"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message 
news:BD9C18DA.29A81%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 2tm6vbF211ck1U1@uni-berlin.de, m.yoshida at masa@yahoo.co.jp
> wrote on 10/20/04 1:13 PM:
>
>> "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
>> news:BD9BC081.29A25%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
>>>
>>> Okay, so you estimate the number of Chinese victims at 40,000-50,000, so why
>>> do you say: "One of the reasons why Japanese scholars of modern history use
>>> the term "Nanking Incident" would be that the debate is included a question
>>> whether or not the "Rape" really took place."
>>>
>>> Do you think the rape occurred? Do you doubt that the Japanese military
>>> committed atrocities? Do you think the 40,000-50,000 deaths were justified?
>>>
>>> There seems to be a conflict between your most recent statement and that of
>>> the time before. I am not trying to trick you, instead I am trying to get
>>> you to clarify your remarks.
>>>
>>> By the way, I doubt the high numbers of the Chinese estimates and the real
>>> low numbers of the Japanese apologists. I don't doubt that rape and murder
>>> was used as a military tactic to scare other Chinese cities into surrender.
>>
>> http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Nanjing/nanjing4.html
>
>
> You never answered my questions:
>
> Do you think the rape occurred?
>
> Do you doubt that the Japanese military committed atrocities?
>
> Do you think the 40,000-50,000 deaths were justified?

I said three times here in this thread that my position is closed to
Prof. Hata's one.

Masayuki