Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

Prologue: Search for the Origin of the “Photographic Evidence”John H.D. Rabe reported only hearsayWhat do people do when they are unable to find a clear answer to a puzzling question?They will either brush it from their mind or keep investigating until they find a satisfactoryanswer. I have assumed the latter position on the question of the alleged atrocities committedby the Japanese in Nanking.This topic caught my attention for the first time in the mid-1980s when public interestin this historical event resurged. It was about the time when the Nanking Massacre MemorialHall was inaugurated in China, with the phrase “300,000 victims” engraved at its entrance.The alleged incident was characterized as large-scale violence, including mass murder,robbery and arson, committed by the Japanese troops for six weeks following their occupationof the city in December 1937. Today, in Western society, the event is known as the “Rape ofNanking” and is often publicized with its alleged death toll ranging from 200,000 to 300,000.A number of Japanese publications have advanced a variety of theses on this topic.Honda Katsuichi, who interviewed some Chinese nationals in the 1970s, said in his Chūgokuno tabi [Trip in China], “. . . what characterized the Nanking massacre . . . as the witnessaccounts reveals, was an indiscriminate killing of a large number of Nanking citizens as well asdisarmed prisoners of war.” (1972, p. 267) Hora Tomio, in his Nankin daigyakusatsu noshōmei [Proof of Nanking Massacre], said that the city of Nanking “turned into a living hell asit was subjected to the violence of the Japanese troops both inside and outside the city walls.”(1986, p. 1) Hata Ikuhiko noted in his Nankin Jiken [Nanking Incident], “. . . regardless ofthe range [in the alleged death toll], that the Japanese troops committed a large-scale massacreand a variety of misconducts in Nanking is an undeniable fact, and as a Japanese national, Iwould like to express my heart-felt apology to the Chinese people.” (1986, p. 244)However, Maeda Yūji, a University of Tokyo graduate and Dōmei Newscorrespondent who accompanied the Japanese troops to Nanking, said in his Sensō no nagareno naka ni [In The Current of The War], “A correspondence from a foreign source maintainedthat a large-scale robbery, violence, and arson was perpetrated within the refugee zone. . . .We were puzzled to read it. . . . None of the cameramen or the film crew, who werefrequently moving around the city, was aware of such large-scale brutal acts occurring after thetermination of hostilities. . . . If such lawlessness had prevailed, it could not have escaped theattention of the news correspondents, not just of Dōmei News but also of other mediacompanies.” (1982, p. 125)I was at a loss in the face of such conflicting stories, but Hata’s thesis, which wasgenerally proclaimed to represent the middle position, stood with irresistible persuasiveness asa conclusion that I should accept.A critical turning point came when I went to the city of Hagi, Yamaguchi Prefecture,during my research trip in the summer of 1992. I had an opportunity to speak to a veteran ofthe Nanking campaign in Shimonoseki on my way to my final destination. He was MoriōMigaku, who was at the time of the Nanking campaign a Captain in the 3rd Battalion of the16th Division’s 20th Regiment.I asked him about the alleged Nanking massacre, as I was naïve about it at that time.I do not remember every detail of his answer, but he did say that he had neither witnessed nor2