The Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang's Book The Rape of Nanking

[JoeB131]

FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.

Everything he did was within the law and within international norms.

Again- I have a degree in history, what do you have... Besides Dementia.?

Heck, by your logic, Iran would be totally justified in Nuking us.

 

[gipper]

FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.

Everything he did was within the law and within international norms.

Again- I have a degree in history, what do you have... Besides Dementia.?

Heck, by your logic, Iran would be totally justified in Nuking us.

Yeah if you like war, which apparently you do.

FDR lied to the American people repeatedly in the 1940 campaign, when he told us no America boys were going to war. All the while, he was desperately trying to maneuver and incite the Germans and Japanese to attack.

Who is the bigger liar? Donnie or Stalin’s Stooge?

 

[Unkotare]

FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.

..

Again- I have a degree in history, ....

No one reading your ignorant nonsense believes that.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah if you like war, which apparently you do.

FDR lied to the American people repeatedly in the 1940 campaign, when he told us no America boys were going to war. All the while, he was desperately trying to maneuver and incite the Germans and Japanese to attack.

Who is the bigger liar? Donnie or Stalin’s Stooge?

I see war as occasionally necessary. Most of our wars have not been necessary. World War II was.

Do you blame women in short dresses for rape as well?

No one reading your ignorant nonsense believes that.

Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.

 

[Unkotare]

[QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.

Still wrong, ignorant communist.

 

[JoeB131]

[QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.

Still wrong, ignorant communist.

Um, Guy, your screen name is a fucking weird ass Asian fetish... I can imagine you are pretty creepy in real life.

 

[Unkotare]

[QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.

Still wrong, ignorant communist.

Um, Guy, your screen name is a fucking weird ass Asian fetish... I can imagine you are pretty creepy in real life.

You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.

 

[JoeB131]

You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.

Again, you are the one who picked a porn genre about people shitting on each other as a screen name... that's just... weird.

 

[Unkotare]

You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.

Again, you are the one who picked a porn genre about people shitting on each other as a screen name... that's just... weird.

You’re ignorance and perverted imagination are your issues, dumbass.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled War Damage in the Nanking Area, agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.

Smythe also determined that the population of Nanking when the Japanese arrived was no more than 250,000: “between 200,000 and 250,000” (p. 4). This, of course, would mean that the Japanese could not have killed 300,000 people in Nanking. Another troubling part of Dr. Smythe’s report—i.e., troubling to the Iris Chang camp—is that Smythe noted that people steadily began to return to Nanking after the Japanese occupied the city, which of course you would not expect to be the case if the Japanese had been engaged in a massive and prolonged killing spree that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

To help him conduct his survey, Smythe hired Chinese students. As students of the Nanking Massacre know, Smythe was one of the city officials who authored many official complaints to the Japanese Embassy in Nanking about the savage conduct of some Japanese soldiers, so no one can sanely suggest that he was some kind of Japanese apologist. Indeed, he conducted his survey to determine just how much damage the Japanese had done and how many people the Japanese had killed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Smythe did not confine his survey to the Nanking city limits but also surveyed Xiaguan and other areas outside the city boundaries. The field work was done between March 9 and April 2, 1938. The survey of buildings was conducted between March 15 and June 15. Smythe also conducted an agricultural survey in six counties adjacent to Nanking, from March 8-23, covering damage to crops, seed, farming equipment, as well as human casualties.

Japanese author Masaaki Tanaka provides additional information about Smythe’s survey and report:

One of the most trustworthy primary sources relating to the Nanking Incident is Lewis S.C. Smythe’s War Damage in the Nanking Area, A Sociological Survey. The scientific and rational methods used in its preparation raise it to a status unparalleled by any other reference. Smythe, a professor of sociology at Jinling University, had conducted similar surveys in the past.​

With the assistance of Professor Bates, Smythe hired a large number of Chinese students and, over a period of approximately two months, proceeded to conduct a survey on war damage sustained by the residents of Nanking. For the survey, Smythe used the random sampling method. He did everything he could to ensure that it would be meticulous, accurate, rational, and fair.​

For the portion of the survey that focused on households, the students, working in teams of two, visited one out of every 50 occupied homes. They interviewed the residents and multiplied the figures obtained from those interviews by 50. For the portion relating to damage to houses, the teams inspected one house in 10. A certain amount of bias was inevitable, since the interviews were conducted by Chinese students, but the scientific methods used cannot be faulted. (What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth, p. 40)​

If anyone doubts Tanaka’s description of the survey, they can read Smythe’s report and see that it is accurate.

Chang’s defenders have thought it necessary to reject and denounce Smythe’s analysis even though Smythe made it clear that he believed there was “reason to expect under-reporting of deaths and violence at the hands of the Japanese soldiers, because of the fear of retaliation from the army of occupation” (p. 7). The problem is that even if you assume that Smythe’s survey findings were low by 300%, that gets you nowhere near 300,000 deaths. Sampling is a recognized survey method. That is why American public opinion polls that survey 1,500 to 2,000 voters are considered reliable indicators of the views of American voters as a whole. The standard margin of error for such polls is 3-5%.

So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.

Jinling University Professor Miner Searle Bates, an American, also assisted Dr. Smythe. He testified at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMFTE), i.e., the Tokyo Tribunal, that based on his and Dr. Smythe’s survey and their checking of burials, he and Dr. Smythe concluded that 12,000 people were killed in Nanking:

Professor Smythe and I concluded, as a result of our investigations and observations and checking of burials, that twelve thousand civilians, men, women and children, were killed inside the walls within our own sure knowledge. (IMTFE transcript, July 29, 1946, No. 36.)

Such information, even though it came from an American who had no sympathy for the Japanese army, was very unwelcomed at the Tokyo Tribunal, and Dr. Bates’ testimony has been rejected by those who claim that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking.

In his foreword to Dr. Smythe’s report, Dr. Bates made some interesting comments, among them being that the Chinese did some of the burning in Nanking and that Chinese bandits committed as many acts of robbery and violence as did Japanese soldiers, if not more:

The International Committee is aware, however, that statements have been published by Chinese, putting upon the Japanese an exclusive and exaggerated blame for the injuries to the people of the Nanking area; likewise that statements have been published by Japanese, charging the Chinese with burning and looting which they themselves benevolently checked.​

In order to guard against controversial misuse of the present report, we feel it necessary to make a brief factual statement as to the causation of the injuries listed.​

The burning in the municipal areas immediately adjoining the walled city of Nanking, and in some of the towns and villages along the southeasterly approaches to Nanking, was done by the Chinese armies as a military measure - whether proper or improper, is not for us to determine.​

A very small amount of damage to civilian life and property was done by military operations along the roads from the south-east, and in the four days of moderately severe attack upon the city.​

Practically all of the burning within the city walls, and a good deal of that in rural areas, was done gradually by the Japanese forces (in Nanking, from December 19, one week after entry, to the beginning of February). For the period covered in the surveys, most of the looting in the entire area, and practically all of the violence against civilians, was also done by the Japanese forces -- whether justifiably or unjustifiably in terms of policy, is not for us to decide.​

Beginning early in January, there gradually developed looting and robbery by Chinese civilians; and later, particularly after March, the struggle for fuel brought serious structural damage to unoccupied buildings.​

Also, there has latterly grown up in the rural areas a serious banditry which currently rivals and sometimes surpasses the robbery and violence by Japanese soldiers. (pp. i-ii)​

Given the circumstances, I could see a margin of error as high as 300% to 500%, but to posit an error rate beyond that would be pushing the limits of credulity, survey experience, and logic.

The late Maeda Yuji, former correspondent for Domei Tsushin and former director of the Japan Press Center, described his recollections of his assignment in Nanking in Japan and the World:

Those who claim that a massacre took place in Nanking, leaving aside their accusations that 200,000-300,000 persons were murdered for the moment, assert that most victims were women and children. However, these supposed victims were, without exception, in the Safety Zone, protected by the Japanese Security Headquarters. The Nanking Bureau of my former employer, Domei Tsushin, was situated inside the Safety Zone. Four days after the occupation, all of us moved to the Bureau, which served both as our lodgings and workplace. Shops had already reopened, and life had returned to normal. We were privy to anything and everything that happened in the Safety Zone. No massacre claiming tens of thousands, or thousands, or even hundreds of victims could have taken place there without our knowing about it, so I can state with certitude that none occurred.​

Prisoners of war were executed, some perhaps cruelly, but those executions were acts of war and must be judged from that perspective. There were no mass murders of noncombatants. I cannot remain silent when an event that never occurred is recognized as fact, and is described as such in our textbooks. Why was historical fact so horribly distorted? I believe that the answer to this question can be found in the postwar historical view, for which the Tokyo Trials are responsible. (p. 413)​

 

[JoeB131]

I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled War Damage in the Nanking Area, agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.

What, another white person telling those darkies not to be so upset about something, color me SHOCKED.

Hey, Axis Silly, how about you find something from a CHINESE Scholar about the issue?

So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.

Or he was a white guy who didn't give a fuck about getting it right.

https://www.history.com/topics/japan/nanjing-massacre

The problem is, Iris Chang (who spent her much too short a life studying this issue) isn't the only one who came up with the 300K figure.

Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

The Nanking Massacre was reported internationally within a week of occurring[11] and the first estimate of the full death toll was published on January 24, 1938, in the New China Daily.[12] Here Australian journalist Harold Timperley was quoted as stating that 300,000 civilians had been killed.[12] However, Timperley's source for this number was the French humanitarian Father Jacquinot, who was in Shanghai at the time of the massacre,[1] and it might also have included civilian casualties of the Battle of Shanghai.[13] Timperley included a second estimate in his book published later the same year, Japanese Terror In China, which quoted "a foreign member of the University faculty" as stating that "close to 40,000 unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanking".[14] The source of this information was Miner Searle Bates, an American resident in Nanking who had used the burial records of the Red Swastika Society in his calculations.[15]

Between then and the late 1940s these two estimates were commonly cited by reporters and the media. For example, Edgar Snow stated in his 1941 book, The Battle for Asia, that 42,000 were massacred in Nanking and 300,000 in total between Nanking and Shanghai, figures which were apparently based on these estimates.[16][17] The 1944 film, The Battle of China, stated that 40,000 were killed in the Nanking Massacre.[18]

Another early estimate was that of China's state-run Central News Agency, which reported in February 1938 that the Japanese had slaughtered 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking.[19] The same month a representative of the Nationalist Government of China claimed that the Japanese had killed 20,000 civilians during the Nanking Massacre.[18] However, in a 1942 speech Chiang Kai-shek raised that figure to "over 200,000 civilians".[20] In 1938 the Red Army of the Communist Party of China reported the total death toll at 42,000 massacred.[18] John Rabe, the German head of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, estimated that between 50,000 and 60,000 Chinese were killed in Nanking, though this estimate included both military casualties and massacred civilians.[21]

After the end of the war between China and Japan in 1945, these estimates were in turn supplanted by the findings of two war crime trials, the International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put the death toll at more than 300,000, though the Tribunal also recorded other estimates including one of 430,000.[3] The International Military Tribunal of the Far East tallied up 155,000 victims of the massacre, though in their verdict against General Iwane Matsui this figure was modified somewhat to "upwards of 100,000 people".[18][22] However, the prosecution at these trials made little effort to verify the accuracy of their death toll estimates and a considerable amount of dubious and now discredited data was accepted by both tribunals.[1][22][23]

The first historian to make an academic estimate of the death toll of the Nanking Massacre was Tomio Hora in his 1967 book Kindai Senshi no Nazo ("Riddles of Modern War History"), who argued in favor of 200,000.[24] Since then the death toll of the massacre has been a major topic of discussion among historians across the world.[25][26] However, emotional arguments and political interference in the debate have tended to hinder the construction of an academic consensus on the number of people killed in the atrocity.[27]

 

[mikegriffith1]

I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled War Damage in the Nanking Area, agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.

What, another white person telling those darkies not to be so upset about something, color me SHOCKED.

No, color you IGNORANT. What utter, amazing ignorance. I again wonder if you merely skimmed over the response. Be that as it may, you again show you have done no serious study on this issue by suggesting that Smythe was trying to tell the Chinese "not to be so upset."

Good grief, do you know who Smythe was? Do you know what he was doing during the Japanese assault? He was busy writing scorching complaints to the Japanese Embassy about the murders, rapes, and other crimes being committed by some of the Japanese troops in the city. He was also busy trying to shelter and feed Chinese citizens.

Hey, Axis Silly, how about you find something from a CHINESE Scholar about the issue?

Do you have any idea how stupid, not to mention dishonest, you look making this "Axis Silly" charge? People who have read my posts on issues relating to the Nazis, to the Jews, and to Israel know that no one disdains Hitler and the Nazis more than I do. I've tried to explain to your Neanderthal brain that there were enormous differences between the Axis nations, just as there were between the Allied nations, but facts seem to go in one of your ears and out the other.

So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.

Or he was a white guy who didn't give a *%&$% about getting it right.

Or you are an ignorant jerk who has no idea who Lewis Smythe was and what he did during and after the massacre.

https://www.history.com/topics/japan/nanjing-massacre

The problem is, Iris Chang (who spent her much too short a life studying this issue) isn't the only one who came up with the 300K figure.

Chang was a communist and a slipshod scholar who used a bunch of photos that had nothing to do with the actions of Japanese soldiers in Nanking in late 1937-early 1938 (the period of the massacre).

Are you ever going to explain how the Japanese could have killed 300,000 people when there were no more than 250,00 people in the city when they arrived? Are you aware that numerous sources from Westerners in the city at the time put the city's population at 200,000 when the Japanese arrived, a figure that Smythe confirmed with his survey?

Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
[SNIP]

So THIS is your answer to the research I presented: to quote from a Wikipedia article?! THAT's your answer?! Not to mention that the segment you quoted did not establish your claim of 300,000 dead.

Are you going to address the points I raised in my response? Or, are you going to pull your usual stunt of just ignoring evidence that you can't explain?

 

[JoeB131]

No, color you IGNORANT. What utter, amazing ignorance. I again wonder if you merely skimmed over the response. Be that as it may, you again show you have done no serious study on this issue by suggesting that Smythe was trying to tell the Chinese "not to be so upset."

There's only so much of your Fascist Dick Sucking I can stand to read... that's why I skim over it.

Chang was a communist and a slipshod scholar who used a bunch of photos that had nothing to do with the actions of Japanese soldiers in Nanking in late 1937-early 1938 (the period of the massacre).

Are you ever going to explain how the Japanese could have killed 300,000 people when there were no more than 250,00 people in the city when they arrived? Are you aware that numerous sources from Westerners in the city at the time put the city's population at 200,000 when the Japanese arrived, a figure that Smythe confirmed with his survey

Thousands of people flooded the city from the surrounding countryside thinking that Peanut wouldn't abandon his own capital. That's why there were so many people available to murder.

Your Fascist Cocksucking Logic- "It's okay that we raped and murdered her, she was in the Suburbs!"

Are you going to address the points I raised in my response? Or, are you going to pull your usual stunt of just ignoring evidence that you can't explain?

You are a fascist apologist cocksucker, and a truly awful human being. That's all the explanation needed.

You kind of lost all credibility when you called Iris Chang a "Communist". Really?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Dr. Akira Nakamura of Dokkyo University, in his introduction to an edition of Justice Radhabinod Pal’s dissent to the Tokyo Tribunals verdicts, made several good points about the Nanking Massacre, one of them being that there is not a single panoramic photo that shows piles of dead bodies:

A jealous lover of truth, Justice Pal had nothing but truth to guide him in trying the accused at the Tribunal, and yet the spirit of the court as a whole was not generous enough to listen to the reason and justice of the defeated. Seeing how much is made of, say, Iris Chang’s “The Rape of Nanking” in some parts of the world today, I cannot but question how far the world has progressed over the last half century in the search for truth as well as knowledge and reason.

All the Japanese, including newspaper reporters and news cameramen, who were then in Nanking, admit that a large number of plain-clothes Chinese soldiers (unlawful belligerents) were executed by the Japanese troops, but unanimously assert that there were no large-scale or systematic atrocities committed against civilians. The strange thing is that, despite the world-famous tale of the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of Chinese or of knee-deep pools of blood in the city of Nanking, not a single panoramic photograph of heaps of corpses in Nanking is known to us nor is there even a single person who witnessed the scene of the holocaust.

It may be safe, after all, to conclude that the repeated story of the slaughter of more than 300,000 Chinese civilians in Nanking is one of the biggest lies ever told in history. The same shameless lie that once deceived the military court at Tokyo and elsewhere, thereby sending a number of innocent Japanese to the scaffold, are still being blatantly repeated, producing a perverted sense of pleasure in some corners of the world. (Dissentient Judgement of Justice R.B. Pal, Tokyo Tribunal, Full Text)​

The supposed photographic evidence of the Nanking Massacre, such as the photos in Iris Chang’s book, has been shredded and exposed as false or irrelevant:

"Analyzing the 'Photographic Evidence' of the Nanking Massacre"
http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/26_S4.pdf

A False Memory: Nominating the “Nanjing Massacre” to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme

 

[JoeB131]

Axis Silly, Cock-sucking Fascist apologist, doubles down on the silly.

Dr. Akira Nakamura of Dokkyo University, in his introduction to an edition of Justice Radhabinod Pal’s dissent to the Tokyo Tribunals verdicts, made several good points about the Nanking Massacre, one of them being that there is not a single panoramic photo that shows piles of dead bodies:

Wow... this is your argument, that when committing a horrible crime against humanity, nobody took pictures. I mean, I know Japanese and their cameras have become kind of a racist trope... but Jesus fucking Christ, man, this isn't the kind of thing you take pictures of yourself doing. It's not like the Chinese were going to whip out their I-phones and catch them in the act.

The only reason why we have such horrible pictures of the Holocaust in Europe was that the Allies caught the Nazis red-handed doing it and documented it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.

Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre.

The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).

Here is an online refutation of the killing-contest story—the chapter on the contest starts on page 77 of the PDF:

Chapter 32: Did the Contest to Kill 100 Enemies Using a Sword” Really Take Place? A Tragedy Born Out of a Fictitious Tale of Valiance

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/112_S4.pdf

A thorough analysis and refutation of the killing-contest story appears in chapter 6 of the book The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938: Complicating the Picture (2007), edited by Dr. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, a moderate Japanese historian who teaches history at York University in Toronto, Canada.

In chapter 12 of The Nanking Atrocity, historian Joshua Fogel says that no balanced historian can accept the killing-contest story as accurate:

Fourth Generation Chinese argue that racism—by which they mean the Japanese troops’ dehumanization of the Chinese people—was indeed an essential part of the assault on China. The piece of evidence usually cited is the infamous 100-man killing contest, in which two Japanese soldiers allegedly vied to see who could first slay 100 Chinese en route to Nanking. Many have questioned the veracity of this story, and not only arch right-wingers in Japan. See Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi’s chapter 6 in the present volume. But the Japanese press in November-December 1937 did give the story considerable play, and the soldiers did receive death sentences at the postwar Nanking War Crimes Tribunal; so, as a result, anti-Japanese Chinese believe the story today. But despite the guilty verdict, to accept this story as true and accurate requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make. (pp. 279-280; p. 172 in some editions)​

Another good source on the 100-man killing contest is Bob Wakabayashi’s article “The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate: War Guilt amid Fabricated Illusions, 1971-75” in The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 307-340. Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Moreover, the NMT records continue, one defendant (Noda) protested that the contest never took place. Instead, reporters for Tokyo nichinichi shin bun--which ran the original articles later digested in the Japan Advertiser--fabricated the story after the other defendant (Mukai) had bragged about these imaginary feats. For his part, Mukai insisted he never really killed anyone but boasted that he had, hoping the publicity would attract a better wife after he returned to Japan. . . .​

Suzuki discovered that the IMTFE in Tokyo chose not to prosecute Mukai and Noda, but the Chinese nationalists insisted on their extradition for B- and C-class war crimes. The NMT then found both guilty whereas it acquitted other defendants because these two submitted no "persuasive counter-evidence to refute the charges." Suzuki cited NMT records left by Mukai and Noda. These instructed their kin to bear the Chinese people no ill will and declared that they hoped their deaths would lay the bases for Sino-Japanese friendship. Chieko supplied a copy of a defense statement that Toshiaki filed at the NMT to protest his innocence. It said that (1) the IMTFE subpoenaed Mukai but took no legal action against him, (2) he belonged to an artillery platoon normally not engaged in front-line combat, (3) he saw action only in artillery shellings at Wuhsi and Tanyang on the road to Nanking, (4) he had met with and talked to Asami only at Wuhsi; (5) the Tokyo nichinichi reporters testified that none of them had seen any killings, and (6) Mukai and Noda parted ways at Tanyang on 1 December and did not meet again until 16 December. Thus Mukai's statement contradicted all of the crucial events as reported by Asami.​

Suzuki also discovered that just before Toshiaki's execution, his brother Takeshi had tracked down other men who had served in Mukai's unit, plus Asami Kazuo himself. Mukai's former comrades gave oral statements and written testimonies to support his defense. Toyama Takeo, his former commanding officer, certified that Mukai was injured on 2 December 1937 at Tanyang and received medical treatment behind the lines from then until he rejoined his unit on 15 December at T'angshui (T'angshan). Thus Mukai could not have killed anyone on the days stated in Asami's story. Suzuki cited another statement, this one written by a Chinese defense counsel at the Nanking Tribunal, that Noda's mother provided. It corroborated all points found in Mukai's statement. Suzuki also cited Asami's signed testimony dated 10 December 1946 as obtained by Mukai Takeshi. Asami swore that (1) he never actually saw any killings, (2) he based his articles on interviews conducted with Mukai, (3) Mukai and Noda committed no atrocities against helpless POWs or other noncombatants. . . . (pp. 311, 323-326)​

It says volumes that even the shamefully biased and blood-thirsty Tokyo Tribunal declined to prosecute Mukai and Noda, but that didn’t stop the even blood-thirstier Chinese authorities from prosecuting them at the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.

 

[JoeB131]

This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.

Wait, before you said she was a communist. Now she's not a communist... but judging from her writings she had a poor opinion of the Japanese and the Nationalists... um. Right. Based on the Rape of Nanking, you can't NOT have a poor opinion of them.

Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre.

The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).

Um.. the officers weren't "exonerated" they were "executed".

Contest to kill 100 people using a sword - Wikipedia

Trial and execution[edit]
After the war, a written record of the contest found its way into the documents of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Soon after, the two soldiers were extradited to China, tried by the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, convicted of atrocities committed during the Battle of Nanking, and the subsequent massacre. On January 28th, 1948, both soldiers were executed at the Yuhuatai execution chamber by the Chinese government.

Hey, buddy, I think that you need to expand your bullshit repetorie... The Holocaust Deniers need someone to deny the Holocaust ever happened. They'll even give you a fucking lampshade to wear on your head.

Just don't ask where it came from.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.

Wait, before you said she was a communist. Now she's not a communist... but judging from her writings she had a poor opinion of the Japanese and the Nationalists... um. Right. Based on the Rape of Nanking, you can't NOT have a poor opinion of them.

Your poor reading skills are showing again. Do you not understand that other people can easily see that you have once again distorted what I said?

And, gee, isn't it interesting that Chang never had a critical word to say about Red China's brutal, murderous regime? When she wasn't spreading her myths about the Nanking Massacre, she was busy claiming that there were few if any communists in the American government in the 1940s and 1950s, which was an inexcusable lie by the time she began writing--she simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary and repeated the Communist/Far Left version of the 1940s and 1950s.

At one point, Chang, after she had had a "strange" experience in Louisville, said that she believed the CIA might have been trying to recruit her. She was clearly a whack job.

Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre.

The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).

Um.. the officers weren't "exonerated" they were "executed".

.

LOL! Uhhh, ummm, I didn't say that the NMT exonerated the two officers. I said that Chang ignored the exculpatory evidence that was presented at the NMT, and, a few paragraphs later, I noted that the NMT shamefully executed the two officers. Can you read? Seriously, can you read? Or, do you just skim over replies, wipe the foam from your mouth, and then start typing?

I notice you said nothing about the exculpatory evidence that I presented, as usual.

Hey, buddy, I think that you need to expand your BS repetorie... The Holocaust Deniers need someone to deny the Holocaust ever happened. They'll even give you a lampshade to wear on your head. Just don't ask where it came from.

Oh, my, here we go with the standard Communist/Far Left line that to question the 300,000 figure for the Nanking Massacre is as bad as denying the Holocaust.

I get that you are rather brainless; that you probably can't spell "critical thinking," much less engage in it; and that you have done very little research on these issues. So it's not surprising that you would make such a gutter, ignorant, and bizarre argument. I'm just a bit surprised that you keep doing it in a public forum.

Let me explain to you the difference between the Holocaust and the 300,000 Nanking Massacre myth:

* There are hundreds of photos that show massive piles of dead bodies at the Nazi death camps. However, there is not a single photo, not even one, that shows any large number of dead bodies in Nanking. In fact, there are photos and film footage that clearly seem to completely contradict the notion that there was a large-scale and prolonged massacre in Nanking.

* There are zero contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Nazi sources in Europe that even remotely suggest that only relatively few Jews were exterminated--none, zilch, nada. But, there are numerous contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Japanese/Western sources in Nanking that put the death toll at a small fraction of the later figures of 200,000 and 300,000.

* There is no evidence that there were fewer than 6 million Jews in Europe, which of course would mean that the Nazis could not have killed 6 million Jews. That's simple math. If there had been only 4 million Jews in Europe when WWII started, it would be very hard to claim that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Right? But of course nobody, not even whack job Holocaust deniers, claims that there were not 6 million Jews in Europe at the time. But, there is compelling evidence that when the Japanese arrived in Nanking, there were no more than 250,000 people living in the city. Several contemporaneous accounts put the city's population at 200,000 just before the massacre began. When Lewis Smythe did his survey, just weeks after the massacre and using only Chinese assistants, he determined that Nanking's population was between 200,000 and 250,000 when the Japanese arrived--and remember that Smythe also surveyed the areas outside Nanking. When the defense at the IMTFE tried to introduce the population evidence in response to the prosecution's case-in-chief presentation, the chief judge would not allow it.

* In the case of the Holocaust, there is no evidence, and no one claims, that the Jewish population *increased* after the Nazis took control in Europe--on the contrary, the Jewish population dropped dramatically, from extermination and from flight. Yet, it is an indisputable fact that the Chinese population in Nanking began to steadily *increase* almost as soon as the Japanese took control of the city, which of course would make no sense if Chang's version of events were true. If Chang's version were true, the flight of people from the city should have continued, if not accelerated, after the Japanese took control, since no one in their right mind would return to a place where a massacre was going on or where a massacre had just occurred. Perhaps people began to come back to Nanking after the Japanese took over because they heard that the Japanese were handing out large amounts of food, that life was returning to normal in the city, that electricity and running water were being fully restored, etc., etc.

 

[JoeB131]

Your poor reading skills are showing again. Do you not understand that other people can easily see that you have once again distorted what I said?

And, gee, isn't it interesting that Chang never had a critical word to say about Red China's brutal, murderous regime? When she wasn't spreading her myths about the Nanking Massacre, she was busy claiming that there were few if any communists in the American government in the 1940s and 1950s, which was an inexcusable lie by the time she began writing--she simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary and repeated the Communist/Far Left version of the 1940s and 1950s.

Uh, guy, are you really trying to ressurrect the Zombie of Joe McCarthy. McCarthy died a disgraced drunk. She was writing about the Nanking massacre, not the Communists. It wasn't her job to repeat John Bircher talking points.

LOL! Uhhh, ummm, I didn't say that the NMT exonerated the two officers. I said that Chang ignored the exculpatory evidence that was presented at the NMT, and, a few paragraphs later, I noted that the NMT shamefully executed the two officers. Can you read? Seriously, can you read? Or, do you just skim over replies, wipe the foam from your mouth, and then start typing?

Again, I don't waste a lot of time reading much of your fascist cocksucking. I just point out the silly points, like you said the two Jap officers who murdered those people were 'exonerated'. Nope. They were found guilty and EXECUTED. As they should have been.

Let me explain to you the difference between the Holocaust and the 300,000 Nanking Massacre myth:

The Holocaust was white people... That's the difference.

* There are hundreds of photos that show massive piles of dead bodies at the Nazi death camps.

Yeah, but who took those pictures. HINT. The pictures were taken by ALLIED soldiers who liberated those camps at the end of World War II. The Nanking Massacre was in 1938, and Nanking wasn't liberated from the Japanese until 1945, when there was plenty of time to get rid of the bodies.

* There are zero contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Nazi sources in Europe that even remotely suggest that only relatively few Jews were exterminated--none, zilch, nada.

Actually, quite the contrary... nobody really cared all that much about the Jews in the Concentration camps at the end of the war... in fact, General Patton, before he was sacked, left the Jews in Concentration camps for nearly a year after the war ended. It just didn't become a big deal until well after the war, and people started screaming about victim status.

Again, the Tokyo Trials were as damning as the Nuremburg Trials... they just don't get remembered as much. Incidentally, the Japs at that trial tried to pull the same shit you did... that the poor Japanese HAD to go to war because the meanies in the US were oppressing them. Didn't save them from the Rope..

* In the case of the Holocaust, there is no evidence, and no one claims, that the Jewish population *increased* after the Nazis took control in Europe--on the contrary, the Jewish population dropped dramatically, from extermination and from flight. Yet, it is an indisputable fact that the Chinese population in Nanking began to steadily *increase* almost as soon as the Japanese took control of the city, which of course would make no sense if Chang's version of events were true. If Chang's version were true, the flight of people from the city should have continued, if not accelerated, after the Japanese took control, since no one in their right mind would return to a place where a massacre was going on or where a massacre had just occurred. Perhaps people began to come back to Nanking after the Japanese took over because they heard that the Japanese were handing out large amounts of food, that life was returning to normal in the city, that electricity and running water were being fully restored, etc., etc.

Yes, the Japs did set up a Puppet Regime that was slightly less miserable than the rest of the Hell on Earth they were inflicting on China. The fact people went to this new puppet regime's capital doesn't really prove anything, though.

Did I mention you were a fascist cocksucker... yes. Yes, I did.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In his widely acclaimed and classic book How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), Dr. Anthony Kubek discussed Japan’s entirely valid and reasonable concerns about Soviet influence and subversion in China and Manchuria.

Yup,more White people rationalizing imperialism. What a big surprise.

Oh my goodness. That is downright nutty.

Uh, to the point. Our "Danger zone" in the Carribean was just an attempt for us to impose imperialismon the region. We were in the wrong- it's why we are hated in so much of the region today....

Oh, so our policy to keep hostile powers and ideologies from taking root in the Caribbean was wrong?! Uh, wow, that's just what the Communists say. What a coincidence.

Japan was in the wrong for what it did in China, which is why THEY are still hated today.

Blah, blah, blah says your brainwashed, illiterate mind. Japan intervened in Manchuria to establish order from warlord chaos and to protect its citizens and subjects there. And, as I've documented for you from several sources, Japan did not start the war in China--the Nationalists started the war by attacking the Japanese just after the Japanese had submitted another peace proposal. Even Chinese generals admitted that their side started the war and that the Japanese did not want war in China.

The whine by this White Person was that those dirty stinking commies were distributing literature telling them that, hey, maybe not [gutter vulgarity deleted] was the way to go. HOW DARE THEY!!!!!

Uh-huh. Crawl back into the sewer and drink more Communist koolaid.

Dr. Kubek also noted that FDR and Hull's demand that Japan immediately pull her troops out of China would have left the door open for further Russian intervention and subversion. He also noted that although FDR screamed against Japan for sending troops into China, he said nothing against the Soviet Union for annexing Sinkiang and a chunk of Outer Mongolia:

Uh, guy, Outer Mongolia established her independence from the rotting corpse of Qing China in 1911. They established the Mongolian People's Republic in 1928. What was FDR supposed to do, scream, "I'm very upset about this thing that happened in the middle of a desert 10 years before I got here!"

LOL! Ohhhhh! So it was okay for the Soviets to take over part of Mongolia, but not okay for the Japanese to take over part of Manchuria or to want a small buffer zone between Manchuria and China. Got it. Thanks for sharing, Comrade.

So were the Japs looking for Commies in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Burma, and all the other countries they pillaged and raped?

What unbelievably stupid polemic. The Japanese would not have gone into any of those countries if FDR had not imposed draconian sanctions that threatened them with economic collapse. Until FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union at any cost, provoked Japan to war, the Japanese--even the army's general stuff--had no intention of sending their forces into those nations because they wanted to focus on developing Manchuria and on guarding against a potential Soviet invasion. The comment about Burma is especially dumb because the only reason the Japanese moved into Burma was to cut off the flow of Allied/American weapons going to the Nationalists via Burma.

You do realize that at one point the Japanese actually agreed to Chiang Kaishek's demand that they withdraw all of their troops from China in exchange for a peace deal, right? And guess why Chiang still refused to make peace with the Japanese even after they agreed to this condition? Because FDR's boys in China talked/pressured him into continuing the war.