Objective Analysis of the Nanking Incident: Discrepancy Between Physical Evidence and Claims • Konrad News

Executive Summary

This analysis reveals that the term “Nanking Massacre” itself is an inappropriate political label with clear propaganda intent.

Military Reality: The capture of the capital city Nanking in December 1937 (Appropriate designation: “Battle of Nanking” or “Nanking Campaign”)

Political Nature of the Naming:

Siege of Leningrad (1 million civilian deaths) → “Siege”
Tokyo Air Raids (100,000 civilian deaths) → “Air Raids”
Atomic Bombs (200,000+ civilian deaths) → “Atomic Bombing”
Nanking (Physical evidence: 43,000 bodies, 97.4% adult males) → “Massacre”

This imbalance in nomenclature demonstrates the political intent of victors to denigrate the defeated while justifying their own war crimes (indiscriminate bombing of civilians and atomic weapons).

Objective Evidence: The death toll of 200,000-300,000 recognized by the Tokyo Trial contradicts physical and mathematical evidence, including population statistics (200,000-250,000 at the time of capture), burial records (43,000 bodies), body composition (97.4% adult males), Japanese military conduct (did not attack the Safety Zone), and comparisons with other urban battles.

Conclusion: The term “Nanking Massacre” is political propaganda. The historical reality was a conventional urban battle accompanying the capture of the capital (tens of thousands of casualties, primarily military targets). The appropriate designation should be “Battle of Nanking” or “Nanking Campaign.”

1. Legal Problems of the Tokyo Trial

1.1 Fundamental Legal Defects

Application of Ex Post Facto Law: Applied “crimes against peace” that did not exist at the start of the war
Victor’s Justice: All judges from victorious nations; Allied war crimes (Tokyo Air Raids, atomic bombs) went unprosecuted
Deviation from Rules of Evidence: Unlimited admission of hearsay evidence, insufficient verification of physical evidence
No Right of Appeal: Violation of fundamental principles of modern rule of law

1.2 Specific Problems Regarding the Nanking Incident

Confusion in Recognized Numbers:

Tokyo Trial verdict: Two conflicting figures of “over 100,000” and “over 200,000”
Nanking Military Tribunal (China): “Over 300,000”
Inconsistent numerical recognition

Suppression of Population Issue:

Defense noted “Nanking’s population was 200,000”
Judge Webb shut down the inquiry stating “now is not the time to bring that up”
Verdict rendered while ignoring population data

Nature of the Tribunal:

Not a “legal trial” in the strict sense, but a military tribunal with strong political character
Deviation from principles of modern rule of law
A special political tribunal for postwar settlement

2. Critical Discrepancy Between Physical Evidence and Claims

2.1 Burial Records (Most Reliable Physical Evidence)

Red Swastika Society Records (Systematic and Highly Reliable):

Burials within the city: 1,793 bodies
Total including outside city walls: Approximately 43,000 bodies

Chongshan Tang Records (Questionable Credibility):

Approximately 112,000 bodies
Records possibly created after the fact
Questions about organizational capacity for such burials
Possible overlap with Red Swastika Society records

Conclusion: Verifiable physical evidence shows approximately 43,000 bodies

2.2 Body Composition (Forensic Evidence)

Breakdown of Bodies Buried by Red Swastika Society Within City Walls (4,758 bodies including those after March 16):

Adult males: 97.4%
Women: 1.6% (78 bodies)
Children: 1.0% (46 bodies)

What This Composition Indicates:

If indiscriminate massacre, women and children would comprise population proportions (approximately 50%, 20-30%)
97.4% adult males = Evidence of targeting military objectives
Concentration in age group targeted for plainclothes soldier searches
Characteristics of casualties from combat operations and plainclothes soldier identification

Comparison with Other Massacres:

Holocaust: Large numbers of women and children killed
Rwanda Genocide: No bias in gender or age
Nanking: 97.4% adult males = Clearly different pattern

2.3 Population Statistics (Mathematical Evidence)

Nanking Population Transitions:

July 1937: Over 1.35 million
November 23, 1937: Approximately 500,000 (evacuated due to air raids)
December 13, 1937 (Fall of city): 200,000-250,000
January 14, 1938 (One month later): 250,000
March 1938: Approximately 220,000

Mathematical Contradiction:

Population at time of fall: 200,000-250,000
Claimed massacre: 300,000
Calculated remaining population: -50,000 to -100,000 (Physically impossible)
Actual population one month later: 250,000 (Increased)

Reason for Increase: Evidence that evacuees returned as security was restored

2.4 Absence of Hundreds of Thousands of Remains

Critical Question: Where are the remains of approximately 160,000-260,000 people—the difference between the claimed 200,000-300,000 and the buried 43,000?

Attempted Explanations:

Dumping in Yangtze River → No records of mass body discoveries downstream
Undiscovered mass graves → Should have been found during urban development
Cremation → Physically difficult to process hundreds of thousands of bodies in short time

Comparison with Other Large-Scale Massacres:

Holocaust: Large quantities of remains and physical evidence found at camp sites
Katyn Forest: Mass graves discovered, bodies confirmed (approximately 20,000)
Hiroshima/Nagasaki: Clear relationship between estimated deaths and bodies/remains

Conclusion: If there were casualties on the scale of hundreds of thousands, corresponding archaeological evidence should exist

3. Plainclothes Soldiers and Misattribution of Crimes

3.1 Existence of Plainclothes Soldiers and Criminal Acts

New York Times Report, January 4, 1938 (Reliable third-country media):

American professors remaining at Ginling College discovered they had been harboring a Chinese Army colonel and six subordinate officers. These officers:

Had removed their uniforms during the Nanking retreat
Had hidden 6 rifles, 5 revolvers, 1 machine gun and ammunition in the building
Confessed to looting in Nanking in the presence of Americans and other foreigners
Admitted to dragging girls from the refugee camp into darkness one night and blaming Japanese soldiers for the attacks the next day

3.2 Status of Plainclothes Soldiers Under International Law

Hague Convention Requirements for Combatant Status:

Presence of commander
Uniform or distinctive emblem
Open carrying of weapons
Compliance with laws of war

Plainclothes Soldiers: Do not meet these conditions and are not protected by laws of land warfare

Important Distinction:

Plainclothes soldiers conducting combat operations: Unlawful combatants violating international law
Defeated soldiers who simply removed uniforms to flee: Should have been treated as prisoners of war

3.3 Legal Issues with Executions

International Law Requirement: Even for plainclothes soldiers, military trial required for punishment

Problems in Nanking:

No systematic military trials conducted
Arbitrary identification criteria (“those with blisters,” “those with good posture,” “all young men are defeated soldiers”)
Summary executions without trial = Violation of international law

However, Important Point:

This is a war crime of “improper execution of plainclothes soldiers”
Fundamentally different from “massacre of 300,000 civilians”
The two were conflated at the Tokyo Trial

3.4 Credibility Issues with Foreign Witnesses

Foreign Witnesses in Safety Zone:

Testimony of Rabe, Bates and others heavily weighted at Tokyo Trial
However, they were harboring plainclothes soldiers and obtaining information from them
Those plainclothes soldiers themselves committed crimes and blamed Japanese soldiers
Serious questions about objectivity of testimony

4. Japanese Military Discipline and Behavioral Patterns

4.1 International Reputation of Japanese Military

Treatment of German POWs in World War I:

Treated approximately 4,700 German POWs with respect
Bando Camp: Site of first Japanese performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony
Excursions and swimming permitted
Strict observance of international law (1907 Hague Convention)
Humane treatment by Camp Commander Matsue Toyohisa internationally praised

Japan’s Legal Framework:

Ratified Hague Convention in 1911
Established “POW Treatment Regulations” and “POW Punishment Law”
Tradition of international law compliance

4.2 Japanese Military Conduct in Nanking

Response to Safety Zone:

De facto recognition of Safety Zone established by International Committee
Responded that they would “respect it as far as militarily necessary measures permit”
Avoided attacking Safety Zone (housing 200,000 people)
Received letter of gratitude from Chairman Rabe

Important Logical Contradiction:

If “massacre of 300,000” was the policy, why not attack the Safety Zone with 200,000 people gathered?
Could have easily achieved this by attacking the Safety Zone
But did not attack = Evidence of no intent for indiscriminate massacre

4.3 Historical Continuity Issues

Question: Did the Japanese military, which observed international law in WWI and treated POWs humanely, suddenly change character in just 20 years to commit large-scale massacres?

More Rational Explanation:

Confusion due to plainclothes soldier problem
Disciplinary violations by some soldiers
Conflation of combat operations and massacre
Significant exaggeration of scale

5. Comparison with Other Urban Battles

5.1 Major Urban Battles of World War II

Urban Battle	Duration	City Population	Civilian Casualties	Designation
Siege of Leningrad	872-900 days	~3 million	950,000-1 million (97% starvation)	“Siege”
Stalingrad	~6 months	~600,000	200,000+	“Battle”
Battle of Berlin	~2 weeks	–	~120,000	“Battle”
Warsaw Uprising	1944	–	200,000	“Uprising”
Tokyo Air Raids	1 night	–	~100,000	“Air Raids”
Dresden Bombing	–	–	25,000-135,000	“Bombing”
Hiroshima/Nagasaki	–	–	~200,000+	“Atomic Bombing”
Nanking (Physical Evidence)	6-8 weeks	200,000-250,000	43,000	“Massacre”
Nanking (Chinese Claim)	6-8 weeks	200,000-250,000	300,000	–

5.2 Political Nature of Naming

Significant Contradiction:

Leningrad 1 million deaths → “Heroic Siege”
Tokyo Air Raids 100,000 deaths → “Air Raids”
Atomic Bombs 200,000+ deaths → “Atomic Bombing”
Nanking 43,000 (97.4% adult males) → “Massacre”

5.3 Relative Assessment of Scale

43,000 as an Urban Battle:

Not particularly large – rather small scale
Within range of normal urban battles
Standard when considering duration and city population

Comparative Analysis:

Stalingrad: 200,000+ in 6 months (total war)
Berlin: 120,000+ in 2 weeks (final battle)
Nanking: 43,000 in 6-8 weeks (limited urban battle)

6. Political Nature of Naming

6.1 “Incident” vs “Battle”

Military Reality: Military operation to capture capital city Nanking

Normal Designation Would Be:

“Battle of Nanking”
“Nanking Campaign”
“Siege of Nanking”

Actual Designation:

Nanking “Incident”
Nanking “Massacre”
Nanking “Atrocities”

6.2 Comparison with Other City Captures

Contemporary China Theater:

Battle of Shanghai → “Shanghai Incident” (incident/battle)
Capture of Wuhan → “Wuhan Operation” (operation)
Capture of Canton → “Canton Operation” (operation)

European Theater:

Fall of Paris → “Fall of Paris”
Warsaw → “Warsaw Uprising”

Why Only Nanking Called “Massacre”?

6.3 Confusion of the Term “Nanking Incident”

Two Different “Nanking Incidents”:

March 24, 1927: Attack on consulates by National Revolutionary Army (Britain/US shelled city, ~2,000 Chinese casualties)
December 1937: So-called “Nanking Massacre”

6.4 Media Naming

December 15, 1937: Correspondent A.T. Steele first reported “NANKING MASSACRE STORY”
The term “Massacre” was used from the beginning
Political intent to report military operation as “massacre”

7. Stakeholders Benefiting from Exaggeration

7.1 Immediately After War (1945-1950s)

Allied Powers Overall:

Relativization of their own war crimes
Justification of Tokyo Air Raids (100,000) and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (200,000)
Moral superiority of “Japan was worse”

United States:

Justification of atomic bomb use
Legitimacy of Japan occupation policies

Soviet Union:

Relativization of Siberian internment (~600,000 interned, 60,000+ died)
Deflection from Katyn Forest Massacre (20,000 Polish officers killed)
Avoidance of responsibility for Siege of Leningrad (1 million starvation deaths)

7.2 From 1980s Onward

People’s Republic of China (Greatest Beneficiary):

Domestic Governance:

Securing Communist Party legitimacy after 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident
Core of patriotic education
Tool for national unity
Directing dissatisfaction outward (toward Japan)

Diplomatic Card Against Japan:

Obtaining economic cooperation and ODA from Japan
Placing Japan in morally inferior position on historical issues
Securing advantage in territorial disputes (Senkaku Islands)
Justifying criticism of Japan in international community

Important Facts:

From 1960 to 1982, not a single article about the Nanking Incident appeared in People’s Daily
First major coverage during 1982 textbook controversy
Nanking Massacre Memorial Hall built in 1985
Maximum utilization began after 1989 Tiananmen Incident

7.3 Why Fixed at “300,000”

Strategic Number Setting:

Need to exceed Hiroshima/Nagasaki (200,000)
Need to surpass Tokyo Trial’s “over 200,000”
Symbolic number for China’s patriotic education
Physical contradictions become obvious if increased further

8. Feasibility Verification

8.1 Size and Capability of Japanese Forces

Japanese Forces in Nanking Campaign:

Shanghai Expeditionary Force and 10th Army, totaling approximately 200,000
Directly participating in Nanking capture: approximately 70,000-100,000
After occupation, many units moved to next operational areas

8.2 Physical and Temporal Constraints

If Killing and Processing 200,000-300,000 People:

Period: Mainly December 13, 1937 - February 1938 (approximately 6-8 weeks)
Per day: Several thousand to 10,000-scale killings necessary

Labor for body disposal:
- To process 200,000 people
- Assuming 1 hour per body for transport and burial
- Total of 200,000 man-hours of labor required
- Even with 1,000 workers: 200 hours (25 days full-time)

Military Irrationality:

Need to move to next operations (Wuhan capture, etc.)
Ammunition and fuel consumption
Could they spare personnel for systematic mass killings?
No records of such orders or operations

8.3 Consistency with Burial Records

The Figure of 43,000 Bodies:

Rational from feasibility perspective
Scale processable in approximately 6-8 weeks
Within range possible for systematic burial by organizations like Red Swastika Society
Consistent with physical constraints

9. Conclusions

9.1 Summary of Objective Evidence

What Physical Evidence Shows:

Burial records: Approximately 43,000 bodies (verifiable)
Body composition: 97.4% adult males (military targets)
Population: 300,000 massacre mathematically impossible with 200,000-250,000 population
Safety Zone: Housed 200,000, Japanese military did not attack
Japanese military: Tradition of international law compliance, track record of humane POW treatment

Problems with Testimonial Evidence:

Plainclothes soldiers blamed crimes on Japanese soldiers (NY Times report)
Foreign witnesses were harboring plainclothes soldiers and basing information on them
Tokyo Trial admitted hearsay evidence without limit

9.2 Structure of Exaggeration

The Figure of 300,000:

7-fold discrepancy from physical evidence (43,000 bodies)
Physical contradiction with population statistics (200,000-250,000)
Body composition (97.4% adult males) inconsistent with nature of “massacre”
Abnormally exaggerated naming compared to other urban battles
Difficult from feasibility perspective

Motivation for Exaggeration:

Allied Powers: Justification of atomic bombs and air raids
China: Domestic governance and diplomatic card against Japan
Political utility prioritized over truth

9.3 Appropriate Historical Understanding

What Happened:

Battle to capture capital city Nanking (military operation)
Problems in plainclothes soldier identification (executions without trial)
Disciplinary violations by some soldiers
Civilian casualties accompanying combat
Scale: Tens of thousands (based on physical evidence)

What Did Not Happen:

Systematic mass killings on scale of 300,000
Planned civilian extermination policy
Indiscriminate killing of women and children

Appropriate Designation:

“Battle of Nanking” or “Nanking Campaign”
Should be recognized as military operation
“Massacre” is political propaganda term

9.4 Final Conclusion

The Term “Nanking Massacre” and the Figure of 300,000:

Contradicts verifiable physical evidence
Mathematically and physically impossible
Unnatural compared to other urban battles
Exaggerated by clear political intent
Recognized due to legal defects of Tokyo Trial

Historical Truth:

Tens of thousands of casualties (primarily adult males) in Battle of Nanking
Casualties from plainclothes soldier problem and combat operations
Some war crimes existed
However, “massacre of 300,000” is political narrative not based on evidence

10. References

10.1 Primary Sources

Tokyo Trial Judgment (1948)
New York Times, January 4, 1938
Red Swastika Society burial records
International Committee for Nanking Safety Zone documents
Rabe’s diary

10.2 Population Statistics

Nanking municipal government materials (1937)
Safety Zone population records (December 1937 – March 1938)
Smythe Survey (March 1938)

10.3 International Law

Hague Convention (1907)
Geneva Convention on POWs (1929)

10.4 Comparative Studies

Various materials on urban battles during World War II
Records of Japanese military POW treatment (World War I)

Appendix: Key Numbers at a Glance

【Nanking Population Transitions】
July 1937: Over 1.35 million
November 23, 1937: Approximately 500,000
December 13, 1937 (Fall): 200,000-250,000
January 14, 1938: 250,000
March 1938: Approximately 220,000

【Burial Records】
Red Swastika Society: Approximately 43,000 bodies
(Within city: 1,793 bodies, 78 women, 46 children)

【Body Composition】
Adult males: 97.4%
Women: 1.6%
Children: 1.0%

【Claimed Casualties】
Tokyo Trial: Over 100,000 (or over 200,000)
Chinese Government: Over 300,000

【Japanese Force Size】
Total strength: Approximately 200,000
Participating in Nanking capture: Approximately 70,000-100,000

【Civilian Casualties in Other Urban Battles】
Leningrad: 950,000-1 million
Stalingrad: Over 200,000
Tokyo Air Raids: Approximately 100,000
Hiroshima/Nagasaki: Approximately 200,000+
Berlin: Approximately 120,000
Warsaw: Approximately 200,000

This document is intended for objective historical verification based on evidence and does not represent any specific political position. History should be understood based on verifiable evidence and clarified through scientific methods, not political propaganda.

Created: 2025
This document may be distributed and shared

English Article