南京大屠杀The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World WarII
作者從三個方面解讀了“南京大屠殺”的真相。一是聽取了當年親歷事件的日本人的證言；二是記錄作為大屠殺受害者和幸存者的中國人的回憶；三是挖掘出當時置身“國際安全區”的外國人的記錄。張純如首次發現的《拉貝日記》，已成為記述“南京大屠殺”的著名歷史檔案。
純如走了，但她發現的《拉貝日記》、《魏特琳日記》，與《南京暴行》一道，成為嚮世界人民昭示侵華日軍南京暴行的鐵證。
張純如在１９９７年以英文寫成《南京大屠殺》，２００５年譯成中文版出版，１０年後其日文版終於出版，這是一個“對純如在天之靈的安慰”。
純如最喜歡的座右銘是美國哲學家喬治·桑塔亞納的名言：忘記歷史的人將重蹈歷史覆轍。“衹有吸取歷史教訓，才能有未來的和平，”
以下是部分書摘：
導言
位歷史學家估算，如果南京城死難者手拉手連在一起，其長度可以從南京延伸到杭州城，橫跨的距離為兩百公裏。他們流出的鮮血重量達到1200噸，他們的試題可以裝滿2500節鐵路車廂，把他們的屍體一個個堆砌在一起，可以和74層大樓相比高。
--吳志鏗的估計。（聖何塞《麥哥裏新聞》1988年1月號）
敲響的宣佈死亡鐘聲——僅僅是中國的一個城市所敲響的，便超過了一些歐洲國傢在整個戰爭時期所敲響的數字。（大不列顛失去了總共61000位公民，法國失去108000人，比利時市區101000人，荷蘭也失去了242000人。）有的人仔細琢磨，飛機轟炸應該是做這種集體消滅事情上，最為可怕的工具；然而，即使是戰爭中最猛烈的空中襲擊，也沒有超過大屠殺給南京帶來的災難，在南京死亡的人數似乎比英國對德纍斯頓轟炸以及隨後到來的火海中喪生的人數更多。（當時國際上認可的數字是225000，但如今更為客觀的統計數字認為，德纍斯頓案例死亡60000人，傷殘至少也有30000人。）確實，在南京死難的人⑥，無論我們采用最保守的數字260000人，還是最高的數字350000人，當想到南京的死難人數大大超過美軍轟炸東京的死難者（估計為80000到120000人）、甚至超過超過1945年中在廣島和長崎兩次敲響喪鐘加起來的數量（估計分別為140，000與70，000人）
關於廣島及長崎原子彈爆炸的死亡人數，參見理查德羅德著《原子彈的製造》，第734、740頁，羅德宣稱，在1945年的原子彈爆炸中，大約有14萬人死於廣島，7萬人死於長崎。不僅如此，因為原子彈爆炸造成的疾病使死亡在繼續，在五年後，廣島總共有20萬人死亡，長崎有14萬人死亡。值得註意的是，即使是在五年後兩個城市的死亡人數之和，也少於對南京暴行中死難人數的最高估計。
一種答案都會引發一個新的問題，而且我現在也弄不明白，為什麽這一罪行的受害人不曾呼喊着要求爭議。也許他們確實呼喊過，那為什麽他們的痛苦不曾被認可？事情很快便讓我弄清楚了，沉默簾子的幕後操縱者是政治。中華人民共和國、“中華民國”甚至美國，都因為某些深深植入二戰的原因，要對這一事件的被歷史性忽略負責。在1949年中國的共産主義革命成功後，中華人民共和國沒有，“中華民國”也沒有，嚮日本要求戰爭賠償（如同以色列要求德國那樣），因為這兩傢政府競相要求和日本貿易，並取得對方政治上的承認。而至於美國，面對蘇聯與中國大陸的共産主義威脅，為尋求其過去的敵人日本的友誼和忠誠，也不曾提起此事。於是乎，冷戰的緊張態勢，許可日本逃脫了許多猛烈的鑒定性檢查，而日本戰時的盟國們卻被迫經受過。
除此之外，日本國內的高度壓抑氣氛，也不許可公開和學術性地，討論南京大屠殺，進而獲取對事件的認知。在日本，表述對中日戰爭的真實見解，會受到——也將繼續受到——丟掉飯碗、甚至丟掉性命的威脅（1990年，日本的一名槍手，開槍打中了長崎市市長的胸部，衹因為他說日本天皇裕仁應對第二次世界大戰負一定的責任）。這種普遍覺察到的恐懼感，使得許多嚴謹的學者都不敢訪問日本，去查閱檔案，實施他們對此題目的研究；我在南京聽說，中華人民共和國很少允許他們的學者去日本旅行，因為唯恐危害到學者們的人身安全。在這種環境下，日本島國之外的人們，想要獲得南京大屠殺原始檔案資料，那是非常睏難的。另外，許多參加過南京大屠殺的退伍老兵，也不願意就他們的這份經歷接受采訪；雖然近年來也有少數人不怕受排斥，不怕死亡威脅，將他們的故事公諸於世。
第一章 走嚮大屠殺之路
世紀20年代，日本軍隊中年輕的激進分子就不斷地論證軍事擴張關係到國傢的生死存亡問題。陸軍中校橋本欣五郎在他那本《緻青年人》的書中寫道：
要想從人口過剩的壓力下解脫出來，擺在日本面前的衹有三條路……移民，打人國際市場，和領土擴張。第一扇門，即移民，已由於其它國傢的反日移民政策而對我們關閉，第二扇門……由於關稅壁壘和廢除通商條約而正在關閉。當三扇門中的兩扇門拒絶讓日本通行時，日本應該怎麽辦？
第二章 六個星期滔天罪惡
東史郎實在不能理解中國人為什麽不與敵人戰鬥到死。當他發現俘虜的人數超過捕捉者的人數的時候，他對中國人的鄙視加深了。
第三章 南京的陷落
四天失守之謎
一。空軍被蔣帶走了。
二。先進的通訊設備也被帶走了。
三。軍隊不是來自同一地區，相互間語言溝通有睏難。
四。這些士兵大多從未握過槍桿子。
五。中國士兵沒有團结一致協同作戰的觀念。指揮官之間的表現不比士兵好一些，他們相互都不信任。
第四章 六周暴行紀實
在日軍穿過南京城門的時候，那些但凡有點錢、有點權或有點先見之明的人早已不知逃到什麽地方去了。大約原來人口的一半離開了這裏：戰前南京本地居民超過100萬，但12月減到大約50萬。然而，這個城市卻充斥着成千上萬的鄉下人，他們離開鄉下到城裏來，是因為他們相信在城墻的保護下是安全的。那些在軍隊撤退後還留在城裏的人實際上是最無能力保護他們自己的人：孩子，老人，以及那些太窮或身體太弱而無法安全逃出城去的人。
即使懷疑論者把太田的交待當作一紙謊言而不予理睬，人們也必須記住，就算沒有他的估計，南京關於掩埋屍體的記錄也提供了令人信服的證據——在大屠殺中死亡的總數至少在20萬人。我在遠東國際軍事法庭的記錄中發現的法庭證據材料（見下表）證實了孫的研究。把慈善機構估計的掩埋屍體的數字（後來孫的論文中提到）和由其他個人提供的數字（孫的論文沒有提到）加在一起，法庭判斷約26萬人在南京大屠殺中被殺害。記住這一點是重要的，即遠東國際軍事法庭的數字並沒有包括日本人掩埋的中國死亡者的數字，如果加上這個數字，那麽死亡人數將達30萬或40萬之多。
南京日本大屠殺受難者人教估計
崇善堂................................................ 112，266
紅十字會.............................................. 43，071
下關區.................................................26, 100
魯甦先生的陳述.........................................57，400
於、張、楊先生的陳述...................................7，000或更多
吳先生的陳述...........................................2，000或更多
根據無名遇害者墓的記載................................ 3，000或更多
共計（約計）...........................................260，000
資料來源：遠東國際軍事法庭記錄。法庭證據文件，第1702號文件，第134盒，1948年，第二次世界大戰犯罪檔案集，第14項，第238組檔案，美國國傢檔案館。
近年來其他學者支持孫宅巍的研究，並相信在南京大屠殺中的死亡總數可能超過30萬人的理由。例如，南伊利諾伊大學名譽歷史教授吳天成在他的論文“讓全世界都瞭解南京大屠殺”中，估計南京陷落前的城市人口大約是63萬，他承認這個數字遠不是精確的，但可能相當接近實際數字。他準備了詳細的有關南京人口編年史數字的研究資料，並對這些數字進行了仔細考察，然後他斷定，在這場大屠殺中的死亡總數超過30萬人——或者是34萬人，其中19萬人被集體屠殺，其餘15萬人分別遇害。
如果蔣介石不下達那個無意義的在緊要關頭撤離南京的命令，而是堅持抗戰到最後一個人去保衛這座城市，那麽南京城的命運將會有所不同。對這種說法我們也必須再次小心慎重。正面的對抗肯定是不行的。日本人有更好的裝備，受過更好的訓練，他們早晚會打敗中國的部隊。但是一場長期持久的運用遊擊戰術的鬥爭將挫敗日軍的士氣，並激昂中國軍隊的鬥志。即使沒有別的作用，這種戰略戰術也將使更多的日軍在與中國人的戰鬥中被消滅，而且衹有勇猛的抵抗才能打掉他們對中國士兵的狂妄驕橫之氣。
第五章 南京安全區
在此期間，美國人和歐洲人的英勇行動是如此之多（他們的日記長達數千頁），以至於在這裏無法叔述他們的所有事跡。基於這個原因，在記述整個安全區委員會的功績之前，我决定先專門談談3個人的活動——一名德國商人，一名美國外科醫生及一名美國傳教士。從表面上看來，他們實在是三種截然不同的人。
也許在南京暴行這段歷史中脫穎而出而又最富吸引力的人物就是德國商人約翰·拉貝，對南京的大多數中國人來說，他是一名英雄，“南京的活菩薩”，一位南京國際安全區的傳奇首領，他保全了成千上萬個中國人的性命。但是對日本人而言，拉貝是一個奇怪的和討厭的拯救者。因為他不但是一名德國公民——一名與日本結盟國傢的公民——而且是納粹黨在南京的負責人。
從1996年開始，我對約翰·拉貝的生平進行了一番調查，並最終發現了拉貝和其他納粹黨人在暴行期間保存下來的數千頁日記。這些日記使我得出這樣一個結論，約翰·拉貝是“中國的奧斯卡·辛德勒”。
南京城唯一的外科醫生
南京城的外科醫生都撤離了南京，衹有羅伯特·威爾遜先生留了下來，這並不奇怪，他出生在這裏，井在這裏度過童年時代，南京在他心目中占據着特殊的位置
隨着局勢的惡化，醫院裏的工作人員減少了。中國醫生和護士們加入了成千上萬南京居民嚮西遷移的行列，逃離南京，威爾遜竭力勸阻他的同事們要留下來，並堅持認為，南京陷落以後在戒嚴法的保護之下，他們沒有什麽可害怕的危險。然而最終他未能說服他們。到12月的第一個周末，金陵大學醫院裏僅剩下3名醫生：羅伯特·威爾赴，C· S·持裏默和一名中國醫生。城中的另一位美國外科醫生理查德·布雷迪也因他的小女兒在牯嶺病重而離開南京，這樣威爾遜就成為唯一的一位每小時都要做一例截肢手術的外科醫生。“這簡直太令人難以置信了，”他在12月7日的日記中寫道，“我是這座被戰爭破壞的大城市中唯一的外科醫生。”
威康明娜·沃特林（大多數人叫她明妮·沃特林）在日軍占領之前是金陵女子文理學院教育係主任及院長，南京大屠殺開始後的幾周裏，留在城中的西方婦女屈指可數，沃特林便是其中之一。許多年後人們都會記得她，不僅因為她為保護數千名婦女兒童免遭日軍欺辱時所表現出來的巨大勇氣，而且因為她所保留下來的日記尤為珍貴。一些歷史學家認為這些日記最終會像安妮·弗蘭剋的日記一樣為世人承認，其重要性在於它闡釋了在戰爭大劫難期間一名見證者的精神。
南京的暴行使沃特林身體非常疲乏，但她每天都要經受的精神折磨遠比其休力上的消耗更為糟糕。“唉，上帝，請扼製今晚南京城日本兵的殘酷獸行……”她在日記中寫道“如果日本婦女知道了這些可怕故事的真相，她們將會多麽地羞恥和慚愧。”
在如此之大的壓力下，沃特林仍然打起精神去安慰別人，並爭取重新喚起他們的愛國主義情感。這是多麽的不尋常啊。當一個老太太到金陵學院的紅十字會食堂要一碗米粥時，得知粥已經沒有，沃特林立刻把自己正在喝的粥給了她並對她說：“你們不要擔心，日本會失敗的。中國將不會滅亡。”另一次，當她看見一個男孩戴着一個標有日本象徵的圖案——正在升起的太陽的袖章以保證安全時，沃特林指責他說：“你不需要戴這個有太陽圖案的袖章。你是一個中國人，而且你的國傢還沒亡。你應該記住戴這個袖章的日子，你永遠也不應該忘記。”沃特林一而再地鼓勵校園內的中國難民千萬不要對未來失去信心。“中國還沒有滅亡，”她告訴他們，“中國將永遠不會滅亡。而日本註定最終將失敗。”
——安全區最終安置了20萬到30萬名難民——幾乎占了留在城裏的人口的一半。
根據後來南京大屠殺的研究，可看出這是一個令人發指的統計數字。有一半的原南京居民在屠殺前離開了南京。而大約一半留下的人（南京陷落時，60萬到70萬中國難民、當地居民和士兵中的35萬人）被殺。
“如果說在大屠殺最猖狂時有一半南京人口逃入了安全區，那麽另一半人——幾乎是每一個未能進入安全區的人——大概都慘死在日本人手裏了。”
第六章 世界知道些什麽
據觀察傢估計，日本人損壞的公共財産按1939年的美元計算，總共約8．36億美元，而私人財産損失至少1·36億美元。這些數字還不包括被日本軍隊拿走的無可替代的文物的價值。
第七章 日軍占領下的南京
幾年之內南京便從廢墟中站了起來。1938年春天，人們開始冒險回到這個城市。有些人回來查看損失情況，有些人回來找工作，因為他們的錢已經花完，還有一些人看看情況是否足夠安全，能把他們全家迂回。南京重建開始時，對勞動力的需求增長，很快地便把更多的人吸引回來，不久之後他們的妻子和孩子就參加到嚮南京遷移的人流中。在一年半的時間裏人口翻了一番，從1938年3月的25萬一30萬人增至1939年12月的57．6萬人以上。雖然尚未達到這個城市在1936年的100萬人口的水平。到了1942年人口達到了最高點約70萬，並在戰爭持續期間穩定在這一水平上。
在日本人統治下的生活遠談不上愉快。但很多人逐漸相信徵服者將留下來，一種屈服的情緒在這座城市蔓延開來。偶爾有一些地下的反抗--間或有人跑進坐滿日本軍官的戲院，扔一顆炸彈。但一般來說，這類造反是零星的和罕有的，大多數反抗日本人的敵意的表示是非暴力的，例如反對日本人的招貼、傳單和在墻上的塗畫。
第八章 審判日來臨
更添混亂的是學者之間關於徵服世界的日本的帝國陰謀是否曾經存在的爭論。人們相信，在1927年遠東會議期間，首相田中義一曾嚮天皇呈交了一份秘密報告，報告稱為“田中備忘錄”
(即《田中奏摺》。--譯註)，據說概括了當時日本的野心。報告斷言：“如欲徵服世界，必先徵服支那。”“惟欲徵服支那，必先徵服滿、蒙，……倘支那完全可被我國徵服，其他如小中亞細亞及印度、南洋等異服之民族，必畏我敬我而降於我。使世界知東亞為我國之東亞，永不敢嚮我侵犯，此乃明治大帝之遺策，是亦我日本帝國之存立上必要之事業也。”
如今，學者們普遍認為這份報告是偽造的，可能是從俄國人那裏傳出來的。但是，1929年9月這份備忘錄第一次在北京出現的時候，它使很多人相信，日本侵略中國是其徵服全球的、計劃周全的陰謀的一部分。田中備忘錄的英文本後來在上海的報紙上以英文刊出，而且甚至激發了一部典型的好萊塢影片《太陽血》。在影片中，詹姆斯·卡格尼為了拯救世界企圖偷取日本的總計劃。如今，田中備忘錄仍大大地左右着世界的想象力：許多中國歷史學家認為田中備忘錄是可信的，而中國的百科全書、辭典，以及英文報紙和電訊社文章繼續把備忘錄作史實引用。
當前，沒有一個有聲望的日本歷史學家相信日本有一個徵服世界的預謀。對20世紀20年代和30年代日本國傢行政機構的混亂狀況進行的調查表明，這樣一個密謀是不可能的：日本的陸軍憎恨海軍；在東京的最高司令部不知道在滿洲的關東軍在幹什麽，等到知道已為時太晚；外交部和武裝部隊之間的關係是冷淡到守口如瓶。
然而，許多歷史學家認為裕仁一定知道南京暴行的事。(赫伯特·比剋斯個人認為，"裕仁可能不知道"是"難以置信”的。)首先，它是世界報社的頭版新聞。其次，他自己的弟弟該會告訴他駭人聽聞的細節。1943年，裕仁天皇最小的弟弟三笠宮崇仁親王曾在日本皇軍侵華遠征軍的南京司令部當過一年參謀，他在那裏聽一個年輕軍官說過用中國俘虜作刺刀練習的活靶以訓練新兵。這名軍官告訴親王，"這樣能幫他們提高膽量"。驚駭萬分的三笠宮把這種練習描述為“真是一個恐怖的場面，衹能叫作大屠殺”。“出於要結束戰爭的強烈願望”，親王發給年輕的參謀們一份調查表，徵詢他們對戰爭的意見；準備一次演講，譴責日本侵略中國，並寫了一份報告：《一個日本人對中日戰爭的反省》。這篇文章被認是有爭議的和危險的，但因為三笠宮有皇族血統，他沒有因為寫了它而受到懲罰。後來，日本軍方沒收並銷毀了多數的文本，但有一份幸存下來，最後在國傢議會檔案館收藏的縮微膠片中發現。
第九章 幸存者的命運
在研究南京大屠殺的學者中，不衹一人認為，在遠東軍事法庭的審判之後，正義沒有得到伸張。當許多曾經蹂躪南京人民的日本人從日本政府領取全部養老金和其他津貼的時候，成千上萬的受難者卻默默地忍受貧窮、恥辱，或是漫長的身心痛苦。
這種正義的顛倒是伴隨着冷戰開始的。美國起初打算在日本推行民主，清除日本捲入戰爭的領導人的統治。但是戰後的蘇聯違背了其在雅爾塔會議上的承諾，占領了波蘭和德國的部分領土。當東歐共産主義的“鐵幕”降臨之時，毛澤東領導的共産黨軍隊擊敗了蔣介石，並迫使其政府撤退到臺灣島。1950年，朝鮮戰爭爆發，在這場戰爭中，有100萬朝鮮人、25萬中國人和3．4萬名美國人死去。由於中國、蘇聯和北朝鮮成為美國新的戰後敵人，美國突然把日本當作一個具有戰略重要性的國傢。基於此，華盛頓决定保持一個穩定的日本政府，以挑戰亞洲的共産主義力量。美國幾乎完全保留了日本戰前的官僚體係，並允許許多戰犯逍遙法外。就這樣，當納粹制度被推翻，大量的納粹戰犯被捕獲並帶上法庭的時候，許多日本戰時高級官員卻重新大權在握，如日中天。在1957年，日本的一位曾被囚禁的甲級戰犯竟然被選作首相(指1957年被任為首相的岸信介。--編註)。
與此同時，幾乎所有的南京大屠殺幸存者卻從公衆的視野中消失了。在冷戰期間，與中國其他地方一樣，南京處於一種與國際社會相隔離的狀態。在幾十年裏，中國政府不僅斷絶了同西方的來往，還驅逐了很多留在南京的外國人，甚至包括那些曾作為南京安全區負責人員拯救了很多中國人生命的外國人。
國際人權律師卡倫·帕剋認為，雖然中國多次發表對日本人寬宏友善的聲明，但從未與日本簽訂放棄對日本戰爭罪行索取國傢賠償的協定。另外，帕剋還指出，即使簽訂一個這樣的協定，但根據不容否定法的原則，該協定也不能侵犯作為個人的中國人索取戰爭賠償的權利。
但是，我在南京遇見的幸存者大多不知道國際法的這些錯綜復雜之處，而是認為已經剝奪了他們索賠的權利。一個男人在南京暴行中幾乎被活活燒死，他告訴我，當他聽到中國原諒日本罪行的謠言時，禁不住痛哭失聲。
同樣值得深思的是許多曾經組織南京安全區的外國人的命運。儘管他們竭盡全力幫助南京的中國人，但他們從未從生活和後人那裏得到他們所應得的。還沒有一本描寫這些被遺忘的二戰英雄的著名圖書，當然也沒有一部像《辛德勒的名單》那樣強烈地吸引起全世界人民註意的影片。他們的精神主要藏在從柏林到美國森尼韋爾的檔案和閣樓中--由於他們曾像活菩薩一樣拯救過南京，他們的精神也為中國的幸存者們銘記在心。
在多數南京的幸存者知道安全區的領導人做過的事，但幾乎無人瞭解他們後來的遭際。一些這樣的外國人後來備受羞辱，被逐出中國，回到祖國後又遭到審訊和隔離，身心都受到了無法愈合的創傷，有人甚至絶望自殺。當我在中國談話的幸存者聽到這些時，他們十分痛苦。這些外國人中的一些人可以算是南京暴行遲來的受難者。
萊因哈特擔心嚮世界公開這些日記的影響。她認為這些日記會成為破壞中日關係的炸彈，在我的催促下，也是在為聯合國工作的曾擔任紀念南京大屠殺死難同胞聯合會主席的邵子平先生的催促下，萊因哈特决定將日記公開。她用了15個小時將日記影印出來。邵子平擔心日本右翼分子會闖進萊因哈特傢，毀掉日記或是用重金買走原件，固就很快把萊因哈特及其丈夫用飛機送到紐約。在紐約，日記的副本在一次記者招待會上捐給了耶魯神學院圖書館，該日記首先在《紐約時報》披露。之後，在1996年12月12日--南京陷落59周年，彼得·詹寧斯又在美國廣播公司電視臺、有綫新聞廣播公司及其他世界媒介組織做了報道。
歷史學家們對這一日記價值的看法完全一致。許多歷史學家認為，該日記是南京大屠殺確實發生過的更具結論性的證據，同時，這是一份從納粹分子的角度寫出的東西，更令人感到意味深長。拉貝的記述增加了美國關於這場大屠殺的報道的真實性，不僅是因為一位納粹缺乏編造南京暴行的動機，更是因為在拉貝記錄中，將美國人日記從英文譯出的內容與原文一字不差。在中國，學者們在《人民日報》上聲明，拉貝的日記印證了中國很多現存的關於南京大屠殺的資料。在美國，哈佛大學的中國史教授威廉·柯比告訴《紐約時報》：“這是一份扣人心弦、令人壓抑的紀實資料，細緻地運用了大量的細節和衝突。它以一種非常重要的方式使人們將重新審視南京的暴行，通過它，人們能夠瞭解每一天的事情，為早已廣為人知的南京暴行再增加100到200個故事。”
日本的歷史學家們也聲明了拉貝日記的重要性。宇都宮大學的中國現代史教授笠原十九司在《朝日新聞》上聲明："這份報告的重要性不僅在於它出自一個日本盟友的德國人之手，還在於拉貝曾將這份報告呈交希特勒，以使其瞭解南京發生的暴行。拉貝曾是納粹黨在南京的副主席，他懇求日本盟友的最高領導希特勒干涉這次大規模的屠殺。幹葉大學的日本現代史教授秦鬱彥補充說：“這份報告的意義在於，一個自己的祖國同日本是盟國的德國人客觀地描述了南京的暴行。在這個意義上，作為歷史文件，它的價值超過了美國傳教士的證詞。當時，德國正對站在日本還是中國一邊舉棋不定。但是，裏賓特洛甫(納粹戰犯，1938年起任德國外交部長，1946年被紐倫堡國際軍事法庭判處絞刑--譯註)就任外交部長促進了德國與日本結盟。在這樣緊要時刻，拉貝還試圖讓希特勒瞭解南京的暴行，拉貝的勇氣實在令人敬佩。”
第十章 被遺忘的大屠殺：再次凌辱
今天，在美國任何一個地方，或是世界上大多數地區，有哪一個孩子沒有看到奧斯維辛集中營毒氣室那令人毛骨悚然的照片?哪一個孩子沒有讀過年輕的安妮·弗蘭剋在集中營裏悲慘遭遇的故事片斷呢?的確，至少在美國，大部分學生都受到了美國在日本廣島和長崎投擲原子彈的毀滅性後果的教育。但是，如果去問多數美國人--無論成年人還是孩子，包括受到高等教育的成年人--他們是否知道南京的暴行，你會發現，絶大多數人對60年前南京發生的事一無所知。一位著名的政府的歷史學家告訴我，在她讀研究生期間，這個題目從未被提起過。一位普林斯頓大學畢業的律師很羞愧地告訴我，她甚至不知道中國與日本之間曾發生過戰爭，她對第二次世界大戰中太平洋戰爭的瞭解僅限於珍珠港和廣島。這種無知甚至也存在於亞裔美國人之中。一位婦女曾問我：“南京?是什麽，是一個朝代?"從中可以看她也少得可憐的地理和歷史知識。
60年前曾是美國報紙頭版消息的事件，現在看起來已經消失了。好萊塢從未製作過一部關於這場屠殺的主流影片--即使這一事件包含着與《辛德勒的名單》相似的戲劇成份。另外，直到最近，大多數美國的小說傢和歷史學家也沒有準備寫這件事。
在聽到這樣的說法之後，我感到一陣恐懼：30萬中國人被殺害的歷史可能會消失，就像他們在日本人的占領下消失一樣；有一天，世界會真的相信日本政客的話，南京的暴行是一個騙局，是捏造出來的--大屠殺根本就沒有發生過。為寫作本書，我強迫自己不僅深入研究歷史，同時也研究歷史的編寫--去檢驗歷史的力量，檢驗歷史的製作過程。究竟是什麽使某些事件留在歷史之中，而讓其他的歸於烏有呢?具體地說，像南京的暴行這樣的事件，是怎樣從日本(以至世界)集體的記憶中消失的?
結語
對於大多數人來說，是無法想象日本士兵和軍官在何種心理下犯下這些滔天罪行的。但有很多歷史學家、目擊者、幸哿者以及當年的作惡者自己都總結了是什麽驅使日本皇軍犯下這些赤裸裸的罪行。
一些日本學者相信，中日戰爭中的南京暴行及其他殘暴行為是由一種叫“壓迫的傳導”現象造成的。據《隱藏的恐怖：在二戰中的日本戰爭罪行》的作者田中雄喜所說，日本現代軍隊自其誕生之日起就有巨大的暴行隱患。原因有二：首先是日軍官兵中存在的獨斷專行和殘酷虐待，再就是日本社會由天皇身旁的人支配的森嚴的等級制度。在侵占南京之前，日軍對自己的士兵也長期施加羞辱。士兵被迫為長官洗內衣，或是溫順地站着任由長官摑耳光，直至鮮血橫流。用喬治·奧威爾的話說，日本士兵時常受到的這些抽打，是來自長官的“愛的行動”；而日本海軍用“鐵拳”加強的殘暴紀律，則被叫做“愛之鞭”。
人們常說，權力最小的人一旦握有對社會等級中更低微人們的生殺大權，常常會變成最殘暴不仁的人。日本士兵來到海外後，因為森嚴的等級制度而壓抑的殘暴突然得到了發泄。在外國領土或殖民地上，作為天皇的代表，日本士兵享有巨大的權力。在中國，即使是最低級的日本列兵，其地位也要超過最有權有勢的中國人。由此不難看出，長期被壓抑的憤怒、仇恨和對權力的恐懼就是如此在南京爆發成無法控製的暴力。日本士兵沉默地接受了長官施加的一切，那麽中國人也必須接受他們選擇的一切暴行。
可悲的是，世人仍以消極的態度面對日本的第二次暴行--日本人拒絶為他們在南京的罪行道歉，甚至拒絶承認發生過大屠殺，更有甚者，日本的極端分子還試圖在世界歷史中塗抹掉這一事件。要瞭解這種不公正的程度，人們衹須比較一下日本和德國政府在戰後的賠償就一清二楚了。雖然僅金錢本身不能使死難者復生，也不能磨去幸存者痛苦的記憶，但至少可以說明罪孽的元兇究竟是誰。
作為賠償，德國政府已至少支付了880億德國馬剋，還要在2005年賠償200億德國馬剋。如果把所有的賠款加在一起，包括個人受難者賠償、財産損失賠償、撫恤性賠償、國傢法定賠償、特別問題最後賠償，以及根據國際協定對以色列和16個其他國傢戰爭損失的賠款，這些共計1240億德國馬剋，折合600億美元。日本人則幾乎沒有為自己在戰爭中的罪行付出任何賠償。有一個時期，就連瑞士都拿出數十億美元補償戰爭中受到損失的猶太人的帳戶，而許多日本重要官員卻繼續相信(或是假裝相信)他們的國傢從未做過任何應當賠償或是道歉的事。他們還詭辯說，他們的政府被指責所犯下的許多暴行從來就沒有發生過，那些確鑿的證據不過是中國人和其他辱沒日本的人捏造出來的。
今天，日本政府認為所有的戰爭賠償事宜都已被1952年舊金山和平協定所解决了。但讀一下這個協定就會發現，問題是要擱置到日本經濟條件好轉之後再進行解决。協定第五章14款規定：“日本應嚮各盟國進行賠償已是共識。但是日本目前資源匱乏的情況也有目共睹，所以，須等其經濟復蘇，再嚮各國的所有損失和痛苦進行徹底的賠償，並同時履行其他義務"。
冷戰時期最有諷刺意味的一件事是，日本不僅躲避了賠償的責任，還從美國得到了數十億美元的援助，使其從美國的敵對國成為經濟強國和競爭者。現在，亞洲人民十分關註日本人中軍國主義擡頭的跡象。在裏根當政時期，美國幫助日本加強軍事力量--這引起了許多曾多年遭受日本戰爭侵略的民族的警惕。菲律賓外交部長、普裏策奬獲得者、二戰期間麥剋阿瑟將軍的副官卡洛斯·羅慕洛說："忽視歷史的人更容易成為歷史的受害者"。他對日本文化所激發的競爭性的民族精神有很深的理解："日本人是一個執著的民族，也很有頭腦。在二戰末期，沒人能想到日本成為世界上經濟最發達的國傢--但他們做到了。如果你給他們成為軍事強國的機會--他們將真的會成為軍事強國。"
但冷戰已經結束了，中國正從封閉走嚮開放，並迅速發展起來，其他曾在戰爭期間受到日本欺凌的亞洲國傢也在世界經濟競技場中崛起，能夠同日本相匹敵。在今後的幾年裏，人們會看到針對日本戰爭罪行的積極的大跨步行動。美國社會正在更民主地融入亞洲人。與他們密集於科技領域聽父輩們不同，年輕的華裔美國人和華裔加拿大人正迅速地擴大在法律、政治和新聞業中的影響--在北美歷史上，亞洲人很少在這些領域涉足。
從我開始寫作本書到脫稿期間，公衆對南京大屠殺的關註大大地增加了。在90年代，出現了大量關於南京暴行以及關於慰安婦、日本用戰爭受難者進行醫學試驗和其他有關暴行的小說、歷史著作和報刊文章。舊金山的學校正計劃將南京的暴行納入課程表，華人地産商也已規劃了建立中國屠殺紀念館的藍圖。
在本書即將完成之際，美國政府已開始對社會活動傢的要求作出反應，嚮日本施加壓力，迫使其面對戰爭的暴行。1996年12月3日，美國司法部列出了日本戰犯的名單，禁止他們進入美國。1997年4月，前美國駐日大使沃爾特．蒙代爾對新聞界說，日本必須誠實地面對歷史。他希望日本為其戰爭罪行充分道歉。另外，南京的暴行成為一項提案，不久將會進入美國衆議院。1997年春，議員們同人權活動傢一道起草了一項提案，譴責日本在二戰期間虐待美國和其他國豪戰俘，要求日本嚮戰爭受難者正式道歉和賠償。
當今一代的日本人正面臨一個重大的選擇。他們可以繼續自欺欺人，把日本侵略戰爭當做“聖戰”，而日本的戰敗僅僅是由於美國的經濟實力。或者同本民族過去的殘暴行徑决裂，認清這樣的事實：正是因為日本戰敗，它纔無法將其可怕的“愛”施加到更多的人身上，這個世界纔變得更加美好：如果當代日本人不采取行動去堅持真相，歷史就會給他們帶來如同其先輩一樣聲名狼藉的危險。
對於自己在南京犯下的滔天罪行，日本不僅在法律上有責任，更在道義上有義務去承認。至少，日本政府應當嚮受難者發表聲明正式道歉，並賠償浩劫中的受難者。更重要的是，要將大屠殺的真相教育給將來的每一代日本公民。如果旱本還期望得到國際社會的尊重，並合上自己歷史上污跡斑斑的黑暗篇章的話，這些早就應該做到的工作對日本十分重要。
The book was a source of fame for Chang but was also controversial; it has been praised as a work which "shows more clearly than any previous account just what [the Japanese] did", and at the same time was criticised as "seriously flawed" and "full of misinformation and harebrained explanations". It was received with both acclaim and criticism by the public and by academics. Chang's research on the book was credited with the finding of the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin, both of whom played important roles in the Nanking Safety Zone, a designated area in Nanjing which protected Chinese civilians during the Nanking Massacre.
The book prompted AOL executive Ted Leonsis to fund and produce Nanking, a 2007 documentary film about the Nanking Massacre, after he read it.
Inspiration
When Iris Chang was a child, she was told by her immigrant parents, who had escaped from China via Taiwan to the United States during World War II, that during the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese "sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths". In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil". When she searched the local public libraries in her school and found nothing, she wondered why nobody had written a book about it.
The subject of the Nanking Massacre entered Chang's life again almost two decades later when she learned of producers who had completed documentary films about it. One of the producers was Shao Tzuping, who helped produce Magee's Testament, a film which contains footage of the Nanking Massacre itself, shot by the missionary John Magee. The other producer was Nancy Tong, who, together with Christine Choy, produced and co-directed In The Name of the Emperor, a film containing a series of interviews with Chinese, American, and Japanese citizens. Chang began talking to Shao and Tong, and soon she was connected to a network of activists who felt the need to document and publicize the Nanking Massacre. In December 1994, she attended a conference on the Nanking Massacre, held in Cupertino, California, and it was what she saw and heard at the conference that motivated her to write The Rape of Nanking. As she wrote in the introduction of the book, while she was at the conference, she was "suddenly in a panic that this terrifying disrespect for death and dying, this reversion in human social evolution, would be reduced to a footnote of history, treated like a harmless glitch in a computer program that might or might not again cause a problem, unless someone forced the world to remember it".
[edit]Research
Chang spent two years on research for the book. She found that raw source materials were available in the US, contained in the diaries, films, and photographs of American missionaries, journalists, and military officers who were in Nanjing at the time of the Nanking Massacre. Additionally, she traveled to Nanjing to interview survivors of the Nanking Massacre and to read Chinese accounts and confessions by Japanese army veterans. Chang did not, however, conduct research in Japan, and this left her vulnerable to criticisms on how she portrayed modern Japan in the context of how it deals with its World War II past.
Chang's research led her to make what one San Francisco Chronicle article called "significant discoveries" on the subject of the Nanking Massacre, in the forms of the diaries of two Westerners that were in Nanjing leading efforts to save lives during the Japanese invasion. The first diary was that of John Rabe, a German Nazi Party member who was the leader of the Nanking Safety Zone, a demilitarized zone in Nanjing that Rabe and other Westerners set up to protect Chinese civilians. The other diary belonged to the American missionary Minnie Vautrin, who saved the lives of about 10,000 women and children when she provided them with shelter in Ginling College. The diaries documented the events of the Nanking Massacre from the perspectives of their writers, and provided detailed accounts of atrocities that they saw, as well as information surrounding the circumstances of the Nanking Safety Zone. Chang dubbed Rabe the "Oskar Schindler of Nanking" and Vautrin the "Anne Frank of Nanking". Rabe's diary is over 800 pages, and contains one of the most detailed accounts of the Nanking Massacre. Translated into English, it was published in 1998 by Random House as a book on its own, called The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe. Vautrin's diary recounts her personal experience and feelings on the Nanking Massacre; in it, an entry reads, "There probably is no crime that has not been committed in this city today." It was used as source material for a biographical book about Vautrin and her role during the Nanking Massacre, called American Goddess at the Rape of Nanking: The Courage of Minnie Vautrin, written by Hua-ling Hu.
[edit]The book
The Rape of Nanking is structured into three main parts. The first part uses a technique that Chang called "the Rashomon perspective" to narrate the events of the Nanking Massacre, from three different perspectives: that of the Japanese military, the Chinese victims, and the Westerners who tried to help Chinese civilians. The second part was written on the postwar reaction to the massacre, especially the reaction of the American and European governments. The third part of the book is dedicated to examining the circumstances that, Chang believed, have kept knowledge of the massacre out of public consciousness decades after the war.
[edit]Atrocities
The book depicted in detail the killing, torture, and rape that occurred during the Nanking Massacre. Chang listed and described the kinds of torture that were visited upon the residents, including live burials, mutilation, "death by fire", "death by ice", and "death by dogs". Based on the testimony of a survivor of the massacre, Chang also described a killing contest amongst a group of Japanese soldiers to determine who could kill the fastest. On the rape that occurred during the massacre, Chang wrote that "certainly it was one of the greatest mass rapes in world history." She estimated that the number of women raped ranged from twenty thousand to as many as eighty thousand, and stated that women from all classes were raped, including Buddhist nuns. Furthermore, rape occurred in all locations and at all hours, and women both very young and very old were raped. Not even pregnant women were spared, Chang wrote, and that after gang rape, Japanese soldiers "sometimes slashed open the bellies of pregnant women and ripped out the fetuses for amusement". Not all rape victims were women, according to the book, Chinese men were sodomized and forced to perform repulsive sexual acts. Some were forced to commit incest—fathers to rape their own daughters, brothers their sisters, sons their mothers.
[edit]Death toll
Chang wrote of the death toll estimates given by different sources; Chinese military specialist Liu Fang-chu proposed a figure of 430,000, officials at the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall and the procurator of the District Court of Nanjing in 1946 stated at least 300,000 were killed, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) judges concluded that more than 260,000 people were killed, Japanese historian Fujiwara Akira approximated 200,000, John Rabe, who "never conducted a systematic count and left Nanking in February", estimated only 50,000 to 60,000, and Japanese author Ikuhiko Hata argued the number killed was between 38,000 and 42,000.
The book discussed the research of historian Sun Zhaiwei of the Jiangsu Academy of Social Sciences. In a 1990 paper entitled The Nanking Massacre and the Nanking Population, Sun estimated the total number of people killed at 377,400. Using Chinese burial records, he calculated that the number dead exceeded the figure of 227,400. He then added estimates totaling 150,000 given by Japanese imperial army major Ohta Hisao in a confessional report about the Japanese army's disposal efforts of dead bodies, arriving at the sum of 377,400 dead.
Chang wrote that there is "compelling evidence" that the Japanese themselves, at the time, believed that the death toll may have been as high as 300,000. She cited a message that Japan's foreign minister Hirota Koki relayed to his contacts in Washington, DC in the first month of the massacre on January 17, 1938. The message acknowledged that "not less than three hundred thousand Chinese civilians [were] slaughtered, many cases in cold blood."
[edit]Acclaim
Second edition (1998) of the book.
The Rape of Nanking sold more than half a million copies when it was first published in the US, and according to The New York Times, received general critical acclaim. Iris Chang became an instant celebrity in the US; she was awarded honorary degrees, invited to give lectures and to discuss the Nanking Massacre on shows such as Good Morning America, Nightline, and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and was profiled by The New York Times as well as featured on the cover of Reader's Digest. The book was on the New York Times' Best Seller list for 10 weeks and sold more than 125,000 copies in four months. Hillary Clinton invited her to the White House, US historian Stephen Ambrose described her as "maybe the best young historian we’ve got", and the Organization of Chinese Americans named her National Woman of the Year. The book's popularity prompted a lengthy book tour, with Chang visiting 65 cities in over a year and a half.
The book received praise from news media. The Wall Street Journal wrote that it was the "first comprehensive examination of the destruction of this Chinese imperial city", and that Chang "skillfully excavated from oblivion the terrible events that took place". The Atlantic Monthly wrote that it was "a crushing indictment of the Japanese army's behavior". The Chicago Tribune wrote that it was "a powerful new work of history and moral inquiry" and that "Chang takes great care to establish an accurate accounting of the dimensions of the violence." The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that it was a "compelling account of a horrendous episode that, until recently, has been largely forgotten", and that "animals do not behave the way the Japanese troops of the Imperial Army behaved."
According to William C. Kirby, Professor of History at Harvard University, Chang "shows more clearly than any previous account just what [the Japanese] did", and that she "draws connections between the slaughter in Europe and in Asia of millions of innocents during World War II". Ross Terrill, an associate in research at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University, wrote that the book is "scholarly, an exciting investigation and a work of passion". Beatrice S. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of History at Yale University, wrote, "Iris Chang's research on the Nanking holocaust yields a new and expanded telling of this World War II atrocity and reflects thorough research."
[edit]Chang's death
The book was the main source of fame for Iris Chang, who was well-respected in China for raising awareness of the Nanking Massacre in the Western world. At the same time, Chang received hate mail (primarily from Japanese ultranationalists), threatening notes on her car and believed her phone was tapped. She would respond overwhelmingly to any question of the validity of her work. Her own mother said the book "made Iris sad". Chang suffered from depression and was diagnosed with "brief reactive psychosis" in August 2004. She began taking medications to stabilize her mood. She wrote:
I can never shake my belief that I was being recruited, and later persecuted, by forces more powerful than I could have imagined. Whether it was the CIA or some other organization I will never know. As long as I am alive, these forces will never stop hounding me.
Succumbing to her battle with depression, Chang took her own life in November 2004. After her suicide, a memorial service was held in China by Nanking Massacre survivors at the same time as her funeral in Los Altos, California, and the Memorial Hall of the Victims in the Nanjing Massacre, a memorial site in Nanjing built to commemorate the victims of the Nanking Massacre, added a wing dedicated to her in 2005.
In the US, a Chinese garden in Norfolk, Virginia, which contains a memorial to Minnie Vautrin, added a memorial dedicated to Chang, including her as the latest victim of the Nanking Massacre, and drawing parallels between Chang and Vautrin, who also took her own life. Vautrin exhausted herself trying to protect women and children during the Nanking Massacre and subsequently during the Japanese occupation of Nanjing, finally suffering a nervous breakdown in 1940. She returned to the US for medical treatment, committing suicide a year later.
[edit]Criticism
Joshua A. Fogel, Canada Research Chair at York University, argued that the book is "seriously flawed" and "full of misinformation and harebrained explanations." He suggested that the book "starts to fall apart" when Chang tried to explain why the massacre took place, as she repeatedly commented on "the Japanese psyche" which she sees as "the historical product of centuries of conditioning that all boil down to mass murder" even though in the introduction, she wrote that she will offer no "commentary on the Japanese character or the genetic makeup of a people who could commit such acts". Fogel criticized that part of the problem is Chang's "lack of training as a historian" and another part is "the book's dual aim as passionate polemic and dispassionate history". David M. Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history at Stanford University, also pointed out that while Chang noted that "this book is not intended as a commentary on the Japanese character," she then wrote about the "'Japanese identity'—a bloody business, in her estimation, replete with martial competitions, samurai ethics, and the fearsome warriors' code of bushido", making the inference that "'the path to Nanking' runs through the very marrow of Japanese culture." Kennedy also suggested that "accusation and outrage, rather than analysis and understanding, are this book's dominant motifs, and although outrage is a morally necessary response to Nanjing, it is an intellectually insufficient one." Roger B. Jeans, professor of history at Washington and Lee University, refers to Chang's book as "half-baked history", and criticizes her lack of experience with the subject matter:
In writing about this horrific event, Chang strives to portray it as an unexamined Asian holocaust. Unfortunately, she undermines her argument—she is not a trained historian—by neglecting the wealth of sources in English and Japanese on this event. This leads her into errors such as greatly inflating the population of Nanjing (Nanking) at that time and uncritically accepting the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and contemporary Chinese figures for the numbers of Chinese civilians and soldiers killed. What particularly struck me about her argument was her attempt to charge all Japanese with refusing to accept the fact of the 'Rape of Nanking' and her condemnation of the 'persistent Japanese refusal to come to terms with its past.'
Jeans continued what he calls "giving the lie to Iris Chang's generalizations about 'the Japanese'" by discussing the clashing interest groups within Japanese society over such things as museums, textbooks, and war memory.
Robert Entenmann, professor of history at St. Olaf College, criticized the work on the grounds that the "Japanese historical background Chang presents is clichéd, simplistic, stereotyped, and often inaccurate." On Chang's treatment of modern Japanese reaction to the massacre, he writes that Chang seemed "unable to differentiate between some members of the ultranationalist fringe and other Japanese", and that "her own ethnic prejudice implicitly pervades her book." Stating that Chang's description of the massacre is "open to criticism", Entenmann further commented that Chang "does not adequately explain why the massacre occurred".
Journalist Timothy M. Kelly described Chang's work as exhibiting "simple carelessness, sheer sloppiness, historical inaccuracies, and shameless plagiarism." Kelly further criticized Chang for her "lack of attention to detail".[note 1] Finally, Kelly charged that Chang also had plagiarized passages and an illustration from Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini.
Kennedy criticized Chang's accusation of "Western indifference" and "Japanese denial" of the massacre as being "exaggerated", commenting that "the Western world in fact neither then nor later ignored the Rape of Nanking" and that "nor is Chang entirely correct that Japan has obstinately refused to acknowledge its wartime crimes, let alone express regret for them." Chang argues that Japan "remains to this day a renegade nation," having "managed to avoid the moral judgment of the civilized world that the Germans were made to accept for their actions in this nightmare time." However, according to Kennedy, this accusation has already become a cliché of Western criticism of Japan, most notably exemplified by Ian Buruma's The Wages of Guilt (1994), whose general thesis might be summarized as "Germany remembers too much, Japan too little." Kennedy pointed out that a vocal Japanese left has long kept the memory of Nanking alive, noting the 1995 resolution of Japan's House of Councillors that expressed "deep remorse" (fukai hansei) for the suffering that Japan inflicted on other peoples during World War II and clear apologies (owabi) for Imperial Japan's offenses against other nations from two Japanese Prime Ministers.
Sonni Efron of Los Angeles Times warned that the bitter row over Iris Chang's book may leave Westerners with the "misimpression" that little has been written in Japan about the Nanjing Massacre, when in fact the National Diet Library holds at least 42 books about the Nanjing massacre and Japan's wartime misdeeds, 21 of which were written by liberals investigating Japan's wartime atrocities. In addition, Efron noted that geriatric Japanese soldiers have published their memoirs and have been giving speeches and interviews in increasing numbers, recounting the atrocities they committed or witnessed. After years of government-enforced denial, Japanese middle school textbooks now carry accounts of the Nanjing massacre as accepted truth. Fogel also writes: "Dozens of Japanese scholars are now actively engaged in research on every aspect of the war.... Indeed, we know many details of the Nanjing massacre, Japanese sexual exploitation of 'comfort women,' and biological and chemical warfare used in China because of the trailblazing research" of Japanese scholars.
[edit]Responding to criticism
The original version of a photograph used by Chang—the accuracy of the caption in the book is disputed
San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Charles Burress wrote that Chang's quote of a secret telegram sent by Japan's foreign minister in 1938 was incorrectly cited as "compelling evidence" that Japanese troops killed at least 300,000 Chinese civilians in Nanjing. According to Burress, the figure of 300,000 Chinese civilians killed actually came from a message sent by a British reporter, concerning deaths not only in Nanjing but in other places as well. Additionally, Burress questioned her motivation for writing the book on whether she wrote it as an activist or as a historian, citing that the book "draws its emotional impetus" from her conviction to not let the Nanking Massacre be forgotten to the world. Burress also cited Ikuhiko Hata, a Japanese history professor at Nihon University, who argued that 11 photos in the book were misrepresented or fake. One particular photo shows women and children walking across a bridge with Japanese soldiers, and captioned as "The Japanese rounded up thousands of women. Most were gang-raped or forced into military prostitution." Hata stated that the photo originally appeared in 1937 in a Japanese newspaper as part of a series of photos that showed peaceful scenes of Chinese villagers under Japanese occupation.
Chang attempted to respond to Burress' criticism in a letter written to the San Francisco Chronicle, but the letter was not published by the newspaper. In the letter, she offered criticism of her own concerning Burress' article. Chang found that it was a "disturbing tendency" that Burress quoted right-wing Japanese critics "without demanding evidence to back up their allegations". Furthermore, she argued that Ikuhiko Hata, a source cited by Burress, was not "regarded as a serious scholar" either in Japan or in the US, because he was a regular contributor to "ultra right-wing" Japanese publications. One such publication had published an article from a Holocaust denier which argued that no gas chambers were used in Germany to kill Jews. This has caused the parent publisher to shut down the publication. On Burress' criticism of her inaccurate photo captioning, Chang disputed the contention that the caption was wrong. She wrote that her book dealt with the "horror of the Japanese invasion of China", and that the caption reading "The Japanese rounded up thousands of women. Most were gang-raped or forced into military prostitution" contained two statements of indisputable facts.
Chang also issued a rejoinder against Burress' argument that she incorrectly cited a telegram sent by Japan's foreign minister. She wrote that while the original figure of 300,000 Chinese civilian deaths in Nanjing was reported by a British reporter, this figure was cited in a message that Japan's foreign minister sent to his contacts in Washington, DC. Being a figure used by a high-ranking Japanese government official, Chang argued that this was evidence that the Japanese government recognized 300,000 as the number of Chinese civilian deaths. Finally, she criticized Burress for his "nitpick" of small details in order to draw attention away from the scope and magnitude of the Nanking Massacre, writing that such was a "common tactic" of Holocaust deniers.
[edit]Reaction in Japan
Japanese translation of the book, published in December 2007
The Rape of Nanking has caused controversy in Japan. Los Angeles Times staff writer Sonni Efron reported that in addition to receiving criticism by Japanese "ultranationalists" who believe that the massacre in Nanjing never took place, Chang was also criticized by Japanese liberals, who "insist the massacre happened but allege that Chang's flawed scholarship damages their cause". Associate Professor David Askew of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University stated that Chang's work dealt a "severe blow" to the "Great Massacre School" of thought, which advocates for the validity of the findings at the Tokyo Trials, the tribunal that was convened to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for crimes committed during World War II. Askew further argued that "the Great Massacre School has thus been forced into the (unusual) position of criticising a work that argues for a larger death toll."
Following the publication of The Rape of Nanking, Japanese critic Masaaki Tanaka decided to have his 1987 book on Nanking translated into English. Entitled What Really Happened in Nanking: the Refutation of a Common Myth, Tanaka states in his introduction "I am convinced that [American researchers] will arrive at the realization that violations of international law of the magnitude alleged by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking (more than 300,000 murders and 80,000 rapes) never took place."
Chang's book was not published in a translated Japanese language edition until December 2007. Problems with translation efforts surfaced immediately after a contract was signed for the Japanese publishing of the book. A Japanese literary agency informed Chang that several Japanese historians declined to review the translation, and that one professor backed out due to pressure placed on his family from "an unknown organization". According to Japan scholar Ivan P. Hall, revisionist historians in Japan organized a committee of right-wing scholars to condemn the book with repeated appearances at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo and throughout Japan. They prevailed on Kashiwa Shobo, the contracted Japanese publisher of the book, to insist that Chang edit the book for "corrections" they wanted made, to delete photographs and alter maps, and to publish a rebuttal to Chang's book. Chang disagreed with the changes and, as a result, withdrew the Japanese publishing of the book. The rebuttal piece was nonetheless published in the form of a 288-page book, titled A study of The Rape of Nanking, written by Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano.
Shudo Higashinakano, a professor of Intellectual History at Asia University of Japan, argued in an opinion column that appeared in Sankei Shimbun that the book was "pure baloney", that there was "no witness of illegal executions or murders", and that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial." He pointed out 90 historical factual errors in the first 64 pages of The Rape of Nanking, some of which were corrected in the 1998 Penguin Books edition of the book.
南京浩劫——被遺忘的大屠殺
美籍華人張純如的書稿《南京浩劫》，既是對“二戰”的西方史學研究的一種補正，亦是對“二戰”中的侵略者罪行的整體完整性作出了學術貢獻。
作者實地采訪多位大屠殺幸存者，並佐以大量歷史檔案、第三方當事人的日記和書信，多視角回溯了南京大屠殺這一被遺忘的歷史事件。書中講述屠殺發生時“中國人個體的故事……
美籍華人張純如的書稿《南京浩劫》，既是對“二戰”的西方史學研究的一種補正，亦是對“二戰”中的侵略者罪行的整體完整性作出了學術貢獻。
作者實地采訪多位大屠殺幸存者，並佐以大量歷史檔案、第三方當事人的日記和書信，多視角回溯了南京大屠殺這一被遺忘的歷史事件。書中講述屠殺發生時“中國人個體的故事……
蠶絲：錢學森傳:獨傢揭秘錢學森在美20年人生里程
本書是關於錢學森的迄今為止最真實的一部傳記。作者用西方人的視角，講述了錢學森在美國的真實經歷，書中涉及中美關係、軍事、政治中的諸多大事件，是一部世界航天發展史和中國“兩彈一星”、載人航天的發展史。
心得：作者張純如是一位特別的美籍華裔作傢，費時三年，以抽絲剝繭的方式述說了錢學森詭譎多變的一生。書中大量的檔案文獻講述出了與我們所瞭解的不同的問題，一定會引起進一步的討論和研究。
本書是關於錢學森的迄今為止最真實的一部傳記。作者用西方人的視角，講述了錢學森在美國的真實經歷，書中涉及中美關係、軍事、政治中的諸多大事件，是一部世界航天發展史和中國“兩彈一星”、載人航天的發展史。
心得：作者張純如是一位特別的美籍華裔作傢，費時三年，以抽絲剝繭的方式述說了錢學森詭譎多變的一生。書中大量的檔案文獻講述出了與我們所瞭解的不同的問題，一定會引起進一步的討論和研究。