竹島問題の歴史

30.11.07

1894-1948 Korean territory



To follow is the change in Korean territory from the late 19th century to 1948:




(1) from Isabella Lucy Bird's book "Korea and her neighbours":


(Isabella travelled Korea during 1894 - 1897)




124 degree 38' E. to 130 degree 33' E. longitude


34 degree 17' N. to 43 degree N. latitude


東経124度38分~130度33分
北緯34度17分~43度








(2) from "大韓地誌" (1899):




124 degree 30' E. to 130 degree 35' E. longitude


33 degree 15' N. to 42 degree 25' N. latitude




東経124度30分~130度35分
北緯33度15分~42度25分


-----------------------------------


Those two didn't include Ulleungdo but actually Ulleungdo was a Korean island, so minor change was introduced in the following books.


-------------------------------------------------




(3) from "朝鮮現勢便覧" 1935:


124 degree 11' E. to 130 degree 56' 23" E. longitude


33 degree 6' 40" N. to 43 degree 36" N. latitude




The eastern limit is the eastern end of Ulleungdo (130 degree 56' E. longitude)




東経124度11分~130度56分23秒
北緯33度6分40秒~43度36秒
極東(東限):慶尚北道欝陵島東端(130度56分)




-----------------------------------------


Thus, Korean territory includes Ulleungdo, but not Liancourt rocks.


-----------------------------------------


(4) from "朝鮮常識問答" (Qs& As about common sense of Chosun) 1947:

(Please look at the item (14) of the above posting.)

124 degree 11' E. to 130 degree 56' 23" E. longitude



東経124度11分~130度56分23秒




-------------------------------------------


This book also indicated the same area as the above. Ulleungdo was the eastern limit still in 1947.


---------------------------------------------




(5) from "朝鮮常識" (Common sense of Chosun) 1948:




It mentions that the eastern limit of Korea was 130 dgree 56' 23" E. longitude, that is Jukdo, the neighboring island of Ulleungdo.


極東(東限):東経130度56分23秒(慶尚北道欝陵島竹島)




---------------------------------------------------------


Liancourt rocks locate at 131 degree 52' E. longitude and 37 degree 14' N. latitude.


So Liancourt rocks didn't belong to Korea at least during 50 years from 1890's to 1940's.


45 comments:

  1. Pacifist, thank you.

    I think it is very important to check the eastern limit of Korean territory in the documents available. ( BTW I think there are more, like British Sea Chart, 朝鮮水路誌 by Japanese Navy, 韓海漁業指針, and more. I will check those and comment tomorrow. But none of them include the location of Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. Absolutely, none. ) Anyway, good job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaneganese,

    Thanks for your kind comment!

    Please take a rest (were you going out of Tokyo for this weekend?) and check the documents you mentioned when you have time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pacifist,

    I think it is a great idea to list up the documented Eastern limits of Korea. I didn't even think about it.
    Anyway, those are the lists of the books and the easten limit of Korea(Choson) that I know of. Sorry, I didn't translate the title of the books. Maybe, we should check more books like British Sea directories and make a longer list someday.

    ( By the way, I checked most of them on Hanmaumy's site here, There are so many useful "pages" of the book for us.

    1894(明治二七)年 - 大田才次郎「新撰朝鮮地理誌」 : 130度35分
    1894(明治ニ七)年11月 - 水路部(現・水産庁)「朝鮮水路誌」 : 130度35分
    1901(明治三四)年 - 恒屋盛服「朝鮮開化史」 : 130度35分
    1903(明治三六)年1月 - 東京 黒龍会 葛生修吉「韓海通漁指針」 : 130度35分
    1904(明治三七)年7月 - 岩永重華「最新韓国実業指針」 : 130度35分
    1905(明治三八)年 - 岡部福蔵「日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌」 : 130度35分
    1905(明治三八)年 - 博文館「韓国新地理」 : 130度58分
    1907 安鍾和「初等大韓地誌」 : 130度58分
    1907年 張志淵「大韓新地志」 : 130度58分
    1908 安鍾和 柳瑾「初等大韓地誌」 : 130度58分
    1909(明治四ニ)年 - 「韓国水産誌」 : 130度42分
    1912 - 日韓書房編集部「最新 朝鮮地誌」 : 130度54分

    Unknown
    Japanese Navy
    (1886年「寰瀛水路誌」)
    1899年 2月 「朝鮮水路水路誌」

    British Navy
    (1858 China Pilot 2nd Edition)
    (1861 China Pilot 3rd Edition)
    (1864 China Pilot 4th Edition)
    (1873 China Sea Directory 1st Edition, Vol. 4)
    (1884 China Sea Directory 2nd Edition, Vol. 4)
    1894 China Sea Directory 3rd Edition, Vol 4 (Isabella Lucy Bird was British and she was escourted by British Officials in Korea. She should have had an information of Korean eastern limit from British officials. And the "General" part of Japanese 1894 Choson Sea Directory was referred to this book, thus it is supposed to mention the eastern limit of Choson as 130度34分 or 35分.)
    1904 Sailing Directions

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Kaneganese!

    I will add these information later.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Korean Dokdo14/12/07 06:34

    First of all, it is not the Sea of Japan. Maybe if you, pacifist, want to make this website a just survey, you should first change that term. Japan claims that ocean to be called the sea of japan. But until recently, it was East Sea of Korea not Sea of Japan. Second of all, at the end of the reading, it says "for at leat 50 years, Dokdo was not part of Korea" but it was because you Japanese invaded and stole the Korean freedom and independence under the name of industrialization and Asian unity under Japan, both of which are simply ridiculous. Japanese today learn distorted history because Japanese government intentionally beautify your history and even mistakes your ancestors made. Japan has enough ocean on its right, so stop stealing other country's territory. and kaneganese, those documents are made after Japan has had a voice in the world. Old documents, when Japanese were pirates, all record Dokdo to be an island located east of Korea. Thank you very much

    ReplyDelete
  6. korean dokdo,

    Thanks for your opinion, but the name of Sea of Japan was not named by Japanese. It was named by western countries. And the name of East Sea was a local name in Korea, not universal name.

    The name of Sea of Japan had been used more frequently in 18th and 19th centuries than East Sea, there are many grounds to say so but this blog is for Takeshima/Dokdo issue, not for the name of the Sea of Japan, so I won't refer to this any more.

    You wrote "Japanese invaded and stole" Liancourt rocks, but we have proved that such theory is not true in this blog.

    First of all, Japan didn't invade Korea. She only annexed Korea and the annexation was not related with Liancourt rocks.

    You wrote Japan "stole" Liancourt rocks. But if you read all the postings in this blog, you will find that Korea didn't own Liancourt rocks from the beginning.

    Usando in the old documents was not Liancourt rocks (although Rhee Syngman and all the Korean governments after Rhee had long insisted that Usando was Liancourt rocks). All the records show that the eastern limit of Korea was Ulleungdo or Jukdo of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt rocks.

    So Liancourt rocks were as a matter of fact "stolen" by Rhee Syngman. USA knew this fact and told Rhee Syngman so but he didn't listen to the American advice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanx for the post Pacifist.
    I read the reply you posted for the comment that Korean dokdo left, and I'd like to point out some things too.

    First of all I will state that I am a Korean living in Korea and that although I would like to be as nuetral in the matter as I can I can't help being a bit biased and that all this is my personal opinion.

    You argued that the name "Sea of Japan" was created by the westerners and that it was used throughout most of 18th and 19th century. True. It WAS named by a 3rd party who seems to have had neutral grounds of the matter. But just because it was named by the westerners does not justify a name to be suitable in all cases. Personally, I think a 3rd name, which does not offend either of the nations should be created and used internationally,while leaving the two conflicting names to be used at the local level, but as you noted this is not a blog for this matter so I will go in no further than that.

    You also argued that Japan "only" annexed Korea. The word almost make it seem that Japan was doing Korea a favor. The word "annexed" means to "incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city." To annex a country through the use of military, economic and/or political force, against the general will of the nation....is... invasion. The pressure that was put on the weak Korean government at the time is undeniable. (Though the emporor willingly singed the treaty with Japan, I ask what other choice did he have other than being killed and being replaced with a new leader that was pro-Japan... I mean, his queen was already murdered by Japanese assasins because she was with the Russians)
    Face it. Annexation, like the word colonization, is used in this case to weaken the truth. Japan is a pwerful nation and like the Americans, it has the power to subtley manipulate history.

    Finally about the doko/takeshima/Lianwhatever rocks.... I don't know much about the historical documentation. Those ancient maps that shows the island are old, far from being exact, and the makers of the maps..all dead. What we can "assume" from the maps are simply assumptions and with the makers dead, we can't even ask them what those dots meant. About the letters that you provided.... How accurate can the letters by the U.S and western letters be? Sure both Japanese and Korean ambassadors must have written to the western nations for recognization, but I don't think this was because the west knew the truth. More due to the fact that recognition from western nations would could be used to pressure the other nation, which is what you are doing now. Unfortunately, the U.S. or any other nations east nor west, are far from being King Solomon.

    Sir, a nation...any nation be it Korea or Japan or the U.S., moves for the better of her own nation. If the U.S. had more to gain by rooting for Japan, I don't think the truth mattered one bit. Japan was and is more advanced than Korea. If you were and American, whose side would you be on? Though I am Korean by blood and I live in Korea at the moment, I spend 8 years in the States including the time as a university student. I think most of my American friends would agree that they (U.S.) like all other nations, are selfish and willing to say what is best for themsleves. Note that I am not saying this to offend anyone, it is my personal opinion that a nation cannot exist without sefish sentiments...

    Conclusion.
    Japan's a powerful nation. It excersises a strong voice in the decisions in international relations. At least compared to Korea, it is better for International power holders like many western nations to ally themselves with the Japanese.... Thus, the written evidence that you provided does not seem to be a fair measurement of this matter.

    You may ask...that in such case, what IS a solid evidence? I answer that a solid evidence cannot be provided unless the ghosts return from the dead. No matter how dolid the eveidence, it can never be completely neutral in all fields and I know that neither Korea nor Japan would be willing to take the evidence whch the other provides. (In fact, I don't think the two nations would be arguing this matter for so long if they had a simple solution or a very solid evidence.)

    So what do we do then?

    Simple. Currently the Korean navy patroles the island everday. We have a small but significant navy force on the island itself. Fishermen go near the island everyday to catch squid and all the other yummy things. Sure sometimes Japanese fishing boats cross over and sometimes thy're kicked out but that doesn't concern me. In short, the the current status of the island belongs to Korea. A while ago , the Japanese govenment officially asked permission to do a scientific research near the dokdo area. At the moment, it seems that the situations are in our favor, and unless some serious evidence show up, there really nothing we CAN do other than leaving things the way they are... or perhaps war.

    Alright, this got a lot longer than I thought, I gotta head out to work. I think I got a bit emotional and offensive near the end, but do forgive me, I already noted at the beginning that I do have some biased views as do you. It's only natural and it is neither of us' fault.

    Just leave it as it is.... is what I'm saying. doko is a great piece of land to increase the sealine and it's a great fishing spot. Japan wants it and thinks that it's theirs. Well, unfortunately, so do Koreans. And a lot of Koreans think that if the right goes to Japan it's a modern version of what you called "annexation."

    P.S. Good work with the research though..... I didn't bother reading everything but you seemed to have worked a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dang... I just re-read my post...

    Sorry about the typos....-_-;;;
    I'm bad at spelling to begin with and I'm not a great typer either...

    just..... figure it out....:)
    gook luck!

    ReplyDelete
  9. dear jae ha,

    Thanks for your post. I'm glad that you mentioned your opinion frankly. I hope we can talk or debate about the Takeshima/Dokdo issue in such a frank way.

    First of all, I can't agree that investigaton of old documents and maps are only "assumption" and not reliable. If this theory is right, archeology and history will have no meaning any more but that's not true.

    I think the fact buried in the old documents and maps can be found to prove a some kind of truth.

    Let us think again what is the evidence of Korean-Dokdo theory. The Korean government kept insisting that they knew Dokdo from ancient times because Usando was Dokdo and Usando was frequently referred to in old Korean documents. This Usando-Dokdo theory is the basic thought in Korea (as it can be seen in Korean government's homepage).

    But Usando in the old documents is not consistent to Liancourt rocks today because Usando was inhabited island with bamboos on it. Liancourt rocks is a barren rock islets without soil and enough water and was an uninhabitable islets. If Usando was Liancourt rocks as Korean government insists, you have to prove that Liancourt rocks had soils and enough water in the ancient time but I'm afarid this is impossible.

    Please take a look at the following posting:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html

    So Usando was not Liancourt rocks. I think you can agree with this, can't you?

    And the consideration about the Korean territory around 19th century and early 20th century, all the records including Korean books indicate that Korean eastern limit was Ulleungdo or Jukdo of Ulleungdo, as I showed you here:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1894-1948-korean-territory-revised.html

    So Korea (Korean empire) didn't recognise Liancourt rocks as their territory when Japan incorporated the rocks in 1905.

    Think it again, the word "Dokdo" is a very new word, it was created in the early 20th century. If Korea knew Liancourt rocks truly for hundreds of years, what was the name for the rocks?
    Why didn't have a name for the rocks? Why didn't have maps that depicted the shap of two rock islets?

    I hope to receive your frank opinion. Annyon higaseyo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, get real what ever history says. anyonw go to japan & try to send mail to Dokdo. which Japenese calim as Takeshima. ask in amy post office in Japan, they'll ask you to send as foregin mail to korea. That's the fact that even Japan post office know it belongs to Korea. Stop arguing about this bo crap which nogotiation made in 1950 .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous,

    As you say so, Liancourt rocks are occupied by Korea. You can't send mails to occupied island, that's true.

    But do you know it was robbed by Rhee Syngman?

    Japan couldn't do anything but to claim, because Japan was occupied by allied countries and it was three months before the SF Peace Treaty would be effecive.

    USA knew that Rhee's deed was illegal. They transmitted that Liancourt rocks are Japan's land but Rhee Syngman ignored the advice.

    Do you know Korea killed or injured 44 Japanese fishermen after the illegal occupation?
    Do you believe such a dictator, Rhee Syngman?

    ReplyDelete
  12. dear pacifist,

    As I read your research(even though I could not read every single one in detail), I found that debate on this issue-based on your handful of research- would be quite pleasant to do.

    However, I just want to point out that your attitudes towards the comments that are arguing on Korea's side are very much like leaning on Japanese side.

    Especially dont you think that you are not showing the least politeness towards a leader of a nation? Personally, even I do not really like Rhee Syngman very much, but your strong use of dictions such as "robbed" on actions of a nation's leader does not seem to be appropriate.

    I guess you did not mean to, but I would like to give you an advice that your somewhat extreme Japanese-friendly nuance and unfiltered use of offnesive vocab can really offnese Koreans.

    Moreover, on your response toward "korean dokdo", you have mentioned that
    "First of all, Japan didn't invade Korea. She only annexed Korea and the annexation was not related with Liancourt rocks."
    I wonder whether it is possible to have a bloodless annexation when there are lots of evidence that Korea resisted against Japan control? I am aware that killing or injuring 44 Japanese is a major concern, but during the Korean resistance against Japan, thousands times more Koreans were killed by Japanese colonists.

    Considering the fact that you have denied that Japan invaded Korea, what time period are you talking about? According to my knowledge, Korean-Japanese conflicts on Doko(or Takeshima) has been present since the end of WW2. Therefore, the bloodshed and invasion that "Korean dokdo" was talking about should be during the WW2 Japanese colonising period. During this period of time, can you still say that Japan has not invaded Korea?

    You might have recongnised that what I am talking about now is out of topic. It is purely because I found that it is more significant for you to change your nuance of what you say, especially when you are debating against lots of Koreans. I am sorry if I have annoyed you, but please keep in your mind that when you are arguing against sepcific nationality, you have to watch your use of vocabulary very, very carefully.

    P.S I am one of the many Koreans who were extremely uncomfortable with your dictions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Dokdo,

    Thanks for your opinion.

    I'm sorry if my words make you annoyed but the truth is that annexation and invasion are different.

    I won't argue much about the annexation in this blog but I would say that Japan didn't whole-heartedly want to annex Korea.

    As a matter of fact, Itoh Hirobumi was against the annexation. (But he was assssinated one year before the annexation.) I know Itoh Hirobumi is told as a bad guy in your country but truth is that he loved Korean people and he intended to make Korea independent in the end. But Korea in those days was in miserable state so he intended to establish modern education sytem first and made hundreds of modern schools all over Korea during his office days.

    Anyway, there were politicians who were against the annexation and there were lots of arguments in Japan. Japan was not so rich country in those days and they thought they wouldn't be able to afford to annex Korea.

    The largest political party in Korea, 一進会, powerfully pleaded to annex Korea, and the powerful man who was against the annexation was assassinated... these factors made the annexation possible.

    I think you may have seen a photo of Korean people celebrating the annexation around a gate which was established by 一進会. (If you didn't and if you want to see it, I can show you the photo.)

    I always say that I don't praise the annexation but it was a history.

    The annexation is fulfilled with two countries' intention to unite. And the annexation of Korea in 1910 was internationally recognised as "annexation", not invasion.
    USA, UK and Russia, even China recognused it as a lawful annexation.

    The invasion is fullfilled when one country progressed into other country's territory without permission. So Japan didn't invade Korea although I'm afraid you were educated in schools that Japan invaded Korea.

    I can understand what you think, I'm sorry to say this but as a matter of fact, Korea was not a victim when WWII ended.

    Korea was not invited to the San Francisco Peace Treaty because allied countries recognised Korea as a part of Japan or a Japan league, because Korea was annexed not invaded.

    I hope you will understand what I wrote here.

    P.S. In the International Science Council, which was led in great influence by Korean government, opened at Harvard University on 16-17 November 2001, the international society concluded that Japan's Annexation of Korea had been lawfully done. The annexation is still regarded as lawfull by western scholars.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Everyone, please stay on topic. We are here to talk about Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, not how Korean feel about Japanese. If you want to continue with that, do it on other sites that deal with those issues.

    To all the Korean commentator who came here recently, please remember this.

    100 years ago, Japan incorporated 竹島/Liancourt Rocks peacefully by international law. No one was harmed at all.

    On the other hand, Korean illegal occuption was done militarily and 44 Japanese civilians were brutally killed or sevearly injured by Korean Navy and other authorities. 328 Japanese fishery boats was captured , 3,929 Japanese fishermen were abducted and detained in Korean jail for 3 years or more, without sufficiant food supply, suffering from T.B. They were left untreated medically, and some of them died without proper medical treatment and Korean didn't even paid for funeral expenses. We don't even know how many of them died now. It was Korea who occupied Japanese territory militarily and slaughtered innocent Japanese civilians.

    By the way, no one seems to be interested in what written on this topic. What do you think about the fact that Korean recognized Takeshima/Lincourt Rocks/Dokdo as outside of her territory and documented as such with precise latitude and longitude in those books? Moreover, we have searched and studied so many Korean documents and maps so far, but we haven't encountered any single evidence that Korean had sovereignty over the island before Japanese at all. What do you want to say about this fact?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you Kaneganese,

    Yes, you are right. We have to argue on the Liancourt rocks issue here.

    All the people are welcome if you want to argue or debate in a logical way.
    Mr. dokdo, korean dokdo, or Mr. jea ha, please write your opinion about the Liancourt rocks issue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dokdo-takeshima.com15/12/07 22:48

    Kaneganese, we are staying on topic. It is you who is trying to avoid the truth.

    Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904~1905.

    Would you like some historical background? It seems you (like most Japanese right wing activists) have forgotten your own historical background.

    Please allow me to refresh your memory.

    The Shameful Truth of Japan's Annexation of Dokdo

    Japanese Aggression in Korea 1

    Japanese Aggression in Korea 2

    Japanese Aggression in Korea 3

    Liancourt Rocks is just one of many territories Japan annexed during her colonization of northeast Asia. It was a territory "incorporated" while Japan was occupying Korea. The issue of Korea's territorial ownership at this time is irrelevant because we know territorial acquisitions must be part of a "peaceful" and natural process which of course does not include wartime annexations.

    Is this your style of "debate"? To declare another person's opinion as moot. How shabby!!!

    What's even more bizarre is Japanese posters here are using U.S. Military classified documents as "proof" of territorial sovereignty over Dokdo Takeshima ie (Dean Rusk dos) and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    You say the same U.S. Military brass who ordered the Enola Gay to barbeque the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bomb your country back to the stone ages represented some kind of moral authority in drawing a map of East Asia....

    Kaneganese, Pacifist, et al. What a slippery double-talking crew you are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. dokdo-takeshima.com15/12/07 23:10

    Pacifist, I see you mention Ito Hirobumi is your evidence that Korea's colonization was "peaceful" I agree in part with what you say. The books I've read show Ito Hirobumi was a pretty fair man and did have good intentions.

    The problem is Ito Hirobumi's policy was discarded in favor of a more aggressive stance. In the end the expansionist hardliners won over moderates and an aggressive expansionist policy prevailed toward Korea.

    Knowing this we can see that some of the military expansionist in the Japanese government were involved with the annexation of Liancourt Rocks.

    Some hardliners in Japanese government at this time were Katsura and Komura Jutaro. Yamaza Enjiro a right-wing radical worked under him in the Foreign Affairs Office.

    In fact Nakai's Yozaburo's application was submitted to Yamaza Enjiro and Komura Jutaro. These were right-wing expansionist of Japan's Foreign Ministry. (Komura was key to Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910.) Of course, his application was forced through because Japan wanted to build military watchtowers and telegraph lines on Liancourt Rocks (see links above)

    Nation's acquire territory for reasons. Your denial of historical context is defeating the whole purpose of this blog and reveals your true agenda. We're not fooled....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve Barber,

    Komura Jutaro was a great Minister of Foreign Affairs, he was not a right winger as your theory.

    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045988/Komura-Jutaro

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komura_Jutar%C5%8D

    And as we've repeatedly told you, the annexation of Korea and Liancourt rocks were not related.

    First of all, Liancourt rocks had never ever owned by Korea when Japan incorporated the rocks in 1905.

    If you still want to say that "Japan stole Liancourt rocks" as a part of the annexation of Korea, you should show us the evidence that Korea owned the rocks before 1905 but you have always failed. Always.

    And when Liancourt rocks were incorporated in 1905, the annexation of Korea was not fixed yet. Itoh Hirobumi made Korea a protectorate in order to literally protect Korea from great powers such as Russia and to make it independent in the later years - his intention was apparent in his speeches before the Ministers of Korea.

    So if An Joongun didn't assasinate him, Korea may have not been annexed....

    Anyway, the annexation is not related with the topic. So Steve, you have to go to Occidentalism if you still want to chant your theory.

    ReplyDelete
  19. By the way, there are more on "1894-1948 Korean territory (Revised version) " by pacifist.

    (In case you didn't even bothered to read what written on this topic, you should note that Liancourt rocks locate at 131 degree 52' E. longitude and 37 degree 14' N. latitude.)

    (1) from "新撰朝鮮地理誌" edited by Ota Saijiro (大田才次郎) (1894):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (2) from "朝鮮水路誌" (Chosun waterway journal) published by waterway section (November 1894):

    130 degree 35' E.longitude
    東経130度35分

    (3) from Isabella Lucy Bird's book "Korea and Her Neighbours":
    (Isabella travelled Korea during 1894 - 1897)

    130 degree 33' E. longitude
    東経130度33分
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/from-korea-and-her-neighbors-by.html

    (4) from "大韓地誌" (1899):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/1894-1948-korean-territory.html

    (5) from "朝鮮開化史" by 恒屋盛服 (1901):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (6) from "韓海通漁指針" by 東京 黒龍会 葛生修吉 (1903):

    130 dgree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (7) from "韓国地理" by 矢津昌永 (1904):

    130 degree 58' E. longitude
    東経130度58分

    (8) from "最新韓国実業指針" by 岩永重華 (1904):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (9) from "日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌" by 岡部福蔵 (1905):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (10) from "韓国新地理" published from 博文館 (1905):

    130 degree 58' E. longitude
    東経130度58分

    (11) from "韓国水産業調査報告" by 農商務省水産局 (1906)

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (12) from "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 (1907):

    130 degree 58' E. longitude
    東経130度58分

    (13) from "大韓新地志" by 張志淵 (1907):

    130 degree 58' E. longitude
    東経130度58分

    (14) from "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 柳瑾 (1908):

    130 degree 58' E. longitude
    東経130度58分

    (15) from "韓国水産誌" (1909):

    130 degree 42' E. longitude
    東経130度42分

    (16) from "地誌 (지지)" (1909):

    130 degree 35' E. longitude
    東経130度35分

    (17) from "最新 朝鮮地誌" by 日韓書房編集部 (1912):

    130 degree 54' E. longitude
    東経130度54分

    (18) from "朝鮮現勢便覧" (1935):

    130 degree 56' 23" E. longitude
    東経130度56分23秒
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/1894-1948-korean-territory.html

    (19) from "朝鮮常識問答" (Qs& As about common sense of Chosun) 1947:

    130 degree 56' 23" E. longitude
    東経130度56分23秒
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html
    (Please look at the item (14) of the above posting.)

    (20) from "朝鮮常識" (Common sense of Chosun) 1948:

    130 dgree 56' 23" E. longitude
    東経130度56分23秒

    I hope everyone comment on this topic next time, not unrelated issue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. dokdo-takeshima.com16/12/07 14:30

    kaneganese, Japanese territorial limits throughout history.

    Japan limts 1

    Japan limts 2

    Japan limts 3

    Japan limts 4

    Japan limts 5

    So you see, Japan has no claim to Dokdo prior to the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. Of course, annexing a territory for military gains is not part of a natural peaceful process Kaneganese.

    Seriously Kaneganese when Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks the world (and Korea) was a very different place. At the time Japan "incorporated" Liancourt Rocks Korea was pretty much already a colony of Japan. Japan had military forces stationed all across Korea and on Ulleungdo. Japan had fishing rights to all of Korea's provinces and surrounding waters. Thus Japan's annexation of Dokdo really didn't impact international boundaries much.

    However, in this day and age it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to allow Japan to extend her boundary another 160kms toward Korea and within 87kms of Ulleungdo Island. You have to let go of Japan's military expansionist era and more toward a peaceful resolution.

    We have to reach an equitable solution on this problem that treats both sides as equal friends and NOT repeat the past colonizer~colony approach. This means looking at a map of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and drawing international boundaries that reflect Japan and Korea's relationship here and now.

    Kaneganese, Korea is a friendly country, but if you insist on revisiting Japan's expansionist era by demanding Korea's borders be redrawn to Japan's colonial era boundaries you are simply wasting your time, it's not gonna happen. You should use your time more productively by promoting peace between Korea and Japan.

    I hope you don't poison your children with the right-wing radical views of this blog.

    BTW have you checked the results of Gerry's survey. Doesn't look good for the Takeshima crew. What does that tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve Barber,

    Your insistency is wrong because of the following reasons:

    1) Japan didn't incorporate Liancourt rocks by military power and didn't incorporate the rocks in order to use it for military use.

    The incorporation was done in a peaceful way as Kaneganese wrote, it was argued and decided in a Cabinet meeting. There was no effects of Japan army or navy, as a Cabinet was independent from them.

    And Japan didn't incorporate the rocks to use it as a military base. As you know a watch tower was build on the rocks but the same kind of watch towers were also built in Ulleungdo and some other Korean properties already in 1904, so they didn't need to incorporate the rocks even if they wanted to build a watch tower. It could stay as a nobody's island, there was no need to incorporate it.

    And one more thing, you are like saying just like to build a watch tower itself was wrong, but to build a watch tower was natural because Japan was to fight with one of the great powers - huge bear (Russia), they needed to catch the location of the fleet.
    It was natural and nothing illegal.

    2) Korea had never ever owned Liancort rocks in the history. You are always avoiding this topic. You have not succeeded in showing evidences that Korea knew and used Liancourt rocks in the past.

    Liancourt rocks were wellknown to Japanese from the 17th century while Korea didn't know about the rocks. There was only one depiction that a Korean saw an island in the direction of southeast from Ulleungdo in the 17th century but he didn't go to the island. They didn't know exact location and shapes of the rock islets.

    And Korea recognised its eastern limit was Ulleungdo or Jukdo of Ulleungdo around 19th to early 20th centuries - this must be correct as many records indicate so.

    Even if Japan totally forgot that Liancourt rocks aka Matsushima was used by Japanese in the 17th century, as long as the rocks were out of Korean territory, Japan re-discovered them and some Japanese fishermen and businessmen were already working at them - so it is nothing illegal to make them Japan's territory in 1905. It was not related with Korea - it was an internal thing inside Japan.

    So Steve, your insistency is void.

    In addition, as Kaneganese already pointed out, the "military occupation" by Korea is the problem. Japan didn't kill or injure any Korean people when they incorporate the rocks but Korea killed or severly injured 44 Japanese fishermen and abducted hundreds of Japanese fishermen after Rhee Syngman illegaly occupied Liancourt rocks. This was a kind of crime under the international law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. dokdo-takeshima.com16/12/07 15:25

    Pacifist, whether or not Dokdo was Korean land before Japan annexed it is moot. Territorial land incorporations have to be peaceful and natural. Annexations during a war are not "peaceful" Korean land or not really doesn't matter under interational law.

    It's a sad thing lives were lost over Dokdo. However, Korea made it clear Dokdo was their territory and these Japanese were well advised to stay away and that Korea was serious in her assertions the island was hers. Japanese had been trying to lay claim to the island without even their own government's support. Even South Koreans were killed by North Korea in border disputes.

    Bottom line, let governments dispute over territories, in the meantime stay the Hell out of the picture. Japan had been trespassing on Korean land (Ulleungdo) for 500 years before and Korea is not fooling around this time. Get it?

    Koreans say Japan's involvement on Dokdo were an inseparable part of the colonization of Korea and Japanese military records such as the logbooks of the Tsushima show this to be true.

    Japanese Military on Dokdo

    Japan is funny. The country is open and transparent enough that I can find military documents exposing the lies of her government. But there remains a right-wing lunatic fringe that still desperately tries to hide the truth of Japan's wartime atrocities.

    Pacifist, you say Japan didn't need to incorporate the island to build watchtowers. Well guess what? They did and it was illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve Barber,

    You wrote, "However, Korea made it clear Dokdo was their territory".

    Please tell me how and when Korea made it clear?
    We have long argued about the issue because Korea couldn't make it clear Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) were their territory.

    Please show us the evidence here, Steve. Or are you running away again?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve Barber,

    You ran away again.

    If you return to this blog in the future, please be sure to bring the evidence that Korea had owned Liancourt rocks before Japan incorporated the rocks in 1905. Thank you.

    BTW, you wrote "Annexations during a war are not peaceful" but I would like to tell you that it was an incorporation, not an annexation, because it had not been Korean territory.

    And if you insist that "annexations" (or "incorporations") during a war are not peaceful, then you may think that the annexation of Hawaii by USA was not peaceful and illegal, as it was annexed during the war with Spain. However, apart from the ethics, it has been recognised as legal under the international law. You lost again, Steve.

    See you until you bring the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  25. dokdo-takeshima.com17/12/07 13:57

    Paicfist, says "You lost again..."

    Have you checked the vote on this website lately Pacifist? You lose.

    Korea has Dokdo Pacifist and has effectively controlled the islets for longer than Japan has. Koreans say they incorporated the island before the Japanese did in 1900 remember? Too bad for you Pacifist.

    Even without that fact we know Koreans were cognizant of Dokdo at least years before the Japanese annexed the islets so to say the islands were "terra nullius" can't be supported. We know Ulleungdo is only half the distance to Dokdo than Oki. We also know Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo. It's also true Koreans were involved in the Dokdo region over a thousand years before Japanese pirates and trespassers arrived in the 17th century.It's clear Japan shouldn't have Dokdo Pacifist.

    It seems you are hopelessly stuck in the year 1905 Pacifist and I truly feel sorry for you. If you want to agonize over the past that's your mental problem. If are so frustrated about Dokdo you can take a ferry there (from Ulleungdo) and go dash your brains out against the rocks yourself. But you must realize Dokdo will always be part of Korea.

    As you know the year is almost 2008. I think Korea and Japan as good neighbours should draw a fair linear boundary between the two countries. We know both Ulleungdo and Oki Island are able to generate EEZ's extending 200 nautical miles. Thus a boundary midway between Ulleungdo and Oki is fair and legal under international law today.

    Let Korea and Japan be happy and friendly neighbours Pacifist. Stop bothering your peaceful neighbours and let's move toward the future. Japan should drop its militaristic demand for Dokdo and make a gesture of peace instead of harassing Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve Barber,

    There are no single evidence on your site that Japan excluded Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks from her territory unlike the documents pacifist posted, which has accurate longitude and latitude which excluded Takeshima/Liacncourt Rocks from Korean territory .

    We have taught you thousand times that maps failing to show tiny island doesn't mean that it excluded from the territory. We have many maps that doesn't properly plot Takeshima on Japanese maps even today, but that doesn't mean Japan recognize it outside the territory now. Japan has so many critical documents and maps that draws and wirte about Takeshima in our long history while Korea has none.

    Steve Barber wrote;
    "You say the same U.S. Military brass who ordered the Enola Gay to barbeque the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bomb your country back to the stone ages represented some kind of moral authority in drawing a map of East Asia.... "

    Barbeque? Shame on you. You really need to watch your mouth and stop being devoured by the irrational anger toward Japanese. Your anti-Japanese racial slur is getting ugly more and more.

    "I hope you don't poison your children with the right-wing radical views of this blog."

    You never stop calling me "right wing" without showing any evidence. You always accuse Japanese without presenting any evidence. Seeking for the truth about disputed island doesn't mean right-winger at all in a free country like Japan. If you insist you only aganst colonization, why don't you against China or other countries which occupate many places currently? I think you position too left.

    By the way, I myself don't think Japan and Korea has any obligation to become "friendly" at all. All we need is a normal relationship between two countries. I understand South Korea need "friendly" relationship with Japan to survive, but it's not my problem. I have no interests in Korea itself. (except for a few Korean acuaintance I have.) I just hope we should go to ICJ to settle this problem peacefully.

    Anyway, it looks like you have no objection against the fact that Western, Japanese and even Korean themselves considered Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo had been outsite their territoy, and it continued until 1948. Shifting topic doesn't work for us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve Barber,

    You came back to this blog again!

    But didn't you forget something to bring with you?
    We haven't shown the evidence that Korea had owned Liancourt rocks before 1905.

    You must admit that Korea didn't know Liancourt rocks until recently.

    As I wrote before, there is only one document that a Korean saw an island at southeast from Ulleungdo, but he didn't know exact location and shapes of the rocks (he assumed it was bigger than today's Liancourt rocks).

    And early in the 20th century some Korean fishermen were hired by Japanese and worked at Liancourt rocks. They called the island Yanko at first as other Japanese called it, later these Koreans called it as Dokdo. As you say, these Koreans may have known "Dokdo" before 1905 but they were only brought to the island by Japanese ships. They have no right to say "it's ours", Steve.

    As many evidences show, Liancourt rocks were not in Korean territory. Japanese knew the details of the rocks and used them from 17th century. They re-discovered the rocks and used them as "Yanko" or "Ryanko" island in the early 20th century.

    So it is legal to incorporate the rocks in 1905 under the international law.

    But to occupy it brutally from the country that owned and controlled it is a kind of robbery, at least a crime in the world of democratism. In other word, it was a kind of invasion by SK.
    USA recognised it was true but she couldn't intervene because they had to fight against communists in the 50's.
    Japan has a right to fight back but she kept trying to negotiate peacefully in order to avoid a war.

    If one robbed something from others, the "something" won't belong to the robber even if it passed 50 or 100 years.

    As long as Japanese government keeps claiming, the ownership won't transfer to SK. This is a rule for the world peace.

    The simple and fair way to resolve the dispute is to go to ICJ but SK always rejects it, maybe because she knew what herself had done.

    Steve, go and fetch what you forgot to bring with you. We are waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  28. dokdo-takeshima.com17/12/07 20:04

    Kanganese, yes I said the Americans barbequed the Japanese residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Have you seen photos of the victims from ground zero.If you have a more politically correct term please insert. Incinerate?

    I dunno, the whole point is allied documents that favored Japan's position during the San Francisco Peace Treaty are taken as some moral guide with regard to territorial decisions made at the time. This is wrong. The truth is Allied Forces were carving up and dividing Asia for their military agenda that's all.

    Paicifist, I anwered your question regarding Korea's incorporation in 1900. Please read again.

    Korea has owned and effectively controlled Dokdo for longer than Japan now. Yet Japan want's to retry their case to Dokdo on international law one hundred years ago.

    Japan's 1905 incorporation is rotten to the core on many counts.

    First is the issue of "open and public" Was the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion "open and public'? I say no. Japan made no "public" announcement beyond a central government decision. Their so-called "public announcement" was the size of a postage stamp on the second page of a regional newspaper. There isn't even any mention of Liancourt Rocks at all!!

    Do you see Liancourt Rocks or Matsushima in their "announcement"? I sure as Hell don't. How would any person other than a few locals in Shimane Prefecture would have known Japan annexed Dokdo? Definitely NOT open and public enough to extend your territorial boundary 160kms and within visual proximity of Korea. Especially considering there are documents showing Japan was aware Korea was cognizant of Dokdo at this time.

    Where's Liancourt Rocks

    Another issue. Japan's basis for incorporation was based on the legal title of "occupation". This is a flimsy premise at best. Remote islands that are no able to sustain life cannot really be claimed on this premise. Japan announcement states that Nakai Yozaburo was living on Liancourt Rocks and had built a house on the island at this time.

    First Nakai was NOT living on Liancourt. He was illegally conductining his business from Ulleungdo. He was a grubby squatter and a trespasser. From this point alone we can see Japan's basis for annexing Liancourt is shabby. On top of that, the announcement stated Nakai had a "house" on Liancourt in early 1905. This is not true. The survey by the Japanese warship Tsushima stated the "hut" made by fishermen was destroyed and gone in the fall of 1904.

    In short, prior to 1905 Japan's (Nakai's) involvement on Liancourt was not neither "peaceful" nor "continuous" It was not legal in terms of "peaceful" and it certainly wasn't "continuous" enough to be an occupation. Those who may have sealed on the island stayed there only for a few days and only during June or July. It also can't be said these activities were conducted only by Japanese themselves.

    The issue of whether or not Japan's incorporation was uncontested also leaves question as to the legality of the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. There are historical records showing the Koreans contested Japan's annexation of Dokdo the moment they were notified. The right-wingers on this forum claim Koreans had the right to complain which is B.S. By this time the Japanese had purged most of those who didn't comply with Japanese views on most matters from the Korean cabinet. On top of that, the Korean foreign office was shut down and all state to state matters dealt through foreign pro-Japanese mouthpiece Durham White Stevens. However, we know Korea did contest Japan's actions in 1906 through media and different political levels.

    Korea contested

    Of course as I've mentioned, territorial acquisitions must be peaceful. Unfortunately for the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists there are many documents showing Japanese involvement on Liancourt Rocks was anything but peaceful. It was of course a military land grab for the exclusive "right" to colonize the Korean peninsula and purge the Russians.

    Shame on Japan

    Of course there are documents saying Japan considered Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) Chosun land. What is Japan's excuse? Oh we were confused!! We forgot where Dokdo was. So Korea gets a phatom island (Aronaut) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima) and we can have Liancourt Rocks. Japan wants Korea to go to the ICJ on this flimsy premise. Forget it!!

    Japanese Double Talk 1

    We also know Japan excluded Ulleungdo and other islands from her territory in 1877. What is Japan's excuse for this conclusive document? Oh we were confused, we forgot where Dokdo was. It really doesn't matter the identity of this "other island" in the Kobunuko documents. The fact is Japan excluded other islands from Shimane at this time. Japan historical title to Matushima (Dokdo) R.I.P.

    Japanese Double Talk 2


    Japane has no historical claim prior to 1905 period. Gerry, Pacifist, Kaneganese et al you have presented reams of historical data to force this issue and you've all fallen on your faces. I have seen no credible evidence on this forum to support Japan's B.S. assertions that Matsushima (Dokdo) was Japanese territory from ancient times. NOTHING. You are still stuck with a shabby dubious military annexation....too bad.

    All I see are shots at Korea's ambiguous Usando historical references. However, in an attempt to dispute Korea's claim what you have done is shown Korea without question has hands-down a historically superior claim to the region. You've shown the vacant-island policy was not at all any form of abandonment. You've proven Dokdo's most proximate land (Ulleungdo) was always Korean. Having helped verify Korea's ancient historical title to the Ulleungdo it makes no sense to extend Japan's territorial limit another 160kms to within visual proximity of a Korean territory since the 6th Century.

    Pacifist, you keep making demands on others to prove Korea's title. Take a look at map buddy see who has Dokdo. It is you who'd better pick up his game and provide a valid reason why Korea should drag this mess to the ICJ. I don't see any reason at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Steve Barber,

    You came back again without the Korean evidence? I told you, you should bring the evidence, Steve.

    As to the 1900 ordinance, Seokdo was not Liancourt rocks, because the Korean territory at that time didn't include Liancourt rocks as we've proved, Steve.

    They hadn't called Liancourt rocks Seokdo in any history - they only called it Yanko as Japanese called it in the eary 1900's. So there is no ground that the 1900 ordinance meant Liancourt rocks belonged to Korea.

    Steve, if Korea really thought Liancourt rocks to be Korean territory, why didn't they notice the incorporation for almost one year?

    The chief of Ulleungdo only misunderstood when Japanese officers told that "Takeshima" belonged to Japan. But he didn't know where was the island, so he informed local government of vague information. The local government also didn't know about it, so they sent the "carbon-copied" report to the central government.
    The central government also didn't know about the island, so they ordered to examine the details of the island and what Japanese did.

    And after that there was no record remained. They didn't claim to Japan. Apparently they should realized that the island located out of Korean territory.

    Some newspapers including anti-Japan paper reported about the occasion when the information from the local governemnt arrived but it was not a claim, Steve. It only reported the wrong information from the local government.

    Steve, don't forget to bring the evidence next time.

    ReplyDelete
  30. dokdo-takeshima.com17/12/07 21:54

    That's all you got Pacifist??

    No refutation of all my data? Are you just gonna yammer the same line like a broken record?

    No wonder nobody supports Japan's claim....

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve Barber,

    "No refutation of all my data?"

    It is waste of time to read incorrect texts in your site, Steve.

    It's you who are always avoid refutations.

    What is your answer to my questions?

    "Please tell me how and when Korea made it clear?"

    You can't answer to this question and ran away. It means that you wrote your assumption not on the basis of facts. Don't write such a lie to mislead innocent readers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dok do is korean's island! don't bothering us.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous,

    Thank you for your interest.
    Please show us the reason why you believe so. We are open to every one.

    Incidentally, we have proved that Usando was not Dokdo, Dokdo was out of Korean territory in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the name Dokdo was a very new one - it was created in the early 20th century - until then there was no Korean name for Liancourt rocks (Dokdo).

    ReplyDelete
  34. dokdo-takeshima.com19/12/07 21:20

    Pacifist, never mind Korea's claim. They have the islands remember? Have you checked a map lately?

    Japan has to prove first that they have a stronger historical title. (Which they don't have) and to prove they have legal title (which they also don't have)

    Without either of those, Japan can go suck a pickle for a nickel....

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve Barber,

    Don't come back again without your evidence to prove Dokdo belongs to Korea.

    You can't bring it here because Korea has no ground to have Dokdo.

    Steve, modern Korean map may have Dokdo but it was illegaly occupied, it was Japan's land as USA recognised during the SF Peace Treaty negotiations. USA knew it was Japanese territory and let Korea know the fact.

    So Korea knew that it is Japanese land but still keep occupying it, educating Korean people with distorted stories - it's a crime of conscience.

    I hope the new president Lee Myong-Bak will correct this crime originated in the Rhee Syngman's era.

    ReplyDelete
  36. dokdo-takeshima.com20/12/07 14:38

    Pacifist.

    U.S.A recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory in the S.F. Peace Treaty?

    Here is a copy of the SF Treaty itself please show us where!!

    S.F. Peace Treaty

    Poor naive Pacifist. Here is why some Americans favoured Japan.

    Steeves

    Again Pacifist, show superior historical or legal title or take a hike!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Poor Steve Barber,

    Can't you read the recent postings in this blog? Or can't you understand English?

    ReplyDelete
  38. i'm korean high school student
    and live in Dageu. first of all why does japan goverment keep on saying Dok do is japan mine?
    i really don't understand...

    i know i'm not good at English but
    now i'm really trying why Dok do is korean island.....

    long ago Dok do was chosun island
    but 1910 japanese goverment compulsory mreged chosun and
    under the rule of Japanese imperialism japanese solider and police killed many chosun peoples
    and japanese goverment compulsory
    merged Dok do is their island and until now japanese goverment and japanese claim Dok-do their island !! all korean doesn't believe their the wild idea !!
    additionally Japanese goverment doens't show our apporval yeosu EXPO Becos...japanese goverment dislike open the EXPO in yeosu,south korea and dlslike the Dok do included the yeosu EXPO map !!

    ReplyDelete
  39. 독도는한국땅29/12/07 10:18

    if you have an objection to my idea, send me your idea through
    this e-mail.

    lhr3345@hanmail.net

    ReplyDelete
  40. Whydontyoucheck29/12/07 10:45

    I really don't get it why Dokdo island is Jap's. Actually, Korean history is much longer than Japan. But Korean king mistook to manage Korea. It made Japan industry grow quickly and preceded about thiry years.'Meiji Restoration' made Japan to accept western culture, which made their industry became more stronger. However, it cannot be cover up their cruelty and their disgraceful history. They changed their history during colonial period in Korea.
    I don't know why people even do not check the both country's historical documents. Dokdo island is Korean's. Not Japanese's. Even Japanese citizens are not interested in Dokdo island. Furthermore, hundreds of world maps transcribed 'East Sea' into'SEA of JAPAN'. It is 100% wrong transcription.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 독도는 대한민국땅입니다
    고구려는 대한민국 역사입니다
    더이상 분쟁일으키지 말자
    어느나라건 대한민국에 도전하면 더이상 우리도 신사적으로 나가지 않아요
    동방예의지국으로서 마지막 경고입니다

    ReplyDelete
  42. 독도에 대해 더이상 왈가왈부하지마요

    원래 우리 한국껀데 왜자꾸 우겨요

    그만좀해요. 우리역사 가로채지마요

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dokdo is certainly the island of Korea. In the geographical position, Korea is much closer than japan to Dokdo. When korea is called Chosun in the past, there were a person, Yong-bok An. He received the certificate that Dokdo definitely belongs to korea from Japan's government. However Japanese claim its false authority, Koreans knows the truth that Dokoe is korea's can't change.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi 독도는한국땅, Whydontyoucheck, peace, and Anonymous(you need to use other ID if you want to comment more than once.)

    Thank you all for your comment. Since we are having long holiday (It's a new year holiday in Japan) at the moment, none of us has enough time to respond each of you right now (in other word, not available to those noncence). I'm only posting what I've already translated automatically to fill the gap. While you wait us coming back to normal situation, please read what is written on this post at least or our posts on this site thoroughly. It shows Korea has absolutely no concrete evidence over so-called "Dokdo" island, while Japan had plenty since 17c. If you have any objection against what we wrote, we are willing to answer you. We are trying to study the fact, not lobbying. Chanting what Korean government brainwashed Korean innocent kids enthusiastically only makes Korean look eccentric and wiered people to all over the world. I sincerely hope Korean respond more logically.

    독도는한국땅,

    Don't worry about your English. They are fine. But since I'm a mother of teenage daughter myself, I recommend you to have a permission from your parents if it is OK to talk to adults on the net. And you can delete your E-mail address now. Good luck to your study, though. My daughter has a Korean school mate and is stuying at the cram school right now. (And please read our posts first It'll be a good practice for English and true history of your own country. If you really love your countrly, don't believe all of what you are taught at the school. They are only for the exams.)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Everyone,

    Please stop the namecalling because those posts will be deleted. Also, if you are going to make a claim, it would be nice if you could support it with some specific evidence that can be discussed. If you have no evidence to support your claim or do not even understand the history of the dispute, then why bother making a claim or risk making a false claim? In such situations, wouldn't it be better to ask questions?

    Anyway, I wish everyone a happy new year.

    ReplyDelete