About that [definition] before talking about the Nanjing Incident

So, before I talk about the Nanking Incident, let me talk about its [definition].
My position is that it is the third [false] [wartime propaganda], as I wrote before.
The history of Japan's research on the Nanking Incident is that the first CCP-friendly scholar to be involved in the negotiations for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and China claimed [mass murder]. They liked to use the term [Gyakusatu(massacre)].
Then, people in the second and third positions added rebuttals to the research.
By adding [criticism] to [evidence] given by people in the first position, the rebuttals of people in the second and third positions are developed.
Naturally, [Probatio diabolica] or [Evidence of absence] is not possible.
If one makes an argument, one cannot prove [what is not], so one has made [criticism] on [evidence] and destroyed its probability.
I was surprised to read about [the Nanjing massacre] in Conservapedia.
Conservapedia is known in Japan to have been created by a conservative American.
But the content is the kind of content that only communists or socialists (a position close to communism) would say in Japan.
Or the occupation policy created by Soviet spies by the GHQ after the war, which only professors and supporters of the watchdogs [Science Council of Japan] would say.
And there are too few references, not even the research books that any Japanese researcher must read.
I wonder if it was really made by a conservative.
I'm really surprised.
Knowledge is an important and large amount of knowledge is required for important and large events.
In Japan, there is quite a bit of research going on, so a lot of information from historical documents is presented.
At the very least, I think it would be good to have an introduction to the Yale University website.
Uninformedness breeds misunderstanding.
Uninformedness breeds prejudice.
Uninformedness breeds hostility.
That's how I see it.
First of all, please know the [definition] of [massacre] in "Nanking Incident" in Japan.
I hope the American people understand it.
The [definition] of [massacre] in the "Nanking Incident" in Japan is a violation of the following [Convention].

1899 Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land
1929 Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention)
1949 Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention)
1998 [The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court] or [ICC Statute]

It is an [act] that [violates] a treaty called
This is also the definition used by university professors who take the first. I think of it as generally the definition of the academic community.

Recently, the BBC and other media reports (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54996581) talked about [war crimes] that Australian special forces allegedly committed between 2009 and 2013.
Australias signed and ratified the 1998 [The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court] or [ICC Statute] in 2002.

Knowing and realizing the Japanese [definition] of [Gyakusatu(massacre)] is a cool observation for people to make.
That's right. [law] and [treaty].
How did we come to this [definition] in Japan?
Kaikosha (偕行社, Kaikōsha : a fellowship of former Japanese soldiers and retired self-defense officers) published an 11-part series of "The History of the Battle of Nanking by Testimony" in its journal between 1984 and 1985, summarized and reanalyzed it, and published a total of three research books, "The History of the Battle of Nanking" and "The History of the Battle of Nanking - Documents 1" and "The History of the Battle of Nanking - Documents 2" in 1989.
In it, he defined [Gykusatu(massacre)].
The first scholar, who had done prior research, did not [define].
Kaikosha criticized the first scholar who only gave a vague [definition] of [the horrific acts of Japanese soldiers].
That definition is now being used by the first scholars.
A more cool observation, if you've noticed further.
In 1998 [Rome Statute], the international community recognized it as a [criminal act] and came to recognize it as a [crime].
In 1998, the Battle of Nanking was in 1937.

And France, for example, has revised its constitution and national laws based on this treaty.
In it, [Nulla poena sine lege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege)] assumes that [Nulla poena sine lege
Nulla poena sine lege praevia
Nulla poena sine lege scripta
Nulla poena sine lege certa
Nulla poena sine lege stricta
I don't know the U.S. Constitution and laws, but
The BBC's [Trump sanctions ICC officials for US military war crimes investigation] (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527) was a recent topic of discussion.
The BBC report is wrong, because by a treaty called the [American Servicemen's Protection Act], American law, and the agreement of Article 98 with our allies, it would take another president, not President Trump, to invoke such sanctions. It doesn't matter whether it is President Trump or another president to impose such sanctions.
The BBC's reporting is misleading and malicious.
These two cases show that the
[Nulla poena sine lege] and by [the law], it means that you are not [bound].
In other words, prior to 1998, there is no such thing as [war crimes].
But during the 1946-1946 International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the judges ruled that General Matsui Ishine was guilty of war crimes.
And He was executed.
The [guilt] is the [guilt] of [Criminal irresponsibility].
Is that a [crime]?
Were there any such [crimes]?
Recall [Nulla poena sine lege].

I can't proceed to the Nanking incident at all, because I'm going to preface this by saying that it's a long story.
However, I must say it because it is important.
Furthermore, I have to mention something else.
The [act of combat], to begin with, is also a means to [kill] and [achieve] an end.
In other words, it is an [immoral] act, very [brutal] and very [inhumane] and very [inhuman] and very [inhuman].

Now, the United Nations Charter mandates the prohibition of war, the peaceful resolution of war.
There is a problem with this word [war].
A [war] is a [formal duel between nations] accompanied by a [declaration of war].
During the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan was called a "coward".
Later, through diplomatic channels with the U.S. and other victorious nations, [they declared war].
However, [formal dueling of nations] accompanied by [a declaration of war] is forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations.
However, [battles] do take place even today.
That is, [immoral] acts so [brutal] and so [inhumane] and so [inhuman] and so [non-human rights] are carried out between the state and organizations.
In the past, the Chinese Communist Party and the Republic of China, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, and more recently, along the border of India and the People's Republic of China. Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia and Ukraine. Continued fighting against terrorist organizations with the countries concerned in Afghanistan.
The difference between these and what the UN Charter calls [war] is that they are not [battles] that involve [law enforcement] with a [declaration of war].
It is not a [formal duel between nations] with a [declaration of war].
Therefore, it is done as a [means] of [conflict resolution].
The Nanjing Incident was a [battle] as well as the China Incident, and it was not a [declaration of war] by both Japan and China.
It was exactly the same as what we call [a conflict] today.
Even after World War II, [combat] has been used by the international community as a means of conflict resolution, if not peaceful resolution.
Whether or not it has led to [a] resolution is another story.
That is, [combat actions] are so [brutal] and so [inhumane] and so [inhuman] in [immoral] acts, that they are unwillingly but tacitly tolerated.

Not getting to the Nanjing incident.
Even if the first people define [genocide] as [brutal] and very [inhumane], it doesn't even fall under the [definition] as long as the [act of combat] is like that in the first place.
It's simple logic.
Speaking of different [murders] that happen in the country, can anyone understand?
Like the recent November 21, 2020 [shooting at a shopping mall in the United States (https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-mall-shots-reported-active-situation-wauwatosa)] that happened [ The case] should be understood to be of a different dimension.
At the time, it was in a state of combat.
Furthermore, Japan did not ratify and issue the 1929 Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention). Therefore, it is not bound by international law on the treatment of prisoners of war. Nor is it obliged to do so.
This is why [POW] is not mentioned in the Japanese Foreign Ministry's History Q&A [6]（https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq16.html）.
Furthermore, international law has the principle of "good faith" and "the principle of separation of soldiers and non-combatants".
Those engaged in combat activities must wear [badge]. That is, a military uniform. It is [duty].
And even non-combatants are subject to attack if they participate in combat activities.
Types of [combat actions] include basic [attacks] as well as [transportation], [reconnaissance], and [position building].
If a split-second decision is required, even a [misidentification] is [attack].
In today's world, we can do reconnaissance with night vision scopes and cameras attached to drones, such as remote control, but a non-combatant who moves near enemy positions in a war zone can be mistaken for a soldier or a participant in combat activities.
These are the definitions of [Gyakusatu(masaccre)] that are predicated.
And will not be accompanied by an international organization that does the surveillance.

Next, we will discuss the population and duration of the Nanking massacre.
Based on the Conservativea's description of the Nanking massacre, I would like to explain our argument in the form of a refutation of it.
The page says, [the Japanese military murdered 100,000 to 300,000 Chinese after conquering the city of Nanjing].
In its pages, it uses emotional words like [conquest], but would the United States use the word conquest after Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration and surrendered?
Whoever wrote the word [conquest] in the sentence is a bit childish and emotional, if you ask me.
[after], so we think it is after Nanjing falls.

The fall of Nanjing occurred on the morning of December 13: On the 12th, the commander of the Defense Forces, Tang Shengzhi, escaped from Nanking, and in the evening of that day, the Chinese troops began to retreat towards the Gate of Kiang Men, which leads to the northern part of the city, where the Yangtze River is located.
However, in front of the Gate of Kiang Men, some of the same defending troops guarded the gate and attacked the retreating troops. It was a mutual attack.
As described in the book The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, which is used as a reference book.
In the battle, the building of the [Ministry of Transport], which was the most luxurious building in Nanjing, was set on fire.
Then, with the Japanese invasion, a sweeping operation that would last until the 26th.
It was a typical sweep, attacking the Chinese soldiers who resisted and organizing the surrendered prisoners of war.
Chinese cities are characterized by high walled gate towns. And the surrounding farmland.
In a December 8 article published by the New York Times' Darden newspaper, Commander Tang Shengdi [ordered] non-combatants around Nanjing to evacuate to a safe zone of international organizations.
The same thing is written in the famous John Labe's diary.
He then began burning and destroying houses that might be used by Japanese troops outside the city. This is also taking place in the north of the city, on the Yangtze River wharf.
The article of the 8th also reports of a man named Patterson arriving in Nanjing. He testified that the Chinese had set fire to both Hsiakwan and the cities of Suzhou.
Then on the 9th all the gates were closed. Only some of the Gate of Kiang Men seemed to allow some degree of access to the area.
However, looking at the photos of Japanese military journalists who arrived at the scene on the 13th, sandbags appear to be piled high and closed.
Therefore, it is likely that the soldiers who fled the scene on the 12th pieced together what they were wearing and escaped by rope down the ramparts to the Shimonoseki Pier.
There are photos left by an American reporter that corroborate this.
In other words, once inside the castle, civilians were not allowed to leave.
According to [burial records] submitted at the Tokyo trial, China submitted material on two organizations that were mass buried.
One is the Red Swastika Society. The other is Suzendo (崇善堂).
The number of bodies found inside the Red Swastika Society's castle is about 5,000.
The number of buried bodies found in the city of Sungseondo is about 7,000.
Bodies on land do not move on their own. The total number of bodies is about 14,000 bodies.
The rest will be outside the castle.
Suzendo conducts in-ground burials outside the castle as well, but the number of bodies is over 100,000.
However, there is no such organization in the records of the Westerners of the time, nor in the records of the specialized units of the Japanese military that were conducting the occupation policy.
Nor is there any record of [action] in which burial activities took place.
Nor is there any record of this organization in the records written by the resident Westerners.
The Red Swastika Society is also mentioned in Japanese newspaper articles.
This is because they were engaged in burial activities with Japanese Nichiren Buddhist monks.
Although it presents a record of the number of burials as an organization that conducted burial activities on a large scale only in the Tokyo trial, this too is not a real item, but only a document compiled for the trial.
According to the records of the Westerners living at the time, on the 15th, soldiers were seen taking off their uniforms [and losing their rights as prisoners of war].
They left records that they were captured by the Japanese and taken somewhere else.
The number is said to be around 7,000 in Japanese military rumors.
There are other accounts of killing and wounding thousands of defeated soldiers, but it is recognized as a combat action outside the city of Nanking, not the killing of surrendered prisoners of war.
No record can be found that the Japanese troops transported a large number of people, more than 100,000, from the castle.
As a result, the existence of 600,000 soldiers and non-combatants is too little information to guess.
Here are the numbers recorded before and after the fall.

End of March 1936/1,019,667 / Chinese Capital Police Survey
November 22, 1937 / 200,000 / New York Times
November 23, 1937 / guess to reduce the number of people from 500,000 to 200,000. Nanjing Mayor (Ma Chaochun)
November 28, 1937 / 200,000 / John Labe'diary
After the fall
December 22, 1937 - January 5, 1938 / 150,000 / Survey of 16 divisions
January 6 - February 25, 1938 / 100,000 / members the Special Service⌈Agency [Organization] of Nanking
Total 250,000 people
End of February 1937 / 200,000 / the Special Service⌈Agency [Organization] of Nanking
December 17, 1937 / 200,000 to 250,000
March 15, 1938 / 221,150 / War_Damage_in_the_Nanking_area_Dec._1937_to_Mar._1938
March 15, 1938 / 300,000 / War_Damage_in_the_Nanking_area_Dec._1937_to_Mar._1938
July 1938 / 200,000 / Harold John Timperley [WHAT WAR MEANS]
End-October 1938　/　329,488 / the Special Service⌈Agency [Organization] of Nanking
End of October 1939 / 552,228 / the Special Service ⌈Agency [Organization] of Nanking

Based on this figure, it is hard to estimate a population of 300,000, let alone 600,000.
It is true that there were non-combatants (refugees) outside the castle, and there are records of their presence in the area along the Yangtze River northest of the East Hsiakwan and in a temple in the area north of the Chiangtung Men Gate where the memorial now stands.
It is unlikely that there were more than 100,000 noncombatants who failed to escape in a place that could have become a battlefield.

The Japanese do not have the ability to attack in large numbers at one time.
The Japanese army is deploying manpower and materiel to capture key strategic locations and key points.
Basically, they are approaching the Nanjing City from four directions. There is no time to seek out and kill non-combatants outside of the perimeter of the military positions.
As for the story after the fall, the majority of units are now moving to capture other cities due to the ongoing conflict.
Since December 26, 1937 onwards, some of the 16 Division and guarding Nanking.
Basically, the Nanking Autonomous Committee was established in January 1938, and the Chinese and the Special Service Agency [Organization] of Nanking are responsible for the administration of Nanking.
Next, the [definition] in the period of the Nanking Incident is December 3, 1937 to March 15, 1938.
The end date, March 15, 1938, is based on the end date of the report written by Lewis Strong Casey Smythe.
Also, the Smythe Report (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/War_Damage_in_the_Nanking_area_Dec._1937_to_Mar._1938) was submitted to the Tokyo Tribunal as evidence, but it was not accepted as evidence.
Louis Strong About Casey Smythe
Casey Smythe is a professor at Nanjing University. Also known as Jinling University. One of the scholars hired by Chiang Kai-shek. A sociologist.
He was essentially number two in the evacuation zone called the Nanjing Safe Zone. Number one was not John Rabe of Nazi Germany, but essentially Ph.Miner Searle Bates.
Both men are also Christian ministers.
He negotiated and petitioned for safety, food, and livelihoods with the Japanese and submitted protest letters about what happened in and around the safe zone [in the castle].
Putting them together is Ph.D. Shuhsi Hsu[documents-nanking-safety-zone].
It is currently available at the University of Virginia site. (http://imtfe.law.virginia.edu/collections/sutton/7/27/documents-nanking-safety-zone)
As for the timing of the Nanjing Incident, it began when the Japanese attacked and occupied Chinese defensive positions such as Tangshan, Takashi Hama Gate, Xianghu Gate, Chunghwa Town, and Niushou Mountain, which were located about 20 kilometers from the Nanjing city wall.
I think it was the last day of the Smythe Report.
It was recently reported (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49524779) that the Netherlands held a memorial ceremony with a statue of a man who defended the refugees from the Japanese in Nanjing, but the Qixia Temple, where he lived, was located about 20 km northeast of Nanjing near the Chinese Yangtze River. In place, near the enemy positions defended by the Chinese Army 41 Division.
However, the Japanese are after the Chinese troops retreated without presence, when the separate movement troops of 13 Division arrived.
Since it was night without a battle, has passed without a break.
Who in the world could have done this?
On January 26, 1938, Nazi German Consul Rosen wrote a report of the incident to the German home country, reporting a total of 43 killings in the villages leading from Qixia District Temple to Nanking.
The number is surprisingly low.
I am very surprised and puzzled.

In this article, we have explained [Gyakusatu(Massacre)] and its duration in Nanking.
Now, we would like to take up the individual issues in the next issue.

To be continued