Author: Haruka Ikeda

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2405

International Research Institute of Controversial Histries
Researcher Haruka Ikeda

On August 15, 1989, Eto Jun wrote a book titled Closed Narrative World: Censorship by the Occupation Forces and Postwar Japan (published by Bungei Shunju) and clearly explained how the postwar Japanese narrative world was restricted and distorted under the GHQ control and pointed out that the negative influence was still evident at the time of the publication.

Thirty-six years after the publication of his book, regrettably, the issue presented by Eto has not become a thing of the past.

To tell the truth, what Eto pointed out equally applies to the Nanjing Incident. On June 17 this year, the Ishiba Cabinet issued a written statement concerning the Nanjing Incident affirming that it’s not undeniable that after the Japanese troops entered the walled city of Nanjing, cases of slaughter and plunder against non-combatants may have occurred.

This statement is the follow-up of the government’s point of view posted on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. During the House of Councilors Audit Committee held on April 3 and 24, 2024, the then Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa, being asked about the documental grounds for the government’s view, answered, “It was made based on general perspective, not on the specific description of the particular source.” Thus, he failed to show the evidential papers.

In other words, the Ishiba Cabinet, despite the obvious lack of evidence, supported the conventional view by making a cabinet decision. This is an act of a grave betrayal of the people, which ignores the progress of academic study on this issue.

The Nanjing Incident was one of the felonies put on trial at the Tokyo Tribunal. The cabinet decision is the proof that Japan still lingers over the censorship policy established under the GHQ’s rule that the Tokyo Trials should not be criticized. The censorship should have been terminated after the end of occupation marked by the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952 and the restoration of Japan’s national independence. According to Eto, since what was practiced under the occupation was pre-censorship and the existence of such censorship was a strictly guarded secret, self-modification was made in a cooperative manner to continue the censorship policies. Self-destruction through this self-censorship was further practiced. It went on even after the system of censorship was terminated.

In addition, regarding the Nanjing Incident, when it comes to important sources which may lead to the truth, self-censorship exists through the process of translation into Japanese.

In my book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident—Unravelling the Curse of American Missionaries’ View of History (published by Tendensha, 2020), I introduced for the first time evidential sources to refute the customary view of the Nanjing Incident translated into Japanese. (To be precise, part of them was introduced in advance in the magazine Seiron.) The major points are as follows:

(1) Remarks made by American missionaries who led the establishment of the Nanjing Safety Zone, indicating their intention to support the Chinese Army.

• Refusal on the part of the Japanese side regarding the establishment of the Safety Zone.
• Witness that refugees returned to their homes and that after the dissolution of the so-called safety zone, peace and order were restored in Nanjing.

My question is that regarding the primary sources of evidence for these matters (in English and in German), while surrounding parts are already translated and published, the core part which may lead to the truth of the Nanjing Incident, which is disadvantageous to the American and Tokyo Trials views of history, is omitted. Let me elaborate specifically on points (1) to (3).

As to (1), it refers to the remark made by the presumed leader among the missionaries, written in Missionary Vautrin’s diary to support the Chinese Army in the safety zone, which was supposed to be neutral. While Vautrin’s diary was translated into Japanese as Days of the Nanjing Incident (Ohtsuki Shoten, 1999), the part in question is not included, or the translator’s note does not refer to it. So, readers have no idea that American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and testified about the Nanjing Incident were not a neutral third party.

As to (2), in the book Collection of Sources of the Nanjing Incident (Aoki Shoten, 1992) aiming to unravel the Nanjing Incident through collecting contemporary sources about how the safety zone came to be established, many documents kept at Yale University were introduced but the sources regarding the fact that the Japanese Army clearly rejected the plan to establish the safety zone, also kept at the university, were omitted. As a result, the fact that the Nanjing Safety Zone was clearly unauthorized and fictitious, unlike the officially authorized Shanghai Safety Zone, was obviously obfuscated.

As to (3), it is a report made by the Chancellor of the German Embassy about the recovery of peace and order in Nanjing one month after the dissolution of the safety zone. This part was included in the original German edition of the book Der gute Deutsche von Nanking, edited from John Rabe’s diary by E. Wickert and in the translated English version The Good Man of Nanking by John E. Woods. However, in the Japanese translation The Truth of Nanking (Kodan-sha, 1997), this part was excluded for unknown reason. Consequently, if you read only the Japanese translation version, you cannot understand the mysterious fact that after the dissolution of the safety zone, which was supposed to protect the citizens, peace and order returned to Nanjing. Therefore, contrary to the conventional theory, it is not known that the existence of the fictitious safety zone was the very cause of the unrest and disorder.

The vital sources were not translated into Japanese. As a result, the simple conclusion I reached in my book based on American and European primary sources that “the support for the Chinese Army given by the American missionaries in the fictitious safety zone was the very reason why those missionaries created the Nanjing Incident”. But this information did not reach Japan. By hiding from the Japanese people the vital sources, which may have enabled them to criticize the Tokyo Trials and America, they prevented the truth from being found in Japan. Consequently, the Nanjing Incident has continued to be the center of anti-Japan propaganda for such a long time after the war. So was formerly The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang and so is currently Japan’s Holocaust by Bryan Mark Rigg.

So far, I have tried to analyze the issue presented by Eto through his book Closed Narrative World, using the Nanjing Incident. Now, this issue is finally on its way to be resolved. This owes not much to the reflection on the part of the existing researchers, but to the progress made in information and communication technologies and as people become more aware of information disclosure, an escape hole appeared in the closed narrative world.

As to the afore-mentioned translation issue in the Nanjing Incident study, it has become much easier to gain access to original European and American sources through the Internet without depending on translated books. My book is exactly the gift of such advantage.

As for domestic dissemination of information, the conventional media, plagued with self-censorship, is no longer the central player. Instead, with the advent of social networks and freer new information channels, it has become possible to discuss in the public sphere what has been sealed as a taboo. This trend naturally influences the existing media. It also affects people bound by the existing media in their thinking and political activities. I hope this is the forerunner of a future trend, as has been just shown by the result of the recent national political elections.  

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories
Researcher

Haruka Ikeda

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=1562

Introduction

On April 3 and 24, 2023, at the House of Councilors Committee on Audit, regarding the so-called Nanjing Incident, Councilor Wada Masamune asked Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa about the grounds for the Government’s view posted on the website of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government thinks it undeniable that after the Japanese Army entered the city of Nanjing in 1937, there occurred murders and acts of blunder against non-combatants.” Consequently, Minister Hayashi’s answer revealed that there were no evidential documents on which the Government relied for its official view. According to Ara Kenichi, researcher on the Nanjing Incident, it was in 1982 that the Foreign Ministry came to admit the occurrence of the alleged Nanjing Incident. This decision was probably made, catering to the external pressure and public opinion amid the fading memory of the battleground.

Now, let us examine the ground on which the common theory that “there was Nanjing Incident” is based. The Nanjing Incident is believed to have really taken place primarily because of the third-party witnesses to the effect. At that time, those who condemned the Nanjing Incident through various media were Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing, and at the Tokyo Trials held after the War, the most powerful claims that the Nanjing Incident did happen were statements by the assumingly neutral third-party Europeans and Americans. After the War, those Chinese who suddenly came forth in their old age claiming to be victims associated themselves with the European and American records and asserted the authenticity of their own statements.

In such a verification process of the Nanjing Incident, although statements made by Europeans and Americans who were there in Nanjing at that time were decisively important, the studies on the nature of those statements are surprisingly few. So, this paper confirms the origin of those third-party statements based on the European and American documents at the time and indicates that those original sources were American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and clarifies those missionaries’ activities, intentions and backgrounds.

Hopefully, this paper will reveal the hidden truth of the Nanjing Incident and fundamental errors of the common theory and the Japanese Government’s view.

1. Examination of the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident   
2. Who were the third party remaining in Nanjing?

First, let us confirm the third party (Europeans and Americans) in Nanjing at that time.

In order to witness or examine an incident, one needs to be there on the spot. On December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing, and for a while after that, there were 22 Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing. Among them, there were 14 Americans (the majority group) and all of them were missionaries. Besides them, there were 5 Germans, 1 Austrian and 2 White Russians, all of whom were in Nanjing on business. Besides these businessmen, there were 2 Europeans (1 Dane and 1 Briton), who temporarily came to Nanjing and left, and they were also on business. There were five newspaper correspondents (1 Briton, 4 Americans) who left Nanjing a few days after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing. On January 6, 1938, and thereafter, diplomats from respective countries returned to Nanjing, but there were no reports of their witnessing massacres. So, the civilians mentioned above were the third party who might possibly have seen the Nanjing Incident.

• The examination of the original disseminators

Bearing those remainders in mind, let us now examine some of the well-known disseminators of the reports and statements related to the Nanjing Incident.

• The first news report of the Nanjing Incident

Articles written by those correspondents who left Nanjing on December 15, 1937 (The Chicago Daily News, the New York Times, etc.) are said to have been the first report. However, it is confirmed that the original source of these articles was the statement made by American missionary Miner Bates (1897-1978), through Missionary Bates’ letter.[i]

• The theory of 20,000 victims of the massacre stated by Koo Vi Kyuin at a League of Nations conference

At a League of Nations conference in Geneva on February 2, 1938, Chinese Delegate Koo Vi Kyuin (1888-1985) quoted from the Daily Telegram and Morning Post of January 28, 1938: “The number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese in Nanjing was supposedly twenty thousand.” To confirm the newspaper’s article, it said, “One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanjing at 20,000.” As previously mentioned, since missionaries staying in Nanjing then were all American, the original disseminator of this article was an American missionary.

• Records of incidents by the International Committee and the Diaries of Rabe

For the protection and safety of civilians, the American missionaries established the Nanking Safety Zone and the International Committee to administer the safety zone. The records of incidents within the Safety Zone compiled by the Committee[ii] were filled with cases of atrocities committed by the Japanese military. But the Committee was under the control of the American missionaries who held the majority power among the remaining foreigners. Practically, the Committee report was disseminated by the American missionaries.

The Diaries of German John Rabe (1882-1950), who was set up as chairman of the International Committee, was published after the War.[iii] The diary contains many records of massacres committed by the Japanese Army submitted by various missionaries but no records of his own witnessing massacres. The records of massacres in Rabe’s Diary were also originally disseminated by American missionaries.

• Statements made at the Tokyo Trials

After the War, the Nanjing Incident was examined at the Tokyo Trials. There were three Westerners who appeared in the court in person and stated that the Nanjing Incident had taken place and they were American missionaries.

With what I have stated so far, I hope it is understood that the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident were entirely American missionaries.

• The reason why American missionaries disseminated the Nanjing Incident to the world

• The true purpose for the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

The purpose of the American missionaries who remained in Nanjing was nominally to establish the neutral and demilitarized Nanking Safety Zone for the safety and protection of the citizens. However, during a meeting held to report on the plan for establishing a safety zone, missionary Mills stated to the contrary effect: “At our meeting Mr. Mills expressed the longing that instead of having all educated people trek westward that it would be far better for a group to go down and try to encourage and comfort the Chinese army and help them to see what disorder and looting among even a small group means to China.”[iv]

Missionary Mills was the central figure (Presbyterian) among the American missionaries in Nanjing and the mastermind of the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone.[v] Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. From these words of missionary Mills, it becomes clear that the Nanking Safety Zone was established not for the protection of civilians but for the support and protection of the Chinese Army. In fact, there is record that within the Safety Zone, during battles, Chinese artillery operated[vi] and after battles, Chinese soldiers infiltrated into the safety zone and hid themselves there.[vii]

• The Nanjing Incident to justify the Nanking Safety Zone    

From these records, supposedly, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident by the American missionaries was part of protection and support measures for the Chinese Army. The missionaries needed to disseminate the Nanjing Incident. It was because the Nanking Safety Zone was not an officially acknowledged establishment, unlike the Shanghai Safety Zone, which was officially approved by both Japan and China.[viii]

Since the Nanking Safety Zone was dubious in terms of neutrality, the Japanese authorities did not recognize it but during battles, Japan would avoid attacking it so long as it was not militarily necessary. After the battles ceased, the unauthorized Nanking Safety Zone had no longer a reason to exist. After entering Nanjing, the Japanese Army immediately ordered the Zone to be dissolved, which the missionaries refused to follow. On the other hand, the missionaries decided to support and protect the Chinese Army within the zone as missionary Mills had stated and conveyed their intention to Huang Jen Lin (1901-1983),[ix] Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man. It was necessary for the missionaries to maintain the safety zone under their control in order to secretly protect Chinese soldiers in Nanjing. So, to make up a pretext for keeping the safety zone, they needed to fabricate a story of atrocities committed against citizens by the Japanese Army, namely, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident.

We can judge whether the missionaries’ claim that the safety zone was necessary to protect citizens from the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army was reasonable or not, based on the situation after Nanking Safety Zone was dissolved. On February 4, 1938, the Japanese Army ordered the citizens within the Safety Zone to go home, and practically, the Safety Zone disappeared. On February 8, non-substantial International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was renamed the Nanking International Relief Committee, having the term “the safety zone” removed. If the missionaries’ claim had been right, after the Safety Zone disappeared, Nanjing would have become a worse hell. However, on March 4, 1938, Chancellor Paul Scharffenberg for the German Embassy recorded, “...we no longer hear of atrocities, and order is also being restored in general.”[x] As a matter of fact, the missionaries’ assertions were not correct.

These documents indicate that the Nanjing Incident existed only when the American missionaries supported and protected the Chinese Army in the Safety Zone. Sabotages by Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone and fictions made up by the American missionaries in order to justify the existence of the Nanking Safety Zone were all that was to the alleged Nanjing Incident.

• The background for the creation of the Nanjing Incident

By the way, while French Catholic Father Robert Jacquinot (1878-1946), who established the Shanghai Safety Zone kept neutral, why did the American missionaries (Protestants) in Nanjing support and protect the Chinese Army? In the background, there was a resolution clearly showing the relationship between the Chinese Protestant Church and the Chinese (Chiang Kai-shek’s) government:

“Recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.” (National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, May 6, 1937).[xi]

The National Christian Council is a body representing the Protestant churches in China. And the New Life Movement was substantially Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity for nation building. Therefore, this resolution stated the overall cooperation on the part of the Protestant churches in China as their consensus for the Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity in the name of the “New Life Movement.”

The slogan of the New Life Movement was the “three Life transformations,” namely, “Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or Rationalization],” Productivization meant participation in productive activities and Aestheticization or Rationalization dealt with upbringing. However, clearly, it started with militarization which meant the movement anticipating the military mobilization of the people. In fact, after the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, the movement included the support for the Chinese Army.

And the missionaries knew that the New Life Movement was a dangerous activity ensconcing a military element.[xii] While they recognized well the military and political colors of the movement, they resolved to totally cooperate with it. The reason was evangelical motives. The missionaries regarded Chiang Kai-shek, who had converted to Protestantism after his marriage to Soong Mei-ling and reawakened to religious worship while he was held under detention during the Xi’an Incident, as a true Christian[xiii], expecting that if Chiang Kai-shek representing the Nationalist Party Kuomintang was to rule China, a Protestant State of China would be born. Thus, they resolved to fully cooperate with the New Life Movement, which was deeply tinted with the military color. In the extension of this resolution lied the American missionaries’ support and protection of the Chinese soldiers in Nanjing.

This relationship between the resolution made by the Chinese National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in the Nanking Safety Zone can be clearly explained. The previously mentioned Mr. Huang Jen Lin, Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man, with whom missionary Mills shared the American missionaries’ plan to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking Safety Zone, was fully in charge of the New Life Movement. The fact that the American missionaries’ support was carried out as a part of the activities to support Chiang Kai-shek’s New Life Movement by Protestants was proved by the very existence of Mr. Huang Jen Lin.

4 Conclusion

The Nanjing Incident was a complete fiction created by the American missionaries. The Nanjing Incident was created by the American missionaries pretending to be the third party who under the great policy of the Protestant Church to protect Protestant Chiang Kai-shek remained in Nanjing to support the Chinese Army. China merely used it.

The true players behind the Nanjing Incident were neither Japan nor China. They were American missionaries, who have been regarded as the third party so far. This is the reason why at the time the Nanjing Incident was widely reported in the United States, fully used by the United States, the victor of World War II, during the Tokyo Trials, and the truth about it remains still unrevealed to this day.

The Japanese Government of 2023 should seriously accept the truth about the Nanjing Incident, immediately remove the view that lacks any solid grounds posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and show the historical truth both at home and abroad for the honor of the Japanese people.

---

[i] S. M. Bates, “Circular letter to friends,” April 12, 1938

[ii] “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” (1939), Kelly & Walsh

[iii] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1997), Hrsg. Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[iv] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[v] “Address of John Rabe at farewell party by staff of Nanking Safety Zone,” February 21, 1938

[vi] John Rabe, December 9, 1937

[vii] New York Times, January 4, 1938

[viii] “Telegram from American Embassy in Shanghai to Nanking Safety Zone Committee,” December 2, !937

[ix] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[x] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1977), Hrsg, Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[xi] “The China Christian year book 1936-37 (1937), Arthur H. Clark Company, p.77

[xii] Ronald Rees, “China Faces The Storm” (1938), Edinburgh House Press, p.61

[xiii] Ibid. Ronald Rees, p. 48

For details, refer to the book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, unraveling the Curse of the American Missionaries’ View of History written by Ikeda Haruka, 2020, published by Tenden-sha.