76 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1”
comment number 1 by: Matt
August 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Amazing stuff, Gerry. A real stake in the heart to Korean claims about Dokdo. I look forward to seeing more.
comment number 2 by: randomcow
August 18th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Great read, excellent post. I wasn’t going to download the video due to my incredibly slow internet connection and the fact that I’m limited by my laptop battery life, but I started reading the article and it was so good that I had to have the video.
Looking forward to the next installment.
comment number 3 by: GarlicBreath
August 18th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Really great post Gerry. This pretty much sums it up. Takashima is Japanese land.
comment number 4 by: Travolta
August 19th, 2006 at 4:36 am
Spam VANK with this great post. Gerry is a champ.
comment number 5 by: pacifist
August 19th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Thank you very much for your effort.
I can’t believe how can Koreans say “(Japan is) distorting history” while they Koreans themselves are distorting history.
Why can they blame the others while they are stealing neighbor’s island?
In the field of psychiatry, their beliefs seems to be delusions. Delusion can’t be incorrectable even if somebody show the truth, not like misunderstanding. When a schizophrenia patient had a delusion that someone stole his purse, even if his friend found it in his locker and showed it to him, the patient can’t believe it and would have another delusive thought that his friend might have stolen and hid it in the locker.
Korea is in just the mentally ill state like this. Or they were made to be similar to the mentally ill state by strong brainwashing. The government, school teachers, tv and radio programmes, newspapers and magazines say all the same thing to make believe the lie to be truth. And the books with different opinions were banned and can’t be published. Korea is today’s Nazis Germany or Military Japan.
Why don’t all the normal Koreans notice it and outcry for the truth?
comment number 6 by: toadface
August 19th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Pacifist…..Don’t you think calling a nation “mentally ill” is a little over the top?
comment number 7 by: tomato
August 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Korea’s political doctirine of today is neo-nazism, isn’t it? The name of S Korea today..”Great Korean People-State” (大韓民国）is reminiscent of the “Greater Germany” under the Nazis…or the Great Japanese Empire (大日本帝国） for that matter…
I think the S Korean regime is hostile against Japan…it is morally corrupt, inhume and outright crazy. What a neighbor we have!
comment number 8 by: pacifist
August 19th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I just wrote, “Korea is in just the mentally ill state like this. Or they were made to be similar to the mentally ill state by strong brainwashing”.
The anti-Japan propaganda of Korea is abnormal as one of the modern countries. This abnormality derived from the brainwashing propaganda of their government. The brainwashed people usually don’t know that they were brainwashed until all the information against their beliefs come to their ordinary life.
So toadface, stop refer to the pro-Korean Mark’s site. It is nothing but one of the tools of Korean government’s propaganda.
comment number 9 by: pacifist
August 19th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
By the way, toadface,
Aren’t you the same person as “wedgie” in the Flying YangBan site?
Both of you sound as the same person.
comment number 10 by: randomcow
August 19th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Toadface – we have all seen Mark’s page. Posting a bunch of links without any commentary is really bad form.
comment number 11 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 20th, 2006 at 1:37 am
I think Mark Lovmo may be a little mentally ill, given that he regularly mistranslates old documents to try to make a case that Liancourt Rocks was historically Korean territory. I also question your sanity, Toadface, given that you continue to post links to his site even after having acknowledged that some of Mark’s translations are wrong. Before you said you would ask your friend, Mark, to correct the mistakes on his pages, but it seems he still has not done it. I assume you agree with the content on the pages you linked to since you did so without comment, so let’s look at those pages.
Link One: Dokdo Though the Ages in Maps
The first thing that sticks out on this page is that “all” the maps on it are Japanese maps, and none of the maps say “Dokdo,” so I wonder why the page is entitled “Dokdo Through the Ages in Maps”? Shouldn’t it be entitled “Takeshima Through the Ages,” especially given the fact that their are no Korean maps or documents before 1905 that mention “Dokdo”?
The second thing that sticks out is that Mark Lovmo not only omitted text from the 1667 document, he also mistranslated it. Here is the correct translation:
Oki, which was once called Okinoshima, is in the middle of the North Sea. From here (Oki), thirty-five ri to the south, is 美穂関 in 雲州 (a place in the eastern part of the Shimane Prefecture). Forty ri to the southeast is 赤碕浦 in 伯州 (a place in the western part of Tottori Prefecture). Fifty-eight ri to the southwest is 温泉津 in 石州. There is no land from the north to the east. Two days to the northwest is Matsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima), and one day farther is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), often called Isotakeshima, which has an abundance of bamboo, fish, and sea lions. These two islands are uninhabited. Koryo can be seen from here, similar to how Shimane can be seen from Oki Island. Therefore, Japan’s northwest boundary is from this island (Ulleungdo).
First, notice that Oki Island is being used as a referrence point to give the locations of surrounding Japanese territory. You would not know this from the translation Mark posted since he omitted the part of the translation that I have marked above with italics. Why did he do that?
Second, Mark Lovmo mistranslated the last sentence of the quote. He wrote, “Thus Oki Island is the northwest boundary of Japan.” However, the document does not say that. It says, “Therefore, Japan’s northwest boundary is from this island.” Notice that Mark replaced “this island” with “Oki Island.” If Mark believes that “this island” was referring to Oki Island, he should have put Oki Island in parentheses, not change the text. Why did he do that?
Third, the phrase “this island” was referring to “Ulleungdo,” not Oki Island. We can surmise this because the sentence just before was talking about Takeshima (Ulleungdo), not Oki Island. Here was the previous sentence:
Koryo can be seen from “here,” similar to how Shimane can be seen from Oki Island.
In the above sentence, “here” was referring to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) since that is the only place mentioned from which you can see Koryo (Korea). Therefore, in the sentence that followed, we can surmise that “this island” was referring to Takeshima (Ulleungdo).
Forth, Mark’s claim that the text on Japanese maps somehow links Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) is simply ridiculous. The text is simply a note saying that Korea can be seen from Takeshima (Ulleungdo). The note does not apply to Matsushima (Dokdo) since Korea cannot be seen from there.
Fifth, Liancourt Rocks were not made a part of Japan until 1905, so the color of islands on maps before 1905 really has little meaning. And that certainly does not mean that the Japanese considered the rocks Korean territory. In regard to maps after 1905, especially Shimane Prefecture maps, any omission of Takeshima (Liancort Rocks) would obviously be a mistake since there is a clear record, which includes coordinates, that says that Shimane Prefecture incorporated Takeshima in 1905.
Link Two: “The 1870 Secret Mission Report on Chosun (Korea)”
The above link again links to a page in which Mark mistranslates the relevant document.
Here is Mark’s translation:
“How Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Korean Possessions: Dokdo is a neighbor island of Ulleungdo and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this (these) island(s). 2. The island of Ulleungdo was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s (During the reign of King Sukjong) but it now has become uninhabited”
Here is my translation:
Circumstances of Chosun’s Incorporation of Takeshima & Matsushima
Matsushima is a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo). Until now, there are no records of this island. Concerning Takeshima, after Kenroku (1688 ~ 1704), people were sent there from Korea to live for a while, but now it has become uninhabited again. Natural products include bamboo, reed that is thicker than bamboo, and ginseng. We have also heard that there are numerous marine products.
First, notice that Mark translated “Matsushima” as “Dokdo,” again ignoring the fact that the text does not say “Dokdo.” If he believed it to be Dokdo, then he should have put it in parentheses to show that it was not actually said in the text..
Second, the document said that Matsushima was a neighboring island of Takeshima, which means that it was not talking about Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.
Third, the document not only said that Matsushima was a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo), but it also said that there was no record of it. This is another indication that the Matsushima being talked about in the document was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since the Japanese did have records of those islets. The 1667 Japanese document mentioned above is just one of those records. This 1724 Japanese map also shows that the Japanese knew about the Matsushima that referred to Liancourt Rocks. That means that the Matsushima mentioned in the 1870 document was a different Matsushima. In fact, in 1882, Lee Gyu-won, a Korean official sent to inspect Ulleungdo, found a marker on Ulleungdo dated 1869 that said Ulleungdo was named “Matsushima” and that it was Japanese territory.
Also, in 1696, a Korean fisherman named An Yong-bok said that he found Japanese fishing offshore of Ulleungdo who said they lived on an island named Matsushima, which Mr. An said was the Korean island of Jasando (子山島). Even Korean historians agree that Jasando (子山島) was most likely Usando (于山島), given that the Chinese characters 子 (Ja) and 于 (U) look similar. As I have shown in the main post of this thread, Usando was most likely Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo. That means that even Korean documents in the 1690s suggest that the Japanese were calling one of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands “Matsushima.” Also, since the Japanese said they “were living” on Matsushima, we can be pretty sure it was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since Dokdo was just barren rocks that could not support a settlement.
Finally, the agreement from the 1690s, which Mark mentioned, recognized Korean claims on Ulleungdo, but not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks.)
Link Three: 19th Century Mapping Confusion and Dokdo
Again, none of the maps shown on the page linked to are Korean maps nor do any of them use the name “Dokdo,” so why is the page entitled “19th Century Mapping Confusion and Dokdo”?
The confusion concerning Takeshima and Matsushima continued up until 1880, when the Japanese government finally sent the warship, Amagi, to Ulleungdo to survey the island and sort out the confusion. The Japanese captain discovered that Matsushima was actually Ulleungdo, and that Takeshima was actually a small island off the northern part of Ulleungdo. Here is the relevant part of the Japanese captain’s report:
The land (Matsushima) was the, so-called, old Ulleungdo. There is a small island to the north called Takeshima, which is little more than a rock. In one morning, this fact has cleared up a long-held suspicion.
Notice that the Japanese captain discovered that Matsushima was Ulleungdo and that one of its neighboring islands was called Takeshima. Up until this time, the name Matsushima was being used to refer to Liancourt Rocks, so after the 1880 report, the name Matsushima was given to Ulleungdo and the name “Liancourt Rocks” was used for Liancourt Rocks. When the Japanese incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905, the name for the rocks was changed to Takeshima. Even today, Ulleungdo’s neighboring island is called Takeshima (竹島), except that Koreans pronounce it as Jukdo (竹島). See the map of Ulleungdo on my main post.
Link Four: Japanese Illegal Aggression Recorded in Chosun Documents
The linked document is talking about Ulleungdo, not Dokdo. By the way, Mark mentions that King Gojong sent Lee Gyu-won to Ulleungdo to inspect the island, but he forgot to mention what Lee Gyu-won reported.
Mr. Lee reported that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands, Dohang and Jukdo. The map he made of Ulleungdo, here, shows that Dohang was most likely present-day Kwaneumdo, and that Jukdo was present-day Jukdo. Mr. Lee also reported that he climbed to the highest peak on Ulleungdo but could see no other islands. Mr. Lee’s report shows that in 1882, the Korean government still did not know about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Link Five: “Dokdo and Japanese Naval Records
The above link shows that it was not the Koreans, but the Japanese, in the early 1900s, who first made reference to the name “Dokdo.” Here is the quote from Mark’s site:
Koreans call the Liancourt Rocks Dokdo while the Japanese fishermen call it Lianco. It is possible to moor the vessels between the two rocks, but a small boat is usually pulled ashore. When the sea is rough and it is difficult to anchor, boats usually take refuge on Ulleungdo until the weather calms down.. Those who come from Ulleugdo to catch sea lions use a Japanese vessel that can load 60 to 70 koku (307 to 358 bushels) and build huts to stay there for about 10 days each time: The catch is plentiful: and the number of the crew sometimes exceeds 40 to 50, but they talk about the lack of fresh water…”
The Japanese naval log said that the Koreans called Liancourt Rocks “Dokdo” while the Japanese fishermen called it “Lianco,” which was a Japanese pronunciation for Liancourt Rocks.
Notice that the quote said that “Japanese” vessels would come from Ulleungdo to catch sealions. There was no mention of Korean vessels. In fact, in a 1907 report about Takeshima and Ulleungdo (”竹島及鬱陵島”) a Japanese named 奧原碧雲 wrote the following:
Koreans harvest only brown seaweed and laver. They do not engage in any other kind of fishing. Among our people (on Ulleungdo), some farm and about forty (in 1905) engage in fishing….”
Based on the above, it looks as if it were the Japanese who were doing all the fishing on Liancourt Rocks in 1905. Of course, the Japanese may have also used Korean fishermen on their boats, which may be how the Koreans found out about rocks. At any rate, the rocks were not on any Korean map or mentioned in any Korean document before 1905.
Just being cognizant of an island or even fishing around an island does not mean the island was not terra nullius. Besides, it looks as if it was the Japanese fishing around the islets, not the Koreans.
Mark seems to use some of the same deceptive techniques that many Korean historians use when they talk about Dokdo and historical documents. For example, instead of translating what a document actually says, Korean historians often put ”Dokdo” in where they think it should go. That is fine, but they should use parentheses when doing it to show that it is only an opinion, and that the document does not actually say that. I guess they do that because they feel a little embarrassed by the fact that they are claiming an island that does not appear on any of their old maps or documents. I know I would be too embarrassed to say anything about it.
comment number 12 by: toadface
August 20th, 2006 at 5:11 am
The 1870 says Songdo is a neighbour island to Ulleungdo. Now I’ve been listening to you and Pacifist try to sell this rubbish theory that there is another Songdo next to Ulleungdo for over a year now and still I see no evidence. The fact they had no records was due to the fact that the Meiji government was still in its formative years. You can’t redraw maps of the East Sea based on your definition of “nieghbour island”
Gerry the mapping confusion maps prove that both Ulleungdo and Dokdo were simply mapped in Westerly locations. Are you trying to tell us that after almost two hundred years the Japanese stopped mapping Dokdo and doubled mapped Ulleungdo? This is wrong. Look at the maps by Yoshinaga Kashihara.
Mark Lovmo cites maps that are consistently accurate representations of the perceptions of Japan during the Meiji Era. Gerry as others have pointed out you post ancient inaccurate Korean maps and then put your spin on them. For example the Ullengdo maps you post have all the major islands on the south side of Ulluengdo when in reality Ulleungdo’s neighbour islands are on the Northeast.
Whoever was fishing/sealing on Dokdo in the early 1900s they were residents of Ulleungdo not Japan. If they weren’t Korean, they were trespassing or squatters as the Chosun document proves. Japanese did not come to Dokdo as a sole destination this proves that Dokdo residents were dependent on Dokdo for their existence
As Japanese documents and maps prove the Japanese knew the position of Ulleungdo and Dokdo quite well. If there was any confusion maybe they thought there was another island in the vicinity but as Mark site shows the Japanese often cited past historical references to confirm the positions of Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
The text by Saito Hosen is translated in a manner that makes sense unlike yours. It is not Mr Lovmo’s personal translation but one accepted by Korean and Japanese some Japanese professors.
Gerry before you call someone crazy you should check yourself.
comment number 13 by: toadface
August 20th, 2006 at 5:13 am
comment number 14 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 20th, 2006 at 6:16 am
The 1870 Japanese document said that Matsushima (Songdo) was a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so how can you say you have seen no evidence of it? By the way, just because a new government came in does not mean they threw out all the old records.
The 1870 Japanese map below shows Takeshima (竹島), Matsushima (松도), and Liancourt Rocks all on the same map.
1870 Japanese map
Six years later, in 1876, the following map appeared in a Japanese textbook. You will notice that 松島 (Matsushima / Songdo) is drawn as a neighboring island of 竹島 (Takeshima / Ulleungdo). That matches up with the 1870 report.
Closeup of 1876 Japanese Map
Just below is the full map, even though it is too small to read:
1876 Map (full map)
Below is a 1878 Japanese Map that shows two islands named Matsushima (Songdo):
1878 Japanese Map with two Matsushimas
So, as you can see, there was another Matsushima (Songdo), which was probably what caused much of the map confusion.
Yes, Japanese were living on Ulleungdo in the early 1900s. You can call them squatters if you want to, but that does not change the fact that they were living there. There was even a Japanese policeman stationed on the island.
As for your other arguments, you will need to be more specific before I can address them. However, one thing is certain, whether it is Mark Lovmo or someone else, a person is being deceitful when he or she replaces the original placename in a document with the name “Dokdo.”
Also, I think it is deceitful when someone switches his ID from “Frogmouth” to “Toadface” and to other annonymous IDs to avoid taking responsibility for his previous comments. How many IDs do you post under, Toadface?
comment number 15 by: toadface
August 20th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Gerry, there are tons of maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo showing consistent positioning of Takeshima and Matsushima in the same place. It is from these maps we should make conclusions. Marks website calls
(松도) Dokdo because it is a historical fact the Japanese did as well.
If you feel (松도) represented some other “neighbor island” the onus is on you to prove it. Which you haven’t.
The 1870 map shows Argonaut Island as Jukdo. It was confirmed non existent over a decade earlier. I don’t even know if that is a real map. Please don’t post second-hand scrawlings from Tanaka’s website.
The closeup map is Ulleugdo and Dokdo. That’s all.
You try to discredit the 1870 document by posting those maps but none of them show Songdo to be what you have defined to be a “neighbor island.”
The 1878 map is a freakish map for sure. Here is my point Gerry. Find a mapping trend to develop a theory. If they are inaccurate and they follow a specific pattern then we can make plausible assumption from there.
Marks cite deals with the mapping confusion in a logical manner. It shows initially the Japanese showed good positioning. It shows how the maps followed Seibold’s error and how three islands were mapped. And how rapidly the problem was corrected.
Look at the comparison between Japanese and British Navy maps. We can see how closely the Japanese followed the European maps. That’s what got them confused to begin with. We also know by the Japanese records the 1877 Dajokan document they used past historical documents that predated Seibolds error for reference as well.
I don’t see the 1880 survey as the end-all opinion or view of the Japanese government of the time.
Why can’t I change my handle?? Since when don’t I take responsiblity for my posts?
comment number 16 by: toadface
August 20th, 2006 at 8:35 am
NIce link eh?
comment number 17 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Even Mark Lovmo’s Web site shows that the Japanese suspected that there were two Matsushimas (Songdo) and that if the Matsushima in question was not Ulleungdo, then “it should be Japanese property.” Below is the 1878 document in question, as translated on Mark’s site:
Consideration regarding Songdo (Ulleungdo): “A number of brief documents regarding Jukdo (Dokdo) can be found from the early days while there is no record discussing Songdo (Ulleungdo). Today more and more people are talking about Songdo, and their opinions are divided over the island. Some say these two islands are one, with two different names and others say they are two separate ones.”
“Songdo (Ulleungdo) was given to Chosun by the Shogunate seeking convenience (comfort) at the time instead of considering our future. Therefore if this so-called “Songdo” turns out to be Jukdo (Ulleungdo) it should belong to them (Chosun) and if not it should be Japan’s property. No one can give us a definite answer. The location of Songdo is considered critical because it is situated between Chosun and Japan. Nagasaki-Vladisvostok, Shimonseiki-Wonsan Port. Because of Songdo’s important location English and Russian warships are repeatedly seen in this vicinity. So if it is part of Japan we should be very watchful…”
“Even in the event that it belongs to Chosun we will still have to protect it. In this situation we’re at a loss for answers if/when we are asked by other countries. This leaves the island ownerless. A number of records have stated that “Argonaut” which is a Western name for Jukdo (Ulleungdo) does not exist and that “Dagelet” referring to Songdo, is Jukdo aka Ulluengdo. So what we call Songdo, (Dokdo) is called Hornet Rocks by Westerners. But is seems that Westerners actually think of Jukdo when they refer to Songdo (Ulleungdo). Foreign maps show this “Hornet Rocks” under Japan’s jurisdiction. Yet there is no consensus concerning the two islands among the countries.”
“”There is no sound basis for our argument, either. Therefore the land and the vicinity should be surveyed which side it belongs to and therefore whose jurisdiction it falls under. Thus we should make an inquiry to Shimane Prefecture and confirm their previous policy on this matter and initiate a survey of the region. If Chosun had already started we need to find out how they are progressing and think what we can do about it. Please I am urging this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.”
Again, the document said that if Matsushima (Songdo) turned out to be Ulleungdo, then it would be Chosun (Korean) territory; if not, “it should be Japanese territory.” That means the Japanese only recognized Ulleungdo as Korean territory, not Liancourt Rocks. The document also urged that a survey be conducted to know for sure. That survey was conducted in 1880, and the results were that Matsushima was Ullleungdo, Takeshima (Jukdo) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and Liancort Rocks were “Liancourt Rocks.” By the way, in 1882, Lee Gyu-won, a Korean official sent as an inspector to Ulleungdo, confirmed that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Jukdo,” which is pronouced as “Takeshima” in Japanese.
The Japanese never recognized Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory, which would explain why the rocks never appeared on any Korean maps or in any Korean documents before 1905.
comment number 18 by: ponta
August 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Japanese side argues that
(1) Japan had effective control over Dokdo since Edo period.
(2)Japan confirmed it in 1905
(3)Japan had had effective control over Dokdo until 1945.
In contrast, Mark’s argument, which I for one think is much better than the video above , is that,
1) Korean government had never recognized Dokdo before 1905.But
2)Some Japanese recognized Dokdo as Korean territory before 1905. Therefore,
3)Korea had the title to Dokdo before 1905.
Of course, Japanese side counter-argue against (2)
But even supposing (2) holds, as you can see, Korea’s claim is very weak.
Mark’s another argument is that
1) 1905 Japanese inclusion of Dokdo is void. Therefore,
2) Dokdo was no man’s land before 1945.
3)Korean effective control since then is valid.
For your reference, to show (1) holds, it must be proved that Korea had protested, but in fact she did not.
Toadface’s counterargument is that
1)’ Korea could not protest for good reason.
(BTW Japanese argument is that Korea could have as she did on other matters. but she did not because Korea knew Dokdo was not Korean territory)
This argument turns out to be weak:
Provided that 1)’ hold,
Korea had no ground to protest because Korean government had never recognized Dokdo before.
(And against 3), it is claimed by Japan, that Japan protested in accordance with international law;therefore, it is void and null).
Mark’s still other argument is classic.
1)Japan was evil imperialist.
2)Japan grabbed Dokdo for this evil Imperialist’s purpose. Therefore
3)Japan’s inclusion is void.
Against this Japanese side argues even evil Imperialist can not invade the territory that did not belong to Korea.
(as a side note, notice that Mark forgets mentioning that the inclusion was done in respond to Nakai,a fisherman’s request for economic purpose.)i
As you might have noticed, in all the arguments above, what is crucial for Korean side’s argument is,
Korean government recognized and had effective control over Dokdo before 1905
In this respect, what Gerry has shown here and will show in another post is very important for both sides.
comment number 19 by: toadface
August 21st, 2006 at 6:29 am
Ponta, I agree and most historians do as well that the Japanese colonial occupation of her neighbour was an immoral act.
Let me tell you why
In May of 1963 the International Law Commision with the draft submitted by the Special Rapporteur Waldock. In his draft he cited the coerced 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty as one of four textbook instances of “a coerced treaty” in fact Hitlers coercion of the President of Czechoslovakia was one of the others.
Ponta, if I have to go with deciding someone’s definition of a coerced treaty, I think I’ll go with the Harvard School of Law rather than yours. I hope you understand.
Many Japanese don’t see any connection to Japanese expansionism and Dokdo but if you study the political events at the time of Dokdo’s annexation you can see Dokdo’s annexation was for military purposes first.
1. The Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902 was expanded in 1905 and Great Brtiain confirmed Japan’s interests in controlling Korea.
2. The Portsmouth Treaty signed in 1905 also confirmed Russia interests in Korea and promised not to interfere in the region.
3. The Taft-Katsura agreement confirmed America’s support for Japan’s interests in Korea in exchange for America’s unchallenged control of Hawaii and the Philippines.
4. The Japan Korea Protectorate Treaty this treaty dismantled the Foreign Affairs office of Korea.
In 1905 Japan signed four treaties all with the purpose of stripping Korea of her sovereignty. It’s shameful Japanese Takeshima websites never mention the historical-military events surrounding the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. I find it laughable that some posters say Korea had the means to dispute Japanese acts after all these treaties were signed. How could Korea protest……..better yet to whom?
The Japanese Foreign Ministry has committed a shameful act by trying to candy-coat the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion into a legitimate land acquisition when historical documents and Japanese Naval records of the time prove otherwise.
Japan had hundreds of years to lay claim to Dokdo. We should ask why Japan suddenly decided to include this territory covertly/coincidently following the Battle of Tsushima. We should also ask why Japan waited over a year before they told the Koreans they had annexed Dokdo. Maybe Mark should have a page detailing the political events in Korea surrounding the Shimane Prefecture. The Japanese seem to have forgotten.
The rest of the free world hasn’t and won’t.
comment number 20 by: tomato
August 21st, 2006 at 7:53 am
I don’t think S Korea is a member of the free world…you guys make holding certain political ideas a crime…you punish “pro-Japanese” ideas, confiscate property from the HEIRS of “pro-Japananese” (now this is really barbaric to the eyes of anyone from the trully free world)…your goverment still basically prohibits importation of Japanese goods and culture (such censorship is typical of authoritarian regimes that do not want its citizens to know too much)…you guys even support your comrade regime in the north that mass produces counterfeit money and narcotics, abuse its citizens, kidnap and kill foreign citizens, blow up airplanes…all these terrorist activities…it’s gonna be a long way until you enter the free world.
comment number 21 by: ponta
August 21st, 2006 at 9:43 am
Yes, Japan was an expansionist.
When Korea became independent,
Japan left the all Japanese property in Korea.(That is all Germany did to Poland).
Japan apologized to Korea for what Japan did to Korea.
The point is
You can not invade Korea by announcing the inclusion of Dokdo, over which Japan had effective control since Edo period, of which Korean government had no cognizant . In contrast Korea did invade Japan by grabbing Japanese territory, Dokdo, against Japan’s protest, against USA’s will.
When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.link
You emphasize militaristic purpose of the inclusion of Dokdo.I do not deny it. In the hindsight, it was partly used for military purpose. However, as your previous comment showed, The 1905 announcement was initiated by Nakai, a fisherman for economic purpose.
Management of the Dokdo Fishermen in the vicinity of Ulleungdo knew that sea lions abounded on Dokdo. As I thought the island was Korean territory attached to Ulleungdo , I went to the capital trying to submit a request to the Resident-General. But as suggested by Fishery Bureau Director Maki Bokushkin, I came to question Korea’s ownership of Takeshima. And at the end of my investigation I convinced myself that this island was ownerless through the conclusion of the then Hydrographic Director Admiral Kimotsuki. Accordingly I submitted an application through the Home Ministry, Foreign Ministry and Agriculture-Commerce Ministry for incorporation of this island into Japanese territory and for its lease to me. The Home Ministry had an opinion that the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time would amplify the suspicions of various countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea. Thus my petition was rejected…..
Thinking I cannot turn back I rushed to the Foreign Affairs Office to discuss the matter with the then Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct observation posts and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships. Particularly in terms of diplomacy he told me not to worry about the Home Ministry view. He asked me in high spirits to urge the Home Ministry to refer his application speedily to the Foreign Ministry: In this way Takeshima came under our country’s dominion.Toadface at occidentalism
I find it laughable that some posters say Korea had the means to dispute Japanese acts after all these treaties were signed. How could Korea protest……..better yet to whom?
To a Japanese minister as when then the minister of Korea protested against the ally of England-Japan in 1905, or as when Korean King protested against 1905 treaty, resulting in a revision in the wording of the treaty. Or
To 9 heads of the foreign states as when Korean King sent a letter, protesting 1905 treaty.
But he did not protest with regards to Dokdo, because he remembered that he had a report to the effect Dokdo was not Korean territory.
Suppose ,for the sake of argument, he protested effectively, then that day become an critical date,after which “all matters arising after that date cannot be taken into account in deciding title to territory”,
What is Korean ground for the claiming the title to Dokdo.
Korea has no record of Dokdo before 1905.
After all Korea had no ground for protesting because Korea had no effective control before 1905;Korean geovernment did not recoginize Dokdo before 1905
Regarding the legality of the treay, opinions are divided among scholars, but I repeat,You can not invade Korea by announcing the inclusion of the territory which Korea had had no effective control before.
I regret Japan was an expansionist. You can paint Japan as evil as possible if you like.
You might win the heart of Korean people by emphasizing how evil Japan had been;it seems it’s part of Korean culture to hold the hatred, and some Korean people seem to think mistakenly that endless retaliations are justified, that endless hatred pays.(when in fact the hatred is backlashing with,or without Korea realizing iit)
Butt there is something you can not change by the hatred. You can not change the fact that Korea had no effective control over Dokdo but Japan had.
I am looking forward to seeing Gerry de-mystifying one of Korea mythology.
Mark might love Korea, but in the wrong way. i think Gerry loves Korea, wishing Korea grow up, Korea become mature.
comment number 22 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 21st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Korea did not protest Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) because she knew the rocks never belonged to Korea. When the Japanese informed the head of Uldo County (Ulleungdo County) that they had incorporated Liancourt Rocks into Japanese territory, he did not protest to the Japanese. In fact, he was not even sure where the rocks were, which is strange considering that Koreans claim that the islets were under his administration. By that time, Koreans may have known about the rocks, but they had never claimed them, mapped them, or even talked about them in their old documents.
Arguing whether Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks for military or economic reasons does not change the fact that Japan claimed the islets before Korea or anyone else did.
Korea’s historical claim on Dokdo/Takeshima is a big, fat lie. And what makes it worse is that Korean historians, who should know better, are either participating in the lie or are keeping silent about it. That is what I call shameful.
comment number 23 by: randomcow
August 21st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
haha – imagine what would happen if one of those poor historians tried to speak out. By sundown he would be hanging from a tree by a rope.
Being an historian in Korea must be one of the most stressful jobs on earth. I don’t know how they sleep at night.
comment number 24 by: pacifist
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:20 am
BTW, I found the following document concerning Ulleungdo. This is not related to the topic directly, but it explains how was the relationship between Japanese and Koreans in Ulleungdo in the late 19th century.
In September 1883, Japanese government dispatched the Minstry of the Internal officers and police officers to let remaining Japanese return to Japan. There were about 250 Japanese in Ulleungdo, engaging in forestry and their relationship with Koreans were good.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Japanese secretary: “The reason I came here is no other than the government order that says we should bring all the Japanese remaining in this island back to Japan. So I stepped on the stemship and arrived today. So I would like to let our people ride on this ship. Please understand this”.
Yogaku (Korean): “To let your people return back to your country as you’ve said is to be celebrated, but emotionally I can hardly bear it. Because our people who came here lack in foods, they were enjoying great favours from Japanese people. We will never forget their kindness. I hope they will bring all the woods they cut off back to Japan with them. I suppose if you give them 40-day extension, they will wait for the cargo ship and will be able to bring them back, so please take this into consideration”.
Japanese secretary: “I have no authority to make them bring the woods with them. The only thing I have to do is to let all the Japanese return to Japan, after that I will tell your kind offer to our government”.
Yogaku (Korean): “I see your will. I’m sorry to repeat the same thing again but please understand that we are sorry. As I’ve mentioned, we want to give thousands of woods to your people but we have no other intentions. Several hundreds of our people used to come to this island every year after ice melt, engage in fishery and forestry, and go back to their home in autumn. I deeply regret that these people were given foods by Japanese people but they can’t repay for them. So please grant my wish”.
Japanese secretary: “I deeply thank for your kind offer. But as far as it is not an order by any of the both governments, I can’t approve it. And you too can’t permit such things. Our government will order to take care lest these people should not violate a law”.
Even after the conversation, Yogaku asked the interpreter, Kenzo Asayama, saying, “Please make allowances for cicumstances and help our people in poverty” but I let him answer that we can’t do it.
On 14th October, after we let all the Japanese people ride on the ship, the chief of the island 全錫奎, who had been ill, came out and gave us a reception.
Japanese secretary: “We are going to bring all the Japanese staying in this island back to Japan. I wonder if there is nobody left in the remote places”.
Chief of the island: “No more people left. I deeply thank your people for their great help. In emotion, I can’t bear to see all of them are going back”.
Japanese secretary: “As you testify, there is no Japanese people left. I request you to give us the document”.
Chief of the island: “I received your request. (He produced a document and then he produced one more document.) Our people were rescued by Japanese people in a special occasion. Here is another document. I would like you to deal prudently with this matter”.
It said, “In early summer this year, more than 30 of our country’s people came to this place by ship. Wind was high and waves are raging, and the ship wrecked. But when they were on the edge of death sinking in the water, Japanese people who were good at swimming went to rescue them at the risk of their lives. Because of this, all of more than 30 people were saved from death. The favor of these Japanese is high as montains and deep as sea”.
Chief of the island: “If these Japanese people will go back, our people who have enjoyed favors from Japanese people won’t be able to bear hunger and thirsty. I would like to ask your favor, please feel pity”.
Japanese secretary: “We can’t remain indifferent to hear that. This is a friendship between Japan and Korea. If they will face famine because of our people’s return, we would like to respond to your request of help”.
Chief of the island: “I don’t know the proper words of thanks to hear that you will help us. We would be pleased if you could give us 25 packs of rice (75-6 litter)”.
So we gave them rice and said goodbye and left.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
There was amicable atmosphere, at least it seems that there was no hostility or hatred in those days. Reversely, this reminds us how Korean government today make their people hate Japan with the strong propaganda.
comment number 25 by: toadface
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 am
Here’s a real record of the Chosun government position at the time.
This is the first of two documents I’ve seen in the Chosun documents regarding Japanese logging.
Pacifist. I love your choice of words. “to let remaining Japanese return to Japan. The contents of that report I’ve heard are not accurate as the Japanese ministers were under pressure to present a positive impression of the region for their superiors.
The correct term I believe was forcible evacuation. These Japanese were trespassing and after these squatters were kicked out they were let go free of being charged. If things were so great why did they feel the need to remove these illegals?
In contrast in 1837 trespassers were executed for being in the Ulluengdo region. We can see how illegal Japanese aggression in the region increased during this era
comment number 26 by: ponta
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
When was the document written?
Lee Kyuwon inspected Ullungdo in 1882, am I right?
I guess Pacifist document is written in 1883link
And Japanese were evacuated by Japanese officers in response to Korean complaint, as described in your document, to the effect that some Japanese had been illegally logging the forest.
And Pacifist’s document was about the conversation between an Korean islander and a Japanese officer when evacuating.
Besides, according to the link, Japan and Korea agreed that Korea regulate illegal Japanese activity on the island.
Is it Japanese aggression that Japan agreed Korea regulate illegal Japanese?
I am afraid that Mark might have omitted an important aspect again.
comment number 27 by: pacifist
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Yes, that was the report when Japanese people were evacuated from the island in 1883. There were 255 Japanese then while Koreans were only about 60 including the chief of the island. It said that many Koreans saw off the Japanese in tears as if they were relatives or intimate friends. I wanted all of you to know that there was a warm friendship between Koreans and Japanese in those days.
comment number 28 by: ponta
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 pm
I guess it was wrong of me to expect Toadface to answer.He has never answered where Prangdo, imaginary island which Korean government asked USA to give Korea,was, and he has never translated the Korean “protest”, which was rather in fact internal document of the report. irrespective of the fact I asked many times.
Anyway.it is true that some Japanese were illegally logging the forest. And,
site make it clear that the document was made before Lee Kyuwon inspected.
May I suggest that Lee Kyuwon be sent as an inspector as soon as possible and have him make a thorough investigation to help deal with this matter.”
And Lee Kyuwon inspected in 1882 and protested to Japanese authorities.
In 1883 there was an agreement between Japan and Korean concerning the treatment of Japanese criminals. For instance,
article 3 Korean officials are free to send Japanese criminals either by land or by sea…..
And in respond to the korean protest, Japanese were evacuated in 1883 by Japanese officials.
And Pacifist’s document show rather friendly relation between Japanese and Korean islanders.
However, Mark describes this situations as
In the 1880s Japanese aggression in the region affected both Ulleungdo and Dokdo
Is illegal Koreans activities now in Tokyo the agression of korea as a state?
Is the agreement that Japan regulate illegal Koreans in Tokyo Korean aggression?
Is evacuating illegal Koreans from Tokyo the aggression if Korea?
—–I don’t think so.
I think Mark is inappropriate at least with regard to interpretation of this document. He put it out of context. Besides, the document does not mention dokdo at all.
But I am not sure so correct me if I am wrong.
comment number 29 by: pacifist
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Thank you Ponta,
I’m with you, the Mark’s site is full of lies, including this word “aggreression”. There were many Japanese as migrant workers but they were not soldiers, they didn’t have malicious will or intention to invade Korea.
I think they were living in a peaceful unity with Koreans, or should I say they were living in a borderless world – it seems as a Utopia from today’s viewpoint while today Koreans see us Japanese with a look of hostility – as a result of strong propaganda of Korean government.
comment number 30 by: toadface
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:21 am
Pacifist, the Japanese who were illegally living on Ulleungdo were just trying to make a living. However, all over Asia during this time the Japanese government was deliberately encouraging a policy of moving in Japanese nationals into neighbouring countries and overwhelming the native residents. Ulleungdo was no exception.
I’ve never said these people were evil. But I believe that the policies of the Japanese government at the time had evil intentions. I think the Japanese Meiji Government initially was not hostile toward Korea and her neighbours. I think early on they had little interest in the region. But through the 1837 analogy we can see how Japanese policy changed.
You wrongly seem to think that Japanese illegal occupants and lumber was discontinued in 1883 but this is a fallacy,
In August of 1896 more Japanese were expelled from Ulleungdo after the Koreans signed a lumbering agreeement with Russia.
In 1898 the administer of Ulleungdo went to Matsue in Japan to start a lawsuit against illegal lumbering by Japanese on Ulleungdo.
In this time era expansionist Japan encroached in all directions.
In they North in 1869 they displaced the native residents of Hokkaido in the Kuriles_Sakhalin exchange Pact with the Russians. The Japanese then “emigrants” then entered the region en masse and forced out the aborigines.
In the South in May of 1874 the Japanese sent over three thousand naval and army soldiers to Taiwan it was ceded by 1895. In 1876 the Japanese took Bonin Islands and all residents became Japanese citizens by 1882. in 1914 they colonized Micronesia
In the East in July 1871 Japan renamed Weeks Island “Minami torishima” and made it another Japanese territory by a Tokyo prefecture public notice marking the Eastern boundary of Japan.
In the West during the Russo-Japanese War Japan took Dokdo. In the wake of this war Japan colonized Kuantungshu the southern part of the Liaotung Peninsula, In 1910 Japan annexed Korea.
In these time the Japanese Foreign Ministry hired foreign lawyers for the purposes of manipulating international law to acquire territory. For example two American Lawers (CW Laegendre and Gustave Emile Boassoade) were employed for this reason. The Japanese even consulted lawyers to see if the comments of Li Hung Chang “Taiwan is outside enlightenment” could be interpreted as a basis for taking over Taiwan as “terra nullius”
Japans illegal claim to Dokdo is a part of Japanese Expansionism and falls under the classification of “lands taken by violence and greed”. The acquisition of Dokdo was for military purposes and was not part of a natural, peaceful process.
comment number 31 by: ponta
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:20 am
Japan was expansionist. I don’t think the readers need a proof for it.
What the readers need to know is whether Dokdo belonged to Korea when Japan was expanding. You have proved none.
Japan can not expand your territory by announcing the inclusion of what belonged to Japan.
In August of 1896 more Japanese were expelled from Ulleungdo after the Koreans signed a lumbering agreeement with Russia.In 1898 the administer of Ulleungdo went to Matsue in Japan to start a lawsuit against illegal lumbering by Japanese on Ulleungdo
So after all,illegal Japanese were expelled.
As of 2005, there were 43,151 Korean illegal residents in Japan.link
(BTW Korea ranks the top of the list.)They would be expelled based on the law.
It does not follow Korea is expansionist.
It does not follow Korea’s purpose is to annex Japan.
Besides, the situation was relatively peaceful according to Pacifist’s document.
In addition, when we talk about “peaceful” acquisition in terms of international law, it means it means without contest, without protest.
Moreover, you are talking about the situation of Ulleungdo, but we are talking about Dokdo.
Japans illegal claim to Dokdo is a part of Japanese Expansionism and falls under the classification of “lands taken by violence and greed”. The acquisition of Dokdo was for military purposes and was not part of a natural, peaceful process.
And the lands taken by violence and greed were returned to Korea:SF treaty and other USA document make it clear that territories which she has taken by violence and greed” in no way applies to Takeshima, which is an integral part of Japan’s sovereign territory.
It is Korea’s turn to return Dokdo, which she has taken by violence and greed.
comment number 32 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 am
There was no violence associated with the Japanese incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). In fact, the Koreans did not even know they had done it until a year later. And when the Koreans did find out about it, they did not protest it.
Even the United States recognized that the islets legally belonged to Japan, as was stated in the August 9, 1951 Dean Rusk letter. Also, in the 1952 treaty, the islets were not included among the land and islands that Japan was supposed to surrender. By the way, does Mark Lovmo’s site link to the Dean Rusk letter?
No, it was the Koreans in the 1950s who were motivated by greed and used violence to illegally claim and occupy Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). The fact that Korea refuses to take the issue to the International Court of Justice is strong testament to the claim that even Korea knows her occupation was illegal.
comment number 33 by: empraptor
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Yeah, Toadface. Get it right. If some ultra-nationalist Korean wanted to protest about something in 1906, they’d have started by whining about Japanese armies inside Korea.
comment number 34 by: pacifist
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
You always distort the fact and tends to connect every single issue of war crimes to Takeshima/Dokdo, as if you were completely brainwashed by Korean government’s strong propaganda. But it is not true, the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo was not related to the war with Russia, although it was used for the war as well as other Japanese islands.
The incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane prefecture was done peacefully. Nobody claimed it and nobody was injured or killed.
But reversely, Korea robbed Takeshima/Dokdo brutally and illegally and even killed some Japanese fishermen. toadface, don’t you think that they are expansionists?
comment number 35 by: ponta
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:29 pm
If some ultra-nationalist Korean wanted to protest about something in 1906, they’d have started by whining about Japanese armies inside Korea.
Korean Ultra-nationalists at the time was more brave than you think.
They were resiting to death against Japan;though,the largest political pary,Iljinhoe,was supporting Japan.
What makes you think that they would have known the existence of Dokdo?.There is no evidence that they knew the existence of Dokdo.
The myth of Dokdo began after WWⅡ.
comment number 36 by: toadface
August 24th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Ponta, I nor the Korean have to prove anything to you. The Koreans have the island remember?
What you have to prove is that the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion (Japans only documented claim) was a legitimate land acquisition. The reason that Japan can’t muster international support on her claim is that the general public outside Japan (unlike you) understands all to well Japanese expansionism during this time.
I say there is enough evidence Japan’s annexing was an illegal land grab like most of the territories she “acquired” at this time. Part of the big Japanese lie is the feeble attempt by the Foreign Ministry to try to separate Japanese expansionism militarism from the annexing of Dokdo.
The Japanese government craftily stole Dokdo Island without making an official external announcement. This is totally opposite to the procedure the Japanese own government used in past land claims when the Japanese took the Bonin Islands Why?
The fact Japan says an external announcement is not a requisite for prior occupation is tantamount to admitting the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of February 22 1905 was not an external announcement by international law.
The Japanese government claims that no external announcements needs to made when acquiring territory but this is highly debatable.
The 1885 Berlin Convention established regulations to be followed upon when colonial powers were to take over territories in Africa and these precedents were used in land acquisitions across the globe. Article 34 requires an open and public announcement to other powers.
The Japanese claim no external announcements is needed to acquire lands and then cite:
1. The Palmas Islands Case.
2. The Clipperton Islands Case.
In the Palmas Islands Case judge Huber did not rule external announcement was not necessary. He ruled in this case external announcement did not apply to this region.
In the Clipperton Islands case the judge ruled that notification was not necessary because France occupied the territory prior to the 1885 Act of Berlin thus was not applicable.
In short, the Japanese claim that external notification is not necessary is simply not true just because they say so. It is an oversimplification based on irrelevant precedents.
Gerry, I’ve shown you links to prove that Korea believed Dokdo was part of Ulleungdo county when Japan announced it to them. Korea’s internal disagreement is as far as they could have done at the time considering the Foreign Ministry was dismantled as a result of the Coerced Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. If you can find a law that states what degree an occupied country must dispute an illegal land claim let me know. At the time the Japanese stole Dokdo Korea had bigger problems that a couple of rocks 92 clicks from Ulleungdo.
In addition, I’m growing sick and tires of references toward US Forces and the allies. There are only a couple of useful facts from these documents that matter.
1. Japan lost (the illegal) effective control of Dokdo.
2. No further directives were issued on the status of Dokdo.
The allies (the same “allies” that screwed Korea decades earlier) are not god. It’s clear at the time after the war America and the allies were carving up Asia like a turkey while postering for the cold war.
Korea was right to take back what was hers before America burned again. America still maintains a neutral stance on the Dokdo issue to this day, so give it up.
- 最終更新:2009-08-22 10:27:09