I found this article rather interesting. It explains about the argument between Japan and South Korea over Japan's new history textbook. It also states that Japan is trying to "whitewash" all the atrocities that they pulled off during WWII. To be honest, that kind of pisses me off to a certain extent. I mean I'm sure any country that was in WWII has tried to do that with their history books, but at least the textbooks I've read in all my history courses about the US with internment camps, and various other acts are well pointed out and critized. (Except a few, but those were written by nationalistic type of historians so those are pretty much taken for a grain of salt in my field of study.) As for "whitewashing" the truth, that's just wrong in my opinion. How do you guys feel on this issue about the new textbooks?
Those history text books should be more detailed about the bad things Japan did in ww2 in my opinion. That article doesn't exactly say what ww2 information should be made clearer though.
Influenced by the minister, the committee members went further to replace the controversial phrase from the Fusosha civics textbook describing Dokdo as a disputed region with the more distorted claim by calling the islets Japanese territory.
It is about disputed land, therefore it's natural that Korean textbook states that the islets belong to Korea while Japanese textbooks say it's Japanese land. That's the way it is, Japan never complains about that.
Calling it distortion would make people wonder if Korean definition of the word "distortion" might actually be "things they do not want to hear/face."
Korea might or might not have owned the islets historically, but it does not have things to do with the current dispute. The fact is, that there is no Liancourt Rocks word in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (a) sentence.
Article 2 (a)
Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Whoever argues that South Korea did not sign the treaty because they had not been former allies might see the Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965 which has a clause
Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the Resolution 195 (Ⅲ) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1948;
Every country hopes its education would support its government,so is Japan.
But I just think it's going a little far from,or in some points even opposite to truth.
I suggest people,esp.young people in Japan read some history books written by foreigners,to see how Japan appears in the world.They can also read those written by Chinese or Koreans,but I think it's better if they choose westerners'.Cause compared to the 2 of these countries,western countries maybe a little more justice;cause every country's history books,doing the same stuff to make their own history better.
And commucate with Koreans or Chinese more.Keep a clear head.
Korea might or might not have owned the islets historically, but it does not have things to do with the current dispute. The fact is, that there is no Liancourt Rocks word in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (a) sentence.
Some people might think like
"Actually the treaty does not mention Dokdo belongs to Korea, however it does not mentioned it belongs to Japan.So this treaty cannot be a proof of the territory."
or
"Dokdo cannot be devided its mainisland "Ullungdo" refering to Dagelet. Dagelet belongs to Korea so Dokdo automatically belongs to Korea as well."
And this is the answer for it.
This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.
Land rights have always been points of contention that have led to greater conflicts. i could care less who owns those tiny islands. I'm just amazed at the nationalistic comments in Japan (most prominently by the governor of Tokyo Ishihara) that Japan's invasion of other Asian countries was to protect Asia from Western colonialism. Additionally, i just love it how the nationalistic Japanese call the Nanjing Massacre as an "incident" often by trying to disclaim its actual occurence by citing inaccuracies in the total number of dead. To those people, I'd like to say: even if ONE Chinese person was killed by the Japanese military (in Nanjing), it's wrong because the Japanese army had no right to be in China in the first place!
That Japan has never considered the islets as belonging to Korea before 1906 cannot deny the existence of the records that place the ownership of the islets under Korean jurisdiction.
Kinda hard to say, considering that Japanese armies systematically destroyed Korean historical texts, burned many of the temples, pillaged the national treasures. Even if the maps were brought forth, I seriously doubt that you wonder consider them authentic, based on your stance regarding the legitimacy of comfort women.
SCAP Documents' Reference to History Are Highly Inaccurate
because those reponsible for the SCAP documents obviously lacked historically informed advisors. The following statements are brought into question; more details to follow.
urecco said:
Please let me add more information...サービス終了のお知らせ
it is a record of conversation about the treaty.
SCAP doc. quote no. 1: The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald) to the Secretary of State said:
Article 6: Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). Japan`s claim to these islands is old and appears valid.Security Considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon.(omit)
Obviously before old was older, and before that was oldest.
512 CE, Isabu of Silla conquors the state of U-san ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR. That is the oldest.
SCAP doc. quote no. 2: Undated Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs said:
Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government Arising Out of the Statement of Principles Regarding Japanese Treaty Prepared by the United States Government
(omit) It is thought that the island of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Rishiri, Tsushima,Takeshima , the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan. (omit)
Long recognized by whom ? Self-recognition hardly suffices as international recognition.
SCAP doc. quote no. 3: Memorandum of Conversation said:
This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.
Some maps dating from 1531 on which the two present day islands of Ul-lung-do ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ and Tok-do ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ are denoted Usan-do ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡ and Ul-lung-do ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡.
ﾂ新ﾃｺﾂ昶?愬椎｡ﾂ?窶覗窶冢ﾂ焦ｸﾃｦT book 1, Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea, 1531
窶敖ｪ窶慊ｹﾃ｣`ﾅ｡ﾂ､ Map of the Eight Circuits
ﾂ新ﾃｺﾂ昶?愬椎｡ﾂ?窶覗窶冢ﾂ焦ｸﾃｦT book 44, Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea, 1531
窶愬津ｦTﾅ｡ﾂ､ ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｹ窶慊ｹ Map of the Circuit of Kangwon
Some maps dating from 1531 on which the two present day islands of Ul-lung-do ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ and Tok-do ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ are denoted Usan-do ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡ and Ul-lung-do ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡.
During the conference about SF treaty, Korean maybe officer mentioned the same thing.
However U.S. officer concluded;
This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.
Then U.S. omitted Dokdo from the islands which were renounced by Japan.
In fact,SF treaty never mention the islets belong to Korea.
How can it automatically belong to Korea?
Uh...Korea was not part of the SF Treaty. And why do you treat what the U.S. says treated as the Biblical truth? Would the U.S. know any better of Korean history than say, Koreans?!! Lexico provided the maps, and yet you still refute them. Amazing.
Well, that is the gist of the dispute, in a way that Koreans do have a claim on the islet on the basis of more than just occupying the island in the first place. If accuracy of the map is being questioned, then it is really asking too much of a historical data to prove beyond what is already a literal observation and a well implied one. Some French maps that denoted the islet as being part of Korean control and even the US navy survey of the area do support the Korean claim. I'm glad that there are people who are more knowledgeable about this matter than me, just hoping that it does not get out of control
1. My personal opinion is irrelevant; I only relay facts from documents for anyone to examine. One expert, among many others, is Prof. Hori, Kazuo 窶度ﾋ彗ﾂ青ｶ, Kyoto University, Department of Economics. Please refer to Hori, Kazuo, Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima Into Its Territory in 1905. Korea Observer 28: pp. 477-525 Autumn 1997.
There are two such maps both called 대한여지도 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?覗窶冢ﾅ｡ﾂ､, cartographed circa 1898. One is archived at Seoul National University, ﾅ｡ﾃｵﾂ湘最?t Library, and the other on display at Sungshin Women's University Museum ﾂ青ｽﾂ信ﾂ鞘?版ｽq窶佚･窶ｺ{ﾂ校 窶敘ｽ窶｢ﾂｨﾅ?ﾃ? Unfortunately I cannot find a link with images big enough to identify Usando ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡, Song, Byong Ki states that the map was cartographed by the Ministry of Education of the Choson Government 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?凖ｩﾅ｡ﾂ?窶ｺ{窶｢窶 in 1898, saying, "On this highly refined map, there is one small island to the east of Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ called Usando ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡...because the island at that was called Usando ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡ in Seoul ﾅ?ﾂｿﾂ湘ｩ.")
Seoul National Univerity Library, ﾅ｡ﾃｵﾂ湘最?t Library, 대한여지도 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?覗窶冢ﾅ｡ﾂ､, 1898
Sungshin Women's Univ. Museum ﾂ青ｽﾂ信ﾂ鞘?版ｽq窶佚･窶ｺ{ﾂ校 窶敘ｽ窶｢ﾂｨﾅ?ﾃ? 대한여지도 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?覗窶冢ﾅ｡ﾂ､, 1898
I am also aware of the existence of modern maps cartographed by the British, the French, US Americans, Russians, Germans, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and even the Japanese themselves identifying Tokdo, Dokdo, Boussole, Liancourt Rocks, Hornet Rocks, Manalai and Olivutsn Rocks, Takeshima as Corean, Coreene, Chosen, Tiosionj, or Korean before and after 1905. Identifying such sources with consistency and with cimprehensiveness would deserve a separate thread or subforum on its own due to the huge number of such cartographic works, already numbering in the hundreds just in Korea & Japan each.
To Koreans the island was also known as as "Kajido" 窶ｰﾃでｽx窶懌?｡ (Sealion island), "Sambongdo" ﾅｽO窶｢ﾃｴ窶懌?｡(Three-Rock Island) and "Sokdo" ﾂ静寂?懌?｡. Since at least 1881, the island has been called Dokdo by Koreans, meaning "Lonely Island" or "Rock Island", depending on the Sino-Korean character that one uses for the word, "Dok" ﾃ?ﾃ敷독. Two indigenous names used by Ullung Is. residents for the /toksom/ or /tolsom/ meaning "rocky island."
2. Since Silla's rule over the State of Usan ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽRﾅ｡ﾂ? as a tributary state with all jurisdiction over said island, Koryo ﾂ坂?壺?氾ｭ dynasty continued its control over the territory, moving in people and out according to circumstances, as any government should to protect its people, land, natural resources, and sovereignty.
3-A. The earliest Choson 窶卍ｩ窶朗 dynastic record of the island is found in the geographical section of the annals, The Veritable Records of King Sejong the Great ﾂ青｢ﾂ宗ﾅ｡ﾃ｡ﾅ停?ｺ窶佚･窶ｰﾂ､窶ｺ窶ｰ錄, compiled during 1432-1454, Circuit of Kangwon ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｹ窶慊ｹ, District of Uljin 窶ｰU窶卍ｿﾃ｣p, book 153, leaf 11 r. lines 3-8.
3-C. Prof. Hori Kazuo states, as is obvious from a straightforward reading of the text itself,
"The first apprearance of Takeshima Is.=Tokdo Is. in Choson 窶卍ｩ窶朗 literature is earlier than that in Japanese literature by at least 213 years. According to (above mentioned) The Veritable Records of King Sejong the Great ﾂ青｢ﾂ宗ﾅ｡ﾃ｡ﾅ停?ｺ窶佚･窶ｰﾂ､窶ｺ窶ｰ錄, apart from Ullungdo Is. ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ already known from Silla ﾂ新窶披?ｦ times, Takeshima Is.=Tokdo Is. is depicted as an independent island which is visible from the other on a clear day. In Korea this Usando Is. ﾋ慊ｰﾅｽR窶懌?｡ is also known as Tokdo Is. ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡."
4-A. The earliest Japanese non-cartographic record of the islands that are believed to be identical to those mentioned in Korean sources, in contrast to Korean records that clearly state Korea's soverignty over both islands of Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ (Dagelet Is.) and Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ (Liancourt Rocks), only begins in 1667 with no claim to soverignty over the two islands at all. This came more than 200 years after the Choson 窶卍ｩ窶朗 dynastic record, with Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu shichyou gokki) ﾃｨﾂｪﾂ州ﾅｽ窶ｹﾃ｣ﾃ｣ﾂ坂?｡窶ｹL by Saitou Toyohito ﾂ静??慊｡窶鏑ﾂ静･, a hanshi 窶敕暁ｽm of Izumo ﾂ出窶ｰ_ (east of today's Shimane ken 窶懌?｡ﾂ債ｪﾃ｣p), book 1;
4-C. For anyone who might not be famiiar with the Classical Chinese grammar & textual anaysis, let me provide a straigh-forward translation of the following passage.
"(from these places ﾂ渉ｼ窶慷 and 窶處窶慷? the viewing of Koryo ﾂ坂?壺?氾ｭ(meaning 窶卍ｩ窶朗) can be compared to the viewing of Inshu 窶ｰBﾂ州 Province from Unshu 窶ｰ_ﾂ州 Province. (Due to these proximities found in each country's landscapes) it therefore follows that as for the north-west region of Nippon 窶愿ｺ窶怒, one considers this Province ﾂ最ｸﾂ州 as the (north-western) limit."
4-D. What could be 'this Province' ﾂ最ｸﾂ州 ? ﾂ渉ｼ窶慷 and 窶處窶慷 were not provinces ﾂ州 at any point in Korean history, so . Neither did Nippon 窶愿ｺ窶怒 ever claimed them to be provinces ﾂ州 during its brief seizure of Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ in 1905. This province ﾂ最ｸﾂ州, the name of which was abbreviated in this terse passage of Classical Chinese could have been none other than the Province the book is describing; Oki 窶ｰBﾂ州 Province itself. Hence from the very beginning of Japan's description of the two islands, any concept of Japanese soverignty over the two islands of Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ (Dagelet Is.) and Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ (Liancourt Rocks) is entirely absent. They were positively recognized as outside Japanese territory, and by all accounts belonging to Koryo ﾂ坂?壺?氾ｭ-Choson 窶卍ｩ窶朗.
note: Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka's 窶彡窶吮??窶溺窶ｹM reading of ﾂ最ｸﾂ州 as 'ﾂ渉ｼ窶慷 and 窶處窶慷? is considered highly irregular in terms of Classical Chinese text interpretation; if that were the case, Saitou Toyohito ﾂ静??慊｡窶鏑ﾂ静･ would have written this island (these islands) ﾂ最ｸ窶慷?/B] instead of this province ﾂ最ｸﾂ州. The fact mains solid that his actual writing does not have ﾂ最ｸ窶慷? but has ﾂ最ｸﾂ州, this province, that is Oki 窶ｰBﾂ州 Province. Another point is that while an island such as Okishima Is. ﾃｨﾂｪﾅ?ﾃｲ窶慷 is also the seat of a provincial government ﾃｨﾂｪﾂ州, it may well be referred to as a province ﾂ州, but an island 窶慷? simply by being an island but not a seat of a provincial governmental office, may not be called a ﾂ州, a province.
5-A. Going back to your 1905 incident, let me find a year close to the year of the seizure of Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ by Japan in Nov. 1905, The Imperial Editct No. 41, Article 2, dated Oct. 25, 1900, issued by Chosun Dynasty Emperor Kojong 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?凖ｩﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾂ坂?堋宗ﾂ皇窶凖ｩ窶卍ｺ窶氾溪?佚ｦﾅｽlﾂ十ﾋ?ｪﾃ･j窶佚ｦ窶愿ｱﾅｾﾅ? will make the point clear that the two islands were clearly under Korean rule at the time of its seizure by Japan in Feb. 1905. See Chosun Dynasty's Re-development of Ullungdo and Tokdo and Imperial Ordinance No.41
5-B. Korean Soereignty over ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ and ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ Evidenced in Imperial Ordinance, October 25, 1900 published in Official Gazette No. 1716 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?凖ｩﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ?ﾂｯ窶｢ﾃｱ窶佚ｦﾂ静ｧﾅｽﾂｵ窶｢Sﾂ十ﾋ彁ﾃ･j, October 27, 1900
Original document #1:
Original document #2:
trascribed into Korean with Chinese in brackets:
Official Gazette No. 1716:
窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?凖ｩﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津ｵ窶｢ﾂ税ｽl窶扼(1900) ﾂ坂?堋宗ﾂ皇窶凖ｩ窶卍ｺ窶氾溪?佚ｦﾅｽlﾂ十ﾋ?ｪﾃ･j(Seoul National Univ.ﾅ｡ﾃｵﾂ湘最?tﾂ焦?ﾃ･U)
窶卍ｺ窶氾溪?佚ｦﾅｽlﾂ十ﾋ?ｪﾃ･j
Imperial Ordinance No. 41
.............ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡를ﾅｸT窶懌?｡로窶ｰﾃｼﾃ｢i하고窶懌?｡ﾅ?ﾃ?#51012;ﾅ担ﾅｽﾃｧ로窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｨ한ﾅ陳
.............Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect
窶佚ｦﾋ?ｪﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡를ﾅｸT窶懌?｡로窶ｰﾃｼﾃ｢i하고 ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｴ窶慊ｹ에 窶｢ﾂ坂?ｺﾂ｢하고窶懌?｡
.............ﾅ?ﾃ?#51012;ﾅ担ﾅｽﾃｧ로窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｨ하야ﾅ?ﾂｯﾂ青ｧ窶吮??에 窶｢ﾃ停?愿ｼ하고ﾅ担窶懌┐은ﾅ津懌?懌┐으로
.............할ﾅｽ窶
Article 1..Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; had become attached to Kangwon Circuit, Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect; this shall be reflected it in the Institution of Offices; Prefectural status shall be assigned to level 5.
窶佚ｦ窶愿ｱﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾅ担ﾅ適ﾋ?岩?冰눈窶佚､窶ｰﾃ?窶慊ｴ으로窶凖ｨ하고邃｢ﾂｽﾋ?ｦ은ﾅｸT窶氾銀?牢窶懌?｡와
.............窶處窶懌?｡ﾂ静寂?懌?｡를ﾅ?ﾃ??ﾂ?#54624;ﾅｽ窶
Ariticle 2..Seat of Prefectural Office shall be in Taeha-dong, as for jurisdiction Prefect shall govern the whole of Ullung Is., Chuk Is., and Sok Is.
窶佚ｦﾅｽOﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾅ?Jﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津懌?｢Sﾅｽl窶扼窶敖ｪﾅ椎ｽﾅ?ﾂｯ窶｢ﾃｱ窶吮??ﾅ?ﾂｯﾅ適ﾅｽ窶督坂ぎ窶披??#20839;ﾅｸT
.............窶氾銀?懌?｡ﾋ?闇?Oﾂ十窶ｹﾃ｣ﾅｽﾅ｡를ﾂ催ｻ窶邸하고ﾅ?Jﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津懌?｢Sﾅ津懌?扼窶卍ｺ窶氾溪?佚ｦﾅｽOﾂ十ﾋ彁
.............ﾃ･j窶佚ｦﾅ津愬ｾﾅ?ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｴ窶慊ｹ窶愿ｱﾂ十六ﾅ担의六ﾅｽﾅ｡는ﾅｽﾂｵﾅｽﾅ｡로窶ｰﾃｼﾂ青ｳ하고ﾋ??窶ｺﾂｵﾅ担窶ｰﾂｺ
.............에ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ﾅｽOﾅｽﾅ｡를窶弸窶愿ｼ할ﾅｽ窶
Article 3..In the Official Gazette of the 504th year since the beginning of the State, Month of 8, in references to Prefectural Offices, 19 characters starting from ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡ shall be legislated; in the Official Gazette of the 505th year since the beginning of the State, in reference to Imperial Ordinance No. 36, Article 5, the 六ﾅｽﾅ｡ in ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｴ窶慊ｹ窶愿ｱﾂ十六ﾅ担 shalled be amended to ﾅｽﾂｵﾅｽﾅ｡; under Prefecture of Anhyob ﾋ??窶ｺﾂｵﾅ担 shall be added the three characters of ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡.
窶佚ｦﾅｽlﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾃ｣S窶敕ｯ는ﾅ津懌?懌┐ﾅ担으로窶督?#37706;하되ﾅ陳ｻ窶ｹﾃ?ﾅ?ﾃ?#51064;즉ﾅｽgﾅ?z이
.............窶督｢窶敕ｵ하고ﾂ焦ｽﾅｽ窶凪?伉絶?蕨하기로ﾃｦ~窶懌?｡ﾂ敖ｾ稅窶吮??인ﾅ津?静ｦ窶督
.............鍊할ﾅｽ窶
窶佚ｦﾅ津愬ｾﾅ?.....窶督｢ﾃ｡ﾂｶ한ﾂ鞘?敘ｾﾅ?는窶怒窶懌?｡ﾅ?J窶佚ｱ을ﾃｧﾂｬ하야ﾅｽﾅｸ窶佚ｦ窶督
.............鍊할ﾅｽ窶
窶佚ｦ六ﾅｾﾅ?.....窶怒窶氾?#51008;窶敕絶?｢z窶愿ｺ로부터ﾅｽ{ﾂ行할ﾅｽ窶
.....ﾅ津ｵ窶｢ﾂ税ｽl窶扼ﾂ十ﾅ椎ｽ窶愿ｱﾂ十ﾅ津懌?愿ｺ窶｢ﾃｲ
(ﾋ?ｪﾂ行窶ｹﾃｳ窶披??
(ﾂ債ｶ窶杯ﾅｽﾂｵﾂ行ﾅ?ﾂｯﾋ?ｳﾂ''窶卍ｺ窶督ｽ窶抃窶ｺﾂ?
............窶卍ｺ.....窶ｹcﾂ青ｭ窶｢{窶ｹcﾂ青ｭ臨ﾅｽﾅｾﾂ渉絶?板敕ｦﾃ督青ｭ內窶｢窶昶?佚･ﾂ臣李ﾅ?ﾂ｣窶ｰﾃЪ/SIZE]
5-C. "Japan has nothing to do with 'Ullungdo and Dokdo.'" Japanese Dajokan 窶佚猟青ｭﾅ?ﾂｯ, the Council of State, 1877,
In Oct. 16, 1876, Shimane ken 窶懌?｡ﾂ債ｪﾃ｣p asks Ministry of Home Affairs whether Takeshima 窶處窶懌?｡ and Matsushima ﾂ渉ｼ窶懌?｡ should be included in the map & land registry of Shimane ken. The Ministry concluded, "Takeshima 窶處窶懌?｡ and Matsushima ﾂ渉ｼ窶懌?｡ are Choson territory, and are not related to Nippon." The Ministry also files a request a formal decision to the Council of State, Mar. 17, 1877. Below is the formal decision from the Council of State.
In response to the compilation of the cadastre for Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan as per Home Office Inquiry.
Knowing that our country has nothing to do with them as the result of the communication between our old government and that country involved after the entry into the island by the Koreans in the fifth year of the Genroku, and having examined the view stated in the inquiry, the following draft instruction has been made for deliberation and sanction.
Draft Instruction
In reference to Takeshima and another island, it is to be understood that our country has nothing to do with them."
Even 23 years before the Choson Ordinance, Japan denies its connection to the two islands.
urecco said:
During the conference about SF treaty, Korean maybe officer mentioned the same thing. However U.S. officer concluded;
Then U.S. omitted Dokdo from the islands which were renounced by Japan.
In fact, SF treaty never mention the islets belong to Korea.
How can it automatically belong to Korea?
6-A. A literal reading of the following documents should suffice to nullify your SCAP/FRUS quotations. The reason they never took effect, was that the historical accuracy of those claims you quote were not such that could supercede what had been decided, announced, and enforced by the following documents. Although a bit long, I shall reproduce full texts whenever possible to prevent, and hopefully minimize circular debate and repetition.
6-B. Cairo Declaration, 1943: US, China, UK
"The World and Japan" Database Project
Database of Postwar Japanese Politics and International Relations
Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo
[Title] The Cairo Declaration
[Place] North Africa
[Date] November 27, 1943
[Source] Department of State [USA], The Department of State Bulletin, No.232,p.393. Japan's Foreign Relations-Basic Documents Vol.1, pp.55-56.
President Roosevelt, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and Prime Minister Churchill, together with their respective military and diplomatic advisers, have completed a conference in North Africa.
The following general statement was issued:
(paragraph 1)"The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations against Japan. The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, Iand, and air. This pressure is already rising.
(paragraph 2)"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China(1). Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed(2). The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.
(paragraph 3)"With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan."
6-C. Note that the time range to be governed by the stripping of all territories "seized, occupied, stolen, or taken" by Japan is defined since 1914 in clause (1), there is no such limit in clause (2). Hence the seizure of Tokdo in 1905 by Shimane ken, and by extension by Japan, falls under clause (2) of Cairo Declaration.
6-D. Also noteworthy is the immutable fact that Japan was required to return all the following territories "seized, occupied, stolen, or taken" from its neighboring countires although the act of "seizing, occupying, stealing, or taking" occurred prior to 1914, or 1910.
(1) 1895.04: Taiwan & Penghudao ﾃ?Oﾅ津寂?懌?｡ all returned to China
(2) 1905.02: Tokdo returned to Korea
(3) 1905.11: Liaodong Peninsula returned to China
(4) 1905.11: Sakhalin Is. returned to Russia
(5) 1910.08.22: Korea is returned to Korea
None of these decisions, announcements, and enforcements has been revoked to date, which only proves the loose nature of the said "SCAP/FRUS documents" frequently avoiding responsibility by such apologetic disclaimers as requoted below in 6-E.
6-E. I have already disproved all the points made by the three SCAP/FRUS quotations in this thread, post #5, SCAP Recognizes Takeshima as part of Japan linked to a page supplied by a Tanaka Kunitaka 窶堋ｽ窶堙遺?堋ｩ窶堋ｭ窶堙俄?堋ｽ窶堋ｩ 窶彡窶吮??窶溺窶ｹM. Full page in Japanese & Korean below. Sorry, Mr.Tanaka does not offer an English page; however, Mark S. Lovmo provides a balancing English page with useful links below.
Therefore I shall not repeat my demonstration, but only comment on the language aspect of the officers' statements. Compare the weak statements below with the consistent use of 'will,' 'shall,' 'resolve,' and 'determined' in the Cairo Declaration. Obviously the three SCAP/FRUS quotations are not on the same plane as those statements that were announced & enforced, not classified and stored in an archive for decades without any practical force. Are not such instances of speech full of wind called double speak, which refers to the behavior of saying one thing but not really wanting to say it for some reason ? Forgive my dry humor; I'm exhausted, but I can go on if you want. ;-)
(SCAP/FRUS quotation #1: The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Wiiliam J. Sebald) to the Secretary of State, Tokyo, November 14, 1949) "is old and appears valid..."
I have already elaborated as to the inaccurate and misleading nature of the Japanese rule over the island being old, as 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?凖ｩﾅ｡ﾂ?'s rule over the island is older than Japan's, Choson's rule over the island is even older, Koryo's rule over the island is even more so, with Shilla's rule over the island since 512 CE being the oldest. (see post #11, also this post #16, paragraphs 1-5) Therefore whatever claim to antiquity should come from Korea, not from Japan.
And what kind of statement is "appears valid ?" Even taking into consideration his obvious ingnorance in both Korean sources & Japanese sources, William J. Sebald's statement betrays his uncertainty and desire to avoid ultimate responsibility that might arise from his unsupported statement. Was Secretary of State expecting a report from Wiiliam J. Sebald for which Sebald was not prepared to speak with much confidence or substance ? That's an obvious point, but I couldn't rely on common sense without making an explicit statement of this obvious fact.
(SCAP/FRUS quotation #2: Undated Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, Washington) "it is thought that .... would be...."
Robert A. Fearey also sounds unsure of his statement; why put a personal disclaimer by saying "I think" instead of making a straight statement ? Well he went further to put the statement in the passive form "It is thought that..." so that the agent of the action of airing his opinion, which is himself, can be left unstated. This is a sure sign of wanting to avoid responsibility.
Also why say "would" when there is the coverb of certainty "will/shall" ? That the English language was being used in such selective and cautious manner obliges me with good reason to further doubt the seriousness of said statement.
(SCAP/FRUS quotation #3: Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Emmons), Washington, July 19, 1951) "according to our information..."
Again a disclaimer is found, meaning Officer Emmons had not grasped all relevant & necessary information to enable him to make any valid statement. No further comment on these obscure statements for now.
(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.
7-B. "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."
7-C. It was so determined following the unconditional surrender of Japan, in the order SCAPIN No. 677, to "exclude from the definition of Japan's territories Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡, Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ and Chejudo ﾃ?Zﾂ洲窶懌?｡." The promises stated in the preceding two declarations of Cairo & Postdam were faithfully carried out to the letter supplemented by the details stipulated in SCAPIN No. 677, January 29, 1946.
8-A. Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions Nos. 677 January 29, 1946, & 1033, June 22, 1946
SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo
Following the surrender of Japan, SCAP GHQ was set up in Tokyo, which began to implement the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. As the initial step, a Memorandum for Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas form Japan was issued as SCAPIN No.677.
This directive limited Japan's territory to the four main islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, and Shigoku, and about 1,000 smaller islands. Excluded from the definition in Clause 5 of Japan's territories were Ullungdo, Tokdo and Chejudo.
Clause 5 of the instruction provides that "the definition of the Japan contained in the directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from the Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein." Therefore, without another specific instruction by SCAP this definition could not be changed and would continue to be binding.
In accordance with this instruction, SCAP transferred the jurisdiction over Tokdo to the U.S. Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946. When the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on August 15, 1948, all the territories of Korea, including Tokdo, automatically reverted to the Korean government.
On June 22, 1946 SCAPIN No. 1033 was issued in which Clause 5 set up the fishing and whaling areas permitted for Japanese fishermen and prohibited Japanese ships and crews from entering the 12-nautical mile seas off the Liancourt Rocks at 37ﾂ≫?ｹ15" N. latitude and 131ﾂ≫?ｹ53"E. longitude and approaching the island.
8-B.SCAPIN 677, original doc. page 1/2............SCAPIN 677, original doc. page 2/2
.....
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers said:
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS
(500)
AG 091(29 JanUARY 46) GS (29 January 1946)
(SCAPIN - 677)
MEMORANDUM FOR: IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
THROUGH : Central Liaison office, Tokyo
SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of
: Certain Outlying Areas from Japan.
1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease
exercising or attempting to exercise, governmental or adminis-
trative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any
government officials and employees or any other persons within
such areas.
2. Except as authorized by this Headquarters, the Imperial
Japanese Government will not communicate with government officials
and employees or with any other persons outside of Japan for any
purposes other than the routine operation of authorized shipping,
communications and weather services.
3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to
include the four main islands of Japan(Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu
and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands,
including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands
north of 30ﾂ≫?ｹ North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks( Take Is-
land) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu
(Nansei) Islands south of 30ﾂ≫?ｹ North Latitude(including Kuchino-
shima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano
(Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Is-
lands including the Daito(Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group,
and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges
(Nakano-tori) Islands, and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands,
the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-
yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.
4. Further areas specifically excluded from the governmental
and administrative jurisdiction of the Imperial Japanese Govern-
ment are the following: (a) all Pacific Islands seized or occu-
pied under mandate or otherwise by Japan since the beginning of
the World War in 1914, (b) Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, (c) Korea, and (d) Karafuto.
5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive
shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and
orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified
therein.
6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as
an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate
determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8
of the Potsdam Declaration.
7. The Imperial Japanese Government will prepare and
submit to this Headquarters a report of all governmental
agencies in Japan the functions of which pertain to areas
outside of Japan as defined in this directive. Such report
will include a statement of the functions, organization and
personnel of each of the agencies concerned.
8. All records of the agencies referred to in para-
graph 7 above will be preserved and kept available for in-
spection by this Headquarters.
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS
APO 500
22 June 1946
AG 800.217 (22 June 46) NR
(SCAPIN 1033)
MEMORANDUM FOR IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
THROUGH : Central Liaison Office, Tokyo.
SUBJECT : Area Authorized for Japanese Fishing and Whaling.
References : (a) FLTLOSCAP Serial No. 80 of 27 September 1945.
(b) SCAJAP Serial No.42 of 13 October 1945.
(c) SCAJAP Serial No.587 of 3 November 1945.
1. The provisions of references (a) and (b), and paragraphs 1 and 3 of reference (c) in so far as they relate to authorization of Japanese fishing areas, are rescinded.
2. Effective this date and until further notice Japanese fishing whaling and similar operations are authorized within the area bounded as follows : From a point midway between Nosappu Misaki and Kaigara Jima at approximately 43ﾂ≫?ｹ23ﾂ?誰orth Latitude, 145ﾂ≫?ｹ51ﾂ?脱ast Longitude ; to 43ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude, 146ﾂ≫?ｹ30ﾂ?脱ast Longitude : thence to 45ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude, 165ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude : thence south along 165th Meridian to 24ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude ; west along the 24th Parallel to 123ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude ; thence north to 26ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude, 123ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude ; thence to 32ﾂ≫?ｹ30ﾂ?誰orth Latitude, 125ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude ; thence to 33ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude, 127ﾂ≫?ｹ40ﾂ? East Latitude ; thence to 40ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude, 135ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude ; to 45ﾂ≫?ｹ30ﾂ? North Latitude, 145ﾂ≫?ｹEast Longitude rounding Soya Misaki at a distance of three (3) miles from shore ; south along 145th Meridian to a point three (3) miles off the coast of Hokkaido ; thence along a line three (3) miles off the coast of Hokkaido rounding Shiretoko Saki and passing through Nemuro Kaikyo to the starting point midway between Nosappu Misaki and Kaigara Jima.
3. Authorization in paragraph 2 above is subject to the following provisions ;
(a) Japanese vessels will not approach closer than twelve (12) miles to any island within the authorized area which lies south of 30ﾂ≫?ｹNorth Latitude with the exception of Sofu Gan. Personnel from such vessels will not land on islands lying south of 30ﾂ≫?ｹ North Latitude, except Sofu Gan. nor have contact with any inhabitants thereof.
(b) Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approached closer than twelve (12) miles to Takeshima (37ﾂ≫?ｹ15ﾂ? North Latitude, 131ﾂ≫?ｹ53ﾂ? East Longitude) nor have any contact with said island.
4. The present authorization does not established a precedent for any further extension of authorized fishing areas.
5. The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area.
FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER
(SGN'ed by)
JOHN B. COOLEY,
Colonel, AGD,
Adjutant General.
8-D. Conclusion: Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ has been returned to its rightful owner Korea.
quote: Mark S. Lovmo's Dokdo Site
Under U.S. military occupation (1945-1952), the highest governmental authority in Japan was the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), which delimited Japanese administrative territory. SCAP´s first major opinion concerning the territory of postwar Japan was cited in the instruction SCAP gave to the Government of Occupied Japan, SCAPIN #677 of January 29, 1946, which specifically outlined Japanese territory and stated that the islands disputed between Japan and Korea; Utsuryo Island (Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡), Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡), and Quelpart Island (Chejudo ﾃ?Zﾂ洲窶懌?｡) were excluded from Japan's administrative authority. There is no real mystery here; nor is there a dispute of substance.
Thanks, Dr. Shin & Mark, for your excellent articles & sources you shared with us.
Yes,the ministry concluded "takeshima" and "matsushima" are Chosen territory.
But they are definately Daglets and Argonaut checking their degrees and minites in Japanese map published in1870,as Tanaka mentions. サービス終了のお知らせ
窶處ﾆ歎ﾆ筑"Takeshima"(Argonaut)
ﾂ渉ｼﾆ歎ﾆ筑"Matsushima"(Daglet)
ﾆ椎?ﾆ竪ﾆ停?愴坦ﾆ停?卮停?ｹﾆ暖ﾆ陳哉鍛ﾆ誰"RienKoworuto Rokku"(Liancourt Rocks)
Maybe you know that Ullungdo came to be called "Matsushima".It is because of Argonaut and Seibold.
Argonaut was found by James Colnett in 1787.
Dagelet was found by Daglet in 1787.
Both islands are,in fact, Ullungdo ,yet the ship "Argonaut" and James made a mistake in checking the degrees and minutes.Therefore, in Europian maps,there were 2 Ullungdo. サービス終了のお知らせ
You can see the map in 1815,there are Argonaut and Dagelet. サービス終了のお知らせ
In 1840.Siebold made a mistake when he wrote "Map of Japan"
He had known there were 2 small islands between Japan and Korea and they were called Takeshima and Matsushima.
He also had knwon there were 2 small islands between Japan and Korea and they were called Argonaut and Dagelet in Western maps.
Then he misunderstood that Argonaut was Takeshima and Dagelet was Matsushima. サービス終了のお知らせ
Dokdo was found in 1849 by Liancourt and named Liancourt Rocks and also found in 1855 by Hornet and named Hornet Rocks.
You can see the three islands. サービス終了のお知らせ サービス終了のお知らせ
In 1858,Japan published a map which inscribes Mastushima as Ullungdo(Dagelet) and Takeshima as Ullungdo (Argonaut ;wrong location) and Riankoruto Rock as Liancourt Rocks. サービス終了のお知らせ
Therefore,the minister said 2 Ullungdos were Korea's.
And there are some maps which show two Ullungdoes.
But you can check if it shows 2 Ullungdoes or not by the location.
Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed
Cairo conference mention that,but SF treaty did not say Dokdo belongs to Korea.This is because Dokdo was not the territory which had been take by violencce and greed.
Although you mentioned :
Postsdome Declaration
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
7-C. It was so determined following the unconditional surrender of Japan, in the order SCAPIN No. 677, to "exclude from the definition of Japan's territories Ullungdo ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡, Tokdo ﾃ?ﾃ補?懌?｡ and Chejudo ﾃ?Zﾂ洲窶懌?｡." The promises stated in the preceding two declarations of Cairo & Postdam were faithfully carried out to the letter supplemented by the details stipulated in SCAPIN No. 677, January 29, 1946.
6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration
Do you understand SCAPIN #677 cannot be the proof of sovereignty?
窶卍ｺ窶氾溪?佚ｦﾅｽlﾂ十ﾋ?ｪﾃ･j
Imperial Ordinance No. 41
.............ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡를ﾅｸT窶懌?｡로窶ｰﾃｼﾃ｢i하고窶懌?｡ﾅ?ﾃ?#51012;ﾅ担ﾅｽﾃｧ로窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｨ한ﾅ陳
.............Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect
窶佚ｦﾋ?ｪﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾅｸT窶氾銀?懌?｡를ﾅｸT窶懌?｡로窶ｰﾃｼﾃ｢i하고 ﾂ江ﾅ陳ｴ窶慊ｹ에 窶｢ﾂ坂?ｺﾂ｢하고窶懌?｡
.............ﾅ?ﾃ?#51012;ﾅ担ﾅｽﾃｧ로窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｨ하야ﾅ?ﾂｯﾂ青ｧ窶吮??에 窶｢ﾃ停?愿ｼ하고ﾅ担窶懌┐은ﾅ津懌?懌┐으로
.............할ﾅｽ窶
Article 1..Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; had become attached to Kangwon Circuit, Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect; this shall be reflected it in the Institution of Offices; Prefectural status shall be assigned to level 5.
窶佚ｦ窶愿ｱﾅｾﾅ?.....ﾅ担ﾅ適ﾋ?岩?冰눈窶佚､窶ｰﾃ?窶慊ｴ으로窶凖ｨ하고邃｢ﾂｽﾋ?ｦ은ﾅｸT窶氾銀?牢窶懌?｡와
.............窶處窶懌?｡ﾂ静寂?懌?｡를ﾅ?ﾃ??ﾂ?#54624;ﾅｽ窶
Ariticle 2..Seat of Prefectural Office shall be in Taeha-dong, as for jurisdiction Prefect shall govern the whole of Ullung Is., Chuk Is., and Sok Is.
The title is "Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect"
Consequently,it is normal to think Korean people considered Sokdo as a part of Ullung district.
Both 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?冢ﾅｽﾂ written by ﾅ陳ｺﾂ催 in 1899 and 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ伉新窶冢ﾅｽu by 窶卍｣ﾅｽu窶｢ﾂ｣ in 1907 mention that the adoministrative region of Ullung is from 130.35 to 130.45 degrees.
Sokto must be an islet between 130.35 and 130.45.
cf. dokto is in 131.55
One of your maps never show the exact location.
I cannot check the other.
Please give me accurate one which shows the islets with the name of either Usando or Sokdo.
ARE YOU SERIOUS??!!! Is this your scientific evidence? Is this what we've been waiting for?
POINT 1: You take these images from a blog, which mysteriously connects to what seems like Gov. Shintaro Ishihara's fan page. For those readers interested: simply delete the last part of any URL urecco lists in his message to simply read サービス終了のお知らせ. You'll be re-directed to http://www.sensenfukoku.net/main.html. Hmmﾂ…Given the esteemed governor's xenophobic views, I'd have to declare that this information is tainted by its relationship.
POINT 2: Almost all of the ﾂ"mapsﾂ" you list (save the last) are laughable (read, NOT SCIENTIFIC) because they look like they could have been drawn by anyone (dare I say, even you?). How is this scientific evidence? I DEMAND BETTER EVIDENCE!! MAPS WITHOUT PROOF MEAN NOTHING!!!
POINT 3: Through your mind-numbingly irrelevant (and quite distracting) list of this ﾂ"loose evidenceﾂ" (SEE POINTS 1 and 2), your argument seems to be that because Siebold made a mistake in creating the Map of Japan, the islands in dispute are actually Japanese. Amazing. You know, you should sell tours because obviously, you live in the one place in the world where everyone, but you, is wrong. Lexico provided maps. You disputed them because they were not accurate. He provided more maps, and still you dispute them. And then, you provide these namby-pamby, hand-drawn pictures of ﾂ"mapsﾂ" hosted on what seems like the fan-boy page to Ishihara and try to pawn THEM off to everyone here as the historical evidence, which you've been endlessly droning on about?!!
Pardon me, but until you provide scientific proof (I mean proof that does not have a shred of possible ﾂ"editorialized informationﾂ" that serves the interests of the Japanese Imperial Army, the Japanese Government and the Japanese war criminals) proof, I declare you ﾂ"F.O.S.ﾂ" (you can read that as Fan of Shintaro, or full of S**T. At this point, they're about the same in my book!)
POINT 2: Almost all of the ﾂ"mapsﾂ" you list (save the last) are laughable (read, NOT SCIENTIFIC) because they look like they could have been drawn by anyone (dare I say, even you?). How is this scientific evidence? I DEMAND BETTER EVIDENCE!! MAPS WITHOUT PROOF MEAN NOTHING!!!.
I just wanted to show why the name of Takeshima and Ullungdo changed.
So last one is enough to show Dokdo had been called "Rienkoworuto Rokku"(Liancourt Rocks) ,Ullungdo had been called "Matsushima" and an island which does not exsit had been called "Takeshima" before the minister concluded "Takeshima 窶處窶懌?｡ and Matsushima ﾂ渉ｼ窶懌?｡ are Choson territory, and are not related to Nippon."
Lexico provided maps. You disputed them because they were not accurate. He provided more maps, and still you dispute them. And then, you provide these namby-pamby, hand-drawn pictures of ﾂ"mapsﾂ" hosted on what seems like the fan-boy page to Ishihara and try to pawn THEM off to everyone here as the historical evidence, which you've been endlessly droning on about?!!
Oh. By the way, what's your defense at that lame attempt at passing off nationalistic propaganda from what seems to be Ishihara's fan page as historical evidence (My previous POINT 1)? Listen, a lot of people went through the trouble of digging up evidence to counter your claims. At the very least, have the decency to return the favor. Either that, or simply stop with this "Where's the scientific evicence" crap that you've been shoveling all this time.
I was hoping that at least some Japanese source would be able to provide you with a simple, straight forward reading of your country's historical documents and shed some light on this matter. Actually it's been 1599 years since our Master Wang In 왕인박사 窶ｰﾂ､ﾂ仁窶敘ｽﾅｽm (窶堙ｭ窶堙俄?堋ｫ窶堋ｵ Wanikishi ﾋ彗ﾃｧﾅｽ窶ｹgﾅｽt) of the Kingdom of Paekje 백제 窶｢Sﾃ?Z (窶堋ｭ窶堋ｾ窶堙ｧ Kudara) transmitted literacy to your Kingdom of Wa ﾋ彖 in the 2nd moon of the 16th year of your King Ojin ﾅ禿､ﾂ神, 405 CE. I feel rather honored to continue in the service of spreading literacy in your particular case. I hope to render my services to you once I get a printout of the exact photocopies of your original documents. In the meantime, you are welcome to clean up any matter of logic, translation, and interpretation, for it will still take 3 more hours for my printout to be completed.
urecco said:
Yes,the ministry concluded "takeshima" and "matsushima" are Chosen territory.
But they are definately Daglets and Argonaut checking their degrees and minites in Japanese map published in1870,as Tanaka mentions. サービス終了のお知らせ
窶處ﾆ歎ﾆ筑"Takeshima"(Argonaut)
ﾂ渉ｼﾆ歎ﾆ筑"Matsushima"(Daglet)
ﾆ椎?ﾆ竪ﾆ停?愴坦ﾆ停?卮停?ｹﾆ暖ﾆ陳哉鍛ﾆ誰"RienKoworuto Rokku"(Liancourt Rocks)
Maybe you know that Ullungdo came to be called "Matsushima".It is because of Argonaut and Seibold.
Argonaut was found by James Colnett in 1787.
Dagelet was found by Daglet in 1787.
Both islands are,in fact, Ullungdo ,yet the ship "Argonaut" and James made a mistake in checking the degrees and minutes.Therefore, in Europian maps,there were 2 Ullungdo. サービス終了のお知らせ
You can see the map in 1815,there are Argonaut and Dagelet. サービス終了のお知らせ
In 1840.Siebold made a mistake when he wrote "Map of Japan"
He had known there were 2 small islands between Japan and Korea and they were called Takeshima and Matsushima.
He also had knwon there were 2 small islands between Japan and Korea and they were called Argonaut and Dagelet in Western maps.
Then he misunderstood that Argonaut was Takeshima and Dagelet was Matsushima. サービス終了のお知らせ
Dokdo was found in 1849 by Liancourt and named Liancourt Rocks and also found in 1855 by Hornet and named Hornet Rocks.
You can see the three islands. サービス終了のお知らせ サービス終了のお知らせ
In 1858,Japan published a map which inscribes Mastushima as Ullungdo(Dagelet) and Takeshima as Ullungdo (Argonaut ;wrong location) and Riankoruto Rock as Liancourt Rocks. サービス終了のお知らせ
Therefore,the minister said 2 Ullungdos were Korea's.
And there are some maps which show two Ullungdoes.
But you can check if it shows 2 Ullungdoes or not by the location.
That should clear up most, if not all, of your misconceptions.
urecco said:
Cairo conference mention that,but SF treaty did not say Dokdo belongs to Korea.This is because Dokdo was not the territory which had been take by violence and greed.
Although you mentioned :
SCAPIN #667 mention
Do you understand SCAPIN #677 cannot be the proof of sovereignty?
Since you mention sovereignty, Korean sovereignty precedes & supercedes such a definition as the San Francisco Peace Treaty that defined Japan's. Here's a suprise for you.
"Korea, unlike Japan, did not perpetrate aggression during the years in which Japan premeditated and excercised war crimes against its neighbors affecting not only Korea, but also Ryukyu, Russia, Manchukuo, China, Hongkong, French Indo-China (Vietnam), Burma, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, Burma, Dutch Indies s.a. Borneo, Timor, Celebes, the Unincorporated US Territory of Guam, Gilbert Island, the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, Darwin in Northern Australia, Hawaiian and Aleutian US, Assam, killing more than 20 million people in the process. It logically followed that Japan's future deserved some external coordination due to its lack of sef-regulation. That is why Japanese sovereignty was limited by the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Korea is by no means bound by such a need as Japan's. That Korea's sovereignty prior to the victimization by Japan was to be restored according to the principle stated in the Potsdam Declaration and more was only reemphasized at the Potsdam Declaration, not due to it."
Such interpretation by SCAP's surely denies Japanese legitimacy to any rights to the island, including fishing rights within a 12 nautical mile range from the island of Tokdo, aka Takeshima, during WWII and in the ensuing 12 years of SCAP rule in Occupied Japan. One more important fact to be noted is that regardless of all Japan's efforts to influence the US to simultaneously drop the Tokdo island, aka Takeshima, from the exclusion list of Japanese territorial definition and to add it to the list of Japanese territorial definition, with enticing suggestions to favor the US faced harsh opposition from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and practically all members of the WWII allied forces, and failed in the grand scheme of things. The recognition of Tokdo, aka Takeshima, as Korean territory, and non-Japanese, by the international community is what Japan faced during the Second World War, at the time of Japan's unconditional surrender, during SCAP rule, and at the time of the drafting & the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with the unique exception of the US which is understandable due to US/UN interest in using Tokdo Island as a bombing & machine gun shooting range which also happened to claim 14 lives, wounding 10, all Korean civilan fishermen by US Air Force servicemen on the fateful day of July 8, 1948, thanks to your government's involvement under SCAP. The international community's shunning of such scheme & continuing expansionsim pushed by the Japanese goverment in the future, as in the present and the past, shall not diminish any time soon. Mind you the parable of the shepherd boy who cried wolf; would the wolf get a second chance ?
How Tokdo Fell into Limbo, Japan, US Security, Korean War, & Japan: If you can't have it, fock it (lexico's subtitle)
As the military occupation of Japan came to an end after the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, another policy-making body in Japan chose to use Dokdo as a bombing range. On July 26, 1952, Japanese Foreign Ministry resolution Number 34 designated the island as a bombing range. As evident in U.S. State Department documents, U.S. officials based in Japan and the government of Japan worked together to come to the decision. According to an October 3, 1952 memo from the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, a "Joint Committee" comprised of U.S. and Japanese officials that were responsible for implementing Japanese-American security arrangements, had, in their "selection of maneuvering areas" for military forces in Japan, "agreed that these rocks would be designated as a facility by the Japanese Government". The memo mentions the reasoning behind the Joint Committee´s decision and the actions that had been taken to implement it. The war in Korea seemed to be one of the motivating factors:
"The rocks, standing as they do in the open waters of the Japan Sea between Korea and Japan, have a certain utility to the United Nations aircraft returning from bombing runs in North Korean territory. They provide a radar point which will permit the dumping of unexpended bomb loads in an identifiable area. Being uninhabited and providing a point of navigational certainty, they are also ideal for a live bombing target...They were turned into a bombing target, were declared a danger area, and have been posted as out-of-bounds on a 24-hour, 7-day a week basis. Information to this effect was disseminated throughout the Far East Command and presumably throughout the subordinate commands of the Far East Air Force and the Naval Forces, Far East. Very recently, the information has been passed on to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, in order that he may give it formal dissemination in the form of a hydropac, or notice to mariners."
The title is "Ullung Is. has been renamed Ul Is.; Insular Supervisor has been amended to Prefect"
Consequently,it is normal to think Korean people considered Sokdo as a part of Ullung district.
Both 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ倪?冢ﾅｽﾂ written by ﾅ陳ｺﾂ催 in 1899 and 窶佚･ﾅ?ﾃ伉新窶冢ﾅｽu by 窶卍｣ﾅｽu窶｢ﾂ｣ in 1907 mention that the adoministrative region of Ullung is from 130.35 to 130.45 degrees.
Sokto must be an islet between 130.35 and 130.45.
cf. dokto is in 131.55
One of your maps never show the exact location.
I cannot check the other.
Please give me accurate one which shows the islets with the name of either Usando or Sokdo.
Thanks for enlightening me. I shall look into the evidence you presented, and draw a balanced conclusion within the greater historical context which is so important. Neither should you slight my evidence and at least reply whether it is lacking or whether you find it difficult to refute on any objective grounds. Do read up on the references I provided, which you ovbiously have not seen, the official governmental documents of Japan's past during the early Meiji years while it methodically prepared for its aggressive expansionist period which lasted nearly 60 years.
One question: Do you read only Tanaka, Kunitaka for your arguments and nobody else ? There is a wonderful source for nonprofessionals and professionals alike called google; I know for a fact that Japan has it too, if not a better one. But all your information seem centered around Tanaka, Kunitaka's site. Or are you Tanaka, Kunitaka himself ? I keep finding odd parallels between you two.
1-A. 窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?O窶督ｱﾂ湘遺?卍ｲﾂ債ｸ窶｢窶昶?｢ﾃ陳『窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?Oﾅ津ｰ窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?伉』, 窶佚ｦ3邃｢ﾃ? ﾅｽ窶督坂ぎ 6, 窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?倪?敕氾･j 87, 1870窶扼 4ﾅ椎ｽ 15窶愿ｺﾅｽﾅ｡
and
1-B. <ﾅ?O窶督ｱﾂ湘按出ﾅｽdﾂ債ｲ窶彡窶昶?卩?ﾂ昶?懌┐ﾆ知窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津ｰﾂ催崘ｽn窶凪??#20839;窶儺ﾂ鞘?? ﾂ『窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津ｰﾂ催崘ｽn窶凪??#20839;窶儺ﾂ鞘?伉』. p.137.
2. ﾂ『窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?Oﾅ津ｰ窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?伉』, 窶佚ｦ2邃｢ﾃ俄?佚ｦ3ﾂ催ｻ, 窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?倪?敕氾･j 574, 1869窶扼11ﾅ椎ｽ1窶愿ｺﾅｽﾅ｡, <ﾅ?O窶督ｱﾂ湘鞍塚?椎?窶伉ｾﾂ青ｭﾅ?ﾂｯ辦ﾅ?ﾂｯﾆ蜘ﾆ知ﾅｽfﾂ鞘?? ﾂ「窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾆ蜘ﾆ知窶拮ﾅ陳ｭﾋ?ｵﾆ男 窶ｺ窶敞湛ﾆ停?ｹ窶卍ｲﾂ債ｸﾅｽ窶督坂ぎﾅｽw令ﾆ男ﾃｨﾂ脆湛ﾆ停?ｹﾅｽiﾃ｢ﾂ哉男窶抃ﾆ男 窶ｺ窶敞湛ﾆ停?ｹ窶伉ｾﾂ青ｭﾅ?ﾂｯﾆ知ﾅ塚??凖ｨﾂ」, pp.265∼268
3. ﾂ『窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?Oﾅ津ｰ窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?伉』, 窶佚ｦ3邃｢ﾃ? ﾅｽ窶督坂ぎ6, 窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?倪?敕氾･j 87, 1870窶扼4ﾅ椎ｽ15窶愿ｺﾅｽﾅ｡, <ﾅ?O窶督ｱﾂ湘按出ﾅｽdﾂ債ｲ窶彡窶昶?卩?ﾂ昶?懌┐ﾆ知窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅ津ｰﾂ催崘ｽn窶凪??#20839;窶儺ﾂ鞘?? p. 131-140
4. 窶愿ｺ窶怒窶伉ｾﾂ青ｭﾅ?ﾂｯ窶｢ﾃ ﾂ『ﾅ津ｶ窶｢ﾂｶ錄ﾂ』, 內窶督ｱﾂ湘遺?抃窶｢窶? 1, 窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ｡ﾂ?窶板ｧﾅ津ｶ窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?佛?ﾃ卍焦?ﾃ･U, 1877窶扼 3ﾅ椎ｽ 17窶愿ｺﾅｾﾅ?, ﾂ「窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?C內窶處窶懌?｡ﾅ?Oﾋ?ｪ窶懌?｡窶冢ﾂ静絶?｢ﾃ ﾅｽ[窶｢ﾃｻﾅｽfﾂ」
5. ﾂ『ﾅ津ｶ窶｢ﾂｶ錄ﾂ』, 內窶督ｱﾂ湘遺?抃窶｢窶? 1, 1877窶扼3ﾅ椎ｽ17窶愿ｺﾅｾﾅ?, ﾂ「窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?C內窶處窶懌?｡ﾅ?Oﾋ?ｪ窶懌?｡窶冢ﾂ静絶?｢ﾃ椎ｽ[窶｢ﾃｻﾅｽfﾂ」 ﾅ津｣窶兌窶弸窶ｹL
6. ﾂ『ﾅ津ｶ窶｢ﾂｶ錄ﾂ』, 內窶督ｱﾂ湘遺?抃窶｢窶? 1, 1877窶扼3ﾅ椎ｽ20窶愿ｺﾅｾﾅ? 窶伉ｾﾂ青ｭﾅ?ﾂｯﾅｽw令窶｢ﾂｶﾂ鞘?麓/QUOTE]
As I showed official map in 1858, Dokdo came to be called "Riancoruto Rock."
How many of these mention about "Riancoruto Rock"?
Unless you prove Usando is Dokdo,whatever Japan mentioned,Korean seem not to have recogized Dokdo.
One question: Do you read only Tanaka, Kunitaka for your arguments and nobody else ? There is a wonderful source for nonprofessionals and professionals alike called google; I know for a fact that Japan has it too, if not a better one. But all your information seem centered around Tanaka, Kunitaka's site. Or are you Tanaka, Kunitaka himself ? I keep finding odd parallels between you two.
I know more,but Tanaka's webcite is simply best source for me.
Could you read sino-Korean? http://kyujanggak.snu.ac.kr/IMAGE/SNUG0146.PDFﾂ
Please check page 57 ﾂ「窶愬陳坂?倪?覗窶冢ﾂ焦ｸ窶披?板」ﾅ?ﾂｪ窶售窶啜ﾂ 窶ｰU窶卍ｿﾃ｣p
"you can see forest in good whether and you can go in good wind in 2 days.Some say Usando and Ullundo are the same island."
It implies that Korean was not sure whether Usando and Ullungdo are the same or not.
窶伉ｾﾂ宗ﾅｽﾃ?ﾋ弯
窶伉ｾﾂ宗ﾂ十ﾅｽﾂｵ窶扼窶愿ｱﾅ椎ｽﾂ壬ﾅ禿ｺﾂ湘ｰ
Urecco-
I lost your point on that last post. (Perhaps there is too much non-English.)
Are you saying that Japan didn't invade Korea, or that the Koreans should not have been bothered by it?
Perhaps if US history books began leaving out the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or perhaps saying that far fewer actually died in them then everyone else on the planet believes you might begin to understand why people are a bit touchy about Japanese text books. Our high school textbooks are not all that good, but slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, the Civil War, WWI and II are all covered in detail.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
