In short, Nanking 1937 needs to be read in a way that highlights the universal within the particular. Set it against the background of the Russian rape of German women in postwar occupied Germany (1945-49), or the French torture of civilians during the Algerian War (1954-62) or the American atrocities at No Gun Ri hamlet early in the Korean War (1950-53). Compare the logic of Japan’s campaign in 1930s China with the American colonial war of aggression in Iraq, now generating war atrocities on a virtually daily basis, or with the American murder of Afghanis prisoners at the U.S. Baghran air base in Afghanistan, or the American mistreatment of war prisoners held in cages at the U.S. Guantanamo base in Cuba. And don’t forget the lessons of the atrocities in Nanking when reading of the atrocious policies that Israeli governments (past but especially present) pursue against the Palestinians for the sake of Israeli "settlements" and "outposts" built illegally on stolen land. By conjuring the sight of these still fresh, unhealed crimes this book should enlighten and anger its readersHerbert Bix
I think this is close to what I have done with comfort women, torture, massacres during Japanese colonization.
He also suggests that the future study should be directed at
"why aggressor commit crimes" That is also important. and I think we should also study why the war takes place in the first place, how we can prevernt it happen.Rumme has one answer.
During this century's wars, there were some 38 million battle deaths, but almost four times more people&emdash;at least 170 million&emdash;were killed by governments for ethnic, racial, tribal, religious, or political reasons. I call this phenomenon democide, and it means that authoritarian and totalitarian governments are more deadly than war.
Many people are aware that some 60 million people died during World War II. What's much less well known is that only about 16 million of the World War II deaths involved combatants.
When you have a very powerful dictatorship, it doesn't follow automatically that a country will be violent. But I find the most violent countries are authoritarian or totalitarian.
The Freeman: Your research ought to give one renewed appreciation for the greater peace of the nineteenth century, the heyday of classical liberalism.
Rummel: Yes. During earlier eras, whenever power has been unlimited, savagery was horrifying.
I conclude that nobody can be trusted with unlimited power. The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom.
The Freeman: Tell us about your findings on peace.
Rummel: First, long-established democracies don't wage war on each other, and they rarely commit other kinds of violence against each other, either.
Second, the more democratic two countries are, the less likely they will go to war against each other.
Third, the more democratic a country is, the lower the level of violence when there's a conflict with another country. [p. 401]
Fourth, the more democratic a country, the less likely it will have domestic political violence.
Fifth, the bottom line: democratic freedom is a method of nonviolence.
The Freeman: What do you mean by democratic?
Rummel: People have equal rights before the law. Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association. Free markets. Constitutional limitations on government power. Policies and leaders are determined through open, competitive elections where at least two-thirds of adult males have the franchise.
The Freeman: Why do you think liberal democracies tend to be peaceful?
Rummel: Power is dispersed through many different families, churches, schools, universities, corporations, partnerships, business associations, scientific societies, unions, clubs, and myriad other associations. There's plenty of competition, and people have overlapping interests. The social order isn't controlled by anybody&emdash;it evolves spontaneously.
Democracy is a culture of political compromise, free exchange, peaceful negotiation, toleration of differences. Because time is needed for a democratic culture to develop and gain widespread acceptance, I stress that a peace dividend is achieved as a democracy becomes well-established.
Even though there might be a lot of government interference in daily life through minimum-wage laws, environmental laws, drug prohibition, government schools, and other policies, as long as a democratic culture remains strong, government officials must still negotiate with each other as well as with private interests.
By contrast, as Hayek explained in The Road to Serfdom&emdash;in his famous chapter Why the worst get on top&emdash;centralized government power attracts aggressive, domineering personalities. They are the most likely to gain power. And the more power they have, naturally the less subject they are to restraint. The greater the likelihood such a country will pursue aggressive policies. The highest risks of war occur when two dictators face each other. There's likely to be a struggle for supremacy.
Another important reason why democracies tend to be peaceful is that people have a say in whether their government goes to war. They don't want to die, they don't want to see their children become casualties, they don't want the higher taxes, regimentation, inflation, and everything else that comes with war.
When democracies do enter a war for reasons other than self-defense, politicians often find it necessary to deceive the public. In [p. 402] 1916, this was the case when Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a promise to keep the United States out of World War I, then maneuvered the country into it. And again in 1940, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned on a promise to keep out of World War II, then conducted foreign policy not as a neutral but as an ally of Great Britain and an enemy of Germany. My point is that in the United States, a liberal democracy, there was considerable popular opposition to entering foreign wars, and both presidents deceived the public, which wanted to remain at peace.Rudolph Rummel
I think his argument is clear and convincing. I want to study his site more carefully.
Apology, responsibity and reparations.
Japan has apologized several times to China for what she had done during the war, but some Chinese people still complain. They say Japan should apologize in a official written document .
Some Japanese people, on the other hand, are getting tired of Chinese agents calling for apology whenever there are other political issues between two countries.
My suggestion is that Japanese goverment should aplogize to the individul victims on condition that China gives people maximum freedom of speech.
Japan apologized, but Chinese governemt keeps the imformation from people.Chinese government manipulates people so that she strenghen nationalism. Such as it is, any apology from Japanese government will turn out to be nothing.I think my suggestion is fair to both victims and Chinese people.
It is responsibility of scholars to search as accurate picture as possible of what happened.
In doing so, it is crucial that they give as many perspectives as possible.
We can put each perspective in the history textbook.That way, students can critically learn what the history is..
Do not use fake photos.Do not use fake numbers.Do not use fake testimonies.(That only benifits the deniers.)but at the same time, do not be too strict with evidences.
In court, it is a principle that you should give a benift of doubt to the defendant.but in historical writing of the war situation it is plausible to use the evidences which might not be admissable in the court for the victims, because unlike peace situations, there are few people who can accuse and record the war crimes accurately in war time. 
Japan should make reparations to Chinese individul victims.
Chinese victims who filed lawsuit were rejected by the Japanese courts because there is no law which enable victims to be cured. Japanese assemly need to conclude the new law.The law should be based on a principle of reciprocity.In other words, Chinese assembly should also conclude the law so that Japanese victims by Chinese terrorists can receive reparations from Chinese government.Japanese govenment, on the other hand, does not have to be worried about China's political tactics in which China use history to get what she want.
Besides,by doing these, any government should know war and war crimes cost a lot for both a victor and a loser
His site and blog is full of exciting arguments and statistics.You might want to visit.
And here is some controvercies over his theory.
And here is his opinion about Iraqi.
So, why are we fighting in Iraq and fostering democratic freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, and democide, and to minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security. Surely, this is worth fighting for.link
I agree with the basic idea, but there are a lot of counries like iraq in the world.
Are we justified in attacking these countries in the way the U.S did,in the name of promoting democracy?
Was attacking Iraq not too hasty to excute.
Was promoting democracy the main reason to have attacked Iraq?
Wasn't he saying "When democracies do enter a war for reasons other than self-defense, politicians often find it necessary to deceive the public."?
The following what Gordn Brown, has to say.
I think the days of Britain having to apologise for our history are over. I think we should move forward. I think we should celebrate much of our past rather than apologise for it and we should talk, rightly so, about British valuesBBC
 I have read Higashinakano's the Nanking Massacre.(sekai syuppan inc.Tokyo 2005),His position belongs to so called denier school.In my view one of his problems is to use the strict criteria and narrow interpretation of the international law to find facts .The similar things can be said of "What really happened in Nanking" by Tanaka.However I suggest to reserve judgment until you read both sides, "massacre school","denier school".