The Rape of Nanking : The Forged Holocaust by China

Pieceful scenes of Nanjing after Japanese Occupation

2006-04-30T17:13:00.000-07:00

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)

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 11

2005-02-23T06:12:00.000-08:00

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 10

2005-02-22T06:10:00.000-08:00

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 9

2005-02-18T23:55:00.000-08:00

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 8

2005-02-16T05:34:00.000-08:00

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 7

2005-02-15T07:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Date	claims	Number of casualties	Sources
1938	The Safety Zone Committee	49	Documents of the Nankgin Safety Zone
1938	L.C. Smythe	15760	War Damage in the Nanking Area
1938	M.S. Bates	42000	What War Means
1941	E. Snow	42000	The Battle for Asia
1943	A. Smedley	200000	Battle Hymn of China
1946	Nanking district Court	340000	Summary report on the Investigations of Japanese war crimes committed in Nanking
1948	The IMTFE	200000	The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (stenographic records)
1971	Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai	100000	History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
1993	The New Encyclopedia Britannica	42000	The New Encyclopadia Britannica
1995	Communist China	300000	History of the War against Japan
1997	Iris Chang	300000	The 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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 6

2005-02-14T08:22:00.000-08:00

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 5

2005-02-13T00:39:00.000-08:00

Chapter I #2

WHAT WAS THE 'NANKING MASSACRE'?

1. The Road from Shanghai to Nanking

From Shanghai to Nanking

In Shanghai, the Japanese Army continued to suffer from the enemy suppression. On November 5, Japan had to deploy the 10th Army at the northern bank of the Hangchou (Hangzhou) Bay, and encircled the Chinese Army. As this operation was successful, most of the Chinese Army had to withdraw from Shanghai and a part of the army moved to Nanking on the 9th. On the 7th, two days prior to this event, the Central China Area Army was organized under the direction of MATSUI Iwane, combining the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army. This army was ordered to capture the city of Nanking.

During this period, the Japanese government had desired to cease fire, and asked the German government to intervene in a peace settlement. Under the advice of the German government, Oskar Trautman, the German ambassador to China, tried to negotiate with the KMT, but this peace negotiation could not be settled.

The city of Nanking then was a castle city, surrounded by the rampart of 12 meters high, and of 6 to 12 meters thick, and occupied the total area of about 35 square kilometers. On November 14 and 15, the KMT held an opinion conference and discussed whether they should defend the city, or abandon the city and fight in another place. At the conference, the majority expressed their opinions to abandon the city.

Von Falkenhausen, the chief of the Military Advising Group of Germany, agreed to their opinions. But, Chiang Kai-Shek insisted on defending the city. Chiang Kai-Shek appointed Tang Sheng-zhi as the commander-in-chief of the Nanking Garrison (Nanking Defense Force), and ordered him to reinforce the wall and destroy citizen's properties outside the wall as the Chinese traditional tactics of the 'Scorched-earth policy', not letting the Japanese Army take advantage of them.

American correspondent F. Tillman Durdin, described this scene from Nanking on December 8, in the December 12 edition of the New York Times :

The burning of obstructions within the defense zone by the Chinese continued. Palatial homes of Chinese officials in Mausoleum Park district were among the places burned late yesterday.

The city was ringed by a dense pall of smoke, for the Chinese also continued to burn buildings and obstructions yesterday in towns in a ten-mile radius.

This correspondent, motoring to the front, found the entire valley outside Chungshan Gate, southeast of Mausoleum Park, ablaze. The village of Hsiaolingwei, along the main highway bordering the park, was a mass of smoking ruins, and inhabitants who had not evacuated days before were streaming toward Nanking carrying their few miserable belongings and occasionally pausing to take sorrowing looks at their former homes.

On 16th, Chiang Kai-Shek declared his intension to move the capital from Nanking to Chungking (Chongqing) so that all of the government offices would be withdrawn by the 21st. Also, on November 27, all the foregn residents were asked to evacuate from the city. Then, the government high officials and the wealthy started getting away from the city, carrying their valuables and furniture.

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 4

2005-02-11T20:55:00.000-08:00

Chapter I #1

WHAT WAS THE 'NANKING MASSACRE'?

1. The Road from Shanghai to Nanking

Before discussing the so-called 'Nanking Massacre', we would like to briefly clarify the fact and the reason why the Japanese Army had to capture Nanking (Nanjing) in December 1937.

From the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to the second Shanghai Incident

In September 1931, the Manchurian Incident occurred. Even after the Manchukuo Government was established in March 1932, the Japanese and Chinese Armies engaged in battles repeatedly along the Great Wall that was the boundary between China and Manchuria. Two months after Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations in May 1933, the cease-fire agreement was concluded at Tanhku (Tanggu) and the demilitarized zone was established in North China, and it resulted in the withdrawal of both troops. Since then, there were no major conflicts recorded. At least for four years, a temporal peace was obtained.

The Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist) Party, which was led by Generalissimo Ciang Kai-Shek, started the fifth 'Bandit Suppression Campaigns' in October 1933, which had been prepared since the time of the Tangku Agreement, and pushed the CCP into the frontier region of Ya'nan by 1935. However, in 1936, due to the out-break of Sian (Xi'an) Incident, the KMT chose a different path against Japan. This was what was called 'Anti-Japanese United Front'. The Marco Polo Bridge Incident occurred in such intensified circumstances.

During that time, due to the occurrence of the Boxer Rebellion, the U.K., the U.S., France, Italy, and Japan had a military agreement (Final Protocol Relating to the North China Incident) with Manchu China (Qing Dynasty) in 1901, and were allowed to station their troops in the suburbs of Peiping (Beijing) for the protection of their residents.

On July 7, 1937 based on the protocol, the Japanese Army was having field practice at night near Marco Polo Bridge. Suddenly, several shots were fired against the Japanese troops from the directions where the Chinese troops were staying. This caused a major conflict between Japan and China. This was the start of the unfortunate incident, called the 'Marco Polo Bridge Incident'.

Japan had no intention of starting the war against China, and immediately ordered the front army not to expand the battle beyond and cease fire swiftly and peacefully, as the Emperor Showa (Hirohito) so strongly wished. The cease-fire agreement was reached in four days. However, China broke the agreement. Japan reluctantly dispatched three more divisions on July 27 to North China. On the 29th, in the city of Tungchow (Thongzhou), some 250 Japanese residents were murdered by the Chinese troops, and this incident was being called the 'Tungchow Massacre'.

In August 1937, the Japanese government formulated the peace proposal. Both the Japanese Army and Navy agreed to this peace proposal. What this proposal implied was that all the interests Japan had acquired since the Manchurian Incident should become nullified. This was indeed a drastic concession, which Japan had ever conceded.

However, the peace negotiation between Japan and China crumbled immediately due to the incident in which two soldiers were slaughtered in Shanghai on the very day the peace negotiation started in shanghai between Japan and China.

The KMT was building up their troops in great number in Shanghai. During that time, there were a large number of Japanese residents. To defend them, there was only one defending unit consisting of 4,000 combatants. To the Japanese unit, the KMT sent a numerically far superior number of troops consisting of thirty divisions on August 13. Thus, the war expanded to Shanghai.

Japan organized the Shanghai Expeditionary Forces, and deployed them to Shanghai. By that time, Japan had abandoned the existing non-expansion policy.

Chiang Kai-shek was successful in luring the Japanese Army into Shanghai, where the Chinese units, well trained by the cooperation of German military advisors, were stationed. (The second Shanghai Incident).

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 3

2005-02-11T07:54:00.000-08:00

Preface #3

Needless to say, it is quite understandable for American people, who have kept respect for human rights and fairness as their motto, to raise voices to 'castigate Japan and punish them' after hearing these the false representation of '300,000 Chinese massacred, 20,000 raped'. However, this serious situation should be re-examined if we calmly consider it, because the anti-Japanese campaign is based on the assumption that the 'Nanking Massacre' has surely existed. So we wonder if it is true and how they achieved to exactly verify it.

Are there any questions raised by readers of Chang's sadistic book that can possibly compete with the literature of the Marquis de Sade? We wonder if they have had the following questions :

"The book says that over 300,000 citizens were killed and the most of the corpses were burnt by kerosene within six weeks. If it were so, dozens of incinerators as large as that of Auschwitz would have been necessary. Who has ever seen such things within and around the closed space of the walled castle?"

"Also, the book claims that from 20,000 to 80,000 women were raped. We hear of the enormous number of babies born after fall of Berlin by the Russian Army. Is there a recorded account of the flood of babies that mixed Japanese and Chinese parentage after the fall of Nanking?"

For readers who are equipped with common sense, such questions must abundantly come to mind. Now, let us treat the 'Nanking Massacre' as a murder case. How many corpses have been found? Who are the victims? Who are the eyewitnesses? What are the motives of the offenders? For those basic questions, we must justly prove the facts through fair procedures in criminal suit.

Those who prosecute the 'Nanking Massacre' insist that insist that there were certain number of corpses, and focus on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and also the motives of the offenders. However, the admissibility and probative value of such claims and evidence are not acceptable in the courts of civilized Nations. Surprisingly, these facts have never been known to the western world. But only the false propaganda, which claims that the horrible incident (Nanking Massacre) occurred, is now becoming established in the U.S., as the anti-Japanese activities intended.

For that reason, we have started the following legal approach. Namely, we have tried to treat the so-called 'Nanking Massacre', which was said to have been committed by the Japanese Army during the six weeks starting from December 13, 1937, as a 'murder case (including looting and rapes)'. Also, we have tries to precisely examine whether the crime has been proved or not and objectively verify the fact, using a method based on the Criminal Procedure Act, in view that the Prosecution has responsibility to adduce evidences to show the committed crimes.

In other words, our objective is not to prove that there was no 'Nanking Massacre', but to specify the fact that the testimonies, which claim that there was the 'Nanking Massacre', are not substantiated at all. And we take a position whereby all the facts would be clarified by doing so.

However, as for the Prosecution, all we would like to say is that we are not confronting Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking. Instead, our debate will be focused on the claims of the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party). The reason is that Iris Chang's view is based on the claims of the CCP. We perceive that the origin of the message in the anti-Japanese networks, which press Japan to take responsibilities for war crimes, lies in the CCP.

Our objections may appear to the readers rather too mild. But, the Japanese culture, which has produced the serenity of the Noh play and the Tea ceremony, may be quite opposite contrasted with the Chinese culture, which is festively decorated with gongs and firecrackers. The peculiar Chinese fantasy of such expressions as '30,000 feet of long white hair' may have produced The Rape of Nanking, and in the opposite manner, we would like to develop our arguments in brief and strictly.

For a half century after World War II, Japan has kept silence whenever and however we were falsely accused of this problem. Here, we would like to break the silence for the first time. We will not scream like the Chinese, but set forth our views purely and fairly as an accused standing in the dock of a courthouse, speaking in a low tone of voice, asking the fair judgement of the readers.

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 2

2005-02-10T14:17:00.000-08:00

Preface #2

Ten years have passed since the end of the Cold War, and the world is now in the midst of turmoil and crisis. In order to keep the scarcely maintained world peace, the role of the continued Japan-U.S. friendship and alliance is unshakable. Throughout the Cold War era and up to the present day, there has been some serious friction recorded, especially in the area of trade relative to the export of textiles and steel, also in the area of discussions as to increasing Japan's defense capabilities, and to restructuring of Japan's economic system. However, these items of discussion have been, without exception, items of national interest. Both nations, Japan and U.S., have tried to mutually resolve the problems and to reach the satisfactory resolutions and these efforts and achievements are universally recognized.

However, for the past few years, some peculiar anti-Japanese campaigns have been started in the U.S., and they have been escalated as the time passed. We are deeply concerned that the new serious friction between Japan and the U.S. has expanded as a result of these campaigns. The reason we express our concerns is that these anti-Japanese activities have been developed in the U.S., but aren't related directly to the national interests of either country. It is our assertion that there is someone of the third world trying to set them up from behind.

Specifically, Chinese-American Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, which was published in July 1997 in the U.S., and the wave of anti-Japanese campaigns agitated by her claims are sitting at the center of this problem. The book's contents do not present verified facts, and furthermore, they represent the quite opposite. As a result, those Japanese who are shocked with such an injustice are not few. For this twisted representation of the historical facts of the 'Nanking Massacre', even a monthly Japanese magazine, called Sekai which has been a representative of the group which has admitted the 'Nanking Massacre', can't have helped but express its disagreement and published an unusual explanatory statement.

Iris Chang's book is titled as 'The Rape', and subtitled as 'The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II', and it has caused a stirring of the ears of the American people who were not familiar with the incident which happened on December 1937 in an obscure corner of the Far East. The book, which starts with unimaginable satanic atrocities and repeatedly describes such acts, has succeeded in maximizing the hatred of the readers against the Japanese. Moreover, it has caused a political problem to develop. Finally, in August 1999, the state legislature of California passed a resolution for it atrocities, citing the 'Nanking Massacre'.

Needless to say, it is quite understandable for American people, who have kept respect for human rights and fairness as their motto, to raise voices to 'castigate Japan and punish them' after hearing these the false representation of '300,000 Chinese massacred, 20,000 raped'. However, this serious situation should be re-examined if we calmly consider it, because the anti-Japanese campaign is based on the assumption that the 'Nanking Massacre' has surely existed. So we wonder if it is true and how they achieved to exactly verify it.

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

The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' 1

2005-02-10T04:13:00.000-08:00

Preface #1

The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.

- Senator Robert A. Taft, October 5, 1946

Between two countries at war there was always a danger that one or other of the combatants would seek to turn public opinion in his favour by resort to a propaganda in which incidents, inseparable alas (!) from all hostilities, were magnified and distorted for the express purpose of inflaming prejudice and passion and obscuring the real issues of the conflict.

- Sir Charles Addis at Chatham House, November 10, 1938

World War II and the movement of Resistance were the 'Battle against Fascism'. Therefore, the false assumption was made that Japan was regarded as same as Hitler's Germany and such absurd remark has been spread within Japan and it is indeed unbearable. For that very reason, I, with a firm conviction, wrote this book in order to counter-attack such false assumption.

- Alfred Smoular, Auschwitz 186416 dies in Japan

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