竹島問題の歴史

29.10.08

1903 German Map of Japan which was owned by German Embassy

This German topographical map of Japan was published in Leipzig in 1903. This map has a grave meaning because it had been used in the German Embassy in Tokyo until it was brought out after the World War II, which may mean that the map was recognised as one of the most accurate maps of Japan by Germany as a nation from 1903 until 1945.

Please take a look at the islands in the Sea of Japan. Ulleungdo was labelled as "Matsu-sh. (Dagelet I.)" and Liancourt Rocks were labelled as "Liancourt Rocks / Hornet In." and both of the islands were coloured green - the same colour as Japan mainland.
..................
..................
..................................................

This is another evidence to show that western countries, including the Embassy of a western country, recognised that Liancourt Rocks were not Korean territory in 1903 - three years after the promulgation of the Korean Edict #41 and two years before the incorporation of the rocks into Japan.
Korea actually didn't own Liancourt Rocks, at least the world didn't recognise that Korea owned the rocks.
....................................................


...................................................


9 comments:

  1. Pacifist, where do you keep dredging up these inaccurate maps of Japan?

    This chart shows Korea's Ulleungdo as Japanese land!!

    Even Japanese maps don't show Ulleungdo as Japan's territory. Everyone knows Ulleungdo was a Korean island since the 6th Century. Stop using maps that can be verified as historically inaccurate as evidence of anything Pacifist.

    Again, garbage in, garbage out........sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,
    "Stop using maps that can be verified as historically inaccurate as evidence of anything"

    Start using Korean maps that can be verified as historically accurate as evidence of something.

    Just show me once Korean maps that show Dokodo belongs to Koera.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve the toadface,

    I agree that Ulleungdo was mistakenly drawn as Japanese territory as well as many other western maps. The mistake may have been attributed to the Japanese name Matsu.

    However, it means that Japan controlled the area - actually ships were almost controlled by Japanese companies.

    The important point here is that Liancourt Rocks, which were also controlled under Japanese, had been recognised as Japanese territory, not Korean territory. Actually there were already many Japanese fishermen/hunters as read in Japanese records we introduced in other postings. Koreans were only hired by these Japanese people.

    If you want to insist that Korea owned Liancourt Rocks already in 1900, you should bring your evidence as Ponta mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, pacifist

    If there are only one or two maps which depicted Ulleungdo as Japanese island, it can be said, as "inaccurate". However, there are hundreds of them and rest of the maps depict Liancourt Rocks as undetermined island. There is absolutely no single map which shows Liancourt Rocks as Korean whatsover It shows what was like the common knowledge among the world concerning for Liancourt Rocks. Apparently, it was recognized as Japanese island or no man's land, sometimes. Absolutely no trace of Korean occupancy/recognition. It is exactly what Meiji government said in 1905.

    This is another important evidence that Japanese Meiji government was not "greedy" to grab the land as Korean insist illogically, but it only followed the International rule when they incorporated Takeshima/Licanrourt Rocks into Shimane.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gerry, do you know what has happened to Matt's blog? Something appears to have happened just today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Note: not just Gerry; the question is for anybody, really.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, fh, for letting us know about occi.

    No, I have no idea what happened to occi. We need more information.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Occi will be back up tomorrow. Need to get a new credit card because it has expired.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good to hear that, Matt. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete