Yoshida's work might have won praise and credibility in addition to being an Oxford University Press publication that was released as a study by the Columbia University Weatherhead East Asian Institute. The book presents itself as an academic investigation into the Nanking Massacre, but it is actually a revisionist viewpoint. This disguise is confusing the public and leading them to believe that other accounts of the massacre were given with significant exaggeration. It is worth noting that Japan has a substantial influence through their funding for professorship and research grants in Asian studies within U.S and this may explain the reason for such bias.
Much as Yoshida's book is based on his 2001 Ph.D. dissertation, the book has distorted information on the Nanking Massacre. From the book, several quotes illustrate this distortion. "Truly, it is a recent construction that Nanjing is the site of brutal atrocities.” It beats logic to claim that the brutal crimes are recent construction given that there is a lot of well documented first-hand information on the event. There are statements from eye witnesses, archived pictorials, and films recorded by foreign journalists, missionaries, and diplomats. An example of the eye witnesses' accounts is to be found in John Magee's home movie. Magee smuggled the film out of China to show it to the U.S government and the Foreign Ministry of Germany in Berlin. He intended to persuade them to impose sanctions on the Japanese government, but he didn't succeed. Many Japanese soldiers who took part in the massacre confessed these atrocities. Thousands of Chinese survivors also gave eyewitness accounts.
Another statement pointing to the distortion says that "The massacre only gained international awareness decades after the event. It wasn't as discussed today." This again cannot be true for the Nanking Massacre made international headlines in 1937-1938 when it occurred. Between August 1946 and February 1947, it was the subject of the United Nation's Committee for Investigation of War Crimes. This was part of a trial by the International Tribunal Court of the Far East. "In the beginning, it was an event that only had local repercussions, but over the decades the Nanking Massacre evolved into an international interest." As pointed out earlier the matter gained international significance from the onset and cannot be referred to as having had only local repercussions. The fact that the Chinese decision makers did not give the event public focus in the 1950s and 1960s is no basis for generalizing the event to have only had local significance. The leaders were more concerned about gaining diplomatic recognition and its unity as a nation given that it had just established a new form of government.
Among the many interpretations and accounts of the event, none has emerged out as being the dominant partly because not even the terms of the debate have been agreed upon. The definition of the matters being discussed by the commentators has not been decided. The words like "victim," "atrocity," "civilian" and “perpetrator" have not been given proper meaning due to different views. In saying so, the author is seemingly leading people into doubting the reports by eyewitnesses. The mere lack of a universal definition of a term such as a victim, whether it only refers to a civilian or includes soldiers in captivity should not lead us into terming the atrocities as doubtful accounts.
Yoshida's criticism of the revisionist in Japan who even denied the existence of the massacre might lead people to think Yoshida presented a fair account of the event and treated it with thoroughness. Those who contend with this view should perhaps consider the following statement written by Yoshida: The history of the Nanjing Massacre would have remained a local issue if only the revisionists had not intensely challenged it. Because of them, the event has become an international symbol reminding people of Japan's wartime. When we analyze this statement, it clearly does not show any fairness nor thoroughness in treating the matter.
It is evident to me that the book had no intention of bringing out the truth of what happened at Nanjing. Its intention seemingly is to show how some people have used the memories of the massacre for political benefit. Many scholars have supported Yoshida in claiming that the Nanjing Massacre didn't receive greater attention in the international sphere. It is evident that people knew about it. I am not doubtful of the publications of numerous accounts of the same in China, Japan and even in the U.S. The massacre, however, cannot be the representation of the aggression of Japanese citizens nor the suffering of the citizens of China from the 1940s through to the 1960s. Daqing Yang, for example, puts it that the massacre was "scarcely ever mentioned" in the newspapers both in China and Japan in the 1950s and 1960s.I challenge those capable of reading Chinese or Japanese to visit the database of a renowned historical newspaper (like Kikuzo) to find out the truth for themselves. Yoshida criticizes the way ethnocentric patriots from all sides: America, Japan, China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) have exploited the memories of the Massacre. A lot of logical absurdity is witnessed with the government of China initially primarily blaming the Western missionaries for the slaughter while the ardent Japanese patriots deny its very existence.
Anyway, my dislike for this book doesn't have even the remotest connections to the elusive "whitewashing" by Yoshida, but rather his failure to address the memory studies going on to the vast scholarship. The important work on individual memory and how it is shaped could have immensely added to Yoshida s work. The question I would like to put across to those who contend that Yoshida's work is a balanced account of the massacre is whether they would have such charitable view of the Nazi Germany. Would they subordinate those horror scenes to some subtle and disguised research by a scholar on how the Holocaust has been politically manipulated since the second world? Some irrational scholars, the likes of David Irving have already done this. They have received a discredit as deniers of the Holocaust. Surprisingly enough, these scholars are treated with more respect in the West especially in cases where the victim of a war crime of such magnitude is China.
In summary, this is an intellectual and lucid exploration of the different treatments the Nanking Massacre and it has been received in the United States, China, and Japan. Yoshida has managed to wittily avoid the outrage and outright denial by the Japanese while analyzing the three countries. Indeed, it is uniquely done. It is a shame that finding this book is rather difficult as it is not widely available. Those who would like to explore this controversial topic may find this article very useful.
Bibliography
Chang, Iris. The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaust of World War II. Basic Books, 2012.
Gottschall, Jonathan. "Explaining wartime rape." Journal of sex research 41, no. 2 (2004): 129-136.
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)
