525
Asia
record of discussions and any police repression). Finally, chapter eight, on the role of the Japanese press
in the Russo-Japanese War (1894-1895), provides a
troubling mirror for post-September 11, 2001 press
and public activities in America.
This will be the standard work on the birth of
Japanese journalism for our generation. It includes a
helpful appendix on the actual newspapers, chronology, and fifty journalists. Its rich primary resource base
and clear presentation make it a rewarding resource
for comparative historians. Huffman smoothes the way
with strategic references to similar issues in British and
European press history. Historians can learn a great
deal about Japan's entry into the "new world order" of
the twentieth century through this lucid volume, which
reveals the historical contingency of change as the
press and the people of Meiji Japan created each
other.
TIMOTHY CHEEK
Colorado College
MASAHIRO YAMAMOTO. Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. 2000. pp. xv, 352. $39.95.
JOSHUA A. FOGEL. The Nanjing Massacre in History and
Historiography. (Asia: Local Studies/Global Themes,
number 2.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press. 2000. Pp. xvi, 248. Cloth $40.00,
paper $15.95.
Few issues in the history of twentieth-century East
Asia have generated as much passionate debate as the
atrocities committed by Japanese troops against Chinese prisoners of war and civilians during the capture
of Nanjing in 1937-1938. The publication of Iris
Chang's The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust
of World War II (1997) has brought both the historical
event and the historiographic debate to the attention
of a broad audience. Two recent studies contribute
much-needed scholarly perspectives to English-language treatments of this subject and help to
explain the persistence of conflicting historical narratives of the Nanjing massacre.
Masahiro Yamamoto presents an analysis of Japanese atrocities from the standpoint of a self-described
"centrist-revisionist" who affirms that Japanese troops
did, in fact, engage in large-scale atrocities during the
capture and occupation of the city but questions the
magnitude and scope of killing alleged in most Western or Chinese accounts. Using Japanese army documents and the diaries of soldiers involved, in addition
to more frequently used Chinese and Western sources,
he estimates that as many as 50,000 Chinese were
"killed in unlawful ways" (p. 115). He finds that all but
7,000 of the victims were prisoners of war, soldiers out
of uniform, and conscription-age civilian men suspected of being former soldiers, who were rounded up
and systematically executed by army units on verbal
orders from the staff of the Shanghai Expeditionary
Army. At the same time, he argues that credible
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
evidence for larger numbers of victims cited in the
verdicts of the Tokyo War Crimes trials and in postwar
Chinese and Western accounts is lacking. He attributes
the steady inflation of numbers in the aftermath of the
event to wartime propaganda and to postwar politics
and diplomacy. Yamamoto's affirmation of large-scale
mass killings pits him against the hardline "revisionists" like Masaaki Tanaka, who deny that any significant atrocities occurred. At the same time, his analysis
places him at odds with "traditionalist" Japanese
scholars, as well as a majority of Chinese and Western
writers, who argue for a far larger scale of slaughter
that took the lives of between 100,000 and 400,000
defenseless victims.
Although Yamamoto's estimates place him in a
position between the "traditionalist" and "revisionist"
poles of the debate, his "revisionist" leanings become
evident in his efforts to explain the causes of the
atrocity. Poor planning, including the lack of provisions for securing large numbers of prisoners; the
discovery of some handguns and grenades in the
possession of surrendered troops; and the fear of
"plainclothes soldiers" engaging in guerrilla operations all contributed to the practice of mass execution
as a means of eliminating threats to the security of the
occupation forces. Yamamoto attempts to provide a
broader explanatory framework by including a chapter
on the history of military atrocities, noting that Japanese actions in Nanjing had numerous precedents. He
argues that although Japanese atrocities were not
excusable, they were, nonetheless, dictated by military
purposes and not by some atavistic blood lust or
behavioral imperatives inherent in Japanese culture.
Yamamoto takes care to reject "relativist" arguments
that regard the Japanese army's actions as no worse
than what other armies have done elsewhere, yet his
emphasis on precedents in the history of warfare
reflects an underlying apologist tone that informs
much of the book. For this reason, English-language
readers may find this study more "revisionist" than
"centrist" in orientation and its contribution to exposing the reality of at least some of the mass killings
overshadowed by its efforts at mitigating explanation.
The collection of essays edited by Joshua A. Fogel
engages the discourse over the Nanjing massacre in a
very different way. The contributors all agree that the
Japanese army carried out atrocities of monstrous
proportions in Nanjing, but their primary concern lies
in analyzing the conflicting trends in historiography
rather than in joining the fray directly. Mark Eykholt
explores the evolution of the memory and meaning of
the events in Nanjing to the Chinese people and how
the massacre became a powerful symbol of the modern
Chinese experience, unifying a broad spectrum of
otherwise disparate groups in the mainland, Taiwan,
Hong Kong, and overseas Chinese communities. For
English-language readers, Eykholt provides valuable
background for a critical appreciation of the passion
that Chinese activists and intellectuals bring to the
debate as well as an understanding of factors placing
APRIL
2002
526
Reviews of Books
limitations on more open historical inquiry in China.
Takashi Yoshida introduces the long-standing "battle
over history" in Japan between "progressives," who
affirm the reality of the atrocities and acknowledge
Japanese responsibility, and "revisionists," who either
downplay the scale of the killings, or in the extreme
case, deny them outright. He traces the evolution of
competing positions from 1945 through the 1990s and
examines the forces shaping the debate, including its
connection to the broader politics of war memory in
postwar Japan. Significantly, he notes that some Japanese revisionists approve of the Smithsonian's treatment of the atomic bombing of Japan in the Enola Gay
exhibit in 1995 as reflective of a "healthy nationalism"
in America and regard their own attitude toward war
crimes allegedly committed by the Japanese military as
comparable. Given that awareness of such heated
discussions remains limited outside of Japan, Yoshida's essay provides valuable insight into the complexity
of Japanese perspectives and a corrective to the notion
of a monolithic Japanese view.
Daqing Yang offers what is perhaps the most ambitious of the three essays in the collection and delves
into the problem of historical epistemology. The distinction between dispassionate or objective historical
writing, as opposed to myth or polemic, might be made
theoretically, he argues, but it becomes a problematic
conceit in practice. Ignoring the moral and political
context of historical inquiry creates obstacles to meaningful dialog among those engaged in the production
of divergent narratives. Self-awareness on the part of
academic historians of their role in the creation of
knowledge is essential, and, rather than standing aloof
from the clash of competing narratives, they must
apply the tools of their craft to an active engagement in
the competition. Yang's essay highlights the broader
significance of the undertaking represented by this
book. In its own way, each of the contributions explores the nature of historical knowledge, the political
uses of history, and the evolution of historical memory.
An understanding of these issues is indispensable to
examining a cataclysmic event such as the Nanjing
massacre.
YOSHIHISA TAK MATSUSAKA
Wellesley College
TIM MAGA. Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War
Crimes Trials. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 2001. Pp. xiv, 181. $25.00.
This book consists of a preface; five chapters and
epilogue (151 pages); notes, bibliography, and index.
Chapters two, three, and five deal with the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the IMTFE)
and its aftermath; chapter one with two lesser trials;
and chapter four with trials on Guam. Tim Maga's
"general thesis" is that there "might have been good
intentions behind the Tokyo trials and that they might
even have done good work" (p. ix), but he contradicts
himself by concluding, crudely, that the trials were
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
"flawed as hell" (p. 138). I like slim books, but this one
never should have seen the light of day. I say so not
because I disagree with its rambling and self-contradictory argument (I do disagree) but because the
scholarship is shallow, shoddy, and irresponsible.
With one insignificant exception, the author uses
only English-language sources on a subject on which
there is much Japanese-language scholarship. Moreover, his bibliography ignores important English-language sources, including the basic trial documents: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete
Transcripts (1981); The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: Index
and Guide (5 vols., 1981-1987); and The Tokyo Major
War Crimes Trial: The Records (124 vols., 1998- ). Maga
is captive to his sources: administrative archives, not
transcripts or scholarly criticism. What point is served
in restating, half a century later, prosecution claims?
Maga conflates the IMTFE (or Tokyo trial, singular)
and other postwar trials of accused Japanese: one in
Tokyo (Tsuchiya), one in Manila (Yamashita), and the
Navy trials on Guam. What is their connection to
Tokyo? The Tokyo trial was international in form,
placed Japan's wartime leaders in the dock, and
charged crimes against peace and against humanity.
The other trials were purely American, dealt with
smaller fry, and stuck largely to conventional war
crimes. Conclusions about them have no necessary
impact on judgments about Tokyo.
The author demonstrates a weak grasp of legal
issues. He lists fifteen diverse titles, from participant
accounts to very dubious scholarship, and states that
"This select bibliography represents an analytical
framework." He offers little extended legal or procedural analysis.
Maga makes factual errors too numerous to list
here, but they include siting the Tokyo trial in the
wrong city (Yokohama, p. 2). The author also cites at
length (pp. 4-5, 52) one Hiro Nishikawa, "historian
and Japanese legal expert." His sources are two lectures, apparently in English to American audiences,
and personal communications. Despite his prominence
in chapter one, Nishikawa apparently has not published on this topic.
Maga misuses footnotes and index. Consider note 6
(p. 158): "For 'deep background' [sic] on Keenan's
work and views ... contact James Zobel, archivist and
Tokyo War Crimes Trials specialist, at the MacArthur
Memorial (telephone, 757-441-2965)." Or note 10 (p.
153): "Various notes and handout material from this
spring 1995 seminar [at Harvard] are available from
the author." The index governs only one content note,
does not list Nishikawa, but does list the author's wife
and a friend, both of whom appear only for thanks in
his preface.
Maga attributes to me (p. 7) words and arguments
that appear nowhere in my book, Victors' Justice: The
Tokyo War Crimes Trial (1971). He summons Michael
Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977) in praise of
Tokyo's chief prosecutor Joseph Keenan: "Yet in the
opinion of ... Walzer, Keenan's approach was never
APRIL 2002 .