Essay On The Nanking Massacre

Wars cannot be simplified to one nation fighting another. Nations contain individuals who act contrarily to the majority of their fellow citizens or their government. Oversimplifying wartime atrocities leads historians and the general public down a dangerous road because they paint an image in black and white, rather than in hazy greys, which better encompass the complicated intricacies of conflict. There can be no better example of this dangerous road than the academic disagreement over the Nanking Massacre from late 1937 to early 1938. Although the massacre can be easily simplified to the Chinese view versus the Japanese view, this generalization does little to address the fact that “national histories are intrinsically contentious and never garner strict unanimity of opinion”. However, once historians have tackled monolithic terms, such as “The Chinese” or “The Japanese”, it is much easier to decipher the
These events are not isolated, and should be studied in the context of western colonialism, inadequate training of conscripted Chinese soldiers, years of contempt between China and Japan, and the United States’ political and social promise to end the spread of communism. After establishing historical context, scholars must be willing to actively reevaluate their perspective to ensure they realize how their own biases affect their historical interpretation of events. The question then becomes, how can this argument be put to rest so that the victims, victimizers and their descendants can begin the process of healing? It may be wishful thinking to hope that those inspired by the ideal of universal human dignity will construct a single narrative of the Nanking Massacre to create a more peaceful future. A common understanding of history is a difficult task to achieve, but serves to build an international respect of human life despite differences in