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

[Unkotare]

That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?

Because they were pretty much committing them everywhere... that's why... Seriously, are you some kind of special retard who can cut and paste. Maybe we should hook you up with Political Chick if you weren't so racist.

You've been corrected on this myth before. R. J. Rummel,

They should be happy we didn't do the world a favor and erase them.

There’s that Nazi/KKK/Stalinist steak that has always run deep through the democrat party. Bloodthirsty, inhuman sons of bitches that you are.

 

[mikegriffith1]

That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?

Because they were pretty much committing them everywhere... that's why...

Howling howlers! The Japanese were "pretty much" committing massacres "everywhere" in late 1937 and early 1938?! LOL! "Everywhere"?! That's downright amazing because, uh, at that point the Japanese controlled only a small part of China! The Nationalists still controlled about 2/3 of China, with the rest being controlled by the Communists and warlords, and with Hong Kong being controlled by the British.

So the obvious question is, Why didn't the people who fled from Nanking before the Japanese took the city simply go to the large area still controlled by the Nationalists? Or, why didn't they go to Hong Kong?

You see, here's the problem: Those people had ample opportunity to leave Nanking forever. There were plenty of areas where they could have gone that were under Nationalist or British control. If a gigantic massacre had been occurring in Nanking and if the perpetrators of that massacre controlled the city, no one in their right mind would have gone back. But there was no large-scale massacre, and the Japanese exerted great effort to restore Nanking to normality and to ensure that its residents had ample food and water. People soon realized these facts, and that is why they began to return.

Seriously, are you some kind of special retard who can cut and paste. Maybe we should hook you up with Political Chick if you weren't so racist.

Oh, so now I'm a retard and a racist?! Wow, okay, you bet.

Hey, I'm not the one who keeps making embarrassing gaffes, and I'm not the one who keeps describing an entire people in the same ugly ways that racists and bigots describe people they hate. Your comments about the Japanese are filled with hate and bigotry, not to mention raw ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

There’s that Nazi/KKK/Stalinist steak that has always run deep through the democrat party. Bloodthirsty, inhuman sons of bitches that you are.

Hmmmm... Steak.

Howling howlers! The Japanese were "pretty much" committing massacres "everywhere" in late 1937 and early 1938?! LOL! "Everywhere"?! That's downright amazing because, uh, at that point the Japanese controlled only a small part of China! The Nationalists still controlled about 2/3 of China, with the rest being controlled by the Communists and warlords, and with Hong Kong being controlled by the British.

Um, okay, if you want to go with that... Fact is they killed 30 million Chinese.

Hey, I'm not the one who keeps making embarrassing gaffes, and I'm not the one who keeps describing an entire people in the same ugly ways that racists and bigots describe people they hate. Your comments about the Japanese are filled with hate and bigotry, not to mention raw ignorance.

Uh, an entire people who engaged in a genocidal war of aggression.

The biggest mistake we made in WWII.... We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.

 

[Unkotare]

........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.

Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.

 

[gipper]

........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.

Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.

It’s more than that. Joe is clearly a disgusting racist.

 

[JoeB131]

........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.

Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.

Again, the Axis Powers had the disdain for human life when they slaughtered tens of millions across Asia and Europe.

I knew a lot of WWII vets growing up... They told all sorts of stories about what they saw.

But listing to Fascist Mikey and You, you'd think we were the bad guys.

"Oh, but the Japanese totally wanted peace! And mean old FDR imposed sanctions, which is why they attacked more people."

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.” We learn this from none other than the 1938 book What War Means: The Japanese Terror in China, compiled by Harold Timperley. Timperley was ardently anti-Japanese and was on the Chinese Nationalist payroll, so no one would accuse him of pulling punches. Timperley’s contributors included members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, such as Rev. Bates and John Rabe. In his section in Timperley’s book, Bates specified that the incidents under discussion occurred in the Nanking Safety Zone and that the rest of the city was “practically deserted” until the end of January:

It is to be noted that the incidents thus recorded cover only the Nanking Safety Zone, and that the rest of Nanking was practically deserted until the end of January and most of the time was without foreign observers during this whole period. (What War Means, p. 138)​

This is a vital point for a number of reasons. If the rest of Nanking outside the Safety Zone was virtually deserted, this is another devastating blow to the attempt to inflate Nanking’s December 1937 population to 500K-600K, a number that no primary source supports. Every single primary source puts Nanking’s December 1937 population at around 200,000, except for John Rabe, who revised his number to 250K-300K. But, obviously, even his revised number destroys the 300,000-dead figure.

Some additional points:

-- Regarding JoeB131’s sleazy claim that Dr. Smythe did not care about determining how many Chinese had actually been killed by the Japanese in Nanking, it should be noted again that during the massacre, Dr. Smythe wrote protests to the Japanese Embassy in which he recounted cases of murder and rape by Japanese soldiers and urged the Japanese ambassador to get the army to stop such incidents. Dr. Minoru Kitomura, a professor of history at Ritsumeikan University who specializes in Chinese history, discusses some interesting facts about Smythe’s survey:

It should also be mentioned that, once the occupation of the city had settled down, the Japanese military approved a request by Dr. Lewis Smythe, a professor of sociology at the University of Nanking, to conduct a survey of the casualties and physical damage caused by the Battle of Nanking. Smythe then undertook a sampling survey of Nanjing and the surrounding six counties (xian) over a three-month period from March to June 1938 with the aid of Chinese assistants. The result was: Lewis Smythe, War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938: Urban and Rural Surveys. This report will be discussed later in this paper, but, significantly, it does not make any mention of a massive slaughter of 300,000 people in Nanjing. . . .​

Smythe’s War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938, previously introduced, is based on a Westerner’s surveys made immediately after the Japanese military’s occupation of Nanjing.​

Smythe worked as secretary for the International Committee and helped protect refugees alongside Rabe, the committee’s German member. As mentioned earlier, Smythe’s report was published with the intent of accusing the Japanese military of barbarism. Considering that only six months passed between the conclusion of the surveys the report was based on and its publication, and the level of organization apparent in the publication of both Shanghai and Nanjing editions, it is apparent that the Kuomintang’s International Propaganda Department was waiting and ready for the report. Whatever the report’s background, however, Smythe was a university professor of sociology and he wrote a solid report certainly so as to maintain his self-respect as a researcher. . . .​

Smythe’s survey of casualties within the city was carried out from March 9 to April 2, 1938 as a survey of families. A supplemental survey was performed from April 19 to the 23rd. . . .​

Smythe was a professional scholar with previous experience participating in a survey of flood damage in the area surrounding Nanjing. In the report’s forward, Bates, a historian at the University of Nanking, wrote that “the accomplishment of the present surveys is largely dependent upon the unusual abilities and energies of Dr. Smythe,” thereby explicitly supporting the report’s findings. (What the Nanking Massacre Means, Japan Policy Institute, 2010, pp. 14, 24-25)​

It is worth repeating that neither the Nanking Military Tribunal (NMT) nor the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) would agree to call Dr. Smythe as a witness, where he could be cross-examined by defense counsel. The NMT and the IMTFE each took a short sworn statement from Smythe but refused to call him as a witness.

At the IMTFE, when the prosecutors introduced Smythe’s statement into evidence, the defense objected on the entirely valid grounds that since Smythe was alive and in good health, he should be called as a witness so he could be cross-examined. The statement itself did not even remotely support a six-digit death toll, so the defense did not object to its contents but simply made the point that by the standard rules of law a witness who gave a sworn statement should also be compelled to testify if they were able to do so in order to allow for cross-examination. Of course, the chief judge ruled that Smythe did not need to testify. Yeah, no need to follow long-accepted rules of law when it came to smearing the Japanese.

The problem was that although Dr. Smythe was no Japanese apologist and had been very critical of the conduct of the Japanese army in Nanking, apparently he was not willing to wildly exaggerate or lie under oath. Based on Dr. Smythe’s survey and his sworn statement, the prosecution had good reason to fear that under cross-examination he would state facts that would make it clear that there had been no gigantic, six-digit massacre in Nanking.

-- Dr. Kitomura also points out that even the official Nationalist news agency during that period did not claim that 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking:

The Nanjing tribunal’s figure of 300,000 for the number of victims lacks consistency with the contemporary situation in the city as can be determined from various other resources. Frankly, one gets the sense that 300,000 was first chosen to be the number of the victims and the evidence supporting this figure was then crafted so as to match it.​

The “massacre of 300,000 people in Nanjing” was created to serve as the centerpiece of the Japanese war crime charges for the war crime tribunals that were already being prepared for during the war.

Even in the contemporary reporting of the Central News Agency (the Kuomintang’s news service), which often emphasized exaggerated reports in an attempt to boost the Chinese will to fight, no figure even close to 300,000 was ever reported as the number of victims in Nanjing. (What the Nanking Massacre Means, p. 29)​

 

[JoeB131]

There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.”

Sure it was, buddy... you keep telling yourself that.

Dr. Kitomura a

Another Japanese in denial. Hey, for purposes of this discussion, let's leave ALL Japanese "Scholars" out of the fucking discussion. Japan still likes to pretend they didn't do anything bad in WWII. At least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed.

 

[JoeB131]

Regarding JoeB131’s sleazy claim that Dr. Smythe did not care about determining how many Chinese had actually been killed by the Japanese in Nanking, it should be noted again that during the massacre, Dr. Smythe wrote protests to the Japanese Embassy in which he recounted cases of murder and rape by Japanese soldiers and urged the Japanese ambassador to get the army to stop such incidents.

Oh, look, he wrote a protest... Woooo... that's impressive.

bad Japanese. Very bad. Stop raping that lady. Very bad. I'm going to have to write a very harsh letter to your superiors.

Hey, guy, writing a protest during a mass murder isn't like complaining they put pickles on your fucking hamburger.

 

[Unkotare]

There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.”

Sure it was, buddy... you keep telling yourself that.

Dr. Kitomura a

Another Japanese in denial. Hey, for purposes of this discussion, let's leave ALL Japanese "Scholars" out of the fucking discussion. Japan still likes to pretend they didn't do anything bad in WWII. At least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed.

You are a fraud. You don’t have a degree in History, nor likely anything else. In the face of mountains of fully cited evidence, you just say “nuh-uh!” like an ignorant child and deny the evidence in front of you because you don’t like it. Again like a child, you laughably attempt to summarily and pre-emptively disqualify any evidence or sources that don’t support your opinion (not conclusion, that would involve thought). You’re a joke.

 

[JoeB131]

You are a fraud. You don’t have a degree in History, nor likely anything else. In the face of mountains of fully cited evidence, you just say “nuh-uh!” like an ignorant child and deny the evidence in front of you because you don’t like it. Again like a child, you laughably attempt to summarily and pre-emptively disqualify any evidence or sources that don’t support your opinion (not conclusion, that would involve thought). You’re a joke.

The Holocaust Deniers have "mountains of cited evidence", too. Some of them even have positions in Academia.

David Irving - Wikipedia

And it works, according to one poll, 1/3 of Americans don't think the Holocaust was a real thing.

One-third of Americans don't believe 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust

And that's with tons of movies being made by the Jews in Hollywood to make sure we never forget.

So when a shitstain like Axis Mikey gets on here and puts up the premise that less people died in Nanking than is generally accepted, so that makes it okay somehow, you are darned right I'm going to bitchslap that little see you next Tuesday.

 

[Unkotare]

Idiot resorts to a straw man, of course.

 

[JoeB131]

Idiot resorts to a straw man, of course.

not at all... Frankly, what's the goal of denialism, whether it be of the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking or of the slaughter of Native Americans?

It's to absolve the wrongdoers of guilt.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is another piece of evidence that refutes the 500,000-600,000 figure for Nanking’s population in mid-December 1937: there was a population census done in Nanking and the surrounding area in August 1938, at least six months after the massacre, and that census counted the population at 308,000. I quote from Dr. Hata’s book The Nanking Incident: The Structure of a Massacre:

Wow- So basic math.
You start with 600 K people. You kill 300K people. You have 300K people left.

Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city. Not a single primary source supports that wild claim. Even Smythe admitted that the city's population was no more than 250K when the city fell, and even when Rabe decided to inflate his number in the hope of getting more aid, he put the population at no more than 300K (even though he had earlier said 200K). Except for Rabe, every other primary source puts the population at between 150K and 200K when the Japanese entered the city. But you can't allow yourself to go where the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly points because it destroys your 300,000-killed tale.

Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film Why We Fight: The Battle of China put the number of people killed at 40,000. The film was a propaganda documentary produced for U.S. military personnel and spared no adjectives in excoriating the Japanese army. Yet, even this propaganda film, which referred to “the rape of Nanking,” did not claim that anything approaching 300,000 people were killed in Nanking. This is significant because the War Department was compiling evidence on Japanese war crimes, and this film was produced by the War Department. Here is part of what the film said about Nanking:

But again Japanese power was too great, and after a battle lasting but a few days, the city fell to the invaders. In their occupation of Nanking, the Japs again outdid themselves in barbarism. The helpless populace was trapped by the city walls and could not flee. The Japanese soldiers went berserk. They raped and tortured. They killed and butchered. In one of the bloodiest massacres of recorded history, they [the Japanese] murdered 40,000 men, women and children.​

Not surprisingly, the film even claimed that the massacre “was deliberately planned by the Japanese high command to tear the heart out of the Chinese people.” But we have known for many decades that the Japanese high command had nothing to do with the massacre, and that the Japanese high command was disgusted when they began receiving reports abut it.

Even at a level well below the high command, senior Japanese officers were outraged when they heard about criminal violence being committed by some Japanese soldiers. For example, at the headquarters of the Tenth Army, whose troops occupied Nanking, reports that some of their soldiers were committing serious crimes caused the command to send a strong rebuke to their commanders in Nanking, such as this 12/20/1937 message to them:

We have told troops numerous times that looting, rape, and arson are forbidden, but judging from the shameful fact that over 100 incidents of rape came to light during the current assault on Nanking, we bring this matter to your attention yet again despite the repetition. (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, p. 47)​

When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff to Nanking in late January to investigate. On January 26, General Homma met with American officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nanking. He apologized for what had been occurring and explained that he and his staff were doing all they could to ensure that local commanders understood the need for proper conduct and discipline among their soldiers.

Tenth Army and Central China Area Army (CCAA) legal documents prove that senior officers were punishing some Japanese soldiers for criminal acts in Nanking. These sources include a Tenth Army legal department daily log from 10/12/1937 to 02/23/1938 and a CCAA battlefield courts martial daily ledger from 01/04/1938 to 02/06/1938. As of February 18, 102 men had been convicted, 22 of them for rape, 27 for murder, and two for rape and murder, with others awaiting trial (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, pp. 47-49).

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city.

Shut the fuck up... Seriously. I'm not even sure why you play these number games or even why you think that if they killed 40K people, that somehow makes it less horrible than if they killed 300K.

Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film Why We Fight: The Battle of China put the number of people killed at 40,000.

There were a lot of things that weren't known then... Jesus Christ, man, WWII propaganda films had lots of misinformation in them.

When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff

This would be the same Masahura Homma who was executed for war crimes in the Philippines.... The guy who orchestrated the Bataan Death March. (you know, you'll probably be denying that was all that bad, either.)

Yeah, I'll take the word of an academic like Iris Chang over an executed war criminal.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Notice that JoeB131, like other Iris Chang apologists, has to reject every single primary source on Nanking’s population during the time in question, even though all the primary sources agree with the population number that Dr. Lewis Smythe determined when he did his survey weeks after the massacre.

When confronted with the substantial evidence from contemporary primary sources that the population was about 200,000 when the city fell, JoeB131 can only lamely sputter, “First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area? Did they do a census. We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.”

Umm, well, those Westerners had lived in the city for a long time, so they knew what the population was before the residents began to flee, and those Westerners saw the huge masses of people leaving and saw the people who were still in the city. Nanking was not a large city geographically speaking, and it had a large wall. Those Westerners did not just stay holed up in their homes; many of them were out and about in the city trying to help people, among other things.

I've lived in my town for 14 years. The only reason why I know how many people live here is because they do a census every ten years. Nanking had a population of 1 million in 1937.

But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.

As for your ridiculous claim that Nanking's population was a whopping 600,000 when the city fell, leaving aside the total lack of any primary evidence for that number, you realize that the Nanking Safety Zone, where 90% of the people who remained were located, was only 2.39 square miles in size, right? You knew that, right? Right? (Uh, no, I'm guessing you did not.)

The Safety Zone's small size is one reason that the population numbers given by the Western residents and journalists in Nanking are so consistent and close to each other, even though most of them did not know about the others' numbers. It's much easier to estimate the size of a population when the population is located in such a small area, especially when you're driving all over the area helping people, delivering messages, transporting people, etc.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city.

I'm not even sure why you play these number games or even why you think that if they killed 40K people, that somehow makes it less horrible than if they killed 300K.

Uh, well, wouldn't killing 300,000 people be a lot worse than killing 40,000 people? If 40,000 people died in Massacre A and 300,000 people died in Massacre B, everyone on the planet except you would say that Massacre B was much worse than Massacre A.

Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film Why We Fight: The Battle of China put the number of people killed at 40,000.

There were a lot of things that weren't known then... WWII propaganda films had lots of misinformation in them.

But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.

When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff

This would be the same Masahura Homma who was executed for war crimes in the Philippines.... The guy who orchestrated the Bataan Death March. (you know, you'll probably be denying that was all that bad, either.) Yeah, I'll take the word of an academic like Iris Chang over an executed war criminal.

I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:

The Trial Of General Homma | AMERICAN HERITAGE

The Holocaust Deniers have "mountains of cited evidence", too. Some of them even have positions in Academia.

Holocaust deniers have "mountains of evidence"?! No, they do not. Perhaps you meant to say that Holocaust deniers ignore the mountains of evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

In contrast, there is no such evidence that the Japanese killed 300,000 civilians in Nanking, and there are numerous credible scholars all over the world who agree that the death toll was nowhere near 300,000. Even the Wikipedia article on the Nanking death toll, which you cited, says that "the most reliable and widely agreed upon figures place the total death toll of the massacre between the broad range of 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District." So the mainstream of Nanking Massacre scholarship now rejects Chang's wild and impossible 300,000-plus figure.

And it works, according to one poll, 1/3 of Americans don't think the Holocaust was a real thing.

Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.

 

[JoeB131]

But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.

Here's the problem with that... you keep trying to pretend that Chinese killed outside the city limits don't count.. like some Chinese pulling a rickshaw with all his worldly possessions was really going to be able to outrun Japanese motorized columns...

But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.

Uh, check out propaganda about the Nazis during World War II. They had no idea how bad the holocaust was until they liberated the camps.

I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:

Homma was shot for murdering 80K Americans and Filipinos... Obviously, you have never been in the military. "I had no idea my men were doing that" is never, ever an excuse for command responsibility. Every leader from Sergeant to General realizes that he is responsible for the conduct of the troops under his command.

The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

There is photographic evidence because the Allies caught the Nazis in the Act... (Also, the Germans were proud of what they were doing and documented it.) Also, whenever anyone dares question the Holocaust, you get the usual chorus of survivors screaming and dragging out the picture of poor grandpa who got turned into a lampshade. We need a similar level of shame for Nanking deniers.

Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.

Guy, calling the Zionist entity on it's crimes is hardly excusing the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is not an excuse for what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinian people, any more than a man who was abused as a child has an excuse for abusing his own children.

Most of the Holocaust deniers are on the far right and wear MAGA hats.

 

[TheParser]

I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.

If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.

 

[JoeB131]

I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.

If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.

Oh, "between the lines". I've always been interested in that statement. Last time I checked, the only thing between the lines are blank spaces.

Ms. Chang (who suffered from depression, probably just dealing with the horror of the subject she was studying) spent years studying this issue. Axis Cocksucker Mike just regurgitates the kind of Axis apologetics you see on White Power Websites.

I'll go with Ms. Chang.