Skip to content

Reviewer : Yano Yoshiaki Senior Researcher, iRICH

Book : Kim Byeong-heon Red Wednesday—Lies of Comfort Women Campaign Alive for 30 Years


Reviewer Yano is a fellow at the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories who teaches at Gifu Women’s College, Nippon Keizai University and elsewhere as visiting professor after he served in Japan Self-Defense Forces as Lieutenant General. Based on his professional experiences covering security issues, Mr. Yano has made many suggestions regarding international conflicts in the world and Japanese domestic controversial histories from the viewpoint of Japan. He is the President of General Incorporated Foundation Japan Security Forum.

His review was written to promote the sale of the book Red Wednesday right after its publication.

Author Mr. Kim Byeong-heon, in his capacity of a scholar and activist, exposed lies spread by the former Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, currently the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan and has been disseminating the truth in the area of speech and action. His brave fight, which he started alone, has moved many Korean people into forming a large movement. At times, he and his movement overwhelmed the Korean Council for Justice during rallies held to blame Japan for the alleged forced abduction of “comfort women.” In addition, Mr. Kim Byeong-heon acted as a Korean far and wide outside South Korea, visiting the “Anti-freedom of Expression Exhibit” held in Nagoya, Japan, and saying “no” to the comfort woman statue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., at the very time when a comfort woman statue was established there.

Regarding Mr. Kim Byeong-heon’s assertions and activities, reviewer Yano stated that they not only help Japanese people learn the true history but also, they are counterattacks against the false education provided in South Korea and traitor-like actions within South Korea regarding the policy toward North Korea.

In addition, the reviewer states that the book emphasizes the important fact that by resolving these issues, a true friendship will sprout between Japan and South Korea and that through future-oriented development, the democratic camp will outdo the communist power. The publication of this book in Japanese will not only satisfy the conservative Japanese but will also become a good opportunity for sensible researchers and experts in Japan, South Korea and the world over to unite as one and address the concerns expressed by Mr. Kim, hopefully this book will be translated into many more languages and published in many more countries.

Book Review

One pending issue between Japan and South Korea makes me unconvinced and indignant as a Japanese. It is the so-called “comfort women” issue, which, together with a lie made up by a Japanese man named Yoshida Seiji and the false reporting by the Asahi Newspaper, deplorably developed into an international issue.

In the first place, no system of “military comfort women” existed. What did exist were prostitutes working for the military, regulated by a legal licensed prostitution system and brothel owners who employed them at their businesses. More than half of these prostitutes were Japanese, but none of the former Japanese prostitutes demanded compensation from the Japanese Government, neither did they file lawsuit against the former Japanese military on the charge of forced abduction.

This issue became critical in the relations between Japan and South Korea because the extreme-left powers in South Korea, such as the former Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, currently the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, adhering to the North Korean Juche Idea, have been conducting anti-Japan activities within Korea. Their assertion has proved to be political propaganda, exaggerating lies made up in Japan and piling up more fallacies, through study by Japanese researchers.

An essential characteristic of this book is that President Kim Byeong-heon of the Korean History Textbook Research Institute, one of the conscientious scholars in Korea, speaks for the Japanese people who have been hurt and dishonored by unduly criticism and defamations inflected upon them in the past.

In this book, Mr. Kim Byeong-heon has proved, beyond doubt, that assertions made by the extreme-left powers within Korea without any public or material proof, sometimes distorting documents, using them to their convenience and ignoring the true situation at the time cannot stand his examination by historical study, through his own logical analysis based on reliable evidence and available data from that period. 

Mr. Kim’s criticism targets the statements made by self-proclaimed “former comfort women” which form the basis for the leftist assertions, the judgment by the judicial branch, the Coomaraswamy Report, descriptions in Korean school textbooks and Hosaka Yuji’s assertion at the defamation lawsuit against Mr. Kim, ranging far and wide and covering almost all the points of argument brought by the ultra-left powers. Thus, the extreme-left arguments are perfectly refuted.

In this respect, this book is extremely delightful for Japanese to read. However, to overly emphasize his arguments would be unfair to Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim deeply regrets that false assertions made by the extreme-left powers became the justification for the judgment by the Seoul Central District Court and unabashedly appear in school textbooks as historical facts.

In this book Mr. Kim writes, “Judge wrote totally false judgment, textbook authors write wrong history in textbooks and schools teach children wrong history. What a shame!”

I can feel Mr. Kim’s fear as a true patriot between the lines: if things go on like this, South Korea will be branded as a liar in the international community and face a life or death crisis.

Mr. Kim is not just a writer or researcher. He is also a man of action who represents the National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act. Since January 8, 1992, Wednesday meeting aiming to solve the comfort women issue has been held every week in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.

On December 14, 2011, celebrating the 1,000th Wednesday meeting, a comfort woman statue called “A statue of a girl of peace” was installed. Thus, as the namesake of this book’s title, the “Red Wednesday meeting” became customary, organized by the extreme-left powers to criticize the forced abduction of “comfort women.”

However, Mr. Kim Byong-heon started a noble action. On July 14, 2021, the day of the 1,500th Wednesday meeting, he staged a one-man demonstration against this customary meeting. I cannot help but admire and respect this courage and strength to act alone. Mr. Kim is truly worthy to be called a genuine intellectual embodying the true Korean spirit and pride.

Nowadays, at the “Red Wednesday” meeting, those who join Mr. Kim in his protest are majority while the numbers of the extreme-left protestors diminished to become a minority, having lost their past momentum. Finally, time has come for the patient voices of justice of Mr. Kim, his sympathizers, and supporters to be heard and justly appreciated.

The situation in northeastern Asia is getting more and more tense, especially with the deepening conflict between the United States and China over the Taiwan Strait and the frequent missile launches by North Korea. Under such circumstances, the alliances between Japan and Korea and among Japan, Korea and the United States will surely become vital in security and other fields.

I would like to strongly recommend this book to the readers in Japan and South Korea as a monumental academic work, which contributes toward the mutual understanding between Japan and South Korea and building a trustful relationship, ahead of the time.  

Reviewer : Kenichi ARA Councelor iRICH

Book : Bernhard Sindberg The Schindler of Nanjing, written by Peter Harmsen (Casemate Publishers, 2024)


This book is a biography of Bernhard Sindberg, a Dane, who was living in Shanghai when the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. As the war front expanded toward Nanjing, the Danish company he was working for, fearing potential damages if the war reached its cement factory then under construction in the suburbs of Nanjing, sent Bernhard Sindberg to the factory early in December and placed him in charge of the business until March of the next year.

According to the summary stated on the book’s title page, when the alleged massacre was being committed within the walled city of Nanjing, Sindberg accepted ten thousand refugees near the factory and protected them from the Japanese military oppression. Thus, he is said to have been an Asian counterpart of Oskar Schindler, who saved Jews from the Holocaust.

Sindberg was a little known twenty-six years old young man at that time and there was not much to mention about him. So, this biography covers mostly events that happened at the early stage of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Later, Sindberg was naturalized in the United States and fought in the Pacific War. He died in Los Angeles in 1983.

The author Peter Harmsen studied history at the National Taiwan University. He is fluent in the Chinese language and worked for over twenty years as a correspondent of a news agency in East Asia. During those years, he wrote three books on the early stage of the Second Sino-Japanese War, including Shanghai, 1937, which became a best seller. Along the line of writing, this book was written and published in 2024 by Casemate Publishers in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Reviewer Ara Kenichi was born in 1944 in Miyagi Prefecture. He graduated from Tohoku University. At present, regarding the issue of the Nanjing incident, he is considered the top scholar or among the top scholars in that field. Therefore, this review has gravity. While in high school, Ara read Dai kaigun o omou (Think of the Great Navy) written by Ito Masanori and felt disheartened by the fact that Japan did not possess armed forces. Then, he came to study the history of Showa and Japan after the War. In the process, he became critical of the actions of Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru, who excluded former military men when creating the National Police Reserve. His books on military history are Nanjing Incident: 48 Japanese Testimonies (Shogaku-kan, 2002), Reexamination: What Really Happened in Nanjing (Tokuma-shoten, 2007), The Second Sino-Japanese War Was Plotted by Germany—Mystery Ensconced in the Battle of Shanghai and German Military Advisors (Shogaku-kan, 2008), Secret Record: Coup d’etat Plan by Japan Defense Army (Kodan-sha, 2013) and many others.

Book review

What happened in the vicinity of Tsitsashan Temple

The name of Bernhard Sindberg has been known to those who studied the Nanjing Incident. “Document of the Nanking Safety Zone Number 60 Memorandum by Tsitsashan Temple”, submitted to the Tokyo Trials states: “Since the fall of Nanking, refugees have been coming here for shelter and aid, in hundreds daily. As this is written we have already about 20,400 people under the roof of this temple, mostly women and children. ...Beginning from January 4, we will briefly describe the daily outrages: January 4, a truck arrived with Japanese soldiers...” There were 24 and more cases of rape, 3 cases of murder and many cases of looting. “About January 20, a new detachment of troops arrived...The Lieutenant in charge of the new soldiers is a good man. Since his arrival things have been a good deal better.” This memorandum was submitted to the International Committee of the Nanjing Safety Zone by Bernhard Sindberg.

Although “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone Number 60 Memorandum” was not read aloud in the court, when Reverend Magee took the stand, he stated that when he went to the cement factory at Tsitsashan in February 1938, a village master told him that there were 10,000 refugees in the factory and Japanese soldiers came there to demand women and when refused, they resorted to violence. Besides, the Dane told him that a man headed for the walled city of Nanking but was found killed in the city.

In the early 1990s, a record of Reverend Magee’s visit to Tsitsashan was revealed. According to the record, around February, the number of refugees at the temple of Tsitsashan was reduced to 1,000, but instead, refugees at the cement factory increased to 10,000 and Sindberg took care of them. According to Sindberg and the villagers in the area, 700 to 800 civilians were killed, and uncountable women were raped, but the invaders were still asking for more women and some people were killed.

“Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” and the Japanese military movements

First point to mention is that “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” was a record of propaganda operations conducted by missionaries in Nanjing at that time and thus it cannot be considered a factual record. Besides, if we examine the Japanese military movements at that time, Magee’s statement and the record of the visit to Tsitsashan contradict the established facts.

Nanjing fell on December 13, and the troops that had advanced to Nanjing were ordered to move to a new deployment on the 20th. It was decided that the 16th Division would guard Nanjing and other divisions would move to Suzhou and Wuhu and elsewhere and they began to move around the 24th. The main part of the 16th Division was positioned within the walled city of Nanjing to guard it and other parts were stationed at Molingguan, Xiaohuamen, Tangshuizhen, Tsitsanshan, Xintang and Danyang in the suburbs of Nanjing.

Tsitsashan is located 25 kilometers northeast of Nanjing City. Leaving Nanjing City in the morning, you will arrive at Tsitsashan by the evening. Along the railroad connecting Nanjing and Shanghai, there is Tsitsashan station and around the station are located the Tsitsashan Temple and a large cement factory.

In the suburbs where the 16th Division was deployed, at first, the Chinese Army had been positioned to defend Nanjing. Then, the Japanese Army heading for Nanjing advanced with air attacks and the Chinese Army was defeated and ran away. The Japanese Army advanced through the area to Nanjing City and the area became the rear zone.

The 16th Division fought in North China in September 1937, then moved to Central China and Nanjing and guarded Nanjing. In the suburbs, guarding and training were the main tasks. While officers were busy making detailed battle reports and keeping a staff diary, soldiers could afford to relax and rest leisurely.  

There was not enough food until the fall of Nanjing, but after the fall, the transport corps arrived and by late December, food began to arrive via the Yangtze River. The New Year’s Days nearing, mochi rice, kazunoko (herring roes), kachiguri (dried chestnut) and canned sea bream arrived and “mochitsuki” (making mochi event) was held here and there. Though some troops were kept engaged, the railroad between Shanghai and Nanjing was restored and things were peaceful and quiet in general.

Troops deployed at the cement factory were the 1st Company and 1st Machine Gun Squad of the 1st Battalion of the 38th Infantry Regiment of Nara. There is a record of an interview of Corporal Okazaki Shigeru by Mr. Higashinakano Shudo (The Front Line of Nanjing Incident Study, combined 2005-2006 edition, Tenden-sha, 2005). Okazaki Shigeru was the chief of the Light Machine Gun Squad and supposedly had led a platoon, had a good command of soldiers’ actions and fully understood how soldiers lived at the cement factory.

According to the interview, there was no civilian house around the factory. Barbed-wire fences were put around the factory and there was no free entrance or exit. Food was enough and all that soldiers did was to take care of the weapons. The soldiers were fed up with boredom, having nothing to do. Card games became very popular and a soldier deeply in debt from losing attempted to run away. Except this incident, nothing out of order or discipline occurred. At Tsitsashan Temple, several kilometers away, probably the rest of the 1st Battalion was stationed.

Although the 16th Division was deployed, it was decided to move the troops on January 8. Soldiers were told that they were leaving Nanjing, but no further information was given to them and so, many thought that they were making a triumphant return. On the 13th, an order was issued, and preparation began. It would take several days for the direction to reach everyone, but a farewell party was to be held at the Division Headquarters on the 17th. The Japanese Army spent about twenty days at Tsitsashan and during the last week, all were busy preparing for the departure.

Upon leaving Nanjing, some troops headed for Shanghai on board of a ship and some headed for Shanghai by train. The troops guarding Tangshuizhen marched to Zhenjiang, closer to Shanghai, and then took the train to Shanghai. The troops at Tsitsashan probably took the same route. They left Nanjing between the 20th and the 28th of December. The 16th Division headed again for North China from Shanghai.

These movements of the Japanese Army show that the 16th Division was not at Tsitsashan, contrary to the alleged claim that at Tsitsashan Temple Japanese soldiers kept asking for women even after January 20th and were making the same demands at the cement factory even in February.

Questions about this book’s descriptions   

According to this book, Bernhard Sindberg, The Schindler of Nanjing, there were many refugees at Tsitsashan and refugees took shelter in Tsitsashan Temple, lived in makeshift huts made of straw and bamboo, rarely escaping from snow and cold. Soon, the refugees at Tsitsashan Temple moved to the cement factory.

On January 11, Sindberg wrote in a letter that the factory was a safe place and there were 100 employees and their families. Around the factory, there were 3,000 to 4,000 refugees. Food could be sustained until mid-February.

On January 23, Sindberg took 20 ducks to a member of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone within the walled city. Food was more abundant at the factory than within the city. Although Sindberg had nothing to do with the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, it was only an hour’s ride by car from the cement factory to Nanjing and he frequently travelled between the factory and the walled city. On December 20, Sindberg visited the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone for the first time and met Chairman Rabe, Smythe and Rev. Magee.

According to the book, Japanese soldiers never entered Tsitsashan Temple. A paper notice was posted on the cement factory and when Japanese soldiers came to the factory for women, the factory showed the Danish national flag, and the Japanese soldiers went away. Sindberg never actually saw civilians murdered. The book’s descriptions are far from the evidential materials submitted to the Tokyo Trials.

Incidents mentioned as atrocities committed by the Japanese Army did not exist at all in the first place or they were committed by defeated Chinese soldiers or outlaws. As “Documents of the Safety Zone” which allegedly recorded what took place within the walled city turned out to be records of imaginary events, “Documents of the Nanjing Safety Zone Number 60 Memorandum” and the record of Magee’s visit to the area would have been of the same nature.

What did Peter Harmsen intend to write?

What did Peter Harmsen intend to write? Did he intend to write about Japan’s atrocities and illegal acts?

However, he did not even think of referring to the Japanese Army’s sources to verify whether the Japanese Army was actually at that spot at the time. He just copied the records of the Tokyo Trials and the missionaries and attributed the damages at the factory solely to the Japanese Army.

Did he intend to write how cruel and miserable the battlegrounds were? There were refugees in the region due to the military operations on both sides. Here again, Peter Harmsen attributed it all to the Japanese Army, paying no attention to the Chinese Army at all. Sindberg reportedly rescued refugees, but when it comes to the true situation of rescuing them, they were rescued not from the Japanese Army but from the defeated Chinese soldiers and Chinese outlaws.

Did he try to write about Sindberg’s gallantry?

Sindberg left for China at the age of 23. On the way, aboard the ship, he hit the boatswain and tried to stab another crew member with a knife, and had to be confined. Three years later, he was assigned as a manager of the cement factory. On his way to the factory, he was admonished to follow the Japanese Army’s orders. At the factory, he threatened people around him with a pistol. He was forced to resign from his managerial post in March 1938. He was a violent person rather than a brave man.

Why was he compared to Schindler?

The subtitle of the book reads The Schindler of Nanjing.

Schindler ran a munition factory in Germany and employed Jewish workers. He sympathized with the Jewish people and was on good terms with the officer of the concentration camp. He saved the lives of 1,200 Jews in the camp on the pretext of raising the norm.

Bernhard Sindberg: The Schindler of Nanjing describes how the German national flag that brought millions of deaths was used to save lives in Nanjing. He compares refugees in Nanjing to rescuing Jews in Germany.

In Europe, there has been a history of anti-Semitism. During World War II, Germany persecuted Jews. While there was anti-Semitism in Europe, there was Pan-Asianism in East Asia. It aimed to cope with Europe and America through Japan-China cooperation. The Second Sino-Japanese War broke out and Japan and China fought against each other. However, Japan did not try to annihilate the Chinese people nor to oppress Europe and America.

Schindler was the kind of person who tried to forge report cards. He operated as a spy in Czechoslovakia and made a lot of money and expanded his factory through black market trading. I cannot help but think that Sindberg is compared to Schindler based on such human characteristics they had in common.

There was another person who was also compared to Schindler in the past. When the diary of the German John Rabe was published, Rabe was compared to Schindler for having saved Nanjing citizens.

Rabe was engaged in trade in Nanjing and after Nanjing fell, he worked to rescue citizens. However, civilians were not killed in Nanjing, so Rabe did not protect citizens from killing. Rabe’s actions were directed against Japan and only helped delay the restoration of Nanjing. There was no comparison to Schindler.


Why, then, has such a book been published now?

The book Bernhard Sindberg: The Schindler of Nanjing bears nothing new, from the aspect of historical sources and materials, only citing sources from the war trials conducted to exact revenge, with nothing added in terms of new evidence. I dare to say that since Japan has not at all been eager to correct the history records and disseminate the truth, there has been a global trend to make it permissible to write anything about Japan, even if it is not based on facts. The publication of this book reflects that trend.

Autrhor : Tadashi Hama

Reviewed Book : Harry Wray, Seishiro Sugihara  Is Japanese Debate on the Atomic Bombing All Right as It Is—the first US-Japan dialogue over the atomic bombings (published by Nisshin-hodo, 2015)

The book reviewed is Is Japanese Debate on the Atomic Bombing All Right as It Is—the first US-Japan dialogue over the atomic bombings (published by Nisshin-hodo, 2015). In the book, American Harry Wray criticizes the view of the atomic bombings the Japanese people generally have. On the other hand, Japanese Sugihara Seishiro comments and counterargues, chapter by chapter, stating his views on the Japanese side. Thus, this book is considered the first Japan-US dialogue over the atomic bombings. In the Japanese version of the book, the English texts written by Harry Wray are translated into Japanese by Ms. Yamamoto Reiko, who obtained her doctorate at Meisei University and studied the purge of teachers under the US occupation at the university’s Center for the Study of Postwar Education. The book was published in 2015 by Nisshin-hodo. The English version, titled Bridging the Atomic Divide: Debating Japan-US Attitudes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was published in 2019 by Lexington Books. Japanese texts written by Sugihara were translated into English by Chinese-Australian Norman Hoo.

The book’s coauthor Harry Wray was born in Nebraska, USA, in 1931 and died in 2017, without seeing the English version of this book. Mr. Wray finished the graduate school at the University of Hawaii in 1971 and lived in Japan for many years, teaching at various universities in Japan. In his study of the educational reform during the Occupation period, he interviewed fifty Japanese who worked for the educational reform during the Occupation and twenty-eight members of the Allied Forces personnel, making a great contribution to the study of educational reform during the occupation period. He was a Japanophile.

The other author, Sugihara Seishiro, was born in 1941 in the city of Hiroshima and lived there until immediately before the atomic bombing on the city, close to the very epicenter. In 1967, Sugihara finished the master’s course in education at the graduate school of the University of Tokyo. It is said that he did not advance to the doctor’s course because he was in conflict with the senior professor who led lecturers at the Japan Teachers’ Union that played an enormous role in spreading the self-deprecating view of history in postwar Japan.

Reviewer Hama Tadashi’s review was posted on the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact in September 2019 as followed:

<Book Review>
Bridging the Atomic Divide: Debating Japan-US Attitudes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Harry Wray & Seishiro Sughihara
Lexington Books
Reviewed by Tadashi Hama

Newsletter No. 231 introduced this newly published book, which discusses, in a frank and candid manner, an extremely sensitive subject that Japanese and Americans have long avoided.

      The book is reviewed by Mr. Tadashi Hama and is also accompanied by a comment on the review by, Professor Seishiro Sugihara, the book’s author.

     Mr. Wray wrote that his wish was to “have a dialogue about the atomic bombs...,” a “balanced dialogue”, and a dialogue which “must not be like the Tokyo Trials conducted during the Occupation...a one-sided affair imposed by the victorious nations on the losing side...” However, the book starts off by berating the Japanese for their “litany of clear-cut crimes against humanity”, and mentions, among other things, forcing Korean women to be “prostitutes”, or so-called “comfort women”, and the “rape of Nanking”, assuming that these were established historical facts.

     Mr. Hama’s criticism is that this line of thinking will not bring about a “balanced dialogue” of historical perception at all. He further details Wray’s slanted, one-sided thinking.

    In his comment, Mr. Sugihara, while acknowledging Mr. Hama’s view, emphasizes that FDR ultimately shoulders responsibility for the atomic bombings and his actions have determined the context of the dialogue on this important issue. It is recommended that his comments be also read.

Reviewer Hama newly included, among the reference literature, the books Lone Eagle—The Wartime Journal of Charles A. Lindbergh (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970) and Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate, written by Thomas Goodrich (The Palm Press, 2018) and stated that in the Japan-US War, many atrocities were committed by the U.S. side. Based on this fact, regarding the atomic bombings, he denies Harry Wray’s accounts of the US side and emphasizes that there was no rightful cause for the United States to drop atomic bombs.

Since reviewer Hama has based his statements on historical facts, there is no exaggeration nor fiction in his accounts. In this respect, his review should be read by many Americans.

On the other hand, Harry Wray’s assertions are popularly cited in the United States, such as that the dropping of the atomic bombs was meant to end the war sooner and reduce the number of victims on both sides and that in fact the atomic bombings spared many potential victims. And if Japan had readily accepted the Potsdam Declaration when it was issued, no atomic bombs would have been used and therefore, Japan should be held responsible for the result to a relative extent.

Certainly, the later estimate of the number of victims saved by the atomic bombings may have been somewhat exaggerated, but it is true that many lives were spared. It is also true that there would have been no atomic bombing if only Japan had promptly accepted the Potsdam Declaration when it was issued.

How, then, is Sugihara, representing Japan, to refute the American assertions? The point to argue is that chances for the United States to make Japan surrender before the Potsdam Declaration was issued, rendering it useless to drop atomic bombs were many, many times more than the chance for Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration.

What made it difficult for the United States under the then President Truman to carry out the policy of making Japan surrender before dropping atomic bombs was that the predecessor President Roosevelt had forced Japan into unconditional surrender. On the opening of the war between Japan and the United States, President Roosevelt blamed Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor “without declaring war”, instigating the Americans to fight the war against Japan and stirring up hate against Japan. In fact, the war between Japan and the United States was staged, without the knowledge of the peoples of both countries with the United States provoking Japan into the war. The alleged delay in handing the “declaration of war” on the part of Japan was not intentional but a mere blunder in clerical work. Although he knew this fact, Roosevelt instigated hostilities against Japan and forced Japan to unconditionally accept the Potsdam Declaration. By doing so, he manipulated his people to gain their strong support. Consequently, the US-Japan war obliged the United States to deploy the ground battle on the soil of mainland Japan and the United States had to continue fighting even after the defeat of Japan became evident, causing more casualties on both sides, to no avail.

Thus, coauthor Sugihara asserts that Roosevelt forced the American people to unnecessarily suffer an enormous number of casualties and in this regard, Roosevelt betrayed the American people as well. Sugihara adds emphatically that he wants the Americans to know this fact.

This review should be read widely by Americans to understand better the issue of atomic bombings.

Review : Japanese / English

Author: Kim Byung-heon, President of the Korean History Textbook Research Institute
Translate Japanese: Fujiko Miyamoto
    English  : Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact


The author of this paper, Mr. Kim Byung-heon, is a specialist in Korean history. Having completed the doctorate course in Chinese literature at Sungkyukwan University, he now tackles the issue of comfort women as the President of the Korean History Textbook Research Institute.

He felt so indignant morally at the outrageously distorted theory of “forced abduction of Korean women by the Japanese Government,” claimed by former comfort women and their supporters, that he held a press interview condemning various lies about the comfort women issue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul in December 2019.

Since then, in protest against the “Wednesday demonstrations” praising comfort women, held by the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance (formerly, the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery) in front of the premises of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, he bravely held “anti-comfort women supporters” demonstrations at the same site and continuously condemned lies related to the comfort women issue. His activities are not limited within Korea, he also flew to Berlin with his companions in June last year and protested against the Mitte District Assembly that had permitted the establishment of a comfort women statue in the district and held a rally in front of the erected statue, revealing lies of the comfort women issue to Berlin citizens.

His cooperative efforts with us at the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH) and other Japanese groups searching for the truth about the “comfort women issue” are well under way. In August last year, we went to Nagoya, Japan, where the “Non-Freedom of Expression Exhibit” was being held and resolutely protested against it with members of “Nadeshiko Japan.”

In addition, in November last year, Mr. Kim participated in the Japan-Korea Joint Symposium to refute the lies about the comfort women issue, organized by the iRICH in Tokyo, and condemned the lies included in Korean history textbooks.

The Joint Symposium was held for the second time in Seoul in September this year. Representing Korea, Mr. Kim Byung-heon took the platform together with former Professor Ji Seokchoon of Yonsei University and Mr. Lee Wooyeon of Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research and described specific distortions and fabrications about the comfort women in Korean elementary and middle school textbooks and decisively criticized them.

This paper is a concise summary of Mr. Kim Byung-heon’s assertions, covering the important points regarding the comfort women issue, perfectly refuting assertions made by former comfort women and leftist civil groups, in extremely logical and precise manner.

The English and Japanese translations of this paper have been posted by the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (SDHF)

Article : Japanese / English

Author:Jason Morgan(Associate Professor, Reitaku University)

Profile :

Jason Morgan is associate professor at Reitaku University in Kashiwa. The book under review in this essay, Making of the Rape of Nanking: A Big Lie from World War II, by M. Kanzako and Akira Kashima, was introduced to him by some members of Toronto Seiron.

Source:A Massacre in the Making: Separating Truth from Fiction about Nanking (Substack)

Translate:Tomoko Hifumi(Senior Researcher, iRICH)


The totally unrealistic demagoguery that 300,000 persons were massacred in Nanjing has been disseminated and believed to be true. Mr. Morgan’s paper “A Massacre in the Making: Separating Truth from Fiction about Nanking -- Think through the evidence for yourself” has elaborately studied the background of the Nanjing Incident (Nanking Fiction), which has been told and believed through one-sided and biased information in English, introducing many documents in Japanese written by Japanese scholars. Among them, Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, Unravelling the spell of American missionaries’ view of history by Ikeda Haruka (2020, Tenden-sha) is a decisive writing, revealing that the American missionaries who established the Safety Zone and the International Committee in Nanjing with the true purpose of supporting and protecting the Chinese Army were the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident. Controversies over the “Nanjing Incident” have been finally settled. The Japanese people should know more about the truth about the Nanjing Incident revealed by Ikeda and the fact that the American scholar introduced it in English.