若林正

Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi
若林正
Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi; 若林正
国籍	加拿大
学术工作
主要领域	东亚历史

若林正（英语：Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi，1950年2月17日—^[1]），是多伦多约克大学一名加拿大日裔历史学助理教授，其主要研究领域为东亚史，特别是对第二次世界大战时期的东亚及日本政治思想的研究^[2]。

研究与见解

南京大屠杀的死亡人数

他主编《南京暴行，1937-1938》，其中他自己专文考证日本军事记录，论证1937年12月南京城内46,215人被屠杀，当中大部份是12月13日至17日；如把时间拉长至1938年3月末，并包含6个南京郊县的范围，总屠杀数大大多于10万但少于20万；由此，可以被验证、学术上有效的总屠杀数是4万至20万，低于或高于这个范围是没有道理、不公允、没证据的。至于“30万死”这个数字，如果算的是1937年8月至12月由上海至南京一路上，那30万死是可靠的估计。^[5]

他又指出，南京惨案的伤亡人数并非全是日本人所造成，例如当时镇守南京的国民党总司令唐生智曾下令处死尝试逃出南京的平民，而国民党的掠夺行为也造成了战时的大饥荒。

南京大屠杀的其他思考

若林正通过向西方读者介绍日本和中国对南京大屠杀的研究及各种观点和争论，把该研究国际化^[6]。

根据若林的说法，中国政府利用南京大屠杀来实现以下目的^[7]：

从中取得更多的援助来打造中国在亚洲的经济霸主地位；
让中国人民忘却由于中国领导人滥权从而酿成的大跃进、大饥荒和文革的灾难；
缓和国内人民对因经济发展不平衡而导致的贪污腐败、人权和政治自由受践踏、贫富悬殊的不满；
转移外国对中共对待西藏、维吾尔和其他少数民族的帝国主义式侵略和种族灭绝政策的批评。

他亦表示，南京大屠杀否定派学者的“非黑即白”态度，与目前中国大陆研究南京大屠杀的官方历史学者很相似。若林亦透露参与写作《南京暴行，1937-1938》的一些作者曾受到日本极端份子不同程度下的威胁^[7]。他也表示日本从未道歉的说法是错误的，并且引用中国《人民日报》一名记者的调查，指日本自1972年以来已道歉了二十一次。^[7]。

支那及相关用语

当今有部分日本右翼人士以“支那”的词源并无贬义为由而主张应该继续使用这类用词。若林对此说法作出评论，他指出，源于《马可·波罗游记》记载的“Zippangu”一词的“Jap”也有非贬义的词源，但是主张继续使用支那一词的人毫无疑问会因为被外国人用这三个字母（Jap）称呼而感到气愤。他又说，如果当今中国人说他们因被称为支那或支那人而感到受到伤害，那么在礼貌上就应该不要使用这些用语，不论这个词的词源或者在历史上的用法如何。他又将继续使用这种贬义词的战后的日本人归纳为两种人——“教育程度低的或积习难改的老年人”^[8]。

部分著作

Aizawa Seishisai's Shinron and Western Learning: 1781-1828
Bulletin on Narcotics: A Century of International Drug Control
Japanese Loyalism Reconstrued: Yamagata Daini's Ryūshi Shinron of 1759
Opium Regimes: China, Britain, and Japan, 1839-1952

参见

参考来源

^ Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2016-11-30., LibraryThing
^ The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38 Complicating the Picture 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2016-12-01., Berghahn Books
^ ""Should McGill Be Run by Fascist Money?", The McGill Daily, 1993-11-01
^ 《历史月刊》，历史月刊杂志社，1990年，第10页
^ Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi. Leftover Problems. Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi (编). The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture. Berghahn Books. 2008: 362, 382, 384. (p. 382) Damage surveys made during or just after catastrophic events are sometimes flawed and result in erroneous findings that later studies must rectify. [...] (p. 362) At the present stage of research, victimization estimates of under 40,000 and over 200,000 push the limits of reason, fairness, and evidence; [...] (p. 384) Japanese military sources dating from 1937, such as official battle reports and private field diaries, are the most reliable and revealing of all the sources examined here. Left by “the side that did the killing,” these documents are self-incriminating in ways that their compilers did not intend. When read critically, they attest that Japanese troops illegally and unjustifiably massacred at least 29,240 Chinese—and I would say 46,215—just before and after Nanking fell. Beyond that, there is room for honest debate. Conservatives adhere to this academically reputable low-end estimate of over 40,000. By contrast, I hold that we must add several tens of thousands more Chinese illegally and unjustifiably killed from early December 1937 to the end of March 1938 in the NSAD—the walled city and 6 adjacent counties. This is a longer time span and a wider area than conservatives and deniers will allow. Largely following Kasahara Tokushi [笠原十九司], then, I conclude that a final victim total will far exceed 100,000 but fall short of 200,000 in the absence of new evidence. But, to repeat for emphasis, an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000. [...] (p. 384) However, as conservatives admit, the figure 300,000 does represent a credible total for Chinese belligerents and civilians killed in the entire Yangtze delta area from Shanghai to Nanking over the period August to December 1937.
^ 魏楚雄《历史与历史学家：海外南京大屠杀研究的争议综述》，〈历史研究〉2009.5
^ ^7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 李劼. 迷霧裏的歷史——評Bob T. Wakabayashi, ed., The Nanking Atrocity,1937-38 (PDF). 〈二十一世纪〉. 2014, 142. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2016-09-28）.
^ Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture" (2007), Berghahn Books, p395-396: “However, two classes of postwar Japanese have continued to use derogatory terms like Shina. Poorly educated and/or elderly persons who grew up with the term go on using these from force of habit.”

[1] Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2016-11-30., LibraryThing

[2] The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38 Complicating the Picture 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2016-12-01., Berghahn Books

[3] ""Should McGill Be Run by Fascist Money?", The McGill Daily, 1993-11-01

[4] 《历史月刊》，历史月刊杂志社，1990年，第10页

[5] Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi. Leftover Problems. Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi (编). The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture. Berghahn Books. 2008: 362, 382, 384. (p. 382) Damage surveys made during or just after catastrophic events are sometimes flawed and result in erroneous findings that later studies must rectify. [...] (p. 362) At the present stage of research, victimization estimates of under 40,000 and over 200,000 push the limits of reason, fairness, and evidence; [...] (p. 384) Japanese military sources dating from 1937, such as official battle reports and private field diaries, are the most reliable and revealing of all the sources examined here. Left by “the side that did the killing,” these documents are self-incriminating in ways that their compilers did not intend. When read critically, they attest that Japanese troops illegally and unjustifiably massacred at least 29,240 Chinese—and I would say 46,215—just before and after Nanking fell. Beyond that, there is room for honest debate. Conservatives adhere to this academically reputable low-end estimate of over 40,000. By contrast, I hold that we must add several tens of thousands more Chinese illegally and unjustifiably killed from early December 1937 to the end of March 1938 in the NSAD—the walled city and 6 adjacent counties. This is a longer time span and a wider area than conservatives and deniers will allow. Largely following Kasahara Tokushi [笠原十九司], then, I conclude that a final victim total will far exceed 100,000 but fall short of 200,000 in the absence of new evidence. But, to repeat for emphasis, an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000. [...] (p. 384) However, as conservatives admit, the figure 300,000 does represent a credible total for Chinese belligerents and civilians killed in the entire Yangtze delta area from Shanghai to Nanking over the period August to December 1937.

[6] 魏楚雄《历史与历史学家：海外南京大屠杀研究的争议综述》，〈历史研究〉2009.5

[李劼-7] 7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 李劼. 迷霧裏的歷史——評Bob T. Wakabayashi, ed., The Nanking Atrocity,1937-38 (PDF). 〈二十一世纪〉. 2014, 142. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2016-09-28）.

[Wakabayashi-8] Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture" (2007), Berghahn Books, p395-396: “However, two classes of postwar Japanese have continued to use derogatory terms like Shina. Poorly educated and/or elderly persons who grew up with the term go on using these from force of habit.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

若林正

目录

相关事迹