December 1, 1999 The Honorable Michael Honda, California State Assembly

An Open Letter of Inquiry for the California State Assembly Joint Resolution No. 27

You were the proponent of the resolution adopted by the California State Legislature last August 23rd and Titled "Assembly Joint Resolution No.27 - Relative to the War Crimes Committed by the Japanese Military During WW".

From what position, on what basis, did you advance a proposal such as this?

We are a body who has several important issues that concern us. Therefore,we are issuing this open letter of inquiry concerning the following problem issues, which we consider important. We await your sincere responses.

1 ) We understand that you intend your position to be one of humanitarianism and of human rights concerns. However, we would like to know if this is truly the case?

2 ) In the event that your purpose is not retaliatory, and that it is truly to raise issues of humanitarianism and human rights, then why is it that only one country, Japan, has been singled out? Why have you not considered wartime offenses by such countries such as America, China, Russia, Britain,or other governments? Is this not a form of discrimination against the Japanese? Is not such discrimination fundamentally incompatible with humanitarian and human rights aims?

3 ) If we were to look at humanitarianism and human rights with an unbiased eye, we find severe violations of America in wartime as well. Consider the inhuman targeting of non-combatant population centers with weapons of mass destruction in Japan. Sixty civilian centers were targeted, most notably among them being Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which the only atomic bombs used in history were used. There is also the firebombing of Tokyo where in one night 100,000 people were incinerated according to plan. There are many other examples, such as that of the city of Toyama in which the munitions plant was ignored and only the civilian population centers were deliberately targeted. Over 800,000 people were killed by indiscriminate bombings. Charles Lindbergh wrote in his diary that concerning the maltreatment of prisoners the cruelty of the Germans was on par with that displayed by the Americans toward the Japanese.(Details as per attached). In China there were several incidents like that of Tongzhou in which many Japanese civilians were massacred. There are also incidents in which recognized Chinese forces were slaughtered by their own government's front-line troops. They killed their own countrymen. There are also cases in the former Soviet Union, such as when Russia abrogated her treaty of neutrality and attacked Japan, killing 280,000 Japanese men and women, young and old alike. Of the over 600,000 soldiers and civilians who were interned by the Russians, 60,000 died because they were mistreated and forced to labor for eleven years. What of this Russian war crime? Are you saying that none of these are considered war crimes? If this is the case, is it not an unspeakable double standard? Is this not a deception of some sort?

4 ) The discriminatory singling out of Japan as the sole subject of pursuing war crimes, ignoring the undeniable fact that Japan has already been severely judged by a military court is an injustice that cannot go without notice. After World War II, trials of Japanese officers and government officials were held. The most famous among them being the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (The Tokyo Tribunal). Of the 4,356 people who were convicted (many without sufficient evidence), 911 received the death sentence. Conversely, not a single person from America, China, or the Soviet Union was tried for war crimes or for the unmistakable violations of international law. As people concerned with humanitarianism and human rights, what do you think of the unfairness or rather, the injustice of this? We would like to know how you ease your conscience. We are not a retaliatory people bent on rehashing the past; however, if one thinks of war crimes from an impartial viewpoint, based upon principles of humanitarianism and human rights, these are questions which must emerge. Do you not agree? We firmly believe that these are questions from which unbiased humanitarians and people concerned with human rights must not shy away. Is this not the case?

5 ) It is a total fabrication that there was a "300,000 Victim Massacre in Nanking" or a "Nanking Holocaust" perpetrated by the Japanese.

a )
As clearly indicated in the Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, the population of the city at the time of its occupation by Japan on December 13, 1937, was only 200,000. (These records were published in 1939 under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking, and are extant.) The International Committee for the Safety Zone, the author of the Documents, had taken up the actual governing of the city. Mayor Ma Chaojun had fled on December 3.
What we would inquire of you is, exactly how is it possible to kill 300,000 people out of a population of only 200,000? Do you not believe that this must be a terrible lie?
Moreover, according to the Documents, just a month later (January 14, 1938) the population of the city had actually increased to 250,000. The total population of 200,000 had not been killed; but rather, it was the opposite. Aside from the sudden violent outbreaks and murders, records show evidence that there was no such thing as a "massacre." Given all of this, references to any "300,000 Victim Massacre" are preposterous and obviously nothing more than demagoguery.

b )
Of course immediately at the fall of Nanking diverse false stories were spread. In the New York Times and other publications, there were accounts of random killings; nevertheless, there was no mention of any 300,000 killings anywhere. These stories were soon realized to be baseless and by April of the next year (1938), no more articles referring to a "massacre" appeared in any English publications. Neither was there any criticism or mention of a "Nanking Massacre" in the resolution condemning Japan that was adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on May 27 of 1938. In his June 1938 address in Yanan, entitled "On Protracted War", Mao Tse-tung touched on several engagements between the Japanese and Chinese soldiers.
He included the engagement at Nanking, yet he made no mention of a "massacre." Mao's consideration of Japan was that "the Japanese army is good at conducting sieges, but they are soft when it comes to annihilation." Chiang Kai-shek made use of lies and all manner of anti-Japanese propaganda,but in his speech on June 7, marking the one-year anniversary of the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which was broadcast to the allied powers, there is no mention of any massacre. Had there been a massacre to talk about, there would have been no better propaganda coup than to mention it, but there is nothing. This is only to be expected because there had been no massacre; therefore, there could not have been any mention of it.
Given all of this, any "300,000 Victim Nanking Massacre" can be nothing more than a baseless, trumped-up story.
The atrocities depicted in "The Rape of Nanking" are totally without precedent in all of Japanese culture and history. In Japan, there has never been anything like a Holocaust, and there is no relationship. (We have assembled more detailed information on this, and we would very much like you to compare it with what you think about this issue. We would also like to mention that whatever questions might arise, we are prepared to answer in good faith.)
We would like you to reflect on the fact that there seems to be no shame in the fact that you are making this lie the basis of your pursuit of Japanese war crimes. How would you respond?

6 ) We would like you to go back and double-check the accusation in your resolution wherein you state that while Germany apologized and made war reparations, Japan did not. This is a complete misreading of the facts. Japan paid out monies totaling 624.6 billion (in current value, that amount is 3.2 trillion, or $31 billion) to 18 countries. Germany, on the other hand, because of its partitioning, did not pay anything. The reparations paid by Germany were for special crimes, "crimes against humanity" (the most representative being that of the Holocaust) rather than regular reparations. It is a simple fact that imprisonment and execution for just being Jewish was a crime unique only to the Nazi's.
Not only did Japan not commit such a crime, she actually saved Jewish individuals from the Holocaust. Just one example is this is that of Sugihara Chiune, a Japanese diplomatic official operating in Lithuania. In one month's time, he issued visas that delivered 6,000 Jews to safety in the face of advancing German forces. This was in the spirit of the December 6, 1938, "Policy on Non-discrimination Against Jews", which was enacted by the Japanese government under Prime Minister Konoe.
The German reparations were only private payments in compensation for that particular Nazi crime and nothing more. Since Japan has not committed any crimes against humanity and was not made to make any private reparations in the same manner as Germany, such criticism of Japan is unfounded and can only be considered unjust. We believe that assertions of humanity and human rights, which are based on falsehood and misunderstanding of the facts can be very dangerous, as this could constitute an infringement of the human rights of all Japanese. What would you say to this?

7 ) We would like to know your opinion about peace treaties. A peace treaty is a pact that two or more nations enter into that resolves diverse issues that have come about during the course of a war. In addition, it is a mutual agreement for a new start and not to pursue past problems. If this were not the case, the eternal pursuit of past problems would only give rise to the potential vicious, never-ending cycle of retributions. It is our belief that nations enter into peace treaties so that such disputes will not occur. Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Treaty of Peace With Japan) along with 45 other countries. After that, pacts were contracted and paid out in the individual cases of demand for indemnity. The issue of prisoner compensations was clearly stipulated and the settlement finalized in Article Sixteen of the San Francisco Treaty. Moreover, Japan agreed to abandon the foreign assets she possessed. This was seen as the equivalent of a compensatory payment, which at the time totaled $111 billion (an amount easily over $500 billion in today's economy).
Given that Japan long ago signed a peace treaty with those 45 countries which concluded hostilities with them, is it not a trampling of international law and rank unfairness to consider Japan a "criminal nation" and to demand a further apology and reparations? What are your opinions about this treaty and the international laws that support it?

8 ) We are not stinting in our sympathy and we support your stated sentiment to eradicate war crimes. However, if you truly wish to achieve your goals,a spirit of high regard for impartiality and truthfulness is indispensable. What we would like to know is, does the light of that spirit shine on the actions you are taking?
Given your discriminatory unfairness of singling out Japan, added to your taking as your premise diverse lies such as a "300,000 Victim Nanking Massacre" which tramples historical truths, can you honestly say your actions are living up to your lofty goal of the eradication of war crimes? If you truly wish to eliminate war crimes, should you not turn your eyes to war crimes currently being perpetrated rather than those of the distant past?
More recently, in Cambodia, over two million were killed. In China, Mao Tse-tung's Cultural Revolution claimed 20 million lives. There are still victims and their suffering families feeling the effects of these devastating blows in both cases mentioned. In Rwanda in even more recent years, millions of Hutus have been killed by their tribal rivals, the Tutis. Both Turkey and Iraq have conducted campaigns against their own Kurdish minorities, taking thousands of countless lives. In Kosovo, if one goes by the evidence of a so called NATO campaign to eliminate alleged ethnic cleansing, NATO seems to have killed more people and done more damage to the country than ethnic cleansing ever did. Why are you silent about these?
Presently, in Tibet, there is a dreadful violation of human rights still going on, a war crime similar to ethnic cleansing, perpetuated by the dictatorial Chinese government. Surely you know of it. What do you say to this? If you shut your eyes to such realities, only to look back on the past, it is unlikely that you will be able to realize your lofty goals.

Would you not agree?

We understand that you respect the sublime ideals of humanitarianism and human rights, and we would look forward to hearing your responses.

FUJIOKA Nobukatsu
Professor of Tokyo University
and Representative for Association for the Advancement of a Liberalist View of History

To date, no reply has been forthcoming from Mr. Honda.

Excerpts from "The War Time Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh "
( Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1970 )

June 11, 1945 (p.997)
"What the Germans have done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific. As Germans have defied themselves by dumping the ashes of human beings into this pit, we have defied ourselves by bulldozing bodies into shallow unmarked tropical graves."

July 13, 1944 (p.875)
"It was freely admitted that some of our soldiers tortured Jap prisoners and were as cruel and barbaric at times as the Japs themselves. Our men think nothing of shooting a Japanese prisoner or a soldier attempting to surrender. They treat the Jap with less respect than they would give an animal, and these acts are condoned by almost everyone. We claim to be fighting for civilization, but the more I see of this war in the Pacific, the less right I think we have to claim to be civilized."

July 21, 1994 (p.880)
"What is courage for him [ the American soldier ] is fanaticism for him [ the Japanese soldier ]. We hold his examples of atrocity screamingly to the heavens while we cover up our own and condone them as just retribution for his acts."

August 6, 1944 (p.897)
"At the bottom of the blackboard, a naked, reclining girl has been outlined in chalk. At the top, a shining, white Japanese skull is hung."

August 11, 1944 (p.902)
"If the Japanese think they will be killed anyway when they surrender, they, naturally, are going to hold on and fight to the last -- and kill American troops they capture whenever they get the chance. Most of the officers agree (not very enthusiastically) but say that our infantry doesn't look on it that way."

August 14,1944 (p.906)
"They often bring back the thigh bones from the Japs they kill and make pen holders and paper knives and such things out of them."

(p.919)
"Before the bodies in the hollow were "bulldozed over," the officer said, a number of our Marines went in among them, searching through their pockets and prodding around in their mouths for gold-filled teeth. Some of the Marines, he said, had a little sack in which they collected teeth with gold fillings. The officer said he had seen a number of Japanese bodies from which an ear or a nose had been cut off."Our boys cut them off to show their friends in fun, or to dry and take back to the States when they go. We found one Marine with a Japanese head. He was trying to get the ants to clean the flesh off the skull, but the odor got so bad we had to take it away from him." It is the same story everywhere I go."