Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

“Daily Reports” created without verificationDuring this period, Bates of the ICNSZ filed with the Japanese embassy the“Daily Reports of the Serious Injuries to Civilians.” Commentators have cited thesereports, which list a variety of criminal acts, as a proof of the Japanese army’s brutality.Since Timperly refers to the Document of the Nanking Safety Zone—an editedversion of the “Daily Reports”—as a complete collection of such reports in the first twomonths of the Japanese occupation, one may conclude that this source records all of thereported cases in Nanking. Of these, the cases of murder, rape, robbery, and arsontotaled 26, 175, 131, and five, respectively. Of the reports of murder, there was only asingle eye-witnessed case, which was actually an instance of lawful execution. Otherstories were rumors of unknown origin. The same is true of almost all—about 95percent—of the reports of rape, robbery, and arson. Such hearsays cannot constituteviable evidence.It seemed that the staff members of both the Japanese embassy in Nanking and theforeign ministry in Tokyo read a part of these reports. If so, did these reports convincethem that a massacre was in progress in Nanking? The answer is “No.”Tomizawa Shigenobu created a database of the Japanese army’s criminal activitiesas recorded in not only the Document of the Nanking Safety Zone but also in otherprimary sources authored by Westerners and Japanese army personnel. According toTomizawa’s findings, which are summarized in his Nankin jiken no kakushin: Deetabeesu ni yoru jiken no kaimei [Core Truth of the Nanking Incident: Analysis of the Eventwith the Use of a Database], recorded cases of murder, rape, robbery, andarson/destruction numbered 94, 243, 201, and 34, respectively. Of these, only one caseof murder was actually witnessed—which, again, was a case of lawful execution— andactually witnessed were 17 cases of rape, 26 cases of robbery, and one case of arson.The Japanese army posted sentries at every gate of the Nanking walls, importantbuildings, and where army units were quartered. Soldiers were to expect severepunishment if they were found to have committed any criminal act. Tsukamoto Kōji,then chief of the SEF’s legal department, testified at the IMTFE that since the legaldepartment sternly prosecuted even minor infractions, rank and file of SEF unitssometimes complained about it.A soldier of the 9th Division that was in charge of sweeping the safety zonerecalled that no single soldiers was missing in the daily morning and evening roll calls.Matoba Yukio, who participated in the victory parade on December 17 as a warrantofficer, said that he was unaware of any instance of Japanese soldiers causing trouble inthe safety zone. These recollections do not mean that the Japanese army personnelperpetrated no criminal act. But such misconducts were committed by individuals, andthis fact should not be used to criticize the entire Japanese army of conducting systematicviolence. It seems that the Japanese army maintained strict discipline in Nanking.One may advance the counterargument: these cases of “Daily Reports” cannot bedismissed as unreliable evidence solely because they are based on hearsay. Here, toanalyze this contentious point, it is worth investigating how these reports were compiled.The following is a recollection by Fukuda Tokuyasu, who was then a staff member of theJapanese embassy in Nanking and became a government minister after the war.52