Was doing some research for my History classes today. And came across a rather ridiculous website. It portrays the Japanese occupation forces as being kind and compassionate. It gives "credible" evidence for its views.
To all those interested in the subject, it's worth a look, and a raised eyebrow/chuckle.
"The commander of the Japanese troops in the Nanking operation was Iwane Matsui. According to his attendant Mr. Okada, during the battle, a baby's cry was heard from a site of fire. Commander Matsui ordered Okada to go find the baby. Matsui took the baby up in his arms, gave a bath and milk to nourish the baby.
When entering Nanking, Okada was holding the baby on his back.
In Japanese history, there is no culture of slaughtering citizens during war. But it is rather a tradition in Chinese culture, for in Chinese chronicles are many reports about slaughtering citizens who live inside castle walls. But the Japanese citizens live outside castle walls, and only the Samurai soldiers fought against each other. Slaughtering citizens was not Japanese culture, but Chinese.
(You can see more corroborating photos that the "Nanking Massacre" was a fabrication ..."
I quote, "Japanese soldiers playing with Chinese children (1937). The Japanese troops had a good relationship with Chinese civilians"
It is very interesting how people can twist history around. And then again thinking carefully, from a purely objective point of view. How do we even know the history we learn today is correct? For example, were any of us really there when say, WWII occured? How would any of us truly know something happened? Based on the availibility of facts, oral accounts, work of historians...etc. Which might or might not be reliable, and might or might not be twisted out of context.
So, thought of the day: While we decry unreliable historians, consider this possibility- How do we really know what we learn is true? Chew on it.