Minoru Kitamura

Minoru Kitamura (北村稔 Kitamura Minoru, born 1948) is a Japanese historian. He is a professor at Ritsumeikan University whose academic speciality is modern Chinese history.

Life and career

He was born in Kyoto Prefecture. He completed his bachelor's degree with a major in modern history at the Department of Humanities at Kyoto University in 1973. He initially dropped out of a doctorate program at the same university but in 1999 finally attained his doctorate in law.[1] He worked as an assistant professor at Mie University before taking up his current post at the humanities department of Ritsumeikan University. He is also a member of the Japan Association for Nanjing Studies and an associate researcher at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals.

The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation

In 2001 his book Nankin Jiken no Tankyū: Sono Jitsuzō wo Motomete was published by Bungeishunju, later translated into English as The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation. In the book he analyzes the Nanjing Massacre in an attempt to use historical methods to verify the "war crime" verdict pronounced at the Tokyo Trials and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. Though on the one hand he confirms using newly discovered data the massacre of less than 20,000 Chinese POWs by the Japanese army, he concludes through analysis of many types of Chinese and Allied wartime propaganda that the perception of the war crimes tribunals, that a huge massacre of ordinary civilians had occurred reaching hundreds of thousands of deaths, was gradually invented after 1937. He undertook his research asking the question of how false perceptions about the massacre arose while seeking "a return to the basics of historical research".[2]

He alleges that Harold Timperley, a journalist stationed in China who accused the Japanese army of committing atrocities in Nanking and in many other places in China, engaged in international propaganda work for the KMT Central Information Department from immediately after the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War and published the edited volume "What War Means" with the KMT's financial support. Kitamura cites "A Biographical Dictionary of Foreigners in China in the Modern Age" written in 1981 by the Chinese Social Sciences Publishing Co., which states that "in 1937, after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the KMT dispatched [Timperley] to Europe and the United States to engage in propaganda activities", as well as the memoirs of Zeng Xubai, the head of the Kuomintang Central Information Department, who is quoted by Wang Lingxiao, the author of "The KMT's News Administration Policy", as saying, "we decided that our first step would be to make payment to Timperley, and also, through his coordination, to Smythe, and commission both of them to write and publish two books for us as witnesses to the Nanking Massacre".[3]

Praise

In the January 2002 issue of Shokun! magazine Kitamura's thesis was reviewed favorably by Yoshiko Sakurai, Akira Suzuki, Mizuho Ishikawa, and Kenichi Ara.[4]

Shudo Higashinakano bolstered Kitamura's argument in 2003 following the discovery of a top-secret document written in 1941 called "An Overview of Propaganda Operations of the International Information Division of the Central Information Department of the Nationalist Party: from 1938 to April 1941". The document lists Timperley's "What War Means" as a KMT propaganda book.[5]

Criticism

The August 2, 2002 edition of Shūkan Kinyōbi presented the criticisms and negative opinions of Hisashi Inoue, Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, Haruki Watanabe, and of Tokushi Kasahara, who labelled Kitamura as a "denier of the Nanjing Massacre".[6]

Hisashi Watanabe criticized Kitamura's thesis in the official bulletin of the Association of Returnees from China, acknowledging problems with the testimony of Zeng Xubai who, for instance, mistakenly reminisced that Timperley was present in Japanese-occupied Nanjing, and also suggesting that Zeng Xubai did not explicitly state a working relationship between Timperley and the KMT Central Information Department, which was only Wang Lingxiao's interpretation.[7] In addition, Hisashi Inoue has argued that Zeng Xubai's claim to have commissioned Timperley was an error. A document of the KMT Central Information Department from the Second Historical Archives of China in Nanjing instead reads "We bought up as well as printed first-hand accounts of the Japanese army's massacre at Nanjing, one by Timperley himself and, by means of him, another by Smythe."[8]

Based on the essays written by Watanabe and Inoue, in 2007 Tokushi Kasahara concluded that "The autobiography of Zeng Xubai is self-serving and unreliable",[9] and he furthermore pointed to Kitamura's greatest "trick" as his attempt to make his readers think that Timperley wrote the 1938 volume "What War Means" as a Chinese spy before he had actually become a KMT agent in 1939. He also attacked Kitamura on the matter that "He doesn't have a clue about how legal trials work, and he thought that the judges wrote their verdict while quoting from Timperley's book without even being able to distinguish the difference between an indictment and a verdict".[10]

Other works

Kitamura's book Daiichiji Kokkyōgassaku no Kenkyū: Gendai Chūgoku wo Keisei Shita Nidai Seiryoku no Shutsugen ("Research on the First United Front: The Emergence of the Two Great Powers that Constitute Modern China") was published by Iwanami Shoten in 1998. He explains in detail the trends of the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Chinese Communist Party that have moved modern China, centering on the establishment, development, and collapse of the cooperative relationship which they forged over the course of the Nationalist Party's unification of China which was tentatively completed in 1928.

In his book Chūgoku wa Shakaishugi de Shiawase ni Natta no ka ("Has Socialism Made China Happy?"), published by the PHP Institute in 2005, he argues that "The essence of the People's Republic of China is a feudalistic dynasty socialist in name only."

In 2008 the PHP Institute published a book he co-wrote with Lin Siyun entitled Nicchū Sensō: Sensō wo Nozonda Chūgoku, Nozomanakatta Nihon, translated into English as "The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War". In the book Kitamura and Siyun contemplate various aspects of the Second Sino-Japanese War and seek to refute the standard assumptions that "Japan waged a war of aggression and China was Japan's hapless victim".[11]

Translations

Kitamura is a translator of Chinese and English who had translated into Japanese the works by Jerome Chen, Stuart R. Schram, Ray Huang, and Li Changping.

See also

References

  1. ↑ "立命館大学 文学部 東洋研究学域 北村 稔". Research-db.ritsumei.ac.jp. Retrieved 2015-10-02.
  2. ↑ Minoru Kitamura, The Politics of Nanjing: An Impartial Investigation, trans. Hal Gold (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2007), 11.
  3. ↑ Kitamura, 21, 30.
  4. ↑ "発掘「新史料」が証かす「南京虐殺」の虚構," Shokun!, January 2002, 26-37. "「南京事件」の探求』をどう読むか," Shokun!, January 2002, 38-43.
  5. ↑ Shudo Higashinakano, The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction (Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan Inc, 2005), 256-258.
  6. ↑ Kasahara Tokushi, "文春がまた担ぎ出した南京虐殺否定論者のおそまつぶり," Shūkan Kinyōbi, August 2, 2002, 66-67. Hisashi Inoue, "「常識」という用語を利用した非常識," Shūkan Kinyōbi, August 2, 2002, 68-69. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "狡猾な引用をされた例として," Shūkan Kinyōbi, August 2, 2002, 68-69. Haruki Watanabe, "事実を明らかにする姿勢はどこに？," Shūkan Kinyōbi, August 2, 2002, 70.
  7. ↑ Hisashi Watanabe, "求めているのは実像か虚像か," Chūkiren, summer 2002, 69-72.
  8. ↑ Hisashi Inoue, “南京大虐殺と中国国民党国際宣伝処,” in 現代歴史学と南京事件, eds. Tokushi Kasahara and Yutaka Yoshida (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo, 2006), 249.
  9. ↑ Tokushi Kasahara, 南京事件論争史 (Tokyo: Heibonsha Shinsho, 2007), 259.
  10. ↑ Kasahara, 264.
  11. ↑ Kitamura Minoru and Lin Siyun, The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War (Tokyo: PHP Institute, 2008), i.


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 22, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.