Rape Of Nanking

sabro · 12 Jan 2005

Urecco, good to have you back.
Check my post #140. Your revisionist stuff isn't flying. There is just too much real evidence of an attrocity, and no evidence of a pleasant and humane occupying army.
Did you read Muay Thai Boran's post? It seems like reasonably good information.
We can argue specific points of trivia, but it won't erase the thousands of innocent lives snuffed out by Japanese agression in China.

kiuyiw · 15 Jan 2005

it seems like there are still a lot of japanese don't feel it's wrong by what japan did in WWII.

urecco · 16 Jan 2005

sabro said:
"At one time, after Nanking was captured, more than 30,000 Chinese were driven to the foot of the city wall. Machine guns then swept the crowd and grenades were thrown from atop the wall. The 30,000 people were all killed, most of them were women, children, and elderly." reported Tokyo Asahi Shimbun correspondent Yoshio Moriyama on December 14, 1937.

"Those in the second row were forced to dump the severed bodies into the river before they themselves were beheaded," The Japanese military correspondent, Yukio Omata, wrote, "The killing went on non-stop from morning until night ........".

As I said before,he Moriyama never reported that kind of things.
His friend,Seiei Shinahara,wrote this story in his book,which published 1971,as an episode he had heard from Moriyama.

And Omata was not in Nanking but in Shanghai at that time.

It is a kind of common sense for people arguing about Nanking Massacre that the Japanese civilians did not know anything happend in Nanking until Tokyo trial no matter how many people were killed.

Due to the Imperial Army's media censorship, though there were over 100 Japanese journalists in Nanking when the city was captured, those journalists did not dare to write anything "unfavorable" about their countrymen

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

sabro said:
Examples of Contemporary Japanese Newspapers that boasted of killing civillians. You can look them up. Probably online. I can't. I don't read Japanese.

Now you know these examples were not true and anything else shouldn't exist.

Do you realise that the sources you cite contain silly mistakes or lies?

about the episode of Muay Thai Boran,why do you believe this kind of brutality of Japanese without any doubt?
Which scholar says this kind of things ever happened?

urecco · 20 Apr 2005

I found an article written by non-Japanese which denys Chinese official estimate.

Even the Chinese recounting of history has become hysterical. Take the Rape of Nanjing in 1937, which was so brutal that thereﾂ's no need to exaggerate it. One appalled witness in the thick of the killing, John Rabe, put the death toll at 50,000 to 60,000. Another, Miner Searle Bates, estimated that 12,000 civilians and 28,000 soldiers had been killed. The Chinese delegate to the League of Nations at the time put the civilian toll at 20,000. A Communist Chinese newspaper of the period put it at 42,000.

Yet China proclaims, based on accounts that stand little scrutiny, that 300,000 or more were killed. Such hyperbole abuses history as much as the denial by Japanese rightists that there was any Rape of Nanjing at all. It nurtures nationalism by defining China as a victim state, the worldﾂ's punching bag, that must be more aggressive in defending its interests.

Download Lagu Mp3 Gratis, Gudang Lagu Terbaru 2021

bossel · 20 Apr 2005

urecco said:
I found an article written by non-Japanese which denys Chinese official estimate.

So what? Kristof is not a historian, he studied law & Arabic, now he is a columnist.

A5573A · 21 Apr 2005

It really takes a long time to get through all the threads above !_!.

As Chinese, we can find lots of evidence about "Rape of NanJing" from academic publications, internet and most importantly, our textbooks in China.
What i know about those pictures is that, most of the horrible scences were pictured by Japanese soilders.I think there is no doubt that, lots of POWs and innocent civilians are killed in NanJing ( some of them were from shanghai or nearby cities).

I saw people arguing about the exact number of the victims in the massacre. Beijing says its 300,000, someones say its around 2000... etc.

Do you how many people died in Tian 'An Men Square on 04/06/1989? Beijing said there are approximately 200 deaths and 5,000 injured. The student leader of the democratic movement told western media the deaths exceeds 10,000. No one can give an exact figure, even western media gave different figures. Then waht actually happened was that, Bejing earned a name from outside World---Butcher Government. Why some people asserted what Japanese soilders did in 1937 was not WAR-CRIME?

While Japanese soilders killed and tortured a huge numbers of Chinese in a very bad manner 70 years ago, whats the point to say "The so-called Rape of Najing doesn't not exist" today? There are heaps of solid evidence availiable , picutres, diary and those witnesses. some of them are still alive, just like those comfort women. There are around 150 witnesses living in China now, who experienced and suffered from the tragedy.

Killing a innocent can never be justified, it did happened in NanJing. Those victims and relatives deserve justice and should receive a formal apology from Japanese Govenment which in fact has only been issude to Koreans, but never to Chinese.

I don't think we are begging an apology. From the angery faces of demonstrators, you can see how serious they are. We are only asking for what we deserve, for those died and those living but still suffering from invasion.

Before let others respect you, you have to respect others. Have a look at the realtions with her neighbour China and North Korean, you will see that Japan has a lot of work to do.

urecco · 22 Apr 2005

A5573A said:
As Chinese, we can find lots of evidence about "Rape of NanJing" from academic publications, internet and most importantly, our textbooks in China.
What i know about those pictures is that, most of the horrible scences were pictured by Japanese soilders.I think there is no doubt that, lots of POWs and innocent civilians are killed in NanJing ( some of them were from shanghai or nearby cities).

Please give me solid evidence of 300,000 killed.

I beg you Chinese not to change the definition of Nanking Massare.
It was defined at Tokyo Trial, so do not put the death in Shanghai into the deathtoll of Nanking massacre.
If you claim the war crimes in Shanghai, I will never stop it but please do not mix.

PaulTB · 22 Apr 2005

urecco said:
Please give me solid evidence of 300,000 killed.

You've missed the point of his post.

He's saying arguing about the exact number isn't important. He didn't say that he believed the figure of 300,000 killed - he said that Beijing said that 300,000 were killed as one of the figures being argued about.

If you're going to demand solid evidence of 300,000 killed in Nanking itself (excluding others killed in the province) then you should first find somebody actually supporting that figure.

Shibuyaexpat · 22 Apr 2005

urecco said:
Please give me solid evidence of 300,000 killed.

I beg you Chinese not to change the definition of Nanking Massare.
It was defined at Tokyo Trial, so do not put the death in Shanghai into the deathtoll of Nanking massacre.
If you claim the war crimes in Shanghai, I will never stop it but please do not mix.

Change the definition of massacre? Tokyo Trial? The URL is a link to the actual indictment during the Tokyo Trials regarding the massacre in Nanjing.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistl...00-00-00&studycollectionid=nuremberg&groupid=

The actual language of the document says "...many thousands of civilians." While not exactly 300,000 that is referenced, I'd like to know how you're going to justify a lower number? Where do you see how massacre "was defined at Tokyo Trial?" Is this one of your tricks again?

I know, I know. You're going to use that lame defense: "How could 300,000 be killed if the population of Nanjing was only 200,000?" Consider this: Nanjing had recently come of out of the Northern Expedition campaign by Chiang Kai-Shek (1931), afterwhich it became the "recognized" captial of China. With the end of the campaign and the influx of citizens, it was difficult to accurately record the total number of citizens. At best, the 200,000 number was an estimate. Therefore, to discount the 300,000 by using the 200,000 number is an inherently flawed argument.

Dream Time · 22 Apr 2005

here we go again, everytime we talk about the Sino-Japanese war, a Japanese person would come and argue about the number of deaths

I am sick of this!!

killing 100000 people, you are guilty
killing 1 person, you are STILL guilty!

Maciamo · 22 Apr 2005

The BBC claims that the number of people killed in the Nanking massacred was between 250,000 and 300,000. (source).

BBC said:
Between December 1937 and March 1938 one of the worst massacres in modern times took place. Japanese troops captured the Chinese city of Nanjing and embarked on a campaign of murder, rape and looting.

Based on estimates made by historians and charity organisations in the city at the time, between 250,000 and 300,000 people were killed, many of them women and children.

The number of women raped was said by Westerners who were there to be 20,000, and there were widespread accounts of civilians being hacked to death.

Yet many Japanese officials and historians deny there was a massacre on such a scale.

They admit that deaths and rapes did occur, but say they were on a much smaller scale than reported. And in any case, they argue, these things happen in times of war.
...
Japanese papers reported competitions among junior officers to kill the most Chinese.

One Japanese newspaper correspondent saw lines of Chinese being taken for execution on the banks of the Yangtze River, where he saw piles of burned corpses.

Photographs from the time, now part of an exhibition in the city, show Japanese soldiers standing, smiling, among heaps of dead bodies.

Isn't the BBC a reliable source ? I think it is.

PaulTB · 22 Apr 2005

Maciamo said:
The BBC claims that the number of people killed in the Nanking massacred was between 250,000 and 300,000. (source).

"Based on estimates made by historians and charity organisations in the city at the time, between 250,000 and 300,000 people were killed, many of them women and children."

Maciamo said:
Isn't the BBC a reliable source ?

Moderately reliable. In this case I doubt they would have gone very far into investigating how said estimates were made as the focus of their story was elsewhere.

[EDIT] I see you added the "I think it is" after I posted.

It's a dead link now but for about two years they had an (false) urban legend posted as 'News' on their website
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?as_umsgid=af7b8f$oer$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk
Wayback Machine

bossel · 23 Apr 2005

PaulTB said:
It's a dead link now but for about two years they had an (false) urban legend posted as 'News' on their website
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?as_umsgid=af7b8f$oer$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk
Wayback Machine

But that can be hardly shown as the BBC's fault, since the story actually originated from the airline, which retracted it some days later.

A5573A · 23 Apr 2005

Dream Time said:
here we go again, everytime we talk about the Sino-Japanese war, a Japanese person would come and argue about the number of deaths

I am sick of this!!

killing 100000 people, you are guilty
killing 1 person, you are STILL guilty!

I understand how you feel, but

killing 1 person, its a murder.
killing 100000 people, its a massacre.

A5573A · 23 Apr 2005

urecco said:
Please give me solid evidence of 300,000 killed.

I beg you Chinese not to change the definition of Nanking Massare.
It was defined at Tokyo Trial, so do not put the death in Shanghai into the deathtoll of Nanking massacre.
If you claim the war crimes in Shanghai, I will never stop it but please do not mix.

Maybe technically, (Just maybe) those refugees from Shanghai slaughtered in Nanjing should not be included in the figure. I don't know whether the law relatiing to this area is for or against your claim(hope somebody can find it).
But I think it can not justify the war crime.

P.S. The Najing Massacre was defined in Nanjing from the massacre began--- December 13th, 1937. Not in Tokyo Trial. What Japanese soilders did in Nanjing during that period, is the EXACT definition of that Nanjing massacre

Chinese can not change it.
Japanese can not change it.

Fair enough now?

Dream Time · 23 Apr 2005

A5573A said:
I understand how you feel, but

killing 1 person, its a murder.
killing 100000 people, its a massacre.

yes
but i am really sick of that whenever we talk about the Sino-Japanese war, some Japanese would argue about the number of deaths, it seems to me that they think that killing 100,000 people or 200,000 people is 'less guilty' than killing 300,000 people

these are lives, NOT OBJECTS!

PaulTB · 23 Apr 2005

bossel said:
But that can be hardly shown as the BBC's fault, since the story actually originated from the airline, which retracted it some days later.

Compare and contrast ...
"some days" "two years"
(and yes the BBC was told it was phoney)

Anthraquinone · 23 Apr 2005

To Surpporters

SHOW THE EVIDENCES FIRST.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT DO NOT REJECT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY THIRD PERSON.

WE JAPANESE ARE READY FOR PROVING YOUR WRONG AND FABRICATION
WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MUCH EVIDENCES.

http://jpn.dyndns.ws/~nanking/index2.html

A5573A · 23 Apr 2005

Anthraquinone said:
SHOW THE EVIDENCES FIRST.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT DO NOT REJECT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY THIRD PERSON.

WE JAPANESE ARE READY FOR PROVING YOUR WRONG AND FABRICATION
WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MUCH EVIDENCES.

http://jpn.dyndns.ws/~nanking/index2.html

I found this from the website you listed above:窶愬停?｢ﾃｳ窶ｰf窶ｰﾃｦ窶｢ﾂｶ窶ｰﾂｻ窶｢窶敖青ｻﾂ催ｬﾂ
ﾂ『ﾂ静ｭﾂ静ｼﾅ津｣窶｢ﾃｻ窶ｹLﾋ弯窶ｰf窶ｰﾃｦﾂ窶愿ｬ窶ｹﾅｾﾂ』窶堋ｪ
DVD窶堙俄?堙遺?堙ｨ窶堙懌?堋ｵ窶堋ｽﾂ！

Does it say its a record of what happened in NanJing?I don't understand Japanese. ><'''

PaulTB · 23 Apr 2005

Anthraquinone said:
SHOW THE EVIDENCES FIRST.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT DO NOT REJECT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY THIRD PERSON.

WE JAPANESE ARE READY FOR PROVING YOUR WRONG AND FABRICATION
WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MUCH EVIDENCES.

http://jpn.dyndns.ws/~nanking/index2.html

The link you post isn't a good example of "scientific research" in that it shows the conclusion they've reached (or more likely started from) first.

Namely "窶愿ｬ窶ｹﾅｾ窶佚･窶ｹsﾅｽE窶堙哉脱ﾆ箪窶堋ｾﾂ！"

ﾂ青鞘?｢ﾂｪ窶督ｾ窶堙ｧ窶堋ｩ窶堙按静ｦ窶愿ｼ窶堙??堋ｷ窶堙仰。

Among historians (as opposed to amateurs, bloggers, journalists etc) there are basically two common positions

1. The 'mainstream camp' (majority) - The numbers of civillians and prisoners of war killed were between 200,000 and 300,000 but this includes the time before the Japanese army arrived at Nanjing and the killings that took place on the march between Shanghai and Nanjing.

2. 'Strict interpretation camp' - The numbers of civillians and prisoners killed in Nanjing only and the (about fortnight) period after Nanjing fell was about 40,000

NOTE that those two positions are not in fundamental disagreement.

So what does this mean in practice?

Does the 'Nanjing massacre' not exist because most of the people killed were killed in the rural areas outside of Nanjing and before Nanjing was taken?

Obviously changing the name to 'Nanjing and vicinity massacre' doesn't make any difference to the women, children and prisoners killed.

If the (strict interpretation) 'Nanjing massacre' was 'only' around 40,000 women, children and prisoners does that somehow make it not a massacre?

While I don't agree with the person who suggested that there's no essential difference between 1 and 300,000 I think it's fairly clear that 40,000 is more than "a few murders".

So in summary I have no sympathy for those who are essentially saying "The Nanjing Massacre is a Lie! Because there were only 40,000 killed in Nanjing itself." or "The Nanjing Massacre is a Lie! Because most of them were killed outside of Nanjing."

If you want to 'deny' the Nanjing Massacre please ensure you're not just arguing over technicalities like the above.

P.S. I've posted this link before, but I think it's worth posting again.
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

urecco · 23 Apr 2005

A5573A said:
Maybe technically, (Just maybe) those refugees from Shanghai slaughtered in Nanjing should not be included in the figure. I don't know whether the law relatiing to this area is for or against your claim(hope somebody can find it).
But I think it can not justify the war crime.

P.S. The Najing Massacre was defined in Nanjing from the massacre began--- December 13th, 1937. Not in Tokyo Trial. What Japanese soilders did in Nanjing during that period, is the EXACT definition of that Nanjing massacre

I never say refugees from Shanghai slaughtered in Nanking should not be included in the figure.
And I agree your definition, the masacre from December 13th.
the reason why I said not to include Shaighai is some people argue that the entire Nanjing Special Municipality, which consisted of the walled city and its neighboring six counties, should be included when discussing the Nanking Atrocities.
Cf.Entire Nanking Special Municipality includes Shanghai.

I think Chinese official statement says over 300,000 were killed within or near the city limits as some scholars argue.

Sun Zhaiwei, a scholar at the Jiangsu Academy of Social Sciences, adopts the death toll of more than 300,000 within and near the city limits, although he leaves some space for discussion, indicating the number could be "somewhat upward or downward."

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

Anyway,could you give me solid evidence for either number of 300,000 or systematical and intentional massacre agaist civilians.

@Maciamo
BBC can be reliable source but not evidence.
What I demand is evidence.

@Dream Time
No matter whether it is less guilty to kill 200,000 than 300,000,
Japanese guilt never justify the exaggeration nor fabrication.

If number was not important at all, why have Chinese protesters been mad about rewriting the textbook?
It mentions that many POWs and civlians include women and children were massacred(killed) in Nanking (Nanking Incident)

PaulTB · 23 Apr 2005

urecco said:
Anyway,could you give me solid evidence for either number of 300,000 or systematical and intentional massacre agaist civilians.

You're never going to get 'hard evidence' of any specific number as the best that can possibly be managed are estimates which depend on scholarly assumptions and the specific parameters chosen for which victims to include.

As to the massacre against civillians - you should be hip deep in hard evidence for that one.

urecco · 23 Apr 2005

PaulTB said:
1. The 'mainstream camp' (majority) - The numbers of civillians and prisoners of war killed were between 200,000 and 300,000 but this includes the time before the Japanese army arrived at Nanjing and the killings that took place on the march between Shanghai and Nanjing.

2. 'Strict interpretation camp' - The numbers of civillians and prisoners killed in Nanjing only and the (about fortnight) period after Nanjing fell was about 40,000

NOTE that those two positions are not in fundamental disagreement.

So what does this mean in practice?

Does the 'Nanjing massacre' not exist because most of the people killed were killed in the rural areas outside of Nanjing and before Nanjing was taken?

Obviously changing the name to 'Nanjing and vicinity massacre' doesn't make any difference to the women, children and prisoners killed.

Click to expand...

I do not think the historioans who argue 40,000 killed think 200,000 people were killed outside Nanking.
The mainstream histrinas seem to use wide definition in order to make it difficult to estimate the number.

If the (strict interpretation) 'Nanjing massacre' was 'only' around 40,000 women, children and prisoners does that somehow make it not a massacre?

While I don't agree with the person who suggested that there's no essential difference between 1 and 300,000 I think it's fairly clear that 40,000 is more than "a few murders".

So in summary I have no sympathy for those who are essentially saying "The Nanjing Massacre is a Lie! Because there were only 40,000 killed in Nanjing itself." or "The Nanjing Massacre is a Lie! Because most of them were killed outside of Nanjing."

Click to expand...

The reason why Japanese denies the Naking massare is that they argue that there were no systematic mass rape and intentional murder agaist civilians.
40,000 people killed were either POWs or suspects of guerillas.

What they say is.
The Nanking Massacre is a Lie! because the deathtoll of 300,000, mass rape and indiscriminate murder are fabrication.
According to Red Cross committee's burial report,
the corpeses of women and children in the city of Nanking were 8 and 26 respectively in contrast 1793 men were buried.
Outside the city, 75 women and 20 children were buried,whilst 41,278 men were buried.
Did Japanese military killed civilians discriminately?

A5573A · 23 Apr 2005

The evidence

I have posted another thread in the forum, which provides pictures and documents relates to the Nanjing Massacre. If you are interested and have time, please have a look at it.

From the those documents, I found a picture which I believe is a solid evidence.

The last number is total 195,249, which is obtained by the counting from different souces(Red Cross and local charities). It also provides the human labour used to count and bury the bodies, eg. In the first row, it says the World Red Cross sent more than 600 people.

However...... there may be questions about it. If you think Chinese made up this figure, I can not say anything.

A5573A · 24 Apr 2005

NanJing and Lunshun(Port Arthur)

urecco said:
Did Japanese military killed civilians discriminately?

Is it the point you hold through out the whole thread? Are you saying Nanjing Massacre is a lie because Japanese soilders, as you believe never slaughter civilians?

What about we prove they committed mass murder in serveral(or say many occasions) from another perspective?

Any of you heard of the Massacre in Port Arthur(Liushun, North East China)? It took place after Qing Dynasty was defeated in the War against japan in 1895. After Japanese troops occupied it, they slaughter the entire town(I would like to say its a city), only 36 people survived.

Unfortunatedly, an American Journalist called James Creelmean reported the butchery in Port Arthur to the whole world:

JAMES CREELMAN AT
PORT ARTHUR in PDF format

Rape Of Nanking

後輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

後輩

先輩

Manga Psychic

後輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

Manga Psychic

後輩

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

先輩

先輩

Similar threads