Joint History Review Can't Agree on Nanjing

[Mulboyne]

Yomiuri: Study group split over Nanjing Incident
Though scholars from Japan and China will soon compile their final report on the countries' bilateral history, no progress has been made with regard to perceptions of the Nanjing Incident, it was learned Monday. The Japan-China Joint History Research Committee, co-chaired by Tokyo University Prof. Shinichi Kitaoka, is scheduled to release a general statement of its final report as early as Thursday. Though the scholars had hoped to work out a shared historical view on the Nanjing Incident -- in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed after the Imperial Japanese Army captured the city of Nanjing in 1937 -- the committee is expected to present two different statements in the final report because researchers failed to narrow the gap on issues such as how many people were slain, according to sources. Chinese scholars insisted 300,000 were killed -- the number officially supported by Beijing. Meanwhile, the Japanese side said opinions vary over the final death toll, ranging from tens of thousands to 200,000. Regarding the Second Sino-Japanese War, Japanese scholars contended that a number of powerful military officers instigated the Manchurian Incident in September 1931 and then dragged the nation into a series of wars. However, the Chinese side described the war as planned aggression against China by Japan.

The sources said it was decided not to tackle post-1945 history because the Chinese researchers feared such a report could lead to criticism of the current Chinese government. The two sides also were divided over the the international criminal tribunal for the Far East, or Tokyo Tribunal, which was convened in May 1946 and at which 28 Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class-A crimes -- crimes against peace. The Emperor's visit to China in 1992 also split the two sides. The Chinese side apparently was keen to avoid addressing the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, a source said. The final report also will include researchers' articles on different historical periods. The first meeting of the joint research committee -- the purpose of which is to deepen objective perceptions of history through research and the promotion of mutual understanding between Japan and China -- was held in December 2006.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Originally Posted by Mulboyne

Yomiuri: Study group split over Nanjing IncidentRegarding the Second Sino-Japanese War, Japanese scholars contended that a number of powerful military officers instigated the Manchurian Incident in September 1931 and then dragged the nation into a series of wars.

Mixing Japanese and Chinese historians to come up with a mutually acceptable joint history is a Monty Pythonesque process bound to come up with results akin to the Brothers Grimm!

[Coligny]

Originally Posted by Mulboyne

Yomiuri: Study group split over Nanjing Incident
Though scholars from Japan and China will soon compile their final report on the countries' bilateral history, no progress has been made with regard to perceptions of the Nanjing Incident, it was learned Monday.

I know i'm a bit delusionnal... but history is to be aboot facts, not perceptions, feelings or other pathetic subtlelties...

[Mulboyne]

Kyodo via Japan Today: Japan, China at odds over Nanjing Massacre victims in history report

Academics from Japan and China remained apart on the controversial number of victims in the 1937 Nanjing Massacre in a joint history research report released Sunday, after three years of efforts to improve mutual understanding between the two countries. While both sides affirmed that the 1937-1945 Sino-Japanese War was an ‘‘act of aggression’’ waged by Japan, the postwar history section was not disclosed at the request of the Chinese panel members, fearing a possible public backlash against the sensitive content. The release of the 549-page report, which covers ancient, medieval and modern history, marks the end of the study that started in 2006. It describes certain periods of time or themes from papers submitted by Japanese and Chinese academics, apparently because of the differences in perceptions. The panel, chaired by Shinichi Kitaoka, a professor at the University of Tokyo, and Bu Ping, director of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, labeled the study as ‘‘the first term’’ and called for the need to carry on such a study to ‘‘the second stage.’"

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada welcomed the completion of the report, saying, ‘‘Even if there may have been differences in views, especially in modern and contemporary history, I think common understanding can gradually be nurtured by working on it." As for the number of Chinese killed by the Imperial Japanese Army after its seizure of Nanjing, the report referred to the different views that exist in the two countries, ranging from 20,000 to more than 300,000. But both sides refrained from asserting which figure should be regarded as legitimate. Japanese academics said China’s view is ‘‘based on the ruling of the 1947 Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal,’’ which said the number was more than 300,000, while noting that ‘‘various estimates up to 200,000, such as 40,000 and 20,000’’ exist in Japanese studies. Chinese researcher Rong Weimu also touched on the figures of the Nanjing tribunal, as well as data from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which says the number totaled more than 200,000, but did not stipulate China’s view on the issue.

The reason for the various arguments is because of the differences in ‘‘the verification of data’’ in terms of the definition of ‘‘massacre,’’ the area and period in which the incident took place, the burial records and others, said Sumio Hatano, a professor at the University of Tsukuba and another Japanese academic. But they admitted that ‘‘mass killings’’ of prisoners of war, some civilians, stragglers, and others did occur, along with frequent rapes, lootings and arsons. On the eight-year Sino-Japanese War, the two sides used in the report the word ‘‘aggression’’ by the Japanese army and said it ‘‘left a deep scar on China that became the battleground and we have to say that most of the causes were created by the Japanese side." ‘‘The full-scale Sino-Japanese War not only inflicted a heavy toll on the military personnel of both countries, but especially on noncombatants in China,’’ according to Hatano. The remarks clearly describe Japan as the victimizer in the war. There are concerns in China that some people in Japan seem to be denying its war responsibility and even the historical fact that it conducted a war of aggression.

The Chinese paper also concluded that the Sino-Japanese war was ‘‘an all-out aggressive war by Japanese militarism." On the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, an exchange of gunfire between Japanese and Chinese troops near Beijing that led to the war, the Chinese paper indicates a softening of its stance, saying that ‘‘there is a possibility that it may have occurred accidentally." The Japanese paper said the first shooting occurred accidentally, while adding in the annotation that such a view is ‘‘dominant’’ among Japanese researchers, but many Chinese researchers insist that it was ‘‘planned or plotted’’ by the Japanese army.

In the modern history section, the Chinese papers tend to criticize Japan’s wartime act and stress the suffering of the Chinese people based on its historical perspective that China continued to resist Japan’s aggression. The Japanese paper, for its part, placed importance on explaining how Japan headed to war and its background. It also avoided making reference to Unit 731, the Japanese army’s germ warfare arm, known for conducting experiments on living humans, although the Chinese paper included the word.

Ten academics each from Japan and China served as the members of the panel, with an initial plan to report its findings by the end of 2008, the 30th anniversary of the bilateral peace treaty. But the release of the report was postponed several times, with China citing ‘‘technical reasons’’ in one occasion. It remains a challenge as to how the countries would deal with their postwar history, which includes the deadly 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. The incident is a delicate issue in China, with Chinese leaders saying the use of military force was necessary to maintain stability. Chinese panel members are apparently wary about releasing the postwar section of the report, fearing that it may trigger anti-Japan sentiment in its country.