Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

Photo D is the same as Photo 14, one of the RBS photographs subjected to analysisin the preceding chapter, and Photo E is identical with Photo 70, which is one of the “16Photos.” A glimpse at these two images causes one to suspect that they were captured atthe same location at the same time. Notably, the person seemingly about to be beheadedappears to be the same individual in both of them.A close examination of these photographs substantiates this suspicion. Theenlarged portion marked with square in both photographs show a man in a white shirtsitting on the ground with his hands on his laps. Also, the man is seen wearing somethingwhite around his head in the identical postures in both images.Photo C is the one printed in RON-YY, and Photo F is Photo 15 (see p. xx), whichis one of the WMRB images. Photo G is the same as Photo 73, one of the “16 Photos.”Photos F and G are those of RON-YY, which are clearer. Judging from the portionsindicated with numbered arrows in these images, all these photographs were taken from thesame location. The shapes of the trees, including their branches, the interval betweenthem and the man in the tree on the extreme right are all common to these snapshots.With these facts in mind, one should consider the accounts given by the twoformer owners of the album—Mr. A, who reportedly discarded the album containing printsproduced from two rolls of film that a Japanese military man asked him to develop, and Mr.B, who said he had found that album but concealed it until the end of the war to present itto the war crimes court. In summary, these two individuals supposedly kept the albumtightly in their possessions such that no one else saw them. The truth is, however, thatPhoto C, which was most likely taken from the same location at the same time at a differentangle, was available for a long time. The same is true of Photo F, which appeared inWMRB, published in 1938.A question worth investigating here is who took the WMRB photographs. It wasnot possible for the Japanese military authorities to permit its enemy to photograph suchimages. Thus, it is possible that a Japanese national, either civilian or military, wasgranted permission and clandestinely provided the images to the GMD. But such atransaction was almost unthinkable during the war because the Japanese military authoritiesenforced strict restrictions on the use of photographic images like these.A more plausible scenario is that the Chinese military either captured these actsundertaken by their own men or photographed staged scenes. A notable fact worthrepeating here is that the Japanese did not maintained the custom of public execution afterthe end of the Tokugawa period.140