Written by Ikeda Haruka, published by Tenden-sha, 2020
Reviewed by Sugihara Seishiro, President, International Research Institute of Historical Controversies
Author Ikeda Haruka claims in the book that he is not a historian, but he truly deserves to be called a historian as the author of such an excellent book of historical study. Even today, when it has been completely verified that the alleged Nanjing Incident did not take place, many self-asserting historians do claim that there was a Nanjing Incident. It seems that designating someone as “historian” is not at all reliable.
In gist, historical study can be everyone’s business. That is, anyone can find the meaning of events by rightfully reconstructing the true past based on verified sources and historical materials, without loudly claiming to be a “historian.”
This book focuses on the missionaries stationed in Nanjing at the time of the takeover of Nanjing by the Japanese military whom none of Nanjing Incident researchers have paid attention to and clarifies that the starting point of everything related to the alleged Nanjing Incident were those missionaries’ words and actions. Since the missionaries had the intention to support the Chinese Nationalist Party Army, the Nationalist Party Government including Chiang Kai-shek, realizing the missionaries’ intention, used them and advertised especially in the United States that the Nanjing Incident did take place with the intention to put Japan and the Japanese Army in a disadvantageous position.
As fruits of their efforts, American newspapers sensationally reported the alleged Nanjing Incident as fact. Based on such newspaper articles, during the so-called Tokyo Trials, the incident was vigorously condemned, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Nanjing siege operation Matsui Iwane was sentenced to death and executed.
However, everything ensued from the wrong information provided in the false reporting by the missionaries.
And the author says that the indifference to the missionaries and Christians at that time damaged seriously the process of information analysis and also affected negatively the further studies of the Nanjing Incident, leading to the prolonged confusion in unravelling the truth.
The Christians had their own religious mission and passion, which became the reason for their sympathy and friendship with Chiang-Kai Sheck and his wife Soong Mei-ling, both of whom clearly manifested their strong Protestant faith, drastically changing the course of history. This author points out: “Currently thinking of the tri-partite relationship among Japan, the United States and South Korea, Japan is indifferent to the existence of the Christians in South Korea, who are nearly 30% of the entire population, quite different from Japan with only 1% Christian population, but South Korea has special relationship with the Chrisitan United States.” This is a very suggestive viewpoint.
Incidentally, since there is one point I feel discontent with as inference of historical study, let me point it out.
The author states in the Introduction of the book:
“More than seventy years have passed since the end of the War. During all this time, the Nanjing Incident has been studied from every angle and perspective and yet, even today, no consensus has been reached when it comes to the fundamental question of whether the Incident really took place, let alone the number of victims.
Those who claim that the Nanjing Incident did take place cite incidents of massacres committed by the Japanese military. However, among these claims, not one incident can be convincingly shown to be a “massacre” with clear information as to the time and place of occurrence, perpetrators, victims and how and why it took place.
On the other hand, those who deny the Nanjing Incident claim that the Nanjing Incident was merely anti-Japan propaganda created by China, showing no decrease in the civilian population within the walled city of Nanjing, existence of Westerners who participated in the anti-Japan propaganda and activity records of the Chinese international propaganda organs. However, there is no clear answer to the fundamental question: Why did many third-party Westerners present at the scene at the time leave records of the incident in one form or another? In either case, of affirmative or denial, we will never reach a reasonable conclusion if we continue to study the issue in the same way as we have so far.”
It is true that the author emphasizes the existence of missionaries and clearly shows that their purpose and the source of all fallacies rest on their false reporting which I can admit greatly contributes to ending the controversy over the existence of the Nanjing Incident. However, I don’t think that it is true that without asserting this author’s study, the controversy over whether the Nanjing Incident actually took place or not will never reach a definitive solution.
Those arguing in favor of the existence of the Nanjing Incident do not have any evidence of massacre cases or primary historical sources to prove it. If so, isn’t it the proper scholarly way to admit that there was no such incident. However, those supporters of the existence of the incident keep alleging that there was a Nanjing incident, refusing to follow the usual practice. Thus, they keep affirming that the event took place. n the first place, there was no Nanjing Incident and naturally there is no primary historical source to verify the incident. Even though this is the reality, those who keep alleging that there was Nanjing incident have a problem with their morality as scholars. Such a person lacks intelligence and psychological candidness to pursue the truth as a scholar and ignores social responsibility nonchalantly. A person with such a flawed human nature is in the wrong.
Therefore, the controversy of the Nanjing Incident has a reliable solution, but since the author does not mention this point, I would like him to do so clearly.it is not that there is no conclusion available through controversy but that I want this author to clearly mention this point. I say this because a person with ill intentions may not withdraw their assertion that there was a Nanjing Incident even after they read this book. In either way, this book proves that the wrong assertion of the Nanjing Incident derives from the false reporting on the part of missionaries who were within Nanjing City at the time when the Japanese Army besieged it and clearly explains how the lies spread. This is an extremely useful book of historical study. I believe this book to be worthy to be read by people all over the world.