The Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang's Book The Rape of Nanking

[Unkotare]

...

So I say we need to rename all the Japanese atrocities in WWII something nice to not offend your sensibilities.

...

Why would it offend my sensibilities?

 

[JoeB131]

Why would it offend my sensibilities?

I don't know, you seem to be a pretty sensitive guy... and perpetually angry.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know, you seem to be a pretty sensitive guy... and perpetually angry.

Me? This from the guy who goes nuts spewing bigoted rage at Mormons all the damn time? This from the guy who throws racial slurs around in hissy fit after hissy fit?

 

[JoeB131]

This from the guy who goes nuts spewing bigoted rage at Mormons all the damn time?

Pointing out they believe crazy stuff isn't bigotry.

This from the guy who throws racial slurs around in hissy fit after hissy fit?

Japanese aren't a race, they are a nationality.

 

[Unkotare]

Pointing out they believe crazy stuff isn't bigotry.
...

That's exactly what it is, bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

That's exactly what it is, bigot.

Nope.

There's only two logical positions you can take towards Mormonism.

1) Joseph Smith was taking to God, sign me up for my set of Magic Underwear!!!
2) Joseph Smith was a fraud who made stuff up to scam less smart people out of their money and fuck teenage girls.

When you look at the evidence, Number 2 becomes apparent.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II in 1997.

Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.

With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.

* To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.

Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," War in History. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?

* Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,

Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​

* The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.

* In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," Japan Echo, August 1998, pp. 47-57).

Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).

* Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.

* The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:

The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” Japan Echo, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​

* At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,

Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, Proceedings, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​

The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.

Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:

Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone. They also appear in their entirety in What War Means, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​

There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, What Really Happened in Nanking, Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​

Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.

* In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:

According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​

* Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:

Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​

Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​

Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​

* Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:

In The Battle of Nanking, Vol. 6, former Asahi Shinbun correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for Hochi Shinbun and later Mainichi Shinbun, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, What Really Happened in Nanking, p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​

* Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, Japan At War: An Oral History, New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).

* Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).

The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 (Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.

For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:

A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
Tanaka’s book What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.

https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”

https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anat...amoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20
Masahiro Yamamoto’s book Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.

http://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/110/
Shūdō Higashinakano’s book The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.

Well 300000 is a lot but 40000 isnt too bad. Maybe weneed to re-evauiate this supposed massacre. It was hardly anything.

 

[JoeB131]

Well 300000 is a lot but 40000 isnt too bad. Maybe weneed to re-evauiate this supposed massacre. It was hardly anything.

I hope you are being facetious.

Unfortunately, Mormon Mike is being totally serious when he makes these claims.

If you want a hoot, visit his "Real Issues" website.

The parts of it that still work (It has a lot of broken links) are high-octane crazy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well 300000 is a lot but 40000 isnt too bad. Maybe weneed to re-evauiate this supposed massacre. It was hardly anything.

Who in the world has said that 40,000 wrongful deaths "isn't too bad"? You once again seem to have a problem processing plain English, or else you're just being dishonest ala JoeB131. I quote from the OP, which you yourself quoted in your reply, where I make it clear that the Nanking incident was a massacre and a crime:

"Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime."

 

[JoeB131]

Who in the world has said that 40,000 wrongful deaths "isn't too bad"? You once again seem to have a problem processing plain English, or else you're just being dishonest ala JoeB131. I quote from the OP, which you yourself quoted in your reply, where I make it clear that the Nanking incident was a massacre and a crime:

"Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime."

Then why do you spend so much time downplaying Japanese war crimes.

Again, I invite people to visit Mikey's "Real Issues" Home Page.


* Roosevelt refused to accept reasonable Japanese peace proposals, but he was willing to bend
over backwards to appease the Soviets. Japan was anti-communist and capitalist, and did not
want war with America. Until FDR came along, Japan and America had enjoyed fairly good
relations for most of the previous three decades. In the face of FDR’s hostile diplomacy and
sanctions, the Japanese offered major concessions and even let it be known that they would
ignore their treaty with Germany in the event America intervened in Europe. But Roosevelt
refused every Japanese offer and replied with unreasonable terms that he knew the Japanese
would not accept.


Keep in mind, Mike thought that FDR was being "Unreasaonable" in wanting to put a stop to Japanese Aggression in China.

Because, hey, a 40,000 death massacre isn't a "rape of Nanking", it's more of an "Inappropriate touching!"

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Then why do you spend so much time downplaying Japanese war crimes.

Again, I invite people to visit Mikey's "Real Issues" Home Page.


* Roosevelt refused to accept reasonable Japanese peace proposals, but he was willing to bend
over backwards to appease the Soviets. Japan was anti-communist and capitalist, and did not
want war with America. Until FDR came along, Japan and America had enjoyed fairly good
relations for most of the previous three decades. In the face of FDR’s hostile diplomacy and
sanctions, the Japanese offered major concessions and even let it be known that they would
ignore their treaty with Germany in the event America intervened in Europe. But Roosevelt
refused every Japanese offer and replied with unreasonable terms that he knew the Japanese
would not accept.


Keep in mind, Mike thought that FDR was being "Unreasaonable" in wanting to put a stop to Japanese Aggression in China.

Because, hey, a 40,000 death massacre isn't a "rape of Nanking", it's more of an "Inappropriate touching!"

Well there are a lot of chinese so maybe they wont be missed.

Mike seems to be one of those revisionist historians. They start with a world view and then look for anything to fit that narrative. Its not really history at all.

 

[Unkotare]

Nope.

There's only two logical positions you can take towards Mormonism.

1) Joseph Smith was taking to God, sign me up for my set of Magic Underwear!!!
2) Joseph Smith was a fraud who made stuff up to scam less smart people out of their money and fuck teenage girls.

When you look at the evidence, Number 2 becomes apparent.

Don't try to justify your bigotry to me, hypocrite. Go start a new thread in the badlands to vent your shameless hatred if you have to. It is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Unkotare]

Well there are a lot of chinese so maybe they wont be missed.

Mike seems to be one of those revisionist historians. They start with a world view and then look for anything to fit that narrative. Its not really history at all.

Look who's talking.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't try to justify your bigotry to me, hypocrite. Go start a new thread in the badlands to vent your shameless hatred if you have to. It is not the topic of this thread.

I agree. Then why did you bring it up?

Back on ignore you go.

 

[Unkotare]

I agree. Then why did you bring it up?

Back on ignore you go.

Nobody brought up your bigotry but you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nobody brought up your bigotry but you.

You are a morose and nasty piece of work. But I think there may be a decent person fighting to get out.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Then why do you spend so much time downplaying Japanese war crimes.

I don't. It's just that you spend so much time grossly exaggerating Japanese war crimes, even though they were bad and frequent enough that they need no exaggeration. But, you're not satisfied with the truth of the matter because you're an anti-Japanese bigot and a Mao-loving pro-Chinese Communist.

Again, I invite people to visit Mikey's "Real Issues" Home Page.

* Roosevelt refused to accept reasonable Japanese peace proposals, but he was willing to bend
over backwards to appease the Soviets. Japan was anti-communist and capitalist, and did not
want war with America. Until FDR came along, Japan and America had enjoyed fairly good
relations for most of the previous three decades. In the face of FDR’s hostile diplomacy and
sanctions, the Japanese offered major concessions and even let it be known that they would
ignore their treaty with Germany in the event America intervened in Europe. But Roosevelt
refused every Japanese offer and replied with unreasonable terms that he knew the Japanese
would not accept.

Yeap, and every word of that paragraph is accurate and can be found documented by numerous scholars. You, on the other hand, can't find a single reputable scholar to support your claim that Mao really did not murder tens of millions of people, that Stalin did not really murder tens of millions of people, that there is an international Zionist conspiracy that the U.S. Government "sold out to" decades ago, etc., etc. etc.

Keep in mind, Mike thought that FDR was being "Unreasaonable" in wanting to put a stop to Japanese Aggression in China.

As you well know, earlier in this thread I answered your arguments about Japanese operations and interests in China, but you just keep repeating them. People can go back and read and see that you had no credible answer for the evidence I presented regarding Japan's legal and valid interests in China, the fact that the Chinese were the ones who escalated the fighting into a full-scale war, that large segments of the Chinese actually preferred Japanese rule to Communist or Nationalist rule, etc.

Because, hey, a 40,000 death massacre isn't a "rape of Nanking", it's more of an "Inappropriate touching!"

Yes, please do continue to show what an unserious juvenile you are by making this absurd, shameful strawman argument.

Well there are a lot of chinese so maybe they wont be missed.

Of course you know that nobody is saying that. This is just a dishonest way to avoid admitting that I'm right about the wild Chinese Communist propaganda about the massacre.

Mike seems to be one of those revisionist historians.

Looking at your posts on historical issues, one can quickly see that you've done very little reading on such matters. "Revisionist historians" are often correct, and sometimes their "revisionism" becomes the "orthodox" position. Liberal historians on the Vietnam War label any scholar who disagrees with them as "revisionist," even though most military historians disagree with the liberal portrayal of the war, and even though the overwhelming majority of Vietnam veterans also reject the liberal version of the war. The early "revisionist" position that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary and immoral is now the dominant view among scholars who specialize in the subject--and has been the dominant view since the 1990s.

They start with a world view and then look for anything to fit that narrative. Its not really history at all.

Actually, that's exactly what you do. Your dishonest polemic on the Nanking Massacre is a good example. As a woke liberal, you are determined to accept the Chinese Communist version of the event, since FDR was an anti-Japanese bigot who was determined to save the Soviet Union and crush Japan, which is why you purposely misrepresent my research on the subject as somehow minimizing Japanese misconduct and minimizing Chinese suffering.

 

[Unkotare]

You are a morose and nasty piece of work. But I think there may be a decent person fighting to get out.

Gee, thanks. Your opinion means absolutely nothing.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I don't. It's just that you spend so much time grossly exaggerating Japanese war crimes, even though they were bad and frequent enough that they need no exaggeration. But, you're not satisfied with the truth of the matter because you're an anti-Japanese bigot and a Mao-loving pro-Chinese Communist.


Yeap, and every word of that paragraph is accurate and can be found documented by numerous scholars. You, on the other hand, can't find a single reputable scholar to support your claim that Mao really did not murder tens of millions of people, that Stalin did not really murder tens of millions of people, that there is an international Zionist conspiracy that the U.S. Government "sold out to" decades ago, etc., etc. etc.


As you well know, earlier in this thread I answered your arguments about Japanese operations and interests in China, but you just keep repeating them. People can go back and read and see that you had no credible answer for the evidence I presented regarding Japan's legal and valid interests in China, the fact that the Chinese were the ones who escalated the fighting into a full-scale war, that large segments of the Chinese actually preferred Japanese rule to Communist or Nationalist rule, etc.


Yes, please do continue to show what an unserious juvenile you are by making this absurd, shameful strawman argument.


Of course you know that nobody is saying that. This is just a dishonest way to avoid admitting that I'm right about the wild Chinese Communist propaganda about the massacre.


Looking at your posts on historical issues, one can quickly see that you've done very little reading on such matters. "Revisionist historians" are often correct, and sometimes their "revisionism" becomes the "orthodox" position. Liberal historians on the Vietnam War label any scholar who disagrees with them as "revisionist," even though most military historians disagree with the liberal portrayal of the war, and even though the overwhelming majority of Vietnam veterans also reject the liberal version of the war. The early "revisionist" position that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary and immoral is now the dominant view among scholars who specialize in the subject--and has been the dominant view since the 1990s.


Actually, that's exactly what you do. Your dishonest polemic on the Nanking Massacre is a good example. As a woke liberal, you are determined to accept the Chinese Communist version of the event, since FDR was an anti-Japanese bigot who was determined to save the Soviet Union and crush Japan, which is why you purposely misrepresent my research on the subject as somehow minimizing Japanese misconduct and minimizing Chinese suffering.

I dont think I have written any of that. You are dragging in all your political prejudices again.
My total research on the subject is Mr Rabes book which I found harrowing. 40k or 400k is doesnt matter. It was all bad.
So your nit picking baffles me. I dont know what you are trying to prove.
Maybe your jihad against FDR ? I dont giive a shit. Go and sit by David Irving. Another twisted loon cos playing as a historian.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Gee, thanks. Your opinion means absolutely nothing.

Well at least you know there is something to work on.