in article 1gvdhqv.19bm2fg18l7hmoN%dame_zumari@yahoo.com, Louise Bremner at
dame_zumari@yahoo.com wrote on 4/21/05 2:35 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>> in article 42670B8A.4000905@yahoo.comm, John W. at worthj1970@yahoo.comm
>> wrote on 4/21/05 11:10 AM:
>> 
>>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>>> In fj.life.in-japan Prophet of the Way <afu@wta.att.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I found this site by a group of historians that call themselves 'liberal'
>>>>> (jiyuu
>>>>> shugi shikan):
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Iris Chang's Errors in 'The Rape of Nanking
>>>>> looking for truths in the sea of war-time propaganda
>>>>> http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/nanjing/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The problem I have with books like Chang's is that it gives ammo to
>>>> those who would refute the whole idea of a massacre. Ie, if a sufficient
>>>> number of errors in a particular work can be found, then the whole
>>>> focus of the book will be called into question.
>>>> 
>>> Yep. By focusing on the particulars people get away from the fact that
>>> regardless of how many people were killed it's still an atrocity.
>>> 
>>> John W.
>> 
>> I saw one news story saying that the atrocities ONLY numbered a 150,000
>> people, which meant it wasn't important.
> 
> Haven't the publishers of the Guiness Book of Records stated that they
> have no intention of having a World's Greatest Massacre category?
> 
> So there's no need to get caught up in the numbers involved--just in the
> event itself. 

I think the reasoning is that if they could show that the Chinese
over-estimated the extent of the atrocities then they could pretend that no
atrocities took place. Personally, I find that reasoning flawed.