竹島問題の歴史

10.6.07

1905 Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima


The following August 6, 1905 San-in Shimbun article talks about a planned visit by Japanese officials to Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), which had recently been incorporated into Japanese territory. Here is the translation:

Takeshima Trip

As reported in our last issue, forty-seven or forty-eight people, including Governor Matsunaga (松永), will travel to Takeshima on the 16th, departing from Sakai Minato for Oki that morning and then leaving from Saigo harbor (in Oki) that evening. Those traveling from Sakai Minato should be there by the evening of the previous day, and those traveling from Saigo horbor should be there by noon on the departing day.

(Translated by Pacifist)

31 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    This is a notice of the ship going to Takeshima (Liancourt rocks) to inspect the island. It is one proof of the effective control of the island by Japan.
    To follow is a rough translation:

    Takeshima Toko (voyage to Takeshima)

    It has been announced that the 48 people including the governor Matsunaga will take a voyage from Sakai Minato on the morning of the 16th to Oki first and will depart Saigo horbor (Oki) in the evening and will head for Takeshima, as we reported in the last issue. So they say that those who are going to voyage from Sakai Minato should be there until the evening of the previous day, those who will ride at Saigo horbor should be there until noon of the departing day.  

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correction:
    It says 47-8 people, not 48 people.
    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Pacifist. I have added your translation to the post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry,

    It is 47-48 people, not 48-49 people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10/6/07 23:56

    Never mind those guys.

    The Japanese Imperial Navy had devised their plan to annex Dokdo for watch towers and telegraph lines about a year before any of these officials even heard of Takeshima.

    Pacifist, nobody argues Japan had "effective control" over Dokdo after February 1905. The problem is the manner and motives for Japan's annexation.

    Japan can never have Dokdo now because the world knows it was an illegal miltary annexation and part of the colonization of Korea.
    Japan's Takeshima X Files

    ReplyDelete
  6. anonymous,

    You are telling the same unreasonable theory as one of our old friends known as his frog like face.

    Takeshima was incorporated to Japan after the plea by Yozaburo Nakai, the sea lion hunting company president, as you can read his plea in this blog.

    As you suggested, it was during the war between Russia and Japan but the incorporation was done peacefully and separately with the war.
    And Liancourt rocks were not Russian territory (nor Korean island)at all, so it is no problem to incorporate the rocks, it was completely legal under the international law, anonymous.

    If it was illegal internationally, why all the western countries didn't interfere as they did 10 years before?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is the link to the translation of Yozaburo's September 1904 petition asking that Japan incorporate Liancourt Rocks:

    Yozaburo's Petition

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11/6/07 13:45

    The Niitaka's survey predates Nikai's petition.

    We also know Yozaburo's application was guided by the Japanes Navy's Admiral Kimotsuki.

    Here is the Tsushima's report on Dokdo's topography for the purpose of building military structures on Dokdo.

    It was dated one month before the Japanese Navy annexed Dokdo.

    The truth of Japan's claim to Dokdo
    The truth of Japan's claim to Dokdo2
    The truth of Japan's claim to Dokdo3

    Japan's claim to Dokdo is a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anonymous,

    Thank you for the documents, but these documents only shows that Japanese navy was eager to establish the wire station in order to search for the Baltic fleet.

    It was one of the modern technologies to use wire telegraph for communication.
    The navy did the best they did to protect Japan from the big white bear. It is natural to gather all the information, and Japan could defeat Russia with these endeavour.

    It is natural to place such relay stations all over the Sea of Japan, especially islands and coasts. They made these stations on many Japanese islands and some islands that didn't belong to no countries. it is no wonder if Takeshima was one of them.

    The building of a wire station has no connection with the incorporation, as Japan was fighting against Russia, not against Korea. And Takeshima was not Korean land. Why is this a problem?

    Your claim looks childish, unreasonable and nobody in the world would agree with your theory.

    BTW, as a proof of Japanese navy didn't pay any interests to "annex" or "invade" (as you say) the Liancourt rocks, they wrote as Liancourt rocks even after the incorporation. Please look at the third document you have, it dated 12th June 1905 (38th year of Meiji) while Takeshima was incorporated in January 1905 (The cabinet decision was made on 28th January 1905, Shimane prefecture 's announcement was done on 22nd February 1905).

    ReplyDelete
  10. anonymous,

    You wrote that "Japanese Navy annexed Dokdo".

    But Navy didn't annex Takeshima, it was a cabinet decision not related with Navy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous11/6/07 22:59

    Nice try Pacifist, these documents predate the Japanese cabinets decision to incorporate Takeshima. Don't be so slimy, just admit the truth about why the Japanese annexed Takeshima and then maybe some (just a few) might support the Japanese claim.

    The Japanese couldn't continue their work on Dokdo because of the harsh conditions in the East Sea and they were preparing for the advance of the Baltic Fleet. The first two pages are the report by the Japanese Warship Tsushima it was the details of the Tsushima's survey from earlier in the year, (November 20th) The other page from June were based on the Hashidate's survey after the battle of Tsushima.

    You and your Takeshima lobbyists are the childish ones. Stand up straight like a man and admit what your grandparents did. This is why nobody repsects Japanese claim to Takeshima. Even when the evidence is hitting you in the face you continue your denial campaign, or even worse you try to cite archaic colonial laws of the 19th Century to justify Japan's claim. So shabby!!

    Not only that Pacifist you can see on this page of the Tsushima's logbook the Japanese Navy was given three instruction on November 13th
    a) Work on the telegraph line to Takeshiki Japan.
    b) Survey Liancourt Rocks for telegraph lines.
    c) Supply workers for the watchtower construction on Ulleungdo Island.


    The truth of Japan's claim to Dokdo

    We can see the activities on Dokdo were inseparable from what was happening on Korean territory and other areas across Asia (ie Dalian).

    Japan declared war on Russia on February 8th 1904. They landed troops into Incheon, marched into Seoul and demanded the Koreans allow the Japanese Navy/Army put the aforementioned facilities anywhere in Korea. This is natural.....?
    Of course not.


    The Japanese Navy's Admiral Kimotsuki was the driving force behind Japan's decision to annex Dokdo Pacifist. Territorial land claims must be part of a natural peaceful process Pacifist. It is now crystal clear Japan's annexation was not. Sorry, you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anonymous,

    Again I repeat, you have to prove that Takeshima (Liancourt rocks) was Korean (or Russian) territory before 1905. If it was so, your theory makes sense.

    As USA annexed Hawaii lawfully during the war against Spain, Japan incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt rocks) during the war against Russia.

    Hawaii didn't belong to Spain and Liancourt rocks didn't belong to Russia or Korea.

    So what is the problem?
    Your theory, that Japanese Navy was interested in the incorporation, is a fictitious story because Navy was only interested in how to defeat the baltic fleet.

    Kimotsuki only let Nakai know that Liancourt rocks didn't belong to any countries, as he misunderstood at first that it was Korean island because of a chart he read.

    Navy couldn't affect cabinet's decision in the Meiji era. The Navy and Army were under strict control of the Meiji government.

    anonymous, maybe you read polical suspence novels too much.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Annonymous,

    I want responsible discussion on this site, not childish debate, so please choose a nickname to post under and stick to it. Also, please stop the "slimy," and "Sorry, you lose" comments.

    As for your argument, you said that Japan declared war on Russia in February 8, 1904, and then landed in Incheon, marched into Seoul, and demanded Koreans allow them to use facilities anywhere in Korea.

    If all the above is true, then why would Japan go to all the trouble of annexing Liancourt Rocks in February 1905 when they could have just demanded that Korea allow them use of the Rocks? Also, if they went to war with Russia in February 1904, why did they wait until February 1905 to annex Liancourt Rocks? Why did they wait until Japanese businessman petitioned the government to annex the islets, so that he would have the security to invest money to build facilities on the islets and hunt sea lions there? (See post HERE.)

    Finally, the islets were vacant and unclaimed, so there was no need to use force to annex them. Even the United States recognizes Japan's claim to the islets. (Look at the section entitled "Owership of Dokdo Island" HERE.

    Mr. Annynomous, your arguments have many holes in them, and snide comments will not plug them up, so please make your arguments in the future without the snide remarks. Such childish comments will not help you promote your Web site, but intelligent debate might.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous12/6/07 15:04

    Gerry, you know who I am, (toadface) so why bother?

    Slimy, do you seriously have a problem with that? You called me a "piece of shit" on occidentalism Gerry, do you remember? This was for no reason other than offering an alternative point of view. You also called Koreans who supported their claim to Dokdo "chicken shit ass kissing goofballs" Gerry. I'm not condoning what I said but don't pontificate Gerry, it doesn't look good on you.

    The Japanese annexed Dokdo for military control of the East Sea this is clear by the documents I've provided. Why they did do so? There could be a few reasons but what difference does it make?

    Th Japanese wanted to seize the island before the Russians did could be one reason. If the military seized Dokdo they could control access by both Korean and Japanese nationals during the Russo~Japanese War. Remember the Japanese Navy prohibited civilians from going to Dokdo during WWII.

    Why did the Japanese wait until an application by a private individual before they took Dokdo?

    Well first Nakai Yozaburo's application to the Home Ministry to lease the island was turned down Gerry. They suspected the island to be Korean territory, and they were afraid of agitating other nations. This the same position of these fishing manuals you have been translating lately. The Japanese Navy's Hyrographic Department pushed through the application. This was recorded in Nakai Yozaburo's diary. It was also recorded that Adimiral Kimotsuki stated the Japanese Navy urgently needed to install watchtowers and telegraph lines on the islets.

    It could be the Japanese Navy really wasn't aware of the full military potential of Dokdo until Nakai's application. Remember the Japanese Navy hadn't really done a detailed construction survey until sometime later, maybe Nakai's enclosed map got them thinking about the possibility of building on the rocks for the first time.

    Also you should remember the Russo~Japanese War was a pretty short conflict only about a year and half. But if you read the logbooks of the Japanese Warships you can see what was happening on Ulleungdo, Jukpyeon, Ulsan etc was all an inseparable part of what the Japanese did on Dokdo Gerry. They Japanese were working at a fever pitch putting up these installations. In fact, the part I've just had translated shows they had 40 workers on Ulleungdo alone putting up watchtowers just days before they surveyed Dokdo in November 1904.

    Unclaimed or not territorial acquisitions must be part of a natural peaceful process Gerry. Effective control of land to be effective must also be continuos and peaceful as well. Let us not forget the terms of the Cairo Convention and the subsequent Potsdam Declaraiton stating that Japan must be expelled from all territories seized by greed or violence. Thus, the issue of Korea's claim is really another matter altogether.

    Vanfleet Mission??
    Gerry, are you trying to impose the will of the United States onto the rest of the free world again? The San Fransciso Peace Treaty concluded with no mention of Liancourt Rocks. America did not support Japan's claim at all,. Gerry, you, like the Japanese are filling in the blanks with your own interpretations again. America never publicly supported Japan's claim to Dokdo, they were playing the field.

    Gerry, you are desperately gleaning through old documents for snippets of information to destroy Korea's claim to Dokdo. But time and time again these documents not only fail to support Japan's historical claim but rather buttress Korean assertions that the Japanese considered these rocks to be appended to Ulleungdo Island.

    Stop forcibly leading to you own flawed theories and draw logical conclusions from the numerous clear historical references that exist. Remember how you fought tooth and nail saying people could live on Jukdo Islet? I told you they couldn't live there because of lack of fresh water. Sure enough the Japanese report on Ulleungdo you translated showed this to be fact. People can't live without easy access to potable water.

    You should use more of a common sense approach to your analysis Gerry instead of being politically motivated and agenda fueled.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Toadface,

    Since you have a nickname, then please use it since "Annoymous" is not reserved only for you.

    I did not call Koreans chickenshit asskissing goofballs. Whose asses would Koreans kiss? I was talking about the people on The Marmot's Hole blog who remained quiet on the issue even though that most likely know the truth.

    As for calling you a "piece of shit," that was used as an example to show that even though I think you are one, I can discuss issues with you without letting my opinion of you get in the way. By the way, I think you have also called me an "idiot."

    Regardless of the past, I want responsible discussion on this blog.

    As for your argument, it is inconsistent. First, you said the Japanese navy annexed the island to help them in their war against Russia, but now you are saying that maybe Nakai's application helped the Japanese navy realize the full potential of the islets. Which one is it?

    I cannot destory Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks because she never had claim to the rocks. Can you show me one Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks or one Korean document that describes them before the Japanese told the Koreans about them in 1906? You never answer this question, Toadface, and we both know the reason why.

    Anyway, I am a little busy right now, so I will talk to you later.

    ReplyDelete
  16. toadface,

    You wrote;
    "The Japanese annexed Dokdo for military control of the East Sea this is clear by the documents I've provided".

    How did you decide that Japan did it for military control?

    As I explained above, Japanese Navy only wanted to defeat Baltic fleet to protect this country.
    Please don't fabricate a story, you should show the evidence. And the documents you showed are not the evidence for your theory, they are only an evidence that Japan did her best to defeat Russia.

    You also wrote;
    "Th Japanese wanted to seize the island before the Russians did could be one reason. If the military seized Dokdo they could control access ..."

    Do you understand the situation of the Sea of Japan in early 1905?

    The Baltic fleet left Russia and they were on the way to Japan, so Japanese fleet was waiting for the Baltic fleet at the area around Tsushima and south-east part of Korea - including the area around the Liancourt rocks. So at this time of the year, there is no worries that Russia would take over Liancourt rocks. No Russian ships may not have been able to approach Liancourt rocks at this time, it was just a period just before the big battle.
    toadface, your theory doesn't seem to be logical at all.

    You then wrote;
    "Well first Nakai Yozaburo's application to the Home Ministry to lease the island was turned down Gerry".

    toadface, Nakai's plea was turned down at first by the ministry of the Interior, as you say. But do you know the reason?

    It was turned down because "it's not an appropriate time to incorporate an island". They were fighting with Russia with all their might, so they thought first that a little thing such an incorporation of small island could be done after the big war.

    toadface, all of your theory is merely a story you fabricated, without ground.

    As Gerry pointed out clearly, we have to discuss the matter on the logical basis, not imagination or fabrication. If you try to be so, we will welcome you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous12/6/07 23:35

    Gerry and Pacifist you are the ones who are again forcibly leading to a false premise. It is you that assert that Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks to help a private individual harvest seals on the island.

    It is your theory that is truly bizarre Gerry and Pacifist, especially when historical context is considered. 500,000 soldiers Russian and Japanese massed in China for the largest land battle in history to the date. The Russian Navy was trapped in Port Arthur and their Baltic Fleet was steaming aroung Madagascar. And you are still haplessly trying to tell us that Japan as a nation was concerned with aiding a grubby squatter acquire sole rights to hunt seals on Liancourt Rocks.

    Pacifist I don't get what you are getting at. Japan annexed Dokdo during the Russo~Japanese War. Nakai Yozaburo's application was filed during the war in September of 1904 and approved in January 1905 all during the war.

    There are documents detailing Japan's desire to turn Dokdo into a military facility before the incorporation.
    1. First Nakai records in his diary the Admiral of the Japanese Navy felt in urgent to do so. This would be in September of 1904.
    2. The logbooks of the Niitaka state the island was suitable for building military structures on the island.
    3. The logbooks of the Tsushima detail the Dokdo was to be surveyed for constructing telegraph stations on November 13th. On November 20th the construction survey was completed.
    4. On January 5th of 1905 the results of the survey were released and detailed in Japanese War records.
    5. Naval maps of the East Sea show the waters surrounding Dokdo were already zoned and designated by the Japanese Navy.

    Pacifist, when the Japanese only took Port Arthur it was about a month before they annexed Dokdo, they had already decided to do this long before. In addition they had no idea they would soundly trounce the Russians on Tsushima. The Russian Navy was considered by many to be far superior to the Japanese Fleet in fact they were rated much more powerful and Japan wasn't even considered top ten at the time. Japan was not as confident as you would try to lead us to believe.
    Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of early 20th century history of Northeast Asia would scoff at Japan's claim they took Dokdo for seal hunting. This is why they can't muster any international support for their claim.

    Finally, the claims I make regarding Japan's involvement aren't mine alone. They are the assertions of many Japanese and Korean historians.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Toadface,

    Once again you ignore the question. Can you show me one Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks or one Korean document that describes them before the Japanese told the Koreans about them in 1906?

    ReplyDelete
  19. toadface,

    As yopu wrote,
    "Nakai Yozaburo's application was filed during the war in September of 1904 and approved in January 1905 all during the war".

    It's right but you can't imagine your story only the time of the application.

    You wrote,
    "Japan was not as confident as you would try to lead us to believe".

    When did I write so? Don't fabricate, toadface.
    Japan herself knew that Russia was far bigger than Japan and they were far stronger. So Japan had to do every thing she could do. She only intended to win at the first several battles, if the war would continue for years, Japan would have gone bankrupt.

    So the battle of Sea of Japan was the important battle, as General Togo said "皇国の存亡、この一戦にあり" (The life or death of the Empire depends on this one battle). So they did every thing to win.

    The most important information for General Togo was whether the Baltic fleet would come straight through to Tsushima channel to the Sea of Japan or they would go detouring on the Pacific Ocean and then go through Tsugaru channel to the north part of the Japan Sea.

    They gathered information that the Baltic fleet is going north directly heading for Tsushima channel so Genereal Togo waited at the area around Tsushima and south of Korea. But to know the exact time they would arrive, Togo needed information brought from reconnaissance ships and watch towers by wire telegram.

    After getting exact information, General Togo could defeat the Baltic fleet. It was the first big battle which they depended greatly on intelligence gathering.

    So the watch towers and wire telegram stations were only for the intelligence, they (Navy) didn't need to incorporate it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  20. toadface,

    You wrote about "Admiral Kimotsuki", didn't you?

    Kimotsuki was not an admiral, he was a measurement specialist.

    To follow is his career:

    Kaneyuki Kimotsuki (1853-1922)

    Navy Sublieutenant, Kaneyuki Ohtomo (Kimotsuki) was the first Japanese who measured latitude of Tokyo in 1876 by Talcott method. He studied surveying since 1869 and then joined in the waterway bureau of Navy in 1872.
    After he measured the latitude of Tokyo, he measured longitude between Tokyo and Aomori in 1876.

    The waterway bureau of Navy started 1871, they made charts one by one. Kimotsuki became a head of the measurement section in 1883. The waterway bureau became the waterway department in 1886. He became the chief of the waterway department in 1888.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    So toadface, as you noticed, he was not an admiral of navy, just a measurement specialist. He only told Nakai that his chart didn't mean that Liancourt rocks belonged to Korea, as a specialist of geography.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous14/6/07 00:11

    Pacifist, the information I received was part of the diary from Nakai Yozuburo published by Kazuo Hori if you want his article I will give you the link.

    You are abosolutely right on one detail however. It was not the Japanese Navy's Hydographic Department that stated the Japanese motive for Dokdo.

    It was Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine... Thus I stand corrected.


    Yamaza Enjiro also assured Yozaburo not to worry about the Home Ministry's view showing he carried more clout. Surely the Political Affairs Bureau Directors statement that watchtowers and telegraph installions on the island were necessary prior to Japan's annexation are proof enough...? What do you want?

    Whatever his rank he was a very high ranking official who clearly stated in Yozaburo's diary he would use his influence and position in the Japanese government to guide Nakai's application through.

    Fact.
    The Japanese Navy received top secret (confidential) orders to survey Dokdo for military telegraph lines on November 13th 1904. The survey was done on November 20th. Remember these surveys were confidential so it is not surprising many Japanese did not know about this until much later.
    Fact.
    The surveys of Dokdo were conducted on the same missions when Japanese Navy personnel were installing watchtowers and telegraph equipmenet on Ulleungdo. Thus Dokdo's annexation was inseparable from the militarization of Korea by Japan.
    Fact.
    The survey of Dokdo for construction of these facilties was submitted and recorded on January 5th 1904 still before the annexation of the island.

    Pacifist when Japan decided to take Dokdo they had more than the Baltic Fleet to worry about. The Russians still had another sizeable force stationed in Port Arthur that was under siege. They still did not know if the Russian Pacific Fleet stationed there could break out. The Japanese didn't finish off the Russian Pacific Fleet until I think around December of 1904, well after the Japaense had sealed Dokdo's fate.

    Also even in June of 1904 Russia was harassing Japanese cargo ships around Tsushima. In August the Japanese managed to halt these attacks but the Russians still had ships in the area.

    The logbooks of the Niitaka also recorded that Russian ships were sighted near Liancourt Rocks~Ulleungdo around September 26th of 1904. This shows the Russians were still involved near Dokdo at the time. It may have been just another thing that prompted to rush through the annexation. The Japanese decided to annex Dokdo back in September 1904.

    You say the Navy didn't need to incorporate Dokdo. But they did. This shows the incorporation falls under "greed and violence" Not a valid reason to claim land Pacifist, certainly illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  22. toadface,

    "You say the Navy didn't need to incorporate Dokdo. But they did".

    Are you still insisting this theory? But Navy didn't incorporate the rocks.

    toadface, please show us the document (Nakai's diary) itself.
    I've learned that you don't understnad Japanese text at all, sometimes you totally misunderstand them.

    So all you have to do is show it.
    I'm looking forward to reading it.
    Good night.

    ReplyDelete
  23. toadface,

    I found the following document at a pro-Korean website. I suppose that the "diary" you mentioned was this document:

    <中井養三郎事業計画概要>、中井養三郎履歴書附属文書(1910年
    中井養三郎作成)、島根県広報課編、『竹島関係資料』第1巻,1953

    This was "Outline of the business plan of Yozaburo Nakai", not a diary, and it was written in 1910, five years after the incorporation.

    "  そこでここで引いてはならぬと思って外務省に走り、当時の政務局長・山
    座円次郎に会い、大いに話し合いました。
      山座氏は、時局が時局だけに本島の本邦への編入は全く急を要する案件だ
    と答えてくれました。本島に監視所を設置し、無線及び海底電信を通せば、敵
    艦の動きを監視するのになおさら良いではないか。特に外交上、内務省のよう
    に考慮する必要はない。したがって即刻、要望書を本省にまわしておく方がよ
    ろしい、と意欲満々でした。"

    Yamaza was the chief of the state affairs bureau and advised Nakai to submit the plea again (although his first plea was rejected by the Minstry of Interior).

    According to this text, Yamaza said that to install the watch point and place wiresless station or submarine cable would be good for watching enemy ships, as you say.

    But Yamaza was not a powerful officer. He just encouraged Nakai to submit the plea once again.
    It was the Cabinet who decided to incorporate it, not Navy.
    It was not a proof of your theory, toadface.

    And toadface, if one got an island that had not been owned by anyone, he/she could use it for whatever reasons. Even if Japan incorporated it for installing a watchtower (as you insisted), what's the problem?

    The rocks didn't belong to Russia or Korea (as you already know). It was not illegal, you see?

    If USA used Hawaii as a base to attack Spanish military in Phillipines just after the incorporation of Hawaii, was it illegal? Think of it, toadface.

    Your theory is not reasonable. If only you could prove that Korea owned the Liancourt rocks before 1905, your theory would be worth thinking but actually Korea didn't know about the rocks.

    So toadface, all you've got to do is just to show the evidence that Korea knew the rocks, used them and owned them...but still you haven't successed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I guess Nakai consider first to apprecate the permit to Korean Govt before Japan Govt,because of no existence of fishing "Permit" around Liancourt Rocks, even though they operated the activities from 1903.
    If ,there were fishing permittion around Liancourt Rocks, they don't need to ask Japanese Govt.

    Is threr any record that Korean side made the permit toward any fishierman around Liancourt Rocks?

    *Japan-Korea fishing reguration,article 2(Meiji 22.11.12)
    日韓両国通漁規則 第二条

    漁業免許ノ鑑察を受クルモノハ、漁業税トシテ左の割合に照らし税金を納むへし..........

    ReplyDelete
  25. Toadface

    And are you still repeating the old refuted claim ?---Good.

    (1) All of your claim rests on the assumption that Korea had the title before Japan had effective control, which you have failed to show.
    (2)By "peaceful" in terms of international law, it means.
    "The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states"
    Notice the motivation is irrelavant.

    (3)Granted, just for the sake of argument, that the motivation was relavant,

    the purpose of including Dokdo was mixed.
    "就キテハ事業ノ安全利源ノ永久ヲ確保シ以テ本島ノ経営ヲシテ終ヲ完ウセシメラレンガ為二何卒速二本島ヲバ本邦ノ領土二編入相成之ト同時二向フ十ヶ年私儀へ御貸下相成度別紙図面相添此段奉願候也
    Therefore, in order to assure the safety of business and to complete the management of the island, please incorporate this island swiftly to Japan’s territory and simultaneously lend it to me for next 10 years, I enclose a drawing hereby."
    Nakai wanted it for his business, and there is no denying that Japanese politicians respoinded to it.

    Besides,
    (4) Looking at the declearations and the treaty makes it clear that your arguement is invalid.
    One of the your arguments seems to rest on Cairo Declaration.


    " Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed"

    First. Japan didn't include Dokdo by violence.
    Second, it was not Korean in the first place.
    Third, Potsdam declearation reads:

    " The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."
    And it was determined by SF treaty.
    SF treaty reads;
    (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
    Dokdo was not included because, in the US's cognition, "Excerpt: "Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."
    (The Rusk documents)

    ReplyDelete
  26. toadface,

    Just a little note to let you know that the "diary" published by Kazuo Hori maybe the following book:

    堀和生「1905年日本の竹島領土編入」『朝鮮史研究会論文集』
      第24号、1987

    But this book was published in 1987, 82 years after the incorporation, and it doesn't seem to be a diary.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous14/6/07 22:44

    Ponta, I see Korea's claim over Dokdo and Japan's annexation of the islands as two distinct issues. What precedent or legal case do you cite to get your definition of "peaceful" Ponta? Besides, Korea did protest remember?

    Ponta, are you still citing the confidential Rusk documents as proof of Japan's claim to Dokdo? The only document that matters is the San Francisco Peace Treaty Ponta. What does it say about Dokdo...? Nothing, there is no mention of Dokdo at all, so stop the smoke and mirrors.

    Japan has too many problems with her claim to warrant dragging this to the ICJ.

    As I've shown Japan's 1905 to Dokdo is rotten to the core. Now Pacifist says that even the recorded statement of the Politcal Affairs Bureua Director that Dokdo should be annexed for military purposes is not enough evidence. He also says that the military surveys before the annexation are not enough. Pacifist also says that the records of the topograhical survey for constructing towers is not enough.

    Look Pacifist, you and your Takeshima lobbying groups are in no position to set the bar for what level of proof is good enough. Korea owns Dokdo and if you want to get support for your claim you'd better try harder because they pages I'm translating pretty much destroy any doubt about Japan's military agenda for Dokdo.

    Tsushima Logbooks November 13th 1904 two months before the annexation.
    "Confidential Instruction Number 276 Received" Instruction are:
    A. Work on Telegraph line from Takeshiki.
    B. Survey Liancourt Rocks for telegraph lines.
    C. Install watchtowers on Ulleungdo.

    The Ugly Truth about Japan's claim to Dokdo

    Japan is busted !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous (Toadface),

    I have asked you to post under a nickname, Toadface. If you post under "Anonymous" again, I will delete your post.

    As for your comment, "Dokdo" was not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty because it was not included among the islands Japan was supposed to give up ownership of. Are you really that ignorant of the SF treaty?

    Here is what the 1954 Van Fleet mission report said about Dokdo:

    4. Ownership of Dokto Island

    The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

    The Mission was advised by Republic of Korea that:

    "What is still worse is that Japan now claims the possession of the little islet of Dokto known Liancourt Rocks near the Woolnungdo known as Dagelet. Japanese officials are making frequent visits to the islet with armed vessels molesting Korean fishermen there. They set up posts here and there in the islet with description declaring as if it were Japanese territory. Throughout our history and knowledge up to the very moment of the declaration of sovereignty over adjacent seas (Rhee Line), Korea's sovereignty over it has never been contended by any country, as it has long been an immovably established fact that the islet, Dokto, has been historically as well as legally a part of Woolnungdo (Dagelet) Korean territory."

    Report of Van Fleet Mission to the Far East

    ReplyDelete
  29. toadface,

    You wrote;
    "Now Pacifist says that even the recorded statement of the Politcal Affairs Bureua Director that Dokdo should be annexed for military purposes is not enough evidence".

    The bureau director only said that it would not be bad to put a watch palce and a radio station, wireless or submarine. It didn't mean the "annexation for military purposes" toadface.

    He only encouraged Nakai, saying "It would be good...". As I wrote before, Navy didn't need to incorporate it because they could put the towere and the radio station on the islands nobody owned, toadface.

    As to "Confidential Instruction Number 276 Received", it is not confidential after 100 years. It didn't mean anything maicious.
    As I wrote before, it only shows that Japan did every thing she could do to defeat Russia.

    toadface, why can't you show the evidence that Korea owned Liancourt rocks?
    You can't say anything until you show the evidence.

    I suppose you also believe that Liancourt rocks didn't belong to Korea, why do you desperately try for nothing? I can't understand you.

    ReplyDelete