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

[Unkotare]

...
Maybe your jihad against FDR ?....

Oh, are you pro-concentration camp now?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Speaking of General Matsui, I would refer interested readers to Justice Radhabinod Pal's defense of Matsui in his Tokyo Tribunal dissent. Also, here's a reply I posted about Matsui in another forum:

I think the hanging of General Matsui was very unjust and was a gross perversion of the principle of command responsibility. The Tokyo Tribunal prosecutors knew, or certainly should have known by then, that the Japanese army's command structure functioned quite differently than the way the American army's command structure functioned. In the Japanese army, subordinate commanders who were generals or colonels frequently ignored their commander's orders and suffered few if any consequences--and in some cases were rewarded for their disobedience by their commander's superiors. Before the attack on Nanking, General Matsui issued strict orders to the assault force regarding proper conduct. He was appalled when he learned of the outrages that had been committed by some soldiers in Nanking. He told his subordinate commanders to punish the guilty parties, and he took steps to ensure bad acts were not repeated in Nanking. In addition, Matsui was frequently ill before, during, and after the attack on Nanking.

General Matsui was actually quite sympathetic toward the Chinese. Before the war, he promoted good relations with China. He wanted to see a democracy established in China. After he retired, he hoped to return to work in China.

I think the Tokyo Tribunal's prosecution of Matsui shows just how biased, vengeful, and blood thirsty most of the tribunal members were. Incredibly, the tribunal also prosecuted two leading Japanese moderates who had opposed the attack on Pearl Harbor, who had opposed the extension of the war in China, and who, at considerable personal risk, had pushed for surrender: Shigenori Togo and Koichi Kido.

The division and regimental commanders on the scene in Nanking should have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty, at the very least, but not General Matsui.

There are two big problems when discussing General Matsui: (1) the common attitude that all Japanese commanders were vicious and barbaric, and (2) the myth, still widely believed in many quarters, that the Japanese army killed over 300,000 civilians in Nanking.

The Nanking Massacre was real, and it was awful and inexcusable, but the civilian death toll was nowhere near 300,000. There were only about 200,000 to 250,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese army arrived. A number of primary sources put the population at around 150,000. Similarly, numerous primary sources, including two surveys done by Nanking University sociologist Dr. Lewis Smythe soon after the massacre, put the civilian death toll at around 12,000 for the city and the area just outside the city and about 39,000 for the five prefectures (counties) around Nanking. Chinese Nationalist spokesmen put the civilian death toll at 20,000, while the Chinese Communists said it was 42,000. The burial data do not support any civilian death toll over 60,000. Killing 12,000 civilians alone is a massacre and a war crime by any definition. There's no need to wildly inflate the death toll just to satisfy an anti-Japanese bias ala Iris Chang.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Naw, man, I just see Mao the way the Chinese see him. Not through the lens of John Birch Society crazy.

There's no need to exaggerate Japanese War crimes. Unlike German War crimes, which Hollywood can't stop making movies about (gee, I wonder why?) Japanese War crimes are mainly unknown to Western audiences. The few times they are portrayed, it's how they made life sad for white people.

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.

Number of scholars = Cranks.

We already went over the Stalin thing, where, despite your claims, he murdered fifty Gagillion people, the population of the USSR increased on his watch by something like 30%. I guess those Russian Babes were fucking like rabbits to make up for all the people Stalin was killing.

As for Mao, yes, lot's of people died under Mao's reign, but the vast majority of them were due to natural disasters like the famine of 1959 - 62 (which Mrs. B131 lived through, barely.)

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.

Japan didn't have legal and valid interests, you schmuck. There is no valid interest in conducting a war of aggression against a poorer country. China was no threat to Japan, she had no navy, and her central government was kind of a joke.

And, no, nobody "Preferred" Japanese Rule. Not the people of Manchuria, who lived under PuYi. Not the people who lived in the Reformed Republic of China under Wang Jingwei. These people are seen as traitors today, and for good reason.

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

Sometimes you have to treat ridiculous statements with Ridicule. I'm not sure why you are so invested in excusing the Japanese, but you seem to do it at every turn.

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.

No, it's a valid point. If the people of Nanjing were white, do you think that you'd be able to get away with the kind of denialism you try to do? I'm staunchly anti-Zionist, but I call out posters here to deny the Holocaust happened. It was a real thing, it was terrible. (It is not, however a valid excuse for Israel to commit genocide in turn.)

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.

Hmmm... I think that's more a case of how other cultural factors influence our thinking. We want to believe people in the past were just like us on some level, and they weren't.

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.

Well, here's the thing. Vietnam Veterans, God Bless Them, are not an objective source. Of course, they need to believe they went through all that pain and misery, and it needed to have a reason. The problem with Vietnam is that we had, in the 1980s, our own version of the Dolchstoßlegende - the Stabbed in the Back Myth.

"We didn't lose in Vietnam, we were stabbed in the back by our politicians (even though Hawkish Republicans were in charge when that went down) and those damned dirty hippies." So you had all these people flying their MIA/POW flags (even though there was no evidence any service members were being intentionally kept by the Vietnamese) and crap movies like Rambo that perpetuated the Vietnam Vet as victim.

What gets lost in that discussion is what we were fighting for, and that our own leaders knew it was unattainable. The Vietnamese were never going to support the Saigon regime. We failed to learn the same lesson 40 years later in Afghanistan.

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.

This shows that we have historical narratives being influenced by modern sensibilities. In the case of the Bombing of Japan, no one thought twice about it. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, they had slaughtered American POW's in Bataan. Further, to most people at the time, the Bomb was just another weapon. The USSR entering the Pacific War had a far greater influence on Japan's capitulation.

So what changed to "revise" the narrative? Well, 80 years of terror of living under the threat of nuclear annihilation. How could our leaders have subjected us to this nightmare of duck and cover and fallout shelters?

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 think you are confusing Tommy with me.

But to the point.

The Japanese were a bunch of bastards in World War II, and they threw in with Hitler, that's why FDR didn't like them.

This notion that FDR saved the USSR is laughable. The USSR saved the West. Stalin wanted to join the Axis, but Hitler didn't let him.

The other problem is, that this is not just the Communist version of the event; the same narrative was promoted by the Kumoutang.

 

[JoeB131]

Speaking of General Matsui, I would refer interested readers to Justice Radhabinod Pal's defense of Matsui in his Tokyo Tribunal dissent. Also, here's a reply I posted about Matsui in another forum:

Yawn, I'm not terribly interested in one judge's opinion, especially one who was at odds with the British trying to re-establish the empire. Unfortunately, too many people in the European Colonies, including India, thought the Japanese might be liberators. Until they actually got there, and then they realized how good they had it under the Europeans.

I think the Tokyo Tribunal's prosecution of Matsui shows just how biased, vengeful, and blood thirsty most of the tribunal members were. Incredibly, the tribunal also prosecuted two leading Japanese moderates who had opposed the attack on Pearl Harbor, who had opposed the extension of the war in China, and who, at considerable personal risk, had pushed for surrender: Shigenori Togo and Koichi Kido.

No, guy, they weren't bloodthirsty enough.

First, they didn't hang that bastard, Hirohito. They went along with a polite fiction that he was a constitutional monarch who got pulled along by the mean old generals.

They didn't hang Shiro Ishii, a guy who should be as notorious as Josef Mengele, but isn't.

Established in 1936, Unit 731 was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces. It routinely conducted tests on people who were dehumanized and internally referred to as "logs". Victims were further dehumanized by being confined in facilities referred to as "log cabins". Experiments included disease injections, controlled dehydration, biological weapons testing, hypobaric pressure chamber testing, vivisection, organ harvesting, amputation, and standard weapons testing. Victims included not only kidnapped men, women (including pregnant women), and children but also babies born from the systemic rape perpetrated by the staff inside the compound. The victims also came from different nationalities, with the majority being Chinese and a significant minority being Russian. Additionally, Unit 731 produced biological weapons that were used in areas of China not occupied by Japanese forces, which included Chinese cities and towns, water sources, and fields. All prisoners within the compound were killed to conceal evidence, and there were no documented survivors.

Hey, here's another one of those guys you think was wonderful.

Yoshio Tachibana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By mid-1945, due to the Allied naval blockade, the 25,000 Japanese troops on Chichijima had run low on supplies. However, although the daily ration of rice had been reduced from 400g per person a day to 240g, the troops were in no risk of starvation. In what later came to be called the Chichijima incident, and February/March 1945, Tachibana's senior staff turned to cannibalism. Nine American airmen escaped from their planes after being shot down during bombing raids on Chichijima, eight of whom were captured. The ninth, the only one to evade capture, was future US President George H. W. Bush, then a 20-year-old pilot. Over a period of several months, the prisoners were executed, and allegedly by the order of Major Sueyo Matoba, their bodies were butchered by the division's medical orderlies and the livers and other organs consumed by the senior staff, including Matoba's superior Tachibana.

Vietnamese famine of 1944–1945 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the Việt Minh, 1 to 2 million Vietnamese starved to death in the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam because of the Japanese since they seized Vietnamese rice and failed to pay. In Phat Diem, the Vietnamese farmer Di Ho was one of the few survivors who saw the Japanese steal grain. The North Vietnamese government accused both France and Japan of the famine and said that 1–2 million Vietnamese had died. Starving Vietnamese died throughout northern Vietnam in 1945 from the Japanese seizure of their crops when the Chinese came to disarm the Japanese, and Vietnamese corpses were all throughout the streets of Hanoi and had to be cleaned up by students.

 

[Unkotare]

The Japanese anti-war resistance during WWII<!-- --> | <!-- -->Red Flag

This article is based on a chapter from Fighting on all fronts: popular resistance in the Second World War, edited by Donny Gluckstein.

redflag.org.au

 

[JoeB131]

The Japanese anti-war resistance during WWII<!-- --> | <!-- -->Red Flag

This article is based on a chapter from Fighting on all fronts: popular resistance in the Second World War, edited by Donny Gluckstein.

redflag.org.au

You're citing a communist website?

 

[Unkotare]

You're citing a communist website?

You're disputing a communist website? Be careful, you might get in hot water on the home front.

 

[JoeB131]

You're disputing a communist website? Be careful, you might get in hot water on the home front.

Why would I do have that.

Mrs. B131 couldn't define communism on a bet. Not to mention, she came here claiming political asylum.

 

[Unkotare]

Why would I do have that. [sic]
...

You English do have speak?

 

[JoeB131]

You English do have speak?

Wow, getting on typos, are we?

I feel bad for any kid who has you as a teacher. They probably all hate you.

 

[Unkotare]

... They probably all hate you.

Quite the contrary. Don't lash out because you're embarrassed.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Naw, man, I just see Mao the way the Chinese see him. Not through the lens of John Birch Society crazy.

There's no need to exaggerate Japanese War crimes. Unlike German War crimes, which Hollywood can't stop making movies about (gee, I wonder why?) Japanese War crimes are mainly unknown to Western audiences. The few times they are portrayed, it's how they made life sad for white people.

Number of scholars = Cranks.

We already went over the Stalin thing, where, despite your claims, he murdered fifty Gagillion people, the population of the USSR increased on his watch by something like 30%. I guess those Russian Babes were fucking like rabbits to make up for all the people Stalin was killing.

As for Mao, yes, lot's of people died under Mao's reign, but the vast majority of them were due to natural disasters like the famine of 1959 - 62 (which Mrs. B131 lived through, barely.)

Japan didn't have legal and valid interests, you schmuck. There is no valid interest in conducting a war of aggression against a poorer country. China was no threat to Japan, she had no navy, and her central government was kind of a joke.

And, no, nobody "Preferred" Japanese Rule. Not the people of Manchuria, who lived under PuYi. Not the people who lived in the Reformed Republic of China under Wang Jingwei. These people are seen as traitors today, and for good reason.

Sometimes you have to treat ridiculous statements with Ridicule. I'm not sure why you are so invested in excusing the Japanese, but you seem to do it at every turn.

No, it's a valid point. If the people of Nanjing were white, do you think that you'd be able to get away with the kind of denialism you try to do? I'm staunchly anti-Zionist, but I call out posters here to deny the Holocaust happened. It was a real thing, it was terrible. (It is not, however a valid excuse for Israel to commit genocide in turn.)

Hmmm... I think that's more a case of how other cultural factors influence our thinking. We want to believe people in the past were just like us on some level, and they weren't.

Well, here's the thing. Vietnam Veterans, God Bless Them, are not an objective source. Of course, they need to believe they went through all that pain and misery, and it needed to have a reason. The problem with Vietnam is that we had, in the 1980s, our own version of the Dolchstoßlegende - the Stabbed in the Back Myth.

"We didn't lose in Vietnam, we were stabbed in the back by our politicians (even though Hawkish Republicans were in charge when that went down) and those damned dirty hippies." So you had all these people flying their MIA/POW flags (even though there was no evidence any service members were being intentionally kept by the Vietnamese) and crap movies like Rambo that perpetuated the Vietnam Vet as victim.

What gets lost in that discussion is what we were fighting for, and that our own leaders knew it was unattainable. The Vietnamese were never going to support the Saigon regime. We failed to learn the same lesson 40 years later in Afghanistan.

This shows that we have historical narratives being influenced by modern sensibilities. In the case of the Bombing of Japan, no one thought twice about it. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, they had slaughtered American POW's in Bataan. Further, to most people at the time, the Bomb was just another weapon. The USSR entering the Pacific War had a far greater influence on Japan's capitulation.
So what changed to "revise" the narrative? Well, 80 years of terror of living under the threat of nuclear annihilation. How could our leaders have subjected us to this nightmare of duck and cover and fallout shelters?

I think you are confusing Tommy with me.

But to the point.

The Japanese were a bunch of bastards in World War II, and they threw in with Hitler, that's why FDR didn't like them.

This notion that FDR saved the USSR is laughable. The USSR saved the West. Stalin wanted to join the Axis, but Hitler didn't let him.

The other problem is, that this is not just the Communist version of the event; the same narrative was promoted by the Kumoutang.

You've reached new levels of hokum and silliness with this reply, in addition to the many arguments that are simply repeats that have been refuted. I see no need to repeat my refutations of your Maoist, Stalinist, far-left version of the events under discussion.

But I will take a moment to address some truly stunning new howlers in your reply:

"Stalin wanted the join the Axis, but Hitler didn't let him."

Holy mother of jaw-dropping gaffes! Where to start?

Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and joined in the invasion of Poland. As part of the deal, Hitler agreed to let Stalin gobble up Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Bessarabia. Google "Nazi-Soviet Pact" and/or "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

You might read Viktor Suvorov's book The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. Suvorov was a former Soviet army intelligence officer.

"This notion that FDR saved the USSR is laughable."

Not on this planet it's not. On Earth, the fact that FDR's staggering amount of aid to the Soviet Union saved the Soviets from collapse is well known and profusely documented. Read Dr. Sean McMeekin's book Stalin's War: A New History of World War II, for starters.

If FDR had not sent massive amounts of weapons, ammo, and other equipment to Stalin, and if FDR had not prevented the Japanese from attacking the Soviets on their eastern flank, as the Japanese were entirely willing to do, the Soviet Union would have collapsed by mid-1942 at the latest, and the world would have been spared the suffering and tyranny that the Stalin imposed on hundreds of millions of people.

"The USSR saved the West."

Yikes! This was the Soviet version of World War II. You realize that, right? This is what the Soviets claimed. Any rational, educated person not brainwashed with Communist propaganda knows that the West saved the Soviet Union, not the other way around.

 

[Unkotare]

Joeblow on this thread is a classic case of not knowing when to stop digging.

 

[JoeB131]

Holy mother of jaw-dropping gaffes! Where to start?

Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and joined in the invasion of Poland. As part of the deal, Hitler agreed to let Stalin gobble up Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Bessarabia. Google "Nazi-Soviet Pact" and/or "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

You might read Viktor Suvorov's book The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. Suvorov was a former Soviet army intelligence officer.

I don't need to. the point was, Stalin wanted more from the alliance than just dividing Europe.

German–Soviet Axis talks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

German–Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940, nominally concerning the Soviet Union's potential adherent as a fourth Axis power during World War II among other potential agreements. The negotiations, which occurred during the era of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, included a two-day conference in Berlin between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. While Ribbentrop and most of the German Foreign office wanted an alliance with the Soviet Union, Hitler (supported by most of the other leadership) had been planning to invade the Soviet Union. In early June 1940 as the Battle of France was still ongoing, Hitler reportedly told Lt. General Georg von Sodenstern that the victories against the Allies had “finally freed his hands for his important real task: the showdown with Bolshevism." Ribbentrop nevertheless convinced Hitler to allow diplomatic overtures, with his own hope being for an alliance. Ribbentrop and Benito Mussolini had already speculated at the idea of offering the Soviet Union a free hand in a southern direction. Ribbentrop's approach in general to foreign policy was different from Hitler's: he favored an alliance with the Soviet Union, while Hitler had wanted to pressure Britain into an alliance and pushing for "Lebensraum" (living space) in the east.<

Not on this planet it's not. On Earth, the fact that FDR's staggering amount of aid to the Soviet Union saved the Soviets from collapse is well known and profusely documented. Read Dr. Sean McMeekin's book Stalin's War: A New History of World War II, for starters.

Aid wasn't as important as you claim it was. Sure, it helped, and logistics are always important, but the reality is, the USSR feilded 400 divisions in WW2 against Hitler. The US only fielded 96 in both theaters.

For the majority of the war, 70-80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed to the Eastern Front.

If FDR had not sent massive amounts of weapons, ammo, and other equipment to Stalin, and if FDR had not prevented the Japanese from attacking the Soviets on their eastern flank, as the Japanese were entirely willing to do, the Soviet Union would have collapsed by mid-1942 at the latest, and the world would have been spared the suffering and tyranny that the Stalin imposed on hundreds of millions of people.

Except Japan really had no intention of attacking Stalin's flank. Why would they? They got their asses kicked in the battle of

Khalkhin Gol and they were pretty quiet after that, finally signing a non-aggression pact. By August 1939, the war in the east was over and Stalin could commit his forces to invading Poland. ​

Yikes! This was the Soviet version of World War II. You realize that, right? This is what the Soviets claimed. Any rational, educated person not brainwashed with Communist propaganda knows that the West saved the Soviet Union, not the other way around.

Um, guy, the brainwashing was the Hollywood version where the US won the war being led by John Wayne.

The reality is that most of the heavy lifting in Europe was done by the USSR.

 

[JoeB131]

Joeblow on this thread is a classic case of not knowing when to stop digging.

Unkotard shows everything wrong with Public Education, and why we keep graduating generations of dummies.

President Xi thanks you.

 

[Unkotare]

Russo-Japanese War | Causes, Summary, Maps, & Significance | Britannica

The Russo-Japanese War was a military conflict fought in 1904–05. It was the first war in modern times in which an Asian power (Japan) defeated a European power (Russia). Russia’s loss sparked the Revolution of 1905 in Russia and signaled the emergence of Japan as the preeminent military power...

www.britannica.com

 

[mikegriffith1]

Joeblow on this thread is a classic case of not knowing when to stop digging.

Yep. But you do have to give him credit for being willing to admit that he is a proud anti-Semitic racist and an avowed anti-Japanese bigot. He even uses racial slurs against Jews and Japanese in his replies, and he openly peddles the neo-Nazi/Hamas/Hezbollah propaganda that there is an international Zionist conspiracy and that it has controlled the U.S. Government for decades. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is severely discrediting himself with this stuff in the eyes of normal people.

Anyway, to return to the Nanking Massacre:

A few points to highlight one of the specious assumptions that Iris Chang had to make to get to her 300,000-plus civilian death toll—namely, that the massacre occurred not only in Nanking but in most/all of the enormous area comprised of the six counties around Nanking:

* The combined area of the 4.5 counties that Dr. Smythe surveyed in his second survey, i.e., the agricultural survey, was 2,438 square miles. That’s an area equal in size to the state of Delaware plus nearly half the state of Rhode Island.

* In contrast, the city of Nanking was about 26 square miles in size, and the Nanking Safety Zone was 2.39 square miles. (Some authors put the Safety Zone’s size at 3.4 square miles, but the earliest sources, including an almanac done in 1939, put it at something over 2 square miles.)

* We know the marching routes and areas of operations of the Japanese army on its way to and from Nanking. Japanese forces did not go through or near most of the areas in Smythe’s survey and in Chang’s expanded area.

* Many Iris Chang defenders argue that the area of the massacre included an area that is even larger than the area of Smythe’s agricultural survey! They claim that it included the six counties around Nanking, whereas Smythe excluded one of those counties and half of another one, since he did not believe they had anything to do with the Nanking Massacre.

In fact, most of Chang's apologists claim that the Japanese killed 100,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians in the six surrounding counties, and some of them use that number to get to the 300,000 figure. I guess these folks have never bothered to look at the marching routes and the areas of operations of the Japanese forces under discussion.

* We should also keep in mind that the Japanese force that attacked Nanking—the Central China Area Army, consisting of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army—only amounted to about 50,000 soldiers (some sources say 70,000; Wikipedia erroneously says 200,000). Furthermore, most of this force quickly left the city soon after the city fell and after order had been established.

One cleare indication that the Japanese force that took Nanking was not massive but was no more than about 70,000 soldiers in size is the fact that entire division-sized units of Chinese troops were able to sneak out of the city and through Japanese lines after the Japanese occupied the city (Peter Harmsen, Nanjing: Battle for a Doomed City, Kindle Edition, loc. 4254). The Japanese simply did not have enough troops to impose a dragnet around the city.

* We should keep in mind that the International Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal, said the massacre occurred only in the city of Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area, and that the primary sources, most of whom were very anti-Japanese, said all or nearly all of the deaths occurred in the Safety Zone.

* Several primary sources mention the fact that the part of Nanking outside the Safety Zone was nearly deserted. This agrees with the accounts of numerous Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking: they described the rest of the city as being like a ghost town.

Regarding the ludicrous claim that there were 600,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese took the city, we should keep in mind that on November 14, nearly a month before the city fell, the Nationalist Government ordered all women and children to leave Nanking, which meant the departure of at least half of the city’s 1 million residents. We should also keep in mind that mass exodus from the city, seen by many Western observers, continued until December 8, when the Chinese army closed all the gates of the walled city.

On January 13, Chancellor Scharffenberg reported from Nanking to the German Embassy that as of that date the population of the city was about (“circa”) 200,000, that nearly everyone was in the Safety Zone, and that most of the suburbs had been burned by the Chinese, not the Japanese:

The suburbs were burned down almost in their entirety by the Chinese [as part of a scorched earth policy] and the center of the city has largely been burned down by the Japanese. No one lives there now. The rest of the population--circa 200,000--is confined to the Safety Zone. . . . The streets outside the Zone are deserted. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)

I think the 300,000-civilian-deaths tale is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. When you finally force a discussion on the facts of the matter, the emperor’s nakedness quickly becomes obvious.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. But you do have to give him credit for being willing to admit that he is a proud anti-Semitic racist and an avowed anti-Japanese bigot. He even uses racial slurs against Jews and Japanese in his replies, and he openly peddles the neo-Nazi/Hamas/Hezbollah propaganda that there is an international Zionist conspiracy and that it has controlled the U.S. Government for decades. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is severely discrediting himself with this stuff in the eyes of normal people.

Jews aren't a race; they are a religion. Frankly, I despise Mormonism as a religion far more than I despise Judaism, for the same reason. Never trust a religion that thinks of the rest of us as "gentiles", while they have a special relationship with the imaginary sky pixie.

If you had the ability to comprehend my posts, you'd get that anti-religion is pretty much a running theme. Humanity will be far better of when it realizes IT'S the higher power, and it doesn't need to grovel.

As for a "Zionist Conspiracy", a conspiracy works on the assumption that they are doing it in secret. They aren't. AIPAC yells "Jump", and our cowardly congressmen all say, "How high". College kids protest genocide, and the Jews get colleges to muzzle them and deport them.

Now, getting back to the Japanese, saying I am "racist" against them would be amusing, given I am married to an Asian woman. I actually have a lot of admiration for the Japanese. Their culture, their art, their poetry. And for one period of history, these people completely lost their fucking minds and went on a genocidal rampage against their neighbors. They sacrificed millions of their own people and killed millions of others. For that, they need to be thoroughly condemned.

Now, to give you a hint, you can take that same statement, replace the word "Japanese" with "German", and it would be equally true. Am I racist against Germans? Kind of hard, given my father was born in Germany, and German was spoken in my household until my father passed in 1981. He also served with the US Army in WWII, and frankly, after liberating Nordhausen, he had little nice to say about his homeland.

But do continue to wallow in your indignation that you can't win a historical argument.

Russo-Japanese War | Causes, Summary, Maps, & Significance | Britannica

The Russo-Japanese War was a military conflict fought in 1904–05. It was the first war in modern times in which an Asian power (Japan) defeated a European power (Russia). Russia’s loss sparked the Revolution of 1905 in Russia and signaled the emergence of Japan as the preeminent military power...

www.britannica.com

we aren't talking about the 1904-1905 War, Dummy.

We are talking about the 1931-1939 conflict, where the Japanese got their asses pretty much handed to them by the Marshall Zhukov (who would go on to do the same to the Germans.)

 

[JoeB131]

Anyway, to return to the Nanking Massacre:

Yes, we know it gives you a woodie thinking about it.

A few points to highlight one of the specious assumptions that Iris Chang had to make to get to her 300,000-plus civilian death toll—namely, that the massacre occurred not only in Nanking but in most/all of the enormous area comprised of the six counties around Nanking:

* The combined area of the 4.5 counties that Dr. Smythe surveyed in his second survey, i.e., the agricultural survey, was 2,438 square miles. That’s an area equal in size to the state of Delaware plus nearly half the state of Rhode Island.

* In contrast, the city of Nanking was about 26 square miles in size, and the Nanking Safety Zone was 2.39 square miles. (Some authors put the Safety Zone’s size at 3.4 square miles, but the earliest sources, including an almanac done in 1939, put it at something over 2 square miles.)

Um, so fucking what?

We've been over this. The population of Nanking, according to the Nationalist Government, was 1 million in 1939. While the more affluent fled the city as the Japanese advanced, a lot of people from the surrounding countryside fled to it because they thought they would be safe and because as Chiang's army retreated from Shanghai, they practiced a scorched earth policy. So you silly, "The Japanese couldn't have killed that many people because there weren't that many people to kill" is utterly silly.

* We should also keep in mind that the Japanese force that attacked Nanking—the Central China Area Army, consisting of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army—only amounted to about 50,000 soldiers (some sources say 70,000; Wikipedia erroneously says 200,000). Furthermore, most of this force quickly left the city soon after the city fell and after order had been established.

One cleare indication that the Japanese force that took Nanking was not massive but was no more than about 70,000 soldiers in size is the fact that entire division-sized units of Chinese troops were able to sneak out of the city and through Japanese lines after the Japanese occupied the city (Peter Harmsen, Nanjing: Battle for a Doomed City, Kindle Edition, loc. 4254). The Japanese simply did not have enough troops to impose a dragnet around the city.

Wow, this was absurd. Tell me, Mormon Mike, How many SS Troops were stationed at Auschwiz? Most estimates were that the garrison never exceeded 3000. Yet they still managed to kill over 1 million people there.

YOu are like one of these Holocaust deniers, you like to pretend that what the Japanese didn't do was so bad. Of course, it was, they killed 30 million people in their rampage across Asia, 22 million in China alone.

So why do Holocaust Deniers and Japanese Apologists like yourself like to concentrate on Nanjing? Well, unfortunately, it's probably one of the few massacres Americans who attend public school have heard of. (Good work, keeping those kids stupid, Unkotard!)

You see, during the war, Americans hated the Japanese far more than they hated the Germans. A credit to FDR that he could prioritize Europe first, before turning our attention to Japan. They had bombed Pearl Harbor. They had slaughtered GI's on the Bataan Death March.

After the war, however, because a certain group runs Hollywood, we got to hear a lot more about the Nazis and what they did (which is fine, we should never forget), but what the Japanese did was largely downplayed. Again, the bad habit of white people to think they are the center of the universe.

I think I've only seen one movie about the Nanjing Massacre, and not surprisingly, it was all about the white people in Nanjing and their "White Savior Complex". Which is why twats like you go on and on about the "safety zone" that protected very few people while thousands were being murderered outside of it.

 

[Unkotare]

Jews aren't a race; they are a religion. Frankly, I despise Mormonism as a religion far more than I despise Judaism, for the same reason. Never trust a religion that thinks of the rest of us as "gentiles", while they have a special relationship with the imaginary sky pixie.

If you had the ability to comprehend my posts, you'd get that anti-religion is pretty much a running theme. Humanity will be far better of when it realizes IT'S the higher power, and it doesn't need to grovel.

As for a "Zionist Conspiracy", a conspiracy works on the assumption that they are doing it in secret. They aren't. AIPAC yells "Jump", and our cowardly congressmen all say, "How high". College kids protest genocide, and the Jews get colleges to muzzle them and deport them.

View attachment 1097064

Now, getting back to the Japanese, saying I am "racist" against them would be amusing, given I am married to an Asian woman. I actually have a lot of admiration for the Japanese. Their culture, their art, their poetry. And for one period of history, these people completely lost their fucking minds and went on a genocidal rampage against their neighbors. They sacrificed millions of their own people and killed millions of others. For that, they need to be thoroughly condemned.

Now, to give you a hint, you can take that same statement, replace the word "Japanese" with "German", and it would be equally true. Am I racist against Germans? Kind of hard, given my father was born in Germany, and German was spoken in my household until my father passed in 1981. He also served with the US Army in WWII, and frankly, after liberating Nordhausen, he had little nice to say about his homeland.

But do continue to wallow in your indignation that you can't win a historical argument.


we aren't talking about the 1904-1905 War, Dummy.

We are talking about the 1931-1939 conflict, where the Japanese got their asses pretty much handed to them by the Marshall Zhukov (who would go on to do the same to the Germans.)

Russo-Japanese War | Causes, Summary, Maps, & Significance | Britannica

The Russo-Japanese War was a military conflict fought in 1904–05. It was the first war in modern times in which an Asian power (Japan) defeated a European power (Russia). Russia’s loss sparked the Revolution of 1905 in Russia and signaled the emergence of Japan as the preeminent military power...

www.britannica.com