I've cited a "jeWikipedia" article on the subject of the historical "revisionist" who has been challenging the (((assertions))) being made about the so-called "Rape of Nanking." For a brief historical synopsis: * China was an occupied nation, both indirectly and directly, over the preceding centuries leading to the Second Sino-Japanese War * They were subject to British economic power by this point * The Soviet Union had begun making inroads with Mao Zedong in an effort to effectively "colonize" China for their own purposes * The Japanese detested the Chinese due to ancient animosities, the British due to their colonial practices, and the Soviets for the threat they posed through their spread of (((communism))) as well as increasingly decisive victories against the Chinese army during their ongoing invasion * Japan opted to fight the Soviet threat in Manchuria, rather than allowing further Soviet incursions * The Chinese Nationalists banded together with the Soviet Communists to battle back against the Japanese invasion * The Japanese made many inroads, successfully invading China, eventually taking Nanking/Nanjing, capital of the Jiangsu province Here's where things get deceptive. The official report the "Chinese version of the holocaust," known as "The Rape of Nanjing/Nanking," was when the Japanese soldiers allegedly "massacred" 300,000 civilians and combatants, and then raped Chinese women en masse. Such reports coming from an alliance between the Chinese and the master-propagandists in Stalinist Russia should always be regarded with suspicion, especially anything emerging after World War II, wherein as a condition of surrender, the Japanese government was required to admit wrongdoing, thus doing so under duress. In the subsequent decades, while "The Rape of Nanjing" has been reported widely and held up in nearly as high a position as the holohoax itself, there have been thinkers and researchers who, like those who challenge the holohoax, question the legitimacy of the alleged events in China. One prominent researcher, Shudo Higashinakano, detailed his findings in a book *Thorough Review of Nanjing Massacre*, systematically explaining each of the flaws in the anti-Japanese narrative. To silence him, a lawsuit was filed by Xia Shuqin, a woman claiming to be one of the victims and witness to the events. He lost the suit in China for 1.6 million yuan, then was sued in Japan, and forced to pay 4 million yen in damages. Of course, in the most typically jewish of expectations, Higashinakano was required to prove a negative - that the woman Xia Shugin was not the little girl filmed by John Magee in his famously purported footage of the alleged event. Higashinakano mounted a defense, much as others have done regarding the holohoax, but was ultimately penalized for questioning "history by consensus," eventually losing his appeal. Crazy little side note about John Magee, who was "doing missionary work" in Nanking/Nanjing, as well as held the role of chairman of the local division of the International Red Cross. He just so happened to have a camera was able to not only produce "footage" of the "massacre," but successfully "smuggled" the footage out of China. Magee later went on to be the Chaplain for Harry Truman. Such a series of cohencidences.