tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post8457983741573943744..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 2008 - "10 Issues of Takeshima" by MOFAGerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-86687149005056598562014-01-28T15:55:04.036+09:002014-01-28T15:55:04.036+09:00Regarding Point 7
1.
Point 7 : The report of Am...Regarding Point 7<br /><br />1. <br /><br />Point 7 : The report of Ambassador Van Fleet (refer to point 10) states that "the United States concluded that they (the islands of Takeshima) remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. " <br /><br />It’s just a distortion of SF Treaty by the Japanese Government. U.S. was not the only signatory for SF Treaty. The fact U.S. rejected Korean request based on the Japanese false information doesn’t mean the other 47 signatories agreed with U.S. <br /><br />Rusk Note was nothing but an evidence showing U.S. secret support for Japanese claim over Dokdo. In other words, it was never been reflected in the final decision of SF Treaty signed by the Allied Powers. U.S. made it clear U.S. support for Japanese claim over Dokdo was just one of the views of the Allied Powers. <br /><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2014/01/rusk-note-has-nothing-to-do-with-final.html" rel="nofollow"> Rusk Note has nothing to do with the final decision of the Allied Powers in SF Treaty.</a><br /><br />Dean Rusk said "...the United States Government does not feel that the Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.“, but it contradicts what John Foster Dulles said at the San Francisco Peace Conference on September 5th, 1951. <br /><br />John Foster Dulles said as follows:<br /><br />"What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago. <br /><b>The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound.</b> There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. <b>The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term."</b> <a href="http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/JPUS/19510905.S1E.html" rel="nofollow">(Link)</a><br /><br />Contrary to Dean Rusk, John Foster Dulles clearly said what bounds Japan was the Potsdam Surrender Terms, not the private U.S. policy in favor of Japan’s false claim over Dokdo/Takehsima including Rusk Note. The Potsdam Surrender Terms stipulated Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and <b>some minor islands</b> and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers(SCAP) excluded Dokdo/Takehsima from Japan.<br /><br />Dean Rusk’s knowledge on Dokdo/Takehsima wat that it had never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. Where did this incorrect information come from? It was from Japanese government propaganda pamphlet “Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper; Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan"(1947) to claim Dokdo/Takehsima and Ulleongdo as well during the negotiations of SF Treaty. Of course, the said Japanese government didn't tell Korea had historical documents showing Korean sovereignty over Dokdo and Japan incorporated Korean Dokdo on the ground that Dokdo had no owner in 1905.<a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/japanese-incorporation-of-dokdo-in-1905.html" rel="nofollow">(Link to The Way Japan Incorporated Dokdo/Takeshima)</a><br /><br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-83836598295397145302014-01-22T20:18:26.965+09:002014-01-22T20:18:26.965+09:00Regarding Point 6
Point 6. Japan reaffirmed its i...Regarding Point 6<br /><br />Point 6. Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima by incorporating Takaeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. <br /><br /><br />How is it possible for a nation to reaffirm its intention to claim its sovereignty over the land it had never been affirmed before?<br /><br />Nakai Yozaburo thought Dokdo was the land attached to Korean Ulleongdo (本島ノ鬱陵島ヲ附屬シテ韓國ノ所領ナリト思ハルルヲ以テ將ニ統監府ニ就テ爲所アラントシ) and planned to request Korean government to lease the Korean Dokdo to him.<br /><br />In 1904, Japanese Cabinet didn’t say Japan incorporates Dokdo to reaffirm its sovereignty over Takeshima. It said there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, which means Japan had never occupied that island before and Japan could take it because it was ownerless. However, it was a lie because Korea had lots of traces of occupying the said island. <br /><br />As one of the traces of Korean occupying Dokdo/Takeshima, a Japanese official from Ministry of Home Affairs rejected Nakai’s application for incorporating Dokdo into Japanese land saying as follows:<br /><br />"The gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time [during the Russo-Japanese War] should amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea." <br />(時局ナレバコソ其領土編入ヲ急要トスルナリ望樓ヲ建築シ無線若クハ海底電信ヲ設置セバ敵艦監視上極メテ屈竟ナラズヤ特ニ外交上內務ノ如キ顧慮ヲ要スルコトナシ須ラク速カニ願書ヲ本省ニ回附セシ厶ベシト)<br /><br />There are more evidence showing the traces of Korean occupying Dokdo such as Tottori Han’s Reply to Bakufu’s Inquiry (1696), the Report of Japanese officials from Ministry of Foreign Affairs(1870) and Dajokan Order(1877). They are not merely traces of Korean occupying Dokdo/Takehisma. They are the decisive evidence Dokdo was belonging to Korea. <br /><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html" rel="nofollow">Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan.</a><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html" rel="nofollow">How Dokdo became Korean land?</a><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html" rel="nofollow">Japan has nothing to do with Ulleongdo and another island(Dokdo)</a><br /><br /><br />Japan incorporated Korean Dokdo into Japanese land out of territorial greed by the pretext of Nakai’s petition for his sea lion hunting business. Japan wanted Korean Dokdo for the strategic reason of ongoing Russo-Japanese War. Director Yamaza Enjiro from Political Affairs Bureau coaxed Nakai said as follows:<br /><br />"The incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships.”.(氏ハ時局ナレバコソ其領土編入ヲ急要トスルナリ望樓ヲ建築シ無線若クハ海底電信ヲ設置セバ敵艦監視上極メテ屈竟ナラズヤ)<br /><br /><br /><b>If Dokdo was the inherent land of Jap , why did Director Yamaza Enjiro need to coax Nakai to submit the petition to incorporate Dokdo for military facilities? </b><br /><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/japanese-incorporation-of-dokdo-in-1905.html" rel="nofollow">The Way Japan Incorporated Dokdo/Takeshima in 1905</a><br /><br /><br />Japan should stop self-destroying false claim over Dokdo.<br /><br /><br />Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41 itself is the proof of Korean sovereignty over Dokdo. If Japan is in the position to deny Seokdo=Dokdo, Japan has a burden of proof what Seokdo exactly indicates. Doubts don’t make Japan’s position persuasive.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-59834378830993697302014-01-22T20:08:49.857+09:002014-01-22T20:08:49.857+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-47113104592168369412012-10-28T10:29:38.462+09:002012-10-28T10:29:38.462+09:00Regarding point 5
Takeahima pamphlet by the MOFA...Regarding point 5<br /><br /><br />Takeahima pamphlet by the MOFA of Japan emphasizes Ahn Yong-bok was a criminal and regards Ahn's deposition as unreliable or false on the ground that some of his deposition conflicts with factual evidence or certain facts in Korea’s records are not included in Japan’s records. But Takeahima pamphlet doesn't mention the most significant and reliable part of Ahn Incident which is recorded in the Japanese document.<br /><br /><br />Korea doesn't cite every bit of his deposition as the base for sovereignty claim on Dokdo. However, Ahn's activity recorded in the Japanese document "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書" is one of the strong foundations for Korean sovereignty claim on Dokdo. This document was found in the Oki Island in 2005. <br /><br /><br />According to "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書", the Oki Island official who investigated Ahn recorded what Ahn stated as follows:<br /><br />"Ahn Yong-bok said that 竹島(Takeshima) is the island of bamboo and there is an island called Ulleungdo in Dongnae-bu of Gangwon province in Chosun. It is referred to as the island of bamboo. He also said he had a map of eight provinces of Korea(八道ノ図 ) that says so. <b> 松嶋(Matsushima) is the island called Jasan in the same province of Gangwon.</b> It's 松嶋(Matsushima) and drawn in the map of eight provinces(八道ノ図)."<br /><br />(安龍福が申すには、竹島を竹の島と申し、朝鮮國江原道東莱府の内ニ欝陵島と申す島御座候。是を竹の島と申由申候。則八道の図に記之所持仕候。松島は同道の内子山と申す島御座候。是を松島と申由、是も八道の図に記し申候)<br /><br /><br />Ahn said Matsushima(=present Dokdo) is called Jasan(=Usan) and it's in the Korea Gangwon Province along with Ulleongdo.<br /><br /><br />A map of eight provinces of Korea(八道ノ図) he showed Oki Island investigator was not found, but at the end of the record, the text map "朝鮮之八道(Eight Provinces of Chosun) included the wording "此道ノ中 竹嶋松嶋 有之" which means "Ulleongdo and Dokdo are in the Gwang-won Province(江原道)."<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_qv4RzBbnRI/UC2oq8XJ6YI/AAAAAAAAAwE/jhy5JMjuYjQ/s640/%ED%8C%94%EB%8F%84%EC%A7%80%EB%8F%84.jpg" rel="nofollow">Text Map of Korean Eight Provinces<br /></a><br /><br /><br />Regardless of the conflicting testimony, Ahn's statement that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) were part of Gangwon Province of Korea cannot be disputed. This is what Korea cites as one of the foundations for sovereignty claim over Dokdo.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-20682510182189327552011-12-06T15:04:57.868+09:002011-12-06T15:04:57.868+09:00Regarding MOFA's point 4
It seems to be true...Regarding MOFA's point 4<br /><br /><br />It seems to be true Japan wanted to maintain favorable relations with Korea, but, from records we can infer this is not the only main reason for the Shogunate's ban of traveling to Ulleungdo. Moreover, considering the history, it's hard to believe Japan gave up the land just for the favorable relations with other country. <br /><br /><br />The Shogunate's passage ban to Ulleungdo in 1696 was resulted from two historical facts : Korean government's strong position on ownership of Ulleugndo during the territorial dispute of Ulleungdo with Japan in 1693 and Shogunate's inquiry about Ulleungdo in 1695. <br /><br /><br />In 1693, during the territorial dispute between Chosun(Korean) government and Tsushima Clan, Chosun clarified Ulleungdo was Chosun's territory.<br />In 1694, the Shogunate started to investigate Ulleungdo after this dispute.<br />In 1695, to the inquiry by the Shogunate about Ulleung and Dokdo, the Tottori Prefecture answered :<br />"Takeshima did not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce."<br />" There were no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…” <br />"Matsushima(Dokdo) was not an island belong to any province (of Japan)." Immediately after this session, the Shogunate banned the Japanese to travel to Ulleungdo. <br /><br /><br />What led to the Shogunat's passage ban to Ulleungdo is Shogunat's conclusion both Ulleungdo ad Dokdo are Korean territory. This conclusion reaffirmed in the Dajokan document of 1877. Dajokan said : "Regarding Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and the other island (Dokdo), it is to be understood that our country has nothing to do with them".<br /><br /><br />Following is what included in the Shogunate's letter to Tottori and Tsushima Clans. "... From the beginning, that island was never taken from Choson by force, and it does not make sense [for Choson] to turn it over to us. The only thing to do is to prohibit permanently the Japanese people from going there for fishing. …”<br /><br /><br /><br />The passage to Takeshima was not banned. This clearly shows that Japan has regarded Takeshima as its territory since then.<br /><br /><br />--> <br />What was Japanese fishermen's relationship with Dokdo throught 17th century? Japanese fishermen were not interested in Dokdo itself at all. Dokdo was useless if they don't go to Ulleungdo, because Dokdo had little value for fishing or logging. This can be proved by the MOFA's statement that Dokdo was used as a stopover port, navigational port , docking point or whatever. It's said there were fishing activity around Dokdo, but it was done when they go to Ulleungdo. <br />When Japanese fishermen were prohibited to travel to Ulleungdo , they had no more need to go to Dokdo. If this is not true, is there any evidence Japanese fishers went to Dokdo as a sole destination before and after the voyage ban to Ulleungdo?<br /><br /><br />There's no historical evidence showing the Shogunate government consciously distinguished Takeshima (Ulleungdo) from Matsushima (Dokdo). If Japan insists passage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no mention of Dokdo in the document of voyage ban to Ulleungdo( 竹島渡海禁止令奉書) of 1696, is there mention of Dokdo in the document of passage permit to Ulleungdo (竹島渡海免許奉書) ? Or is there voyage permit to Dokdo(松島渡海免許奉書 )issued?<br /><br />As an attached island to Ulleungdo, Dokdo can't be separated from Ulleungdo. The voyage permission to Ulleungdo in 1616 included that to Dokdo and the voyage ban to Ulleungdo in 1696 included that to Dokdo . That's why Japanese fishermen could go to Dokdo in 1616 and were banned to go to Dokdo in 1696.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-5362705110152090592011-12-06T13:21:11.016+09:002011-12-06T13:21:11.016+09:00Regarding MOFA's point 3:
The fact that the ...Regarding MOFA's point 3:<br /><br /><br />The fact that the Shogunate issued the two merchants of Yonago a passage permit (竹島渡海免許奉書 ) to Utsuryo Island(Ulleungdo) itself testifies that the Shogunate did consider Ulleungdo as a foreign territory, because the passage permit was not necessary for Japanese going to Japan's territory. If this not true, is there any evidence the passage permit was issued in case of traveling to Japan's domestic lands?<br /><br /><br />Japan used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground. It thus established its sovereignty over Takeshima.<br /><br />--> <br />Using a foreign land as a stopover port and a fishing ground ( or navigational port and docking point as written in the MOFA's Homepage) can't be the base for sovereignty claim. Using Dokdo as a stopover port en route to Ulleugndo and a fishing ground means Japanese fishermen didn't need to go to Dokdo without going to Ulleungdo. If this is not true, is there any evidence Japanese fishers traveled to Dokdo as a sole destination?<br /><br />Claiming sovereignty over a land which had never been used as a sole or final destination is not reasonable. <br /><br />Japanese fishermen did just fishing activity and it has nothing to do with sovereignty, This can be supported by Japan's Dajokan Order(太政官指令文)'s attached document No.1 of 1877 which includes 戸田山城守(one of the Shogunate 老 中 )'s statement "Japanese did just fishing activity and it was not intended to take Korean island away."(右ノ首尾ニテ罷渡リ 漁仕?候マテニテ朝鮮ノ島ヲ日本ヘ取候ト申ニテモ無 之 )".<br /><br />If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo because Japanese fishers used Dokdo as stopover port and a fishing ground, why doesn't Japan claim Japan established sovereignty over Ulleungdo for the same reason? Japanese merchants used Ulleungdo as a ground for monopoly business. <br /><br />As expressed in the Japanese documents "Matsushima(Dokdo) in Takeshima(Ulleungdo)(「竹嶋之内、松嶋」)" and " Matsushima in the Vicinity of Takeshima(竹嶋近辺松嶋) " , Ulleungdo and Dokdo can't be separated each other. Japan hasn't ever established sovereignty over Ulleungdo and this means Japan hasn't ever established sovereignty over Dokdo.<br /><br />If it's ture Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why isn't there any record about Japan's sovereignty over Dokdo and why did the Japanese maps of 17th century exclude Dokdo as Japanese territory? <br /><br />If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Totorri clan ( say “…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures(因幡 or 伯耆) including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…" in 1695" and "Matsushima(Dokdo) doesn't belong to any province(州 )" in 1696?"<br /><br /><br />If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Dajokan order 4 Japanese MOFA officials to investigate the background of how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions in 1870?<br /><br /><br />If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Dajokan say <br />"Takeshima(=Ulleungdo) and another island(=Dokdo) have nothing to do with Japan" in 1877?<br /><br /><br />If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Japanese Cabinet decide to incorporate Dokdo because there were no traces of occupation by any other countries(無主地) in 1905?<br /><br />In conclusion, MOFA's claim Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo by the mid 17th century proves self-contradiction.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-74908817420860777662011-11-06T21:42:10.195+09:002011-11-06T21:42:10.195+09:00Point 1. Japan has long recognized the existence o...Point 1. Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima. <br />--><br /><br />In the original edition of "The Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads" published in 1779, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are uncolored as is the Korean Peninsula<br />Also, the Ulleungdo and Dokdo are located outside the grid of Japan’s longitudinal and latitudinal lines, indicating that Dokdo is outside of Japanese territory.<br /><br />"The Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads " shows Japan recognized the existence of Dokdo, but there's no doubt Japan also knew Dokdo belonged to Korea. The most significant evidence for this is Meiji Government's Report about how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun’s possessions in 1870.<br /><br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japanese-1870-report-on-chosun.html<br /><br />And there are ancient Japanese maps with Dokdo marked as Korean territory. <br /><br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/professor-hosaka-exhibits-1894-map.html<br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1785-japanese-map-by-hiyoshi-shihei.html<br /><br /><br />There are also many Japanese charts exclued Dokdo.<br /><br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-i.html<br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-ii.html<br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-iii.html<br /><br />In conclusion, point1 of MOFA doesn't support Japan's claim to Dokdo at all.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-89393341614281229572011-11-06T21:25:23.280+09:002011-11-06T21:25:23.280+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-72914929091522989202008-08-14T07:06:00.000+09:002008-08-14T07:06:00.000+09:00hae lim,Thank you for your posting. You wrote;"And...hae lim,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your posting.<BR/> <BR/>You wrote;<BR/>"And then they insisted there were and there are no evidence. There is great contradiction. All of those old Korean remains are evidence and Japan are just denying them."<BR/><BR/>However, they are not mentioning Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). Please read the following:<BR/> <BR/>As to "Samguksagi(History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)":<BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/q1-has-dokdo-been-part-of-korea-since.html<BR/><BR/>As to "Sejong Sillok Jiriji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)":<BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html<BR/><BR/>As to Kinf Taejong's books:<BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1530-paldo-chongdo-map-of-eight.html<BR/><BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-3-why-did-old-korean-maps-show.html<BR/><BR/>As to "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)":<BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-funasugi-rikinobu-takeshima-in.html<BR/><BR/>All the documents above indicate that Korean documents didn't mention Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).<BR/><BR/>And you wrote;<BR/>"IN 1808, Mankiyoram compiled by Joseon dynasty undoubtedly set to parchment that , according to "Record of Geography", Usan Kingdom's sphere included Ullungdo Islands and Dokdo Islands, which meant Ullungdo and Dokdo were the territory of Usan Kingdom". <BR/><BR/>I haven't read the document yet but this can't be true because the name "Dokdo" didn't exist in 1808, it was created in the early 20th century. So I think you referred to the name of Usando, but Usando was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).<BR/><BR/>Please read this:<BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/korean-scholar-says-usando-was.html<BR/><BR/>Please give us your opinion after reading the postings above. Thank you.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-31590949539793848322008-08-14T01:24:00.000+09:002008-08-14T01:24:00.000+09:00I am researching of it.If you want to know more,ju...I am researching of it.<BR/>If you want to know more,<BR/>just contact me or plz read counter opinion before you conclude your thoughtHae Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569752361031783772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-78345723208665358062008-08-14T01:12:00.000+09:002008-08-14T01:12:00.000+09:00IN 1808, Mankiyoram compiled by Joseon dynasty und...IN 1808, Mankiyoram compiled by Joseon dynasty undoubtedly set to parchment that , according to "Record of Geography", Usan Kingdom's sphere included Ullungdo Islands and Dokdo Islands, which meant Ullungdo and Dokdo were the territory of Usan Kingdom. Japan said there is (not are) a study which criticizes that the original text in "Record of Geography" indicates that Usan Island and Utsuryo Island are two names for one island and that the description in the documents such as "Study of Korean Documents" are indirect and inaccurate quotations from "Record of Geography". It is very questionable that how could disclaim old grand ruins by only one study.Hae Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569752361031783772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-4693978439791906902008-08-14T01:10:00.001+09:002008-08-14T01:10:00.001+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hae Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569752361031783772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-72798253603023556632008-08-14T01:10:00.000+09:002008-08-14T01:10:00.000+09:00I can find some problems right now!Look at the poi...I can find some problems right now!<BR/>Look at the point 2.<BR/>They claimed that Korea suggest proofs of dokdo through "Samguksagi(History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)", "Sejong Sillok Jiriji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)", "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)", "Dongguk Munheonbigo(Study of Korean Documents: 1770)", "Mangi Yoram(Handbook of State Affairs: 1808)" and "Jeungbo Munheonbigo (Augmented Study of Documents: 1908).<BR/>And then they insisted there were and there are no evidence. There is great contradiction. All of those old Korean remains are evidence and Japan are just denying them. In addition to Japan does not have enough remains like Korea, so they are trying to seek problems in honorable remains.Hae Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569752361031783772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-88425236028959351362008-08-14T01:04:00.000+09:002008-08-14T01:04:00.000+09:00I am very ashamed of lack of my English ability an...I am very ashamed of lack of my English ability and there are no refutate of that willfulness document.<BR/><BR/>But dear pacifist.<BR/>Actually you didn't read korean's insistence or proofs of dokdo or even a word! then how could you assertion " When all the Koreans understand the situation truly, both of the countries will be familiar to each other and will be true friends."<BR/><BR/>In fact in that document there are a lot of problems.Hae Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569752361031783772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-12323846501931936352008-03-20T23:56:00.000+09:002008-03-20T23:56:00.000+09:00Thank you, pacifist and Gerry.I think it is well-w...Thank you, pacifist and Gerry.<BR/>I think it is well-written and it was actually a good English lesson for me.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-68275360954061054652008-03-20T23:09:00.000+09:002008-03-20T23:09:00.000+09:00Kaneganese,The post looks good.Kaneganese,<BR/><BR/>The post looks good.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-69192070031614396842008-03-20T17:30:00.000+09:002008-03-20T17:30:00.000+09:00I hope all the Koreans will read this! It's a pity...I hope all the Koreans will read this! It's a pity that they have not properly informed concerning the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue. When all the Koreans understand the situation truly, both of the countries will be familiar to each other and will be true friends.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.com