竹島問題の歴史

30.11.07

1904 February 20th Japanese map of Korea and Manchuria


Here is a map called "満韓新図" (new map of Manchuria and Korea) which was included in a book "日露戦争実記" (a record of Russo-Japanese war).
The map was made on February 20th 1904, about one year before the incorporation of Liancourt rocks.
Liancourt rocks were indicated as Matsushima, the old name of the island.
You can see the borderline* between Ulleungdo and Matsushima (Liancourt rocks), which means that Japan already recognised Liancourt rocks to be out of Korean territory before the incorporation.
Korean government used to claim that Japan robbed Dokdo from Korea but it was not true.
(Please click the map to enlarge)
*The legend at the right lower corner mentions that this line is " 国界" (national border).

32 comments:

  1. Thank you, pacifist.

    This backs up my claim that Japanese in Meiji were not at all "greedy enough to grab the island from Korea" since it clearly drawn the national border between two islands (鬱陵島 and 松島) and put the location (latitude and longitude) of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks outside of Korean territory but within Japanese territory.

    It seems this "松島" is Ulleundo from it's shape and location and this suggests that the mapmaker was confused with the location of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks. But since the non-existant Argonaut is labelled as "鬱陵島=Ulleundo" and the national boder line is between two islands, it is clear that Japanese recognized 竹島/Liancourt Rocks is not Korean, but Japanese territory in 1904.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaneganese,

    Thanks for your commnet.

    I think the "incorporation" in 1905 was an incorporation to Shimane prefecture more than incorporation to Japanese territory.

    They recognised that the island was out of Korean territory and in the Japanese territorial sea but they didn't know what prefecture had to control the island, so they decided to make it control under Oki island of Shimane prefecture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pacifist,

    Yes, that is an interesting, yet confusing, map. I do not understand why the mapmaker was still mapping the non-existent island Argonaut as "Ulleungdo" (鬱陵島). He did not seem to know that Ulleungdo and Matsushima (松島) were the same island. By 1904, Japan was referring to Japan's Matsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima) as "Liancourt Rocks."

    What the map tells me is that the mapmaker considered an island by the name of "Matsushima" (松島) to be Japanese territory, even though he did not know exactly where it was.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry,

    Yes, as you and Kaneganese pointed out, the mapmaker may have some kind of confusion about Argonaut island and Ulleungdo.

    But as a whole, the mapmaker knew the geographic fact that there are three islands from west to east - Ulleungdo, Liancourt rocks and Oki island. And he/she may have had a knowledge that Takeshima was given away to Korea but Matsushima reamined in Japan's territory.

    The important point is that the mapmaker knew that Ulleungdo was in Korean territory but another island which locates more eastern than Ulleungdo was not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dokdo-takeshima.com30/11/07 23:27

    Erm, I think those lines are telegraph lines and shipping routes. The same lines are on this map. The map you show shows the routes from Sasaebo Naval Base.

    You should recheck the legend of tanaka’s map

    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka30/russojapanese-1904/05.jpg

    Boat routes are marked as dash, dash, dash, etc __________
    Provincial boundaries are marked as dash, dot, dash, dot, etc _._._._._
    National boundaries are marked as dash, dot, dot, dash, dot, dot, etc _.._.._.._.._



    Kaneganese, the Japanese and the rest of the world had deemed “Argonaut” as non-existent for at 25~35 years before this map was made. This map shows errors of position not identity.

    P.S. hotlinking on this website has issues...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve Barber,

    Are you blind?
    The line between Ulleungdo and Matsushima is _.._.._.._.._.
    That is the national border.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve Barber,

    You should recheck your eyes. (Seriously, are you Okey?) There's no sea line from Sasebo on this map. Only railway lines.

    We are talking about the National Border lines (国界 : dash, dot, dot, dash, dot, dot, etc _.._.._.._.._) which cross at the point of 130°(E) and 38°(N) on the map between 松島 鬱陵島. On the other hand, you are apparently talking about the sea route from Nagasaki to Vladiostok which is drawn on the right.

    There are three streaching National Border lines(国界) between Japan and Korea on this map.

    1) Between 済州島 and 五島列島
    2) Between 鬱陵島 and 松島
    3) Between Japan and Russia ( North to 鳥取)

    They are apparently the Japanese National Border(国界). It's not a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are state boundary line between Ulluengdo鬱陵島 and Matsushima松島
    It is national boundary on the map.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1/12/07 14:05

    Oh I see what you guys are talking about, now.

    Are you telling me the boundary of Korea was at 130 degrees? The maps you've posted today show this map is wrong.

    Japan has zero claim to Liancourt Rocks prior to 1905 and anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

    Here is a mapbook of Japan from 1890, it shows all of Japan's territory all minor islands inclusive. Japan did not consider Liancourt part of Japan until their military annexed it during the Russo~Japanese War. There are at least half a dozen of these mapbooks in the Japanese National Diet Library that show the same thing.

    Read this mapbook.

    1890 Mapbook

    Here are numerous maps of Shimane Prefecture that prove Japan did not consider Liancourt Rocks part of Japan prior to 1905.

    Shimane

    The map is a freak. Even when the Japanese applied to incorporate the island they stated it was "ownerless". You guys are so desperate it makes me laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. anonymous,

    As I wrote before, until the incorporation of Liancourt rocks to Oki island of Shimane prefectute in 1905, Meiji government didn't know what prefecture has to control it.

    Remeber the incorporation was to incorporate it to Shimane prefecture, not to incorporate it to Japan. It had been widely known that Liancourt rocks were out of Korean territory as I've shown you in the other posting and that the rocks are in the Japanese territorial water.

    So it is no wonder the 1890 map book didn't mention Liancourt rocks because the rocks didn't belong to any prefectures in 1890.

    More importantly, Liancourt rocks hade never ever belonged to Korea. As I showed you in the other posting, Korean empire recognised its eastern limit was Ullengdo's Jukdo. And Korean old documents don't show that Korea knew Liancourt rocks until 20th century, there was no name for the rocks until 1902 or 1903 when Korean fishermen were hired by Japanese.

    So it has been revealed that Korea has no right to own it.

    It was Rhee Syngman who robbed the island in the after the war turmoil. He made up the story that Korea knew and used Dokdo from ancient times but it was a lie.

    Please remember that Rhee also claimed Tsushima and an imaginary island to be Korean territory as well at first. But Tsushima is apparently Japanese island and many Japanese lived there so it was impossible to take it. So Rhee aimed at the uninhabited island in the Sea of Japan.

    I'm wondering why people of Korea still believe Rhee Syngman's lie.

    ReplyDelete
  11. dokdo-takeshima.com2/12/07 02:12

    Pacifist, the Japanese didn't consider Liancourt Rocks part of any prefecture. That is why I posted the map of the entire country of Japan.

    The map book below shows every island considered part of Japan as of 1890. Even the Ogasawara Islands which are about 100kms away from Japan are included. Even tiny Minoshima off Japan's West coast is included.

    On top of that, Matsushima (Dokdo) is included on the chart of the area showing the Japanese did include the island as part of the overall region. However, not one map shows Matsushima as part of Japan. Period.

    Dokdo not part of Japan

    Paicifst, I've already shown you. The Black Dragon Fishing guide shows Koreans were aware of Dokdo by at least 1900.

    1901 Black Dragon

    Try to understand it made no sense for Japan to annex Liancourt Rocks in 1905 and it makes even less sense for the Japanese to steal it again now.

    Look at a map of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) Dokdo is within visual distance of Ulleungdo, only 87kms! It is almost double the distance to Oki Islands. Having the boundary where it is now is logical. Having Japan extend her border another 157kms would encroach onto Ulleungdo Island (a fishing community) far too close. It didn't matter in 1905 because the Japanese basically control all of Korea, but it matters now and Korea will never accept Japan extending her border 160 clicks.

    Also greedy Japan declares every rock in the ocean as an EEZ. This is very shameful. If a seagull shits in the East Sea, Japan declares an EEZ around it. This is rediculous. If Japan reclaims Takeshima, they may have already suggested they may declare it habitable, if so they could claim an EEZ around it and extend their border more. Read this. Imagine claiming a 400,000 sq kms around a couple of rocks the size of a bedroon

    Japanese Greed

    You have to stop trying to relive the colonial era Pacifist et al.
    Japan and Korea have to agree on a border that is fair to both sides.

    Dokdo Island is nearer to Ulleungdo Island and closer to the nearest Korean landfall. Both Ulleungdo and Oki are inhabited islands that are capable of generating EEZ. Thus as some scholars have pointed out, an equidistant line drawn between both Ulleungdo and Oki is the most logical approach to solving this dispute. Either that or leave the Koreans alone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve Barber,

    In Japan, the new government of Meiji discarded old county system and adopted new prefecture system in 1871 (廃藩置県).
    In the turmoil of this new system, Liancourt rocks didn't belong to any prefectures, maybe because it was an uninhabited island and was a kind of a special island under shogunate's direct control in the Edo period.
    So it is natural that you couldn't find the island in the 1890 book, you can't claim any claims for that.

    But as I've shown you in another posting, Liancourt rocks were apparently out of Korean territory, Meiji government thought it was in Japanese territorial water. They only needed to decide which prefecture should control the island. So they had a Cabinet meeting and decided to make Oki island of Shimane prefecture control it.
    So, the word "annexation" you used to mention is not appropriate Steve,- it was an "incorporation" into Shimane prefecture.

    As to the Fishery Guide of Sea around Korea (韓海通漁指針) published by Black Dragon Party (黒龍会), Tokyo, I posted the translated text of the 1903 version here:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1903-fishery-guide-of-sea-around-korea.html

    If you read it carefully, you may notice that the book only says both of Japanese and Korean fishermen called it as "Yanko". The text also mentions Japanese were trying to catch several marine sources with new apparatus from several years before the publication of the book - maybe in the 1890's.

    Korean fisheremn were only hired by Japanese. It is not important when the hired Korean fishermen first knew "Yanko" - it may have been in 1903 or 1901 or 1900 but it won't be a proof to say that Korea has a right to own it.

    The important thing is that Liancourt rocks didn't belong to Korea in 1905, Korea's eastern limit was Ulleungdo's Jukdo, and it was widely known to Japanese, western countries and even to Koreans themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dokdo-takeshima.com2/12/07 22:43

    Pacifist, Shimane Prefecture did not "incorporate" Liancourt Rocks. Japan annexed it. A prefecture has no political power in the forum of international politics and is not empowered to expand a nation's boundary. In other words, Florida cannot claim Cuba on behalf of America.

    Nakai Yozaburo's diary clearly records the powers that be were behind the annexation of Dokdo. The driving force was Yamaza Enjiro, Komura Jutaro and I think Akimasa Yoshikawa. (Home Affairs)

    Yamaza Enjiro was the director of political affairs who stated to Nakai "it was important to construct watchtowers and telegraph lines on Liancourt Rocks." Yamaza Enjiro was also affiliated with the Gen Yosha (Black Ocean Society) this was a right wing extremist and terrorist organization working to promote expansionism in China and Korea.

    Yamaza Enjiro worked under and with Komura Jutaro Pacifist.

    In fact, if you look on Nakai's application you can see he submitted it to among others Komura Jutaro.

    Komura Jutaro had been promoting Japanese expansionism on mainland Asia for at least 10 years before they annexed Liancourt Rocks. He helped draft the Shimonseki Treaty with the Chinese, the orinigina 1902 Anglo~Japanese Treaty with England and the 1905 Portsmouth Treaty with the Russians after the war. Komura made sure all of these treaties had clauses guaranteeing Japanese interests in Korea.

    Komura Jutaro was also instrumental in the annexation of Korea itself in 1910.He was a hardliner and worked hard with Katsura to annex Korea. Komura was also humiliated when the Europeans forced the Japanese to give back land after the 1895 Shimoseki Treaty was signed. He never forgot this shame.

    Japanese Expansionist

    Thus is not surprising the Japanese did not make any external notification nor consider Korea's territorial integrity when they annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    Don't get me wrong though. I think that Komura was a brilliant man. He was a Harvard Grad and fluent in English and well-versed in international law. This could explain why Japan craftily did the bare minimum in an attempt to make these actions "legal" in the eyes of the international community. I just don't feel even if Japan did acquire some these territories "legally" that it carries any weight today. Some Japanese scholars have put forth good arguments that the annexation of Korea itself was legal. But what fool would argue Japan should have Korea back?

    When you combine the political background of those involved along with the military activities by the Japanese it's clear the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion is rotten to the core. This is why Japan cannot muster any international support for their claim other than a few right-wing radicals from the lunatic fringe like you and your Takeshima lobbyists Pacifist.

    Now that it is almost the year 2008 the Japanese have to seek a logical solution to this dispute. The resolution has to be one that treats Korea like an equal not a colony. By Japanese continually trying to assert that the 1905 annexation was legal they are simply angering the Koreans and are will continue to do so.

    Take a look at a map of the East Sea, forget the past and draw a boundary that is fair for both Korea and Japan in this day and age.

    1905 is gone Pacifist. Let the Koreans have their rocks and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve Barber,

    At first, I have to correct your distorted knowledge.
    Yamaza Enjiro (山座円次郎) was not such a right wing extremist, Steve.

    http://www.ndl.go.jp/portrait/datas/210.html

    He was an elite diplomat. He graduated from the law school of the Empire University, entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and worked under the renowned minister of MOFA - Komura Jutaro.
    He engaged in the alliance with UK, negotiation with Russia, and the peace treaty in Portsmouth.

    Steve, you have to learn true history of Japan before you go into Dokdo things. One-sided narrow outlook may blind your eyes, Steve.

    If Yamaza encouraged Nakai to make a petition, it wouldn't mean he was a right winger Steve.

    Remember again Steve, that Liancourt rocks were not in Korean territory in 1905.

    Liancourt rocks were "incorporated", Steve.

    http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/incorporation.html

    Incorporation is "編入" in Japanese/Chinese and annexation is "併合" in Japanese /Chinese, the latter means to get some other counrtry's land with their agreement, but this is not the case because Liancourt rocks were not some other country's land.

    So the right word under the internationa law is "incorporation". Japan incorporated Liancourt rocks into Japan and at the same time incorporated it into the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3/12/07 00:47

    Pacifist, Yamaza Enjiro's affiliation with the Genyo놈 was recorded in biography written by Hasegawa Shun, Yamaza Enjiro (1967); Ichiyu Masao, ed., Yamaza enjiro den (Biography of Yamaza Enjiro).

    Anyway I googled a couple of links and it also turned out Yamaza Enjiro was close friends with other known Genyosha as the article above stated.

    Genyo놈1

    This link also mentions Yamaza's close relationship with another known Gen Yosha member.

    Genyo놈2

    As you mentioned Yamaza worked with Komura in the three treaties. All of the treaties mentioned has specific clauses guaranteeing Japan a free hand in Korea. go figure...

    Here is an outline of the treaties Yamaza Enjiro and Komura worked on.

    Japanese in Korea 1905

    Pacifist whatever term the Japanese government used to refer to the Shimane Prefecture is not important. Like the term they used to describe the annexation of Korea it is a prime example of how the Japanese government used their language and Western colonial "law" as a basis for expansionism. You should read Alexis Dudden's book. It shows how the Japanese used their language to coin "legal terms".

    I noticed you had nothing to say about Komura's involvement in Nakai's application. Denial is not a healthy thing Pacifist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. anonymous (are you Steve?),

    The incorporation of Liancourt rocks and the annexation of Korea are not related.

    Korea was "annexed" (併合), yes that's true. There was an agreement of the both countries, so it was annexation. The largest political party "一進会" pleaded to annex Korea and they celebrated the annexation.

    I don't praise the annexation - I always say that Japan should have rejected. But the state of Korea was miserable - it was on the edge of corruption. It would danger Japan's security, so they had to do that.

    But the incorporation of Liancourt rocks was not related to the annexation of Korea.

    Liancourt rocks had never ever been treated as Korean territory, as you can see many evidences in this blog.


    BTW, Genyosha was one of political parties in those days, it was not a kind of gang or right wing extremists. So it is not important even if he had some friends in the party.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve Barber, you should choose one of your many IDs and stick to that if you want to comment on this forum more than once. This is a rule. You are not allowed to pretend as a new person whenever you are defeated in the debate. You should be responsible what you say. You are not allowed to insist that you didn't say what you clearly said.

    玄洋社? The "conspiracy theory" again? Look, the member of 玄洋社 supprted 金玉均 and 朴泳孝 from Choson so that they can become independent by themselves. It was 李容九 who became desparate and believed that Korea cannot be reformed by themselves and decided to ask for Japanese help. 玄洋社 had a slogan that Asian countries should be freed from colonization by Western countries. They claimed Korea should be independent and later when it was decided to be annexed, they insisted that it should be "equal annexation" for both parties. It is absurd to "assume" that 玄洋社 had some ambitious to get Korean land in 1904-5. Stop demonizing every single Japanese.

    As for Yamaza of MOFA, Professor Emeritus Naitou apparently try to mislead that Kimotsuki, Maki and Yamaza had some relationship of some kind of "conspiracy" to incorporate Takeshima knowing that it is Korean, but this is totally absurd and untrue. As I've posted, the books they wrote preaface (1894「朝鮮水路誌」, 1903「韓海通漁指針」, 1904「最新韓国実業指針」) clearly tell that Korean Eastern limit is 130度35分. It excludes Takeshima. Liancourt Rocks were listed under the noticable obstacles in 日本海 in 1894「朝鮮水路誌」 along with Russian rocks. And it is mentioned next to Ulleundo in 1903「韓海通漁指針」, the fishery guide for Japanese, because Japanese on Ulleundo were going fishing to the island. Fianally, it is mentioned under the 江原道 section in 1904「最新韓国実業指針」, the business guide for Japanese, because Japanese on Ulleundo were going fishing to the island. All the books they had some relation clearly state that Korean eastern limit is 130度35分 and it comletely exclude Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.

    Professor Emeritus Naitou never stop citing only part of the books favourable and totally ignores the description of Korean Eastern limit which exclude Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, and simply assume that they had some conspirarcy together without any concrete evidence. This is insane and shameful.

    Don't you think that you should show us the concrete evidence to prove that Korean had sovereignty over the island before Japan did if you want to say it was their island and those Japanese officials had something to do with the conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve wrote:
    A prefecture has no political power in the forum of international politics and is not empowered to expand a nation's boundary. In other words, Florida cannot claim Cuba on behalf of America.

    This is not accurate.


    MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE (ICJ 1953)
    “The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation.”

    However many Japanese maps without Linocourt Rocks you bring up, it does not show Japan didn't recognized it as a Japanese territory as long as there are Japanese maps that have Linocourt Rocks on them and as far as Japanese had effective control over it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. dokdo-takeshima.com3/12/07 13:57

    Kaneganese, don't get your panties in a twist, I just forgot to enter a name when I posted. Just like other posters have done.

    There is no "conspiracy theory" Kaneganese. Yamaza Enjiro cleary stated in Nakai's diary that the Japanese military desperately needed to construct military watchtowers on Liancourt Rocks. This was at least three months before the island was annexed. This is not theory but fact. It shows the real agenda behind the Japanese taking Liancourt Rocks. Thus we know Dokdo was an island seized for greed.

    Kaneganese, I don't care much for your right-wing rationale behind what you feel is Japan's justification for colonizing Korea. It was wrong, the free world has long determined this.

    Kanganese quotes "It is absurd to "assume" that 玄洋社 had some ambitious to get Korean land in 1904-5. Stop demonizing every single Japanese.."

    I'm not "demonizing Japanese people" I'm putting historical and political context to the Dokdo - Takeshima dispute. Japan as a nation "annexed" Liancourt Rocks. The posters on this forum are trying to sell us this B.S. notion that at the height of the largest war of the day Japan needed desperately needed to hunt seals. Please stop trying to insult the intelligence of us in the real world by lying to us and accept the truth behind Japan's colonial past and then maybe (just maybe) we will listen to Japan's claims.

    The Japanese had drafted numerous treaties up to 1905 to assure they would have a free hand in Korea. Komura Jutaro was involved with Katsura in the annexation of Korea and controlling in China since at least 1895 (Shimonseki Treaty) What a surprise Nakai Yozaburo's application was forwarded to him!

    No matter how much the people on this forum try to sanitize the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion we know it is rotten to the core. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

    Kaneganese, you need to get it through your thick head that Japan will never own Dokdo. There is no justification for Japan extending her territorial boundary 160kms and within visual proximity of Ulleungdo Island, Korean territory since the 6th Century.

    So what Japan must do is stop pretending she is the boss of Asia. Japan must start to remember the year is 2007, Korea has the economic power of Russia and should be treated as an equal and not a colony. Japan must stop insisting she is right and everyone else is wrong.

    Look at a map of the East Sea, pick a reasonable border that is a fair and reasonable line between Korea and Japan based on the premise Korea is now a free country and on equal footing with Japan. Stop slamming your fist on the table and insisting "Takeshima is ours!!" It's a very different world from 1905 now Kaneganese accept it and then Asia can move on.

    Think.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve Barber,

    Stop yelling, your insistency is void when we have proved that Liancourt rocks had never ever been owned by Korea.

    Usando in the old documents was not Dokdo (Liancourt rocks), old Korean maps didn't show Liancourt rocks, the eastern border of Korea was Jukdo of Ulleungdo.

    Annexed for military use? No way, Liancourt rocks were not annexed.
    It was in the Japanese territorial water and only Japanese reached it and used it.

    How one can have such a crazy thought?

    ReplyDelete
  21. dokdo-takeshima.com3/12/07 21:31

    Yelling? Pacifist, yelling on the internet involves excessive use of upper case letters.

    Pacifist you stated earlier that the Japanese organization Genyosha was just a right wing political movement. Again, you have proven you know nothing about your own country’s history.

    Please read the following link and learn.

    Genyosha Truth

    Yamaza Enjiro who was involved in the forcing through of Nakai Yozaburo’s application was affiliated with what amounts to a terrorist right-wing expansionist organization. Deal with it. Yamaza also worked under Komura Jutaro a man who worked hard to promote the immigration of Japanese to Korea even during times before treaties allowed it.

    Pacifist and Kanganese, why don't you explain to all of us why Japanese were fishing on Ulleungdo? What right did Japanese have to live on Ulleungdo? Were these Japanese citizens? No. Were they emmigrants? No.

    What business did Japanese have on Korea's Ulleungdo? It’s is pathetic that Japanese Takeshima lobbyists describe activities of Japanese nationals on Ulleungdo as if it were natural. It is so shabby they use these illegal activities as basis to Dokdo. These people were illegal trespassers and squatters they had absolutely NO business being on Ulleungdo Island. It's that simple. Japanese people were only allowed to live in certain treaty designated areas at this time.

    What happened on Ulleungdo Island is representative of the campaign Japan was involved in all over Northeast Asia. That is a campaign of allowing Japanese to illegally reside on foreign soil, overwhelm and overpopulate the native residents and then colonize the area. Japanese were illegally buying land even in Korea’s interior before the 1904~1905 Russia Japanese War.

    So as I’ve stated, the Japanese have to stop dwelling on the illegal 1905 military annexation of Liancourt Rocks. If they could show some valid title prior to 1905 they might have something but the fact is Japan doesn’t. In fact some of their documents show the exact opposite, that some Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory.

    So, with the above points in mind Japan has to stop living in the past and act like a civilized country. Take a good look at the Sea of Japan (East Sea) Kaneganese and Pacifist take off your rising sun headbands and look at the region and put together a fair proposal to draw an equitable border between Korea and Japan.
    Korea is the more proximate land to Liancourt Rocks. Ulleungdo Island is only half the distance to Dokdo and the island is visible from Ulleungdo on a clear day. Ulleungdo Island has a population that relies on ocean resources and drawing the border only 87kms (plus a nautical zone of 12miles?) is simply not an acceptable proposal in the year 2007.

    Does anyone on this forum have a solution other than Japan’s narrow-minded demands? Is this all the Takeshima “research” foundation has to offer? What a sham. What an utter embarrassment it is that a organization supposedly dedicated to the historical background of the Takeshima problem totally ignores the military and political motivations for Japan annexing the island to begin with.

    Shame shame shame.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve,

    We are debating only about Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo), not about Japanese people in Ulleungdo, not about annexation of Korea, not about political parties.

    You always change subjects when you are cornered.

    Did you admit that the line on the map was national border?

    Did you admit that the eastern limit of Korea was Jukdo of Ulleungdo?

    Did you admit that Usando in old Korean documents was not Liancourt rocks?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous4/12/07 00:04

    Pacifist, don't run away.

    Please explain why hundreds of illegal Japanese were squatting and fishing on Korea's Ulleungdo Island at the time the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    Please explain why the Japanese Warship Tsushima surveyed Liancourt Rocks for watchtowers and telegraph lines only months before the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    Please explain why Yamaza Enjiro stated "we must install watchtowers and telegraph lines on Liancourt Rocks.." in Nakai Yozaburo's diary.

    Y'know I could respect a Japanese person with enough integrity to confront the truth and say "Yes we annexed the island militarily but it was legal.." I wouldn't agree of course but at least it would show the person was honest. But those who lie in the face of historical truth and try to divert the argument are shabby and slimy and can't be trusted.

    Pacifist, Korea has Dokdo.

    It is Japan that has to put forth a credible case for Liancourt Rocks. What has anyone on this forum presented to show Japan has a stronger historical claim (not cognizance)? Absolutely nothing. We know Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese were.

    This whole forum is just shots at ancient Korean document with not one shred of concrete title for Japan prior to 1905. The only Japanese claim I've seen on this forum are back assward maps and dubious translations of old documents. All of these are countered by dozens of Japanese maps that show otherwise and even some historical Japanese documents that say Korea owned the islands.

    That's what I've been posting here. I haven't changed the subject at all as you say.

    After all of the holes in Japan's 1905 claim there is nothing left to listen to. Therefore the Japanese are asking the Koreans to return Dokdo on the basis that in 1905 their military came in and annexed/incorporated Liancourt. You are crazy if you think the Japanese will get Takeshima on such flimsy grounds. Just crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve Barber/Toadface/Wedgie/Anonymous/non-Anonymous/Frogmouth/dusty/zippertrout/

    火病? I thought you are not Korean.

    I will talk to you when you start to talk anything related with this topic or show the concrete evidence that Korean has sovereignty over the island before Japan did.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve Barber,

    You wrote, "We know Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese were". Please show us the evidence of what you wrote.

    If you have an evidence, we will celebrate your honor, but you have failed to show it for a long time.
    Why don't you show us, Steve?

    The old documents and maps have all denied your claim, Steve. Usando was not Liancourt rocks, there was no Korean name for it until 20th century...how do you say that Korea was cognizant of Liancourt rocks? No way!

    You also wrote "even some historical Japanese documents that say Korea owned the islands", but there are no such documents.
    You have to show us the evidence if you insist so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kaneganese & Pacifist,

    Instead of wasting your time responding to the silly rants of Steve Barber, I would suggest that you start gradually translating our posts into Japanese. It is pretty obvious to me that Steve Barber has been pushed to the point where he can no longer respond with anything worthwhile. In other words, you are beating a dead horse.

    I think we have done a fairly good job of showing just how ridiculous Korea's claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)is, so maybe it is time to start translating our posts for the Japanese visitors to this site who cannot read English very well. What do you think?

    I have learned a lot studying and debating this issue over the past couple of years, and I think I now understand the chain of events pretty well. A lot of the questions I had about this issue have been answered, but the strange thing is that more answers keep popping up.

    This whole experience has been interesting because it has taught me that no matter how hard people like Steve Barber may try to hide the truth, it will eventually be revealed. Now I think it is time to start spreading that truth.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gerry,

    Thank you for your right comment.

    We will translate the English postings to Japanese one by one.
    Could you please tell us the order of priority?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gerry,

    You are right. Actually, I don't have much time to waste my time to respond his silly unrelated claim at the moment, since I'm in the middle of packing to move my place on this weekend.

    Pacifist,

    I'll start translation for Gerry's posts from recent ones. What about you starting translating your posts? And if you have time, you can start Gerry's from old ones. I think I translated until the end of October, but I may have dropped some.

    Gerry wrote;
    "I think we have done a fairly good job of showing just how ridiculous Korea's claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)is,"

    I agree. I happened to have made the chronological list of our posts and your "Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video" series on Occidentalism a few days ago. They are quite a masterpiece.

    Index of Posts on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kaneganese,

    Thank you, this list is great. (I sometimes forget some postings I myself posted...this is good for my memory.(^^))

    BTW, I recently noticed that some sources are not available now even if you click the link (such as Sanin-Chuo-Shinpo articles). Mr. ponta once proposed to use "fish print" (魚拓) to leave important sources. I think that was a good idea, but I have not used this technique..do you? How do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  30. dokdo-takeshima.com4/12/07 14:15

    Gerry, it's not surprising at all you've resorted to the typical Japanese stance on any dispute involving her neighbours. That's is when evidence is presented that corners the Japanese they simply resort to the denial campaign instead of producing a rational response.

    You can fill in the blanks with your interpretations of ambiguous Chosun historical documents and backward maps using you patented "this suggests... or I think... or this is almost certainly..." However, when you are presented with clear records that show Japanese expansionism and militarism was behind Japan's annexation of Dokdo you just ignore or run away. Gerry, you started out with a good idea for a blog. Now you are just regurgitating the same crap from Shimane Prefecture's website. What a sell out....

    I'm not hiding any truth at all. I've worked hard to uncover documents that prove without doubt the Japanese annexed Dokdo in 1905 for military reasons. These include the original maps, logbooks and reports issued prior to the February annexation of Liancourt Rock.

    Gerry, why don't you tell us all? If your assertions are correct that Japanese expansionism had nothing to do with Takeshima, then why were hundreds of Japanese squatters living on Ulleungdo at the turn of the century?

    Kanganese, please don't run away! Please tell everyone on this forum why Japan surveyed Liancourt Rocks for watchtowers in November 1904 before they greedily seized the island in 1905.

    Here is the record.

    Annexation

    Kaneganese why don't you tell us more about Komura Jutaro, the man to whom Nakai Yozaburo submitted his application to? Wasn't he responsible for all major treaties that stripped Korea of her sovereignty? Do you want me to teach you some more Japanese history?

    You seem to have forgotten Japanese foreign policy in Korea from the years between 1878~1945. Hey! Maybe you should run for Japan's Prime Minister. Historical amnesia is a prerequisite for that job in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  31. pacifist & Kaneganese,

    It seems you two conclude from the "The New Map of Manchuria and Korea(満韓新図)" that Japan already recognized Liancourt rocks to be out of Korean territory before the incorporation and this map backs up the claim that Japanese in Meiji were not at all "greedy enough to grab the island from Korea".


    If so, I wonder what you would say regarding "The New Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea(日露清韓明細新図)". This map was published in 1903 by 'The Department of Survey of Imperial Army and Navy(帝国陸海測量部)'. In this map, Dokdo is within the Korean territory.

    日露清韓明細新図 1
    日露清韓明細新図 2

    Compare the publishers of those two maps. "日露清韓明細新図" was published by The Department of Survey of Imperial Army and Navy(帝国陸海測量部). and
    "満韓新図" was published by 黒龍会 (Black Dragon Society) which was the Japanese prominent paramilitary, ultranationalist right-wing group. Which map could be more reliable? Actually the reliability of "満韓新図" is zero.

    As Steve Barber pointed out, Japanese government testifies this map is a freak, because Japanese government incorporated Dokdo stating it was ownerless. Also Dajokan Order proves "満韓新図" is a fake. How could the land concluded not as Japanese land by Japanese government in 1877 turn into Japanese land by Black Dragon Society in 1904?

    Pacifist wrote Korean government used to claim that Japan robbed Dokdo from Korea but it was not true, but "日露清韓明細新図" clearly testifies Japan robbed Dokdo from Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A New Link to 「The New Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea(日露清韓明細新図)」 of 1903 in the above comment

    If the link doesn’t work, please go to http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/evidence1-japanese-incorporation-of.html

    ReplyDelete