1

Answer One
Despite all the controversy surrounding the actual events of the Rape of Nanking, theres
no denying that it was a tragedy of the type that should never have occurred and should never
happen again. While the Japanese were certainly the perpetrators of the act, it would be difficult
to pin all of the Japanese involved or surrounding the events as truly evil and fully responsible.
In fact, while not directly their fault, we can even point fingers at some Chinese in positions of
power, citing mistakes and missteps that should not have happened that allowed the tragedy to
take place. The most prominent of these is the poorly executed defense of the city, military
withdrawal, and the evacuation. Among these factors, although understandable considering the
circumstances, many members of the military hid or took shelter among civilians within the city
following the conclusion of the battle at the citys outskirts. Taking a more sympathetic view of
the Japanese perspective, the incident appears to be mostly the results of mistakes among the
Japanese leadership, the Japanese culture, and their superiority complex.
To understate things slightly, the Chinese defense of their capital was botched. Besides
their political leadership abandoning the capital to set up a provisional government elsewhere,
the actual defensive strategy was executed poorly. One of the first errors was the razing of the
land outside the city walls. The primary consequence of this was further frustrating a Japanese
army already struggling to find enough supplies; one of the reasons the Japanese killed POWs
was the lack of food and other resources necessary to keep them alive in custody. Besides this
and a number of related factors, commanders and leadership that committed to defending the city
to the death quickly abandoned any hope of stopping the Japanese. The retreating Chinese
compromised the security of the entire city, including ruining any strategic advantage the troops
that planned to stay had had.
Poor communication during this withdrawal from the city also led to massive exodus.
Some people could not even leave the city, but those who had planned to stay and then tried to

leave once they realized the futility of the defensive efforts were trapped or even killed. Some
military trying to leave were gunned down by their own comrades trying to stop desertion. Those
members of the military that could not the leave the city before the Japanese descended on it
really had only two options: die a POW or try to hide. While completely justifiable given POWs
were being executed en masse, the plainclothes soldiers only gave the Japanese another reason
to kill civilians and disguised soldiers alike.
On the Japanese side of the coin, probably the largest contributing factor to the massacre
was simply the mindset of the Japanese, especially members of the military, at the time. While it
may have been in part revenge for a tough campaign prior to Nanjing, or in part a warning to any
future resistance, its undeniably a factor of the Japanese culture of superiority. Without the
dehumanization of the Chinese, the execution of thousands of civilians and combatants would
have been difficult, if not impossible for the Japanese to carry out. This dehumanization was
largely a result of the rapid development of Japan and changes to the educational system, as well
as their somewhat isolated islandic culture. For example, see the mental toll the execution of
Russian Jews took on German forces.
Of course, the spark that ignited the massacre was not the Japanese hatred toward other
cultures. Failures in Japanese leadership led to supply shortages, changes in command, and
miscommunications that culminated in the order being sent out to take no prisoners. This also
contributed to the order not being withdrawn in time to stop the bloodletting. Arguably, the
failure in the ability of leadership to control the footsoldiers was a major reason the Japanese did
not let up following the surrender of the military forces in the city: they continued to rape,
murder, kidnap, and pillage the city.
Ultimately, despite the Rape of Nanjing being a result of Japanese aggression, the
incident was handled poorly and exacerbated by the actions of the leadership on both sides of the
conflict. The Chinese failed to mount a proper defense, failed their citizens, then used them as a

hiding place from the Japanese. The Japanese sent out an order to execute prisoners in error, did
not correct it for a significant amount of time, and then failed to maintain control of their grunts
while occupying the city. In addition to this, the entire Japanese cultural mindset encouraged the
execution of the Chinese.

Answer Two
I think it is always important to understand the specifics of an incident before assigning
fault to one party or another. Of course, in context, we are immediately reminded of the Rape of
Nanking. In the case of the traditionalists, this is not the case or their belief. Traditionalists think
that whats been decided is permanent and that any attempts to change figures or rationale for
massacre is an incorrect (at best and unethical at worst) attempt to avoid some of the blame by
the Japanese. Most other positions, like revisionists and centrists dont follow this train of
thought at all or at least as strictly.
The revisionists are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum. Their belief is that
much of the information gathered all those decades ago was subject to error, for several reasons:
politicization of the issue and the use of Nanjing as a propaganda tool, people lower on the totem
pole taking the fall for others, or hiding facts, and exaggeration of the events by different parties
for personal reasons or just misperception. In general they seem to be associated with the
Japanese, as that is who stands to gain the most by revising the perception of the Rape of
Nanking.
Personally, I would tend to side more with the revisionists than traditionalists.
Punishments have already been doled out and its likely over 90% of the people that experienced
or were involved in the event have died since then. The traditionalists stand to gain nothing and
only keep their pride by not allowing the historical 300,000 figure to change, while the
revisionists seek more to uncover the truth than to redeem their ancestors (in my opinion).
Besides this, I think an uncompromising stance and a refusal to fully consider evidence is closeminded, harmfully so. When assigning responsibility to someone, it just doesnt make sense to
hear his or her side of the story, or the historical particulars of the event, and not even consider
them in the decision.

Take a look at the US justice system. The whole goal of the justice system is
reconciliation, and ensuring that the events that occurred do not repeat themselves. We see that
the first step of the process, or trial, is a truth-seeking process. Prosecutors attempt to determine
the particulars of the event that occurred. Along the way they hear the accounts of both sides,
paying particular car to the defendants, as the standard is innocent until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. As is clear from this statement, the justice system in the United States heavily
values the historical particulars of events. In fact, we can reinforce this parallel by continuing to
show the ways in which the judicial process mirrors the steps to reconciliation we have been
taught. The step following truth-seeking is restitution: if proven guilty, the defendant must serve
time or pay a fine or a do community service, in some way righting his wrongs. Often a
defendant that shows guilt and remorse or even admits to his crimes will be punished more
sparingly. These all show an attempt to reconcile differences without simply spending time in a
cell. When the process is over and the guilty has served his time or the prosecution was unable to
prove guilt, oblivion should occur. The party at blame is free from retrial and should be treated as
if they were never on trial in the first place.
With all the similarities between this and the reconciliation process weve been taught,
its easy to see how incredibly important it is to know the facts leading up to a determination of
responsibility. This mindset should apply to the current debate about the incident and Nanking:
we should not ignore facts or evidence that might change our minds simply because of preconceived notions.