松井石根的南京之行及其责任
Iwane Matsui's Trip to Nanjing and His Responsibilities

南京大屠杀期间，日本华中方面军司令官松井石根两次到南京。但在不同的时间和场境中，对于这段史实，却有不同的表述。挥兵占领“敌国首都”南京时，松井洋洋自得，对已经发生的南京大屠杀，态度是“在所难免”，故作姿态而实际并未严明军纪。而当战后远东国际军事法庭追究其作为甲级战犯的战争责任时，松井声明自己并不知情，反复声明自己已经尽责，企图与南京脱离干系，但在起诉方的质证下全面“失守”，渎职之责暴露无遗。松井的南京之行，需要面对“他者”的印证，兼为上海派遣军参谋长和远东国际军事法庭被告方证人的饭沼守的观察和陈述，生动地体现了场境转换的影响。对松井石根南京之行三个方面不同的描述，反映了南京大屠杀丰富的历史之维，也体现了历史记述和书写的复杂性。
During the Nanjing Massacre, Iwane Matsui, the commander of Japanese army in Central China, went to Nanjing twice. However, there were different statements about this historical fact in different time and situations. When Japanese army occupied Nanjing, the capital China, Matsui was very contented and held that the Nanjing Massacre was inevitable. He did not enforce and maintain strict military discipline. However, when the Far Eastern International Military Tribunal held him responsible as Class A war criminal after the war, Matsui declared that he knew nothing about the Massacre. He insisted that that he had done his duty in an attempt to wash his hands of the Nanjing Massacre. However, under the evidence of the prosecution, his dereliction of duty was exposed. Matsui's visit to Nanjing required the reflection of 'the other'. The observation and presentation of Iinuma Mamoru, Shanghai military chief of staff and the defendant witness to the Far East International Military Tribunal, vividly reflected the impact of the change of scene. The different descriptions of Matsui's trip to Nanjing reflected the rich historical dimensions of the Nanjing Massacre and the complexity of historical narration and writing