Why is the Nanking Massacre so much more famous than the Manila Massacre?

It is an intriguing situation in the realm of historical inquiry and public memory. The reasons for this disparity in recognition are multifaceted and intertwined with the socio-political context of different time periods and global events.

Contemporary Exposure and Timing

The Nanking Massacre, which took place in 1937, had a significant contemporary exposure due to its occurrence during a period when the world was relatively at peace. The International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone played a crucial role in documenting and drawing international attention to the atrocities committed. Such exposure ensured that the world took note of the events in Nanking. For instance, Tojo Hideki, the then Prime Minister of Japan, actually admonished Yamashita Tomoyuki, the commanding officer of the 25th Army, to avoid repeating the mistakes of General Matsui, the same general responsible for the Nanking Massacre, before the invasion of Singapore. This event underscores the significant role of leadership and public discourse in shaping perceptions of such incidents.

Prosecution and Aftermath

Matsui, the general responsible for the Nanking Massacre, was the only individual at the Tokyo tribunal to be convicted on a singular charge: 55 - Deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities. This conviction was more explicit and direct compared to the charge against Yamashita Tomoyuki, who was tried as a class-B war criminal. The difference lies not just in the legal proceedings but in the public exposure and global scrutiny. While Yamashita was tried by the Americans in Manila, the proceedings were relatively quiet, and many outside the Philippines may not be aware of the Manila trial or of Yamashita Tomoyuki.

In contrast, Matsui was tried by all of the Allied forces and was shown to the entire world. The international community was made aware of his actions and their consequences, ensuring that his case was a significant part of the global narrative. The trial of Yamashita, meanwhile, was more muted, and the historical record around it is less well-known. This difference in public and legal exposure played a crucial role in shaping the perception of the Nanking Massacre versus the Manila Massacre.

Inferences and Implications

The result of these differences is that while the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) committed atrocity in both Nanking and Manila, Yamashita was quietly inducted into the Yasukuni Shrine, a place of remembrance for Japanese military casualties, with around 1,000 convicts of class-B and C war crimes in 1959. However, the 14 class-A criminals, including Matsui, were not enshrined until 1978. Among these 14 were more famous figures like Tojo Hideki, which added to the controversy due to the broader question of Japan's historical attitudes towards its past actions.

The continued enshrinement and commemoration of some of these individuals at Yasukuni Shrine highlight the lasting impact of historical memory and the varying levels of accountability and transparency in addressing wartime atrocities. The disparity in the public recognition of the Manila Massacre, in comparison, suggests a more muted and less globally acknowledged response to the atrocities.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is evident that the Nanking Massacre received more attention and scrutiny than the Manila Massacre, primarily due to its timing, the level of international exposure, and the broader implications of historical memory and accountability. This variance in recognition and commemoration serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in understanding and acknowledging past atrocities on a global scale.