京都律师事务所

The Nanking Trial and Its Impact on Chinese and Japanese People

发布时间：2016-04-26作者：王馨仝

　　I.Introduction

　　From15 February 1946 to early 1949,the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal(‘NankingTribunal’)of the Republic of China(‘ROC’)tried cases for Class B and CJapanese war criminals,including leading Japanese Imperial Army officers who incitedthe Nanking Massacre.Trials of high-level leadersfor serious crimes have great significance,which extends beyond events in thecourtroom.Now,Sixty-four years later after the Tribunal concluded its work,itis time to assess its impact on both the victims’and the defendants’countries.Consideration of the impact of the trial is constrained by the fact that nolarge-scale or quantitative surveys or interviews have been conducted in Chinaor Japan.Despite these limitations,several noteworthy observations can bemade.

　　Onthe Chinese side,in the late 1940s,many people from affected communitieswereaware of the trial andactively participated in the trialprocess.Since its inception,the NationalistGovernment had demonstrated a commitment to conduct outreach within affectedcommunities.Throughout the investigation,trialhearings,and execution phases,the Nanking trials were conducted in a way thathighly encouraged public involvement.[1]After the change of regime,however,therewas very little discussion about the Nanking Trial in the Chinese media.The NankingTrial and other trials conducted by the Nationalists seemed to have beenforgotten or were shunned by many.It was only beginning in the 1980s,mainlyin academia,that researchers began to revisit the war crime trials conductedby the Nationalist Government.Trial documents donated by individuals in Taiwanfostered new analysis and publications by legal professionals and historians.[2]Even so,this emergingresearch interest mainly existed in the academic field.Compared to the TokyoTrial or the Nanking Massacre,which have been passionately debated amonghistorians and intellectuals,discussion about the Nanking Trial had beenrather dispassionate.Furthermore,unlike the Nanking Massacre,the Nanking Tribunalwas never mentioned in the curriculum of Chinese schools.Thus,the post-warChinese generations did not receive much historical education about the NankingTrial.

　　On the Japaneseside,most Japanese believed the Nanking trials were grossly unfair,simplycausing pain to the families of the accused.Holdingthis belief,the public engaged in a campaign to release all imprisoned warcriminals.This activity was successful,and as a result of their efforts,allthe imprisoned Japanese war criminals were released in 1958.[3]This resultitself limited the Nanking Trial’s impact in Japan.From 1970s onwards,withthe rise of right-wing political forces in Japan,the Nanking Trial was broughtto the Japanese people’s attention during a heated debate over the denial ofNanking Massacre.Encouraged by this trend,familiesof the two convicted lieutenants filed a libel suit in 2003against theTokyo Daily Newsand two other writers who had publishedinformation regarding behavior in which the Japanese held a“killing contest”during the invasion of Nanking(the‘Killing Contest’).[4]The families contested that the media reports about the Killing Contest used asevidence by the Nanking Tribunal were fabricated.[5]The TokyoDistrict Court adjudicated the matter and rejected the case.The release ofthis judgment ended the Killing Contest debate,at least in the eyes of the Japaneselegal field.[6]At the sametime,intensive media coverage of this trial caused the Japanese public to specificallydifferentiate the Nanking Trial from the general national war crimes trials conductedby the Allied Powers.The details of the Nanking Trial are not widely known inJapan.In comparison to the Chinese,the Nanking Trial has had even less impacton Japanese society.

　　II.Background Information About NankingTribunal

　　On19 January 1946,the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers established theInternational Military Tribunal for Far East in Tokyo(‘Tokyo Tribunal’).Itwas decided that the international tribunal would have prosecutorial authorityover suspects charged with crimes against peace,who had become known as ClassA defendants,while national courts or commissions would have authority to trycases involving individuals recognized as Class B and C criminals.Class Bdefendants were defined as those accused of committing war crimes and Class Cdefendants were mostly senior officers who were accused of crimes againsthumanity.Besides the Tokyo Tribunal,many military tribunals were set upeither in occupied areas like Yokohama,U.S.A.or within national jurisdictionof the Allied Powers.China was not part of the occupying force,so it couldonly establish military tribunals on Chinese soil.In order to establish thelegal basis for national war crime tribunals and regulate their work,the MilitaryCommission of the Chinese Nationalist Government issued special rules,such as WarCriminals Disposal Measures,War Criminals Trial Measures,and ImplementingRules of the War Crimes Trial,whichlater were replaced by the AmendmentDraft of Rules Governing the Trial of War Criminals,which was promulgated bythe Committee Dealing with War Criminals in 1946.[7]According to these rules,Chinaestablished 10tribunals in Nanking,Shanghai,Peking,Hankou,Guangzhou,Shenyang,Jinan,Xuzhou,Taiyuan and Taipei.In total,2200 cases were tried,among which 145 peoplewere sentenced to death,more than 400 were sentenced to life imprisonment,andthe rest were found to be not guilty and repatriated back to Japan.[8]Based on territorial jurisdiction,many casesrelated to the Nanking Massacre were adjudicated by the Nanking Tribunal,whichhad the added effect of making the work of crime investigation,evidencecollection,and witness interview easier.Besides providing this additional conveniencefor the trial procedures,trying these cases where the atrocity took place hadthe potential to attract social attention and therefore enlarge the socialimpact of the work of the Nanking Tribunal.

　　III.The Nanking Tribunal and Its Work

　　TheNanking Tribunal was established on 15 February 1946 directly under the Ministryof National Defence for the purposes of trying Japanese war criminals.Theaccused facing trial included both Japanese high commanders such as YasujiOkamura,Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Expeditionary Army in China,andJapanese Army contractors.NankingTribunal worked in cooperation with other jurisdictions to obtain evidence fromHong Kong,[9]Shanghai,[10]Guangzhou,[11]and other places.The Tribunal also took judicial notice of findings from theShanghai Supreme Court.[12]The judgments contained a verdict,sentence,facts,and reasoning.The depth ofreasoning varies between cases,and there was limited discussions concerningcriteria for the admissibility of evidence.In the following section,thispaper will examine five high profile cases to provide an insight into theissues that came up during trial and to facilitate further discussion about thetrial’s impact.

　　A.The Case of Lieutenant General Sakai Takashi

　　The first case tried by the Nanking Tribunal was the case of 6thDivision Japanese Company Commander Lieutenant General Sakai Takashi.Heservedas a military commander in China during the war from 1939 to1945.[13]The trial chamber was set up on 27 May 1946 and within three monthsSakai Takashi became the first defendant to receive capitalpunishment.Lieutenant General Sakai Takashi was a signature figure of theJapanese invasion.The charges laid against him included crimes against peace,war crimes,and crimes against humanity for instigating terrorist activities inPeking and Tianjin,setting up a puppet administration and“Peace Army”tooverthrow the Chinese government,and encouraging his subordinates to commitatrocities in South China and Hong Kong.[14]Sakai Takashi pled not guilty to thesecharges,arguing that he was just following orders and had no knowledge ofwrongdoing committed by his subordinates.[15]These arguments were unsupported byinternational law and consequently rejected by the Tribunal.He was convictedfor inciting or permitting his subordinates to murder Prisoners of War(‘POWs’),woundingsoldiers and non-combatants;to rape,plunder and deport civilians;to indulgein cruel punishment and torture;and to cause destruction to properties.[16]Therefore,for his participation in a war of aggression he was found guilty of crimeagainst peace.In regard to the atrocities,he was found guilty of war crimesand crimes against humanity.[17]

　　The presiding judge for this trial,Shih Mei-yurevealed a background story of this case during an interview conducted by a Communistjournalist.[18]Takashiled the Japanese 29thInfantry Brigade to invade Hong Kong,after whichfollowed vast atrocities,including the brutal massacre in the St.Stephen’sHospital.The British government wanted to extradite and try him in the HongKong war crimes tribunal themselves.After being officially rejected by theNanking government,a British judge was sent to the Nanking Tribunal toinvestigate the matter.The Tribunal responded with the following legalreasoning:

　　“Firstly,the suspect was arrested within Chinese territorialjurisdiction,Guangdong,but not British occupied area;secondly,although HongKong is a colony of UK,it’s still Chinese territory;thirdly,the number ofChinese victims is more than British victims,therefore,Chinese militarytribunal enjoys jurisdiction to entertain this case.”[19]

　　Due to lack of legal support,and possibly fear of reciprocity requestsfor Chinese nationals involved in the British trials,the judge did not insistfurther.Instead,12 British judges were sent to observe the trial proceedings.After attending the trial and reading the judgment in its English translation,the British observers expressed their satisfaction to Judge Shih Mei-yu and theentire judgment text was put in the British National Archives as an importantpiece documenting the British-Japanese war.[20]

　　The trial of Sakai Takashi was the first case adjudicated by theNanking Tribunal.The newly established Tribunal gained practical experiencefrom conducting their first war crimes trials.Positive responses from theBritish judges also evinced international recognition of the Tribunal’s work,and also laid foundation for the following trials regarding Nanking Massacre.

　　B.Nanking Massacre Cases

　　Much like the Holocaust in Europe,the Nanking Massacre was one ofthe most brutal chapters in modern history.After Japanese forces capturedNanking,a barbaric campaign of terror began against Chinese soldiers andnoncombatant city residents.Japanese military ordered the execution of ChinesePOWs.[21]Once the Chinese soldiers were killed,the Japanese forces proceeded to rapeand kill civilians.Japanese soldiers murdered Chinese civilians through avariety of gruesome methods including burying people alive,extirpating bodyparts,using attack dogs,and bayoneting babies.In total,more than 300,000Chinese people were murdered.[22]

　　Before the Nanking Tribunal,fourJapanese Imperial Army officerswere tried for war crimes related to the Nanking Massacre.The first wasLieutenant GeneralHisaoTani,Commanding Officer of the 6th Division in the Japanese ImperialArmy.His division was the first to invade Nanking in December 1937.[23]The secondcase was brought against Company Commander Captain Gunkichi Tanaka,SecondLieutenantsMukaiToshiakiandNodaTsuyoshi,who were made famous for engaging in a Killing Contest.

　　Lieutenant General Hisan Tani was arrested by Allied forces inJapan in February 1946 and was later extradited to Nanking at the Tribunal’srequest.The investigation and pre-trial stage lasted four months.The charges broughtagainst him were crimes against peace and crimes against humanity for directingthe invasion and ordering a massacre of noncombatant Nanking citizens.[25]Betweenthe 6thand 8thof February 1947,the Tribunal conducteda public trial against Hisan Tani.<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　Lieutenant"general=""hisan=""tani=""was=""arrested=""by=""allied=""forces=""injapan=""in=""february=""1946=""and=""later=""extradited=""to=""nanking=""at=""the=""tribunal’srequest.the=""investigation=""pre-trial=""stage=""lasted=""four=""months.=""charges=""broughtagainst=""him=""were=""crimes=""against=""peace=""humanity=""for=""directingthe=""invasion=""ordering=""a=""massacre=""of=""noncombatant=""citizens.[25]Betweenthe"6thand=""8thof=""1947,=""tribunal=""conducteda=""public=""trial=""tani.Lieutenant"general=""hisan=""tani=""was=""arrested=""by=""allied=""forces=""injapan=""in=""february=""1946=""and=""later=""extradited=""to=""nanking=""at=""the=""tribunal’srequest.the=""investigation=""pre-trial=""stage=""lasted=""four=""months.=""charges=""broughtagainst=""him=""were=""crimes=""against=""peace=""humanity=""for=""directingthe=""invasion=""ordering=""a=""massacre=""of=""noncombatant=""citizens.[25]Betweenthe"6thand=""8thof=""1947,=""tribunal=""conducteda=""public=""trial=""tani.[26]Approximately one thousand people attended the hearing.[27]During thetrial session,the accused stated very clearly how his troops advanced intoChina,but completely denied their participation in the Nanking Massacre.Theprosecutor,however,introduced abundant evidence including testimonies fromsurvivors and witnesses of the Nanking Massacre,news reports and photos toshow otherwise.[28]On February 1947,the Nanking Tribunal announced its judgment and Hisan Taniwas found guilty of instigating,inspiring,and encouraging men under hiscommand to stage general massacres of POWs and non-combatants and to perpetratesuch crimes as rape,plunder and wanton destruction of property during theBattle of Shanghai,Battle of Nanking and early in its occupation,and the Rape of Nanking,andshould be sentenced to death immediately.[29]Hisan refused to accept thisjudgment and filed for a review by the President of Nationalist GovernmentChiang Kai-shek and the Chief of Staff,who later approved the original sentence.Hisan Tani was executed on 26 April 1947.[30]

　　C.Killing Contest

　　On the wayto invade Nanking,Japanese forces began a Killing Contest to boost moralityand promote a more efficient way of murdering the Chinese people.In order toraise awareness of what they considered to be a heroic competition,reportersand interview teams within the Japanese force conducted interviews with contestwinners,and such reports were published in prominent Japanese newspapers.[31]These newsreports later became valuable evidence proving the existence and nature of thisactivity.

　　Japanese Company Commander Captain Gunkichi Tanaka,Second Lieutenants MukaiToshiakiandNodaTsuyoshiwere jointly tried for participationin the Killing Contest.Gunkichi Tanaka was tried first and charged withkilling 300 people during the competition.Gunkichi Tanaka initially denied involvementin the Killing Contest.However,when later shown documented evidence,including a photo published in the Japanese bookImperial Soldiersdocumentingthat Gunkichi Tanaka had killed“300 hateful Chinese enemies with his buddysword Sukehiro,”and another news report showing the accused beheading aChinese using his sword,he rescinded his previous denial.[32]

　　After the GunkichiTanaka’s case,the Nanking Tribunal opened a hearing for the Second Lieutenants,infamous for theircontest challenging soldiers to kill 100people using a sword.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"data-ke-src="http:>.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"data-ke-src="http:>.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"data-ke-src="http:>.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"data-ke-src="http:>.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"data-ke-src="http:>.The Tribunal admitted several news reports about this KillingContest published in international newspapers,including theTokyo DailyNews,Osaka newspaperMainichi Daily News,and theJapanAdvertiser,Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury.[33]The factscovered in these reports were corroborative and together revealed the wholeprocess of this contest.At the end of November 1937,the two Second Lieutenantshad agreed to engage in a killing contest.Whoever could kill 100 people beforethe invasion and occupation of Nanking was complete would win a prize.When theJapanese forces arrived at Tang Mountain,Mukai Toshiaki had only killedeighty-nine people,while Noda Takeshi had killed a mere seventy-eight.Havingfailed to reach their goal of 100 dead,the competition could not yet bebrought to a close.Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi continued their"competition"at the foot of Purple Gold Mountain after the Japaneseforces had entered Nanking.By then,Mukai Toshiaki had already killed 106people and Noda Takeshi had killed 105,but it was not clear who had reachedthe 100 mark first.Since there was no way to prove who had reached the goalfirst,they agreed to reset the target to 150 people.The vicious cyclecontinued without a definite ending mark in different reports.

　　The twoaccused claimed that all these reports were fabricated and that the Japanesenews reporters did so in order to promote a heroic image of Japanese soldiersso it would become easier for them to get married upon returning home.[34]Consideringthe Japanese military had extremely strict news censorship during the SecondSino-Japanese War,the Tribunal also rejected this argument.[35]PresidingJudge Shih Mei-yu announced at the end of the hearing that the two accused didindeed engage in killing POWs and noncombatants,saw the Killing Contest as agame,and that these activities constituted a crime of war and against humanityin violation of the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War onLand and Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of POWs.[36]

　　D.GeneralYasujiOkamura

　　Thetrial of General was a stain on the Nanking Tribunal.Yasuji Okamura was aGeneral of the Japanese Imperial Army and the Commander-In-Chief of the ChinaExpeditionary Army from November 1944 until Japan’s surrender.He was tried inJuly 1948 by the Tribunal,but was immediately protected by the personal order fromNationalist leader<=""p>

　　thetrial=""of=""general"was=""a=""stain=""on=""the=""nanking=""tribunal.=""yasuji=""okamura=""ageneral=""japanese=""imperial=""army=""and=""commander-in-chief=""chinaexpeditionary=""from=""november=""1944=""until=""japan’s=""surrender.=""he=""tried=""injuly=""1948=""by=""tribunal,=""but=""immediately=""protected=""personal=""order=""fromnationalist=""leader[37]Chiang Kai-shek later retained him asa military adviser for the Nationalist Party.[38]The unique features of his trialwill be discussed in the following section.

　　IV.Nanking Trial’s Impact

　　Nankingsuffered grave atrocities during the war.Setting up the Tribunal in Nankingprovided the victims there an opportunity to formally report the crimes theysuffered and to make claims for their losses.Many Chinese people from the affected communitieswereaware of the Trial andhadactively participated in thetrial process.Since its inception,Nanking Government had demonstrated a commitment to conduct outreach withinaffected communities.After the change ofregime,however,the Trial was largely neglected and gradually forgotten outsideof academic writings.On the other side,most Japanese people saw the NankingTrial as being unfair Class B and C war crimes trials that simply caused pain tothe accused’s family.Other than a Japanese civil lawsuit which directed people’sattention to an incident adjudicated by the Nanking Tribunal,the Nanking Trialitself remained rarely discussed and certainly did not have much impact onJapanese people.

　　A.Impact on ChinesePeople

　　The Chinesepublic’sawareness and interest in the Nanking Trial fluctuated during different timeperiods.Throughout the investigation,trial,and execution stages,the Nankingtrials were conducted in a way that highly encouraged public involvement.For theChinese people,especially for Nanking Massacre victims,many were able to usethis opportunity to claim damages,have their voice heard,and seek justice.

　　In 1944,the ChineseNational Office under the UNWCC was established to collect Japanese war crimesevidence.Specifically in Nanking,the Nationalist Government created a specialinvestigation commission that included various government organs and other organizations,including the Nanking Municipal Government,Nanking Police Bureau,Nationalist PartyDepartment of Nanking,Gendarmerie Command of Nanking,Labor Union,FarmersUnion,Industrial Union,local courts and lawyers associations,etc.[39]The Nationalist Government posted notices in the streets urging witnesses tocome forward with evidence.From military troops to ordinary citizens,inquiryforms were handed out to the victims of war to report the atrocities theywitnessed and the losses they suffered.[40]Major Chinese newspapers such as theCentralDaily News,the official news media of the Nationalist Government,DakongPao,and foreign media outlets all intensively and continuously covered theimportant cases in the Nanking Trial.[41]Aside from newspapers,the Nationalist Governmentalso used all possible ways to raise public awareness about the issue at trial.For example,in July 1946,a few slide shows about the Nanking Massacre weremade and played before every movie in local cinemas.[42]

　　The NankingTribunal tried most of its cases publicly.The courtroom debate and judgmentreading were open to the public so that more people can observe how the warcrimes trials were conducted.In cases such asSakai TakashiandYasujiOkamura’s,hearings were held ina local auditorium instead of the regular courtroom to host more observers.[43]Executionsof criminals receiving the death sentence were also carried out publicly.[44]On April 26,1947,theday ofTakashi Sakai’s execution,thousands ofNanking citizens surrounded the execution site.[45]The crowd shouted out theirrelief after witnessing what they saw as Sakai Takashi finally taking responsibilityfor the Nanking Massacre.[46]

　　The atrocitiescaused by Japanese troops,especially the Nanking Massacre,had left great painin the Nanking community.Many witnessed their loved ones being violated orkilled.After the war ended,many needed to see such war criminals be broughtto justice.To some degree,the Nanking Trial fulfilled this need.

　　The situationchanged after the Nationalist Party lost its ruling power over China.In 1949,the Communists established the People's Republic of China(‘PRC’),overthrowing the Nationalists from the mainland,who retreated to Taiwan.Since then,there has very little discussion about the Nanking Trial in the Chinesemedia.The Nanking Trial and other trials conducted by the Nationalists seemedto have been forgotten or were shunned by many.

　　It was only beginningin the 1980s,mainly in academia,that researchers began to revisit the warcrime trials conducted by the Nationalist Government.In 1983,the Nankinggovernment opened a full-scale research program concerning the Nanking Massacreand built the Nanking Massacre Memorial Hall/Museum two years later.Greatefforts have been made to collect documentary material and to conduct interviewswith Nanking Massacre survivors and witnesses.Based on these materials,researchers and experts published many historical compilations and academicpapers.<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　It"was=""only=""beginningin=""the=""1980s,=""mainly=""in=""academia,=""that=""researchers=""began=""to=""revisit=""warcrime=""trials=""conducted=""by=""nationalist=""government.=""1983,=""nankinggovernment=""opened=""a=""full-scale=""research=""program=""concerning=""nanking=""massacreand=""built=""massacre=""memorial=""hall=""museum=""two=""years=""later.=""greatefforts=""have=""been=""made=""collect=""documentary=""material=""and=""conduct=""interviewswith=""survivors=""witnesses.=""based=""on=""these=""materials,researchers=""experts=""published=""many=""historical=""compilations=""academicpapers.It"was=""only=""beginningin=""the=""1980s,=""mainly=""in=""academia,=""that=""researchers=""began=""to=""revisit=""warcrime=""trials=""conducted=""by=""nationalist=""government.=""1983,=""nankinggovernment=""opened=""a=""full-scale=""research=""program=""concerning=""nanking=""massacreand=""built=""massacre=""memorial=""hall=""museum=""two=""years=""later.=""greatefforts=""have=""been=""made=""collect=""documentary=""material=""and=""conduct=""interviewswith=""survivors=""witnesses.=""based=""on=""these=""materials,researchers=""experts=""published=""many=""historical=""compilations=""academicpapers.[47]On the 50thanniversary of the victory of the Second Sino-JapaneseWar,the Communist Party’s newspaper published an interview with former PresidingJudge Shih Mei-yu,who discussed his experience of conducting the trials.[48]Trial documents werelong kept by the Nationalists,but it was not until 2006 that the Museum hadaccess to primary source trial materials,including indictments,judgments,meeting minutes,and photos.These documents donated by individuals in Taiwan fosterednew analysis and publications by legal professionals and historians.Evenso,this emerging research interest still only exists in academic fields.

　　Compared to the TokyoTrial or the Nanking Massacre,which have been passionately debated amonghistorians and intellectuals,the discussion about the Nanking Trial has beenrather bland.Furthermore,unlike the Nanking Massacre,the Nanking Tribunal isnot included in the Chinese school curriculum.The post-war Chinese generationshave not received much historical education about the Nanking Trial.

　　In summary,during the Trial itself,the proceedings and thedecisions were generally conducted fairly,especially in light of the fact thatthe country had just suffered eight years of vicious war and the materials fortrial were all gathered without the aid of modern technology and computerdatabases.The Nanking Trial’s efficacy,however,was affected by the changingregimes in Japan and China during the post-war period.All convicted Japaneseprisoners were released based on a treaty concluded between Japan and the NationalistParty in 1952.[49]The Communist government also upheld post-warclemency for Japanese war criminals.On 25 April 1956,the Standing Committeeof the National People’s Congress issued the Decision on the Handling of theCriminals in Custody from the Japanese War of Aggression against China.According to this Decision,the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the PRC announcedthe decision to exempt from prosecution and immediately release,in threebatches in 1956,a total of 1,017 Japanese war criminals in custody,who hadrelatively minor offenses and good behaviors of repentance.[50]Thereafter,the Trial was gradually forgotten until scholars and academicsdeveloped renewed interest several decades later.However,it still remains apurely academic interest.How much impact it has on the Chinese people?It isdifficult to provide a clear answer without conducting further research andsocial investigation.In light of the above discussion,the impact is probablyvery limited.

　　B.Impact on JapanesePeople

　　Inthe post-war period,the work of Chinese military tribunals concerning accusedwar criminals did not attract much attention from Japanese people.One reasonfor this was that the Japanese public had very little knowledge aboutatrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army in China.During the SecondSino-Japanese War,the Japanese government had very tight control over the newsmedia.Reports about Japanese military actions in China usually described theJapanese soldiers as heroic.For example,on 22 December 1937,Tokyo Daily Newspublished an article titledKindness towards Yesterday-Loving Scenario inNanking City,accompanied with 5 photos showing wounded Chinese soldiersreceived treatment in Japanese hospital and during a peace time after bombardment.[51]On 8 January 1938,XinShen Bao,a Japanese newspaper in Shanghai,reported that“…the streets inNanking are still and quiet.Beautiful sunshine warms the refugee zone in the northwestcorner of the city.Japanese royal military officers paid condolence to the Nankingrefugees who escaped death.The refugees knelt down by the street showing theirappreciation.Before the royal army came to town,they were suppressed by theanti-Japan Chinese army.The sick could not get medical care,and the hungrycould not get any food.But now the royal army has come with mercy and kindness.”[52]Under suchinfluence,when evidence about the Nanking Massacre was presented in the Tokyo Trial,Japanese people were shocked,as it was the first time they had ever heardabout it.[53]The Nanking Tribunal adjudicated many cases concerning the Nanking Massacre.However,these trials received very little publicity in Japan.Japan Daily Newsonly reported information about the execution of Japanese Army Officers inNanking three times,each given very little space on the page.[54]From the limitedinformation available,most Japanese would not have known what really happenedduring the Nanking Trials,and this likely caused the general impression of theJapanese people to see the Class B and Class C trials conducted in Alliedcountries as unfair and unjust.[55]The public also showed sympathy for the“misery and hardship of the families ofwar criminals.”[56]Holding to this belief,the public engaged in a campaign to release allimprisoned war criminals,which succeeded in 1958.[57]

　　From 1970sonwards,with the rise of right-wing political forces in Japan,Nanking Trialwas brought to the Japanese people’s attention in a heated debate regarding thedenial of the Nanking Massacre(“Nanking Issue”as referred to by Japanese academics).A book namedThe Phantomof The Nanking Massacrewritten by a right-wing writer Akira Suzuki inMarch 1972 denied the Nanking Massacre and the existence of the Killing Contestand went so far as to claim that the Japanese army officers were wrongfullyconvicted and executed.[58]Perhaps because this contention was morepalatable to Japanese patriots,this book sold 200,000 copies and the author wonthe 4thSoichi Oya Nonfiction Award in 1973.[59]Encouraged by thistrend,familiesof the two convictedLieutenants filed a libel suit for in 2003 against theTokyo Daily Newsandtwo other writers who published information regarding the Killing Contest.[60]They contested that the 1937Tokyo Daily Newsreport about the KillingContest used as evidence by the Nanking Tribunal was not based on the truth.[61]TokyoDistrict Court later rejected the case in August 2005.Presiding Judge Akio Doiexplained,“We cannot deny that the article included some false elements andexaggeration,but it is difficult to say the article was fiction not based onfacts.Since a final historical assessment on whether the contest of killing100 people has not yet been made,we cannot say[the article]was obviouslyfalse.”[62]

　　From a legal perspective,this case did not challenge thejudgment made in other jurisdictional territory,however,according to KasaharaTokushi,a leading Japanese historian,this judgment indeed ended the KillingContest debate,at least in the Japanese legal field.[63]At the sametime,intensive media coverage of this trial caused the Japanese public to gainmore knowledge about the Nanking Trial and therefore,differentiate it from thegeneral national war crimes trials conducted by the Allied Powers.

　　Further details of the Japanese’s general perception of theNanking Trial are difficult to discern due to the author’s limited languageability in researching Japanese materials.Based on the information available,however,evidence seems to suggest that the details of the Nanking Trial are not widelyknown in Japan.In comparison to the Chinese,the Nanking Trial has had evenless impact on Japanese society.

　　V.Concluding Remarks

　　Nanking Trialwas one of the most important domestic war crime trials conducted by the AlliedPowers after the Second World War.It is astonishing to realize that the Trialhas had such limited impact on both the victims’and the defendants’countries,yet there are several clear reasons why this might be so.

　　First,although theNanking Tribunal convicted several notorious Japanese war criminals,it has hada mixed reputation due to a lack of judicial independence.From the verybeginning,Chiang Kai-shek’s regime adopted a magnanimous policy.He issued thefamous radio speech“Letter to Soldiers and Civilians of the Whole Nation aswell as the Peoples of the World after the Victory of the Anti-Japanese War”right after Japan’s surrender.[64]He encouraged the Chinese to differentiate the oppressive Japanese war from theJapanese people by asking the public to not treat the Japanese as the enemy andto not seek retaliation.[65]

　　Infact,this was a strategic political gesture aimed to help resume the NationalistParty’s control over China.During the Second Sino-Japanese War,although theCommunist forces and the Nationalist forces united to fight against the Japaneseinvasion,both parties had controlled their respective areas in China.TheNationalist Party controlled the southwest and northwest while the Communistforces largely stayed in the north,closer to areas occupied by the Japanese.TheCommunists,therefore,had a geographical advantage to move in and take over locationsunder the Japanese control.[66]In order to encourage Japanese troops to cooperate with the Nationalist Partyinstead of the Communist party,Chiang Kai-shek announced this policy ofmagnanimity,which served as the Nationalist Party’s fundamental principle in guidingthe post-war treatment of the Japanese,including war crime trials conducted inChina.[67]

　　During theconference organized by the War Criminal Disposal Committee on 25 October 1946,the Nationalist Government used this guiding principle to issue a decision“topunish the primary criminals of atrocities like Nanking Massacre with severity,and to treat ordinary Japanese war criminals with lenience,not to presscharges for those who did not commit major crimes or without substantiveevidence.”[68]It meant that Chiang Kai-shek decided to narrow the scope of those eligible tobe categorized as Japanese war criminals.This improper political interferenceseriously challenged the judicial independence of those Chinese War Crimes Tribunals.The Tribunals,instead of deciding cases based on the merits of law,were subjectedto the will of politicians.It was an injustice to the tens of thousands ofmen,women and children killed or injured during the war and their families.

　　This was mostapparent in theYasuji Okamuracase.Okamurawas listed as a ClassA war criminal by the Tokyo Tribunal for leading the aggressive war in Chinaand should have been sent back to Japan to face trial.However,in an effort toprotect him,the Nationalist Government went as far as setting up a Japanese liaisonoffice in Nanking and used’s work in the liaison office as an excuse to delay his repatriation.[69]He was later summonedby the Tokyo Tribunal to testify in court as a witness and,again,Chiang’sgovernment rejected the request.was=""listed=""as=""a=""classa=""war=""criminal=""by=""the=""tokyo=""tribunal=""for=""leading=""aggressive=""in=""chinaand=""should=""have=""been=""sent=""back=""to=""japan=""face=""trial.=""however,=""an=""effort=""toprotect=""him,=""nationalist=""government=""went=""far=""setting=""up=""japanese=""liaisonoffice=""nanking=""and=""used’s"work=""liaison=""office=""excuse=""delay=""his=""repatriation.[69]He"was=""later=""summonedby=""testify=""court=""witness=""and,=""again,=""chiang’sgovernment=""rejected=""request.[70]Dueto increasing public pressure,the Nanking Tribunal finally tried him butgranted probation pending trial and eventually issued a not-guilty verdict.[71]The whole trialprocess was nothing more than a show to fool the public.Asthe former Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Expeditionary Force in China andthe arch-criminal in the Japanese Expeditionary Forces,no court operatingunder the rule of law should have allowed a not guilty verdict for YasujiOkamura.And indeed,as soon as Presiding Judge ShihMei-yu announced this verdict,people attending the hearing immediately shoutedout in anger and questioned the ruling.[72]Angry journalists then went to Judge Shi’soffice to protest this unfair judgment.[73]People outside of Nanking sent many letters ofprotest to the Nanking Government.[74]

　　This verdict wasextremely unacceptable for the Communist Party.From early 1945,the Communist Partywas prepared to try Japanese war criminals.Yasuji Okamurawas listed as one themost important suspects to be tried due to his heavy involvement in the battlesbetween the Japanese army and Communist troops in northern China during thewar.After the Nanking Tribunal setYasuji Okamurafree,the CommunistParty formally condemned the trial as“betraying the interest of the people.”[75]Therefore,theCommunist Party denied the legality of the war crime trials conducted by the NationalistParty and thus contributed to its limited impact among Chinese people after theliberation war.

　　On the Japaneseside,despite the large number of convicted verdicts issued by the NankingTribunal and Tokyo Tribunal,it was difficult for the Japanese public to acceptthe harsh realities of the war and the Japanese soldiers’role perpetuating the atrocities of the war.According to a survey conducted inJapan,significant portions of the Japanese people saw themselves as victims ofthe war.<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　On"the=""japaneseside,=""despite=""large=""number=""of=""convicted=""verdicts=""issued=""by=""nankingtribunal=""and=""tokyo=""tribunal,=""it=""was=""difficult=""for=""japanese=""public=""to=""acceptthe=""harsh=""realities=""war=""soldiers’role"perpetuating=""atrocities=""war.=""according=""a=""survey=""conducted=""injapan,=""significant=""portions=""people=""saw=""themselves=""as=""victims=""ofthe=""war.<="">[76]The typical historical image embedded in the minds of middle school students isone of victimhood:“I have always associated the war withHiroshima and Nagasaki,”said one student.“Icould only think of Japan as the loser in the war.”[77]This may be associated with a sentiment maintained by the Annual HiroshimaPeace Memorial Ceremony.Every year,at the precise time that the atomic bombwas dropped on Hiroshima,Japanese citizens,regardless of where they are,areasked to offer silent prayers for peace and for the souls of the victims of theattack.[78]Furthermore,in stark contrast to what Germany’sactions following the war,there has never been any effort made by Japan toamend relationships by offering reconciliation to China.Instead,Japanesepoliticians regularly visit the Yasukuni Shrine,whichenshrinesnot only those who died in the war,but also 14 convicted Class A war criminals.When they pay tribute to the Yasukuni shrine,they are also paying tribute,whether they intend to or not,to an imperial order in which Japan violentlysubjugated its neighbours.[79]In addition,being constantly reminded of their victim status makes it verydifficult for the Japanese people to develop a deeper understanding of thetrials conducted in China.In their view,such war criminals were merelysubordinates who followed the imperial order and should be honoured by theircurrent leaders.

　　Although the Nanking Trial has had very limitedimpact on the Chinese and Japanese publics,there are abundant publicdocumentation and trial records from that time.Still it remains obscured inour lost legal heritage.Despite its shortcomings,the Nanking Trial formed animportant part of the post-Second World War justice system and contributed toincreased expectations for the rule of law in the world.Together withproceedings in Singapore,Malaya,North Borneo,Hong Kong,Taiwan and Burma,the Australian and Dutch trials,as well as Nuremberg,Tokyo and ControlCouncil Law tribunals,the Nanking Trial poses great historical value for contemporaryinternational criminal law.This is a part of history more people should beaware of.This is especially true afterthe establishment ofthe only independent and permanent International Criminal Court prosecuting warcrimes.Not only can we learn lessons from Nuremberg and the Tokyo Tribunals,but we should also reflect upon the impact of the Class B and C trials in orderto construe a fairer,truly impartial international justice system.

　　*XingtongWANG,Attorney at Law,King&Capital Law Firm,Beijing,China.

　　[1]TheNanking Massacre Crime Investigation Committee was set up in June 1946.By 11November 1946,this committee collected evidence and materials of 2784 casesconcerning Nanking Massacre from Nanking citizens.For major cases adjudicatedin Nanking Tribunal,trial proceedings were fully covered by media.See ChinaSecond Archive,Nanking History Archive,Nanking Massacre of the JapaneseInvasion Archive,Jiangsu Ancient Book Publishing House,1981,p.550;Seealso,Haijian Yan,“Social ImpactAssessment of Nanking Massacre Trial Conducted by Nationalist Government”,inJournalof Fujian Forum-Social Science,2011,vol.4,pp.109-111.

　　[2]ZhengrongShen,“Relatives of the Nanking Tribunal Judge Donated 117 Japanese CriminalsTrial Materials back to Nanking,”inXinhua Daily News,14 December2004.

　　[3]“WartimeKilling Contest Trial Starts,”The Japan Times,8 July 2013.

　　[4]Ibid.

　　[5]Ibid.

　　[6]Kasahara Tokushi,Debate over Nanking Issue-How Japanese Viewed History,translated by LuoCuicui&others,Social Science Press,May 2011,p.2.

　　[7]《军事委员会关于战犯处理办法》,《军事委员会关于战犯审判办法》,and《军事委员会关于战犯审判办法实施细则》werelater replaced by the《战犯处理委员会关于战犯审判办法修正草案》，see JurongHu(ed.),“Nanking Trial,Collectionof Historical Materials on the Nanking Massacre”,Jiangsu People’s Press,2006,vol.24,pp.36-40.

　　[8]LingyanZhao,Far East Committee and Japanese War Criminal Disposal Issues,1994-2014 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House,April 2013,p.55.

　　[9]Nanking WarCrime Tribunal,the Prosecutor v.Sakai Takashi,Judgment,27 August 1946,pp.2-4.

　　[10]NankingWar Crime Tribunal,the Prosecutor v.Cui Bing Dou,Judgment,13November 1946,p.1;see also Nanking War Crime Tribunal,the Prosecutor v.Matsumoto Kiyoshi,Judgment,28 May 1946,p.1-5.

　　[11]“SakaiTakashi Judgment”,27 August 1946,pp.2-3,seesupranote9.

　　[12]“MatsumotoKiyoshi Judgment”,28 May 1946,p.3,seesupranote 10.

　　[13]JunshengLuo,“Shi Meiyu and Nanking Trial of Japanese War Criminals in the Aftermath ofWar,”inCPCHistory Review,2006,vol.1,p.22.

　　[14]UnitedNations War Crimes Commission,“Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals,”vol.14,London,1949,pp.1-7.

　　[15]Ibid.

　　[16]Judgmentof War Criminal Sakai Takashi held by the National Archives Administration inTaiwan,cited from Suzannah Linton,“Rediscovering the War Crimes Trials in HongKong,1946-48”,inMelbourne Journal of International Law,2012,vol.13,p.340.

　　[17]UnitedNations War Crimes Commission,“Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals”,seesupranote 14.

　　[18]Luo,1995,p.22,seesupranote 13.

　　[19]Ibid.

　　[20]Ibid.

　　[21]HisaoTani Judgement,Hu,2006,pp.388-395,seesupranote 7.

　　[22]Ibid.

　　[23]Ibid.

　　[24]Luo,2006,p.22,seesupranote 13.

　　[25]HisaoTani Judgement,Hu,2006,pp.388-395,seesupranote 7.

　　[26]ZhongxiuZhang,“Witnessing the Trial of Nanking Massacre Criminal Hisao Tani”,inJournalof Essence of Literature and History,1994,vol.3,p.29.

　　[27]Ibid.

　　[28]Luo,2006,p.23,seesupranote 13;See alsoHisaoTani Judgement,Hu,2006,pp.388-395,seesupranote 7.

　　[29]HisaoTani Judgement,Hu,2006,pp.388-395,seesupranote 7.

　　[30]Luo,2006,p.23,seesupranote 13.

　　[31]Hu,2006,pp.487-488,seesupranote 7.

　　[32]Luo,2006,p.24,seesupranote 13;see also Justice Trial—Documenting the ChineseTrial of Japanese War Criminals,Xinhua News,12 August 2005.

　　[33]Hu,2006,pp.487-488,495-499,seesupranote 7;see also Luo,2006,p.24,seesupranote 13.

　　[34]Luo,2006,p.25,seesupranote 13.

　　[35]Ibid.

　　[36]Luo,2006,p.24,seesupranote 13.

　　[37]Herbert Bix,Hirohitoand the Making of Modern Japan,HarperPerennial,2000,p.594.

　　[38]Xianwen Zhang,Collection of Historical Materials on the Nanking Massacre,Jiangsu People’s Press,2006,vol.20,p.121.

　　[39]XianwenZhang,“Investigation Statics Conducted by Japanese War Crimes InvestigationCommission,”Collection of Historical Materials on the Nanking Massacre,Jiangsu People’s Press,2006,vol.20,p.121.

　　[40]JingZhang,Jing Lv,“Crimes Investigation Forms filled out by Liao Tujin andProperty Lost Form”,Xianwen Zhang,The Truth of Nanking Massacre-ChineseMaterial,Jiangsu People’s Press,2006,pp.468,495.

　　<=""spanlang="en-us>

　　[38]Xianwen"zhang,collection=""of=""historical=""materials=""on=""the=""nanking=""massacre,jiangsu=""people’s=""press,=""2006,=""vol.=""20,=""p.121.<=""xianwenzhang,=""“investigation=""statics=""conducted=""by=""japanese=""war=""crimes=""investigationcommission,”collection=""p.=""121.<=""jingzhang,=""jing=""lv,=""“crimes=""investigation=""forms=""filled=""out=""liao=""tujin=""andproperty=""lost=""form”,=""xianwen=""zhang,the=""truth=""massacre-chinesematerial,=""jiangsu=""pp.=""468,=""495.=""<=""http:="">[41]Hu,2006,pp.63,65,68,70,71,72,318,320,321,349,353,358-360,373-388,494,499,seesupranote 7.

　　[42]Biqiang Guo,Liangqin Jiang,“Order of Nanking Society Bureau Ordering AllCinemas to Play the Slide Shows about Nanking Massacre Investigation Unit”,Zhang,2006,p.1532,seesupranote 38.

　　[43]Luo,1995,p.26,seesupranote 13.

　　[44]Military Tribunal Announcement about Hisan Tani’s Execution,Hu,2006,p.456,seesupranote 7.

　　[45]YuganTan,“Experiencing Nanking War Criminal’s Trial and Execution”,inJournalof Guizhou World of Literature and History,1995,vol.12,p.16.

　　[46]Ibid.

　　[47]ChengshanZhu,Zhixiu Yuan,“1982-2012:30 Years Research about Nanking Massacre”,inJournalof Japanese Invasion of China Research，2013,vol.2,p.1.

　　[48]Luo,1995,p.26,seesupranote 13.

　　[49]Yan,2011,p.112,seesupranote 1.

　　[50]Decisionof the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Handling ofthe Criminals in Custody from the Japanese War of Aggression against China,People’s Daily News,22 June 1956.

　　[51]Xingye Wang,“Reason for Nanking Massacre DenialAnalysis,”inJournal of Nanking Massacre Historical Research,2012,vol.9,p.22.

　　[52]Ibid.

　　[53]Tianren Yu,“Japanese View of Nanking Massacre”,inYouth Reference,29February 2012.

　　[54]Kasahara Tokushi,Nanking Issue,Boyan Press,1997,pp.7-8.

　　[55]YukiTanaka,“Crime and Responsibility:War,the State,and Japanese Society”,intheAsia-Pacific Journal:Japan Focus,20 August 2006.

　　[56]Ibid.

　　[57]The Japan Times,8 July 2003,seesupranote 3.

　　[58]Kasahara Tokushi,“Memory of Nanking Massacre-The Lost Memory of JapanesePeople after Losing the War”,inStudy of Japanese Aggression ofChina,2012,vol.2,pp.73-91.

　　[59]Hiroaki Gonoi,“Thorough Examination of the Reality at the Era of Non-Fiction”,inJournal of Truth of the Rumor,1987,vol.4,p.66.

　　[60]The Japan Times,8 July 2003,seesupranote 3.

　　[61]Ibid.

　　[62]JapaneseCourt Throws Out“King Contest”Lawsuit,Taipei Times,24 August 2005.

　　[63]Kasahara Tokushi,Debate over Nanking Issue-How Japanese ViewedHistory,seesupranote 6.

　　[64]Xiaoyi Qin,Collection of Former President Chiang’s Speech，Party HistoryCommittee of the Chinese Nationalist Party Committee Press,1984,vol.32,pp.121-123.

　　[65]Ibid.

　　[66]HongsenTang,“Communist Party and Nationalist Part’s Strategy in Taking OverNorth-East China”,in Chinese Modern and Contemporary Historical MaterialAcademy(ed.),Research of Anti-Japanese War and the Historical Material,Nankai Press,1995,pp.385-392.

　　[67]ChengyiYuan,“Several Problems About Jiang Kai-Chang’s Policy of Magnanimity towardsJapan”,inJournal of Anti-Japanese War Research,2006,vol.1,pp.213-214.

　　[68]Biqiang Guo,Liangqin Jiang,“Japanese War Criminal Disposal Committee MeetingMinutes on Policy of Japanese War Criminals Disposal”,Collection ofHistorical Materials on the Nanking Massacre:Investigation on Japanese WarCrimes,Jiangsu People’s Press,2006,pp.28-29.

　　[69]Yasuji OkamuraMemoir,translated by Tianjin Compilation&Translation Bureau of PoliticalConsultative Association，ZhongHua Press,1981,p.160

　　[70]Ibid.

　　[71]Ibid.

　　[72]JunyanWang,“The Show of Yasuji Okamura’s Trial under US and Mr.Jiang’s Protection”,inJournal of Yanhuang Chunqiu,1995,vol.11,p.72.

　　[73]Luo,1995,p.26,seesupranote 13.

　　[74]Wang,1995,p.73,see supranote 72.

　　[75]Zedong Mao,“On Ordering the ReactionaryNationalist Government to Re-Arrest Yasuji Okamura,Former Commander-in-Chiefof the Japanese Forces of Aggression in China,and to Arrest the NationalistCivil War Criminals-Statement by the Spokesman of the Communist Party on 28January 1949”,and“Peace Terms Must Include the Punishment of Japanese WarCriminals and Nationalist War Criminals-Statement by the Spokesmen for theCommunist Party of China issued on 5 February 1949”,inSelected Works ofMao Zedong,People’s Press,1993,vol.4,p.1394.

　　[76]Hu,2006,p.4,see notesupra7.

　　[77]Ian Buruma,The Wages of Guilt:Memories ofWar in Germany and Japan,Phoenix Press,1994,pp.114-115.

　　[78]Hiroshima Marks 69thAnniversary ofAtomic Bombing,The Japan Times,Aug 6,2014.

　　[79]Japan’s No-Apology Diplomacy:Why a Small Tokyoshrine is Causing Big Trouble in Asia,Washington Post,23 April 2013.

分享到：