Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

(c) Bombing of the USS PanayRBS lists Photo 3 as the USS Panay following an attack by Japanese bombers.Photo 3: The RBS caption of this photograph reads, “The USS Panaydamaged by bombing.” The shape of the ship’s turrets, smokestacks,and masts, however, differ from those of the real Panay.It is true that on December 12, 1937, a Japanese navy bomber squadronmistakenly attacked this U.S. gunboat and killed three persons on board. Uponreceiving this report, Vice Admiral Hasegawa Kiyoshi, chief of the Japanese navy’sChina expeditionary fleet, dispatched the Japanese gunboat Hozu to rescue affectedpersonnel and attend to the wounded. The fact is is that the Japanese squadroncommander did not know the true identity of the ship at the time of the attack.Nevertheless, Vice Admiral Hasegawa made a “formal apology” to the Americancommander in Shanghai to avert an international crisis.It is thus obvious that the Panay Incident is not relevant to the alleged Nankingmassacre. Some publications have photos of the Panay, as if to link the incident to theNanking massacre. In addition, Kasahara Tokushi, a Japanese scholar, made thefollowing remark in his Ajia no naka no Nihon-gun [Japanese Military in Asia]:Had the Panay not sunk on that day, a foreign news correspondent couldhave reported all the truths about the Nanking massacre. . . . All hisjournalist kit and materials went down to the bottom of the Yangzi Riverwith the Panay. . . . [F. Tillman] Durdin started his stay in Nanking as acorrespondent three months prior to the Japanese occupation of the city.His trunk that contained his memos, source materials, and photographswas buried under the water. Actually, the Panay was also his office-likelocation where he wired his news to Shanghai.(pp. 72,73)65