the fall of Nanking. 11 The Committee was composed of 16 Europeans and Americans who resided in Nanking at that time, with John Rabe as chairman.

Forked-tongued Bates and the Bates Memorandum concocting the “Nanking Massacre”

On December 15, two days after the fall of Nanking, Bates told a correspondent for the Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun that “It’s a great pleasure that an orderly entrance into the Castle by Japanese forces brought peace to Nanking so soon.” On the same day, however, Bates handed the Bates Memorandum, saying “Make use of it,” to five European and American correspondents who were about to leave Nanking, only two days after the fall of Nanking. The Memorandum described unthinkable atrocities such as murdering, sacking and raping allegedly committed by the Japanese military within Nanking Castle. (At that time, Bates also submitted to the Japanese Embassy a report titled Great Civilian War Damages, which mentioned none of these atrocities.)
Based on the Bates Memorandum, two U.S. newspapers reported the occurrence of the “Nanking Massacre” for the first time in the world. (Refer to: Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (2)?The Bates Memorandum and U.S. Newspapers.

Bates was the ghost-writer of What War Means

In What War Means, edited by Timperley, Bates wrote, anonymous, that “Immediately after entering Nanking Castle, the Japanese military unlawfully murdered 40,000 Chinese, of whom at least 12,000 were non-combatants.” Later, he made similar testimony at the Tokyo Tribunal. However, he never actually saw a murdered corpse himself, with his own eyes, and therefore, all his testimony was based on hearsay. Bates was awarded medals twice by the Nationalist government, in 1938 and in 1946 for his humanistic services during the war?for writing What War Means and for testifying at the Tokyo Tribunal, respectively.12

The true identity of Chairman Rabe of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone

Chairman John Rabe sheltered at his home two Chinese Army officers who were agents directing anti-Japan agitation operations, and he himself helped to fabricate Japanese military atrocities. His motive was that in order to maintain the huge amount of business transactions with the Nationalist Army as a Merchant of Death, he wanted to hinder the alliance between Japan and Germany, his home country. Hitler did not trust Rabe’s report, knowing that Rabe willingly fabricated a massacre for his own benefit, and later put him in prison. 13

26. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (5)?Lewis Smythe

Survey Report of the Administrative The Cover of Smythe’s Report on
Division, East Asia Development Board. War Damages in Nanking.

Casualties in Urban Nanking from Smythe’s Report on War Damages in Nanking.

Casualties in Rural Nanking from Smythe’s Report on War Damages in Nanking.

Smythe was a member of the Timperley-Bates gang

Lewis Smythe was a missionary and a professor of sociology at Nanking Jinling University. Acting as the secretary of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, he was in charge of the protection of refugees. Smythe investigated war damages in urban Nanking and six suburban prefectures by sampling, from March through June 1938, after the capture of Nanking and on completion of the investigation, he immediately published a report.14 This investigation was carried out at the request of Timperley, and Bates wrote the “Foreword” to the book.

Lewis Smythe

Smythe’s willfully deceptive book War Damages

The investigation of human casualties in Nanking City was carried out by selecting one out of fifty households, and selected residents were interviewed, the results of which were then multiplied by fifty times. Thus, the number of casualties due to violent acts of soldiers was estimated at 2,400 deaths.
Regarding the six prefectures in the suburbs of Nanking, the area, 750 times larger than Nanking City, was surveyed by as few as 12 fieldworkers in a total of fifteen days. As a result, the casualties were estimated at 31,000 persons being killed.15 However, this figure includes many regions which Japanese forces had not passed on their rapid, nearly one week advance toward Nanking.16
The gender ratio of the aforementioned 2,400 casualties was 73.5% male to 26.5% female. Meanwhile, of the bodies buried within Nanking Castle by the Red Swastika Society, the ratio was 99.5 % male to 0.5 % female. This utter contrast only suggests that the figures cited in Smythe’s investigation are unrealistic. Characteristically, Smythe’s Report never referred to the identity of the actual perpetrators.
Therefore, this report was taken as hinting at the atrocious nature of the Japanese military, and at the same time, as far as figures are concerned, it denies the claimed figure of 300,000 victims of the “Nanking Massacre”?a very willfully deceptive report, created sole for political purposes. The Japanese who consistently espouse that the “Nanking Massacre” actually occurred do not recognize Smythe’s Report, while some of those who deny the occurrence of a “Nanking Massacre” duly regard it as evidence that rules out that there were 300,000 victims of the Massacre.

Contemporaneously, it was understood that Smythe’s Report was only pretentiously based on scientific procedures

Mr. Yoshida Saburo of the Administration Division of the East Asian Development Board went to Nanking in person to investigate in July, 1940. Referring to Smythe’s Report, he reported, “By distributing such a dubious report to the world, the Chinese side raised funds for their propaganda operations. Pretending to be a scientific study, it is nothing more than an anti-Japanese propaganda document.” 17. The Smythe Report was already revealed to be a document that was nothing more than propaganda at that time.

27. Who fabricated the Nanking Massacre (6)?George Fitch

Chiang Kai-shek George Fitch

Four Chinese “Sun in the Blue Sky” medals
awarded to civilian Fitch by the Nationalist
Government,

Song Meilin, wife of Chiang Kai-shek

Fitch was a ghost-writer of Timperley’s What War Means

George Fitch was born in 1883 in Suezhou City, China and a missionary. While acting as manager of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, he was an advisor to a group of young officers of the Chinese Army called Lizhi-hui, organized by the YMCA (the Protestant Young Men’s Christian Association). Furthermore, his wife and Song Meili, wife of Chiang Kai-shek, were close friends.
He was one of the authors of What War Means edited by Timperley, fabricating the “Nanking Massacre”, and wrote anonymously as an eyewitness to a large-scale massacre, sacking and raping. Bates’ curriculum vitae, stored at Yale University, explains that “the first and second chapters of What War Means were written by Fitch.”18

Propaganda operations in the Unites States Proper, with the support from the International Propaganda Activities Division of the Nationalist Party

Following the request of the International Propaganda Activities Division of the Nationalist Party, Fitch made a grand lecture-tour throughout the U.S for nearly seven months, using film taken by missionary Magee. The lecture-tour, requiring a huge amount of funds and careful preparations, would have been impossible without the total support from the International Propaganda Activities Division of the Nationalist Party and cooperation of Timperley.
Fitch had a wide-ranging social network as a Rotarian. Furthermore, in Washington D.C., he met the Under-secretary of State, many Congressmen and Government officials, and claimed how atrocious the Japanese Military had been and urged sympathy toward China. The impact he created in the American public was tremendous. As a result, he was awarded, four times, Chinese medals by the Nationalist Government.19

Presenting an utterly false affidavit to the Tokyo Tribunal
According to the Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, compiled in 1939, there was only one case of murder reported (no case of arson), an account for which Fitch was responsible. Later, however, he presented a brief affidavit to the Tokyo Tribunal, in which he mentioned seven cases of murder, and three cases of arson. In the affidavit, as well as in What War Means, he claimed that “80% of the stores and 50% of the civilian houses were destroyed by fire.” His testimony was totally unreliable, but in reality, such lies as were told by missionaries like Fitch entrapped Japan into a destructive status, an isolated and atrocious, cold-blooded nation, without sympathizers.

Photographed with Mao Tsetung, c. 1940 in front of a cave in Yanan. (Who was Fitch?),
28. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (7)?John Magee

On December 13,1937, when Nanking fell, in front of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone. Chairman Rabe (third person from the left) and on his right, Pastor John Magee.

Plain-clothed Magee (far right).

Pastor Magee,

(Left) A 13-year-old boy
photographed by Magee, in Life Magee filming refugees from inside of a
magazine of May 6, 1938. building (from video).

Footage shot by Magee within Nanking Castle were used for anti-Japanese propaganda operations in the U.S.

John Magee was a missionary of the Protestant Episcopal Church Mission, presiding at a church in the Xiaguan District of Nanking, and engaged in missionary and medical activities. He was also chairman of the Nanking International Red Cross Committee as well as of Nanking International Safety Committee. He left 16mm film which he had shot within Nanking Castle and from inside a hospital (a.k.a. Magee films). Timperley was keenly interested in the film, thinking that “If we use these films in our propaganda operations in America, they will surely be helpful in awakening people’s sympathy toward Chinese people.” 20 So, he made Fitch use them in his anti-Japanese propaganda operations throughout the U.S. (Refer to Who fabricated the Nanking Massacre (6)?George Fitch.)

Mysterious multiple-murder case recorded by Magee still looms today! (Trial of Xia Shuqin)

There was an incident recorded in Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone by Magee that “On December 13, a Japanese soldier raped and murdered 13 members of a Chinese family.”
In Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, cases are recorded that took place on December 14 and thereafter, in order of dates with a case number. Essentially, this case should have been entered first, but actually it was entered as #210, after a case dated January 21, 1938. This is extremely odd. It is also pointed out that the alleged murders were full of contradictions.21

The Tokyo Tribunal and Magee testimony

1. The aforementioned multiple-murder case became an important issue at the Tokyo Tribunal. Regarding this case, a person named Xu Chuanyin also testified, but his testimony was different from Magee’s record.
2. Magee testified about many cases of murders, rapes and looting committed by Japanese soldiers. However, upon being questioned by a lawyer, “How many perpetrators did you actually witness on the spot?” he answered, “Only one.” Then, about this one case of a witnessed murder, he wrote in his diary that he did not actually see it.22
3. Magee said that he had taken many photos to back up his own testimonies, but surprisingly he did not present his films to the court as evidence.
In either way, superficially, Magee was a missionary, but his real identity was a dyed-in-the-wool agent, deeply involved in the fabrication of the “Nanking Massacre”.

Part IV The “Nanking Massacre” was fabricated through the Nanking War Criminal Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal?(After the War)

29. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre” (8)?the Nationalist Party and the Nanking Tribunal

Chinese Investigation of Crimes Committed by the Enemy in Nanking cited 300,000 victims

On November 7, 1945, in China, “Investigation Committee into Crimes Committed by the Enemy in Nanking” was organized and an inquiry of Nanking citizens was carried out. And it was reported that “Meanwhile, the enemy’s deceptive and interruptive attempts were so fierce that citizens were depressed; few people volunteered to file murder claims; even when committee members were sent to houses, some occupants would not speak, like cicadas in winter, while others refuted the facts, or did not confess, thinking it dishonorable…”. 23 In November, 1945, as stated, it was impossible for Japanese to impede the inquiry at that time. It was also written that “the confirmed number of victims already reached 300,000, and besides, there were 200,000 victims in total yet to be verified.” 24
The results from the Inquiry into Crimes Committed by the Enemy were well represented in the Nanking Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal.

“300,000 persons massacred in Nanking” claimed at the Nanking Tribunal

In February, 1946, former 6th Division Commander Tani Hisao was arrested by GHQ and transferred to a Court Martial in Nanking. On March 10, 1947, a verdict was issued against him and on April 26, after being led around the City, he was executed by a firing squad. After the execution, his head was exposed to the public.
The verdict handed down to Division Commander Tani stated the following claims about the murder charges: Of captured Chinese military men and civilians, those who were machine-gunned to death en mass and whose bodies were burned, leaving no evidence…amounted to more than 190,000. Besides, those who were individually massacred and then bodies were buried by charity organizations numbered more than 150,000. The total number of casualties reached more than 300,000.”25
The 6th Division led by Commander Tani stationed around the Zhonghua-men Gate after entering Nanking Castle and by December 21, all of the Division moved to Fuhu in the south. At that time, the area around the Zhonghua-men Gate was a fierce battlefield and all the residents had been evacuated. Therefore, there was no one left to be targeted in a “massacre”. In the first place, the figure “300,000” was broadcast as propaganda to the world by Timperley at the beginning of 1938, in order to fabricate atrocious deeds committed by Japan. In What War Means (1938) Timperley described that “as a result of the battle in the Yangzhijiang Delta between Chinese and Japanese forces, at least 300,000 civilians lost their lives.” 26
It was at the “Nanking Tribunal” that the 300,000 casualties of war claimed by Timperley was morphed into “300,000 victims of the Nanking Massacre.”

Statement made in 1965 by Mainich Shimbun reporter Goto Kosaku, who witnessed the Battle of Nanking: “The Nanking Massacre” is world history’s great lie–
“Twenty-nine years have passed since then. I still clearly remember the event with the same indignation. At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which was a huge lie in world history, Chief Prosecutor Keenan so triumphantly demanded that Commander Tani be sentenced to death by hanging for his responsibility for the Nanking Massacre, which was a sheer fabrication. Following the verdict, Commander Tani was led
around Nanking City and then was executed by a
firing squad at Yuhuatai. The most unforgivable and lamentable act was that his head was displayed for public view after that. Division Commander Tani became one of the noble victims, bearing the false charge all by
himself on behalf of the Kumamoto Corps and the entire Japanese Army. Deepest condolences and prayers for the heroic soul of brave Division Commander Tani Hisato.” (January 10, 1965, reporter for the Mainichi Newspaper, currently editor-in-chief of the Metropolitan Area.)

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　The 6th Division Commander,
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Lieutenant General Tani Hisao

30. Who fabricated the “Nanking Massacre”? (9)?The United States and the Tokyo Tribunal

Book A: August, 1946, Japanese title: Shori no Kiroku (Records of the Victory).
General George Marshall, Chief of General Staff of the United States Army.
Book B: Reports of the Battle in the Strategies of Europe and Asia, published in November 1946.

“Nanking” was suddenly added to General Marshall’s Reports

General Marshall, the Chief of General Staff of the United States Army, submitted the Reports of the Battle in World War II shortly after the end of war on September 1, 1945.
Two translated books of this Report were published in August and in November (Book A and Book B) in 1946. It was around the time when the issue of Nanking was brought up at the Tokyo Tribunal. Book A states the following:
“The week of 6 August had been one of swift and sudden disaster to the nation which fired the first shot in the series of conflicts that led to World War II.
“Japan was being made to pay in full for her treacheries at Mukden, at Shangahi, at Pearl Harbor and at Bataan.” (August 6 was the day when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.)
As in the English edition, the corresponding passage in the Japanese edition (p.205 of Book A) listing the sites of treachery does not make mention of Nanking. This means that not only General Marshall and the editing staff of the U.S. Army, but also the Japanese translator had nothing in mind regarding Nanking.
However, in Book B, which was published three months later, Nanking suddenly appeared before the name of Mukden. Chronologically, it should have been put after Shanghai instead.
It was probably that in search of an instance equivalent to dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing a huge number of civilians in indiscriminate air-raids, the U.S. found one in Nanking, and in order to be exempt from her own sinful deeds, the U.S. was obliged to fabricate the “Nanking Massacre” at the Tokyo Tribunal.

A boy standing still with his dead Disaster-stricken Hiroshima City
baby sister on his back, a scene after having been atomic-bombed
from Nagasaki City after having on August 9, 1945.
been atomic-bombed on August 9,
1945.

The Tokyo Courtroom

A Japanese who cooperated in changing the document

The translator of Book B, Mr. Katayama Toshitada, was born in 1907. After the War, as an expert in labor issues, he became a professor at Takushoku University and Soka University. According to “Social status and achievements of Professor Katayama Toshitada” as retrieved by The National Diet Library Search Navi, “he graduated from Seventh High School, Zoshi-kan, Literature Department in March, 1926 and in March of the same year, joined “Shinjin-kai”, an organization committed to Marxism, at Tokyo Imperial University, and in April, entered Tokyo Imperial University, Economics Department. He was sent by Shinjin-kai to a big labor dispute of Hamamatsu Nihon Gakki…He left Tokyo Imperial University in March, 1929…”
“Shinjin-kai” is an organization committed to Marxism, and he joined this Marxist organization even before he entered the University, and while a student, he was deeply involved in a labor dispute of professional workers. Judging from these activities, he must have been passionately devoted to Marxism, which was feverishly in fashion then.
Then and now, Japanese who denigrate Japan never cease to exist.

31. The burial of 40,000 bodies was morphed into a massacre of 40,000 people?a fictitious figure dances in the “Nanking Massacre”

The real figures of burials done within and outside Nanking Castle

The Japanese Army carried out burial work of Chinese soldier corpses scattered within Nanking Castle and outside it, from early February, 1938, with the prospect of completion by March 15. Mr. Maruyama Susumu of Nanking Special Task Force coordinated the burial through the Red Swastika Society. According to Mr. Maruyama, the number of buried bodies was, at most, 20,000. Based on Mr. Maruyama’s account, that “In actuality, there was a padded number of burials (by the Chinese side),” Professor Higashinakano Shudo estimated the actual number buried at 13,250.
The breakdown of his calculation: Considering the work efficiency and actual working days, in February 200 bodies per day were buried for 25 days, and in March 550 bodies per day for 15 days, which led to 5,000 bodies buried in February, 8,250 in March; 13,250 in total.
However, according to the source presented at the Tokyo Tribunal, the number of burial done by the Red Swastika Society was 43,071. This was a padded number, nearly three times as large as the numbers mentioned in Mr. Maruyama’s testimony and Professor Higashinakano’s examination.27
Breakdown of the nearly 43,000 bodies were: 1,793 bodies buried within the Castle and 41,278 bodies outside the Castle. The gender ratio was male 99.5% and female 0.5%. According to these figures, males and those buried outside the Castle were far dominant in number and therefore, these bodies were considered to be of those who were killed in action.

Bates’ fiddling of numbers

Bates wrote in a letter to Timperley (dated March 14) as follows:
“Like the burial record of the Red Swastika Society, there are some important matters for which investigation has almost been completed. According to the record, the number of unarmed civilians who were executed by a firing squad or by the bayonet within the City or near the Castle gates amounted to 40,000.” 28
Bates also mentioned the number 40,000 in What War Means, and claimed that about 30% of the 40,000 casualties (or 12,000) were not soldiers. But this “12,000” was obtained by multiplying the number of 2,400 victims claimed in the Smythe Investigation by five. An utterly random estimate!

A fiction of the “theory of 40,000 massacred victims”

In Japan, there is a theory that 40,000 persons were massacred. Leading proponent of this theory, Mr. Hata Ikuo bases his theory on the following. “The number of casualties determined by the Smythe Investigation was 23,000 and with the 30,000 massacred as a base, reduce 23,000 by half or one-third, we get the equation: 30,000 + 12,000 (8000?)=38,000~42,000.29 This is nothing more than a cockamamie sheme of matching numbers with totally unreliable guesses.

Imaginary “about 110,000 bodies” buried claimed by Chong Shantang

Bates enumerated all relief work done at that time, but he only referred to the Red Swastika Society as a burial service organization. The burial number of 112,266 bodies, which was presented to the Tokyo Tribunal, was a totally groundless, imaginary accounting, furthermore, there was no evidence to prove that the Society actually participated in burials.

Chief of the Red Swastika Faked news image reporting a burial work by the
Society, Chen Hans Red Swastika Society

32. Did the “contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword” really take
　 place?
　　　?a tragedy born out of a fictitious tale of valiance
　　　
　　　

Newspaper article highlighting a gallant record of killing 100 enemies by a sword,
with Mukai achieving 106 versus Noda, 105, the two Second Lieutenants posing against the castle gate of Changzhou Castle, The Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper of December 13, 1937.

What was the “contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword”?

The Kyoto 16th Division landed at Baimaokou on the Yanzi-jiang River in mid-November, 1937 and then continued to advance toward the west, heading for Nanking. War correspondent Asaumi of the Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper wrote a series of four articles featuring a gallant tale of Second Lieutenants Noda Tsuyoshi and Mukai Toshiaki performing a “contest to kill 100 enemies by a sword”, up until right before the fall of Nanking. Due to these articles, after the War, the two Second Lieutenants were held responsible for the “Nanking Massacre”. Eventually, on January 28, 1948, both of them were found guilty of the charge at the Nanking Tribunal and executed by the Chinese Government. In retrospect, at Wuxi Station on their march toward Nanking, correspondent Asaumi mockingly said to them, “Why don’t you compete in the skill of how many enemies you can kill by your sword while marching from Wuxi to Nanking? …Leave reporting of the contest to me!” 30 Eagerly looking for a scoop, correspondent Asaumi created a fictitious story of gallantry.

Charged with a crime of massacring 300,000 Chinese at the Nanking Tribunal

The Nanking Incident supposedly took place after Japanese troops entered Nanking Castle, and therefore, it had nothing to do with the “contest to kill 100 Enemies using a sword”. However, at the Nanking Tribunal, the two Second Lieutenants were charged with a crime of massacring 300,000 victims, along with Regimental Company Chief of Kumamoto 6th Division, Captain Tanaka Gunkichi.31
Incidentally, correspondent Asaumi presented a “statement of proof,” regarding the two indicted Second Lieutenants, in which he maintained that the conduct of the two Second Lieutenants was not at all atrocious against civilians, prisoners of war and other
noncombatants.

The Mainichi Newspaper Co. (successor of the Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper) entirely denies the articles mentioning “killing 100 enemies using a sword”

“These articles were sensationally written as stories of gallantry, of brave Japanese soldiers at the frontline at that time, and after the War, it was denounced as an event symbolic of the ‘Nanking Massacre’. In reality, however, the act of killing 100 Enemies using a sword was totally groundless and without a shred of evidence.”32 The Total Record of Showa History 1926-1989, The Mainichi Newspaper Co., 1989)

Accusation of libel against Mr. Honda Katsuichi and the verdict of the trial

Mr. Honda Katsuichi cited this story of gallantry in his books, including Travels in China (1972), as “killing contest”. In 2003, he was sued for libel against the two Second Lieutenants and Tokyo High Court ruled that regarding the real situation and the number of casualties of the “contest to killing 100 Enemies using a sword,” it is rational to conclude that they are extremely dubious.

Statement of proof by correspondent Asaumi.

Company Chief Tanaka’s cherished sword “Sukehiro”

33. China’s ambitious attempt to invade Japan, using the “Nanking Massacre” pretext

Era of indifference toward the Nanking Incident

In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party built Yuhuatai Memorial Park for brave comrades and its epitaph condemns the then enemy Nationalist Government:
“In the past, the Nationalist Government captured 300,000 brave Chinese Communist Party members and sent them to Nanking, where every one of the captives was massacred here at Yuhuatai Execution Ground. In order to solace the souls of these brave comrades, we built this memorial park.33 (Here again, we see the number 300,000. Do the Chinese love “300,000”?)
Later on, during the decade from 1955, no significant activity occurred, regarding the Nanking Incident.

The start of a “Nanking Massacre” propaganda operation utilizing the Japanese

After Nanking fell, critic Oya Soichi, seeing the actual conditions within the Castle, didn’t mention a massacre. However, in September, 1966, Oya revisited China as a
member of the Literary Artist Inspection Group, and after he returned to Japan, he spoke about a massacre:

Oya Soichi

At the Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper Frontline Headquarters in Nanking, on December 12, 1937. Oya Soichi at far right and next to him, Sato Shinju, who took the photograph of Second Lieutenants Noda and Mukai of the contest to kill 100 Soldiers using a sword

“.. before and after Japanese troops entered the Castle, in the process of entering the Castle, I think it probable that a massacre of considerable scale actually took place. Though I don’t believe it true that the victims reached 300,000 or one-third of the buildings were destroyed, as an eyewitness, I can say that a massacre of considerable scale did occur.” 34 This remark was probably meant to accommodate Chinese wishes.

　In 1971, before the diplomatic relationship between Japan and China officially
resumed, Honda Katsuichi of the Asahi Newspaper Co., went to China at the Chinese invitation. The purpose of his visit was to directly interview surviving victims of the “Nanking Massacre” and see the massacre sites. In March, the following year, Honda published Travels in China. Afterwards, Mr. Honda started to participate in the propaganda operation claiming that the “Nanking Massacre of 300,000 victims” actually took place, using his various publications.

Travels in China by Honda Katsuichi, The Asahi Newspaper Co., 1972.

The “Nanking Massacre” first appeared in a Chinese history textbook

The year 1937 of the chronology chart of the Newly Compiled History of China, 1975 edition was described as “The Nationalist Government moved its capital to Chongqing and failed to defend Nanking.” In The History of China of 1979, a depiction of the “Nanking Massacre” first appeared.
In 1984, the Nanking City Literary & Historical Documents Study Group compiled Testimonies: the Nanking Massacre (The Japanese translation book shown above), which followed the verdict upholding more than 300,000 victims of the massacre at the Nanking Tribunal. The following year, in 1985, the Memorial Hall for Compatriots Killed in the Nanking Massacre by Japanese Forces of Aggression was completed. The Entrance of this Hall bears the sign boldly written “300,000 Victims”.
In 2010, the Japan and China Joint Study published sources titled the Nanking Massacre 4, prepared by the Chinese side, which also followed the verdict of the Nanking Tribunal. Communist China consistently claims 300,000 victims of the Nanking Massacre.

Testimonies : The Nanking Massacre, Aoki Shoten, 1986. (Japanese translation of Chinese “証言”)

The entrance of the Memorial Hall for Compatriots Killed in the Nanking Massacre by Japanese Forces of Aggression (Nanking Massacre Memorial, for short) with a large sign of “300,000 victims”.

34. Open Questions for Chinese President Hu Jintao
　　　?Why has not Your Excellency answered the questions?
　　　

On May 5, 2008, taking the occasion of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Japan, the Committee for the Examination of the Facts about Nanking submitted an open letter of five questions regarding our basic doubts about the matter. As of today, we have not received Your Excellency’s responses.

OPEN QUESTIONS FOR HIS EXCELLENCY HU JINTAO,
PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

May 5, 2008

As enthusiastic supporters of friendly relations between Japan and the PRC, we would like to extend the warmest of welcomes to President Hu Jintao on the occasion of Your Excellency’s visit to Japan.

For some years, our organization has been engaged in an investigation into the events that transpired in Nanking in connection with the Battle of Nanking, which took place in December 1937. We are profoundly concerned about the PRC’s position on and approach to these events. Additionally, we are exceedingly uncomfortable with the duplicity of the PRC in its pursuit of friendship with Japan on the one hand, and actions that are most unfriendly in nature ? the expansion and renovation of the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall in 2007 ? on the other. Recent research has proven that there is absolutely no basis for the claim that there was a massacre in that city. We respectfully request Your Excellency’s responses to five important questions, which follow.

1. Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong never referred to a massacre in Nanking. He made exactly one mention of the Battle of Nanking during a lecture delivered at Yan’an six months after the conflict, reproduced in On Protracted War. Chairman Mao criticized the Japanese for failing to annihilate Chinese troops after having surrounded them. If there had been slaughter in Nanking of a magnitude so great (300,000 civilian victims) as to prompt the description “holocaust of the century,” there is not the slightest chance that he would have been silent on the matter. What are Your Excellency’s thoughts on the facts presented here?

2. In November 1937, during the Second United Front and prior to the Battle of Nanking, the Nationalist Party established a new section at the Central Propaganda Bureau ? the International Propaganda Section. We would like to direct Your Excellency’s attention to a top-secret document entitled “Outline of International Propaganda Operations,” which states that the International Propaganda Section held 300 press conferences in Hankou between December 1, 1937 and October 24, 1938 (a period that includes the Battle of Nanking); they were attended by 35 foreign journalists and diplomats, on the average. How does Your Excellency explain the fact that not once during any of these 300 conferences was a statement or announcement made to the effect that a massacre had been perpetrated, or that prisoners of war had been unlawfully killed in Nanking? Does Your Excellency, too, find these circumstances extraordinary?

3. The International Committee administered to the civilians remaining in Nanking, who were gathered in the Safety Zone. Records of the International Committee’s activities were published in 1939 as Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone by a British company in Shanghai, under the auspices of the Nationalist Government’s Council of International Affairs. According to those records, the population of Nanking prior to its occupation by the Japanese was 200,000. That figure remained unchanged, at 200,000, throughout the remainder of 1937. By the end of January, it had increased to 250,000. These statistics completely and utterly destroy the credibility of any accusation of a massacre that claimed 300,000 victims. What are Your Excellency’s views on this matter?

4. Among the records in the aforementioned Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone are detailed complaints about misconduct attributed to Japanese military personnel. They include a total of 26 murders, only one of which was witnessed (to that account is appended a note describing the “murder” as a lawful execution). Can Your Excellency reconcile these records with the PRC’s claim of a massacre with 300,000 victims?

5. Photographs purported to be evidence of a massacre in Nanking are on display at the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, at other exhibitions, and in printed publications. However, Analyzing Photographic “Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre by Higashinakano Shudo (Soshisha, 2005) and other recent scientific research reveal that there are no photographs attesting to a massacre in Nanking. If Your Excellency is aware of photographic evidence of a massacre, please have it forwarded to us so that we may examine it.

On the basis of the factual information contained in these five questions, we are completely and totally convinced that there was no massacre in Nanking. We would greatly appreciate Your Excellency’s responses to our questions. Please note that we have selected the open-question format precisely because the matter at hand is clearly one of the prime concerns of many citizens of Japan and the PRC. Our hopes for friendly relations between our two nations, for all generations to come, rest in Your Excellency’s hands.

COMMITTEE FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS ABOUT NANKING

Chairman: KASE Hideaki
Secretary-General: FUJIOKA Nobukatsu
Auditor : TOMIZAWA Shigenobu, MOTEKI Hiromichi
Members: ARA Kenichi, UESUGI Chitoshi, KOBAYASHI Taigan,
SUGIHARA Seishiro SUGIYAMA Kouichi, TAKAIKE Katsuhiko, TAKAYAMA Masayuki, HANAOKA Nobuaki,
HIGASHINAKANO Shudo, NISHIMURA Kohyu,
MIZOGUCHI Ikuo, MIYAZAKI Masahiro

35. Open Questions for Chinese President Hu Jintao
　　　?Why has not Your Excellency answered the questions?
　　　 (In Original Chinese Language)

?胡?涛主席的一封公?咨?信

中?人民共和国国家主席胡?涛?下：

　　在中?人民共和国国家主席胡?涛?下?日之?，从希望日中?国友好相??一心愿出?，我???下来日本??表示衷心的?迎。
　　本委?会?期以来，?１９３７年１２月伴随着日中??在南京交?而?生的所?南京事件?行了很多的??与研究。由此，??国就?一事件所?表的?解?生了深刻的??。去年「南京屠??念?」?行了大?模的?建工程。我???国??一?鼓吹友好、一?公然?行不利于友好活?的作法深感疑?。本委?会根据最近的研究?果从根本否定了「南京大屠?」的?法。借此机会就以下五个要点提出咨?，以便听取?下的高?。

一、首先需要指出的是，?国已故毛??主席在生前从来没有提及?所?的“南京屠?”。南京?役?生的半年之后，毛先生在延安所?行的一次演??曾?提到?南京?役，?一演?的内容后来被?入了《?持久?》一?之中。在?里，毛先生只是?到“日本??常?中国方面的部??行包?，却少有?行??”，而?所?的“屠?”只字未提。如果当?真是?生了?３０万平民?行?害??一个可称?世?性大屠?事件的?，毛先生怎?会?此只字不提?？??不是太不自然，太不可解了?？???一个事?，?下是怎?看待?？

二、在南京?役?始之前的１９３７年１１月，国共合作下的国民党在其中央宣?部内?置了一个国?宣??。根据?国?宣??所?《中央宣?部国?宣??工作概要》?一机密文件的??，在南京?役的前后，从１９３７年１２月１日到１９３８年１０月２４日期?，国?宣??在?口?行了３００次?者招待会，?次平均有３５名的外国?者及外国使???参加。但是，在?３００次的?者招待会上，国?宣??一次都没有提到?“在南京?生了?市民的屠?”，也一次都没有?到?“?俘?的非法?害”。???的一个事?，?下又是怎?理解的?？如果真?生了所?的大屠?的?，??道不是非常奇怪，非常不可理?的事情?？

三、南京?役当?，有?国?委?会?集中到南京安全区内的南京市民?行了?般照料，他?的活???于１９３９年以《南京安全区档案　Documents of the NanKing Safety Zone》之名由中?民国国民政府外交??徐淑希?撰、上海的一家出版社?行，并由中?民国政府国???研究所加以?修。根据此???，南京市的人口在日本?占?之前?２０万人，日本?占?之后也是２０万人，并且在占?一个月之后的１９３８年１月增加到了２５万人。从??一个??来看，所?的３０万人大屠?完全是不存在的事情。?下?道不??是???？

四、上述的《南京安全区档案 Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone》?一出版物，??当??生??日本?之不当行?的??事件?行了??的列?和??。根据?些??，?人事件只?生了?起，其中被目?到的只有一起。并且，?一起?人事件?被注明?合法性的?害。??的??与?国所主?的３０万人屠?是不可?立的。?此?下又是怎???的?？

五、南京大屠??念?等中国国内的展??施展示了被作?南京屠?之“?据”的一些照片，?些照片?被其它的?刊所登?。但根据后来的科学研究(??南京事件「?据照片」( (?中野?草思社) )等)判明，可以用来?明南京屠?的照片一?都不存在。如果真有?些照片存在的?，??必公?于?，以便大家?行??。

　　以上五??点从根本否定了南京大屠?的?法，就以上五??点敬??下?必?与答?。由于?些都是日中?国人民所共同?心的??，我?以公?咨?信的方式将之提出。?了日中?国子子??的友好，衷心期待着?下的回?。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　平成20年5月5日

南京事件之真???委?会一同
会?：加?英明
　 秘??：藤?信?
?事：富?繁信　茂木弘道　
委?：阿?健一 上杉千年 小林太?　杉原?四郎　椙山 浩一　
　　　　　高池?彦　高山正之　西村幸祐　花?信昭 　?中野修道　
　　　　　?口郁夫　?崎正弘

36. Drastic change of the description of the “Nanking Massacre” in the Japanese Dictionary Kojien?Delete the “Nanking Incident”!

Kojien, the Third Edition, compiled by History of the Controversy over the
Shinmura Izuru, Iwanami Shoten. As Nanking Incident by Kasahara
long as a Japanese dictionary carries the Tokushi, Heibon-sha Shinsho, 2007
description of the “Nanking Massacre,”
Japan will never be cleared of this
fabricated charge.

Transition in the explanation of the“Nanking Incident”

The Japanese Dictionary Kojien, published by the well-known left-wing publisher Iwanami Shoten, is one of the leading dictionaries in Japan and has published six editions up to the present.
Now, let’s see how the explanation of the “Nanking Incident” has changed.

[The First Edition, 1955] [The Second Edition, 1969]
① An incident caused by a part of the anti-Imperialism faction of the Revolutionary Army of the Republic of China, in March, 1927, when the Revolutionary Army of the Republic of China entered Nanking Castle. The perpetrators violently attacked Consulates of Japan, Britain, the United States and others. (Note: refer to the First Nanking Incident.)
② Violent incident committed by the Japanese Army in December, 1937, while capturing Nanking during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
[The Third Edition, 1982]
The aforementioned ① is the same, but “violent incident” mentioned in ② is changed to “a massacre”.
[The Fourth Edition, 1991]
The “Nanking Incident” is to be referred to the “Nanking Massacre.” Thus, it became a separate entry as follows:
“During the Second Sino-Japanese War, before and after December, 1937, when Nanking was occupied, within Nanking Castle and outside it, the Japanese Army massacred soldiers who surrendered, captives of the Chinese Army and civilians, and further committed atrocious crimes such as arson, plunder and rape”.
[The Fifth Edition, 1998 and the Sixth Edition, 2000]
Essentially, the description is the same as the Fourth Edition.

To sum up, up until 1970, the Nanking Incident had a larger significance, in which Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Revolutionary Army occupied Nanking in March, 1927, and attacked foreign Consulates, including Japan’s, and their residents. This incident of 1927 was nothing more than a violent incident. In 1971, the Asahi Newspaper Co. started reporting that the Japanese Army committed evil deeds in China, in its newspaper and Travels in China. In 1982, descriptions such as “invasion” and “advance” used in Japanese history textbooks caused heated controversy, and almost simultaneously, Kojien changed the description of “violent incident” to “a massacre”. Thus, the Asahi Newspaper Co. and Iwanami Shoten in collaboration with some historians (advocates of the “Nanking Massacre”) eventually fabricated the “Nanking Massacre.”
Incidentally, Mr. Kasahara Tokushi, a leading advocate of the “Nanking Massacre,” introduced in his book entitled History of the Controversy over the Nanking Incident the explanation within the Kojien, but he only referred to the Fourth Edition, totally ignoring the preceding three editions (from the First to Third).

37. Simply astounding! Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports China’s study on the Nanking Massacre?the framework of the destruction of our own country

Is the mission of the Japan-China Friendship Center, to degrade Japan into the status of a Chinese subordinate, conspiring with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences?

(1) Historical Characteristics of the Sino-Japanese War Seen from the Perspective of Sexual Violence (Professor Ishida Yoneko, Okayama University, granted 6 million)
Professor Ishida authored The Structure of Sexual Violence Committed by the Japanese Military in Northern China (Koro-sha) and other books as well as many papers of the same genre. She was also actively involved in anti-Japanese activities, such as “The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery”, which convicted Emperor Showa. She is an anti-Japan agitator, with the cause of condemning the former Japanese Army as her lifework.
(2) Mr. Himeda Mitsuyoshi, known for his works on “Sanguang (three-annihilation) Operation,” was granted a total of 8.83 million towards research and publication of his findings. Familiar names attract our attention, who have been speedily denigrating Japan and fabricating history.
(3) “Comprehensive Study on the Nanking Incident” (by Yoshida Yutaka, granted over a three-year period a total of 5.5 million )
(4) “Actual State and Background of the Forced Abduction of Chinese People” (by Matsuzaka Tetsunari, granted over a three-year period a total of 6.5 million )
(5) Black Ships and the Sino-Japanese War?Dialogue over Historical Recognitions (granted13 million )
(6) Forced Abduction of Chinese People (by Nishinarita Yutaka, granted 2 million )
(7) The Japanese translation of History of China’s Wars of Resistance against Japan (granted 8 million )
Most of the grantees are professors of national or public universities, and professional anti-Japanese activists who are leaders of anti-Japanese organizations. And these grantees had been writing books and papers with themes similar to those that received grant funding. Therefore, it is most likely that the grants actually provided for funding of anti-Japanese activities.

* The President of the Japan-China Friendship Center is the late Gotoda Masaharu, a famed leader of Japanese conservatives.

Do you know about the “Japan-China Peace and Friendship Exchange Project”? It is a project in which, in the name of promoting friendship between Japan and China, using Japanese taxpayers’ money, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and certain Diet members who advocate Japan-China “friendship” arbitrarily do what they like. And its main work is to facilitate historical studies.
Launching of the friendship exchange project was officially decided upon in 1994, during Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi’s Administration. The expenditure was budgeted for fiscal year 1995. The first year, it was about 240 million and since fiscal 1998 onward, it has been some 320 million yearly, the full amount of which is paid directly to the Japan-China Friendship Center. Its major works are as follows.

(1) Promotion of mutual understanding
There are twelve specific items here. For one, in a program called “Delegation to China of Educators from the Prefectures throughout Japan”, about thirty to forty people, mainly teachers from elementary schools, junior and senior high schools, visit China every year. In China, they invariably visit the “Memorial Hall for Compatriots Killed in the Nanking Massacre by Japanese Forces of Aggression” and the “Marco Polo Bridge Memorial of Wars against Japan”. In another program called the “Japan-China Youth Exchange Delegation,” about one hundred youths are sent to China every year. As for the latter, as soon as they arrive in China, they receive from the Chinese side an intensive brainwashing that presents only their historical perspective.

(2) Assistance for historical study (study and publication by Japanese people)
* Refer to the description in the chart above.

(3) Cooperative work with Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
This was started in fiscal year 1997, in order to financially support research done at the Academy’s Historical Study Center and to maintain the Center. For the first year, approximately 24 million was paid and since fiscal year 1998 onward, 32 million has been paid every year. The number of works done under grants from fiscal years 1997 to 2000 amounted to 84 in total. The research themes concern mostly atrocities allegedly committed by the former Japanese Military (Nanking Massacre, etc.) and clearly fabricated issues (comfort women and Wanrenkeng or brutal mass burial practice). For fiscal year 2003, fifteen research projects were supported by grants, some of which were as follows:

* Systematic study of the Nanking Massacre
* Examination of witness source testimony by surviving victims of the Nanking Massacre
* Pictorial history of the Nanking Massacre
* Compilation of sources of the Nanking Massacre
(Source: The People’s Journal of April 26, 2003)

Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, using the Japanese peoples’ tax money, participated in a project in which Chinese agents were able to propagate “Nanking Massacre” propaganda to the Japanese people. A total of 2,527 million was spent from 1995 to 2004. What a discouraging reality! However hard and desperately right-minded Japanese scholars examine historical facts and prove Japan’s innocence, as long as Japan encourages Chinese historical study imbued with lies in this manner, spending a part of our national budget, we can never clear Japan’s infamy.

38. Utterly Strange! A trial held in China and then the execution in Japan??Was it intended to suppress criticism against China?

Who is Xia Shuqin?
Around ten in the morning on December 13, 1937, the very day when Nanking fell, an incident occurred in which two Chinese families living in a house on Xinlukou within Nanking Castle were attacked by intruders and eleven people were brutally killed. (The Xinlukou Incident). An alleged survivor of this incident is Xia Shuqin and the intruders are assumed to have been soldiers of the Japanese Army. Besides her testimony, there are several testimonies regarding the incident and it was also recorded in Magee’s films. However, there are many contradictions among the testimonies and record, and Japanese scholar Higashinakano Shudo wrote in his publication that Xia Shuqin is a phony witness. Against his assertion, Xia Shuqin filed a suit for defamation in May, 2006. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, where in February, 2009, the defendant’s appeal was rejected and Mr. Higashinakano lost the case. Surprisingly, in July, 2012, this same Xia Shuqin filed another suit, demanding compulsory enforcement of payment for compensation which was ruled at a lawsuit of defamation held in China, against researcher Matsumura Toshio and publisher Tenden-sha to Tokyo District Court, with Japanese lawyer “Watanabe Harumi” as a surrogate suitor.
* If the incident in question occurred at ten in the morning, the perpetrators could not have been Japanese soldiers, for Japanese troops entered Nanking Castle after noon.

A rally in support of Tenden-sha

Lawyers for Xia Shuqin with the banner in Xia Shuqin
the back reading, “Never allow the Nanking
Massacre to be denied!”

Recently, a strange case began at Tokyo District Court. Nine years ago, self-styled victim of the Nanking Massacre Xia Shuqin contradicted her own testimony, which was pointed out in a pirated edition of a book entitled Big Questions to the “Nanking Massacre,” written by Matsumura Toshio, a researcher on the Nanking Incident, upon which she filed a suit demanding payment of compensation for defamation against the author and the publisher (Tenden-sha), not in a Japanese court, but in a People’s Court in Nanking.
Both the author and the publisher did not report to Nanking Court and, for all practical purposes, it is impossible to file a countersuit, considering the costs of court appearances, translation, hiring a lawyer well versed in the Chinese language, etc.
And should a suit be filed, the possibility of winning the case is nil, in a country ruled by the Communist Party, where the Nanking Massacre” is their national policy and the principle of governance by law and an independent judiciary system are nonexistent. Furthermore, if a Japanese scholar who denies the Nanking Incident should carelessly appear in Nanking Court, his life will surely be at serious risk. It is not at all feasible to file a suit against this ridiculous suit.
The Nanking Court, as was expected, immediately ruled that the defendants pay 1,023 million in compensation. As there is no judicial agreement between Japan and China that allows them to mutually execute a verdict reached at home in the other country, this particular verdict was not to be executed in Japan. However, now, Xia Shuqin filed a case in Tokyo District Court demanding that the verdict ruled in China be executed in Japan, through a Japanese lawyer as a surrogate plaintiff.
To make the matter worse, this suit for collection is endorsed with an attached statement by a professor of Chuo University, that the Chinese verdict should duly be executed in Japan. This is not at all an easy situation. Judges in Tokyo District Court may easily adopt the professor’s view and if judges are left-wing, pro-China advocates, we must be fearful of the outcome of this trial.
Let us imagine a little bit further. In our country, we have freedom of speech and writing and we have many publications that criticize China, not just regarding the Nanking Incident. If Chinese people file suits against Japanese authors and publishers in Chinese courts, claiming that they have suffered great mental anguish due to Japanese criticism against China, the Japanese side cannot actually defend themselves in court. Plaintiffs will win one case after another in trials with absentee defendants. Then, the verdict will be executed by Japanese lawyers working as Chinese agents, entrusted with collection, who can seize Japanese peoples’ and publishers’ property on their behalf. This will be a big business opportunity for Chinese and Japanese agents. This is not a concern of Mr. Matsumura and Tenten-sha alone. Eventually, there will be no freedom of speech and writing against China. Absolutely, this is a case that we cannot afford to lose.

39. Pro-“Nanking Massacre” Japanese disgrace Japan?Japanese who hate Japan

(Clockwise from top left): Honda Katsuichi and Travels in China. The late Fujiwara Akira and Japanese Military in Nanking. The late Hora Tomio and The Nanking Incident. Kasahara Tokushi and 13 Lies behind the Theory That Denies the Nanking Massacre. Yoshida Yutaka and Emperor’s Army and Nanking Incident. Matsuoka Tamaki (left) and Xia Shuqin and The Battle of Nanking, Visiting Suppressed Memories?Testimonies of 102 Former Japanese Soldiers.

The movement to push the Nanking Massacre as historical fact began around 1965. Major pro-Nanking Massacre Japanese are as follows:

① Hora Tomio (deceased, former professor at Waseda University)
In 1967, he discussed Japan’s war crimes in A Mystery in Modern History and in 1972, on the basis of this book, he published The Nanking Incident. Afterwards, he actively promoted this issue in his books, such as Refute the Attempt to Make the Nanking Massacre a Phantom (1975), and Proof of the Nanking Massacre (1986).

② Fujiwara Akira (deceased, former professor at Hitotsubashi University)
Former serviceman (the 55th Class of Japan’s Military Academy). He published books including The Nanking Massacre and Its Background (1997).

③ Honda Katsuichi (former staff reporter of the Asahi Newspaper )
He traveled around China from August, 1971 and in March, 1972, published Travels in China, based on sources prepared by the Chinese side. He has since then, continued publishing, including Road to Nanking (1987), To the Scenes of the Nanking Massacre (1988) and other books with the Asahi Newspaper Co. He was the catalyst who spread the Nanking Massacre. He was honored by Red China on the 70th anniversary of the fall of Nanking.

④ Kasahara Tokushi (former professor at Utsunomiya University)
Successor to Professors Hora and Fujiwara after both of their passing. He authored The Nanking Incident (1997) and co-authored 13 Lies behind the Theory That Denies the Nanking Massacre (1999). It is pointed out that his selection of sources concerning the Nanking Incident is selective. (The Front of the Nanking “Massacre” Study, 2004 Edition, Tenden-sha).

⑤ Yoshida Yutaka (professor at Hitotsubashi University)
　　He studied under Professor Fujiwara Akira. He published Emperor’s Army and the Nanking Incident (1986) and other books. He claims that the number of victims amounts to more than 150,000. He also discussed the Emperor’s alleged responsibility for the War.

⑥ Matsuoka Tamaki (former elementary school teacher)
She published The Battle of Nanking, Visiting the Suppressed Memories?Testimonies of 102 Former Japanese Soldiers (2002). All 102 soldiers were either anonymous or under pseudonyms. More than 1,000 depictions contained in the book are flatly wrong. (The Front of the Nanking Incident Study, 2005-2006 Joint Edition, Tenden-sha). Even by pro-Nanking Massacre advocates, this book has been harshly criticized as “a rare book in that there are so many mistakes and strange descriptions–well beyond the limit of what is acceptable”. (Weekly Friday, December 20, 2002).

40. Japanese scholars who have revealed the lies behind the “Nanking Massacre”?Japan should express their highest gratitude to them!

Suzuki Akira: Illusions of the Nanking Massacre

In 1973, he authored Illusions of the Nanking Massacre, initiating the refutation of the pro-Nanking Massacre propaganda led by Hora Tomio. In 1999, he published New Edition: Illusions of the Nanking Massacre and revealed the fact that Timperley was an advisor to the Propaganda Division of the Chinese Nationalist Party. This was certainly a great achievement in that he uncovered the true identity of Timperley, which in turn, led to the denial of the “Nanking Massacre”.

Tanaka Masaaki: Fiction of the “Nanking Massacre”

In 1984, he authored Fiction of the “Nanking Massacre” and presented doubts concerning the verdict of the Tokyo Tribunal. In 1987, on the 50th anniversary of the Nanking Incident, he published Overview of the “Nanking Incident”. This is a pioneering book in terms of research into the Nanking Incident.

Ara Kenichi: The Nanking Incident?Interviews with 48 Ja
panese Witnesses

In 1987, in his book, The Nanking Incident Told by Witnesses (later, the title was changed to The Nanking Incident?Interviews with 48 Japanese Witnesses), he recorded real voices of Japanese officers and soldiers, newspaper reporters and others who actually experienced the Battle of Nanking. Thereafter, he published books such as Re-examination: What Actually Happened in Nanking.

Higashinakano Shudo: The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction

In 1998, making full use of overseas and domestic documents, he thoroughly exposed the foundation of the fictitious Nanking Incident through his books; Analyzing the Photographic Evidence of the Nanking Incident, Top-Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident and The Real Truth about the Battle of Nanking.

Matsumura Toshio: Big Questions about the Nanking Massacre

Matsumura Toshio: Big Questions about the Nanking Massacre
In 1998, after carefully evaluating overseas documents and other sources, he published Big Questions about the Nanking Massacre, which closely approximating the truth concerning the Nanking Incident. Later, he clarified that in Eyewitnesses to the Massacre, composed mainly of private letters of nine American missionaries, that “There was not a single eyewitness to a massacre at all.”

Fujioka Nobukatsu: Study of The Rape of Nanking

In 1999, he co-authored Study of “The Rape of Nanking” with Mr. Higashinakano, in which they both refuted, for all intents and purposes, The Rape of Nanking, written by Iris Chang, exposing the entirely fabricated images and propaganda that abounds in this best-selling American book. It was quite a blow to pro-Nanking Massacre advocates that this world-famous book proved in fact to be quite fraudulent.

Kitamura Minoru: The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation

In 2001, he published The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation. He thoroughly investigated Chinese and Taiwanese historical documents and sources, and proved that the Nanking Incident was an international propaganda plot devised by the Chinese Nationalist Party.

Tomizawa Shigenobu: The Core of the Nanking Incident

In 2003, he did a meta-analysis of all primary sources, such as What War Means, Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone and The Nanking Military History, and published The Core of the Nanking Incident, which quantitatively analyzed the Incident. Afterwards, in his book Development History of the “Nanking Incident” and others, he proved how a trivial incident within the Safety Zone developed into a massacre with 300,000 victims.

Part V　Suggestions for Future Japan

41. Textbook authorization conducted by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology overruled a description which denies the “Nanking Massacre” in a textbook published by Jiyu-sha

Flow chart of the Ministry’s textbook authorization process concerning the description of the “Nanking Massacre” in Jiyu-sha’s textbook

(A) The textbook applied for authorization (white-covered book). The description of the Note on Page 225:　Submitted on April 21, 2010

During the occupation of Nanking by the Japanese Army, there were many casualties among Chinese military and civilians, which later became the source of the “Nanking Incident” propaganda.

　 The Ministry’s view for authorization:
This description is likely to invite misconception about the Nanking Incident.　　
　　
　　　 Oral explanation of the purport of the authorization to the author and the editor:
Simply write that the Nanking Incident occurred, following the popular view of academia.

Submission of the first correction chart:

Note to be removed.

　　　　Negotiations with the Ministry about the first corrected draft:
The author insisted on deleting the Note based on free selection of the historical facts

　　　　Request by telephone of the textbook examiner to the editor ①
Delete the latter part of the sentence and revive the Note.

During the occupation of Nanking by the Japanese Army, there were many casualties among Chinese military and civilians.

　　　　Request by telephone of the textbook examiner to the editor ②
Insert the “Nanking Incident”.
:
During the occupation of Nanking by the Japanese Army, there were many casualties among Chinese military and civilians (The Nanking Incident).

　　　Request by telephone of the textbook examiner to the editor ③:
Immediately after “There were many casualties among Chinese military and civilians”, add “caused by the Japanese Army.”
Fearing further resistance on our part will lead to disqualification, we accepted the request.

(B) Submission of the finalized corrected draft = authorized textbook (To be used in schools beginning in April, 2012)

During the occupation of Nanking by the Japanese Army, there were many casualties among Chinese military and civilians, caused by the Japanese Army (The Nanking Incident).
　
“New History Textbook”?For Junior High School Social Studies, a textbook by Jiyu-sha.

Descriptions in textbooks published by other publishers
Ikuho-sha: “At this time, there were many casualties among the Chinese military and civilians, caused by the Japanese Army (The Nanking Incident). There are various views regarding the number of victims and other actual conditions of this Incident, and controversies have continued to this day.”
Tokyo Shoseki: “During this process, many Chinese people including women and children were killed (The Nanking Incident).”
Teikoku Shoin: “In Nanking, the Japanese Army killed many Chinese people?not only soldiers, but also civilians including women and children, and foreign countries rebuked this incident as ‘atrocities committed by the Japanese Army’ (The Nanking Massacre Incident).”
Shimizu Shoin: “During the occupation of Nanking, soldiers, prisoners of war and disarmed soldiers, as well as noncombatants including old men, women and children were indiscriminately massacred…”

42. The Japanese Government should abolish the “Article concerning neighboring countries” and deny the “Nanking Massacre”

The Neighboring-countries Article and the Preamble to the Japanese Constitution damage the future of Japan

The Article concerning neighboring countries→In dealing with modern and contemporary historical matters relating to neighboring countries, an appropriate consideration should be made in from view point of international understanding and cooperation.

Preamble to the Japanese Constitution→We have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.

In 1982, on the authorization of history textbooks conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, it was falsely reported in newspaper articles that the Ministry had the description of “aggression” into the northern part of China changed to “advance”. This article triggered fierce protests from China and South Korea, which turned into a diplomatic issue (The Incident of Wrongly Reporting about Textbook Authorization). The Japanese Government, in order to promptly solve this issue with diplomatic consideration, added the “Article Concerning Neighboring Countries” to the criteria of textbook authorization.

The Article reads: In dealing with modern and contemporary historical matters relating to neighboring countries, an appropriate consideration should be made from view point of international understanding and cooperation.

Reasonable as this article may seem at the first glance, it gives a pretext for foreign countries to interfere with what is written in Japanese textbooks. And more importantly, it means that Japan follows the “historical view of the Tokyo Trials”, in assessing modern and contemporary history of Japan. It is a right due to a nation to interpret its own country’s history, which is the basis of the peoples’ national identity. As a result, the Article had a tremendously negative influence on the writing of history textbooks.

With regard to the “Nanking Massacre,” in applying the Article, the Ministry’s standpoint was that acknowledging left-wing historians’ assertion that the “Nanking Massacre actually took place” as the popular view will not lead to attaching a particular opinion for authorization when the Incident is explained in textbooks, whatever is written about it.

Up until that time, the “Nanking Incident” was taken up in a few textbooks, and descriptions and contents were restrained. However, with the application of the Article, all textbooks depicted the Incident and tended to use more sensational words like “massacre” and “great massacre”. Furthermore, some textbooks refer to the figure of 300,000 victims, which China unilaterally claims.

Later, as study on the Nanking Incident progressed, casting doubt on the actuality of the Incident, expressions such as the “Great Nanking Massacre” rarely appeared, and the number of victims tended to be depicted as “a large number of victims”, instead of using a specific figure.

The Ministry still maintains the same standpoint that the Nanking Incident actually took place. In spite of the fact that the Nanking Incident is not a compulsory item that needs to be put in textbooks, a textbook is not authorized unless it refers to the “massacre”. This odd practice derives from the Article concerning the neighboring countries, and probably, the Japanese Government, catering to China, directs the Ministry of Education to have the Nanking Incident invariably mentioned, describing that a massacre actually took place. The outcome of this practice denigrates our own country and ancestors, and makes Japan an easy target for China’s aggressive attempts toward our history and territory. This particular article should be immediately abolished.

43. There will be no future for Japan unless the disgrace of the “Nanking Massacre” is cleared!

We very much appreciate that you have read the chapters of this book. We sincerely hope you understand that “there was a Battle of Nanking, but there was no Nanking Massacre.”

China cannot respond to the Open Questions for Chinese President Hu Jintao as introduced in chapter 34 and 35. Recently, the Chinese Government maintains that the massacre of 300,000 people is a political figure and that “figure” does not count. This Chinese assertion only proves that Chinese demagogy no longer holds on against the precise refutation by sincere Japanese scholars who are so devoted to preserving Japan’s national dignity, using Chinese sources. Regrettably, however, it is also a fact that in Japan there are Japanese scholars who continue to claim that a massacre actually took place, in the face of clear evidence to prove that there was no massacre, which even China cannot refute, thus pleasing only China. We must say that they lack the holy spirit?a human instinct to protect the honor of our ancestry and posterity. Though freedom of speech and writing is guaranteed by our Constitution, such freedom of speech as to threaten Japan’s existence, only helping China to profit by it, can hardly permissible.

The issue of the “Nanking Massacre” domestically arose from the plot to denigrate Japan by The Asahi Newspaper, and the then government readily issued an apology, solely wanting not to make the matter worse, which eventually resulted in putting Japan into an internationally disadvantageous situation. And the “Article concerning neighboring countries” prompted this deplorable dilemma. In the background lies the sense of original sin, of “Japan as a war criminal state,” which was thoroughly imbued through the Tokyo Trials and under the control of the United States for seven years. Therefore, Japan has been a constant loser in diplomatic dealings with China, on the premise that “Japan is a bad aggressive nation, which actually invaded China”. And the outcome of this has manifested in arrogant and provocative “guilt-free patriotic” actions on the part of the Chinese, invading the Senkaku Islands and our territorial waters off Okinawa.

On the other hand, in the United Nations, Japan is subject to the Article concerning Enemy Countries, as an “enemy nation” that fought against the Allied Nations during World War II. This means that if Japan is to violate issues settled by the War or to initiate so-called aggressive policy, the victor countries are allowed to use military sanctions against Japan, without the permission of the Security Council, and these sanctions are never to be restrained. Recently, China often menacingly referred to the fact that Japan was a losing nation, reminding us never to forget this fact. Probably, China has this Article in mind.

It is wrong to regard the “Nanking Incident” as a historical issue. This is because the issue involves not historical facts, but propaganda painted with absurd demagogy. As this is not a historical issue based on solid facts, what Japan should do about it is to deny the Tokyo Trials that fabricated the “Nanking Massacre” and continuously disseminate that China created various lies as such to spread to the international community. Domestically, Japan should abolish the “Article Concerning Neighboring Countries” and nullify the authenticity of speech denigrating Japan on the basis of this Article. There was no “Nanking Massacre”. We strongly feel that Japan should be proud of this fact and confidently confront Chinese aggression, restoring a “Strong Japan”.

Part VI Commentaries on the “Nanking Incident”

A. New information, one after another, has exposed the lie that is called
the “Nanking Massacre”
by
Moteki Hiromichi, Secretary, Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

A story no one had any idea about instantly appeared!

On December 13, 1937, Nanking, capital of the Chinese Nationalist Government, fell and Japanese people were ecstatically jubilant throughout the country, celebrating with lantern parades everywhere. As many as one hundred and fifty reporters and photographers rushed to Nanking, competing with each other for coverage of the event, sending home on-the-spot articles one after another.

The conditions of Nanking were, as typically illustrated by the photographic feature titled Peace Restored in Nanking from The Tokyo Asahi Newspaper dated December 20, that tranquil citizens were busy working to restore the City in cooperation with the Japanese Army and the Nanking Autonomous Committee. In five days after the occupation, street venders opened their stalls and soldiers enjoyed shopping without carrying their guns.

No doubt, this was exactly what Nanking was like right after the occupation. Nanking is not a large place, covering an area of approximately 70% of Setagaya Ward in Tokyo. Furthermore, nearly all citizens, following the strict order of Commander Tang Shengzhi of the Chinese Defense Corps, gathered within the “Safety Zone” controlled by the International Committee. A letter written by the Chairman of the International Committee on December 17 and addressed to the Japanese Embassy told exactly the same story.

The “Safety Zone” had the area of nearly four square kilometers and 200,000 citizens were packed like sardines within this small area. I can definitely say that it was “absolutely” impossible for a massacre to take place, in view of 400,000 “eyes” in such a narrow space. Moreover, there were 150 reporters and photographers in full throttle who were covering what was going on. Under these circumstances, there was practically no room at all for the press to make up staged pictures. In postwar years, even when accusations against the Japanese Army reached its height, not one reporter came forward saying that he actually witnessed a massacre or had photographic evidence.

Nevertheless, out of the blue, the accusation that a massacre involving the unprecedented number of 300,000 victims was in fact committed in Nanking arose at the Tokyo Trials, which began a year after Japan lost the War.

Japanese people were not told the facts, were they?

The evidence of a Nanking Massacre submitted to the Tokyo Trials consisted mainly of a document entitled Report of The Nanking Regional Court Prosecutor’s Inquiry into Crimes Committed by the Enemy, prepared by the Investigation Committee into Crimes Committed by the Enemy in Nanking. This Committee was hurriedly formed in Nanking, following an order from the Tokyo Trials. The report’s foreword described how difficult it was to file a report under such circumstances as no one filed claims of losses or damages and no eyewitness to murder came forward:

During this time, however, the Japanese had put so much effort to deceive and interrupt the investigations, that it depressed the general public. Not only were the number of people reporting Japanese crimes extremely few, but also even when visited by investigators questioning, they would give out no information. There were some who would not tell the complete facts, while others refused to tell the truth for fear of their reputation….. As a result of the investigations, over 300,000 victims were reported, and it is believed that over 200,000 more are yet to be confirmed.

On the basis of this totally fabricated report, those who appeared in court to testify to support this fallacy were Bates, a member of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone and professor at Nanking University, and Pastor Magee, also a member of the International Committee and chairman of the Nanking Committee of the International Red Cross. These Americans, who resided in Nanking at the time of the Nanking Incident and acting as members of the International Committee, played an extremely important role in the sense that they fashioned the totally unrealistic report submitted by the Nanking City Committee to make it look quite realistic and reasonable. Had a cross-examination of witnesses been made in due course, both Bates and Magee would have been inevitably accused of perjury. The court was far from fair and unbiased.

Thus, the handing out of “the century’s most fraudulent verdict” sustained the so-called Nanking Massacre with its 300,000 victims. (The verdict was totally inconsistent, saying 200,000 victims here and 100,000 there.) And this big lie came to be recognized as a fact in Japan and accordingly depicted in textbooks.

It was explained that “Japanese people were not told this fact.” What an absurd lie!

Can we really trust Bates?

Bates was a pious missionary and professor at Nanking University and in order to relieve the Nanking citizens, he established the International Committee and played a leading role in it. This is what is told about Bates. Was he really so great a man? On the contrary, an astounding fact about the real Bates was revealed later on.

First, Bates turned out to be an advisor to the Chinese Nationalist Government (Chiang Kai-shek’s Government). Professor Higashinakano found a description, that “Dr. Miner Searle Bates, an adviser to the Government of the Republic of China (photographed above) was ….”, in a newspaper clipping among Nanking-related documents archived at Yale University. Not only this, it was also revealed that Bates was awarded medals by the Nationalist Government twice, both before and after the War.

It had been known that Bates sent source material for the book What War Means, edited by Timperley, to expose atrocities committed by the Japanese Army. Bates provided unbiased and conscientious journalist Timperley with information about Nanking. However, the real identity of Timperley became evident.

It was Mr. Suzuki Akira that first clarified that Timperley was actually an adviser to the Propaganda Division of the Nationalist Party. Mr. Suzuki discovered that A Cyclopedia of Recent Foreign Visitors to China, published in China, referred to Timperley in this manner: “After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937, the Nationalist Government sent him to Britain and the United States, had him engage in propaganda operations and then appointed him as an adviser to the Propaganda Division of the Nationalist Party.”

Consequently, it makes a perfect sense that Bates and Timperley collaborated in the making of the anti-Japanese book What War Means. Under the guise of a conscientious missionary-professor, Bates was deeply involved in the creation of a book of propaganda based on demagogic information.

More is written about Timperley in Zeng Xubai’s Autobiography. Zejg Xubai, Chief of the International Propaganda Bureau of Nationalist Party, had Timperley write What War Means as a book of propaganda and appointed Timperley supervisor of the news release agency called “The Trans-Pacific News Service,” which was established in America as a cover for the Nationalist Party. All in all, it became perfectly clear that Timperley was a leading propaganda agent of the Nationalist Party.

Did a massacre actually take place because The New York Times and The Chicago Daily News printed it in their papers?

In The New York Times dated December 18, 1937, following the headline “All Captives Slain, Civilians Also Killed as The Japanese Spread Terror in Nanking,” the article reads: “Through wholesale atrocities and vandalism at Nanking the Japanese Army has thrown away a rare opportunity to gain the respect and confidence of the Chinese inhabitants and of foreign opinion there.”

The Chicago Daily News also reported that “Japanese brutality at Nanking is costing them a golden opportunity to win the sympathy of the Chinese population….The machine-gun squad of the Japanese Army ran through the moon-lit streets and shot at whatever was running…shot to death.”

Correspondents Durdin of The New York Times and Steele of The Chicago Daily News both left Nanking on December 15 and therefore these articles cannot have been written firsthand on-the-spot. Moreover, judging from the close resemblance of the contents and expressions in these articles, it is highly probable that they were written based on one particular source.

And this point was emphatically made. The letter Bates wrote and addressed to “My Dear Friends,” (included in Eyewitness to Massacre) on April 12, 1938, says that “The book [What War Means] contains the statement I prepared on the 15th of December to be utilized by various correspondents living in Nanking on that date.” 35

What kind of statement was it?

But in two days the whole outlook has been ruined by frequent murder, wholesale and semi-regular looting, and uncontrolled disturbance of private homes including offences against the security of women. Foreigners who have traveled over the city report many civilian bodies lying the street … A considerable percentage of the dead civilians were victims of shooting or bayoneting in the afternoon and evening of the 13th, which was the time of the Japanese entry into city…36

In short, based on this statement, both Durdin and Steele wrote their articles. Therefore, that major newspapers like The New York Times wrote about a “Nanking Massacre” cannot be considered to be proof or evidence supporting a “Nanking Massacre”.

The one-of-a-kind big liar Bates

Anyone can understand that what Bates wrote, when compared to the condition of Nanking right after the occupation as mentioned at the beginning of this essay, was entirely unreal. How could it be possible for the Japanese military, allegedly repeatedly murdering citizens, to go shopping at stalls on the street without carrying their guns?

In fact, Bates’ description of events was clearly refuted in a letter Smythe sent to his family. Smythe was a colleague of Bates, also a professor at Nanking Jinling University and secretary-general of the International Committee. His letter to his family, dated December 20, reads:

Monday morning, October 13 Well on our way home at one we found that the Japanese had reached Kwangchow [Guangzhou] Road. We drove down there and met a small detachment of about six Japanese soldiers, our first ? but far from our last! (At the corner of Shanghai Road and Kwangchow Road, they were searching a bus, but not harming the people.37
Tuesday morning, December 14. We all got up and felt the fighting was over.…Now the Japanese were here; would set up an orderly regime and things would be rosy. 38

Nothing in these descriptions hints at the tragic scenes as Bates depicted, that during the afternoon and night of the 13th, the Japanese Army randomly shot citizens to death. It is clear from his descriptions that Smythe felt the battle was over on the morning of the 14th. By then, Bates and Smythe lodged together.

This letter Smythe wrote to his family (it was extremely detailed one, covering events into February) is included in the book entitled Eyewitness to Massacre, published by American publisher M.E. Sharpe. Letters written by nine missionaries are contained in this book. Faithfully following these letters, we find that not one eyewitness to a “Massacre” is mentioned. As sheer irony, completely opposite to its title, this book proves that no massacre took place. Accordingly, Bates’ lies have been thoroughly revealed by Eyewitness to Massacre, its original purpose being to prove and substantiate a Massacre.

Bates claims that there were 12,000 victims of noncombatants, which is sheer fiction

This clergyman seems to have been so devoted to the Chiang Kai-shek’s Government that he would nonchalantly tell any kind of lie.

Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, supposedly recording the activities of the International Committee, was published under the supervision of the Nationalist Party by Kelly & Walsh in Shanghai in 1939. According to this book, the population of Nanking at the time of the fall was 200,000, and 200,000 during December and 250,000 on January 14, 1938. No significant drop in the population due to a massacre, anywhere, was found. This was the understanding of the situation shared by the members of the International Committee.

However, Bates, who was a leading member of the International Committee, made an utterly odd comment. In his report on the situation in Nanking which he sent to Timperley, he referred to the burial record of forty thousand corpses (this burial was done for deserted corpses of those killed in action and essentially had nothing to do with the massacre), saying that 30% of which were not soldiers at all. Thus, totally denying the unanimous consensus of the International Committee and without any evidentiary proof, he claimed that a massacre of twelve thousand citizens took place.

In Smythe’s Investigation on War Damages in the Nanking District (Urban) it is reported that as a result of the survey by sampling, 2,400 persons were killed due to violent acts of soldiers and other causes. However, this turned out to be totally unrealistic, judging from the information based on gender-ratio. Here, the biggest problem was Bates himself. Though a chart in the figures says 2,400, the annotation Bates wrote says that 12,000 citizens were killed, without any ground to support this figure. He appears to have been a clergyman, yet was completely able to coolly lie without feeling any pang of guilt or ill conscience.

Some “academics” stick to the absurd story written by a big liar as important, fundamental information, but what is far worse is that many people still discuss the Nanking Incident while seriously taking into account these shameless liars.

Now, it is thoroughly proved that Bates was a big liar and that he served the Chinese Nationalist Government as an agent. Scholars of history–what are you all doing?

In order to make the “Nanking Massacre” a fact of history, the Tokyo Trials worked all the way?the Investigation Committee in Nanking painstakingly prepared a report fabricated with false information and submitted it to the Tokyo Trials, and on the basis of this false report, liar missionary-professor of Nanking University Bates testified at the witness stand, lending realism to the report. Now, we can clearly prove how this vicious plot worked.

The role played by the Nanking Society

Thus, one fact after another has been revealed, making it perfectly clear that the so-called “Nanking Massacre” was a product of Chinese wartime propaganda and, from the start, that there was no “Nanking Massacre”.

Regarding the “Nanking Massacre”, it was the ‘Japan “Nanking” Society,’ established in October, 2000, by Professor Higashinakano Shudo of Asia University that led in the discovery of facts and research for the truth. The Society held its last general meeting on September 15, 2012 and closed its activities for good.

Practically, the controversy over the truth of the Nanking Incident has been already “handily settled.” Regrettably, however, the truth has not yet been officially recognized in the academic world of history or the educational sphere. Hereafter, in place of the Nanking Society, we move on to a new stage of widely appealing to the Japanese people as the national campaign, and as the total voice of the people, we urge the historical academy to reconsider this issue, the mass media to publicize the truth and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology to put the right historical fact in textbooks.

B. Fabricated “Great Nanking Massacre”
by
Kato Hiroyasu, Business Research Center

Ever since the Opium War, a continuous state of civil wars

The Nanking Massacre came to be known to the Japanese people through the Tokyo Trials, which was held nine years after the capture of Nanking. The victorious nation, China, fabricated the Massacre. The Incident suddenly became a hot issue and in parallel with the Tokyo Trials, at the request of the GHQ, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) aired on the radio a program called This is the Truth, which reached every household throughout Japan.

At the time of the Battle of Nanking, Chiang Kai-shek, who had a proclivity to submit claims on behalf of China to the League of Nations, which were concocted and exaggerated to his advantage, did not do so concerning the Nanking issue. How and why did the issue suddenly come up at the Tokyo Trials? One possible explanation could be that it was brought up in order to conceal various inconvenient things that the Allied Countries had done, such as the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States and aggressive moves on Shumshu Island and the Khabomai Islands on the part of the Soviet Union.

After the restoration of diplomatic relationship between Japan and China in 1972, the People’s Republic of China (Communist China) has been repeating anti-Japanese actions such as demanding that the “Nanking Massacre” be put in Japanese history textbooks and carrying out anti-Japan education, which started during Jiang Zemin’s era, and propaganda campaigns.

After the Xian and the Marco Polo Bridge Incidents onwards, following Japan’s non-expansion policy, great progress was made in peace negotiations, but whenever successful negotiations neared the stage of conclusion, some incident suddenly popped up from the Chinese side and obliged the abruptly end to negotiations and prospects for peace fizzled away. The major factor was Chiang Kai-shek, who changed “from purging the Communists to cooperating with them” after the Xian Incident. The speech Stalin made at the 7th World Congress of the Comintern marked the first step of the strategy of “Let China and Japan fight against each other.”

“Let Germany and Japan run out of bounds. Never allow them to set their targets on our home country Russia. Let Germany target France and Britain, while Japan Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China. And after their forces become totally exhausted, finally, let the United States enter war and confront Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany are sure to lose. And the regions Japan and Germany have conquered…together with their fatigued home countries, shall belong to our Communist bloc.”

The Battle of Nanking and the fabricated “Nanking Massacre”

① How the Battle of Nanking was fought

After full-scale conflict between Japan and China began due to the Second Shanghai Incident, the Japanese Army formed the Central China Area Army on November 7, 1937, in order to bring the war to conclusion by mopping up enemy troops around Shanghai. A line connecting Suzhou and Jiaxing to the west of Shanghai was designated as the limit of operation.
On November 16, the Nationalist Government in Nanking declared that the capital will be moved to Chongqing. The Central China Area Army arbitrarily decided to cross the operation-restriction line and further reported the urgent need to capture Nanking. On November 24, General Headquarters released restrictions on the operation area, and on December 1, ordered the Area Army to capture Nanking.
The Japanese Army advanced to the suburbs of Nanking on December 4 and put Nanking under siege on the 9th and had a plane fly over Nanking Castle and drop handbills (which urged surrender and opening up of the city). With no response past the deadline (at one in the afternoon of the 10th ), the Japanese Army started an all-out attack and entered Nanking Castle on the 13th. On December 17, an entrance ceremony was held by the Japanese Army and Navy, and the Commanding Headquarters of the Central China Area Army moved to Nanking.

② The capture of Nanking characterized by thorough conformity to military discipline

On the capture of Nanking Castle, General Matsui Iwane, Commander of the Central China Area Army and Shanghai Expeditionary Force, instructed his men to strictly conform to military discipline, saying: “The entrance of the Imperial Army into the capital of a foreign nation is an enterprise of great magnitude, one that will go down in history. Since this event is destined to become known to the entire world, all units are instructed to set a standard for the future by comporting themselves honorably, and by refraining, at all costs, from looting, fighting among themselves, and committing unlawful acts.” And General Matsui advised beforehand to the Chinese Nationalist Army to surrender and open the city (meaning to declare demilitarization) and, following international law, to protect the city from enemy attack. This act was implemented during World War II when Germany captured the capital of France, Paris, which surrendered and also when France took Paris back from Germany).

③ What was claimed in court of the Tokyo Trials

(1) In several days immediately following the fall of Nanking Castle, at least 12,000 noncombatants were killed.
(2) During one month after the occupation, approximately 20,000 incidents of raping occurred.
(3) For six weeks after the occupation, looting and arson continued to be committed and one-third of the City was destroyed.
(4) More than 30,000 Chinese prisoners of war who had surrendered were killed.
(5) The total number of civilians and prisoners of war who were killed in six weeks after the occupation reached 200,000 to 300,000.
Incidentally, General Matsui had a warrant of arrest issued against him as a suspect of Category A War Crimes on October 9, 1945 and through legal proceedings, he was executed by hanging.

④ The reason why the Nanking Massacre did not actually take place?a lie as big as the one boasting of three-thousand-jo (9 kilometers) long white hair.

In Nanking, the Capital of the Nationalist Government, if a massacre had taken place, resulting in 200,000 to 300,000 victims within a month, how could it have passed the notice of the international community without causing much fuss? The following facts prove that a large-scale massacre did not actually take place.

(1) At that time, residing in cities like Nanking, Hong Kong and Beiping, there were many foreigners?correspondents for major news agencies Reuters, the AP and UPI, and of newspapers, as well as ambassadors, ministers, consuls, consulate staff and other civilians. And yet, the subject of “atrocities in Nanking” was never raised in any discussion.
(2) The usual response of the Nationalist Government whenever something inconvenient to their position occurred was to file a suit in the League of Nations, as a part of their adept propaganda warfare. But regarding the Massacre, the Nationalist Government did not file a suit in the League of the Nations.
(3) Some maintain that strict press control was then in effect. Just to mention one example against this assertion, when the Japanese Army entered Nanking, more than a hundred Japanese and foreign correspondents and photographers accompanied them.
(4) Who ordered the Massacre and how it was done in such a short period of time?it easy to demonstrate that it was impossible, compared to the following:
During the huge air raids on Tokyo on March 10, 1945, three hundred B-29 fighters dropped 1,665 tons of fats-and-oil incendiary shells containing napalm, killing more than 80,000 citizens and atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed approximately 200,000 lives. Compared to these facts, according to a survey of the International Committee administrating the Safety Zone at that time, the number of non-combatants right after the fall of Nanking was estimated at 200,000, while the Nationalist Army in defense of Nanking was about 50,000 strong. So, in total, the population of Nanking was at the most 250,000. Therefore, the number of victims massacred claimed by the prosecutors at the Tokyo Trials is equal to nearly the entire population of Nanking. They say that 200,000 to 300,000 people were massacred and the population right after the massacre was 250,000, which only proves the number of massacred victims itself was an absurd fiction. Moreover, only several days after the fall of Nanking, money exchangers opened shops and in three weeks electricity and water returned to the City.

⑤ Unlawful acts committed by groups of Chinese soldiers

In a report Vice Consul James Espy enclosed in a letter sent to U.S. Ambassador Nelson Johnson in Hankou from John Allison, third secretary at the US Embassy in Nanking, it was written that “Here, I must add to say that Chinese soldiers themselves were not totally innocent of committing looting before the Japanese Army entered Nanking Castle. Without doubt, during the last several days, violence was committed on humans and properties by Chinese soldiers. During the utter confusion in which Chinese soldiers hastily took off their military uniforms and changed into plainclothes, various things happened and occasionally murders were seen to be committed by Chinese soldiers attempting to rob civilians of their clothes.”
This report clearly states that retreating Chinese forces committed looting and murders, further describing that Chinese soldiers discarded their uniforms, hid their weapons and, pretending to be civilians in plainclothes, lay hidden within the “Safety Zone”. At the Tokyo Trials, it is said that the inconvenient parts of this report were deleted, and then concocted portions were cited as evidence. (The Path to the Greater East Asian War by Nakamura Akira.)

⑥ When was the “Nanking Massacre” internationally propagandized?

Following defeat in the Greater East Asian War, at the time when General Matsui Iwane and three other Army officers were indicted at the Tokyo Trials, testimony was given that right after the capture of Nanking was completed, for about six weeks from December 13, 1937, the Japanese Army killed many Chinese civilians and prisoners of war. Though there was propagandized reporting about this by China, at that time the topic was not at all discussed among Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls and journalists of the Powers and other countries who were perfectly familiar with the concocted fable of the Nanking Massacre. International attention turned, rather, toward the most extravagant number of victims, which was a sheer product of propaganda which, after the Tokyo Trials, suddenly reappeared like a ghost and these testimonies, or rather perjuries, gradually accumulated into a horrendously huge figure.

Among Japanese nationals, Honda Katsuichi of the Asahi Newspaper reproduced the massacre testimonies in his reportage Travels in China, printed in the newspaper as a serial feature in the autumn of 1976, when at the United Nations the issue of Chinese representation to the U.N. was hotly debated between Chiang Kai-shek’s Government and Mao Tse-dong’s Government. Regarding this issue, the Asahi Newspaper promoted a campaign that claimed that “recognition of the Communist Chinese Government as the representative of the Chinese people is the global trend.”

Travels in China projects sadistic Chinese propensities onto the Japanese Army, catering to politically obsessive Communist China?a very unseemly attitude for a journalist, whose task is to educate society. One example is a testimony by Jiang Genfu (then a nine-year-old boy):

They tied up both hands and feet of young men they had arrested by wire and hung them, many of them, from the high-voltage electricity line like bats. Electricity was not running. They made fires underneath them and scorched them to death.

This is unthinkably sadistic to us Japanese, but to the Chinese, it is simply matter-of-fact.

The history of great massacres, based on the idea of “China is the Center,” has been inherited and executed from antiquity to the present. By loudly proclaiming a “Nanking Massacre”, Communist China erases the “Tiananmen Square Incident.” The same strategy applies to anti-Japan education, by which China tries to avert domestic discontent and frustration. The Chinese idea of Zhisang Mahuai, meaning to point to a mulberry tree and then denounce an entirely different pagoda tree, implies to attack that that is entirely different from the true objective. This idea runs throughout Chinese propaganda strategy. We should bear in mind that the Chinese are, indeed, expert in propaganda operations.

C. The Asahi Shimbun continues to claim that a
“Contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword” actually took place
by
Mizoguchi Ikuo, author of
Nanking “Contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword ”?Proof of a Fiction

On April 28, 2003, a suit was filed to the Tokyo District Court concerning the libeling of Second Lieutenants Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Tsuyoshi, upon whom the “contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword” was supposedly based. The defendants were Honda Katsuichi (former employee of the Asahi Shimbun Co.), The Asahi Shimbun Co., The Mainichi Shimbun Co. and Kashiwa Shobo. I will now briefly explain how Mr. Honda and The Asahi Shimbun Co. (hereafter the Asahi) conducted propaganda operations since 1972 and what senseless assertions they made at the aforementioned trial.

The first trial at District Court was not at all useful

Against the four defendants, the plaintiff had to submit a wide range of documents, including those related to the China Incident and the Nanking Trials.

On the other hand, the defendants brought up pro-Nanking Massacre books like The Nanking Massacre: New Edition by Fujiwara Akira, trying to concentrate on the assertion that the two Second Lieutenants were leading figures in the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army. The focal point of dispute of the trial became blurred and ambiguous, succeeding merely in wasting time. In the first place, the “contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword” (The two Second Lieutenants were to compete in putting 100 men to the sword on their way from Wuxi to Nanking Castle) was a story of valiance issued as a four-part serial by correspondent Asaumi and others of the Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun Co. (currently the Mainichi Shimbun Co.) for the purpose of elevating the fighting spirit among the military. 39

The Mainichi Shimbun Co, in 1989, stated that the stories were not true, saying “…in postwar years, [the articles] were rebuked as being symbolic of the Nanking Massacre. However, the contest mentioned in these articles turned out to be groundless.” Therefore, it was not at all necessary to widen the front, involving the Mainichi Shimbun Co. and publisher Kashiwa Shobo?from the perspective of freedom of publication and expression.

A full-fledged examination of Mr. Honda, the very perpetrator of the libel only started at the High Court after the verdict of the District Court was announced in August, 2005. Two years and several months had passed in vain since the start of the trial.

New Testimony denies the description in Travels in China

Mr. Honda had long and continuously maintained that the two Second Lieutenants “engaged in a killing contest, which was killing the prisoners of war who were foreced to sit still.” This was the point regarded as libel. Mr. Honda’s book, Travels in China, published in 1972, depicts the “Killer Contest.” The book introduces recollection of Mr. Shijime Akira, who heard a story told at Second Lieutenant Noda’s elementary school alma mater:

…actually charging, in very close combat, I only cut several soldiers…Toward enemy trenches we had occupied, we called out, “Come here” in Chinese and then foolish Chinese soldiers came out, moving in crowds toward us. We put them in line and cut them at random…actually this was how we cut them.

Mr. Honda twisted an act in close combat into “cutting fixed-targets.” Once the trial began, Asahi Shimbun Co, made full use of their entire research network, both domestically and overseas. One of their approaches was to find out classmates other than Mr. Shijime. I myself also endeavored to seek out classmates. A year after the trial began, on April 22, 2004, I was able to meet Mr. Nogami Kenichiro, who was senior fraternity member at my high school alma mater. A reporter from the Asahi was also interested in Mr. Nogami and made an appointment for an interview in Tokyo. Luckily, I was several days ahead of him.

Mr. Nogami rejected Mr. Shijime’s recollection as written in the statement submitted to District Court:

① I remember hearing Second Lieutenant Noda Tsuyoshi speak about his experience while I was in the sixth grade of elementary school. As I was a little boy, I believed that Mr. Noda was the officer famous for the “Contest of killing 100 enemy”. However, Mr. Noda did not mention having done performed such a feat, nor killed prisoners of war.
② Mr. Shijime said that he heard Mr. Noda say that “When we called out, ‘Come here’, foolish Chinese soldiers came out, moving in crowds toward us. And we put them in line and cut them at random.” I did not hear such a story.

Mr. Honda’s fabricated story of “cutting set targets of prisoners of war”

In Mr. Shijime’s aforementioned story, no words explaining “cutting fixed targets of prisoners of war” appeared. Mr. Honda introduced Mr. Uno Shintaro, who had been brainwashed at Fushun Concentration Camp for prisoners of war, and wrote the following in Conspiracy of the Pen, published in 1977:

What Mr. Uno Shintaro wrote is a rare confession and self-accusation of a man who experienced beheading many Chinese. Through this, we know that what is called “Killing 100 enemies”, using Japanese swords, was actually cutting 100 fixed targets, and at the same time this practice was quite an ordinary activity among Japanese Army officers. Understandably, there were countless Nodas and Mukais at that time.

Mr. Uno, an intelligence officer then, went to the Chinese Continent in 1942 and wrote that “Murders committed during a period of three years and five months were all ‘cutting fixed targets’ (after having arrested and tortured flying column soldiers of the Chinese Regular Army and patriots, we lined them and then beheaded them using military swords). I have never had experience using a Japanese sword in close combat on the battleground.” In the first place, it is totally against military common sense that an intelligence officer should carry out the act of beheading enemy soldiers (nearly 40 of them). Probably, Mr. Uno had Mr. Shijime’s depiction of “lining them and cutting them at random” in mind when he wrote this. Thereafter, “cutting fixed targets” continued to be depicted in Mr. Uno’s books Chrysanthemums and Japanese Sword (1985) and Thirteen Lies behind the Theory Denying the Nanking Massacre.

The Asahi further escalates claims that farmers were being cutting

The Asahi, in a desperate search for useful sources for the trial, finally found a book entitled My China Incident, written by Mochizuki Mitsugoro in 1985, lying in a far corner of Kaiko Library in Yasukuni Shrine and submitted a chapter on “killing farmers” from the book to District Court. The judge ruled that the description of “killing farmers” qualified as proper exhibit of fact to prove the act of cutting fixed targets. In the aforementioned book, author Mochizuki writes that “Rummaging among secondhand booksellers, I finally came up with several books” and introduces eight books. However, all of them were included in The Collection of War-Related Literature of the Showa Era Vol. II Advance toward China (1964). Like this case, there are more than two hundred wrong or fabricated items. I will show a part of such descriptions:

Around this time, Second Lieutenants Noda and Mukai started killing 100 men using the sword. Second Lieutenant Noda, an officer in training was newly posted to the 11th Company and became our instructor… This is the man, applauded as a brave soldier who achieved killing 100 enemies in newspapers and on the radio at home, who suddenly became famous. ‘Hey, Mochizuki, bring a Chinese over there to me’ and I dragged the Chinese to him as ordered. The Chinese begged for his life, in vain, and with resignation he kneeled down before us. One stroke of the sword and his head was gone and his torso collapsed forward. Blood gushed out from the beheaded neck, moving stones rhythmically.

The description of “moving stones rhythmically” is nothing more than imaginary. In the first place, Second Lieutenant Noda was adjutant to battalion commander and he had never been posted to the 11th Company. Moreover, Mr. Mochizuki confidently described “killing 100 enemies using the sword”, of which at that time no one was supposed to know. In fact, it was only through newspapers published the following year that Second Lieutenant Noda himself knew about his “killing 100 enemies using the sword”.

Evidence of killing “253” or “274” enemies was submitted

Mr. Honda and the other defendants submitted to the District Court newspaper articles, some of which reported that a contest of killing more than 100 enemies using the sword took place.

▽ Killing 253 enemies?The Osaka Mainichi Shimbun (January 25, 1938)
▽ Killing 374 enemies?The Kagoshima Shimbun (March 21, 1938) and The Kagoshima Asahi Shimbun (March 22, 1938).

The fact is that the Kyoto 16th Division, to which both Second Lieutenants belonged, moved to the east of Nanking in January of the following year after Nanking fell, which clearly demonstrates the fallacy of these articles. However, the judge ruled that the articles were “appropriate proofs of fact.”

Mr. Jiang Genfu, who explained the competition of cutting 100 men in Mr. Honda’s Travels in China, also said in Renmin Zhongguo (People’s China), published only four months after Travels in China, the following:

…one who achieved to kill 100 enemies first was to be winner. The goal was to kill 100 persons each, but following the order of the senior officer, these two killers committed mass-murdering three times over the distance of 45 kilometers, killing more than 600 of our compatriots.” (Refute the Attempt to Make the Nanking Massacre a Phantom by Hora Tomio)

You now know how untrustworthy and dubious pro-Nanking Massacre books are.

The verdict of the High Court was practically a great victory

Unlike the trial in District Court, the High Court made a remark to the point:

The most vital point (besides four other points) in recognizing the article of the “Contest of killing 100 enemies using the sword” as fact is that ‘it was an act in combat.’ Therefore, it is wrong to mention the article in the Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun as evidence of cutting set targets of prisoners of war, which is clearly not an act in combat.

In the end, the libeling of the two Second Lieutenants was not upheld. From now on, I wonder whether Mr. Honda and Asahi will continue to espouse the “contest of killing 100 enemies using the sword.” In any case, the trial was practically a great victory.

What became of correspondent Asaumi and his family after the event?

One of the contributors to the articles of the contest of killing 100 enemies using the sword was reporter Suzuki Jiro and he wrote about reporter Asami, that “after he resigned as chairman of a labor union, he went to China, taking his family with him.” (Conspiracy of the Pen, 1977). However, critic Takayama Masayuki tells a different story:

He wrote fabricated articles that wrongly stated that Japanese Army officers competed in killing 100 enemies using the sword…However, the lie was revealed. Asaumi was transferred to an insignificant and slack section and The Mainichi Shimbun put a big question mark on his articles in its publication entitled History of Showa for Hundred Million People. If Asami himself confessed that he had fabricated them, then the Nanking Massacre, over which China made much fussing, would be revealed to be also a fabrication. Liao Chengzhi, thinking it high time to deal with Asaumi, invited him to China, saying ‘We will offer you money and job. Why don’t you come over to Beijing with you family?’ Asami left his home country, to stay would be nothing less than torture, and went to China. His daughter Mari was admitted to Beijing University. Today, she lives an elegant life, running a store in Government-related facilities.” (Shukan (Weekly) Shincho, August 30, 2012 issue)

D. The history of the modern-era relationship
between Japan and China which led to the China Incident
by
Ishibe Katsuhiko, Society for the Study of Liberalist View of History

Ever since the Meiji Restoration, the fundamental policy of Japanese diplomacy was to cooperate with neighboring countries in order to cope with the European and American Great Powers. In other words, it was Pan-Asianism. Okakura Tenshin once said that “Asia is one,” and Toyama Mitsuru described that “Japan and China are exactly like a couple.” However, both Chosun and China did not sympathize with Japan in this view, instead regarding Japan as an enemy, which forced Japan to tread a difficult path.

Under such a circumstance, Japan feared that Chosun might be put under Russian control. Once Chosun becomes engulfed in flames of aggression on the part of Europe and America, it would be impossible to keep the fire from spreading toward Japan. The effective solution to prevent such a fire is to build a powerful modern state, which would cope, as an equal, with the Great Powers of the West. Thinking this way, Japan carried this out herself and also asked Chosun to follow suit. However, Chosun did not understand Japan’s good intention and would not change its state and old ways.

In 1884 (the 17th year of Meiji), the Jiashen Incident occurred. A coup d’etat by Kim Ok-kyun, who was trying to cooperate with Japan, was immediately subdued by the Qing Army. The Japanese Army tried to save Kim, but was easily defeated and the Japanese Ministry to which Kim had escaped was burned down.

In 1886 (the 19th year of Meiji), the Nagasaki Incident occurred. Four Chinese warships, including the Dingyuan and the Zhenyuan of the Qing’s Beiyan Fleet, entered the Port of Nagasaki, demonstrating their grandeur. Qing soldiers landed in the city and committed utter violence at random. They exchanged fire in the street with squads of Japanese police, causing casualties on both sides. The Qing took a high-handed attitude, while Japan apologized, which settled the matter.

The Qing Dynasty’s control over Chosun further consolidated. This became the greatest obstacle for Chosun to comply with Japan’s request. In 1894 (the 27th year of Meiji), the Donghak Peasant Revolution occurred. Both the Japanese Army and Qing Army were dispatched. Japan demanded Chosun’s independence, but Qing refused it. Following the request of Daewongun (The Great Archduke), Japan declared war on Qing in order to realize Chosun’s independence. This was the Sino-Japanese War.

The defeat in the Sino-Japanese War urged self-reflection on the part of the Qing. Qing, which failed to achieve modernization, lost to Japan, which, on the other hand, successfully accomplished modernization. This led to the trend of seeking opportunities to learn from Japan. Many Chinese students came to Japan to study.

In 1898 (the 31st year of Meiji), young Emperor Guangxu-di aspired to carry out a reform modeling after the Meiji Restoration with young government officials like Kang Youwei. However, this attempt to reform collapsed due to the betrayal on the part of Yuan Shikai (Political Change of Wuxu). Emperor Guangxu-di was confined and Kang Youwei exiled himself to Japan.

In 1901 (the 34th year of Meiji), the Boxer Rebellion was suppressed. The Armies of all the participating countries except Japan took plundering to extremes in their respective commissioned regions. Only in the region in which the Japanese Army was in charge was military discipline strictly observed and evacuees rushed there. Furthermore, the Japanese Army dissuaded the German Army from cannonading the Purple Palace (Zijin-cheng), and had the Palace open without bloodshed, thus preserving the beautiful Palace and its treasures. Prince Konoe Atsumaro, a believer in Pan-Asianism, paid the most sincere courtesy toward the Imperial family of the Qing Dynasty and gained their trust.

In 1902 (the 35th year of Meiji), new governance under Xi Taihou began. With Xi Taihou, who returned to power, new modernization movements took place. Training human resources, promoting industries, improving armaments and implementing legal reforms were set as national goals. In the process, learning from Japan was emphasized. A large number of delegations were sent to Japan and Japan returned their earnest enthusiasm in kind. The number of foreign students studying in Japan greatly increased.

In 1905 (the 38th year of Meiji), the age-old system of civil service examination was abolished and instead, studying in Japan was substituted for the old system as qualification. The victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of the same year also greatly fascinated Qing students in Japan. There was certainly a time when both Japan and China maintained good, friendly relationship.

In 1911 (the 44th year of Meiji), the Xinhai Revolution occurred. There were not only those Japanese who directly helped Sun Yat-sen, but also many Japanese who had sympathized with the cause of this revolution and actually participated in it.

In 1912 (the 45th year of Meiji), the Republic of China was established. Sun Yat-sen became its interim Governor-General and many Japanese took part in his government and helped him. Then, after Sun Yat-sen, Yuan Shikai became interim Governor- General and had long been assisted by a Japanese military man, named Sakanishi Rihachiro, acting as an advisor. The Beiyang Army was created by Sakanishi.

In 1915 (the 4th year of Taisho), when the Japanese Army captured Qindao, which had been under the German Army’s control, Yuan Shikai openly displayed anti-Japanese attitudes. The Japanese Government was obliged to present what was called the “21 Demands.” This was intended to solve pending issues between Japan and China in one fell swoop. These demands were perfectly justifiable and, yet, Yuan Shikai maliciously publicized them, mixing in lies, both in China and to the rest of the world. He also entrapped Japan into issuing an ultimatum and then loudly accused Japan of being heavy-handed. This was the starting point of conflict and a worsening relationship between Japan and China. Incidentally, Japan was promised that German rights and interests in Shandong were to be conceded to Japan and then turned over to the Republic of China.

After Yuan Shikai died in 1916 (the 5th year of Taisho), the Republic of China collapsed into pieces. In Shandong, the military government of Sun Yat-sen was born and in the northern part of China, subordinates of Yuan Shikai became chiefs of various military cliques, competing with each other for power. Eventually, Duan Qirui, among them became President of State Affairs, virtually Prime Minister. Japan’s Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake strongly wanted Duan Qirui to establish a stable government and decided to financially assist him with a great sum of money. Having been mediated by Nishihara Kamezo, the deal was called the “Nishihara Loan”. A total of 145 million (equivalent to 100 trillion at present value) was provided over several terms. 40 In exchange for this, a pact entitled Official Exchange Document Concerning Dealing of Various Issues in Shandong Province was concluded in 1918 (the 7th year of Taisho). By this pact, the German rights and interests in Shandong was to be finally conceded to Japan, which the Republic of China “gladly” accepted.

In 1919 (the 8th year of Taisho), the Paris Peace Conference was held. The Republic of China participated in the conference as a victor country on the basis that Duan Qirui’s Government of the Republic of China declared war on Germany. The claim made by the Republic of China was that German rights and interests in Shandong should be directly returned to the Republic of China. The United States supported this, but being shown the “official exchange document” concluded in 1918, the U.S. had to concede to Japanese assertion. The Treaty of Versailles was concluded as Japan had asserted, but the delegation from the Republic of China refused to sign it. As soon as the news reached China, the “5-4 Movement,” which refused the “21 Demands”, spread mainly among students in Beijing. China began to demand not only German rights and interests in Shandong, but also the return of rights and interests in Manchuria which had been granted to Japan as a result of the Russo-Japanese War. In the background of this new demand was the influence of the “Karakhan Declaration” issued in July of the same year. Karakhan, a member of the Soviet Diplomatic Committee, declared that all rights and interests that old Russia had usurped shall be returned (which turned out to be a lie) the following year. It followed that if the Soviets were ready to return rights and interests, then so should Japan. The influence of the Communist Party further strengthened.

In 1922 (the 11th year of Taisho), the Washington Conference was held. The delegate of the Republic of China obstinately demanded the return of German rights and interests in Shandong and Russian rights and interests in Manchuria. A Japanese delegate, Shidehara Kijuro conceded regarding the Shandong issue, judging from the general situation, and accepted China’s demand.

Entering the 1920’s, in Beijing, civil wars were constantly fought among military cliques in Northern China and Manchuria?the Anzhi War (1920), the First Fengzhi War (1922) and the Second Fengzhi War (1924), and those in power rapidly changed. The last winner was Zhang Zuolin of the Fengtian Clique. Duan Qirui lost his position and the Nishihara Loan disappeared accordingly.

On the other hand, Sun Yat-sen of the Guangdong military government competed with the military clique government in Beijing and tried to unite the country using military force. In 1921, Sun Yat-sen contacted Maring of the Comintern, moving toward cooperating with the Soviet and realized the unification between the Nationalists and Communists in 1924. After Sun Yat-sen died, strife over his successor erupted. In 1926, Chiang Kai-shek took the top office of the Nationalist Army. He immediately started to militarily unite the country, launching the campaign called the Northern Expedition.

In March, 1927 (the 2nd year of Showa), the Nanking Incident occurred. When the Northern-Expedition Army entered Nanking, Chinese soldiers attacked foreign residential quarters and displayed extremes in plundering. Japan remained non-resistant to the end. Though they barely escaped death, Japanese residents who had evacuated within the Japanese Embassy were exposed to Chinese soldiers, having their way in looting everything in sight. In April the same year, the Hankou Incident took place. The Japanese concession in Hankou was attacked by a Chinese mob, led by a Communist organization. The Japanese Naval Landing Force mobilized and rescued the residents. In May, a Japanese force was dispatched to Shandong for the first time. When the Northern-Expedition Army came closer to Shandong, the Japanese Government dispatched 2,000 soldiers to Qingdao to protect the residents in the Japanese residential quarters. The Northern-Expedition Army was defeated and withdrew, on which the Japanese Army also withdrew.

In May, 1928 (the 3rd year of Showa), the Jinan Incident occurred. Previously, in April, the northern expedition campaign had resumed. Following the request of the residents in Jinan, a Japanese force was once again dispatched (The Second Shandong Dispatch), and solidified the guard. Receiving a notification of guaranteed security from Chiang Kai-shek, the Japanese force disbanded its guard. Seizing this opportunity, the Northern-Expedition Army attacked the region and committed looting and violence. The Japanese force returned to the scene and had the Chinese Army retreat, but it was too late. The corpses of more than twenty people who were massacred were left by the Chinese.

In June the same year, an incident took place in which Zhang Zuolin was killed in a bomb explosion. The ruler of Beijing Zhang Zuolin was to return to Manchuria. Just before the train carrying Zhang Zuolin arrived at Fengtian, the train exploded, seriously injuring Zhang Zuolin. He was taken home, where he later died. It has been generally believed that the plot was carried out by Kawamoto Daisuke of the Japanese Guandong Army. But in recent years, there are assertions that the Comintern or Zhang Xueliang plotted this conspiracy. In December, Zhang Xueliang changed his banner. Succeeding his father, Zhang Xueliang became ruler of Manchuria and severed friendly relationships with Japan and declared obedience to the Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek, raising the banner of the Sun in the Blue Sky. Activities on the part of Communist powers further gained momentum.

September, 1931 (the 6th year of Showa) saw the outbreak of the Mukden Incident and following this in March, the state of Manzhouguo was established. The Mukden Incident was caused by Zhang Xueliang’s attempt to forcibly take Japanese rights and interests. Violence committed by anti-Japanese powers was equally ugly. Negotiations through which Japan hoped to solve the problem brought no effective solution. Knowing the true situation, the Guandong Army took to action. The army led by Zhang Xueliang was 200,000 strong, while the Guandong Army was only 15,000 strong. How did the latter successfully overwhelm the former? We must stop to think about the reason and the significance of this victory. The victory was due an overwhelmingly large number of people living in Manchuria who supported the Japanese Army. Zhang Xueliang’s extortion of the Manchurian people defied description. Seeing Zhang Xueliang’s Army flee, people in various parts of Manchuria became frantic with joy and had their leaders declare independence in each respective region. Among the leaders was Zhang Jinghui. He later became Prime Minister of Manzhouguo. People like him got together and created Manzhouguo.

The Japanese Guandong Army laid the ground for nation building and once the nation was established, the Army played a role in supporting the new nation from behind. In due time, the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty, Emperor Pu-yi acceded to the throne. Thus, an ideal state was born, upholding the harmony and peace among the five ethnic nations.

Contributors:

Ishihara Takao, Tokyo Branch, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform
Editing and wrote p.xx, yy, —
Miwa Takeshi, Kanagawa Branch, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform
Wrote p. aa, —
Moteki Hiromichi, Secretary-general, Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Wrote p. bb, —
Ishibe Katsuhiko, Society for the Study of Liberalist Historical View
Wrote p. cc, –
Mizoguchi Ikuo, Author of Nanking “Competition of Putting 100 Men to the Sword”?Proof of a Fiction
Wrote p. dd, —
Ogata Yoshiaki, Saitama Branch, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform
Wrote p. ee, —
Arakida Osamu, Lawyer, Tokyo Branch, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform
Wrote p.ff, —
Kato Hiroyasu, Business Research Center
Wrote p. gg, –

Supervised by Fujiwara Nobukatsu, former President, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform

There was a Battle of Nanking, but there was no “Nanking Massacre”
Campaign for the Truth of Nanking

Published by Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Shin Sakuma Bldg., 3F, 2-13-14, Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-0003, Japan
Copyright c. 2012 by Campaign for the Truth of Nanking
Original Japanese Edition Published by Campaign for the Truth of Nanking
English translation rights c. 2013 Owned by Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
All rights reserved, including the rights of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
Printed in Japan.

1 Reproduction of Nanking Battle by Higashinakano Shudo (2007, Soshisha, Tokyo)
2 No American Witnessed a Massacre by Mastumura Tohsio https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/85_S4.pdf
3 The Frontline of the Study on the “Nanking Massacre” edited by Higashinakano Shudo, 2003, Tendensha, Tokyo.
4 Top-Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident by Higashinakano Shudo, 2006, Soshisha, Tokyo.
5 Anti-war Activities on the Part of Japanese Soldiers, 1962, Dosei-sha, Tokyo.
6 Top-Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident by Higashinakano Shudo, 2006, Soshisha, Tokyo.
7 A Cyclopedia of Recent Foreign Visitors to China, 1981
8 Autobiography of Zeng Xubai, Part I, 1988
9 (Autobiography of Zeng Xubai, Part I, 1988 and The so-called “Nanking Incident”, August 2012 Issue, Kaiko)

10 Top Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident, 2006
11 John Rabe’s diary titled Truth about Nanking, 1977
12 Top Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident.
13 Truth about Nanking Is not True! by Kodan-sha
14 Smythe’s Report on War Damages in Nanking, 1938
15 The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation, by Kitamura Minoru, University Press of America, Inc., 2007.
16 ibid.
17 Stenographic Record of the Study Group’s Survey regarding Idea, Education, Religion and Learning, 1940.
18 The Curriculum Vitae of Miner Bates stored at the Yale University.
19 “The Nanking Massacre and German Military Advisor” by Furusho Koichi, WiLL Magazine, January, 2008 Issue.

20 The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation by Kitamura Minoru, 2007.
21 The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction,Higashinakano Shudo, Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2005.
22 Top Secret Chinese Nationalist Documents Reveal the Truth about the Nanking Incident, 2008, Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact.

https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/27_S4.pdf

23 Sources of the Sino-Japanese War and Nanking Massacre Volume I Sources regarding the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, published by Aoki Shoten in 1985.
24 ibid.
25 Sources of the Nanking Massacre Volume II China-related Sources, published by Aoki Shoten, in 1992.
26 The Truth of the Nanking Operation (War Record of Kumamoto 6th Division), published by Tokyo Joho-sha, 1966.
27 Nankin Gyakusatu no TetteiKensho (The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction) by Higashinakano Shudo.
28 Sources of the Nanking Incident, 2, China-related Sources, Aoki Shoten, 1992.
29 The Nanking Incident, Chuko-shinsho, 1986.
30 Nanking Contest of killing 100 Enemies using to a Sword?Proof of a Fiction, Shuchou-sha, 2011.
31 Imperial Soldier, Domeitsushin-sha, 1040. Company chief’s cherished sward was mentioned as explanation of a picture in article of “long-held desire to kill 300 enemies”.
32 The Total Record of Showa History 1926-1989, The Mainichi Newspaper Co., 1989.
33 Nankin Gyakusatu no TetteiKensho (The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction) by Higashinakano Shudo.

34 Sunday Mainichi, Extra Edition of October 20, 1966.
35 Eyewitness to Massacre edited by Zhang Kaiyuan (M.E. Sharpe, New York, 2001), p.34.
36 Japanese Terror in China edited by H. Timperley, Modern Age Books, New York, 1938, P.24.
37 Eyewitness to Massacre, op. cit. p.255.
38 Ibid., p.257.
39 Nanking contest to kill 100 enemies using a sword ?Proof of a Fiction, by Mizoguchi Ikuo, Shucho-sha, Tokyo, 2011, p.33
40 Eighty Percent of the Chinese People Are Foolish by Kou Bunyu (a/k/a Huang Wenxiong), Rihaku-sha, Tokyo, 2011, p.28.
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

127