回复1136楼:
日方观点
20世纪70年代初期，日本历史学家洞富雄的20万大屠杀遇难者的估计首次遭到记者铃木章的质疑，他提出有“数万人”遭到杀害[56]。不久后一些修正主义者宣称，根本没有大屠杀发生[56]。在日本，根据对南京大屠杀死亡人数估计的不同，研究最终分为三大阵营：“幻觉”派否认南京大屠杀；“大屠杀”派相信有数十万人死亡；“中间路线”或“温和派”认为死亡人数为数万[20]。
然而，当《诸君！》杂志调查每一“派别”的成员，询问他们对大屠杀的意见时，许多所谓的“中间派”主张非常低的遇难者总数，包括独协大学教授中村粲、记者樱井良子以及研究员田边敏雄，他们主张的遇难者为1万，另军事历史学家原刚提出的数字为2万[57]。回顾此次调查，阿斯丘的结论是，除了原刚外，所有的“中间派”对暴行的否认都是有效的[20]。若林正将标准提高，认为秦郁彦提出的4万遇难者的估计是对总死亡人数最低的合理估算，并认为低于这个数字的估计是在企图淡化暴行造成的伤害[1]。今天，大多数所谓“大屠杀”派的日本历史学家对他们的死亡人数估计有所降低，他们现在主张“超过10万”的数字而不是原来20万的共识[20]。根据历史学家等松春夫和H.P.威尔莫特（HP Willmott）说法，日本学者普遍认为大约有4万名大屠杀遇难者的估计是“最可靠的学术估计”[58]。

:
呵呵 不愧是倭寇养的黄狗
呵呵
日本： 《An estimate death toll of 300,000 has also been cited.》 Historian Tokushi Kasahara states "more than 100,000 and close to 200,000, or maybe more."[97] With the emergence of more information and data, he said that there is a possibility that the death toll could be higher. Hiroshi Yoshida concludes "more than 200,000" in his book.[98] Tomio Hora supports the information found in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which estimates a death toll of at least 200,000.[99][100] An estimate death toll of 300,000 has also been cited.
==================================================================
澳大利亚 The casualty count of 300,000 was first promulgated in January 1938 by Harold Timperley, a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses.[107]
==================================================================
美国 According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanjing and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. These estimates are borne out by the figures of burial societies and other organizations, which testify to over 155,000 buried bodies. These figures also do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, drowning or other means, or whose bodies were interred in mass graves.[68] The most credible scholars in Japan, which include a large number of authoritative academics, support the validity of the tribunal and its findings.[8]