The Nanjing Massacre: Deconstructed Realities and the Legacy of Historical Suppression

Abstract: This paper presents a deconstruction of the Nanjing Massacre, focusing on the dehumanizing philosophies, militaristic indoctrination, and the subsequent denial and minimization that have shaped the historical narrative. Examining the evolutionary context of Japanese expansionism, racial superiority, and international diplomacy, this analysis will scrutinize both the atrocities committed and the systematic obfuscation of the truth that followed. Through a harsh yet necessary lens, the legacy of Nanjing is positioned within the broader scope of 20th-century war crimes, with a specific focus on how fact and memory evolve or erode based on sociopolitical incentives.

Introduction: Historical memory, especially regarding atrocities of this magnitude, is often subject to manipulation and denial, as seen in the case of the Nanjing Massacre. What transpired over six weeks in late 1937 was one of the darkest episodes of World War II, yet, despite its enormity, there has been a concerted effort—both during and after the war—to distort or suppress the truth. While the world grapples with the legacies of Holocaust remembrance, the horrors inflicted on Nanjing have, at times, been pushed to the periphery of historical consciousness, particularly in Japan. This paper aims to expose the facts, confront the lies, and analyze the evolution of this historical event in the context of war crimes, racial politics, and international law.

Harsh Truth: What Happened in Nanjing

The Data: Casualty Estimates: Conservative estimates place the number of those killed between 200,000 and 300,000, though some revisionist efforts by Japanese historians have sought to minimize this figure to 40,000.

Sexual Violence: Between 20,000 and 80,000 women were systematically raped, often followed by murder.

Destruction: One-third of the buildings in Nanjing were looted and burned, further exacerbating the city’s devastation.

These figures are not speculative but based on multiple forms of evidence: witness testimonies, survivor accounts, photographic evidence, and documentation by foreign diplomats and journalists stationed in Nanjing. Notably, John Rabe, a German businessman and member of the Nazi Party, left behind an extensive diary documenting the atrocities. His testimony provides a chilling account of the systematic nature of the violence, undermining any claims that this was a chaotic episode of rogue soldiers.

Evolution of Entitlement: Militaristic Indoctrination: The brutal training and culture of the Imperial Japanese Army cultivated a sense of superiority and entitlement to inflict unimaginable horrors. The indoctrination that Japanese soldiers underwent was based on an extreme interpretation of Bushido, which emphasized loyalty, obedience, and total disregard for life—especially that of non-Japanese individuals.

Dehumanization: Chinese citizens were consistently portrayed as inferior, uncivilized, and disposable in Japanese propaganda. This racial superiority complex, deeply embedded within Japanese nationalism of the time, allowed for the kind of atrocity that took place in Nanjing. It was not merely war; it was the belief in an inherent right to annihilate a perceived lesser people.

Post-War Realpolitik: The Nanjing Massacre, while recognized as a significant atrocity, never gained the same level of attention in the West as other war crimes, such as those of the European Holocaust. Following the war, Japan became a key ally of the United States in the fight against communism in Asia. This alliance, built on pragmatic rather than moral grounds, meant that holding Japan fully accountable for its wartime actions was deprioritized in favor of geopolitical stability.

Denial and Revisionism in Japan: Internal Suppression: In Japan, the historical narrative surrounding Nanjing has been consistently downplayed. Textbooks, especially in the post-war period, either omitted the massacre or framed it as an event of exaggerated or contested scope. Many Japanese officials and right-wing nationalists continue to insist that the atrocities were either vastly overstated or did not occur as described.

Right-Wing Nationalism: As recently as the 21st century, Japanese politicians have sparked outrage with revisionist statements. These denials are not fringe opinions but are sometimes voiced by mainstream political figures. Such rhetoric is indicative of an ongoing struggle within Japan to reconcile its imperial past with its post-war identity as a pacifist state.

International Silence and Inaction? Disinterest: Despite documented evidence, there was little outcry in the West at the time of the massacre. The onset of World War II in Europe and the complexities of Japanese-American relations in the lead-up to the Pacific War ensured that atrocities in China were underreported and undervalued.

UN War Crimes Tribunal: While some Japanese leaders were tried for war crimes in the Tokyo Trials, many of those directly responsible for Nanjing escaped accountability. Notably, Emperor Hirohito and other high-ranking officials were shielded from prosecution, partly as a result of American strategic interests in post-war reconstruction and containment of communism in Asia.

The Long Shadow of Nanjing: Memory as a Battleground: The contest over how the Nanjing Massacre is remembered—and who controls that memory—speaks volumes about the way historical narratives are constructed. The tension between historical evidence and political convenience has allowed for the facts of the Nanjing Massacre to be questioned, revised, or minimized in the name of national pride.

The massacre remains a deep point of contention in Sino-Japanese relations. For China, Nanjing is an unhealed wound, an enduring reminder of Japanese wartime aggression. Public commemoration of the massacre, through memorials and national ceremonies, ensures that the event remains at the forefront of Chinese historical consciousness. Conversely, the lack of an unequivocal apology from the Japanese government continues to strain diplomatic relations.

The persistent phenomenon of racial and cultural bias, even among neighbors who live in close proximity, is one of history’s most troubling and paradoxical realities. Across both large-scale societies and small communities, this tendency toward distrust or animosity has led to repeated cycles of violence, exclusion, and division. To understand this in a postmodern context, we must deconstruct it through several critical lenses: historical, psychological, sociological, and political. The roots of this resistance lie not only in history but also in deeply ingrained psychological mechanisms and cultural narratives that have been exploited and perpetuated by systems of power.

Historically, the divisions between neighboring peoples have often been constructed, reinforced, and maintained by those in power, much like the divide-and-conquer tactics employed by colonial empires. These divisions, built on race, ethnicity, or religion, serve to maintain control over populations by preventing unity and fostering competition or hostility.

Colonialism as a Catalyst: European colonial powers, for instance, frequently manipulated racial and ethnic divisions to maintain control. The British colonial policy of “divide and rule” was a deliberate tactic in many regions, from India to Africa. They institutionalized caste systems, created arbitrary borders, and privileged one group over another, ensuring that tensions remained between groups that might otherwise have coexisted. The divisions they established outlived the colonizers and continue to fuel conflict today.

Tribalism and Ethnic Boundaries: Before colonialism, even in smaller, pre-industrial societies, tribalism played a role in delineating groups from one another. These tribal boundaries were often reinforced by local leaders who found power in maintaining cultural purity or dominance over neighboring tribes. While not inherently tied to race in the modern sense, these social boundaries created the precedent for distrust of “the other” that persists today.

In the postmodern sense, these boundaries are not fixed realities but narratives constructed and evolved over time. The historian and sociologist Michel Foucault argued that power is maintained not through brute force but through the creation and control of knowledge—specifically, the “truth” about who belongs where, and who has the right to authority. In this way, racial and ethnic biases become forms of social control, deeply embedded in the historical fabric and passed down through generations.

At the psychological level, humans are biologically predisposed to form in-groups and out-groups. This is an evolutionary trait designed for survival, but in modern contexts, it often leads to irrational biases against those who are perceived as different. Our cognitive biases play a role in reinforcing these divisions.

In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics: Social psychologist Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory explains how people categorize themselves and others into in-groups (those we identify with) and out-groups (those we see as different). This dynamic fosters favoritism towards the in-group and suspicion or hostility toward the out-group. While this behavior served an evolutionary purpose—protecting groups from external threats—it now fuels racial, ethnic, and cultural conflicts between neighbors who might otherwise share much in common.

Fear of the Unknown: Fear is a powerful driver of racial and ethnic bias. Fear of the unfamiliar—whether cultural, linguistic, or religious—creates a psychological barrier. When people lack direct, positive interaction with those outside their group, stereotypes fill the void, and fear flourishes. This is why communities can be racially or culturally segregated even when they live side by side, because the absence of meaningful interaction reinforces differences rather than similarities.

Cognitive Dissonance: When neighbours see their way of life, culture, or identity reflected in someone different, it creates cognitive dissonance—a discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs. For instance, seeing a different racial or cultural group achieve success challenges entrenched notions of superiority or exclusivity. This often results in hostility or a doubling down on prejudice as a defense mechanism.

Bias against neighbours is not merely a matter of personal animosity; it is often encouraged or exacerbated by sociopolitical systems designed to exploit these divisions for economic or political gain.

Economic Competition: Historically, economic competition has been a significant factor in fueling racial and ethnic animosity. When resources are scarce, or when one group perceives itself as economically threatened by another, racial and ethnic tensions rise. For example, during the Great Migration in the United States, millions of Black Americans moved to northern cities, which heightened tensions with the working-class white population who viewed them as economic competitors. This led to race riots and a surge in segregation policies.

Racial Capitalism: Cedric Robinson’s theory of racial capitalism suggests that the economic system of capitalism is built on and perpetuates racial divisions. Capitalism, from its inception in the colonial period, has relied on the exploitation of racialized labor (e.g., African slaves, indigenous people) and has simultaneously created ideologies of racial difference to justify that exploitation. This framework persists today, where systems of economic inequality are racialized—certain groups are kept in lower economic strata, and these divisions are rationalized through racial biases.

Political Manipulation: In modern politics, racial and ethnic divisions are often exploited to gain votes or consolidate power. Political parties and leaders may appeal to racial biases to galvanize their base, often scapegoating minorities or immigrants as a way to distract from systemic issues like inequality or corruption. The rise of far-right nationalist movements in various countries shows how effective this tactic remains.

In postmodern thought, particularly that influenced by theorists like Derrida and Lyotard, the concept of the “other” is key to understanding why people are resistant to those who are different. Postmodernism rejects the idea of fixed identities, arguing that categories like race are socially constructed, fluid, and ever-changing. However, power structures depend on these rigid classifications to maintain control.

Otherness as a Social Construct: The postmodern approach sees race and ethnicity not as inherent or natural categories, but as constructs created to define and control people. “Othering” is the process by which a dominant group defines itself in contrast to those it excludes, rendering the excluded group as alien or dangerous. In this sense, racial biases between neighbors are less about innate differences and more about constructed narratives of difference that serve the interests of those in power.

Fragmentation of Grand Narratives: Postmodernism challenges the “grand narratives” of history—the overarching stories that societies tell themselves about who they are. One of these grand narratives is that of racial purity or national superiority, often used to exclude neighbors who don’t fit the dominant racial or cultural profile. By deconstructing these narratives, postmodernism reveals the arbitrary and artificial nature of racial categories and biases.

Identity and Resistance: In postmodern societies, where identities are more fluid and multiple than ever before, resistance to neighbours of different backgrounds can be seen as a reaction to the anxiety of identity loss. As globalization and multiculturalism blur the lines between cultural and racial categories, some individuals cling more tightly to the old divisions as a way of preserving their sense of self in an increasingly interconnected world.

The resistance to neighbours, particularly along racial and ethnic lines, is rooted in a complex web of historical, psychological, and sociopolitical factors. While these biases have been exacerbated and manipulated by those in power for centuries, they are not inevitable. Deconstructing these biases requires a critical examination of the narratives that have perpetuated them—especially the narratives of racial superiority, economic competition, and political division.

Postmodern thought encourages us to challenge fixed identities and to see race and ethnicity as fluid, constructed categories that serve certain power structures. By recognizing the artificial nature of these divisions, we can begin to dismantle the fear and hostility that exists between neighbors. The solution lies in fostering meaningful connections across these divides, challenging the narratives of otherness, and building communities based on mutual respect and shared humanity, rather than division and fear.

The Nanjing Massacre is more than just a chapter in the annals of war; it is a study in how historical truth is fought over and often sacrificed at the altar of political necessity. The failure to fully address the atrocities committed in Nanjing speaks to a broader issue: the selective memory that nations can employ when confronting their past. By deconstructing the facts, this paper reaffirms the historical reality of Nanjing, calling out the layers of denial that have clouded this event in the years since. It is only by confronting these hard truths with transparency and a commitment to historical integrity that we can hope to prevent such atrocities from being repeated.

References:

• Chang, Iris. The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

• Rabe, John. The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe. Knopf, 1998.

• Fogel, Joshua A. The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography. University of California Press, 2000.

• Yamamoto, Masahiro. Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. Praeger, 2000.