Essay: The Nanking Massacre

Introduction
The Second Sino-Japanese War marked the beginning of “total war” primarily involving China and Japan “between 1937 and 1945” (Mitter). In this war, Japan sought to imperialize China for its resources and status as an “imperial power” (Hsiung and Levine), which was a common interest in the twentieth-century. Due to this conflict, over “15 million” (Mitter) Chinese and Japanese civilians and soldiers were killed, which led many to believe that it greatly contributed to the start of World War II. Japan’s imperialist-driven motive was to capture and raid China’s capital, which at the time was the city of Nanking, to gain power over the nation. Japanese soldiers stormed into Nanking raping, killing, and mutilating every Chinese civilian they saw, regardless of age or gender. This atrocity became known as the Rape of Nanking, or the Nanking Massacre, because of all the cruel acts that occurred during this time. Additionally, this massacre is often referred to as the “forgotten Holocaust of World War II” (Chang) because of how few people know about it. Both events were similarly horrifying with intentions to annihilate large masses of people; however, the Nanking Massacre left people questioning why it was constantly overshadowed by the Holocaust and why it was not given enough attention.
The Nanking Massacre took place in Nanjing, China, after the city’s fall. The massacre lasted for “six weeks” (Bowen) between December 13, 1937 and January 1938. Large volumes of Nanking citizens were killed and raped that historians were unable to pinpoint an accurate estimation of the total war deaths. Between “20,000 and 80,000 Chinese women” (Chang, 6) were raped and sexually assaulted, giving the massacre its proper name, the Rape of Nanking. The number of deaths ranged from “200,000 to 350,000” (Cook and Cooper) and more, but after much scholarly consensus, the International Military Tribunal of the Far East set “the death toll at 260,000” (Cook and Cooper). This variation in total deaths already demonstrates the inaccuracies behind the mass killing—why was it so difficult to detail exactly what happened during the Nanking Massacre? Although these Nanking victims were killed and raped, this was said in the most positive light because they experienced various cruel and unusual punishments. The methods that the Japanese used to kill residents included being “shot, beheaded, or used… for bayonet target practice” (Curan, et al). Additionally, other methods involved “live burials, mutilations, death by fire, death by ice, death by dogs, and death by rape” (Curan, et al). Victims clearly suffered from extreme atrocities, but that does not mean history should be kept secret from the entire world. However, through all the horrifying chaos this massacre has caused, there was one glimpse of hope with the creation of the Nanking Safety Zone. This zone’s “purpose was to offer a refuge for civilians during the battle” (Han), housing at least “250,000 [refugees]” (Han) from around China. The Nanking Safety Zone was successful in saving the lives of many, but there were many instances when Japanese soldiers did not abide by area’s rules.
There was much controversy surrounding the Nanking Massacre because of the event’s confidentiality and difficulty associated with validating accurate representations of the historical occurrences. The amount of information that general populations know about this massacre is incomparable to other major historical events, such as the Holocaust. This paper will focus on analyzing three perspectives—Japan, China, and the Westerners— during the Nanking Massacre, which will contribute to the overall understanding of the controversy behind the war atrocities. First, Japan’s perspective will be analyzed because they were the main culprits to commit cruel violence and perform disturbing acts upon the citizens of Nanking. Through various propaganda tactic, they also tried to hide the fact that the massacre ever occurred. Further, China’s side will be analyzed because they were the victims to such terrible atrocities, but they also contributed to the overall controversy of the massacre by remaining silent. Finally, the Westerner standpoint will be analyzed because there were some non-natives who took part in this massacre. People witnessed the Nanking Massacre happening on a global-scale, yet they did not do anything to prevent this mass killing. To analyze these three perspectives, first-hand witness accounts, a movie documentary, a compilation of primary sources, and journal articles will be incorporated into this paper. By integrating these resources and the evaluation of the three perspectives involved in the massacre, a better understanding for the overall Nanking Massacre will be drawn, therefore answering the research question, “In what ways was the Nanking Massacre a controversial event?”
Analysis
Japan’s Perspective
The Japanese played a major role during the Nanking Massacre since they were the ones to commit many cruel atrocities on the residents of Nanking. They gathered “tens of thousands of young men” who were “mowed down by machine guns” or “burned alive” (Chang, 4). They partook in “hanging people by their tongues,” “carving of organs,” and “burying people to their waists” (Chang, 6) before they were demolished by dogs. These murder tactics were only few among many others. During this time, the Japanese clearly engaged in mass genocide of innocent, unprovoked Chinese people, which was an unacceptable attack on humanity. Even worse, the Japanese failed to acknowledge the existence of this historical event or recognize a formal apology for involved nations. In both the past and the present, the Japanese have tried placing the blame on a different nation or altering the outcome of the massacre to prevent the world from understanding what truly happened. The Nanking Massacre “remains virtually unknown to people outside Asia” (Chang, 6) because of how little acknowledgement the incident was given; however, even few people in Asian have a strong understanding of what happened, and that is the fault of silent nations, such as Japan. The people of Japan have acted oblivious or kept quiet about the entire situation since the beginning and end of the Nanking Massacre. For example, Higashinakano Shudo, a Japanese revisionist, believed there were only “seven cases of rape” during “the entire scope of the Nanking Incident” (Sedgwick). This reveals that Japanese citizens were either uninformed of the massacre or misled by their government because people truly believed the massacre was not as horrific.
Japan’s government was not the only thing at fault for not acknowledging the massacre, soldiers who survived through the incident could contribute to the overall understanding of the Nanking Massacre, but voluntarily chose not to; however, other measures were taken to gather information about the incident. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) set up a “inherently contested process” in Tokyo to “establish an intractable account of what happened in Nanking” (Sedgwick), where Japanese soldiers and Chinese victims were trialed and interviewed about the event. It is evident that the Japanese were being very confidential and obscure about the massacre because tedious processes should not have to be used to gain knowledge about a historical event that occurred. Japanese officials often tried to place the blame on the Chinese by “[attacking] the overall reliability of witnesses’ statements” (Sedgwick). They would find variations in the Chinese witnesses’ statements and counter them with whatever support they had. Using various defense mechanisms, the Japanese were contributing to the controversy of the massacre by not speaking openly about the matter. The Japanese were clearly denying the existence of the Nanking Massacre.
In present day, Japanese schools have “glossed over or even ignored” (Barnard) the Nanking Massacre in their history textbooks. This is clearly an effort by the Japanese to obscure the massacre’s details as much as possible. If the Nanking Massacre was indeed mentioned, then the details were either simplified or reduced, but rarely was it ever described in great detail. In Christopher Barnard’s research on 88 Japanese textbooks, he discovered there was a common theme where the text was “struggling to put Japanese soldiers in the story as perpetrators.” Regardless of including the Nanking Massacre in textbooks, there was a definite bias against portraying Japanese citizens as enemies or criminals. Additionally, controversial textbooks were created that took a “masochistic view of Japan’s modern history” (Samarani), therefore glorifying Japan in a positive light. These textbooks sought to “stimulate students’ pride for their country” (Samarani). This shows that there was a strong desire to exhibit a positive reputation for Japan, which is a potential reason for why Japan is confidential about the Nanking Massacre. The massacre depicted Japanese soldiers as atrocious and inhumane, so there would be an effort to exclude it from their schools; however, this created much controversy because information about the incident was being kept from Japan’s own citizens.
Much of the Nanking Massacre’s controversy is surrounded by the horrific actions committed by the Japanese soldiers, specifically rape. Within the first month of the massacre, “approximately 20,000 women were raped” (Sedgwick), which was a significant amount considering all the resistance that Japanese soldiers faced. Chinese women were more victimized than men during this massacre. Although, men were subject to mass killings and cruel punishments, Japanese soldiers often ignored some men and sought out female civilians when they raided Nanking and the Safety Zone. These women had to suffer through traumatic experiences only to face death afterwards. The Japanese created a system involving “comfort women,” where “hundreds of thousands of women” were “recruited, purchased, kidnapped, and set up in military facilities… as a reward for good soldiers” (Cook and Cooper). These cruel actions require much psychological effort, so the fact that it was committed by Japanese soldiers on a large-scale only raises another problem that Japan must keep confidential. According to a video taken from the massacre, Japanese news people “[staged] pictures of Japanese soldiers giving candy to a child or an army doctor” (Leonsis, Nanking) to shed light on the situation and convey positive messages. The atrocious actions and behaviors of Japanese soldiers were being kept hidden from the public. In addition, moving pictures were taken of refugees being given various treats, but no footage was taken when Japanese soldiers slipped away and “raped a dozen or so women” (Leonsis, Nanking). These examples demonstrate much of the Japanese propaganda going on during this time to gain national support by the Japanese people; they effectively expressed the controversy behind the entire massacre because there was much involvement by Japanese media outlets and politicians to alter the public’s perception of the massacre. After the massacre ended, the “Japanese government initially refused to even recognize [the existence of comfort women]” (Ogawa) but the government eventually expressed “apology and remorse” (Ogawa) after some controversial backlash about comfort women was publicized. This showed that the Japanese government only acknowledged aspects of the massacre when there was major public distress; however, the government still continued to “remain cautious about issuing… apologies” (Ogawa), therefore creating controversy around the Nanking Massacre. The Japanese government would not have to deal with public outrage if it did not hide the truth from its people.
China’s Perspective
Chinese residents from Nanjing have suffered great casualties from all the atrocities the Japanese committed. Refugees in Nanjing were subject to rape, murder, and cruel and unusual punishments. During the war, civilians migrated from all around China to find refuge at its capital. Chinese soldiers and civilians contribute equally as much to the controversy surrounding the Nanking Massacre because they were the victims and the witnesses to inhumane punishments. The Japanese sought to erase the Nanking Massacre from history, but the Chinese hoped to raise global awareness of this “forgotten Holocaust.” There were few survivors who lived to tell their story. Chen Jiashou, a Nanking survivor, recalled the day where he “[faked his] death” after Japanese soldiers “opened fire” (Facing History) on Chinese citizens in efforts to survive. He “[laid] under the dead bodies” (Facing History) until every Japanese soldier left. This depicts the horrors that the Chinese endured because their life could be taken at any moment. It also demonstrates the efforts that many took to survive because Jiashou had to hide among dead bodies. Another survivor, Chang Zhi Qiang, stated that “the rich [Nanking civilians] got out” (Leonsis, Nanking) from the city and managed to flee from the massacre, but Qiang could not because his family “did not have the money to flee the city” (Leonsis, Nanking). This is vital in understanding how many Chinese refugees were affected by the massacre because very few had the wealth to escape the horrors of the war. The Japanese took the lives of innocent people and looted from people who did not have much. They took part in “killing contests” (Chang, 83) where soldiers tried seeing how fast they could kill Chinese civilians. Tang Shunsan was another Nanking survivor. Shunshan claimed he “saw two Japanese military wolf dogs eating the corpses [of Nanking civlians]” (Chang, 85). This reflects one of the many ways people died during the massacre, which adds to the overall controversy of the Nanking Massacre because various inhumane murder tactics were used by the Japanese.
Although China was a victim to Japan’s cruelty, the nation was also a culprit to not sharing the Nanking Massacre horror story to the world. After the massacre ended, Nanking and China became “isolated from much of the international community” and “severed communication with the West for several decades” (Chang, 182). This reveals that even China is not adamantly set on globally exposing the war’s atrocities, which creates a manifestation of confidentiality. In addition, the foreigners who helped protect and save Nanking refugees and civilians were “expelled” (Chang, 182) from the city, indicating that China was trying to remove any associations to the Nanking Massacre. Instead of trying to seek reparations for the massacre, China forgave Japan and sought to “forge an alliance” for “international legitimacy” (Chang, 183). This created more controversy because China acted so quickly to move on from Japan’s atrocities, and without political representation, the voices of the Chinese people were not articulated enough, thus silencing the Nanking Massacre from the rest of the world. During this time, there were so many people who wanted to share the Nanking story, but those who did risked being threatened and put in danger. When Nanking civilians discovered that John Rabe, a German who saved hundreds of thousands, was “reduced… to poverty” (Chang, 191), they immediately sent him food, money, and tokens of gratitude. They wanted to “express their heartfelt thanks for his leadership” (Chang, 193) because many would not be alive without him. These examples convey the positive emotion that the Chinese people had for their saviors and their desire to inform others of the incident, but they are unsuccessfully able to do so. Much controversy existed because their government delayed the publication of the Nanking Massacre and some people believed the incident was a plot made-up against Japan.
Western Perspective
Foreign countries that witnessed the Nanking Massacre happen were labelled as Westerners. These countries included the United States and Germany because they had some representatives present during the incident. The westerners also played a major impact on the overall controversy of the massacre—why was there no major intervention from other countries as the killings progressed? In fact, there were Americans who were in Nanjing, but fled prior to the start of the genocide. Additionally, western countries are responsible for making conscious efforts to globalize horrific events, so that history does not repeat itself; however, there is still little recognition of the Nanking Massacre in western education. In schools, the Nanking Massacre “remains neglected in most of the historical literature published in the United States” (Chang, 6). This indicates that western countries are also victims to hiding the massacre from the public. There are few high school textbooks that “even mention the Rape of Nanking” (Chang, 6), showing that there is little access for students to study the horrific incident. This contributes to the controversial aspect of the Nanking Massacre because there is little global effort to acknowledge what happened.
Prior to the start of the Nanking Massacre, there were visitors from various countries aside from China, including the United States and Germany, but many were warned to leave. In a radio broadcast at the time, Americans and others were told to evacuate by “[getting] aboard the Panay” (Leonsis, Nanking), an American ship stationed in the Yangtze River. Also, among the American visitors, “diplomats representing the United States government” were advised to “pack [their] important state papers and head to the Panay” (Leonsis, Nanking). From this, the United States government was well-aware of the situation in Nanking, but they did not put forth much effort to stop all the tragedies from happening. It would make greater sense if the United States was uninformed of the situation because then there would be some reason for no American intervention, but they backed away before the massacre began. A reason why the United States was unable to help was because the Japanese “tried to bar foreign diplomats from entering Nanking” (Cook and Cooper), so outsiders could not get a proper gage at what was happening. This was another one of Japan’s efforts to hide the terrible atrocities from the world. Despite foreign efforts to understand the event, much propaganda existed because the United States government “censored some evidence regarding the events at Nanking” in hopes of “a smooth settlement with Japan for after the war” (Cook and Cooper). The United States focused more on political interest than humane interest during this time of cruelty.
Regardless of political intervention, there were foreigners who left Nanking and foreigners who stayed to help the Chinese people. Fifteen foreigners created the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, which included American professor M. Searle Bates, American missionary John Magee, and German businessman John Rabe. Additionally, an International Red Cross Committee of Nanking was present during the massacre to help refugees, which consisted of 17 people, notably an American missionary, Minnie Vautrin. Without these foreigners, the death toll would be much higher. They also greatly contributed in documenting what truly happened during the Nanking Massacre.
In a letter sent to the Japanese Embassy on December 21, Bates reported that “seven persons were taken from [their] Library Building by soldiers, [including] members of [their] own staff” (Smalley). He also noted that a “woman was raped… by two soldiers” and questioned if that was “restoring order?” (Smalley). Bates’ letters were primary evidence for the Nanking Massacre because they were first-hand accounts of what happened. He personally saw the inhumane behaviors of the Japanese soldiers, proving that the aforementioned atrocities did happen. Further, Magee wrote a letter to his wife on December 19, which reported that the Chinese “were shot down like the hunting of rabbits” (Smalley). More specifically, two Japanese soldiers killed people while still “smoking… talking and laughing” (Smalley), showing they had no remorse. These Japanese soldiers were mindlessly killing refugees like it was nothing. Finally, he denounced that the “raping of… women” was the “most horrible thing [then]” and that the “streets [were] full of men searching for women” (Smalley). Magee’s letter effectively depicted the horrors that were being kept secret from the public. His personal accounts supported the claims made by victims who suffered from the Nanking Massacre. Minnie Vautrin greatly contributed to the Nanking Massacre by protecting many women from the Japanese soldiers. She documented all her experiences in a diary as evidence for the war’s atrocities. In one report, Vautrin wrote that Japanese soldiers were “searching for soldiers” in all the buildings in the Safety Zone, but they were actually “looking for young women and girls” (Smalley). Through various accounts, one sees all the fears and horrors that Chinese refugees experienced and felt during the Nanking Massacre. Many women were targeted, used, and discarded by Japanese soldiers. John Rabe was the leader of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone because of all the significant effort he put into protecting the people of Nanking. Since Rabe was the leader of the Nazi party, he “negotiated a truce with the Japanese Army to treat them fairly as POWs” (Curan, et al), but they failed to abide by that fully. Rabe could fend off the Japanese with his status and relation to Hitler because they knew they were political allies and involving Germany would cause greater problems and create much tension. After the massacre ended, Rabe informed Hitler of the Nanking cruelties with “a letter… [and] Magee’s film,” but he was “arrested… interrogated… and forbade from speaking about Nanking” (Leonsis, Nanking) by the Gestapo. This indicates that the Germans were also against sharing the Nanking Massacre to the public. The Soviets also “arrested and interrogated him” (Leonsis, Nanking) about his involvement in the Nanking Massacre.
These western countries were actively trying to remain silent about the situation and ignore what happened in Nanking, which is why the massacre became a controversial topic. People questioned the existence of the Nanking Massacre because of all the efforts made by people and governments to not speak openly about the incident. As a result of Rabe’s attempts to share the Nanking Massacre, he was “reduced to extreme poverty” (Leonsis, Nanking) despite being a Nazi leader and businessman. The extent at which the German government went to prevent leakage of information was unfathomable. The Nanking Massacre became controversial because its horrors were not being fully acknowledged by countries, such as the United States, Germany, and Russia, but they all witnessed the massacre progress. Westerners needed to recognize that the incident happened, regardless of the extremities, instead of masking it with other horrific occurrences.
Evaluation of Sources
Various sources were used to support the argument that the Nanking Massacre was a controversial event. One notable source was Iris Chang’s novel, The Rape of Nanking, because she presented primary documents, including photographs, real quotes, and interviews. She also analyzed the perspectives of multiple nations. A limitation of this source was that the novel was published in 1997; however, Chang’s parents were alive during the Nanking Massacre, which motivated her to share this historical event with the public. Another notable source was Leonsis and Guttentag’s documentary, Nanking, because it displayed still images, moving pictures from the massacre, and post-war interviews and stories from massacre survivors. Finally, Yale University’s novel, American Missionary Eyewitnesses to the Nanking Massacre, was a valuable source because it contained the letters and diary reports from Minnie Vautrin, John Rabe, John Magee, and other westerners. Without these primary documents, the Nanking Massacre would not be accurately presented.
Conclusion
From the elements discussed, the Nanking Massacre was indeed a controversial event in many ways. People and nations had differing opinions and perspectives on the incident. Japan was not the only victim to the controversy because China and other western countries contributed to the confidentiality of the event. Japan’s part in the controversy was due to their cruel murder tactics against the Chinese civilians. They murdered, raped, and mutilated thousands of civilians. Aside from this, they did it in unusual and disturbing ways, including live burials and bodily mutilations. Japan used propaganda and media to display Japanese war criminals in a positive light, thus deterring the public’s attention from the Nanking Massacre. Nonetheless, Japan has remained silent about the incident and failed to acknowledge it in any way. On the other hand, China has attempted to publicize the incident because the world is uninformed. Survivors from the massacre told their story to smaller audiences in an effort to globally recognize the massacre’s atrocities. Additionally, China’s government has played a role in ignoring the Nanking Massacre for international relations. Finally, western countries contributed to the controversy by not acknowledging the massacre in public education. They too remained silent about the incident and overshadowed it with events, such as the Holocaust. This essay effectively analyzed three global perspectives on the Nanking Massacre. Contrarily, the presented information could have been more condensed. The essay sometimes goes into too much detail about why incidences were controversial, instead of how the Nanking Massacre was controversial. From conducting this research, a new question could be asked: why do nations not openly discuss the Nanking Massacre?