The Rape of Nanking : The Forged Holocaust by China

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Pieceful scenes of Nanjing after Japanese Occupation

What really happened in Nanjing after Japan's occupation in December 1937? "Massacre of 300 thousand Chinese" as the Chinese Government claims?

You can watch some scenes in the following web page; lives of Chinese people, including children having food, as well as Japanese soldiers restoring the city.

Can these scenes possible if the "massacre of 300 thousand" actually took place?

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (1)

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (2)

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (3)

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (4)

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (5)

The Truth of The Nanjing of 1937.12 - 1938.2 (6)

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 11

Chapter II #4

EXAMINATION THE PROOFS OF THE PROSECUTION

1. The number of casualties, 300,000

Argument 2 (cont'd)

Did the 'Chinese postwar investigation' have probative value and admissibility?

Was the Advance Benevolence Society engaged in burial?

      The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre read "Out of 340,000, 150,000 were slaughtered individually and separately, and were buried by charitable organizations."

      The evidences for 150,000 buried corpses were on two 'burial lists' submitted to the IMTFE as documentary evidences. According to the burial lists, from December 1937 to autumn of 1938, the Advance Benevolence Society had buried 112,226 and the Red Swastika Society had buried 43,071, respectively. Could burial of no less than 155,297 corpses have been done realistically?

      As a burial job needed expenses and labor, it was certain that the Japanese Army had something to do with this job. MARUYAMA Susumu (still alive), who was a member of the Nanking Secret Service in charge of stabilizing the mind of people, described the followings.

      In the battle of Nanking, both sides, Japan and China, had a large number of the war dead. Japanese corpses were soon cremated, but Chinese ones remained untouched on the battlefield outside the walled city. The cold weather in midwinter kept the corpses frozen. But when spring came, the corpses would become corrupt and badly affect sanitary condition.

      In the middle of January, therefore, the Japanese Army decided to 'put them away by spring.' The Nanking Secret Service discussed the problem with the Self-government Committee, in charge of city administration. The chairman of the committee was Tao Xishan. As a result, the burial job was assigned to the Red Swastika Society, where Tao Xishan was head of the branch office. First, the Nanking Secret Service paid expense to the Self-government Committee, then the committee handed them to the Red Swastika Society. So the job was supposed to be voluntary work by the Self-government Committee. Expense paid were 30 Sen per each corpse. (It was comparable to the then amount to buy 1 kilogram of rice.)

      The Red Swastika Society was an actual undertaker of the burial job. The fact could be confirmed by the record of the Nanking Secret Service or Japanese press reports, but as to the Advance Benevolence Society, which was supposed to have dealt with twice as many burials as the Red Swastika Society did, its name was never seen in any other records. Report of the Nanking International Relief Committee (1939) written by Miner Searle Bates, covered only the activity of the Red Swastika Society.

      All the activities that the Advance Benevolence Society was involved were provision of clothes, relief of widows, and nurture. Burial was not included. According to Nanking compiled by ICHIKI Yoshimichi (published by Japan Business and Industry Institution, Nanking Office, 1941), the Advance Benevolence Society suspended its activities from December 1937 to August 1938. There existed no proof showing that the Advance Benevolence Society was written in 1946, nine years after the incident.

      There existed no record to substantiate that the Advance Benevolence Society worked on burial activities. For these reasons, we couldn't accept the 'figures 112,226 as the number of buried corpses' which the Advance Benevolence Society claimed.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 10

Chapter II #3

EXAMINATION THE PROOFS OF THE PROSECUTION

1. The number of casualties, 300,000

Argument 2 (cont'd)

Did the 'Chinese postwar investigation' have probative value and admissibility?

Irrelevant evidences to cross-examinations

      The CCP was assured that 190,000 had been massacred, based on the eleven testimonies that the KMT barely collected with great efforts.

      But the figures were arbitrarily calculated, in such a way that a certain Chinese witnessed at a certain place that Japanese soldiers were committing mass murders to tens of thousands of Chinese.

      Furthermore, The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre insisted on saying that mass murders took place and that more than 190,000 corpses were completely burnt. I was asserting 'murders without corpses'. Who could believe such incredible testimonies that 190,000 corpses left no traces?

      In fact these eleven testimonies were collected eight years after the incident without carrying out any cross-examinations. They were extremely unreasonable.

      According to these testimonies, we should have admitted to unrealistic facts that for only five days right after Nanking fell, from December 14 to December 18, an average of 38,000 Chinese a day were killed in or near the Safety Zone by only 1,600 of soldiers belonging to the 7th Infantry Regiment of the Japanese Army. (Many of them were engaged in maintaining public order or guard), and 190,000 corpses were burned to nothing by means of kerosene.

      Even the concentration camp in Auschwitz, well known for the holocaust, could barely kill 710 a day. In order to kill 38,000 a day, 53 facilities like ones in Auschwitz would have been needed. Of course no such facilities were to be seen.

      How did eleven testimonies explain it? The indictment read as follows based on the testimony of Lu Su, which was one of eleven testimonies:
On December 18, at Hsiakwan and Straw Shoes Gorge in the north of Nanking City, more than 57,000 persons consisting of POWs and refugees regardless of age or sex were gathered into a place and shot. Those who remained alive were bayoneted, doused with kerosene and burnt. A large scale of massacre like this was carried out several times in the week immediately after the Nanking Fall.

      According to the testimony of Lu Su submitted to the IMTFE, on the night of December 16, the Japanese Army took 57,418 refugees and soldiers into custody in a neighboring village, bound them to one another with wires, ordered them to form four columns and walk as far as Straw Shoes Gorge, and then swept them with machine-gun fire. Moreover, the Japanese Army poured kerosene onto the bodies after bayoneting them at random and setting them a fire. Finally they threw all the burnt corpses into the Yangtze River. A man who got injured in the 'thigh' by a 'shell' in the 'street fighting' of Nanking and who made a narrow escape to Shang-Yuen Gate, witnessed everything that happened 'before his eyes.'

      If this witness had been present in the court, he would have received the following cross-examinations naturally.
1. How could he count the exact number of 57,418 victims in the dark night?

2. How could he reach the spot where the murders took place from inside the city to Hsiakwan, where the Japanese Army had had a solid guard?

3. How many Japanese soldiers were needed to bind nearly 60,000 Chinese with wires and how long would it have taken, and didn't the Chinese show any resistance?

4. How many Japanese soldiers were available to send no less than 60,000 Chinese to the place of murder?

5. How long did it take for 60,000 corpses to be burnt to ashes? To throw 60,000 corpses into the river, how many hours did it take and how many soldiers had to work on that?

      Moreover, if the firing of machine-guns had continued for several hours during nighttime in Hsiakwan, the committee members in the Safety Zone or somebody else might have noticed it. The Prosecution, which called him as a witness, should answer this question, "Was there any other evidence?" (The records of the Safety Zone Committee proved that fourteen Chinese were killed by the Japanese Army at that time.)

      Supposing such cross-examinations, it will be very difficult to admit that it is able to substantiate the testimony of the witness. Even testimonies collected by the KMT with an enormous effort are all but unreliable and groundless, still less the others are dependable. The 'murder of 190,000', which the KMT claimed, can never be proved.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo

Friday, February 18, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 9

Chapter II #2

EXAMINATION THE PROOFS OF THE PROSECUTION

1. The number of casualties, 300,000

Argument 2

Did the 'Chinese postwar investigation' have probative value and admissibility?

      With what evidence will the Prosecution prove 'the murder of 300,000 people'? The indictment reads as follows:
According to the Chinese postwar investigation, when the massacre was over, the number of corpses that charitable organizations had gathered from place to place and buried reaches 190,000 and the estimated victims' ashes which were excavated at places where atrocities took place, were 150,000, but these figures excluded a large number of corpses that were thrown into the Yangtze River. Some of them were fallen soldiers, but most of them were killed after the fight.

      No doubt the advocacy of 'murder of 300,000 people' has been based on the 'Chinese postwar investigation.'

      Details of this investigation were published in The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre, vol.4 compiled by the Institute of Studies of Nanking City Historical Records in 1983. In the preface of this research data, it describes "In massacre, the number of unidentified corpses burnt to nothing left reached 190,000 and others individually killed and buried by charitable organizations were more than 150,000 in number," and there appear two groups of evidences to verify these two figures.

      According to The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre, the 'Chinese postwar investigation' has presented the following two groups of evidences to prove the victims of more than 300,000:

1. Chinese testimonies of the eleven cases to verify the murder of 190,000 people.

2. Burial records of 150,000 corpses by the Advance Benevolence Society and the Red Swastika Society.

      These figures of 190,000 and 150,000 coincide with ones described in the indictment except the above part underlined. Since there has been no other 'Chinese postwar investigation' reported officially, hereafter, we would like to argue the issue in the premise that the 'Chinese postwar investigation' means The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre.

Almost few testimonies were collected.

      First of all, we will examine Chinese testimonies of the eleven cases to verify the murder of 190,000 people. We, however, can point out an interesting fact when we look into the process of collecting those testimonies.

      According to Summary report on the Investigation of Japanese war crimes committed in Nanking, prepared by the Procurator of the District Court in Nanking, to prepare for the IMTFE, the KMT set up the 'Nanking Investigation Committee for Antagonists' Crime' on November 7, 1945, and appealed to the Chinese public to report Japanese Army's crimes.

      It was reported, however, that few responded to the crimes committed by Japanese Army and some refused to testify or to deny the massacre occurred when they were asked for details. Then, the KMT reluctantly submitted the tentative report to the IMTFE on January 20, 1946. Except for one 'testimony' made by a man named Lu Su, no other evidence of 'massacre by the Japanese Army' was available, besides burial records.

      Afterwards surveys were conducted and they managed to get '500 facts' investigated. 'One after another case was examined,' but they found only four new cases reliable. Based on 'Lu Su's testimony' and the burial records by the 'Advance Benevolence Society' and the 'Red Swastika Society', and then the four newly discovered evidences, that is, based on seven evidences in total, the number of casualties was concluded to be 340,000, and it was submitted to the IMTFE in February 1946. The simple summation of casualties in seven cases, however, reached only to an amount less than 228,000, still far less than 340,000.

      The International Prosecution Section of the IMTFE might have pointed the discrepancy. In spite of two months after the opening the IMTFE, the KMT conducted another five months' investigation from July 1, 1946 to November 11 of the same year to remedy the discrepancy, according to The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre. It concluded, "2,784 cases were testified based on reliable evidence, and among them eleven cases were about those who were seriously victimized." (Three cases of them had already been submitted to the IMTFE). As a result, by two burial reports and these eleven cases, the KMT finally made up the total number of 340,000 for the victims.

      From this procedure, two facts were disclosed.

1. Although there lived more than 200,000 Chinese in Nanking eight years before, those Chinese were unwilling or negative in prosecuting the already defeated Japanese for their crimes, or very few could give reliable testimonies.

2. The testimonies presented to the IMTFE could not prove the murder of 340,000. Therefore, the KMT was absorbed in collecting proofs even during the IMTFE. In other words, the KMT had already fixed the number of casualties into more than 300,000 before they began to collect the evidence.

      In the Chinese dictionary, there are some expressions such as '3,000 feet of long white hair', wherein '3,000' means 'many or huge' in this context. The figure '300,000' may have been decided politically, derived from Chinese unique linguistic sense, in addition to being convinced that there have existed a hundred times casualties to 3,000.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 8

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 8

Chapter II #1

EXAMINATION THE PROOFS OF THE PROSECUTION

      In this chapter, we try to compare the so-called 'Nanking Massacre' with a murder case (including the looting and rape associated to it). Under the assumption that the Prosecution is responsible for the burden of proof, we are going to examine the evidences from various aspects through procedures of criminal codes, to determine whether the Prosecution has been able to prove the 'Nanking Massacre' as a crime.

      We think that History of the War against Japan can be comparable to the indictment. This book claims that the Japanese Army killed more than 300,000 Chinese captives and civilians from December 1937 through February 1938 with a variety of arguments. Although we can argue against each point, here in this chapter, we will categorize them into the following 'four points of advocacy' and 'ten points of argument.'

The whole view of the indictment

1. The number of casualties, 300,000
Argument 1. After the Japanese occupation, did the population of Nanking decrease by more than 300,000?

Argument 2. Did the 'Chinese postwar investigation' have probative value and admissibility?

a. Chinese testimonies of eleven cases to verify the murder of 190,000 people.

b. Burial records of 150,000 corpses by the Advance Benevolence Society and the Red Swastika Society.


Argument 3. Did westerners witness the massacre?

Argument 4. Were Japanese high officials aware of the massacre?

2. Systematic massacre
Argument 5. Did the Japanese Army plan a systematic murder?

Argument 6. Was the mopping-up operation a systematic murder?

Argument 7. Did the Japanese Army have a policy of killing POWs?

3. Systematic large scale looting and rape
Argument 8. Did the Japanese Army practice systematic looting?

Argument 9. Did the Japanese Army commit systematic rape?

4. Cruel Atrocities
Argument 10. Did Japanese officers perform the 'Murder Race'?

      The most significant point of argument on this case is the 'whether the number of casualties has been more than 300,000' and 'whether the Japanese Army has planned a systematic murder.'

      Then, we, as the Defense, will put an emphasis on these two points, and will inspect the evidences submitted by the Prosecution.

1. The number of casualties, 300,000

Argument 1

After the Japanese occupation, did the population of Nanking decrease by more than 300,000?

      The most significant point of debate was certainly the number of casualties. The Prosecution paid attention to the fluctuation of population of Nanking between pre-battle and post-battle, and made a strong statement as follows:

      The population statistics of Nanking showed 1,700,000 in the whole city when the battle started. Half of them were supposed to have escaped out of the walled city and more than 500,000 remained inside the city or in the suburbs. Among them, in the Safety Zone (about 4 square kilometers) were more than 250,000 accommodated. According to the early statistic published by the Nanking puppet government established by Japanese at the beginning of 1938, there remained no more than 170,000 residents inside the city. It assumed that the Japanese Army slaughtered 300,000 or more Chinese at least.

      In surveying the population of Nanking, we needed to carefully pay attention to the following three points:

1. On November 16, 1937, Chiang Kai-Shek decided to abandon Nanking and ordered that the KMT agency should complete preparation of withdrawal within three days. Therefore the government officials escaped from Nanking, following the wealthy who had been escaping since the beginning of August. There remained only Chinese soldiers and those too poor to flee.

2. On December 7, the Chinese Army started the so-called 'Scorched-earth policy' and burned down hundreds of villages and buildings in a 16 kilometer radius outside the city of Nanking in order to prevent the Japanese Army from making use of them for their maneuver positions or quartering. Neighboring inhabitants had their houses burned down by the Chinese Army and were driven away.

3. On December 8, Tang Sheng-zhi warned that all the noncombatants should assemble in the 'Refugee Zone', and the citizens rushed into the 'Refugee Zone' for the safety. As the result, there were no people within the castle except in the 'Safety Zone'. The Safety Zone Committee described in the in the Document No.9 dated on December 17, "On the 13th when your troops [the Japanese Army] entered the city, we had nearly all the civilian population in the Safety Zone."

Then what was the population of the Safety Zone?

      John Rabe, the chairman of the Safety Zone Committee wrote in his diary on December 10, that when the Nanking battle began, the population was 200,000. After the Japanese victory and occupation took place, the Safety Zone Committee in its document dated on December 17, and in subsequent documents, consistently recognized this number. For the Safety Zone Committee, it was absolutely necessary to know the accurate number of people in order to distribute food to those refugees.

      In Nanking, there were also Chinese soldiers (including their families). About its number, the written judgment in the IMTFE stated "All Chinese troops withdrew, but 50,000 remained in the city to defend it."

      Considering the above statements, the population in the walled city was 200,000 plus 50,000, or not more than 250,000 when the battle started.

      Afterwards how did the population of Nanking change? The Safety Zone Committee documents read that in January 1938 the population was 250,000. It meant the increase of the population by 50,000, which might be the estimated number of citizens and Chinese soldiers who were not willing to fight, and who were registered as a result of the 'separation of soldiers from citizens' which was carried out by the military authorities towards Chinese soldiers hidden in the Safety Zone and the citizens of the wall city including the soldiers' families who lived there.

The population continued subsequent increase.

      After the Safety Zone was dissolved at the beginning of February 1938, Lewis S. C. Smythe, professor of Nanking University investigated the population with the help of many Chinese staffs. He assumed the population of Nanking to be 250,000 or 270,000 as of the end of March 1938. The Nanking City Administrative Office of the Nanking Restoration Government, which was established on March 28, 1938, registered 277,000 inhabitants.

      By the way, the 'Nanking puppet government', that the Prosecution criticized was the Nanking Restoration Government itself. In other words, the Prosecution lied in the indictment about the population of Nanking as of the beginning of 1938 by decreasing more 100,000, because, as aforementioned, the indictment said that there remained no more than 170,000 residents inside the city according to the early statistic published by the Nanking puppet government.

      Form the above authentic documents when the Nanking battle ceased, the population of Nanking proved to have been 250,000 and was gaining in population. The indictment, which said the city had lost population by 300,000, could therefore no ground.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 7

Chapter I #4

WHAT WAS THE 'NANKING MASSACRE'?

2. Prosecution of the 'nanking massacre' - Why Differs Widely in Casualties Count

      The so-called 'Nanking Massacre' is the case wherein a large number of the citizens of Nanking and the captives have been alleged to have been murdered during the six weeks' occupation period under the Japanese Army, from December 13 immediately after the fall of Nanking through the beginning of February of 1938. After World War II, the Nanking District Court was held by the KMT, and a chief of division and three officers, who belonged to the Central China Area Army, were charged and put to a death penalty for their responsibility, so was a commander-in-chief of the Army at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE). And, the results are well known.

      However, the prosecutions presented for this 'Nanking Massacre' have been various, and especially, the number of victims are controversial.
DateclaimsNumber of
casualties
Sources
1938The Safety Zone Committee    49Documents of the Nankgin Safety Zone
1938L.C. Smythe 15760War Damage in the Nanking Area
1938M.S. Bates 42000What War Means
1941E. Snow 42000The Battle for Asia
1943A. Smedley200000Battle Hymn of China
1946Nanking district Court340000Summary report on the Investigations of Japanese war crimes committed in Nanking
1948The IMTFE200000The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (stenographic records)
1971Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai100000History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
1993The New Encyclopedia Britannica 42000The New Encyclopadia Britannica
1995Communist China300000History of the War against Japan
1997Iris Chang300000The Rape of Nanking


      The following is a list of the variety of views on the 'Nanking Massacre', expressed by the CCP.

Summary report on the Investigations of Japanese war crimes committed in Nanking, prepared by the Procurator of the District Court, Nanking (Nanking District Court, 1946)

Atrocities of the Japanese Invasion Army - the Nanking Massacre (Shanghai People's Publishing, 1985)

History of the War against Japan (Committee of China International Strategic Studies, 1995)

We especially focus on a portion titled "The Nanking Capture by Japanese Army-Occupation and Massacre", presented in History of the War against Japan.

      The reason is because The Rape of Nanking written by Iris Chang, a Chinese-American, mainly has quoted from it. In addition, it has been published under the supervision of Chi Peng-fei, former deputy premier and foreign minister of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the view shown in it can be regarded as the latest official view of the CCP on the 'Nanking Massacre'.

      For further details, the photographs presented in the book are quoted from the 751 pages of photo-collection, compiled by Fund Xu'yan, professor of Chinese Defense University, published in 1995 for the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Fund Xu'yan is the author of the book, called 1945 March to Manchuria, and he is a postwar historian relatively well known in Japan.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo

Monday, February 14, 2005

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 6

Chapter I #3

WHAT WAS THE 'NANKING MASSACRE'?

1. The Road from Shanghai to Nanking

Seven-days Nanking Battle

      Within the city wall was the Nanking Garrison, together with the remaining citizens. In order to pretect them, the 'International Committee of the Naking Safety Zone' (Non-government organization. Here after 'the Safety Zone Committee') was organized by the remaining sixteen westerners on November 22. This Safety contained eighteen refugee camps, and was located in rhombic shape area of 2 miles in length and I mile in width in the central Nanking. This area of 3.8 square kilometers, which was corresponded to 11% of the whole Nanking city, was comparable in size to New York's Central Park.

      On December 1, the Safety Zone Committee (John Rabe was the chairman) requested both Japanese and Chinese authorities not to attack the Safety Zone. Previously, in Shanghai, there was a case if which the Japanese Army avoided the attack of the Safety Zone set by a French Catholic priest, since the cooperation was offered by the French troops stationed there.

      However, Tang Sheng-zhi ignored the request, and decided to establish the 'Refugee Zone' in order to receive all of the refugees.

      The Japanese Army also refused the Safety Zone Committee's request for the following reasons:

1. The Safety Zone was separated only by the landmarks. Therefore, the Chinese soldiers could easily penetrate the Safety Zone.

2. Within the Safety Zone, there were many residences of Chinese officers.

3. The neutrality of the Safety Zone of Shanghai was kept, owing to the voluntary cooperation offered by the French troops. However, in the case of Nanking, the Safety Zone Committee was not vested by military power, and there was no guarantee to keep the neutrality by pretecting from stranglers' coming in.

      As previously stated, Trautmann's peace negotiation did not produce the favorable result, so the Japanese Army decided to attack the city of Nanking on December 1, on the same day when the Safety Zone Committee made the request. On December 9, the Japanese Army scattered 'Bills advising surrender of the Chinese Army' into the city by the aircraft. The bills were made in cooperation with a scholar of international humanitarian law as to a undefended or open city. The attack could have been avoided if the KMT had proclaimed Nanking a 'Defensive City' according to the international humanitarian law. (Paris remained indestructible in this way during World War II.)

      The KMT did not reply for this offer until 1:00 p.m. on the 10th. Then, the troops opened fire. The Nanking Garrison fiercely resisted the attacks at the Chinese defense forts outside the wall of Nanking. However, the Japanese Army occupied the main areas (such as Purple Mountain, Rain Flower Terrace, Military Academy, etc.) by December 12. By 8:00 p.m., Tang Sheng-zhi, ordering the Nanking Garrison to withdraw from the area quickly, left with his staff's officers. On December 7, Chiang Kai-Shek left Nanking in the early morning. As a result, the Nanking Garrison became disordered. At dawn on the 13th, a part of Japanese Army successfully entered the city. During the process of the entry, the Japanese troops were ordered not to damage the historical sites, such as Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum as well as the Safety Zone, in spite of the formal refusal against the request of the Safety Zone Committee.

      The Nanking Garrison had been preparing the deliberate defense by setting barbed wires, laying mines and positioning machine-guns at many places around the city. Contrary to the Japanese Army's estimate, the resistance of the Nanking Garrison was relatively weak, and no street fights occurred within the city wall. By 10:00 p.m. of the 13th, the Japanese Army announced the 'Complete Occupation of the city of Nanking'. However, in the suburbs of the city, there were continuous battles fought between the Nanking Garrisons and the Central China Area Army until the afternoon of the 14th.

      As feared by Japanese authorities, many Chinese troops took refuge in the Safety Zone against the repeated requested to stop doing so made by the Safety Zone Committee. Many of them wore civilian clothes, yet they were still armed. They were called 'Plain-clothes soldiers.' According to the international humanitarian law, they could not be regarded as soldiers, but they were regarded as 'privately armed bandits', hiding their status of being regular soldiers.

      The Japanese Army, after judging that the Nanking Garrison was preparing for guerrilla warfare, had to conduct the mopping-up operaion for four days in order to capture the resisting soldiers, starting at dawn of the 13th and continuing through the 16th. The Japanese Army ordered all the operation troops to protect the 'rights and interests of foreign residents,' and to strictly prohibit 'looting and arson,' and to capture the 'male and youth' suspected of being soldiers, and to treat 'all the citizens' with courtesy. The Japanese Army completed all the tasks prior to the night of the 16th, by capturing the stragglers and a large amount of arms and ammunitions in the Safety Zone. Then, the entry ceremony into Nanking was held on the 17th. Nanking fell within seven days since the start of the operation in December 10.

      However, since a large number of Chinese soldiers were still suspected of being hidden in the Safety Zone, the 'Sino-Japanese Joint Commission' was established on December 24, in order to separate the citizens from the hiding soldiers by checking physique, outfit and language. This investigation was done until January 5, 1938 for all the Nanking citizens, not including the elderly and women and children. As a result, approximately 2,000 soldiers were captured, while 160,000 male adults acquired ID cards.

      On January 1, 1938, nine Chinese committee members established the 'Nanking Self-government Committee,' and the administration of the city came under this committee upon recovery of public order. And, further, on March 28, the committee dissolved and the 'Nanking Restoration Government' was newly established by the anti-Chiang Kai-Shek Chinese group.

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre'
Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo