先に述べたように、本章では、いわゆる〈南京大虐殺〉を一つの殺人事件(ならびにそれに付随する略奪・強姦事件を含む)としてとらえ、それを告発した側に挙証責任があるという前提の下に、刑事訴訟手続の手法を借りながら、犯罪として立証がなされているのかを多面的な角度から検証したい。

In this chapter, we try to compare the so-called 'Nanking Massacre' with a murder case (including the looting and rape associated to it). Under the assumption that the Prosecution is responsible for the burden of proof, we are going to examine the evidences from various aspects through procedures of criminal codes, to determine whether the Prosecution has been able to prove the 'Nanking Massacre' as a crime.

そこで〈起訴状〉と見なすのは『中国版 対日戦争史録』である。それは、一九三七年十二月より翌年二月までに日本軍が中国軍捕虜及び民間人を三十万人以上殺害したと主張し、多くの論拠を提示している。その論拠一つ一つに反論していくこともできるが、ここでは便宜的に、〈起訴状〉をおよそ次のような「四つの主張」と「十の争点」に整理し、反論していくことにする。

We think that History of the War against Japan can be comparable to the indictment. This book claims that the Japanese Army killed more than 300,000 Chinese captives and civilians from December 1937 through February 1938 with a variety of arguments. Although we can argue against each point, here in this chapter, we will categorize them into the following 'four points of advocacy' and 'ten points of argument.'

The whole view of the indictment

1. The number of casualties, 300,000
   1. After the Japanese occupation, did the population of Nanking decrease by more than 300,000?
   2. Did the 'Chinese postwar investigation' have probative value and admissibility?
      1. Chinese testimonies of eleven cases to verify the murder of 190,000 people.
      2. Burial records of 150,000 corpses by the Advance Benevolence Society and the Red Swastika Society.
   3. Did westerners witness the massacre?
   4. Were Japanese high officials aware of the massacre?
2. Systematic massacre
   5. Did the Japanese Army plan a systematic murder?
   6. Was the mopping-up operation a systematic murder?
   7. Did the Japanese Army have a policy of killing POWs?
3. Systematic large scale looting and rape
   8. Did the Japanese Army practice systematic looting?
   9. Did the Japanese Army commit systematic rape?
4. Cruel Atrocities
   10. Did Japanese officers perform the 'Murder Race'?

この全体像からも判るように、いわゆる〈南京大虐殺〉の最大の争点は、「犠牲者が三十万人以上なのかどうか」ということと、「虐殺は日本軍が組織的計画的に行ったものかどうか」ということである。

The most significant point of argument on this case is the 'whether the number of casualties has been more than 300,000' and 'whether the Japanese Army has planned a systematic murder.'

そこで我々弁護側としては、この二つの争点に力点を置きつつ、告発側が提示した証拠を検証していくことにする。

Then, we, as the Defense, will put an emphasis on these two points, and will inspect the evidences submitted by the Prosecution.

大量殺人の場合、最も重大な争点は犠牲者数だが、この点について、告発側は、南京戦前後の南京市の人口の変動に着目して、次のように主張している。

The most significant point of debate was certainly the number of casualties. The Prosecution paid attention to the fluctuation of population of Nanking between pre-battle and post-battle, and made a strong statement as follows:

まず、南京の人口を検証するに当たっては次の三点に留意する必要がある。

In surveying the population of Nanking, we needed to carefully pay attention to the following three points:

では、安全区の人口はどのくらいだったのか。

Then what was the population of the Safety Zone?

安全区委員会委員長ジョン・H・D・ラーベは、南京戦が始まった十二月十日付日記に「二十万人」と記している。その後、日本軍による市内制圧・占領と続くが、安全区委員会の認識は、十二月十七日付文書以降一貫して「二十万人」であった。こと人口に関する限り、安全区委員会の認識は確かだった。何故なら難民たちの食糧問題に頭を悩ました安全区委員会にとって、安全区の人口を正確に把握することはどうしても必要だったからだ。

John Rabe, the chairman of the Safety Zone Committee wrote in his diary on December 10, that when the Nanking battle began, the population was 200,000. After the Japanese victory and occupation took place, the Safety Zone Committee in its document dated on December 17, and in subsequent documents, consistently recognized this number. For the Safety Zone Committee, it was absolutely necessary to know the accurate number of people in order to distribute food to those refugees.

南京には中国人兵士も存在した。その数について東京裁判の判決文には「中国軍はこの市を防衛するために、約五万の兵を残して撤退した」とある。

In Nanking, there were also Chinese soldiers (including their families). About its number, the written judgment in the IMTFE¹⁸ stated "All Chinese troops withdrew, but 50,000 remained in the city to defend it."

以上から判断すると、戦闘開始時の南京城内の人口総数は二十万＋五万で最大でも「二十五万人」ということになる。

Considering the above statements, the population in the walled city was 200,000 plus 50,000, or not more than 250,000 when the battle started.

その後、南京の人口はどうなったか。安全区委員会の文書には、一九三八年一月に入ってからの安全区の人口を「二十五万人」と記している。安全区の人口は「五万人」増えた計算となる。この増加分は城内に潜んでいた中国軍将兵とその家族、及び一般市民を「平民分離工作」の際に「敵意なし」として登録した分であろう(安全区委員会の十二月十七日付十七号文書によれば、難民二十五万人のうち、安全区委員会が管理したのは十八ヵ所の収容所に収容した約五万人に過ぎない。残りの二十万人は安全区内の、日本軍が管理した「新住宅区」に移住していた。

Afterwards how did the population of Nanking change? The Safety Zone Committee documents read that in January 1938 the population was 250,000. It meant the increase of the population by 50,000, which might be the estimated number of citizens and Chinese soldiers who were not willing to fight, and who were registered as a result of the 'separation of soldiers from citizens' which was carried out by the military authorities towards Chinese soldiers hidden in the Safety Zone and the citizens of the wall city including the soldiers' families who lived there.¹⁹

その後も人口は増えていく。

The population continued subsequent increase.

二月上旬に安全区が解放された後、金陵大学教授ルイス・S・C・スマイスは多数の中国人を動員して人口調査を行い、三月下旬の南京の人口を「二十五万ないし二十七万人」と推定している。同じく三月二十八日に発足した南京維新政府南京市政公署が登録した住民の数は「二十七万七千人」であった^[三]。(ついでながら、冒頭に紹介した告発側のいう「南京かいらい政権」はこの南京維新政府のことである。つまり〈起訴状〉は十万人も数をごまかしているということになる。)

After the Safety Zone was dissolved at the beginning of February 1938, Lewis S. C. Smythe, professor of Nanking University investigated the population with the help of many Chinese staffs. He assumed the population of Nanking to be 250,000 or 270,000 as of the end of March 1938. The Nanking City Administrative Office of the Nanking Restoration Government, which was established on March 28, 1938, registered 277,000 inhabitants.²⁰

以上のことから、安全区委員会の記録等で見る限り、南京戦終結時の人口は「二十五万」であり、その後、人口はむしろ増加している。「三十万人以上も人口が減った」とする「起訴状」には何の根拠もない。

Form the above authentic documents when the Nanking battle ceased, the population of Nanking proved to have been 250,000 and was gaining in population. The indictment, which said the city had lost population by 300,000, could therefore no ground.

告発側はいかなる証拠をもって「三十万人殺害説」を立証しようとしているのか。〈起訴状〉は次のように主張している。

With what evidence will the Prosecution prove 'the murder of 300,000 people'? The indictment reads as follows:

戦後の中国側の調査によると、大虐殺がほぼ終わった後、当地の慈善機関が各所で収容し、埋葬した遺体は十九万体に上り、集団虐殺が行われた場所で掘り出された遺骨は十五万体と推定され、さらに揚子江に投げ込まれた大量の死体は統計に入っていない。そのうち少数の戦死者を除き、そのほかは全戦闘終了後に虐殺されたものである。

According to the Chinese postwar investigation, when the massacre was over, the number of corpses that charitable organizations had gathered from place to place and buried reaches 190,000 and the estimated victims' ashes which were excavated at places where atrocities took place, were 150,000, but these figures excluded a large number of corpses that were thrown into the Yangtze River. Some of them were fallen soldiers, but most of them were killed after the fight.

つまり、「三十万人殺害説」の有力な根拠は、戦後の中国側の調査なのである。

No doubt the advocacy of 'murder of 300,000 people' has been based on the 'Chinese postwar investigation.'

この調査の詳細は、中国人民政治協商会議江蘇省南京市委員会文史資料研究会編『史料選輯(侵華日軍南京大屠殺史料専輯)代第四集』(内部発行、一九八三年)に掲載されている^[四]。この史料集の前文には「集団殺戮に遭い、死体を焼かれて痕跡をとどめなかった者は十九万以上に達し、また個別分散的に虐殺され、死体が慈善団体の手で埋葬された者は十五万以上」とあり、十九万と十五万という数字をそれぞれ立証する二つの証拠群が掲載されている^[五]。

Details of this investigation were published in The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre, vol.4 compiled by the Institute of Studies of Nanking City Historical Records in 1983. In the preface of this research data, it describes "In massacre, the number of unidentified corpses burnt to nothing left reached 190,000 and others individually killed and buried by charitable organizations were more than 150,000 in number," and there appear two groups of evidences to verify these two figures.

つまり『史料選輯』によれば、犠牲者三十万人以上を立証する戦後の中国側調査には、次の二つの証拠群があるのである。

According to The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre, the 'Chinese postwar investigation' has presented the following two groups of evidences to prove the victims of more than 300,000:

この、十九万と十五万という数字は〈起訴状〉の数字とも一致する。傍線部の表現は異なっているが、この『史料選輯』以外に中国側調査は公表されていないので、以下、〈起訴状〉が指摘している中国側調査とはこの『史料選輯』を指すとの前提で議論を進めたい。

These figures of 190,000 and 150,000 coincide with ones described in the indictment except the above part underlined. Since there has been no other 'Chinese postwar investigation' reported officially, hereafter, we would like to argue the issue in the premise that the 'Chinese postwar investigation' means The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre.

まず、十九万人殺人を証言する中国側の十一件の証言から検証するが、これらの証言の收集経緯を辿ると、興味深い事実が浮かび上がってくる。

First of all, we will examine Chinese testimonies of the eleven cases to verify the murder of 190,000 people. We, however, can point out an interesting fact when we look into the process of collecting those testimonies.

東京裁判に提出された「南京地方法院検察処敵人罪行調査報告^[六]」によれば、第二次大戦後、日本の「戦争犯罪」を裁くため連合国が開廷した「東京裁判」に備え、中国国民政府は一九四五年十一月七日「南京敵人罪行調査委員会」を設置し、中国人に南京における日本軍の犯罪を申告するよう呼びかけた。

According to Summary report on the Investigation of Japanese war crimes committed in Nanking, prepared by the Procurator of the District Court in Nanking,²¹ to prepare for the IMTFE, the KMT set up the 'Nanking Investigation Committee for Antagonists' Crime' on November 7, 1945, and appealed to the Chinese public to report Japanese Army's crimes.

ところが、日本軍の残虐行為を申告する者が「甚だ少なき」ばかりか、聞き取り調査を行うと唖然として「口を噤みて語らざる者」や虐殺を「否認する者」までいたという。やむなく中国政府は暫定的な報告を一九四六年一月二十日、東京裁判に提出したが、「日本軍による大量虐殺」の証拠は埋葬記録を除けば、魯甦という人物の「目撃証言」ただ一件であった。

It was reported, however, that few responded to the crimes committed by Japanese Army and some refused to testify or to deny the massacre occurred when they were asked for details. Then, the KMT reluctantly submitted the tentative report to the IMTFE on January 20, 1946. Except for one 'testimony' made by a man named Lu Su, no other evidence of 'massacre by the Japanese Army' was available, besides burial records.

その後も調査を進め、ようやく「五百件の調査事実」を発掘したが、「資料を獲得する毎々一々これを審査」した結果、新規に採用できたのは僅か四件であった。ともかく「魯甦」証言と、慈善団体である「崇善堂」と「紅卍字会」の二つの埋葬表と新規四件の証拠、計七件の証拠に基づいて「被殺害者確数三十四万人」という結論を出し、一九四六年二月に東京裁判所へ提出した(速記録第五十八号)。しかし《七件》の犠牲者数を単純に積算しても《二十二万八千人》にしかならず、結論の《三十四万》と大きく食い違っている。

Afterwards surveys were conducted and they managed to get '500 facts' investigated. 'One after another case was examined,' but they found only four new cases reliable. Based on 'Lu Su's testimony' and the burial records by the 'Advance Benevolence Society' and the 'Red Swastika Society', and then the four newly discovered evidences, that is, based on seven evidences in total, the number of casualties was concluded to be 340,000, and it was submitted to the IMTFE in February 1946. The simple summation of casualties in seven cases, however, reached only to an amount less than 228,000, still far less than 340,000.

その食い違いを東京裁判の国際検察局^[七]から指摘されたのだろう。『資料選輯』によれば、中国国民政府は「極東法廷証拠法の要求するところに合致させるため」、東京裁判開廷から二ヶ月後の一九四六年七月一日から十一月十一日まで約五ヵ月間にわたって再調査を実施した。その結果、「確かな証拠にもとづいて出廷し証言した者は二千七百八十四件分、その中でも被害状況が重い被害者で出廷し証言し得た者は十一件分」あったという(この内、三件は東京裁判に提出済み^[八])。ともかく二つの埋葬表と、この十一の証言とによって、ようやく犠牲者数は三十四万となった。

The International Prosecution Section of the IMTFE²² might have pointed the discrepancy. In spite of two months after the opening the IMTFE, the KMT conducted another five months' investigation from July 1, 1946 to November 11 of the same year to remedy the discrepancy, according to The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre. It concluded, "2,784 cases were testified based on reliable evidence, and among them eleven cases were about those who were seriously victimized." (Three cases of them had already been submitted to the IMTFE). As a result, by two burial reports and these eleven cases, the KMT finally made up the total number of 340,000 for the victims.

以上のような経緯から、次の二つの真相が浮かび上がってくる。
一、八年前のこととはいえ、南京には当時、二十万人以上の中国人が住んでいた。にもかかわらず、当時の中国人は、敗戦国となった日本軍の犯罪を告発するのに消極的であったり否定的であり、かつ信憑性のある証言をする者もほとんどいなかった。
二、東京裁判に提出した証拠だけでは「犠牲者三十四万人」を立証できなかったため、東京裁判中も中国側は証言集めに奔走した。言い換えれば、中国側は証拠も揃わない内から予め犠牲者を「三十四万」以上と決めていたとの疑念を生じるのを禁じ得ない。

From this procedure, two facts were disclosed.

In the Chinese dictionary, there are some expressions such as '3,000 feet of long white hair', wherein '3,000' means 'many or huge' in this context. The figure '300,000' may have been decided politically, derived from Chinese unique linguistic sense, in addition to being convinced that there have existed a hundred times casualties to 3,000.

以上のように、中国政府は、中国国民党が戦後、多大の苦労をしてようやく集めた十一件の証言によって「十九万人が集団殺戮された」と主張している。

The CCP was assured that 190,000 had been massacred, based on the eleven testimonies that the KMT barely collected with great efforts.

しかし、その計算の仕方は杜撰極まりない。どこそこでＡという中国人が、日本軍が何万もの中国人を集団殺害しているのを目撃したというような《十一件》の証言の犠牲者数を単純に合計して十九万人という数字を主張しているに過ぎないのである。

But the figures were arbitrarily calculated, in such a way that a certain Chinese witnessed at a certain place that Japanese soldiers were committing mass murders to tens of thousands of Chinese.

しかも、この十九万に関して『資料選輯』は「集団殺戮に会い、死体を焼かれて痕跡をとどめなかった者は十九万以上に達」したと主張し、死体なき殺人事件だと言い張るのである。数名ならともかく、十九万人もの死体が跡形もなく消えたと言われて、誰が信じることができるだろうか。

Furthermore, The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre insisted on saying that mass murders took place and that more than 190,000 corpses were completely burnt. I was asserting 'murders without corpses'. Who could believe such incredible testimonies that 190,000 corpses left no traces?

実はこれら十一件の証言は、事件から八年も経った後に集められたものであり、反対尋問も受けていない。その内容も合理性を著しく欠く。

In fact these eleven testimonies were collected eight years after the incident without carrying out any cross-examinations. They were extremely unreasonable.

何故なら、これらの証言を信じれば、陥落直後の十二月十四日から十八日までのたった五日間に、一日平均三万八千人もの中国人が、約千六百人の日本軍歩兵第七連帯第一、第二大隊(その多くは治安維持や警備を担当していた)の手によって安全区及びその付近において殺害され、十九万もの死体はすべて石油などで焼かれて痕跡をとどめなかったことになるからである。

According to these testimonies, we should have admitted to unrealistic facts that for only five days right after Nanking fell, from December 14 to December 18, an average of 38,000 Chinese a day were killed in or near the Safety Zone by only 1,600 of soldiers belonging to the 7th Infantry Regiment of the Japanese Army. (Many of them were engaged in maintaining public order or guard), and 190,000 corpses were burned to nothing by means of kerosene.

大量殺害施設として名高いナチスのアウシュヴィッツでさえ、殺害数は一日平均約七百十人であった。一日平均三万八千人も殺害するためには、アウシュヴィッツ並の施設が五十三箇所も必要となる。もちろんそんな施設はなかった。

Even the concentration camp in Auschwitz, well known for the holocaust, could barely kill 710 a day. In order to kill 38,000 a day, 53 facilities like ones in Auschwitz would have been needed. Of course no such facilities were to be seen.

では十一件の証言はどのようなものか。〈起訴状〉にその内の一件、「魯甦」の証言に基づいて次のように書かれている^[九]。

How did eleven testimonies explain it? The indictment read as follows based on the testimony of Lu Su, which was one of eleven testimonies:²³

日本軍は十二月十八日、南京城北の草鞋狭で捕虜と老若男女の避難民を含めた五万七千余人を一ヵ所に集めて、まず機関銃で掃射し、さらに生きている人を銃剣で刺殺し、その上にガソリンをまいて焼いた。おなじような大規模な虐殺は南京陥落後の一週間のうち数件おこなわれた。

On December 18, at Hsiakwan and Straw Shoes Gorge in the north of Nanking City, more than 57,000 persons consisting of POWs and refugees regardless of age or sex were gathered into a place and shot. Those who remained alive were bayoneted, doused with kerosene and burnt. A large scale of massacre like this was carried out several times in the week immediately after the Nanking Fall.

東京裁判にも証言を提出した「魯甦」によると、日本軍は、近郊の村に包囲・拘禁していた五万七千四百十八名もの難民と兵士を十二月十六日夜、ワイヤーロープで二人ずつ括り、四列に並べて下関・草鞋峡まで追い立て、機関銃で掃射しつくした後、さらに銃剣でやたらめったら突き刺し、最後に石油をかけ、火をつけて焼き、残った人骨をことごとく揚子江の中に投げ入れた。この一部始終を、南京城内の「市街戦」に際して「砲弾」を受け「腿」に負傷し上元門大芽洞に避難した証言者が「目の前で」目撃したという。

According to the testimony of Lu Su submitted to the IMTFE, on the night of December 16, the Japanese Army took 57,418 refugees and soldiers into custody in a neighboring village, bound them to one another with wires, ordered them to form four columns and walk as far as Straw Shoes Gorge, and then swept them with machine-gun fire. Moreover, the Japanese Army poured kerosene onto the bodies after bayoneting them at random and setting them a fire. Finally they threw all the burnt corpses into the Yangtze River. A man who got injured in the 'thigh' by a 'shell' in the 'street fighting' of Nanking and who made a narrow escape to Shang-Yuen Gate, witnessed everything that happened 'before his eyes.'

この〈証人〉が法廷に出廷していたならば当然、次のような〈反対尋問〉を受けただろう。

If this witness had been present in the court, he would have received the following cross-examinations naturally.

一、証人は闇夜の中でいったいどうやって五万七千四百十八名もの犠牲者を一桁まで正確に数えることができたのか。
二、日本兵が要所を固めている城内から城外の下関までの道を、証人はどのようにして通って、殺害現場を目撃できる場所に行けたのか。
三、六万人近い中国人をワイヤーロープで縛り上げるのに日本兵は何人くらいおり、どれくらいの時間を要したか。中国人はおとなしく縛られたのか。
四、六万人もの中国人を殺害現場まで押送するのに、警護の日本兵は何人いたのか。
五、六万体もの死体が骨になるまでにどのくらいの時間がかかったのか。また六万体もの人骨を揚子江に流すために、どのくらいの日本兵がどのくらいの時間をかけたのか。

更に、数時間にわたる機銃掃射の音が夜間に下関で鳴り響けば、安全区にいた安全区委員会のメンバーなど誰かが気づいたはずだが、他に傍証は存在するのか。この疑問に、本〈証人〉を採用した告発側は、答えねばならない(安全区委員会の記録には、この時期に日本軍によって殺された中国人の数は十四人と記録されている)。

Moreover, if the firing of machine-guns had continued for several hours during nighttime in Hsiakwan, the committee members in the Safety Zone or somebody else might have noticed it. The Prosecution, which called him as a witness, should answer this question, "Was there any other evidence?" (The records of the Safety Zone Committee proved that fourteen Chinese were killed by the Japanese Army at that time.)

こうした〈反対尋問〉を想定すれば、この証言に証拠としての立証能力を認めるのはほとんど不可能だ。中国側が懸命に集めて、ようやく採用した証言でさえ、かくもいい加減なのである。ほかも推して知るべしであろう。「十九万人殺害」の根拠たる中国側証言に〈証明力〉はもとより〈証拠能力〉すらない。

Supposing such cross-examinations, it will be very difficult to admit that it is able to substantiate the testimony of the witness. Even testimonies collected by the KMT with an enormous effort are all but unreliable and groundless, still less the others are dependable. The 'murder of 190,000', which the KMT claimed, can never be proved.

The Testimony of the Survivors of the Nanking Massacre read "Out of 340,000, 150,000 were slaughtered individually and separately, and were buried by charitable organizations."

この埋葬十五万体についての証拠は、東京裁判にも書証として提出された二つの「埋葬表」である。その「埋葬表」によれば、一九三七年十二月から翌年秋にかけて崇善堂という慈善団体が十一万体、紅卍字会という慈善団体が四万体それぞれ埋葬したという。しかし、本当に十五万体もの死体を埋葬したのだろうか。

The evidences for 150,000 buried corpses were on two 'burial lists' submitted to the IMTFE as documentary evidences. According to the burial lists, from December 1937 to autumn of 1938, the Advance Benevolence Society had buried 112,226 and the Red Swastika Society had buried 43,071, respectively. Could burial of no less than 155,297 corpses have been done realistically?

経費も人手もかかる埋葬作業には、当然のことながら南京を占領していた日本軍が関わっていた。その経緯は、民心の安定などを担当していた南京特務機関の丸山進氏(元満洲鉄道株式会社社員として南京特務機関に所属。現存)によれば、おおよそ次のようなものであった^[十]。

As a burial job needed expenses and labor, it was certain that the Japanese Army had something to do with this job. MARUYAMA Susumu (still alive), who was a member of the Nanking Secret Service in charge of stabilizing the mind of people, described the followings.

南京攻防戦では、中国軍も果敢に戦い、日中双方に多数の戦死者か出た。日本側の戦死体はすぐに荼毘に付されたが、中国側の戦死体は戦場となった南京城外に遺棄されたままであった。当時は真冬であり、死体も凍っていたが、放置しておけばやがて春となり、死体が腐って衛生上非常に悪い影響が出る。

In the battle of Nanking, both sides, Japan and China, had a large number of the war dead. Japanese corpses were soon cremated, but Chinese ones remained untouched on the battlefield outside the walled city. The cold weather in midwinter kept the corpses frozen. But when spring came, the corpses would become corrupt and badly affect sanitary condition.

そこで一月中旬、「春になるまでに死体を片付けよう」ということになった。特務機関が、南京市の行政を担当する自治委員会と相談し、同委員会委員長の陶錫山が分会長をつとめている紅卍字会に埋葬事業を委託することになった。その経費は日本軍の特務機関が自治委員会に渡して、自治委員会の方から紅卍字会に渡した。つまり表面上は自治委員会が自発的にやるという形をとったのである。その経費は出来高払いで、一体埋葬するごとに三十銭(白米一キロ相当)支払った。

In the middle of January, therefore, the Japanese Army decided to 'put them away by spring.' The Nanking Secret Service discussed the problem with the Self-government Committee, in charge of city administration. The chairman of the committee was Tao Xishan. As a result, the burial job was assigned to the Red Swastika Society, where Tao Xishan was head of the branch office. First, the Nanking Secret Service paid expense to the Self-government Committee, then the committee handed them to the Red Swastika Society. So the job was supposed to be voluntary work by the Self-government Committee. Expense paid were 30 Sen per each corpse. (It was comparable to the then amount to buy 1 kilogram of rice.)

このように埋葬事業を請け負ったのは紅卍字会であった。その事実は、特務機関の記録でも南京での埋葬作業に触れた日本の新聞報道でも確認できるのだが、紅卍字会の倍以上の埋葬を行ったはずの崇善堂の名はどの記録にも出て来ない。ベイツがまとめた『南京救済安全区委員会報告書』(一九三九年)にも、南京で埋葬活動をしたと記録されているのは紅卍字会だけであった。

The Red Swastika Society was an actual undertaker of the burial job. The fact could be confirmed by the record of the Nanking Secret Service or Japanese press reports, but as to the Advance Benevolence Society, which was supposed to have dealt with twice as many burials as the Red Swastika Society did, its name was never seen in any other records. Report of the Nanking International Relief Committee (1939) written by Miner Searle Bates, covered only the activity of the Red Swastika Society.

そもそも崇善堂の活動内容は「施料(衣料給与)・救恤(寡婦の救済)・哺嬰(保育)」であり「埋葬」は含まれていなかった。しかも市来義道編『南京』(一九四一年、南京日本商工会議所発行)によれば、崇善堂は南京陥落の一九三七年十二月から翌年八月まで活動を停止していた。崇善堂が当時、埋葬作業に従事したとする証拠は存在しないのだ。そもそも崇善堂の埋葬表は、事件から九年経った後の一九四六年に作成されたものであって、一九三八年当時作成されたものではなかった。

All the activities that the Advance Benevolence Society was involved were provision of clothes, relief of widows, and nurture. Burial was not included. According to Nanking compiled by ICHIKI Yoshimichi (published by Japan Business and Industry Institution, Nanking Office, 1941), the Advance Benevolence Society suspended its activities from December 1937 to August 1938. There existed no proof showing that the Advance Benevolence Society was written in 1946, nine years after the incident.

いくら探しても、崇善堂が埋葬事業を請け負ったことを立証できる当時の記録がないのである。崇善堂の「埋葬十一万体」という数字は証拠として採用できない。

There existed no record to substantiate that the Advance Benevolence Society worked on burial activities. For these reasons, we couldn't accept the 'figures 112,226 as the number of buried corpses' which the Advance Benevolence Society claimed.

では、紅卍字会の記録はどうか。

What did the Red Swastika Society report?

まず「期間」について。紅卍字会は、東京裁判に提出した「死体埋葬の実況」という書証において「屍体は南京及び其の近郊に山積みしていた。紅卍字会は彼らを葬るため埋葬隊を組織することを申し出た。日本側は約一ヵ月後までそれを許さなかった」と記し、埋葬は一月下旬になってからだと示唆している^[十一]。これは、ラーベが日記に「二月一日から埋葬が始まった」と記録しているのとほぼ一致する^[十二]。本格的な埋葬は一月下旬から始められたのであり、それ以前に埋葬したとする記録については疑問である。

First of all, concerning the 'period', in the documentary evidence submitted to the IMTFE entitled State of burial corpses, the Red Swastika Society stated "Corpses were left piled up in Nanking and its neighborhood. The Red Swastika Society expressed its intention for organizing an institution to bury those corpses, but it was not organized until one month later that Japan permitted their offer," and its statement coincided with what J. Rabe wrote as well in his diary, "Burial started on February 1." The actual full-scale burial didn't start until the end of January, therefore any record would be doubtful if it had described that burial started on an earlier date than the end of January 1938.

「埋葬数」については、ラーベは二月十五日の日記に「今まで毎日二百体が埋葬された」と記録している^[十三]。丸山氏は「一日の処理数は多くても二百体。だいたい平均して百八十体くらいというのが紅卍字会の能力でした。それで二月末までに約五千体を埋葬しました」と証言している。各地の死体を埋葬場所(土地所有の問題があって埋葬できる場所は限られていた)まで運び、厳冬期の南京の固く凍てついた地面を手掘り作業で二メートル以上も深く掘って、悪臭を放つ死体を埋めるのは大変な重労働であった。二メートル以上掘るのは、掘りが浅いと飢えた野犬が掘り起こすからである。

Concerning the number of burials, J. Rabe wrote in his diary dated on February 15, "Until now, 200 bodies were buried a day."²⁴ MARUYAMA also testified, "The number of burials per day was at most 200. The Red Swastika Society was capable of burying an average of 180 a day. And by the end of February, about 5,000 were buried." Those corpses were carried as far as each designated burial place. (Available places were limited because of problems of ownership.) It was absolutely hard labor to dig frozen ground more than 2 meters deep by hand in the severe Nanking winter, and to bury bad-smelling corpses. They had to dig more than 2 meters deep lest hungry wild dogs could dig them out.

三月に入ると、一日当たりの埋葬数は増加した。「この調子では、暖かくなる前に埋葬が終わらない」と憂慮した特務機関が、トラック五台を与えると共に人夫の数を増やさせ、一体当たり三十銭の割増を出すことを条件に作業を昼夜無しでやらせたからである。その結果、「一日当たりの埋葬数は、六百から八百」に増大したという(丸山氏)。この数字は、南京ドイツ大使館のローゼン書記官が三月四日付で本国外務省に宛てた「紅卍字会が一日当たり五百体から六百体を埋葬している」という報告とも一致する。

In March, burials per day increased in number. 'Wondering whether burial would have completed before it got warm,' the Nanking Secret Service provided them with five trucks and made them work day and night with an increase in the number of laborers under the terms of 30 Sen per corpse of extra charge. As a result, 'the number of burials per day increased by from 600 to 800,' according to MARUYAMA. The same number could be found in the report dated on March 4, addressed to the Foreign Office in Germany by Georg Rosen, secretary of German Embassy to Nanking. The report stated "The Red Swastika Society was burying 500 to 600 corpses a day."

ところが、ここで大きな問題が起こった。紅卍字会は、賃金を多くもらいたいばかりに埋葬数を水増し報告してきたのである。

At this time, however, a serious issue happened. Having padding the number of buried corpses in order to gain more wages, the Red Swastika Society reported on their activities.

丸山氏はこう証言する。
「紅卍字会から、三月十五日までに三万千七百九十一体を埋葬したという報告が来たわけです。しかし、この数字には明らかに水増しがある。二月末で五千体で、三月十五日には三万千七百九十一体になったとすれば、十五日間で二万六千余りの遺体を埋葬したことになるわけですが、だとすると一日当たり千七百くらいは処理しないといけないことになる。

MARUYAMA testified, "We received a report saying the Red Swastika Society had buried 31,791 by March 15. But we recognized the report as having empty figures. As of the end of February, 5,000 was reported, and on March 15, the figure mounted to 31,791. It was calculated that they had buried 26,000 in fifteen days. In other words, 1,700 a day had to be disposed. However, as far as I knew, the number of burials in the list was estimated to be not more than from 600 to 800 a day, which was supposed to be the maximum number. So there must have been considerable amount of padded figures. We were aware of the empty figures from the begginning, but we had to accept the list as it was, in order for the future job not to be suspended." (Showa History Institution)

では、実際の埋葬数はどのくらいか。

What was the actual figure of burials?

以上のことから、紅卍字会の埋葬数は一万前後であり、その素性はほとんどが中国軍の戦死者だと推測できる^[十四]。

Based on the facts stated so far, the actual burials made by the Red Swastika Society were around 10,000, so that the identify of corpses could be assumed to be the war dead of the Chinese Army.²⁵

告発側は、崇善堂と紅卍字会二つの埋葬表を大量殺人の有力な証拠として提出しているが、二つの埋葬表では、日本軍による十五万人殺人を立証することは困難である。

The Prosecution was quoting two burial lists of the Advance Benevolence Society and the Red Swastika Society to verify the massacre as the strong evidence, but it was all but impossible for these two lists to prove 155,297 murders committed by the Japanese Army.

中国側が自信を持って「南京では三十万人以上殺された」主張しているため、決定的な証拠が多数あると誤解している人が多い。しかし、厳密に検証していけば、三十万説の根拠たる戦後の中国側調査に載った二つの証拠群では、「三十万」どころか「一万人殺害」でさえ立証できていないのである。

Now, the CCP is so confident of and insistent on 'massacre of more than 300,000 in Nanking' that most of people has misunderstood as if there must be many definitive proofs. But, the Chinese postwar investigation are not able to prove even 10,000 of murders, much less 300,000.

〈起訴状〉は更に、南京に残留した欧米人たちも〈大虐殺〉を目撃しているとして、次のように指摘している。

The indictment pointed out that westerners who remained in Nanking during the period of the fall of Nanking and the Japanese occupation, also had eye-witnessed the massacre, as follows:

Most of a hundred westerners, who consisted of diplomats, journalists and missionaries from Europe and the U.S., witnessed and reported the massacre on an international scale.

For example, H.J.Timperley, China correspondent of Manchester Guardian wrote an article titled What War Means; The Japanese terror in China (London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1938), which resulted in world-shaking information. The most reliable evidences were those collected by the German diplomatic organization.

In those days, Germany and Japan were allied with each other, and Germany people could walk freely around the city as long as they wore their swastika armband and party badge. Therefore, they were in the best position to be able to obtain information relative to the Japanese Army. According to German diplomatic documents which the allied power seized during the war, the reports from the German Embassy at Nanking to the home government ran as follows: "The Japanese Imperial Army itself committed a crime, it was not owing to Japanese individuals... They were just like brutal machines."

この〈起訴状〉を読むと、あたかも欧米人たちも三十万人虐殺を証言しているかのように錯覚してしまうだろう。しかし、この〈起訴状〉は、ある決定的な事実を隠蔽している。その事実とは、欧米人たちが主張する犠牲者数は、最大でもラーベの「六万人」であり、南京に残留した欧米人たちの中に三十万人説を主張した人はいないということである。

This indictment could be read as if the westerners, as well, had testified to the massacre of 300,000. But, some decisive facts were missing. The fact was that not only was the number of casualties the westerners declared at most 60,000 as J. Rabe assured, but also no one among them asserted 300,000.

そもそも南京陥落から日本軍による占領に至る期間に南京にいた欧米人たちは、安全区委員会のメンバーを中心とする二十数名に過ぎなかった。外交官やジャーナリストらはほとんど南京から離れていた。このため、彼らが残した大量の報告書や記事は、ほぼ同一の情報源に基づいているのである。

In fact, only some 20 westerners in all remained in Nanking during the period from the fall of Nanking to the Japanese occupation, and most of them belonged to the Safety Zone Committee. Diplomats and journalists had already left Nanking. Therefore, a large amount of reports and article they wrote were based on the same source of information.

例えば、ティンパーリー著『外人の目撃した日本軍の暴行^[十五]』の中身は、安全区委員会のＳ・Ｍ・ベイツやＧ・フィッチの手紙、安全区委員会から日本当局に宛てた文書などである。中国国民党の政治宣伝を担当する部門である中央宣伝部の顧問であったティンパーリー自身は当時南京にいなかった。

For example, the contents of H.J.Timperley's What War Means: The Japanese terror in China were written based on M.S.Bates' and George A. Fitch's letters and the documents addressed to Japanese authorities from the Safety Zone Committee. Timperley was an adviser of the Central Propaganda Agency of the KMT, but he himself was not in Nanking.

〈起訴状〉が引用している「在南京ドイツ大使館の文書」とは、東京裁判において検察側が提出した、トラウトマン駐華独大使よりベルリン外務省に送られた「一九三七年十二月八日より一九三八年一月十三日に至る南京で起きた事件に関する一ドイツ人の祕密見聞記の写^[十六]」及び「一九三八年一月十四日付のジョン・ラーベより上海総領事宛の手紙^[十七]」等を指すと思われる。この「祕密見聞記」には、犠牲者数について「日本軍は少なくとも五千人を射殺した」と書いている。また、ラーベの「手紙」には「(日本軍は)数千の無辜の市民(その中には発電所の四十三名の従業員を含む)を残虐な方法によって殺害した」と書いている。

The documents of German Embassy at Nanking referred to in the indictment seemed to mean two documents. One was "The copy of a secret report of a German witness concerning the happenings in Nanking during the period from December 8, 1937 to January 13, 1938" which was sent from Trautmann at Hankow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin. This report was submitted to the IMTFE and ran as follows:

Although no shot was ever fired on the Japanese by the Chinese in the city, the Japanese shot dead at least 5,000 men, mostly at the river, so that one could forgo the burial.²⁶

Another was "The letter from John H. D. Rabe, at Nanking dated on January 14, 1938, to German consul general to Shanghai" which wrote about casualties as follows:

The Japanese military authorities [seemed] apparently [to have] lost [the command system] over their troops, who for weeks plundered the city after its capture, violated about 20,000 women and girls, slew thousands of innocent civilians (among them 43 workers of the power plant [were included]) in a brutal manner (mass murder by machine gun fire was among the humanitarian methods of execution) and did not shy away from also entering into foreign homes.²⁷

南京陥落後も現場に残っていた欧米の記者は、僅か五名に過ぎなかった。

There were only five western correspondents who remained in Nanking after the fall. One of them, whose name was F. Tillman Durdin, correspondent to Nanking of the New York Times wrote on December 18 as follows:

The killing of civilians was widespread. Foreigners who traveled widely through the city Wednesday [15th] found civilians dead on every street. Some of the victims were aged men, women and children.

The article was based on hearsay as it specified 'foreigners' who traveled widely through the city. Who were these 'foreigners'? They were Rabe, Bates, and other members of the Safety Zone Committee. Especially Bates drove Durdin to the harbor and saw him off. Durdin got on board a ship and left Nanking at 2:00 p.m. on December 15. Bates, as a member of the Safety Zone Committee, wrote a memo and handed it over to Durdin and Archibald T. Steele, correspondent of the Chicago Daily News, and then they wrote articles based on the memo.²⁸

欧米人の報道や米独の公文書の元を辿れば、南京陥落から翌年一月まで南京にいた特定の欧米人たち、つまり十数名の「安全区委員会」メンバーの情報に行き着くのである。

Both reports by the westerners and U.S. and German official documents originated in the information given by particular westerners who stayed in Nanking during the period from the Nanking fall to January next year, namely who were some 15 members of the Safety Zone Committee.

では、安全区委員会のメンバーはどのくらいの殺人現場を目撃したのか。

Then how many murders did the committee members eyewitness?

その内の一件は、東京裁判でマギーが証言した事件で、十二月十七日、警備中の日本兵が街路を歩く中国人を呼び止めたところ、逃げ出したので後ろから撃ったというケースで、戦地においては正当と判断されるものである^[十九]。

One of two cases was testified by J. Magee at the IMTFE.²⁹ The incident happened on December 17. It was said that no sooner had two Japanese soldiers challenged a Chinese walking along the street, he ran away. So he was shot behind. In the battlefield, such a case could not be avoidable.

もう一件は、クレーガーとハッツが目撃した事件で、「一月九日朝、安全区内の池で日本軍将校一名と兵士一名が哀れな市民服姿の兵士を処刑しているのを見た」というものであった。この事件について安全区委員会が聞き取り調査をした結果が、『南京安全区の記録』の「註」に「日本軍の行う合法的な処刑について、我々に抗議する権利などない」と記されている^[二十]。安全区委員会は事件を調査した結果、「市民服姿の兵士」が便衣兵であり、便衣兵の処刑は「合法」であることを認めたのである。欧米人が目撃した二件の事件は、ともに違法とは言えない。

Another case was witnessed by C. Kroeger and Hatz. It was said 'that on the morning of January 9, they witnessed a Japanese officer and a soldier executing a poor man in civilian clothes in the pond inside the Safety Zone.'³⁰ For this case, the Safety Zone Committee investigated and concluded in the 'Note' in Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone that they had no right to protect about legitimate executions by the Japanese Army. The Safety Zone Committee also regarded the 'man in civilian clothes' as one of the Chinese Plain-clothes soldiers, and accepted that the execution was 'legal'. Both of two cases that the westerners witnessed were legal actions.

日本兵による非合法殺人を、安全区委員会のメンバーが全く目撃していないことは、東京裁判における彼等の証言からも明らかである。東京裁判で多くの残虐事件を証言したＯ・ウィルソン医師は、証言はすべて伝聞であることを認めている^[二十一]。ベイツと一緒に住み、同じ安全区委員会の仕事をしたマギーも「実際に目撃したのは(前述した)一件に過ぎない」と証言した^[二十二]。

It was clearly proved by their testimonies at the IMTFE that no committee members had witnessed 'illegal murders by Japanese soldiers' at all. O. Wilson, who made many testimonies as to atrocities, did admit that all of his testimonies were hearsay.³¹ Magee, who lived with Bates and worked for the Safety Zone Committee, testified that he had just eye-witnessed only one case.³²

つまり、ハーケンクロイツ(ナチス)の腕章をつければ自由に動き回れたはずのラーベを初めとする欧米の安全区委員会メンバーは誰も、約六週間の間に日本軍兵士が実際に非合法殺人を行った現場を目撃していないのである。

As a matter of fact, neither Rabe nor other westerners of the Safety Zone Committee members, who might have been able to walk around freely in the city with Nazi Swastika armband on, had ever witnessed illegal murders by Japanese soldiers during six weeks.

ところが、ただの一件も殺人事件を目撃していないラーベが当時、本国のヒットラーに対しては犠牲者数を「五万から六万」、上海のドイツ大使館には「数千」と報告しながら、同時期の一月二十八日付の南京のイギリス大使館宛手紙には「南京の二十五万難民のうちほとんどが、南京市内と近郊で起きた広域にわたる放火のために家を失いました。そして、一家の働き手が連行されたり殺されたりして、赤貧に陥っている家族が数千と言わないまでも、数百とあります」と書いている^[二十三]。

Rabe, who had never witnessed even one case of murder, sent a report to Hitler by saying 'The number of victims were 50,000 to 60,000,' while to the German Embassy in Shanghai, by saying 'thousands'. On the other hand, in the letter to Prideaux-Brune, the British ambassador at Nanking dated on January 28, he wrote as follows:

Of the 250,000 refugees in Nanking, a large proportion are homeless due to the extensive burning that has taken place in the city and its vicinity. Also there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases there the wage earner has either been taken away or killed, and where the family is in acute distress.³³

一九七七年にラーベの日記が大々的に刊行され、二〇〇〇年には映画化もされるが、報告する相手によって犠牲者数を大きく変えているラーベの証言にどれほどの信頼がおけるだろうか。

In 1997, Rabe's diary was published worldwide and in 2000 it would be made to a movie. It would be next to impossible to judge Rabe's testimonies to be due evidence, because he varied widely in the number of victims by report depending on his intended audience.

それにしても、ラーベは何を根拠に「五〜六万」という数字を出したのか。

By the way, what was the Rabe's figure of 50,000 to 60,000 based on?

「ヒトラーへの上申書」には「中国側の申し立てによりますと、十万の民間人が殺されたとのことですが、これはいくらか多すぎるのではないでしょうか。我々外国人はおよそ五万から六万と見ています^[二十四]」と書いている。

In the official report to Hitler, Rabe described "According to the Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians have been killed, however, this is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We, foreigners assume there have been about 50,000 to 60,000 victims." His figure of victims derived from the idea of comparison with the Chinese claims.

では、中国側とは誰のことか。

Whom did 'the Chinese who claimed the figure' mean?

「ラーベ日記」等によると、当時安全区にいた中国人で、ラーベらと話すことができる、つまり英語もしくはドイツ語ができる中国人は、安全区委員会の仕事を手伝った中国人スタッフと、安全区のラーベ邸に潜伏していた中国軍将校の龍大佐と周大佐など限られた者しかいない。とくに後者の二人は唐生智司令官の命令を受け、お金を一杯につめたトランクを幾つか携行してラーベ邸に潜伏している。潛伏中、彼らはその金で何をしていたのか。同じく安全区に潜伏していた中国軍の精鋭、第八十人師の師長・孫元良将軍や副師長・馬宝山中将等と共に流言飛語を流すなど日本軍の占領に対する妨害工作を行っていたと考えるのが自然だろう^[二十五]。

According to Rabe's diary, at that time those Chinese in the Safety Zone, were limited to persons who could communicate with Rabe in the Safety Zone. Only those who could speak in either English or German were the Chinese staff who helped work in the Safety Zone Committee and Chinese officers, Colonel Lung and Chow.³⁴ Particularly two career officers stayed hidden in Rabe's residence, having with them several trunks full of money, by Tang Sheng-zhi's order. What did they do with the money while they lay hidden? It would be quite natural to guess that they maneuvered to preclude Japanese occupation by spreading a false rumor. It was known that general Sun Yuan-1iang, the commander of the 88th Division was conducting the disturbance maneuvering against the Japanese Army with Ma Poushang, the former adjutant of the 88th Division who hid himself in the Safety Zone.

恐らくラーべも中国側の申し立てが単なる噂に過ぎないことを知っていたに違いない。何故なら安全区の人口が減るどころか増えたことを彼ら自身が一番分かっていたからだ。また、何よりもラーベら安全区委員会は六十九通にも及ぶ日本当局への手紙の中で、ただの一度も「日本軍による民間人大量殺人をやめてほしい」とは書いていないのだ。

Rabe might have known that what the Chinese had given as an account of the number of casualties were nothing but rumor, because the committee members did know very well by themselves that the population in the Safety Zone never decreased but increased. Furthermore, in no less than 69 letters to the Japanese authorities, nothing was written against Japanese massacre to civilians.

要するにラーベは意図的な情報操作をしていたと見るのが妥当である^[二十六]。

In short, it might be pertinent that Rabe intentiona11y manipulated the information.³⁵

南京にいる日本当局には反論される恐れがあるので、ある程度信憑性のある情報に基づいて"犠牲者四十九人"という「被害届」を送付した一方、南京にいないジャーナリストやドイツ外交官、ヒトラーには中国人が語る噂話に基づいて数万もの市民が日本軍によって殺害されたかのように報告したのである。

For Fear of counter objections, he reported to the Japanese authorities in Nanking the number of casualties to be 49 based on some extent of reliable information. But on the other hand, to journalists, German diplomats and A. Hitler who were all absent in Nanking, he reported figures with an enormous difference, as if no less than tens of thousands civilians had been killed by Japanese troops.

何のためラーベは、ありもしない〈大虐殺〉をヒトラーに報告したのか。ドイツの歴史家ゲルハルト・クレープスによると、背景にはドイツ本国での路線闘争があったという。

Why did Rabe make a false report of the massacre to Hitler? According to German historian Gerhard Krebs, the reason was based on power politics in his German homeland.³⁶

第一次大戦で敗れ疲弊したドイツにとって中国は重要な貿易相手国だった。特に中国共産党と戦っていた蒋介石政権は大量の兵器を必要とし、ドイツもまた戦後復興に不可欠な原材料を中国から入手することができたからである。

Defeated and depressed in World War I, Germany knew that china was a significant trade partner. Particularly Chiang Kai-shek, who was fighting against the CCP, needed a large number of weapons, while Germany was able to import raw materials that were indispensable for the postwar reconstruction.

ところが、日中戦争の勃発は、ドイツに中国政策の検討を強いた。日本政府がドイツに対し戦争相手である蒋介石への武器輸出を止めるよう再三要求したのだ。悩んだ末にヒトラー政権は、中国における巨大な軍需産業の利益よりも、安全保障上ソ連を牽制する必要から日本との関係強化を選び、中国の蒋介石政権への武器輸出を控えた(ただし日独が軍事同盟を結んだのは一九四〇年)。

The China Incident (Sino-Japanese War) forced Germany to reconsider its foreign policy toward China. The Japanese government repeatedly demanded that Germany stop the export of weapons to Japan's enemy Chiang Kai-shek. As the result, Hitler decided to take advantage of containment against the Soviet Union by promoting strong relationship with Japan. Germany refrained from exporting weapons to the Chiang Kai-shek. (In fact, it was in l940 when Germany reached an agreement with Japan.)

こうした本国政府の動きに激しく反発したのが、駐華軍事顧問団団長ファルケンハウゼンや、親中派の軍需産業ジーメンスの利益代表であるラーベであった。ラーベは、日本軍の残虐行動を誇張して伝えることで、「残虐な日本軍との同盟は考え直してほしい」と、ヒトラーの対日提携政策の見直しを迫ったのである^[二十七]。

There were someone strongly resisted the change of policy taken by Hitler. They were Von Falkenhausen, the head of the military advisory group in China, and Rabe, who represented an interest of Siemens in the Chinese munitions industry as a pro-Chinese group. Rabe exaggerated the Japanese Army' s atrocities and requested Hitler to reconsider the alliance with Japan.

こうした思惑を秘めたラーベの反日報告は当時から疑問視されていた。

Rabe's anti-Japanese reports had been thought suspicious since then.

一月九日に南京に戻ったドイツ大使館のシャルフェンベルク事務長は二月十日、自分の目で実情を確かめた上で漢口のドイツ大使館に"ラーベが語る日本軍の暴行事件"についてこう書き送っている。

P. Scharfienberg, the secretary general of the German Embassy to China, who returned to Nanking on January 9, tried to investigate the fact about 'Japanese Army's atrocities Rabe reported' by himself, and wrote to the German Embassy at Hankow on February 10:

「ラーベは最近またぶり返した日本兵による血なまぐさい事件を阻止すべく、あいかわらず奔走している。だが･･････第一、暴行事件といっても、すべて中国人から一方的に話を開いているだけではないか^[二十八]」

... He [Rabe] is still actively trying to counter the bloody excesses of Japanese looters, which have unfortunately increased of late. To my mind, this should not concern us Germans, particularly since one can clearly see that the Chinese, once left to depend solely on the Japanese, immediately fraternize. And as for all these excesses, one hears only one side of it, after all.³⁷

またイギリスでも南京事件は問題になったが、一九三八年十一月十日、チャタムハウスでチャールス・アディス卿は同事件について次のように述べている。

In the U.K., the Nanking battle became public criticism, too. Referring it, Sir Charles Addis mentioned at Chatham House on November 10, 1938, as follows:

「戦争を交えている二国間においては、その戦闘員のいずれかが宣伝に訴えることによって、世論を自己に有利に仕向けようとする危険がかならず存在している。その宣伝において種々の事件─悲しいかなこれはすべての戦争から分離することはできない─は偏見と感情を激昂させ、戦いの真の係争点を曖昧にしてしまう特別の目的のために拡大され、曲解されるのである^[二十九]」

Between two countries at war there was always a danger that one or other of the combatants would seek to turn public opinion in his favour by resort to a propaganda in which incidents, inseparable alas (!) from all hostilities, were magnified and distorted for the express purpose of inflaming prejudice and passion and obscuring the real issues of the conflict.³⁸

南京の死体の死因は十七通り存在する

17 different causes of the death

たしかに欧米人たちは、殺人現場を目撃していないかも知れないが、「南京市内で多くの死体を見た」と証言しているではないか。こう反問する人もいるだろう。

Some would say, "It was true that westerners did not eyewitness the scene of the murder, but they saw many dead bodies in the city of Nanking."

たとえば、ダーディンは一九三七年十二月十八日付「ニューヨーク・タイムズ」にこう書いた。

For example, Durdin wrote in the New York Times dated on December 18, 1937:

「日本軍の下関門の占領は、防衛軍兵士の集団殺戮を伴った。彼らの死骸は砂嚢に混じって積み上げられ、高さ六フィートの小山を築いていた。水曜日(十五日)遅くなっても日本軍は死骸を片付けず、さらには、その後の二日間、軍の輸送車が、人間や犬や馬の死骸も踏み潰しながら、その上を頻繁に行き来した」

The capture of Hsiakwan [Yijiang] Gate by the Japanese was accompanied by the mass killing of the defenders, who were piled up among the sandbags, forming a mound 6 feet high. Late Wednesday the Japanese had not removed the dead, and two days of heavy military traffic had been passing through, grinding over the remains of men, dogs and horses.

この凄慘な光景は、日本の歴史教科書にも〈南京大虐殺〉を象徴する光景として紹介されている。下関門つまり邑江門の中国兵士の死体は、日本軍によって殺されたものとダーディンは信じたようだが、実際は違っていた。

This appalling sight was described in Japanese history textbooks as one of the scenes to symbolize the 'Nanking Massacre'. Durdin seemed to have believed that the Chinese dead bodies left behind near Yijiang Gate were those killed by Japanese troops. But that was far from the fact.

中国軍第八七師二六一旅長の譚道平はその著『南京衛戌戦』(一九八七年、中国文史出版社)に、十二月十二日夕刻以後の情景をこう記している。

Tan Dao-ping, the commander of the 261st brigade, the Chinese 87th Division wrote in his book, entitled The Battle of Nanking (published in 1987, China Sentence History Publishing company) about the scene on late afternoon of December 12, 1937 :

「散兵・潰兵の退却阻止の命令を受けていた宋希簾麾下の第三六師二一二団は、撤退命令を出された後も、邑江門付近の道路に鉄条網のバリケードを築き、路上には機関銃をそなえて、邑江門からの撤退を拒み続けた。このため、夜になるとパニック状態になり、邑江門から脱出しようとする部隊と、これを潰兵とみなして武力で阻止しょうとした第三六師二一二団部隊との間で銃撃戦が繰り広げられ、［30］邑江門内は大惨事となった^[三十]」」

The 36th Division 212th Troops under the command of Song Xilian was ordered to obstruct withdrawal of dissolved troops. But even after the order of the retreat they set up a barricade of barbed wire on the road near Yijiang Gate, and machine guns placed on the street, refusing their withdrawal. At night, therefore, they got into panic with shooting battles between the troops running away from Yijiang Gate and the 36th Division 212th Troops, which would preclude by force soldiers in full retreat. As a result the inside of Yijiang Gate became out of order.

中国軍には戦闘に際して兵士を先頭に立たせ、後退する兵士がおれば背後から射殺する任務を帯びた「督戦隊」という独特の組織がある。邑江門の中国兵の死体は、この「督戦隊」によって殺されたものであった。

The Chinese Army had a unique fighting organization, called the 'Supervising unit'. This unit urged soldiers to advance against the front line and watch over them. If any soldiers tried to escape, they would be shot by this unit. Chinese dead bodies near Yijiang Gate were those killed by the 'Supervising unit'.

実は日本軍が南京に入る前から市内には多数の死体が存在していた。十一月二十九日の様子を、ドイツのりリー・アベック記者はこう記している。

In fact, before the Japanese Army entered Nanking, there had been many corpses in the city. German correspondent Lily Abegg wrote an account entitled Escape from Nanking.. Our Last Days in China's Capital , as to the aspect on November 29, 1937 :

「もはやどこに行っても、規律の解体と無秩序が支配していた。南京駅に二千人の負傷者を乗せた汽車が到着したが、誰も見向きもしなかった。看護兵も付き添っていなかった。負傷兵たちは二日間も放置された後、その二日間に死んだ者と一緒に降ろされ、駅のホームに並べられた。死骸が空気を汚染し、悪臭を放った^[三十一]」」

Wherever we went, we could see that order was given way to chaos. A train carrying 2,000 wounded soldiers arrived at Nanking Station, but no one paid it any heed. There were no medical soldiers. The wounded soldiers were left there for two days, and during the time, dragged out of the train with corpses. The corpses emitted a horrible stench, polluting the air.³⁹

十二月七日、中国軍は南京周辺を徹底的に焼き払い、焼け出された市民が難民となって城内に流入、商品流通が麻痺し食料難が加速、一部では暴動が起こった。中国軍は治安維持のため少しでも怪しいものは手当たり次第に銃殺した^[三十二]」。

0n December 7, 1937 the Nanking Garrison thoroughly burnt down the area around the Nanking city. Citizens were burned out, and the refugees dashed into the city. Commodity circulation and food distribution was suspended, so that food shortage became serious at an increasing tempo. In some areas, even riots flared up. In order to maintain public order, the Nanking Garrison shot to kill all of those who seemed suspicious, at random.⁴⁰

十日頃には完全な無政府状能心に陥り、統制を失った中国兵たちによる掠奪が横行した。在南京アメリカ大使館のエスピー副領事は、陥落直前の南京の様子を漢口のアメリカ大使館にこう報告している。

Around December 10, the city completely fell into a state of anarchy. The Chinese soldiers came to be out of control and began looting. James Espy, the vice American Council at Nanking, reported to the American Embassy at Hankow concerning the aspect of the city right before the fall of Nanking as follows :

「日本軍入城前の最後の数日間には、疑いもなく彼ら自身の手によって市民と財産に村する侵犯が行われたのであった。気も狂わんばかりになった中国兵が軍服を脱ぎ棄て市民の着物に着替えようとした際には、事件をたくさん起こし、市民の服欲しさに、殺人まで行った^[三十三]」」

Monition should be made here, however, that the Chinese themselves are not altogether exonerated of depredations, at least to some extent, before the entry of the Japanese. During the last few days some violations of people and property were undoubtedly committed by them. Chinese soldiers in their mad rush to discard their military uniforms and put on civilian clothes, in a number of incidents, killed civilians to obtain their clothing.⁴¹

南京にはたくさんの死体があった。それも平服の死体があった。

In Nanking, there were many corpses, and those corpses wore civilian clothes.

しかし、その死因は表五のように加害者が中国人であることも含め論理的には最大限"十七通り"の可能性が考えられる。南京に死体があったからと言って、すべてが日本軍の大規模な非合法殺人によるものではないのだ。

Logically, the cause of their death could be broken down into 17 different causes at the maximum. Those corpses did not necessarily prove that there existed illegal murders on a large scale by Japanese soldiers.

〈起訴状〉では、当時、日本軍高官も南京で日本軍が大虐殺を行った事実を知っていたではないかとして、次のように主張する。

The indictment claimed that the then Japanese Army's high officials had been aware of the massacre committed by the Japanese Army.

戦争が終わった後の一九四八年、極東軍事裁判所は南京大虐殺に関して当時の中支那方面軍司令官松井石根に死刑を宣告した。その松井本人はそのとき、「南京事件に関してはお恥ずかしい限りです」と語り、さらに「十二月十七日南京入城直後、いたるところで暴行のあったことを知って、私は皆を集めて軍総司令官として泣いて怒った。折角皇威を輝かしたのにあの暴行によって一挙にしてそれを失墜してしまった」と話した。これはできるだけ自分の罪を軽減するための言い逃れであったが、日本軍の犯した罪を認めるものでもあった。

In 1948 after World War I, the IMTFE in Tokyo gave the death penalty to MATSUI Iwane for the crimes of 'Nanking Massacre'. After receiving the sentence, he expressed sorrow for the consequence of the Nanking Incident and said : "Immediately after our entry to the city of Nanking on December 17, I was informed about the brutal acts committed by the soldiers everywhere, and showed the concern in front of my subordinates. Though we had been behaving with glorious dignity of the Imperial Army, we had ruined our reputation once For all by these brutal acts." While his statement was an excuse in order to reduce his crime as much as possible, it admitted the crime committed by the Japanese Army.

当時日本外務省東亜局長だった石射猪太郎は、昭和十三年(一九三八年)一月六日の日記に南京大虐殺事件についてこう記していた。「上海から来信。南京における我軍の暴状を詳報し来る。掠奪、強姦、目もあてられぬ惨状とある。鳴呼これが皇軍か。日本国民民心の須廃であろう。大きな社会問題だ」(『外交官の一生』)。

Also, ISHII Itaro, the then chief of the East Asia Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote in his diary dated on January 6, 1938, concerning what had happened in Nanking. "The reports came from Shanghai, telling about the miserable conditions due to the atrocities in Nanking where our troops had been committing looting and rape. Ah, how shamefu1! How corrupted the hearts of those people who committed the crimes! It is a big social problem." (The Life of a diplomat)

さらに一九三八年七月第十一軍司令官として上海に到着した岡村寧次(後、北支那方面軍司令官、支那派遣軍総司令官に昇進)も次のような回想を残している。「上海に上陸して、一、二日の間に･･････先遣の宮崎周一参謀、中支那派遣軍特務部長原田少将、杭州特務機関長萩原中佐などから聴取したことを総合すれば次の通りであった。一、南京攻略時数万の市民に対する掠奪強姦などの大暴行があったことは事実である。二、第一線部隊は給養困難を名として俘虜を殺してしまう弊がある」(『岡村寧次大将資料』稲葉正夫 原書房)。

Furthermore, there was a memoir, written by OKAMURA Yasuji, the then commander of the 11th Army. He finally became the Supreme commander of China Expeditionary Army following the North China Area Army commander. "In a couple of days after arriving at Shanghai, I obtained information as to the situation in Nanking from MIYAZAKI Shuichi, staff officer dispatched in advance, HARADA, the director of the Central China Area Army's Secret Service, and HAGIWARA, the chief of the Hangchow's Secret Service. They informed me of the followings : There existed a large scale of violence accompanied with incidents of looting and rape against tens of thousands of citizens during attack of Nanking. Also, among the front-line troops, the killing of POWs were occurred due to the shortage of Food-supplies. [INABA Masao's book, called General OKAMURA Yasuji Historical Source , published by Hara Shobo]

松井司令官が残した『陣中日誌』によると、彼は十二月十七日の南京入城式にあわせて南京に入り、二十二日に南京から船で上海に戻っている。この間、二十日の日記に次のように記している。

According to the 'War Diary' of MATSUI, he entered the city of Nanking on December 17, the day of the entrance ceremony, and left Nanking for Shanghai by boat on the 22nd. On the 20th, he wrote :

「尚聞く所、城内残留内外人は一時不少恐怖の情なりしか、我軍の漸次落付くと共に漸く安堵し来やれり、一時我将兵により少数の奪掠行為(主として家具等なり)強姦等もありし如く、多少は己むなき実情なり^[三十四]」

"I heard that there was a fear expressed for a while by the residents of Nanking, including the foreign residents within the city, but they gradually became tranquilized along with the slowdown of our troop activities. There were some unavoidable looting (mainly the stealing of furniture) and rape incidents by our soldiers for a while."⁴²

松井司令官が「聞く所」と書いているように、安全区委員会から送付された「被害届」を読んだ誰かから報告を聞いたのである。この点を踏まえてであろう、十八日に慰霊祭を行った際に、松井司令官は各軍の師団参謀長の前で「軍紀の徹底」を指示した^[三十五]。たとえ少数でも掠奪や強姦事件を起こしたことは軍規厳正を求めていた松井司令官にとっては耐え難いことであったのである。その後、軍法会議が開かれ、掠奪や強姦の罪で日本兵十数名が処罰を受けた。これは後述するように「掠奪や強姦は厳罰に処する」との当時の松井司令官の方針を踏まえたものであった。

As he said, "according to what I heard," he must have heard it from someone who had read the documents (complaints) submitted by the Safety Zone Committee. Aware of this, MATSUI emphasized the importance of thoroughly obeying military discipline during his speech made in the presence of chiefs of staffs of various divisions under his command, at the memorial service held on December 18.

なお、東京裁判の判決を受けて松井司令官が「耽ずかしい限りです」と述べたのは、掠奪や強姦といった日本軍兵士としてあるまじき行動をとった兵士が十数名でもいたことを反省したのであって、日本軍が〈大虐殺〉を行ったことについては東京裁判でも最後まで否定し続けた。

Even though the crimes committed were small in number, it must have been unbearable for him to hear of the crimes committed by Japanese soldiers, as he always spoke of stern military discipline. The court-marshal was held and more than ten soldiers were punished according to the policy of MATSUI who always said, "The looting and the rapes should be punished." What MATSUI said, "It was really a shameful incident" after receiving the death penalty by the IMTFE, meant that he expressed his regret at the existence of ten and several soldiers, in spite of the small number, who committed the shameful crimes like looting and rapes as soldiers of the Japanese Army. Furthermore, he kept denying it in the IMTFE to the last moment that the Japanese Army committed the systematic massacre in Nanking.

外務省東亜局長(当時)・石射猪太郎はどうか。自分の回想録に「上海から来信、南京に於ける我軍の暴状を詳報し来る。掠奪、強姦、目もあてられぬ惨状とある」と書いているのは事実だ。しかし、石射は東京裁判でも証言しているように、「上海から来信」とは、南京の日本大使館が上海経由で送ってきた「現地報告」と「安全区委員会からの被害届」のことを指し、その「暴状(アトロシティーズ)」の中身も「強姦・放火・掠奪」である^[三十六]。大量殺害などではない。次から次へと届く「被害届」を見て、当時から軍への反感を抱いていた石射は裏付けをとることなく、日本軍兵士が掠奪や強姦を行ったと考えたのである。

What about the memoir written by ISHII Itaro? He wrote "According to the reports received from Shanghai, the brutal acts, including rapes, arsons and looting committed by our troops were horrible spectacles." However, 'the reports received from Shanghai' , meant 'the local reports' and 'the documents made by the Safety Zone Committee', which the Japanese Embassy in Nanking sent via Shanghai. The contents of reported atrocities were rapes, arsons and looting, and there were no reports of planned massacre. ISHII, after receiving such reports of atrocities one after another, judged without verifying the facts of them that the Japanese soldiers had committed those atrocities, because he had had ill feeling to the army in those days.

岡村寧次はどうか。「南京攻略時、数万の市民に村する掠奪強姦等の大暴行があったことは事実である」と回想録に書いていることは確かだ。しかし、この「回想録」は、一九六三年に「記憶を呼び戻して」書いたものである上、彼は当時南京戦に参加していない。一九三八年六月に「安全区委員会の被害届」を読んだ参謀などから上海で日本軍の暴行を開いただけであり、その中身も「掠奪・強姦」であった。民間人を対象とした大量殺害を行ったとは一言も言っていない。

OKAMURA wrote in his memoir: "It was a fact that there occurred the atrocities of looting and rapes against tens of thousands of citizens at the time of Japanese Army's seizure of Nanking." However, this 'memoir', was written in 1963, 'recalling his memories', and he was not in Nanking during that period. He only heard in Shanghai of the Japanese Army's atrocity in June 1938 from his staff who must have read the documents made by the Safety Zone Committee. Also, the contents of the memoir did not say any word about the massacre, but only the looting and rapes.

〈南京大虐殺〉を当時認識していた日本側高官など存在しないのである。

In other words, no Japanese high officials had ever become aware of the 'Nanking Massacre'.