This chapter continues Kenichi Ara’s critique of Haruki Murakami’s depiction of the Nanjing Incident in Killing Commendatore. It examines Murakami’s estranged relationship with his father, the fabricated reputation of the Fukuchiyama Regiment, the Tō Shirō testimony trials, media distortion, the baseless “400,000 victims” narrative, and factual evidence regarding prisoner treatment. Ara demonstrates that Murakami’s historical perspective rests on ignorance and fabrication. Essential reading for Japan and the world.

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The Absurdity of Killing Commendatore
Haruki Murakami had become distant from his father from a young age, and once he became a writer, their relationship grew strained and eventually approached a near-complete severing of ties.
It is said that for more than twenty years, they did not see each other at all until just before his father’s death, which means that when media reports surfaced, his father had never spoken about the Fukuchiyama Regiment.
When Murakami was a child, his father would sit before the family altar every morning and chant sutras.
When Murakami asked for whom he was chanting, his father replied, “For those who died in the last war—for the fellow soldiers who died there, and also for the Chinese who were our enemies at the time.”
From this as well, it is clear that his father never mentioned any blood-soaked rumors regarding the Fukuchiyama Regiment.
As media coverage continued, it was discovered that the squad leader who supposedly killed Chinese civilians was still living in Tokyo.
The squad leader filed a defamation lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court in April 1993, stating that the events described in the diary had never happened.
When hearings opened at the Tokyo District Court, several people from Kyoto attended every session.
Saitō Chūjirō, who had served in the same transport regiment as Murakami’s father, also attended without fail.
Saitō published a privately printed book titled “The Discipline and Stigma of the Four Banners at Nanjing,” and rode around Kyoto on a bicycle with a banner declaring that the Nanjing Incident had not occurred.
That was how impossible it was for him to ignore the testimony.
Even so, the media’s defense of Tō Shirō never changed.
In May 1994, TBS Television traveled to Tango to interview him and aired programs—Headline and Tetsuya Chikushi News 23—that left viewers with the impression that the massacre was factual.
In April 1996, the Tokyo District Court ruled that there was no objective evidence supporting acts of brutality and no reason to believe the descriptions were true.
Then the Kyoto Shimbun reported, “Save Mr. Tō (Tango Town) Who Acknowledged the Massacre.”
Tō Shirō visited China repeatedly and issued apologies.
In December 1998, the Tokyo High Court also ruled that the diary did not exist and that no objective evidence supported claims of massacre.
In January 2000, the Supreme Court confirmed the same findings, clarifying the true nature of Tō Shirō’s testimony.
The media reported without verifying the facts and, though they should have been neutral, continued their campaign of support.
The so-called blood-soaked reputation was entirely baseless, and Haruki Murakami wrote about the Nanjing Incident based on biased reporting.
Murakami cites the claim of 400,000 victims in Killing Commendatore.
That claim appears in the Nanjing University History Department’s edited volume The Great Massacre by Japanese Imperialism in Nanjing.
According to it, the 210,000 figure that formed the basis for the Tokyo Trial’s verdict of 200,000 killings is listed first, and then bodies allegedly found in thirteen locations inside and outside Nanjing city are added to reach a total of around 400,000.
Looking at this, the only credible figure submitted to the Tokyo Trial was the burial records of the Red Swastika Society, and most of those tens of thousands were battlefield deaths.
The other figures cited outside the Tokyo Trial consist mainly of battlefield deaths—vastly inflated numbers, fabricated bodies, or bodies found where no civilians lived.
Moreover, China counts dead soldiers and civilians killed by stray bullets as “massacre victims,” meaning these cannot be considered valid evidence.
The figure of 400,000 gained wider attention when Professor Yōko Katō of the University of Tokyo cited it.
In 2002, Yamakawa Publishing’s approved high school history textbook Detailed Japanese History wrote that “estimates range from several tens of thousands to 400,000.”
It was the first time the 400,000 figure appeared in a textbook.
The Ministry of Education did not raise objections due to the “neighboring countries clause,” but public criticism poured in.
Therefore, on December 3 of that year, Yamakawa Publishing submitted a correction and removed the 400,000 figure.
They explained that it “could hinder students’ proper understanding.”
Given that she had written such figures into a textbook, it was only natural that Professor Katō was rejected for membership in the Science Council of Japan in 2020.
Thus, the figure of 400,000 is absurd in nature.
While citing such numbers, Murakami at least mentions one cause: that the Japanese army “lacked the capacity to manage prisoners.”
Regarding this point, the Japanese army repeatedly issued instructions and orders concerning the treatment of prisoners.
Early in the Shanghai Incident, prisoners were placed in camps, which writers visited and reported on.
Magazines introduced these reports, newspapers published numerous photographs of prisoners, and newsreels showed footage of their daily life.
Everyone knew how prisoners were treated.
In Matsue, Suzhou, Nanjing, Shanghai, and other locations, thousands were taken prisoner and placed in camps where they were managed.
Thus, the claim that there was no capacity to manage prisoners has absolutely no basis.
Haruki Murakami’s portrayal of the Nanjing Incident was based on ignorance and fabrication.
(To be continued.)