Jump to content

Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Death toll estimates: Edited figure to match claim made in the website. Margolin makes the estimate of 50,000-90,000, although it does not match the total.
→‎Death toll estimates: Removed. The 400,000 estimate includes estimates outside of the Nanking Massacre as the article states.
Line 56: Line 56:
! Area and duration under consideration
! Area and duration under consideration
! References
! References
|-
| Sun Zhaiwei || 400,000 || || || || || <ref>[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200007/26/eng20000726_46497.html 400,000 People Killed in Nanjing Massacre: Expert]</ref> ||
|-
|-
| Government of China || 300,000 || || || || only the city of Nanking || <ref>Reiji Yoshida and Jun Hongo, "Nanjing Massacre certitude: Toll will elude," The Japan Times, December 13, 2007.</ref> ||
| Government of China || 300,000 || || || || only the city of Nanking || <ref>Reiji Yoshida and Jun Hongo, "Nanjing Massacre certitude: Toll will elude," The Japan Times, December 13, 2007.</ref> ||

Revision as of 23:09, 15 February 2014

This article is part of the series on the
Nanjing Massacre
Japanese war crimes
Historiography of the Nanjing Massacre
Films
Books

The total death toll of the Nanking Massacre is a highly contentious field of Sino-Japanese history.[1] Since the late-1960s when the first academic works on the Nanking Massacre were produced it has been a major and still unresolved subject of scholarly debate.[2]

A wide range of numbers have been proposed by historians but, in addition to differing interpretations of the evidence, there have been persistent difficulties in defining the scope of the massacre and determining who among the dead to include as "massacre victims". Scholars who believe that the massacre took place over a larger geographic range and a longer period of time, and who define "massacre victim" more broadly, have generally produced larger estimates for the death toll.

Currently, the most reliable and widely agreed upon figures place the total between the broad range of 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District,[3][4] though numbers even smaller or larger than this have been put forward by Japanese ultranationalists and the government of China respectively. Emotional arguments and political interference in the debate have tended to hinder the construction of an academic consensus.[5]

Early estimates

The Nanking Massacre was reported internationally within a week of occurring[6] and the first rough estimate of the full death toll was published on January 24, 1938 in the New China Daily.[7] In this article the Australian journalist Harold Timperley was quoted as stating that 300,000 civilians had been killed. However, Timperley's source for this number was Father Jacquinot who was in Shanghai at the time of the massacre.[3] The second estimate of the death toll was made in a book Timperley published later the same year, Japanese Terror In China, which quoted "a foreign member of the University faculty" as stating that "close to 40,000 unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanking".[8] The source of this information was Miner Searle Bates, an American resident in Nanking who had used the burial records of the Red Swastika Society in his calculations.[9]

Tomio Hora was the first historian to study the Nanking Massacre.

Between then and the late 1940's these two estimates were commonly cited by reporters and the media. For instance, Edgar Snow stated in his 1941 book, The Battle for Asia, that 42,000 were massacred in Nanking and 300,000 in total between Nanking and Shanghai, figures which were apparently based on these estimates.[10][11] The 1944 film, The Battle of China stated that 40,000 were killed in the Nanking Massacre.[12]

These two estimates were in turn supplanted by the findings of two postwar war crime trials, the International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put the death toll at more than 300,000, though the Tribunal also recorded other estimates including one of 430,000.[13] The International Military Tribunal of the Far East tallied up to 200,000 victims of the massacre, though in their verdict against General Iwane Matsui this figure was modified somewhat to "upwards of 100,000 people".[14][12]

The first historian to make an academic estimate of the death toll of the Nanking Massacre was Tomio Hora in his 1967 book Kindai Senshi no Nazo ("Riddles of Modern War History"), who argued in favor of 200,000.[15] Since then the death toll of the massacre has been a major topic of discussion among historians across the world.

Debate on the scope of the massacre

In reference to the greatly divergent ways in which various scholars have delineated the massacre, David Askew, a historian at Ritsumeikan University, has affirmed that the debate on the death toll "is meaningless if two completely different definitions are being used".[16] Noting that different definitions produce vastly different estimates, he believes that even the significant disagreements between the historians Tokushi Kasahara, who believes up to 200,000 were massacred, and Ikuhiko Hata, who sets the number at only 40,000, would disappear if they had been using the same definitions.[16]

Chinese soldiers and POWs as massacre victims

The first academic accounts of the Nanking Massacre included as massacre victims all Chinese who were killed by the Japanese Army in and around Nanking, including Chinese soldiers who were killed in action. This definition was supported by Tomio Hora and other early scholars.[17] In 1986 Ikuhiko Hata became the first historian to call this definition into question. Hata argued that Chinese troops killed on the battlefield were part of the Battle of Nanking rather than Nanking Massacre, and that only civilians and disarmed POWs should be counted as massacre victims.[17]

Since then Tokushi Kasahara has proposed a definition between these two. He agrees with Hata that Chinese soldiers actively engaged in combat were not massacre victims, but he also includes in his definition of the massacre any Chinese soldiers who were killed on the battlefield but not actively resisting, noting that many confrontations between the Chinese and Japanese Armies were more like one-sided slaughters than battles.[2] For instance, after routing the Chinese in Nanking, Japanese soldiers fired upon and killed a large number of Chinese soldiers who were attempting to escape the battlefield by swimming across the Yangtze River. Many historians including Kasahara view incidents like these where the Japanese fired upon retreating troops to be atrocities, whereas Hata sees them as extensions of combat and not massacres.[18]

By contrast Yoshiaki Itakura, a independent writer who became one of the leading researchers of the Nanking Incident,[16][19] adopted an even more strict standard than Hata, advocating that only Chinese soldiers captured in uniform and then killed be included as massacre victims.[2] He argued that Chinese soldiers who had thrown away their uniforms were legally executed because the laws of war at the time did not apply to them, though this line of reasoning is hotly disputed by more mainstream historians.[20]

Most Japanese ultranationalists who deny the Nanking Massacre admit that the Japanese Army killed a large number of Chinese POWs, though they consider these to be legal executions,[21][22] an argument universally denounced by mainstream historians.[23][24]

Geographic range and duration

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East stated that the massacre took place in the parts of Nanking captured on December 13, 1937 and after and lasted until early February 1938.[25] Though many still support the IMTFE's geographic scope for the massacre, in 1984 the journalist Katsuichi Honda became the first individual to voice disapproval of this definition.[26] Honda argued that the Japanese Army's atrocities had not suddenly started when the Japanese reached the city of Nanking proper on December 13, but rather were part of a continuous process which started soon after the Japanese Army left Shanghai early in November. Honda believes all those atrocities that were committed on "the road to Nanking" were part of the massacre.[16]

Then in 1997 Tokushi Kasahara formulated a definition between the two. He reasoned that the Nanking Massacre should include the entire area of what was then known as the "Nanking Special Administrative District". This district encompassed not only the city of Nanking proper, occupied by the Japanese from December 13, but also the six rural counties surrounding it, namely Jiangning, Lishui, Jurong, Jiangpu, Luhe, and Gaochun.[27] This definition, though considerably larger than the IMTFE's, keeps the massacre contained to "Nanking" without including cities on the outskirts of Shanghai like Suzhou and Wuxi which Honda does include.[28]

However, the expansion of the definition of the Nanking Massacre to include areas outside of Nanking has not been without controversy. The argument in favor of this made by Katsuichi Honda in 1984 was seen by some scholars involved in the debate on the massacre as a "partial admission of defeat" by Honda. In their view Honda, who had previously put forward the idea that more than 100,000 people were murdered in the city of Nanking alone, was failing to prove his argument and therefore sought to extend the boundaries of the massacre until a larger figure for the death toll could be achieved.[26][2] French historian Jean-Louis Margolin, for instance, has strongly criticized Honda's argument, noting that "As, in our present knowledge, it is impossible to get convincing figures for such large areas, such methods may be considered as attempts to blur hopelessly the debate."[29]

Apart from geographical scope, some historians including Tokushi Kasahara deny that the massacre ended in early February and instead put the end date at March 28,[30] though such a long time range is disputed by most historians.[31]

Denial and minimization of the massacre in Japan

Main article: Nanking Massacre denial

In Japan some ultranationalist thinkers deny the existence of the massacre altogether, a stance not accepted by mainstream historians. Within Japan this is often referred to as the "illusion" school of Nanking Massacre studies, and is contrasted with the "great massacre" school which believes hundreds of thousands were killed and the "middle-of-the-road" or "centrist" school which puts the number in the tens of thousands.[16]

However, when Shokun! magazine surveyed members of each "school" for their opinions on the massacre, many of the so-called "centrists" advocated extremely low figures for the total number of victims, including Dokkyo University professor Akira Nakamura, journalist Yoshiko Sakurai, and researcher Toshio Tanabe, who each counted about 10,000 massacred, and military historian Takeshi Hara who selected 20,000.[32] In reviewing this survey, David Askew concluded that all of its "centrists" were effectively deniers of the atrocity except for Hara.[16] By contrast Bob Wakabayashi, a historian at York University, sets the bar higher and believes that the estimate of 40,000 victims put forward by Ikuhiko Hata is the lowest reasonable estimate of the total death toll and considers numbers below this to be attempts at minimizing the atrocity.[3]

Stance of the Chinese government

The figure of 300,000 victims is written in stone at Nanking Massacre Memorial Hall.

The official stance of the People's Republic of China is that 300,000 Chinese were massacred in Nanking, though mainstream historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated.[1][3] This figure is based off the verdict of the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal which added the burial records of 150,000 bodies with 190,000 allegedly destroyed corpses to arrive at a total of 300,000, though there was an apparent adding mistake in this calculation.[33] Furthermore, this estimate includes an accusation that the Japanese Army murdered 57,418 Chinese POWs at Mufushan, though the latest research indicates that between 4,000 and 20,000 were massacred,[34][35] and it also includes the 112,266 corpses allegedly buried by the Chongshantang, a charitable association, though today mainstream historians agree that the Chongshantang's records were at least greatly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated.[36][37][38] Bob Wakabayashi concludes from this that estimates over 200,000 are not credible.[3] Ikuhiko Hata considers the number of 300,000 to be a "symbolic figure" representative of China's wartime suffering and not a figure to be taken literally.[39]

Nevertheless, the Chinese government has maintained a hard line on its estimate of 300,000 victims.[16][40] Within China scholars focus on defending the official figures and in the past the government has imposed censorship on historians who have suggested alternative numbers.[41] In 2006 Kaz Ross anonymously interviewed a number of university researchers in the city of Nanking to learn their private views on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre. He found that Chinese historians favor estimates between 40,000 and 150,000 and that they "speculated that reducing the official Chinese estimate of victims would pave the way for greater reconciliation between Japan and China". However, they feared that speaking out openly "would be detrimental to their careers."[42]

Death toll estimates

Individual or group Estimate of total massacred Civilians massacred Soldiers massacred Notes on the killing of Chinese soldiers Area and duration under consideration References
Government of China 300,000 only the city of Nanking [43]
International Military Tribunal for the Far East up to 200,000 120,000 50,000 the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [25][12][44]
Tomio Hora 200,000 80,000-100,000 100,000-120,000 includes all Chinese killed including those killed in action the city of Nanking, its immediate outskirts, and all six surrounding counties between early December 1937 and late January 1938 [45][15]
Akira Fujiwara 200,000 includes all Chinese killed including those killed in action the city of Nanking, its immediate outskirts, and all six surrounding counties between early December 1937 and late January 1938 [46]
Tokushi Kasahara 160,000-170,000 80,000-90,000 80,000 includes all disarmed POWs; includes soldiers killed on the battlefield but not immediately capable of fighting back the city of Nanking, its immediate outskirts, and all six surrounding counties between December 4, 1937 and March 28, 1938 [2][30][47]
Yutaka Yoshida 100,000+ includes all disarmed POWs; includes soldiers killed on the battlefield but not immediately capable of fighting back the city of Nanking, its immediate outskirts, and all six surrounding counties between December 1, 1937 and March 1938 [18][48]
Katsuichi Honda 100,000+ the entire area from Shanghai to Nanking between November 1937 to late January 1938 [49]
Keiichi Eguchi 100,000+ includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the entire area from Shanghai to Nanking between November 1937 to late January 1938 [50]
Jean-Louis Margolin 50,000-90,000 30,000 30,000-60,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [29]
Masahiro Yamamoto 15,000-50,000 5,000-20,000 10,000-30,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [18][51]
Edgar Snow 42,000+ includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [52]
Lloyd Eastman 42,000+ includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [53]
Ikuhiko Hata 40,000 10,000 30,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [2][25][12]
Lewis Smythe 40,000 12,000 28,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [54]
Miner Searle Bates 40,000 12,000 28,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and late January 1938 [12][55]
Frank Capra 40,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [56]
Kaikosha 32,000 16,000 16,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [12][57]
Takeshi Hara 20,000-30,000 several thousand about 20,000 includes all disarmed POWs; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and late January 1938 [58]
Yoshiaki Itakura 13,000-19,000 5,000-8,000 8,000-11,000 does not include approximately 4,000 Chinese soldiers captured out of uniform and executed; does not include any soldiers killed on the battlefield the city of Nanking and its immediate outskirts between December 13, 1937 and early February 1938 [2][12][59]

Concerns about victim counts

The debate on the death toll has gone on for many decades to the point where some historians have begun to question its usefulness on the grounds that excessive quibbling over the precise death toll has distracted from the study of other more important facets of the massacre.[1][60] Daqing Yang, a historian at George Washington University, believes that "an obsession with figures reduces an atrocity to abstraction and serves to circumvent a critical examination of the causes of and responsibilities for these appalling atrocities"[61] and Carol Gluck concurs that "The crucial historical question remains the moral one: how could ordinary Japanese have done what they did? Numerological arguments about the death count and distinctions of comparative atrocities do not address this point."[62] However, military historian Masahiro Yamamoto printed a rebuttal of Gluck's statement in his book Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity, arguing that "To determine the extent and nature of [Japan's] responsibility, the 'numerological arguments about the death count and distinctions of comparative atrocities,' which [Gluck] termed as irrelevant to the moral question, are essential. Only after firmly establishing 'historical particularities' can one clearly define Japan’s responsibility. And based on a clear definition of the responsibility there can be an answer to the 'moral' question."[62]

References

  1. ^ a b c Tokushi Kasahara, "数字いじりの不毛な論争は虐殺の実態解明を遠ざける," in 南京大虐殺否定論１３のウソ, ed. Research Committee on the Nanking Incident (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo, 1999), 74-96.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Daqing Yang, "A Sino-Japanese Controversy: The Nanjing Atrocity As History," Sino-Japanese Studies, November 1990, 18, 22-24. Cite error: The named reference "dang" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "Leftover Problems," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 382-384.
  4. ^ James Leibold, "Picking at the Wound: Nanjing, 1937-38," Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, November 2008.
  5. ^ Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 182.
  6. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 81.
  7. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 167-168.
  8. ^ HJ Timperley, Japanese Terror in China (New York: Modern Age Books, 1938), 46, 51.
  9. ^ David Askew, "Part of the Numbers Issue: Demography and Civilian Victims," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 98.
  10. ^ Edgar Snow, The Battle for Asia (New York: Random House, 1941), 57.
  11. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 177-178.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable
  13. ^ Daqing Yang, "A Sino-Japanese Controversy: The Nanjing Atrocity As History," Sino-Japanese Studies, November 1990, 16.
  14. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 223.
  15. ^ a b Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 60.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g David Askew, "The Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends," Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, April 2002.
  17. ^ a b Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 98-100.
  18. ^ a b c Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 115, 147-148, 157.
  19. ^ Minoru Kitamura, The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2007), 6.
  20. ^ The Nanking Atrocities in the 1990s: The Controversy in Japan
  21. ^ Shudo Higashinakano, The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction (Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, 2005), 142, 164-165.
  22. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 173, 175, 180.
  23. ^ Yutaka Yoshida, "国際法の解釈で事件を正当化できるか," in 南京大虐殺否定論１３のウソ, ed. Research Committee on the Nanking Incident (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo, 1999), 160-176.
  24. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 184.
  25. ^ a b c The Nanking Atrocities in the 1990s: The Death Toll - Current Estimates
  26. ^ a b Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 246-247.
  27. ^ Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 138.
  28. ^ Katsuichi Honda, The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame (Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe, 1999), 37-80.
  29. ^ a b Jean-Louis Margolin, "Japanese Crimes in Nanjing, 1937-38: A Reappraisal," China Perspectives, January–February 2006.
  30. ^ a b 永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 197.
  31. ^ Akira Fujiwara, "The Nanking Atrocity: An Interpretive Overview," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 34.
  32. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 183-192.
  33. ^ Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 65.
  34. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 193.
  35. ^ Ono Kenji, "Massacre Near Mufushan," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 85.
  36. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 112.
  37. ^ Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "Leftover Problems," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 382-384.
  38. ^ David Askew, "The Scale of Japanese Atrocities in Nanjing: An Examination of the Burial Records," Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, June 2004, 7-10.
  39. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 252.
  40. ^ Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the "Rape of Nanking" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 160-161, 164.
  41. ^ Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 25.
  42. ^ Kaz Ross, "Remembering Nanjing: Patriotism and/or peace in architecture", Asia Reconstructed: Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, June 2006.
  43. ^ Reiji Yoshida and Jun Hongo, "Nanjing Massacre certitude: Toll will elude," The Japan Times, December 13, 2007.
  44. ^ Ikuhiko Hata, 南京事件:「虐殺」の構造 (Tokyo: Chuo Koron Shinsha, 2007), 258.
  45. ^ Masaaki Tanaka, What Really Happened In Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth (Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, 2000), 64.
  46. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 192-193.
  47. ^ Tokushi Kasahara, "Massacres Outside Nanking City," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 59.
  48. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 202.
  49. ^ Katsuichi Honda, The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame (Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe, 1999), xiii.
  50. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 194.
  51. ^ Barry Schwartz, "Rethinking Conflict and Collective Memory: The Case of Nanking," in the Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 546-547.
  52. ^ http://www.nankingatrocities.net/1990s/nineties_01.htm
  53. ^ Twitchett, Denis Crispin, and John King Fairbank. The Cambridge history of China. Cambridge [Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 19782009. Print.
  54. ^ "Nanking Atrocities - In the 1990s." Nanking Atrocities - In the 1990s. Online Documentary: The Nanking Atrocities, Aug. 2000. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
  55. ^ "Nanking Atrocities - In the 1990s." Nanking Atrocities - In the 1990s. Online Documentary: The Nanking Atrocities, Aug. 2000. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
  56. ^ The Battle of China. Dir. Frank Capra. U.S. War Dept., 1944. Film.
  57. ^ Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 239-242.
  58. ^ "永久保存版 - 三派合同 大アンケート," Shokun!, February 2001, 183-184.
  59. ^ Yoshiaki Itakura, 本当はこうだった南京事件 (Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Kankokai, 1999), 11.
  60. ^ Takashi Yoshida, "Refighting the Nanking Massacre: The Continuing Struggle over Memory," in Nanking 1937: Memory and Healing, eds. Robert Sabella, et al. (Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe, 2002), 170.
  61. ^ Daqing Yang, "Convergence or Divergence?: Recent Historical Writings on the Rape of Nanjing," American Historical Review, June 1999, 853.
  62. ^ a b Masahiro Yamamoto, Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), 271-272.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_toll_of_the_Nanjing_Massacre&oldid=595651393"