Either way, it’s a fascinating book, and much more well researched (and less biased) than Iris Chang’s.

Now, I’d like to preface what I’m about to write by saying that I am no apologist for the Japanese. Indeed, they commited unspeakable atrocities in China during the 1930s and 40s.

Having said that, I’d like to say that this number thing is very interesting – and political. While I can’t speak intelligently about the number of Jews who were victims of the Nazi’s so-called “Final Solution,” I do feel comfortable suggesting that the figure 300,000 that is given for the number of dead in Nanjing is entirely unsupportable. The sad fact is, no one really knows how many people died. The Red Swastika Society (the swastika was a Buddhist symbol long before Hitler got hold of it), which buried many (though not all!) of the dead, disposed of 43,121 bodies between December 1937 and April 1938. While the dead in Nanjing numbered more than 43,121, no one knows exactly how much more. As historian Timothy Brook writes: “[Japanese] regime apologists who seek to minimize Japan’s responsibility for the atrocity at Nanjing now consistently invoke this number as incontrovertible evidence that the scale of killing was not in the hundreds of thousands, as Chinese claim…The Red Swastika number is a shockingly eye-catching fig leaf for the atrocity, offered almost as though 43,000 were both an understandable and an excusable figure. But this has become the standard final offer from those who desire to counter the popular Chinese estimates that run over 300,000. The high estimates may well be too high, yet 43,000 is too low. Whom the Red Swastika counted, and whom they didn’t, is unclear. Most observers agree that the society’s burials could not represent a complete record of how many died in the Rape of Nanking. Whether this figure excludes soldiers, for example, whether it excludes those who died beyond the immediate vicinity of the city walls, whether it excludes those whose corpses were burned or submerged: these are the sorts of questions that continue to provoke fierce dispute between those who desire to take the tarnish off Japan’s reputation for military brutality and those who wish to add another layer. The historian may contribute by bringing forward data that narrows the range, but not by cutting a deal between the two sides.” (see Timothy Brook’s book *Collaboration,* Harvard Univ Press, 2005 – pp 141-2)

So, however many people died in Nanjing, it was too many. Even so, the debate of the number of people killed has as much to do with politics and nationalism as it does with the desire to provide an accurate accounting.

As far as Ai Weiwei’s efforts go, I completely support him. The handling of this by the CCP has been a shameless fiasco. The idea that parents are being threatened while the criminals who profitted from the shoddy construction of schools walk free is a travesty.