Introduction

In the tapestry of historical narratives, certain chapters remain shrouded, obscured by more illuminated stories of our past. Amidst the somber backdrop of World War II, two harrowing tales of genocidal horrors beckon the curious to embark on a journey of exploration. Within the confines of the Far East, the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich orchestrated their respective campaigns of terror, forming the foundation of a comparative study that seeks to unearth obscured histories and shed light on long-forgotten tragedies. Within this expedition lies a compelling enigma: the Nanjing Massacre, a haunting episode of brutality that stands in stark contrast to the Holocaust’s searing prominence. While the Holocaust’s agonizing memories have seeped into global consciousness, the Nanjing Massacre remains confined to the shadows, a largely unfamiliar narrative of inhumanity.

This inquiry delves deep into the heart of this paradox, probing the reasons behind the Nanjing Massacre’s subdued recognition. It endeavors to unravel the enigma of how one of history’s most appalling atrocities has managed to slip through the annals of collective memory. Beyond mere curiosity, this study’s mission is to unearth obscured truths and to understand the asymmetry that shapes these narratives. The exploration is framed by pivotal questions that resonate with the core of historical understanding. What defines genocide, and does the Nanjing Massacre align with the criteria set forth by Raphael Lemkin and the United Nations? The classification of events as genocide demands rigorous scrutiny of intent and impact. By examining the facets of genocide and aligning them with the Nanjing Massacre’s harrowing events, the study advocates for its recognition as an act of genocide, deserving of the transitional justice mechanisms observed in the aftermath of other genocides. This perspective serves as a foundation for addressing the historical asymmetry in the recognition of genocidal acts. What insights do the motives and mindsets of the perpetrators behind the Nanjing Massacre and the Holocaust yield? To comprehend the depths of these atrocities, one must delve into the minds of those who orchestrated them. Through a comparative lens, the study dissects the intricate web of motives that drove the Japanese Empire to assault the Han population with the intention of destruction, paralleling the racial ideologies of Nazi Germany’s Aryan ethnostate aspirations. The exploration of these ideologies brings forth the chilling realization that racial superiority can manifest in atrocities beyond borders. How have these harrowing events been remembered, denied, and grappled with? Memory and denial often intertwine to shape the narratives of historical atrocities. As debates persist around the Nanjing Massacre’s classification as genocide, the study delves into contrasting narratives, including Iris Chang’s seminal work and Japanese official denials. The absence of formal Japanese apologies is juxtaposed against German acknowledgment and remembrance of the Holocaust. This examination not only highlights the discrepancies in commemoration but also underscores the power of national narratives in shaping historical memory. What was the role of the International Safety Zone, and how did it influence the unfolding events? The shadows of history often hide the tales of those who sought refuge amidst chaos. By unraveling the significance of the Safety Zone in Nanjing and its violation by the Japanese, the study sheds light on the conditions endured by those caught in the midst of the atrocities. The juxtaposition of safety amidst horror provides a poignant reminder of the resilience of humanity in the face of unthinkable cruelty. What was the extent and nature of the crimes committed during the Nanjing Massacre? To confront the darkest chapters of history, one must stare into the abyss of human cruelty. Delving into primary sources and historical accounts, the study exposes the utilization of banned weaponry, unlawful military strategies, and the inhumane treatment of civilians and prisoners of war, particularly through accounts of rape and murder. The explicit details of these accounts underscore the horrors that emerged from the shadows of war.

The study navigates its course through an interdisciplinary methodology, with an extensive reliance on secondary sources to present historical context and primary sources for crucial firsthand perspectives. Contextualization in key sections fosters a nuanced comparison, while acknowledging the limitations of scarce primary sources. Within this exploration, a prediction emerges, guided by Dr. Gregory Stanton’s stages of genocide. The study asserts that the Japanese invasion’s phases, from classification to denial, align with Stanton’s original eight stages. The Japanese Empire’s dehumanization of the Han population, coupled with brutal executions and denials of atrocities, conforms to this model, allowing a glimpse into the unsettling course of human cruelty. As this comparative study embarks on its journey, it endeavors to shed light on the obscured and challenge the echoes of silence that have surrounded the Nanjing Massacre. In the process, it seeks not only to comprehend historical asymmetry but also to weave threads of understanding that resonate with contemporary complexities. Through the lens of comparative history, the study beckons us to confront the obscured horrors that have been relegated to the shadows and to explore the unsettling echoes of human cruelty that reverberate through time.

Defining Genocide

To grasp the significance of the term “genocide” and its usage, it is essential to delve into its origin. The term was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish linguistics student hailing from Poland, who found himself fleeing Europe in the wake of the Nazi invasion of his homeland.[1] Lemkin’s contributions would have languished in obscurity if not for Samantha Power’s work A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, where she resurrects Lemkin’s legacy and acquaints us anew with the originator of a term still subject to vigorous debate today.[2] Lemkin transitioned into a legal career, driven in part by the grievous atrocities witnessed during the Armenian Genocide and the world’s complacent response. The annihilation of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, known as “The Armenian Genocide,” served as a catalyst for Lemkin’s transformation. He adamantly believed that the failure of powerful nations to act, observing the systematic slaughter, carried the ominous implication that similar horrors could recur elsewhere.[3]

Lemkin’s frustration with the world’s reluctance to act was encapsulated in his assertion, “If it happened once, it would happen again… If it happened there, it could happen here.”^[4] At the time, the governments of the world were not receptive to Lemkin, and they agreed that a nation’s sovereignty superseded the crimes committed by the Ottoman Turks. Simply put, the term “genocide” was not created yet and the act was not recognized as an international crime. After 1939, the necessity for a new term and a new law became even more evident to Lemkin when he heard Churchill on the radio state, “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”^[5] Lemkin’s background as a linguist prompted his quest to formulate concepts of universal comprehension. He embarked on a mission to redefine existing terms to encapsulate the gravity of mass atrocities. Initially, he turned his attention to two terms, “barbarity” and “vandalism.” He meticulously crafted his own definitions, characterizing “barbarity,” as the “premeditated destruction of national, racial, religious, and social collectivities,” and “vandalism” as the “destruction of works of art and culture, being the expression of the particular genius of these collectivities.” Despite his earnest efforts, this endeavor proved fruitless in achieving the desired clarity.[6] Lemkin provided insights into his approach in his work Axis Rule in Nazi-Occupied Europe. He ingeniously amalgamated the redefined meanings of “vandalism” and “barbarity,” coining the neologism “genocide.” The term itself derived from the Greek “genos,” signifying race or tribe, and the Latin “cide,” connoting the act of killing.[7] The recognition of the term “genocide” on the global stage would only materialize years after World War II. This delay, however, was accompanied by the establishment of a corpus of laws bearing the weight of historical atrocities, particularly those within the landscape of twentieth-century Europe. From the point of its creation, the term would be a point of contention, but Lemkin described the word to mean the following:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the group themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of the national group.^[8]

Within the framework of Lemkin’s definition and any interpretation thereof, the Holocaust stands unequivocally recognized as a genocide.[9] However, the inquiry into whether the Nanjing Massacre qualifies as a genocide finds its footing in Lemkin’s conceptualization. The inhabitants of Nanjing confronted a relentless onslaught, driven by an agenda to obliterate their culture, social fabric, personal freedoms, dignity, and very lives. The Japanese military waged an assault that targeted both the collective sovereignty and the individual dignity of the Chinese populace, employing violence, rape, and murder as means of attaining their objectives.[10] While acknowledging the unprecedented and uniquely harrowing nature of the Holocaust, it is essential to recognize shared elements between the Final Solution and the Nanjing Massacre that demand our attention.[11] The significance of these parallels underscores the imperative to confront and comprehend the distressing legacy of both events.

The formulation proposed by Lemkin, however, posed challenges for the newly formed United Nations (UN). The inclusion of “culture” within the definition encountered resistance, particularly in light of the potential implications. A potential predicament emerged as the Soviet Union’s culpability for genocide during the Holodomor—where millions of Ukrainian peasants perished due to draconian government policies—loomed large under such a classification.[12] The prospect of rekindling hostilities, this time not against Nazi fascism but against the Communist Soviet Union, weighed heavily on the post-World War II world. With resources—both in terms of determination and finances—scarce, the UN grappled with redefining the contours of genocide, adapting them to avoid a return to warfare.[13]

The initial articulation of these shifts manifested through the creation of nine articles outlining the legal tenets and conditions warranting the invocation of genocide-related laws.[14] Crafted with the searing memory of the Holocaust in mind, these provisions encapsulated the complex legal considerations arising from genocidal atrocities. There are troubling issues with many of the articles, but the largest points of contentions lay within Article 2, which states:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:

Even with the UN’s revised understanding, the events of the “Rape of Nanking” undeniably fall within the parameters of the designated category of genocide.[16] Regrettably, despite this glaring alignment, acknowledgment of these events as genocide remains elusive. However, amidst these discrepancies, recognition has been accorded to the contentious aspects encompassing the mutually agreed-upon terms. Stuart Stein, in his work Genocide: Definitions and Controversies, perceptively identifies the contentious clauses embedded within Article II and the broader documentation of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.[17]

Stein’s analysis uncovers inherent limitations within the definition of genocide. He highlights its intrinsic focus on racial, national, ethnic, or religious dimensions, consequently overlooking class distinctions that frequently underpin genocidal undertakings.[18] Furthermore, the inclusion of the phrases “in whole or in part” within the definition poses complications for effective preventative measures.[19] Stein contends that this particular linguistic construct contributes to the disregard of several instances of genocide. His argument resonates when considering instances such as the Irish Famine genocide, the Holodomor, and the Nanjing Massacre, all of which remained unaddressed until the 1990s.[20] This delayed recognition was spurred by a shifting global focus on comprehending the nature of genocide, propelled significantly by the traumatic occurrences of the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides during the same period.[21] The heightened attention engendered by these tragedies prompted a reevaluation of the applicability of the existing definitions and their subsequent implications.

Japanese History

Now that the term “genocide” has been defined, a comprehensive exploration of the historical narratives of both Germany and Japan is essential. This investigation unveils the intricate motivations that ultimately justified their resort to genocidal actions. The trajectory of Japan’s history stands out due to its unique course until 1852. The insular nature of the country meant that Japan remained largely closed off from the Western world, shielded from external influences and global affairs. However, this isolationist stance underwent a transformative shift following a pivotal initiative undertaken by American President Millard Fillmore. In an effort to initiate communication with the Far East, Fillmore commissioned Commodore Matthew Perry to journey to Japan and establish diplomatic ties. This diplomatic endeavor bore significance for both the United States and Japan, each anticipating distinct benefits from a potential alliance. The United States foresaw the strategic advantages of utilizing Japan as a coaling station for Pacific-bound ships, allowing for efficient refueling, while also tapping into new markets for trade. Conversely, the Japanese recognized the immense potential of learning from the Western world, embracing the chance to acquire advanced weaponry, railroad technology, and even democratic ideals.[22]

However, the introduction of Western influence encountered resistance from the Japanese leadership class, particularly the Shogun. Despite initial opposition, the Japanese gradually discerned the inherent value in the Western offerings, including not only material goods but also the principles of Western culture. The allure of guns, railroad technology, and democratic ideals marked a paradigm shift in Japan’s outlook on its own development and global positioning. This newfound openness to the West proved transformative. The Japanese perceptibly realized the extent to which they lagged behind technologically and economically, rendering them profoundly vulnerable to potential external threats, particularly from European powers. It was this realization that spurred the epochal “Meiji Restoration,” a comprehensive modernization endeavor spanning from 1868 to 1905. Central to this era was Emperor Meiji, whose ascension marked a pivotal moment in reclaiming the divine rule of Japan’s imperial throne. As a revered figure considered a living god, Emperor Meiji wielded unparalleled authority, deploying his power to implement sweeping modernization initiatives that would place Japan on a trajectory of growth, empowerment, and global engagement.[23]

Emperor Meiji’s reforms were multidimensional, ushering in profound shifts that modernized and westernized Japan. This transformation culminated in a decisive victory over a significant European power, Russia, in the Russo-Japanese War. This unexpected triumph served as a resounding declaration to the world, that Japan had evolved into a formidable force on the global stage, not to be underestimated. The war’s outcome also heralded the acquisition of the Korean peninsula, marking the commencement of Japan’s territorial expansion. Crucially, the triumph of the Russo-Japanese War solidified the understanding within Japan, particularly among the leadership class, that their willingness to embrace Western influence and modernization strategies had borne tangible fruit. The nation’s evolution into a major player on the international scene was attributed to its deliberate efforts to incorporate Western practices, technologies, and cultural facets. In essence, an in-depth examination of Japan’s history underscores the significance of its transformation from a secluded nation to a global force through calculated engagement with the West. This transition was neither accidental nor haphazard but rather a testament to Japan’s adaptability and strategic foresight. The impact of these historic shifts would extend far beyond national borders, shaping Japan’s trajectory on the global stage and influencing the unfolding events of the 20th century.

World War I

            The aftermath of World War I witnessed the Allied Powers imposing significant limitations on both Germany and Japan. Germany bore the weight of blame through the Treaty of Versailles, which attributed the destruction caused by WWI to the nation. Under the treaty’s terms, Germany was held accountable for war damages and forced to disarm. Despite recognizing the financial strain this would place on Germany, the Allied forces maintained their position that the Germans were responsible and that they were to be punished. This punitive approach not only fueled animosity towards the values of Liberalism and Enlightenment that the Allies purportedly represented but also eroded the nation’s sovereignty.[24] This sentiment was echoed by Heinrich von Treitschke in his work Politics, where he contended, “The right of arms distinguishes the State from all other forms of corporate life, and those who cannot take up arms for themselves may not be regarded as States, but only as members of a federated constellation of State.”[25] According to Treitschke’s logic, the Treaty of Versailles robbed Germany of its sovereignty when it imposed foreign restrictions on its right to defense.

This line of thinking found resonance among many Germans, particularly within the ideology embraced by Adolph Hitler. Hitler exploited the preexisting anti-foreign sentiment that had taken root in Germany and skillfully kindled the flames of hatred, focusing it on a new yet ancient target: the Jews. The economic downturn in Germany created fertile ground for conservative thought, sparking a nostalgic inclination towards the perceived validity and utility of the past. This sentiment prompted Germans to revere figures from the previous century such as Otto von Bismarck, Richard Wagner, and, as previously mentioned, Heinrich von Treitschke. Hitler adroitly harnessed this shift in mindset, combined with the nation’s entrenched anti-Semitic views, to orchestrate a radical transformation of Germany from its once-tolerant and liberal Weimar Republic into a totalitarian ethnostate. Prior to ascending to power, Hitler extensively expounded upon his vision for ruling in hundreds of pages. Like Emperor Meiji, he sought models of dominant cultures and looked to America as an exemplar. However, Hitler’s interpretation of what constituted the greatness of the United States was skewed and misguided—a recurring theme in both his writings and his thoughts. In his work Mein Kampf, Hitler contended, “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”[26] This warped misinterpretation of reality became a cornerstone of Hitler’s vision for an “Aryan” nation and laid the groundwork for the Final Solution.

The Japanese on the other hand were a member of the Allied Powers during the war. Their victory over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, proved that they were a competent ally. The hands of leadership had changed from Emperor Meiji to Emperor Taishō, but the Japanese goals for progress had remained the same. Taishō followed in his predecessor’s footsteps in continuing to Westernize the island nation into a Western power. The Japanese entered World War I in 1914, earlier than many European countries, and even earlier than the United States. The decision to enter the war so early was made to prove to the Europeans that even though Japan may be distant in location, it was close in values. Despite this effort, the Allied Powers refused to accept the Japanese as one of their equals based on Western racial superiority. ^[27] Leadership changed hands yet again, from Emperor Taishō to Emperor Hirohito. Like Hitler and Germany, Hirohito convinced his people that other Asian countries, particularly China, were a threat and that the Han were to blame for Japan’s position on the global stage. This rejection from the Allied Powers, would fuel the Japanese hatred towards the West and paved the way for a new era, one in which the Japanese stopped looking to the Europeans for guidance and acceptance, but instead focused on what would be called “Yamato” supremacy.

Race War

“As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.”

John Dower, a prominent World War II historian, authored “War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War.” The book critically examines the role of race within the American military and the utilization of propaganda to demean the enemy. Additionally, it highlights how soldiers found it easier to perpetrate cruelty against those they considered inferior. In chapter ten, titled “Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus,” Dower delves into how the Japanese also harnessed racism to justify their cruelty against both Americans and other Asian nations. The chapter’s title originates from a publication authored by the Japanese government, specifically the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Japanese, as descendants of the “Yamato” race, held other races, including the Chinese “Han,” in contempt. With the aspiration of Yamato supremacy, the Japanese aimed to conquer the region, leaving only the pure and superior Japanese culture to reign in Asia. While it is accurate that the Japanese did not intend to exterminate every Han individual in Asia, their motives were rooted in the necessity of destroying governing bodies for self-defense. The definition of genocide put forth by Raphael Lemkin encompasses the destruction of culture, and the legal interpretation includes the phrase “in part or whole.” These criteria alone render the Nanjing Massacre worthy of the classification “genocide.” The Japanese, convinced of their cultural superiority and desiring exclusive representation across the continent, engaged in the murder of a people based on race and ethnicity—a universally accepted criterion in all definitions of genocide. This drive for racial supremacy positions the Japanese actions as a form of race war, constituting genocide.[28]

The similarities to the Nazi War machine become even more evident through Dower’s writings. Just as the Aryan Nazis wanted to eliminate the Jewish people of Europe, the Yamato Japanese, wanted to expel the Chinese Han from Asia. They at least wanted to remove the Han from any positions of authority and destroy their culture. Craig Cameron drafted an article for “The International History Review,” titled Race and Identity: The Culture of Combat in the Pacific War. In his work, Cameron cites Dower several times, alluding to the fact that racism fueled cruelty. Cameron quotes Dower, “World War Two was many wars, occurring at various levels and in widely separated places … and to speak of the global conflict as a race war is to speak only to one of its many aspects. Nonetheless, it is a critical aspect which has rarely been examined systematically.”^[29]

Cameron also identifies the term “Pan-Asianism.” The term was created in the nineteen twenties to incite Asian countries to sever ties with the Western world. Since many Nations could not break those ties, the Japanese considered the term to be negative, that “Pan-Asianism” was a way of grouping the Yamato with Japan’s incapable neighbors. Cameron compares the American Civil War to World War II and notes that it was less brutal because the opposing sides were predominantly of the same race.^[30]

This comparison of brutality alone does not prove genocide, but it does show that racism is a motivating factor in the path to genocide. Gregory H. Stanton wrote, The Eight Stages of Genocide, in which he identifies the common chain of events that lead to genocide in the following eight stages: Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination, and Denial.^[31] It should be noted that Dr. Stanton has since revised his works to include two more stages, they are discrimination and persecution. The added two are mostly covered in the original eight stages, with discrimination being a result of dehumanization and persecution taking several different forms. The additional two stages simply make following the path to genocide easier to identify. With the Nazis, we know that the Germans classified who was Jewish, they used the star of David to identify them, then dehumanized them, and forced them into ghettos. The Nazis then used propaganda to polarize the citizenry, set up work and death camps, and proceeded to murder the Jewish people. They then denied that it happened and sought excuses like, “We were only following orders.” The chain of events is not as clear with the Japanese, but they do share similarities throughout the stages.

Again, the Holocaust was a unique event in that every metric of identification was conducted. Most genocides are not as easy to identify. Because the Japanese found the other Asian countries to be “incapable,” they turned their gaze to domination. The Yamato Japanese decided that the best way to defend themselves was to take over Asian countries and replace their governments with the imperial Japanese system. The same way that Nazi Germans conquered Europe and replaced European countries with the Nazi leadership. Dower and Cameron’s revelation on race in the Pacific illustrates how the Japanese were excessively brutal towards the Chinese. If the Japanese did hold notions of Yamato supremacy, then it would make sense that they would be harsh to what they considered to be their inferiors. The same can be said of the Nazis, in Heinrich Himmler’s speech to his men titled, Speech Before the SS Group Leaders, Heinrich Himmler reveals himself to be a true believer in the Nazi movement. He openly stated his views of where the Nazis existed in the perceived racial hierarchy. He claimed that people who were not Nazis and German were less than human, that the SS represent the perfect Germans, and that evacuating the Jews has meant extermination all along. Himmler said, “Whether the other people’s live in comfort or perish of hunger interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; apart from that it does not interest me,” he continues to say, “whether or not 10,000 Russian women collapse from exhaustion while digging a tank ditch interests me only in so far as the tank ditch is completed for Germany.”^[32] This philosophy of superiority explains why the Japanese felt that It was both their obligation and their duty to control the Asian continent.  To defend it from the Europeans and what they considered to be, the incompetent Asians.^[33] Dower reveals even more comparisons based on rhetoric:

Japanese racism can be illustrated by two popular phrases in the ministry report: “blood and soil” and “proper place,” the first a transparently alien expression and the second, on the surface, almost quintessentially “Oriental.” The blood-and-soil rhetoric reflected indebtedness to Nazi sloganeering … a general affinity with Nazi thought is reinforced by other aspects of the report, such as demands for “living space,” … and an emphasis on “organic” relationships, especially in the form of a racially bonded organic community or “Volk.” The fact that the government’s researchers were obviously familiar with Nazi doctrine and sympathetic to some of it, however, does not necessarily mean that they were decisively influenced by it.^[34] 

The Accusers

“As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.”

The Nanjing Massacre cannot be discussed without mentioning Iris Chang. Chang’s book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, incited a firestorm of controversy that would inevitably lead to Chang’s suicide. Before Chang’s work, the Nanjing Massacre also known as the Nanking Massacre was known about but seldom discussed; it was a dark history that the Chinese would rather forget, and the Japanese were ashamed of. From 1937-1997, the memories of what happened were left vulnerable to the interpretation of whoever stumbled upon the subject.

Chang was a second-generation Chinese American, who studied Math, Computer Science, and Journalism. Chang worked as an intern for Newsweek, the Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune. Her excellence in these positions led her to work for John Hopkins University and to write a book, The Thread of the Silkworm. Despite these accomplishments, Chang was not a formally trained Historian. Her experience in different fields made her capable of compiling and researching information, but in the academic world, having a degree in a field is a symbol of competence. Since Chang was born in the Nineteen Sixties, many questioned her motives for her research; Chang’s family and heritage drove her to seek the truth in her second book, The Rape of Nanking.

Chang’s work challenged whether the military operation should be considered genocide. It was known that horrible things happened, just as they always do in wartime operations, but the events in Nanjing were beyond standard militarism. To prove it, Chang interviewed people who lived through the horrors and revealed their stories to the world. It was common knowledge that people died, but Chang discovered that the death toll was much higher than anyone imagined and the way that the people died, was barbaric and unnecessary. Before Chang, the number of women that were raped was unquantifiable. The rapes could not be counted because many of the raped women were killed afterward. Through Chang’s work, she claimed that up to 400,000 people were killed and potentially 80,000 women were raped.^[35] Also, Chang revealed that the Japanese did not honor the restrictions brought on by the International Safety Zone. It was believed that people who made it to the Zone were considered safe and that the Japanese would cease pursuing them. Unfortunately, the Japanese soldiers took it upon themselves to engage with the civilians and continue their genocidal assault on Nanjing. To emphasize the atrocities committed, Chang writes, “The Japanese would take any men they found as prisoners, neglect to give them water or food for days, but promise them food and work… By the time they saw the machine guns, or the massive graves, heaped and reeking with bodies of the men who had preceded them, it was already too late to escape.”^[36]

This independent action is known as “bottom-up” genocide. Meaning that the perpetrators were not ordered to kill these civilians. This kind of action was also exhibited in the Holocaust. In Jan T. Gross’ book, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, Gross illustrates the grim reality of the “perpetrators-victims-bystanders’ axis.”^[37] Gross reveals an example of when genocide is committed from the bottom up, rather than the paradigm we are accustomed to (top-down). On July 10^th, 1941, in Jedwabne Poland, the Polish Christians killed their Polish Jewish neighbors because they were fueled by anti-Semitism, religious zealotry, greed, and political influence.^[38]

Years after the controversy surrounding Iris Chang, historians noticed that there was a need to re-examine Nanjing’s case for genocide. Takashi Yoshida is a historian that was educated in both Japan and the United States, making him more objective than Chang. His work The Making of “Rape of Nanking:” History and Memory in Japan, China, and the United States, addresses that the story of Nanking is skewed from place to place. Yoshida divides his book into three sections: a part for each, the Japanese, the Americans, and the Chinese. A constant appears throughout the book, the Japanese deny, the Chinese either do not know or claim outlandish figures, and the Americans side with the Chinese with more precise figures. The reason behind the Chinese not having solid figures may lay in the fact that there were few people keeping track. People were running for their lives and grieving. The Americans are not as emotionally invested and thus more objective in their analysis in their interpretation of the facts.

Yoshida gets a lot of his information from the American Armed Forces who were responsible for the reconstruction efforts in Japan. He synthesizes diaries, journals, and logistic paperwork to support his claims. According to Yoshida, a lot of what America knows about the Nanking Massacre was from what soldiers derived from stories in Japan. American soldiers would read journals or hear first-person accounts from both proud and ashamed ex-Japanese military personnel. Other historians will proceed after Yoshida and use his findings to help validate their figures. It is important to remember that genocide is not validated by kill count but by the conditions in which the atrocities occurred. Nanjing is different from the Holocaust in that very few records were kept surrounding the exact murders of individuals. In Nazi Germany on the other hand, there were logs and records for everything that happened; down to the weight of the hair collected from their Jewish victims.

The war over the memory of Nanking seems to have started as soon as the attack began. In a time when propaganda won wars, Japan was just as fierce a contender as the United States or Nazi Germany. “American experts on Japanese propaganda emphasized that ‘the Japanese may be attempting to capitalize on the horror of the atomic bombing to win sympathy from their conquerors and to play on possibly divided opinion among the allies.’”^[39] Propaganda would be used to divert eyes away from what happened to the Chinese in Nanking and instead look at the unfortunate Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Peter Harmsen’s book Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze, chronicles the attack on Shanghai. It was evident that the Chinese military put all their efforts into the protection of this important city. The Japanese simply outmatched the Chinese in every way. From their tactics to their weaponry. The Chinese could not have defended Shanghai. By taking out Shanghai, the Japanese took with it the Chinese armed forces, leaving Nanking completely defenseless. That was Japan’s goal all along. ^[40] The attack on Shanghai has been compared to the Nazi Blitzkrieg across Europe, a swift and devastating attack with overwhelming power and precision.

The nature in which Shanghai was taken is also revealing of the nature of the Japanese war strategy. There were no POWs in the attack on Shanghai. The Japanese military killed everyone they could. Mostly, the city was free of civilians, they had withdrawn to Nanking where there was a wall that the Chinese thought would protect them. No one denies the attacks on Shanghai were merciless and conducted with precision, but it was an attack on soldiers, which sets it apart from the genocide conducted in Nanjing. Yoshida reveals that chemical warfare was used in the attack on Shanghai and that tactics like tear gas may be why the Japanese losses were so few. ^[41]The usage of chemical weapons has been considered a war crime since the end of World War I, meaning that the Japanese were more than willing to use unethical practices.

After Shanghai fell. The Japanese had a clear path to the Chinese capital of Nanking. Peter Harmsen wrote a second book called Nanjing 1937: Battle for a Doomed City. Harmsen goes into detail as to why Nanking was a losing battle before it even began. As he noted in his Shanghai title, the Chinese military was crippled after their defeat and there was little to defend the capital. The Japanese infiltrated with artillery and bombings at first and that was followed by a ground assault. Only after the city was blown to rubble and the Chinese could not fight back, the Japanese walked into the city. Nanking sits on a peninsula, and so the only way out on foot is into the mainland which is where a Safety Zone would eventually be placed. Chapter nine of Harmsen’s book is most revealing about the attack on Nanking, titled “Terror.” Harmsen cites several stories that paint the Japanese to be monstrous. One such story is noted by an American correspondent who was there on the scene, he writes, “One Japanese soldier stood over the growing pile of corpses with a rifle pouring bullets into any of the bodies which showed movement.”^[42] Several other stories follow the motif of rape, murder, and indecency. All of this mirrors the narrative that Chang delivered in her book, which struck controversy in 1997. It is important to remember that the Japanese could have taken POWs, but instead decided to rape and murder the survivors, most of whom were civilians. These actions prove that the Japanese had personal agency over their actions; they chose to commit the crimes they committed. Similarly, in Gross’ book, Neighbors, he reveals an instance in which the perpetrators use their free will to torture and murder their victims. Gross writes, “When the Germans proposed to leave one Jewish family from each profession, local carpenter Bronisław Szleziński, who was present, answered: We have enough of our craftsmen, we must destroy all the Jews, none should stay alive. Mayor Karolak and everybody else agreed with his words. For this purpose, Szleziński gave his barn, which stood nearby. After this meeting, the bloodbath began”^[43]

The Safety Zone

The establishment of the Safety Zone came about by Nazi businessmen and Americans joining forces to protect Chinese civilians. A notable person in the administration of the zone is John Rabe. Rabe was a Nazi businessman who sought out others with power and money to facilitate a combat-free area that would be used to shelter and care for internationals, like himself, and Chinese refugees. Rabe’s Safety Zone saved over 200,000 people, most of whom were Chinese civilians. Rabe is known among the Chinese as a “living Buddha” and he has been given the title “The Good Man of Nanking.” A book was compiled from Rabe’s diaries called The Good Man of Nanking, in it, Rabe writes what he experienced day by day during the assault that lasted six weeks. Rabe confirms Harmsen’s accounts regarding strategy. The Japanese used artillery from a distance and bombed the city several times a day; followed by a ground assault. ^[44] Rabe recalls that the artillery was located at an elevated point in the distance called “Purple Mountain,” since the Chinese had no artillery, it was completely free of any kind of counterattack. Artillery used in this manner is “siege warfare,” which is another criminal act in war. The Japanese wanted to attack the Safety Zone from its very inception because the refugees housed Chinese soldiers who were injured. Rabe went out of his way to secure the zone by writing the Japanese directly. He wrote:

The committee fully recognizes that identified soldiers are lawful prisoners of war. But in dealing with those disarmed soldiers, the Committee hopes that the Japanese Army will use every precaution not to involve civilians. The committee further hopes that the Japanese Army will in accordance with the recognized laws of war regarding prisoners and for reasons of humanity exercise mercy toward these former soldiers. They might be used to good advantage as laborers and would be glad to return to civilian life if possible.^[45]

Rabe’s letter bought the Chinese time and saved lives. Of course, this is very contrary to claims that there was no Safety Zone or that there was no Nanking Massacre. Rabe felt it imperative to cite the laws of war and to ask for mercy from the Japanese military. The only reason Rabe would have been prompted to go out of his way to make these pleas is if he found that they were necessary. The brutality must have been extreme for a Nazi businessman to interject to save the lives of Asian civilians and injured refugees.

Rabe has a first-person account of seeing a woman being raped. In his diary, he writes about stories that he hears from the refugees but on January 31^st the Japanese soldiers infiltrate the Safety Zone. “They threatened the storekeeper with a gun and searched him. Then they took away a woman, raped her, and released her two hours later.”^[46] This would be one of many rapes. In Joshua Fogel’s book The Nanjing Massacre: in History and Historiography, Fogel addresses that there is a war on the memory of what happened in Nanking. Fogel sides with Chang’s reports that there were at least 80,000 rapes from September 1937 to February 1938. ^[47] Fogel, also cites that between 200,000 and 240,000 people were killed, a figure that is lower than Chang’s but much higher than the Nanjing deniers. Fogel acknowledges John Rabe as a hero in the Nanking story as he writes that the International Safety Zone not only saved lives but also saved the history of what happened. By keeping the refugees alive and recording their injuries, the world became exposed to the atrocities that happened in the former Chinese capital.^[48]

The Deniers

Shudo Higashinakano is a professor of intellectual history at Asia University in Tokyo Japan. He is a part of the board that reviews what should and should not be taught in Japanese schools. His book The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction a Historian’s Quest for the Truth, is a title that is referenced heavily in the denial of the Nanking atrocities. Higashinakano cites a vastly different attack on Nanking in 1937. He claims that the eyewitness testimony is government-planted propaganda, that the mass graves do not exist, that one or two women were raped not 20,000-80,000, and that “New evidence leads to the conclusion that there was no massacre in Nanking.”^[49]

These two stories cannot both be true, but Higashinakano is not alone. Tanaka Masaaki authored a book that is heavily cited by Higashinakano named What Happened in Nanking:  The Refutation of a Common Myth. Masaaki claims that his inspiration for writing his book is that he is a patriot and that he does not like that people are “Japan-bashing” his country. This falsehood was allowed to propagate because many Japanese citizens were denied basic freedoms under American occupation. “In April 1952, with freedom of speech finally restored to them, Japanese scholars debated the Nanking Incident and exposed it for what it was—the falsest of falsehoods. They then attempted to share the information they had acquired in the hope of refuting the notion of a ‘Nanking Massacre.’ However, by that time the prejudice had become so widespread and so entrenched in the collective memory that it seemed impossible to dispel.”^[50]

Regarding the denial of both history and genocide; Masaaki has chapters titled “Mountains of Dead Bodies That No One Saw,” “Reports of Mass Murders of Prisoners of War Fabricated,” “No Mention of the ‘Nanking Massacre’ in the American or British Press,” and “Faked versus Authentic Photographs: A World of Difference.”^[51] In each of these chapters, Masaaki gives what he calls evidence of how the Chinese have consciously attempted to alter history to shame the Japanese.  All of Masaaki’s information comes from government-controlled sources that favor a narrative that the Nanking Massacre never happened. Only Historians from Japan like Higashinakano support “patriots” like Masaaki. Higashinakano and Masaaki disagree on the existence of a “Safety Zone;” Higashinakano recognizes the safety zone and the documentation from John Rabe, while Masaaki does not. In Higashinakano’s work he cites a document that states “kill no civilians, and refrain from entering the Safety Zone.”^[52] This document in Higashinakano’s opinion, proves that the ranking Japanese military was not at fault for any damages done inside the Safety Zone if any were done at all. Any misdoing would have been done by individual soldiers of their own will and those incidents could not be as many as the Chinese claim. The existence of a safety zone is one factor that makes the Nanjing Massacre different from the Holocaust. There was no place in which the Jews were safe in Europe. The Jews had to either flee the continent or find refuge in the private homes of charitable Europeans.

By Masaaki’s count, there were 20,000 people killed in the assault on Nanjing. Masaaki has a log from the Japanese government that has figures for the “Number of women raped or killed after rejecting sexual advances.” The idea that the Japanese military kept count of the women that refused their sexual advances is simply ridiculous. People who dispute these figures accuse Masaaki and the Japanese government of falsifying documents to minimize the reality of the brutality that occurred. By Masaaki’s count, there were 20-30 women raped and 4000 dead bodies that were burned. In the Chinese accounts, there is a common thread to every story given. Mistreated women, piles of dead bodies, bodies being burned, and mass graves. Masaaki claims that his figures address those issues because they had to burn the bodies so that diseases would not overwhelm the citizens in the nearby areas. ^[53]

Shame, Apologies, and Recognition

“As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.”

Like the Germans, the Japanese were left defeated with a lot to answer for. In John Dower’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, Dower critiques the loss in the Pacific of the former Empire of Japan. The proud Japanese citizens mostly had no idea of the atrocities that happened during wartime. People like Masaaki and the Japanese government would like to keep it that way. The loss for many was a wake-up call that the Yamato cannot be the supreme race if they had lost to the Western Americans. Japanese veterans are despised by their country because they did not fall in battle. The Japanese consider dying in wartime to be a great honor and for those who surrendered, they have brought shame to themselves, their families, and their country. Victims are stigmatized, to be a victim is to be weak and shameful. For those reasons, many Japanese veterans could not “embrace defeat” and many of them committed suicide.^[54]

The Nanjing Massacre is a topic that still incites negative emotions from both the Chinese and Japanese people. The Japanese have a custom, in which they go to the Yasukuni Shrine to pay respects to Japanese warriors who died in combat. This is an issue for the Chinese because that is the final resting place for many war criminals from the Nanking Massacre. The Japanese worship their dead as heroes, yet many of them inflicted a great deal of hardship on the Chinese people. ^[55] There are some signs that the Japanese acknowledge the crimes that were committed. There was a War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo in 1946. The tribunal concluded that many Japanese officials were guilty of war crimes, including Koki Hirota, their Prime Minister during the assault on Nanjing. The sentence for such war crimes was hanging.^[56] It is important to note that the Japanese military conducted the trials, and they abided by the sentence; killing their former leader. For many, ending Hirota’s life was necessary for preserving Japan’s honor. The Japanese at the time felt that criminals like Hirota dishonored Japan, yet there are many today who claim that there was no Massacre at Nanking and that Japan is guilty of nothing. It is also important to note, that both the Japanese people and the American government, allowed the emperor to live. This gesture of mercy was followed by an easy transition from Imperial Japanese rule to a period of United States occupation and reconstruction.

There would be no signs of an apology until 2013, when the former Prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama delivered a speech at Hong Kong University, he said, “As a Japanese citizen, I feel that it’s my duty to apologize for even just one Chinese civilian killed brutally by Japanese soldiers and that such action cannot be excused by saying that it occurred during the war.”^[57] Unfortunately, that apology was given just as he said; as a Japanese citizen. Hatoyama, was not the Prime Minister of Japan at the time, he merely held the position in the past, which raises the question, why didn’t he apologize when he was the Prime Minister? The Japanese people and government rejected Hatoyama’s apology, specifically the defense minister, Itsunori Onodera, who called Hatoyama a “traitor,” for saying such things.

Since Hatoyama’s personal apology, there has been an uprising from both Chinese and Japanese citizens for there to be an apology. During the 70^th anniversary of the Japanese defeat in WWII; it was reported that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke about the crimes that were committed by the Japanese Imperial Army. Representing Japan,  the Prime Minister said, “I bow my head deeply before the souls of all those who perished both at home and abroad,” he continues, “I express my feelings of profound grief and my eternal, sincere condolences.”^[58] While it may come off as a good gesture to at least recognize that something happened, there was no actual apology in that statement. There were no offerings of reparations, no monuments constructed to remember those who were murdered, and no acceptance of guilt for specific actions committed, simply put, Abe gave an illocutionary performance.

In contrast, the Germans have progressed since the days of goose-stepping Nazis down the main street and Hitler spouting off about racial purity. In the self-proclaimed “Jewish” magazine, Moment, in an article titled, “What America Can Learn from Germany,” by Robert Siegel, the author describes what the United States can learn from the Germans regarding transitional justice. While it is true that the United States can learn from the reformed Germans, it is also true that the current Japanese government should take notes. Siegel writes, “Today a Holocaust memorial stands in the center of the city, and ‘stumbling stones,’ blocks embedded in the pavement, document the names and dates of residents who were deported during the Third Reich.”^[59] The article continues, “The West Germans may have been in a state of denial for a generation, but they paid reparations both to individual Jews and to the State of Israel.”^[60] This is a vast disparity between the policies of the current German government and that of the Japanese. The Germans have given reparations, apologized, and constructed memorials all over their country to preserve the memory of those who were taken during the Holocaust. The Japanese on the other hand, have done nothing.

This dearth of guilt and responsibility is an issue on the global stage. The Japanese refusal to accept collective responsibility sets the precedent that nations can commit horrific atrocities without consequences. The definition of genocide, while feebly written, still invokes the necessity of action. Without the label of “genocide,” the international community has been left to slumber while the Chinese have been denied justice for over 70 years. If the world is waiting for another Holocaust to happen to act, the day will never come; hopefully, that will never happen. The Holocaust is the event that established the conditions that we seek to define the differences between atrocity and genocide; while simultaneously, it is unparalleled as the darkest chapter in human history. It is also true that a chapter can be dark without being the darkest. Genocide is not a competition over murder rates and sophisticated methods of destruction; it is what the international community agreed it is, “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group…”^[61]The Japanese wanted to kill the Chinese Han under the guise of Yamato supremacy. They engaged in a race war in which they hunted civilians, used unethical wartime strategies, and refused to take POWs. Moreover, they wanted to steal the Chinese people’s sovereignty to replace their ethnical heritage, which is heavily supported by cultural and religious traditions, with Yamato supremacy. The Japanese felt that they could do these things because they were more powerful than their neighbors. The Japanese must recognize their crimes and accept collective responsibility for what happened. Whether that recognition comes in the form of an apology, the construction of memorials, or retributive actions like reparations. Both the Japanese and the rest of the world need to recognize that in 1937, in Nanjing China, a genocide was committed.

Conclusion

The diverse issues explored in this study—ranging from genocide definition and criteria to the motives and mindsets of the perpetrators, memory and denial, the role of safety zones, and the imperative of recognition—have provided a comprehensive understanding of the shared essence of these two harrowing historical tragedies. The foundational discussion on the definition of genocide, as conceptualized by Raphael Lemkin and enshrined in the United Nations definition, has paved the way for a compelling case that the Nanjing Massacre fits the mold of this gravest of crimes against humanity. The aftermath of World War I emerges as a defining moment, shaping the trajectories of the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich. A comparative analysis of their responses to perceived international slights underscores the universality of power dynamics and the alarming ease with which supremacist ideologies can take hold.

The racial ideologies that undergirded both the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich highlight the chilling congruences in their ambitions. Whether the pursuit of Yamato or Aryan dominance, the shared pursuit of ethnic supremacy unveils the disturbing parallels between the two, necessitating further examination of the intricate link between ideology and mass violence. Turning to those who have striven to uncover these horrors, from Iris Chang to scholars and witnesses, reinforces the critical role that acknowledgment and inquiry play in confronting the unthinkable. The debates, controversies, and unyielding efforts to bring the Nanjing Massacre into the light emphasize the importance of historical research in revealing truths and dispelling denial. The establishment and tragic violation of the International Safety Zone in Nanking provide a haunting backdrop against which the depths of inhumanity are revealed. The stark contrast between the zone’s protective intent and the horrors that unfolded within its boundaries underscores the imperative of global recognition and accountability for such heinous crimes against humanity. An examination of denial lays bare the ongoing struggle to reconcile history and the moral imperative to face uncomfortable truths.

While strides have been made in acknowledging and expressing remorse for the Holocaust, the Japanese government’s denial, and absence of formal apology for the Nanjing Massacre underscore the urgency of justice and recognition to bring solace to survivors and their descendants. Reflecting on the comparative lack of formal apologies for the Nanjing Massacre in contrast to the Holocaust, it becomes evident that the world’s response and memory differ dramatically. This incongruity underscores the necessity of continued scholarly scrutiny, international dialogue, and educational initiatives to ensure that the Nanjing Massacre does not fade into oblivion. The significance of this study lies in its illumination of the shared threads of horror that bind the Nanjing Massacre and the Holocaust.

The juxtaposition of these events compels us to confront the inherent potential for mass violence fueled by racial ideologies. Above all, this study underscores the importance of recognizing and studying the Nanjing Massacre in its own right, a call to acknowledge that history cannot be compartmentalized or forgotten. Through rigorous scholarship, open dialogue, and a commitment to understanding, we can collectively strive for a world that confronts its past, learns from it, and actively works to prevent the recurrence of such genocidal horrors in the future. Each section of this study has contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the Nanjing Massacre and its unsettling connections to the Holocaust. This examination has illuminated the fact that while these events occurred in different parts of the world, they share a disturbing kinship in their bedrock racial ideologies, ambitions for ethnic supremacy, and the heinous crimes they unleashed upon innocent populations. This study has emphasized that the Nanjing Massacre deserves its rightful place in the annals of history, recognized not only for its own immense tragedy but also for the shared lessons it offers.

The need for further research and continued examination is evident, not only to honor the memory of the victims but to grapple with the broader implications of unchecked supremacist ideologies. By elevating the Nanjing Massacre to the level of recognition and remembrance given to the Holocaust, we underscore the collective responsibility to confront our past, grapple with the darkness within human nature, and strive to ensure that such horrors are never repeated. The importance of this study extends beyond historical academia—it resonates as a call to action for societies, governments, and individuals to critically examine their past and present. Through the lens of history, we are compelled to question the impact of unchecked ideologies, the ramifications of denial, and the imperative of seeking justice for victims and survivors. The Nanjing Massacre’s place in the annals of history should serve as a reminder that the study of genocide is not just a retrospective endeavor but a forward-looking commitment to preventing such atrocities from ever occurring again. As we conclude this exploration, we are reminded that history is not a stagnant relic but a living narrative that shapes our present and our future. The Genocidal Horrors: A Comparative Analysis of Japanese Empire and Third Reich, has illuminated the interconnectedness of humanity’s darkest moments, highlighting the undeniable truth that the study of these events transcends borders, cultures, and time. In this pursuit of understanding, remembrance, and prevention, we acknowledge the shared responsibility to learn from history and collectively forge a world that upholds justice, compassion, and the intrinsic dignity of all human beings.

PowerPoint

End Notes

[1]. Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1944), vii.

[2]. Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 17.

[3]. Samantha Power, 33.

[4]. Samantha Power. 19.

[5]. Samantha Power. 29.

[6]. Raphael Lemkin, 80-81.

[7]. Raphael Lemkin, 80-89.

[8]. Raphael Lemkin, 79-80.

[9]. Raphael Lemkin, 89.

[10]. Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 79.

[11]. Iris Chang, 122.

[12]. Samantha Power, 32.

[13]. Samantha Power, 55.

[14]. Samantha Power, 100.

[15]. Samantha Power. 64.

[16]. Iris Chang, 183.

[17]. Stuart Stein, Genocide: Definitions and Controversies (Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 2017), 78.

[18]. Stuart Stein, 90.

[19]. Stuart Stein, 104.

[20]. Stuart Stein, 122.

[21]. Stuart Stein, 140.

[22]. Steven Lubar, “In the Footsteps of Perry: The Smithsonian Goes to Japan,” The Public Historian 17, no. 3 (1995): 32-36, accessed December 11, 2020, doi:10.2307/3378751.

[23]. Alexander M. Nordlund, “A War of Others: British War Correspondents, Orientalist Discourse, and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905,” War in History 22, no. 1 (2015): 32-36, accessed December 12, 2020, http://www.jstor.org.kean.idm.oclc.org/stable/26098222.

[24]. Philander C. Knox, Treaty of Versailles (Washington: Govt. print. off, 1919), https://lccn.loc.gov/43036001.

[25]. Heinrich von Treitschke, Politics, trans. Blanche Dugdale and Torben de Bille (New York, NY: The MacMillan Company, 1916), 30.

[26]. Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), 286.

[27]. Frederick R. Dickinson. “Toward a Global Perspective of the Great War: Japan and the Foundations of a Twentieth-Century World.” The American Historical Review 119, no. 4 (2014): 1154-183. Accessed December 12, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43695889.

[28]. John W. Dower, War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), 262-64.

[29]. Craig M. Cameron. “Race and Identity: The Culture of Combat in the Pacific War.” The International History Review 27, no. 3 (2005): 551-52

[30]. Craig M. Cameron. 554.

[31]. Stanton, Gregory. “Eight Stages of Genocide Explained by Gregory H. Stanton.” YouTube. YouTube, December 14, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6bC2AYHt8.

[32]. Heinrich Himmler. “Speech Before SS Group Leaders.” The history place – holocaust timeline: Himmler’s speech at Posen. (The History Place, October 4, 1943). 1-2. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm.

[33]. John Dower. 262-290.

[34]. John Dower. 245-6.

[35]. Iris Chang. 98-104

[36]. Iris Chang, 82.

[37]. Jan T. Gross. Neighbors: The Destruction of Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. 8.

[38]. Jan T. Gross. 60-81.

[39]. Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the “Rape of Nanking”: History and Memory in Japan, China, and the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 75-76.

[40]. Peter Harmsen. Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze. (Philadelphia: Casemate, 2013), 129-50.

[41]. Takashi Yoshida, The Making of the “Rape of Nanking”: History and Memory in Japan, China, and the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 27-29

[42]. Peter Harmsen. Nanjing 1937: Battle for a Doomed City. (Philadelphia: Casemate, 2015), 236.

[43]. Jan T. Gross, 4.

[44]. John Rabe and Erwin Wickert. The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe. (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1998), 62-64.

[45]. John Rabe. 70.

[46]. John Rabe 165.

[47]. Joshua A. Fogel. The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), 6.

[48]. Joshua A. Fogel. 137-139.

[49]. Shudo Higashinakano. The Nanking Massacre, Fact versus Fiction: A Historian’s Quest for the Truth. Tokyo: (Sekai Shuppan, 2006), 287.

[50]. Tanaka Masaaki. What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth. Tokyo: (Sekai Shuppan, 2000), ix.

[51]. Tanaka Masaaki. Iii.

[52]. Shudo Higashinakano. 149.

[53]. Tanaka Masaaki. 54.

[54]. John W. Dower. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. (New York: W.W. Norton &, 1999), 59-63.

[55]. Peter Hays Gries. “China’s “New Thinking” on Japan.” The China Quarterly, no. 184 (2005): 831-35.

[56]. Timothy Brook. “The Tokyo Judgment and the Rape of Nanking.” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no. 3 (2001): 695. Accessed December 13, 2020. doi:10.2307/2700106.

[57]. Kwok, Kristine. “Former Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama Apologizes for Atrocities in China,” November 13, 2013. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1355427/former-japanese-pm-yukio-hatoyama-apologises-atrocities-china.

[58]. Groll, Elias. “Shinzo Abe Regrets but Declines to Apologize for Japan’s WWII Actions.” Shinzo Abe Regrets but Declines to Apologize for Japan’s WWII Actions. Washington D.C. Foreign Policy/The Slate Group, April 14, 2015. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/14/shinzo-abe-regrets-but-declines-to-apologize-for-japans-wwii-actions/.

[59]. Robert Siegel. What America Can Learn from Germany, 2019. https://momentmag.com/what-america-can-learn-from-germany/. 1.

[60]. Robert Siegel. 3.

[61]. Samantha Power. 64.

Bibliography

Brook, Timothy. “The Tokyo Judgment and the Rape of Nanking.” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no. 3 (2001): 673-700. Accessed December 13, 2020. doi:10.2307/2700106.

In this scholarly article, Brook scrutinizes the Tokyo Judgment, the post-World War II trial of Japanese war criminals, to understand its implications for addressing the Nanjing Massacre. Through meticulous analysis, he explores the legal aspects of the trial’s connection to the atrocity, shedding light on the complexities of establishing historical accountability and justice.

Cameron, Craig M. “Race and Identity: The Culture of Combat in the Pacific War.” The International History Review 27, no. 3 (2005): 550-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40109606.

Cameron’s article presents a provocative viewpoint, framing the Pacific War as a “Race War” fueled by Yamato supremacy in Japan and White Christian supremacy in the United States. This analysis delves into the ways racial ideologies influenced policies, actions, and interactions during World War II, shedding light on the impact of such supremacist ideologies on global conflict.

Chang, Iris. The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1997.

Chang’s seminal work offers an intimate exploration of the Nanjing Massacre in 1937, emphasizing the atrocities committed by Japanese forces and the subsequent efforts to deny and downplay the events. Her narrative style intertwines personal stories with historical context, giving voice to survivors and highlighting the importance of confronting historical denials.

Dickinson, Frederick R. “Toward a Global Perspective of the Great War: Japan and the Foundations of a Twentieth-Century World.” The American Historical Review 119, no. 4 (2014): 1154-183. Accessed December 12, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43695889.

Dickinson’s scholarly article examines Japan’s role in World War I and its impact on shaping the 20th-century world. By analyzing Japan’s emergence as a major player on the global stage, the article offers insights into the historical context that laid the foundation for the Japanese Empire’s actions in subsequent conflicts.

Dolot, Miron. Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 1985. 162-180.

Dolot’s harrowing account provides a chilling narrative of the Ukrainian Holodomor, shedding light on Stalin’s genocidal policies. Through personal recollections, he reveals the devastating impact of forced famine and state-sponsored brutality on innocent lives, offering a broader context for understanding the enormity of human suffering during the 20th century.

Dower, John W. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York: W.W. Norton &, 1999.

Dower’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book offers a comprehensive analysis of post-World War II Japan, exploring the challenges the nation faced in reconciling its wartime actions and confronting its history. The book provides crucial insights into the nuances of Japanese society’s responses to wartime atrocities, denial, and the complex process of coming to terms with its past.

Dower, John W. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.

Dower’s groundbreaking study delves into the role of racism and dehumanization in the Pacific War. He investigates how racial ideologies influenced perceptions of the enemy, leading to acts of brutality. The book’s comparative approach offers a deeper understanding of the psychological and ideological dimensions of warfare.

Fogel, Joshua A. The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.

Fogel’s scholarly work critically engages with the evolving interpretations of the Nanjing Massacre. He explores how different historical narratives and political agendas have shaped our understanding of the event. By addressing controversies and competing claims, Fogel underscores the importance of rigorous historiographical analysis.

Gries, Peter Hays. “China’s “New Thinking” on Japan.” The China Quarterly, no. 184 (2005): 831-50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20192541.

Gries examines the complex dynamics between China and Japan, particularly regarding war memory and historical consciousness. He sheds light on how Japanese actions, such as paying respects at the Yasukuni Shrine, evoke strong reactions in China due to unresolved issues surrounding war crimes and victimization.

Groll, Elias. “Shinzo Abe Regrets but Declines to Apologize for Japan’s WWII Actions.” Shinzo Abe Regrets but Declines to Apologize for Japan’s WWII Actions. Washington D.C. Foreign Policy/The Slate Group, April 14, 2015. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/14/shinzo-abe-regrets-but-declines-to-apologize-for-japans-wwii-actions/.  

Groll’s report discusses the nuanced diplomatic nuances of Japan’s acknowledgment of its wartime actions. The article highlights the complexity of official apologies and expressions of regret, offering insights into the challenges of addressing historical wrongdoings while navigating contemporary international relations.

Gross, J. T. Neighbors: The Destruction of Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Gross’s investigation uncovers a little-known atrocity in Poland during World War II, where Christian Polish citizens massacred their Jewish neighbors. The book analyzes the motives behind the violence and addresses broader questions about collaboration, anti-Semitism, and collective responsibility during times of conflict.

Harmsen, Peter. Nanjing 1937: Battle for a Doomed City. Philadelphia: Casemate, 2015.

In this meticulously researched work, Harmsen provides a comprehensive account of the Nanjing Massacre, contextualizing it within the broader military campaign. Through vivid descriptions, he captures the terror experienced by the city’s residents and explores the roles of both officials and common soldiers in the atrocities.

Harmsen, Peter. Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze. Philadelphia: Casemate, 2013.

Harmsen’s book offers a detailed examination of the Battle of Shanghai and its significance in the larger context of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The author sheds light on Japanese military tactics, technology, and the challenges faced by Chinese forces, contributing to a deeper understanding of the conflict’s dynamics.

Higashinakano, Shudo. The Nanking Massacre, Fact versus Fiction: A Historian’s Quest for the Truth. Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, 2006.

Higashinakano presents an alternative perspective on the Nanjing Massacre, challenging prevailing interpretations. Through an exploration of war propaganda and an examination of new evidence, he questions the widely accepted narrative and invites readers to critically engage with the historical accounts.

Himmler, Heinrich. “Speech Before SS Group Leaders.” The history place – holocaust timeline: Himmler’s speech at Posen. The History Place, October 4, 1943. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm.

Himmler’s chilling speech provides a window into the mindset of Nazi leadership during the Holocaust. The speech highlights the calculated planning behind the systematic extermination of Jews, underscoring the importance of primary sources in understanding the ideology and strategies of perpetrators.

Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto offers a glimpse into his ideological foundation and vision for Germany’s future. Analyzing his writings provides insights into the origins of Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism, and expansionist ambitions that shaped the trajectory of World War II and the Holocaust.

Jeans, Roger B. “Victims or Victimizers? Museums, Textbooks, and the War Debate in Contemporary Japan.” The Journal of Military History 69, no. 1 (2005): 149-95.

Jeans’ examination of the Nanking Massacre controversy in Japan delves into how historical narratives are constructed and propagated. Through analyzing the portrayal of events in museums and textbooks, he uncovers the contested interpretations and diverse perspectives within Japanese society.

Knox, Philander C. Treaty of Versailles. [Washington, Govt. print. off, 1919] Web. https://lccn.loc.gov/43036001.

Knox’s analysis of the Treaty of Versailles offers insight into the post-World War I geopolitical landscape and its impact on shaping the conditions that contributed to World War II. By studying the treaty’s provisions and ramifications, we gain a deeper understanding of the historical factors leading up to subsequent conflicts.

Kwok, Kristine. “Former Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama Apologizes for Atrocities in China,” November 13, 2013. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1355427/former-japanese-pm-yukio-hatoyama-apologises-atrocities-china.

Kwok’s news article sheds light on the significance of public apologies by political leaders for historical atrocities. Focusing on Yukio Hatoyama’s apology for Japan’s wartime actions, the article underscores the complexities and impact of such gestures on diplomatic relations and historical narratives.

Lemkin, Raphael. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2008. 79-80.

Lemkin’s seminal work introduces the concept of “genocide” and explores legal and political dimensions of the term. Through his analysis of Nazi-occupied Europe, Lemkin’s framework provides a foundation for understanding the systematic destruction of specific groups and its implications for modern international law.

Lubar, Steven. “In the Footsteps of Perry: The Smithsonian Goes to Japan.” The Public Historian 17, no. 3 (1995): 25-59. Accessed December 11, 2020. doi:10.2307/3378751.

Lubar’s examination of the Smithsonian’s exhibition on Japan sheds light on the role of public history in shaping national narratives. By analyzing the portrayal of history, artifacts, and memory, Lubar underscores the ways museums can influence public perception and understanding of historical events.

Nordlund, Alexander M. “A War of Others: British War Correspondents, Orientalist Discourse, and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905.” War in History 22, no. 1 (2015): 28-46. Accessed December 12, 2020. http://www.jstor.org.kean.idm.oclc.org/stable/26098222.

Nordlund’s research examines the role of British war correspondents in shaping perceptions of the Russo-Japanese War. Through analysis of media narratives, the article uncovers Orientalist discourses that influenced how the conflict was understood by the Western world, highlighting the power of media in shaping historical interpretations.

Power, Samantha. A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2013.

In her influential book, Power examines the phenomenon of genocide across history and how world powers, including the United States, have responded. By analyzing the challenges of intervention, Power raises questions about the global community’s responsibility to prevent and address mass atrocities.

Siegel, Robert. What America Can Learn from Germany, 2019. https://momentmag.com/what-america-can-learn-from-germany/. 1-9.

Siegel’s thought-provoking essay draws parallels between Germany’s post-World War II reconciliation efforts and the challenges facing contemporary America. By comparing efforts to acknowledge historical wrongs, the article encourages reflection on the role of national narratives and accountability in addressing societal injustices.

Stanton, Gregory. “Eight Stages of Genocide Explained by Gregory H. Stanton.” YouTube. YouTube, December 14, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6bC2AYHt8.

Stanton’s presentation outlines the eight stages of genocide, providing a framework to understand the progression from discrimination to mass violence. Through this accessible medium, Stanton educates viewers about the signs and dynamics of genocidal processes, emphasizing the importance of awareness and prevention.

Stein, Stuart D. “Genocide: Definitions and Controversies.” UWE Bristol (blog). UWE.UK, June 24, 2006. http://www,ess,uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gendef.htm.

Stein’s comprehensive exploration of genocide definitions and controversies offers readers a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding the term. By delving into the historical, legal, and ethical debates, the article encourages critical thinking about the conceptualization and implications of genocide.

Treitschke, Heinrich von. Politics. Translated by Blanche Dugdale and Torben de Bille. (New York, NY: The MacMillan Company, 1916,) 3-59.

Treitschke’s seminal work on politics offers insights into late 19th-century European political thought. By studying the text’s discussions on nationalism, imperialism, and power dynamics, readers gain a deeper understanding of the intellectual currents that influenced the geopolitical landscape leading up to World War I.

Yoshida, Takashi. The Making of the “Rape of Nanking”: History and Memory in Japan, China, and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Yoshida’s comprehensive study explores how the Nanjing Massacre has been interpreted and remembered across different nations. Through a comparative analysis of historical narratives, he uncovers the complexities of memory, historical revisionism, and the challenges of reconciling diverse perspectives on wartime atrocities.