ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Standard boilerplate: With the understanding that the following in no way condones the behavior of the Japanese toward the people of Korea, Manchuria, China, . . .:
Note 1: Nanjing was the capital of the Chinese National(ist) Government at the time of the battle for Nanjing.
Note 2: I am using the term National(ist) China, in this case, as another name for the Republic of China. I find it less confusing to use this term as many of the historical accounts seem to use these two names differently.
While the happenings at Nanjing after the battle can rightly be called a massacre, before 1949 it was (sort-of) allowable under the Geneva Conventions. There are 2 main elements involved.
The first is that, as mentioned above, Nanjing was the capitol of the Chinese National(ist) Government under Chang Kai-shek, the Japanese army's primary opponent at the time. As such it was a viable military target in the general sense.
The second is that the inhabitants of Nanjing had provided substantial aid to Japan's 'enemy' prior to and during the battle for Nanjing (in this case the National(ist) Chinese army under Chang Kai-shek) and that 'many' of its inhabitants had actually participated in active military action against the Japanese, and hence 'many' were not considered non-combatants. A large number of the defenders simply discarded their uniforms and attempted to blend in with the civilian population.
For a country/military/group of combatants (or whatever) to have been guaranteed/afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions up through WWII, they had to be signatories to the Conventions (in general) and to the specific Articles governing the actions in question. Japan was a signatory to the Conventions and to the specific Articles governing the behavior in question, so was National(ist) China. Hence, under the Conventions Japan was required to afford the protections in said Articles to either the Chinese Army or the civilian inhabitants of National(ist) China.
IF the inhabitants of Nanjing had not aided the National(ist) Army they would have been considered non-combatants under the Conventions, and Japan would have been unquestionably criminal in its behavior under its own obligations to the Conventions, regardless of whether the National(ist) Government were signatories. In effect, the applicable Articles were partially intended to discourage the various signatories from doing just what Chang Kai-shek did, ie put the civilian populace in harm's way and/or give the enemy a reason for reprisal.
While such actions would be considered to be criminal today, reprisals against civilians who have aided the enemy (even if no longer engaging in such actions) was not considered a universal law (regardless of who had and had not signed the Conventions) until after the 1949 Geneva Convention. In fact, it has been/is still argued that the largest part of the 1949 Geneva Convention was devoted to clarifying such issues.
As I have mentioned in other threads discussing similar matters, the above principles are a large part of the reason why the Allied countries were not charged with war crimes for their behavior during such things as the strategic bombing campaigns (US&UK vs Germany/US vs Japan), unrestricted submarine warfare (Germany vs Allies, US vs Japan), and a bunch of other activities that would require more time and space than available here. Another reason (obviously) is that the Allies won.
Note 1: Nanjing was the capital of the Chinese National(ist) Government at the time of the battle for Nanjing.
Note 2: I am using the term National(ist) China, in this case, as another name for the Republic of China. I find it less confusing to use this term as many of the historical accounts seem to use these two names differently.
While the happenings at Nanjing after the battle can rightly be called a massacre, before 1949 it was (sort-of) allowable under the Geneva Conventions. There are 2 main elements involved.
The first is that, as mentioned above, Nanjing was the capitol of the Chinese National(ist) Government under Chang Kai-shek, the Japanese army's primary opponent at the time. As such it was a viable military target in the general sense.
The second is that the inhabitants of Nanjing had provided substantial aid to Japan's 'enemy' prior to and during the battle for Nanjing (in this case the National(ist) Chinese army under Chang Kai-shek) and that 'many' of its inhabitants had actually participated in active military action against the Japanese, and hence 'many' were not considered non-combatants. A large number of the defenders simply discarded their uniforms and attempted to blend in with the civilian population.
For a country/military/group of combatants (or whatever) to have been guaranteed/afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions up through WWII, they had to be signatories to the Conventions (in general) and to the specific Articles governing the actions in question. Japan was a signatory to the Conventions and to the specific Articles governing the behavior in question, so was National(ist) China. Hence, under the Conventions Japan was required to afford the protections in said Articles to either the Chinese Army or the civilian inhabitants of National(ist) China.
IF the inhabitants of Nanjing had not aided the National(ist) Army they would have been considered non-combatants under the Conventions, and Japan would have been unquestionably criminal in its behavior under its own obligations to the Conventions, regardless of whether the National(ist) Government were signatories. In effect, the applicable Articles were partially intended to discourage the various signatories from doing just what Chang Kai-shek did, ie put the civilian populace in harm's way and/or give the enemy a reason for reprisal.
While such actions would be considered to be criminal today, reprisals against civilians who have aided the enemy (even if no longer engaging in such actions) was not considered a universal law (regardless of who had and had not signed the Conventions) until after the 1949 Geneva Convention. In fact, it has been/is still argued that the largest part of the 1949 Geneva Convention was devoted to clarifying such issues.
As I have mentioned in other threads discussing similar matters, the above principles are a large part of the reason why the Allied countries were not charged with war crimes for their behavior during such things as the strategic bombing campaigns (US&UK vs Germany/US vs Japan), unrestricted submarine warfare (Germany vs Allies, US vs Japan), and a bunch of other activities that would require more time and space than available here. Another reason (obviously) is that the Allies won.
Last edited:
