When I studied Korea under Japanese rule, and Nanjin Massacre, I realsized that there are a lot of versions of history.A historian chooses the subject matter.
For instance, when you are writing about history of a nation, and if you belong to the nation, it is natural that you want to discover good things about your nation and
you don't want to see the bad things about your nation.
Thus, Japanese do not want to hear the massacre the Japanese soldiers did during the war, and Koreans do not want to hear its equivalent during the Korean war, for instance.
Likewise,Japanese want to believe Japan contributed a lot to the colonized nations while Koreans want to believe that she could develop without help of others.
Depending on your perspective, you choose different subject matters, and topics.
Probably most of the time historians have, conciously or unconciously, the purpose, or purposes, in writing the story.
It has been written, for instance,
in order to show the glory of of God.
in oder to show the legitimacy or illegitimacy of status quo.
in order to settle the present issue.
in order to cure the wounds of the past.[1]
Let's take Nanjin Massacre for instance.What happened in Nanking?
Chinese "patriots" wants to talk about it. Japanese counterparts would not.
But once the topic is chosen, the battel starts.
You have to state the facts.Dependeing on your perspective, the following facts can be asserted.
1) Civilians were killed in Nanjin
2) POWs were killed in Nanjin.
3) POWs were excuted in Nanjin
4) The soldiers were killed in Nanjin.
Basically, Chinese "patriots" want to say 1) is true,whereas deniers argure 3)or 4) was the case.
The many historians hold 2) was the case.
(I am simplifying the matter for the sake of the argument).
When the facts are stated, you have to prove it by evidences.
Are there any evidences/reports?
If not why?
A history professor once told me to be very wary of preserved documents. "Ask yourself," she said, "who decided that this document should be saved, while others were very likely destroyed? Who was in charge when the decisions to spare or obliterate were made?"Deborah Peifer
Hence that there is no evidence does not necessariliy means there was no fact.
At the same time, it does not follow we can infer anything.
Chinse " patriots" want to say there are more people killed than the records show,
Japanese counterparts say no,no.
If there is an evidence/a report[2]
1)Is it admissable?/Is the person qualified?
Is it reported directrly ? it is based on herasay?
For instance,
From its very beginning, the legitimacy of the IMTFE was questioned by many.
All the eleven justices were from the victor nations. Except for the Indian justice, Radhabinod Pal, no judges had much experience in international law.
September 24, 1946. The eleven justices on bench.
Besides, had the trial been in a normal court, some of them would probably have been disqualified.
The Chinese justice, Mei Ju-ao, had no experience as a judge in China or elsewhere.
The U. S. S. R. representative, Major General I. M. Zaryanov, did not speak either Japanese or English, the two official languages of the tribunal.
The Philippine justice, Delfin Jaranilla, was a Bataan Death March survivor.
The Australian justice and the designated president of the tribunal, William Webb, had been involved in an investigation of Japanese atrocities in New Guinea.
Many argued the Tokyo Charter was ex post facto, or retroactive, legislation. The burden of criminality that made a failure to prevent war crimes also a crime, and the individuals' criminality for acts of states, had never been indictable in international law before the Axis powers' defeat.link
It seems to me this is relatively fair judgment.
(But note that the fact some judges were disqualified does not mean the defendants were innocent.)
Bix disagrees.
the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal, whom Falk mis-describes as a "neutral analyst," was, in fact, a supporter of the pro-Axis Indian nationalist Chandra Bose, and thus hardly a reliable guide to understanding why Japanese interpretations of the Asia-Pacific War still inhibit Japan’s redress of past grievances. An ardent nationalist who viewed the imperialism of Western white men as the main source of evil in Asia, Pal was the only judge who justified, whitewashed, or cast doubt on virtually all evidence of Japanese atrocities submitted by the prosecution, even going so far as to deny that large numbers of rapes had occurred at Nanking.Herbert P. Bix
Well if Pal is not qualified for this reasons, why are other judges qualified?
Anyway, some argue that IMTFE was not fair partly because Pal was qualified but his judge was ignored, while others argue, like Bix, that it was fair partly because Pal is not qualified.
2)Was the report reliable?biased?
For what purpose was it reported/written?
Who reported it?
is the reporter a male or a female, black, white, a spy, a scholar,rich, poor,layman,specialist etc[3]
For instance,the judgment of the Tokyo trial was based on Timperly's document,and
the massacare school argue that
Although Timperley was working as an advisor to the Chiang Kai-shek's propaganda organization, it seemed he was motivated by his strong conviction against war rather than his personal sympathy with Chinese.link
"Some 'deniers' argue that Nanjing was much more peaceful than we generally think. They always show some photographs with Chinese refugees selling some food in the street or Chinese people smiling in the camps. They are forgetting about Japanese propaganda. The Imperial Army imposed strict censorship.link
The author thinks that Timparley, who was an adivisor to Chinese army, is reliable while the photos of peaceful Nanjin are not reliable because they were taken under the influence of Japanese army.
On the other hand,the deniers argue the opposite;since Timberly was an adviser of Chinese ministry of imformation, his report is not reliable.And they point out you can find out the description of peaceful Nanjin even in the Documents of the Nanjin Safty Zone by Shushi Hsu, which was entirely under Chinese editorship and management[4]
2)'Is the story consistent with other evidences?Was the testimony crossexamined?
For example, the Chinese authority insist, based on one report, that 300000 people were killed.linkthe denier school counterargues, based on another report, that the population of Nanjin was only 200000 just before Japan's invasion, how can you kill 300000 people when there were only 200000 people in the first place? And the poulation increased after the invasion because the people who run away came back, realizing the Nanjin was slready in peace.see also linklink
Still another example is that based on one record,some Chinese insist a Chinese organization buried an average of 2600 bodies per day, deniers aruge that with the limited number of Chinese workers, and without bulldozers,it is practically impossible to bury that much.[5]
3) Evaluation of evidences.
What matters for history is not such a trivial fact as the cat is on the mat",but some siginificant facts.The fact that people died in Nanjin is not siginificant but the fact that civilians are killed is a siginificant fact.
However to assert the sinificant fact, you need to evaluate the evidence you have.
For instance,
"Are the subjects killed cvilians, POWs, soldiers? "
It depends on not only how you evaulate the situation, again based on evidences,documents,reports and testimonies, but also on the interpretation of the term .[6]
CHAPTER II
Prisoners of war
Art. 4. Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I
The qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
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; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of warSecond Peace Conference of The Hague, 1907
Based on these articles, deniers argue that since subjects killed do not fit in the categroy mentioned above, they are not POWS;for instance, chinese soldiers took off the uniforms and hide in the Safty Zone, carrying the pistols.
The Massacre school counterargues.
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.The Hague, 1907
Based on this introductoion,the massacre school argue that deniers are wrong in interpreting the article.Besides, the way Japanese army checked whether the peroson is soldier or not was not appropriate.
4)Evaluations of fact
Even after you found the fact, still you can evaluate the fact in various ways.
For instance, was it legal or illegal? If the the subjects killed were civilians, it was illegal."Was it fair or unfair?Was it liberate the country or to invade the country?Some argue, of course,it was to invade the counrty, others argue that it was necessary to restore the peace as soon as possible.(Note that this is always used when aggressor try to justify their cause, at Hiroshima, Nanjin, Iraqi) Again, it depends on how you interpret "fair"and "liberation" and "invasion", and how you evaluate the whole situation.
What happened is cruel, brutal, mad,but I've found hisroy fun for the first time through studying pros and cons.
Notes.
[1]What is hirory for?Beverley southgate
What is histroy E.H. Carr
[2]
It is very interesting to see the reveiws of hisotrical books.
The Good Man of Nanking : The Diaries of John Rabe
pros
John Rabe was a German businessman, living and working in Nanking when the Japanese invaded and conquered the city in 1937. Rabe had lived in China for 30 years and had risen to the position of senior agent for the German conglomerate, Siemens. He was tasked with selling industrial equipment to the Chinese government, enabling the construction and maintenance of electrical, water, phone, and health care facilities.
Rabe also had terrible timing; he left war-torn China and made his home in Berlin, suffering under Russian atrocities and near-starvation starting in 1944. Ironically Rabe had been briefly imprisoned and questioned by the Gestapo after he wrote another letter to Hitler about Japanese behavior in China. Rabe received some aid from the Chinese Nationals when Madame Chang Kai Shek heard of his predicament in Berlin.
Overall, this is a very good read. The diary style is a little unusual, as Rabe was clearly writing for himself and his family, and not the general public. He is an excellent author with a keen sense of humor and his role in extraordinary times. The last part of the diaries, set in Berlin under Russian occupation show Rabe depressed and afraid, not knowing how he will support his family
cons
It is hard to believe that some people really think this book is an evidence of the "Nanking Massacre". Have they really read this book carefully, they should have reached a different conclusion. I gave 3stars to this book because I think John Rabe wrote this diary quite honestly..... maybe too honest to propagate the Japanese Army's "atrocities".
Essencially, there are no massacre actually witnessed by those "objective" westerners.
Eyewitnesses to Massacre: American Missionaries Bear Witness to Japanese Atrocities in Nanjing
pros
You can tell the quality of this book's account just by looking through the first few pages of the book, its specific and detailed style should establish the credentials within minutes. By clicking on the book icon, you can even read the first few pages (including TOC), of the book in PDF format.
cons
One crucial question should be asked here: Did they really see the so-called "The Rape of Nanking / The Nanking Massacre"?
The clear answer everyone can get from this book is, NO.
In the perfect matter of fact, NO ONE EVER SAW "MASSACRE" AT ALL!!
On 12 Dec 1937, the night before the city was captured, the tens of thousands of retreating Chinese soldiers who disguised themselves as civilians poured into the Safety Zone in which the Nationalist Army had its headquarters, arsenal, antiaircraft batteries and everything. (The Documents, Rabe's diary, and in this book, p. 253: Diaries of L.S.C. Smythe, etc..)
other losses
pros
The Book "Other Losses" tells the same story my father told. He was an ambulance driver in the war. After WW2 was over and his unit found out, the entire unit surrendered to the Americans who in turn sold(!) him and all others of his unit to the Russians for slave-labor in siberian coal mines. He managed to escape in 1951, but almost all others of his unit died of hunger and lack of food and medical help.
In this serious and heavily documented study, Canadian investigator James Bacque shows how American and French leaders (Eisenhower and De Gaulle) didn't respect the elementary rights of their german military inmates. Bacque estimates that denying these P.O.W sufficient food killed almost one million of them. And this is not a thing they could be proud of... In fact, Bacque shows us how they managed to hide this hidden genocide by destroying or manipulating several documents
Those who win the war get to write the major history books any way they want. Those who lose the war don't get to write any books. This book was written by an American soldier who saw what happened to the German soldiers after WW II.
cons
I cannot conceive how any rational reader can believe Mr. Bacque's conclusions. A simple education in math and reading comprehension at a basic level will be all the rope anyone needs to hang this book. The table that he sites as "the smoking gun" is the most commonly refuted precisely because it is so easy. Either there were only 1/10 the prisoners with a 36% death rate or there were 10 times the # of prisoners with a 3.6% death rate. People should really read what they have before them.
In a professional history magazine it was stated that Ambrose, other U.S. historians and German scholars wanted to review the allegations.
The author refused to show up! Last I heard in this debate is that there was a selective use of data (small population size) and poor use of statistics.
It is also interesting to note that when the Japanese reviewer deniesthe massacre, some says, it's "embarassing", "one sick puppy" etc while when others deny the massacre by the U.S. nobody comment on the denier.see thelink
[3] A feminist wants to reexamine the history because it has been written in veiw of male's perspective.
[4]p32
p137[南京事件」の真実 北村稔 文春新書
p234 The Nanking massacre by higashinakano
I have found the photos Kajimoto is talking about. He claims that the peope below are forced to laugh.
The photo are from Asahi Newspaper.
the photos
Dec 17
the right;Japaenese soldiers shopping 5 days after the occupation.
the center/top:fields in Nanking
the center/ bottom:the refugees protected by Imperial army
the left:peaceful scenery of barbars
Dec 20
the right/top: Chinese soldeirs getteing medical treatment 治療を受けている支那傷病兵
the left/top: Chinese The surrender soldier who satisfies an appetite
the center: The friendlyscenery after the bombardment in Nanjing Castle
the right/bottom:The Japanese commanding officer is talkin to the Chinese major.
the left/ bottom: freindly senery in the Nanking Castle.
Dec 25 the photo probably taken on Dec23
the right/top:Japanese soldiers play with Chinese children with a toy tank
the left/ top kids are having fun with a broken a carriage
the right/ bottom;freindly relatiion develope through the activety of the imperial medical team.
the left/bottom:The hymn which leaks out from a garden of a Chinese church, praising the light of peace,
Dec 30 the photo probably taken on Dec 28
the right:let's fix shoes for the coming new year
the center/ top:have some milk.
the left/top A boy, you must cure the trachoma
the left/bottom:change new gauze for the happy new year.
Feb 13
the right/top:Water service revived
the right/bottom:pipe for water
the left/bottom:water from Yangtze River is being purified,
the left/bottom:Spring has come over the vender shops.
Jan 3
3000 more citizen celebrate a new self-government committee,waiving a Japanese flage and a new Nanking flag.
Japanese soldeirs making Buddhist style tombs for the nameless Chinese soldiers killed at the battle field in Nanking and are praying to console the souls of the deads.
(update May 1youth tube)
It is interesting to compare thses photos with the photos on this Chinese site.
Denier school suspect the authenticity of the photos.
link
linklink
link
The massacre school counterargueslinklink
[5]p57 What really happened in Nanking /sekai syuppan/tanaka masaaki
[6] This is a serious problem when you try to understand the remote past and a radically different culture.
第十章 判定
昭和二十三年十一月十二日朗読
松井石根
被告松井は、訴因第一・第二十七・第二十九・第三十一・第三十二・第三十五・第三十六・第五十四及び第五十五で訴追されている。
松井は日本陸軍の高級将校であり、一九三三年に大将の階級に進んだ。かれは陸軍において広い経験をもっており、そのうちには、関東軍と参謀本部における勤務が含まれていた。
共同謀議を考え出して、それを実行した者と緊密に連絡していたことからして、共同謀議者の目的と政策について、知っていたはずであるとも考えられるが、裁判所に提出された証拠は、かれが共同謀議者であったという認定を正当化するものではない。
一九三七年と一九三八年の中国におけるかれの軍務は、それ自体としては、侵略戦争の遂行と見倣すことはできない。訴因第二十七について有罪と判定することを正当化するためには、検察側の義務として、松井がその戦争の犯罪的性質を知っていたという推論を正当化する証拠を提出しなければならなかった。このことは行われなかった。
一九三五年に、松井は退役したが、一九三七年に、上海派遣軍を指揮するために、現役に復帰した。ついで、上海派遣軍と第十軍とを含む中支那方面軍司令官に任命された。これらの軍隊を率いて、かれは一九三七年十二月十三日に南京市を攻略した。
南京が落ちる前に、中国軍は撤退し、占領されたのは無抵抗の都市であった。それに続いて起ったのは、無力の市民に対して、日本の陸軍が犯した最も恐ろしい残虐行為の長期にわたる連続であった。日本軍人によって、大量の虐殺・個人に対する殺害・強姦・掠奪及び放火が行われた。
残虐行為が広く行われたことは、日本人証人によって否定されたが、いろいろな国籍の、また疑いのない、信憑性のある中立的証人の反対の証言は、圧倒的に有力である。
この犯罪の修羅の騒ぎは、一九三七年十二月十三日に、この都市が占拠されたときに始まり、一九三八年二月の初めまでやまなかった。この六、七週間の期聞において、何千という婦人が強姦され、十万以上の人々が殺害され、無数の財産が盗まれたり、焼かれたりした。
これらの恐ろしい出来事が最高潮にあったときに、すなわち十二月十七日に、松井は同市に入城し、五日ないし七日の間滞在した。自分自身の観察と幕僚の報告とによって、かれはどのようなことが起っていたかを知っていたはずである。
憲兵隊と領事館員から、自分の軍隊の非行がある程度あったと聞いたことをかれは認めている。南京における日本の外交代表者に対して、これらの残虐行為に関する日々の報告が提出され、かれらはこれを東京に報告した。
本裁判所は、何が起っていたかを松井が知っていたという充分な証拠があると認める。これらの恐ろしい出来事を緩和するために、かれは何もしなかったか、何かしたにしても、効果のあることは何もしなかった。
同市の占領の前に、かれは自分の軍隊に対して、行動を厳正にせよという命令を確かに出し、その後さらに同じ趣旨の命令を出した。現在わかっているように、またかれが知っていたはずであるように、これらの命令はなんの効果もなかった。
かれのために、当時かれは病気であったということが申し立てられた。かれの病気は、かれの指揮下の作戦行動を指導できないというほどのものでもなく、またこれらの残虐行為が起っている聞に、何回も同市を訪問できないというほどのものでもなかった。
これらの出来事に対して責任を有する軍隊を、かれは指揮していた。これらの出来事をかれは知っていた。かれは自分の軍隊を統制し、南京の不幸な市民を保護する義務をもっていたとともに、その権限をももっていた。この義務の履行を怠ったことについて、かれは犯罪的責任があると認めなければならない。
本裁判所は、被告松井を訴因第五十五について有罪、訴因第一・第二十七・第二十九・第三十一・第三十二・第三十五・第三十六及び第五十四について無罪と判定する。
（『南京大残虐事件資料集 第１巻』Ｐ３９８～Ｐ３９９） 資料：極東国際軍事裁判判決
Even the so-called denier like Hiagashinakano admit that there was a mass killing.
If Chinese soldiers attacked Japanese troop in the safty zone, the Gun battle would begin and it is not safty zone anymore.... At Iraqi in 2003, such sweeping away of remnants was carried out.....As a result of this sweeping out the soldiers in the safty zone, Japanese soldiers arrested many illegal Chinese guerillas. And in the daytime, thousands of those rebelious was exucuted at Yangtze River.
南京事件「証拠写真」を検証する (単行本)
東中野 修道 (著ｐ４５
もし、中国兵の一部が隙をみて日本軍を攻撃すれば、安全であるべきはずの避難地帯で銃撃戦が始まるだろう・・・・ｲﾗｸ戦争でもこのような（残敵）掃討戦が行われている。この安全地帯での掃討戦の結果、日本兵は多くの中国兵（不法戦闘員）を摘発した。そして白昼、反抗的な数千人に限って揚子江岸で処刑を実行した。これは事実である。
No comments:
Post a Comment