竹島問題の歴史

20.10.08

1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"

To follow are the war reports of the Japan Naval Battle(日本海海戦), as known as The Battle of Tsushima (Strait), printed in the extra of official gazette(官報号外) in May 29, 30 and June 5, 1905.

There are two important points we should notice here. Firstly, Takeshima(竹島) was written as "リヤンコールド岩(Liancourt Rocks)" and "リアンコルド岩(Liancourt Rocks)" in the article no.3 and 5, respectively, even though this is the official report from Fleet Admiral Marquis Togo Heihachirou (東郷平八郎). It is apparent that
none of Admiral Togo and his general staffs didn't even think of the new official name of the island and the incorporation of Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) into Shimane determined by the Cabinet 4 month ago. In other words, for Japanese Imperial Navy, the whole process of the incorporation and the new naming of the island, regarding the question of the title to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, had nothing to do with their strategy of the Japan Naval Battle.

Pro-Korean scholars like Prof. Shin Yong-ha, Professor Emeritus Naito Seichu and Prof. Hosaka Yuji claims that "The fact that bureaucrats in responsible position in the government then lead the fishermen and worked up the incorporation of Dokdo/Takeshima by Imperial Japan into its own territory in order to win the war against Russia." "Especially, though those bureaucrats (Yamaza Enjiro(山座円次郎), the director of the state affairs of MOFA, Maki Naomasa(牧朴真), the director of the fishery division, Ministry of Agriculture and Economy, Kimotsuki Kaneyuki(肝付兼行) , a chief of Hydrograhical Department, Ministry of Navy) was in a position that are well aware of the fact that Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks is Korean territory, they apparently maneuvered the incorporation of the island into Shimane forcibly."  However, there are no such "facts" as they say, at all, in fact. In addition, as this war report shows, it doesn't make sense that Commander-in-Chief of the Japan Naval Battle, Admiral Togo, who was in charge of the whole Japan Naval Battle, and his general staffs didn't even use the official name "Takeshima" newly determined by the "maneuvering" incorporation, if it is true that Meiji government and bureaucrats including the chief of Hydrograhical Department, Ministry of Navy really had such a detailed plan to incorporate the island for the purpose of the victory of the Japan-Russo war. It is apparent that Japanese Navy didn't take the issue of the title of the islands, such as Takeshima and Ulleungdo, into account seriously enough from the strategical point of view.

To begin with, Japan-Korea Protocol (Japanese Original) was already signed in 1904 and by the second issuer of the article 4, it allows Japanese government to use Korean territory freely for the purpose of military strategy. In other words, there is absolutely no necessity for Japanese government to incorporate any Korean land into Japan, hence it is apparent that sovereignty of those islands has nothing to do with the accomplishment for the victory over the Japan-Russo War. If "villainous Imperial Japan" really incorporated Takeshima into Shimane knowingly that it is Korean land, as today's Korean claims, why they didn't seize and incorporate Ulleungdo, which is far more important and valuable than Takeshima geographically and economically? What about other islets which Japan built watchtowers on, just like Takeshima? Even though lager numbers of Korean were living on Ulleungdo then, it was "vacant island" until 20 years ago, and there were more than 300 Japanese were actually living on Ulleungdo. Besides, Japanese did had effective control over the Ulleungdo during 1600s until Joseon government protested.

Secondly, in the last part of 5th June gazette, it corrected the name "Liancourt Rocks" to "Takeshima". This is the concrete evidence that reject flatly Korea's claim that the process of the incorporation was done "secretly" in 1905. According to Korean Prof. Shin, there were many Korean residents in Japan, especially, Tokyo, at the time, so it was easily accessible to those Koreans. In fact, Korean media like 皇城新聞 actually reported the contents of the report three days later, which is the translation of this war report, and it means Japanese official gazette was accessible to Korean directly or at second hand at least. If Japanese government really wanted to keep the incorporation secret from Korean, they shouldn't had allow Shimane prefecture to publish the news that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch, or have informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized. Not to mention, they wouldn't have published in the official gazette the announcement of the correction of the name of the island which they wanted to keep "secret".

Pro-Korean like Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉), a permanent Korean resident in Japan, who works for Korean government's Dokdo research center as a consultative committee member and the distributor of "Half-moon's newsletter", only discuss about the misuse of the name "Liancourt Rocks" in No.3 and No. 5, thoughtlessly said "Maybe, Ministry of the Navy and the government organ, which publish official gazette didn't know that Takeshima had already been incorporated into Japan and must have took it as a foreign territory. It is understandable, since the incorporation was executed "secretly" at the governmental level, that they didn't know the fact. " The territorial claim, based on such an arbitrary translation of selective resources which are favourable only to him, could become not only a factor which may obstruct normal Japan-Korea bilateral relation, but also a factor which would aggravate antipathy towards Zainichi Koreans, including himself, in Japan. He should stop spreading those illogical claims, right now.
An Extra of Official Gazette 29 May, 1905 (original Japanese version )

War Report

War Report of the Japan Naval Battle  War report from the Admiral Togo Heihachiro, the Commander of the Grand Fleet(Combined Fleet), concerning for the Battle of the Sea of Japan, which has been undergoing since a day before (27th). (Ministry of Navy)

No.1 Received in the morning, 27th
Receiving the alarming that enemy vessel was seen, Grand Fleet put to sea instantly in order to beat this. Today, it is clear and fine, but swells high.

No.2 Received in the night, 27th
Grand Fleet crushed enemy fleet greatly near the Okinoshima today, and at least 4 enemy vessels went under water. We damaged other enemy vessels greatly. The damage of our fleet is small. The body of Destroyers and torpedo boats carried out attacking from sunset.

No.3 Received in the morning, 29th
Since 27th, the main force of Grand Fleet(連合艦隊) had continued running after the remaining enemy, and they faced and attacked, around Liancourt Rocks, the groups of the enemy vessels, Emperor Nikolai I(battleship), Orel(battleship), Senyavin(coastal battleship), Apraxin(coastal battleship), Izumrud(cruiser). Izumrud splitted and run away, but other fours surrendered soon after. Our fleet has no damages. According to the captives, the enemy vessels, which sunked during the battle on 27th, are Borodino(battleship), Emperor Alexander III(battleship), Zhemchug(cruiser).
The numbers of the prisoner of war sums up to 2,000, including Rear Admiral Nebogatov.

(Abbr.)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

An Extra of Official Gazette 30 May, 1905 (original Japanese version )

War Report

Follow-up War Report of the Japan Naval Battle  War report obtained afterward from the Admiral Togo Heihachiro, the Commander of the Grand
Fleet(Combined Fleet), concerning for the Battle of the Sea of Japan. (Ministry of Navy)

No.4 Received in the afternoon today, 30th

The naval battle, which undertook between near Okinoshima and Ulleungdo from 27th to 28th May, is going to be called " the Japan Naval Battle(日本海海戦 : The battle of the Sea of Japan)" .

No.5 ibid.
As it was already transferred, the most of Grand Fleet had encircled and attacked the main force of remaining enemy ship corps, defeated near at the Liancourt Rocks in the afternoon on 28th, and after their surrender, it stopped the pursuing and now engaging the dealing with the aftermath. Meanwhile, around 3 o'clock, we found, to the direction of south-west, another enemy battleship Admiral Ushakov running north, so armoured cruiser Iwate and Yakumo pursued it instantly and called on it to surrender. However, it didn't respond. So we bombered and sunked it against our will. We rescued and accomodated the approx. 300 survivors. ....

(Abbr.)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

An Extra of Official Gazette 5 June, 1905 (original Japanese version )
War Report

Follow-up War Report of the Japan Naval Battle 
War report obtained afterward from the Admiral Togo Heihachiro, the Commander of the Grand Fleet(Combined Fleet), concerning for the Battle of the Sea of Japan. (Ministry of Navy)

(Abbr.)


Correction

"Liancourt Rocks" in the third article of this column, which is a war report of the war report of the Japan Naval Battle on 29th last month, and in the fifth article of the follow-up report on the 30th, respectively, are both going to be corrected as "Takeshima(竹島)".

Referece
1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Ingerent Part of (Korean) Territory"
Surely you are joking, Prof. Hosaka ! (ご冗談でしょう、保坂先生!)
1853-1922 - 肝付兼行 (Kimotsuki Kaneyuki)
1894年 - 海軍省水路部「朝鮮水路誌」(明治二十七年)

22 comments:

  1. I couldn't translate all of the documents, sorry. If you find any mistake, please let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Kaneganese, this is an important point for the dabate concerning the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) issue.

    It has been apparent that the rocks were controlled by Japanese fishermen in the early 20th century although they were not officially incorporated into Japan. There were no Korean people there except for the fishermen who were hired by Japanese. So Japan incorporated the rocks into Japan (Shimane prefecture).

    Pro-Korean scholars used to claim that the rocks originally belonged to Korea but the claim is groundless. Korea's eastern limit was Ulleungdo and Liancourt rocks had never ever been recognised as Korean territory as one can see in various geographic books and western maps around late 19th century and early 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, pacifist.

    The more I read those documents around the incorporation, the more I got convinced that Japanese Meiji government didn't considered Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea at all.

    In fact, there were no trace that Korean had control over the island and all the Korean, Japanese and Western maps and documents clearly supported it. So we can safely conclude that the conspiracy theory by Korean side that "Japanese government incorporated the island for the military purpose" or "Japanese government secretly incorporated without letting Korea know" are nothing but just bogus, delusional, paranoic idea. Japanese government officially printed the correction that Liancourt Rocks should be Takeshima in the official gazette, afterall but Korean didn't respond it at all. It is a clear evidence that both Japanese and Korean didn't considered Liancourt Rocks to be Korean and it was no secret.

    The point from now on should be, if they didn't really know thae fact that Japanese in Edo era formerly owned Takeshima or not. When they incorporated the island into Shimane, they claimed that there were Japanese who built the hut and hunt the seals on the island, plus there were no trace of occupation by any countries. Does this mean they considered it to be "tella nullis" as Korean scholars claims Japanese government claimed? Actually, Shimane prefecture claims that Meiji government considered it to be "無主の地(tella nullis)". Or did they considered it to be Japanese inheretant island from 17th century as Japanese MOFA currently claims as they did?

    As we have seen so far, some maps draw Takeshima to be Japanese territory, but some draw to be "tella nullis". And most importantly there were no single map which draws Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory. It is possible that there were no clear information that Japanese in Edo era had effective control on "Ryanko-to", which was actually old "Matsushima", inside Meiji government in 1904-1905. If they were passed on the Kitazawa Masanari's report, they should have known that it was Japanese old Matsushima, as Watanabe Kouki claimed.

    1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the name of "Matsushima", which had been Japan's island, went to Ulleungdo (where was recognised as Korean island) in the turmoil of names of three islands (Argonaut, Dagelet & Linacourt/Hornet) so that Japan lost "Matsushima" in the late Edo era. As various western maps in the late 19th century show, they thought Argonaut was Take (Takeshima), Dagelet was Matsu (Matsushima).

    Liancourt Rocks, which were found by western ships after the fixation of the idea that Matsu was Dagelet (Uleungdo), were first thought to be new find. So they had to name the rocks as Ryanko-to or Riankorudo-gan.

    The rocks were definitely not Korean territory as no western maps didn't say so (and they were out of Korean eastern limit - Ulleungdo). Although many of the western maps depicted the rocks as Japan's territory (as Watanabe Kouki pointed out), some depicted the rocks as "terra nullius". So Meiji government squarely thought that they should officially declare that the rocks were Japan's land.

    But it was too square, the rocks were Japan's land from the beginning - so as a result they only re-confirmed that the rocks were Japan's land.

    So anyway, there seems to be no room for Korea to claim. Korea didn't reach the rocks until some of Koreans were hired and brought to the rocks by Japanese in the early 20th century. Until then there was no record in Korea except for one report that a Korean saw an island from Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a truly bizarre spin on Japan's clandestine annexation of Liancourt Rocks guys. Posting reams of Japanese Naval documents to prove Japan's Navy had nothing to do with the annexation. Your recent articles read more like satire that historical fact.

    What these military records show is that Japan's Navy had no idea Shimane Prefecture had officially annexed Liancourt Rocks. However, we know Japan's military was the driving force behind the annexation. This can be seen in Japanese Military records BEFORE the incorporation.

    Japan's-Military-Dokdo

    It's not surprising Japan's military still used the name Liancourt Rocks a mere three months after Japan's annexation of the islets.

    First, the Japanese Naval brass were too busy preparing for the Baltic Fleet. They were stationed in Korea's Jinae at the time and were mapping the entire area in a grid-like fashion to prepare for the Russians. Admiral Togo was working furiously with target practice drills and keeping up on intelligence such as plotting the progress of the Baltic Fleet. He certainly wasn't reading tiny postage stamp sized ads in Shimane Prefecture newspaper.

    See the Japanese Naval strategy maps on this page made in the months before the Battle of Tsushima.
    Territory-Annexations

    Secondly, name changes take time to implement. Imagine the confusion if the Japanese Navy had suddenly started using the new name Takeshima before the battle of Tsushima. There is no room for confusion and seconds count. We are talking the turn of the 20th Century and the Japanese had just begun using radio for warfare communication. The Japanese Navy helped avoid confusion by not giving the island a new name at such a critical phase. Even if the Japanese had briefed their naval staff of the name change, in the heat of battle it could have caused serious trouble during communications. Especially since many of their maps still showed Liancourt Rocks.

    Japanese newspapers continued to use the name Liancourt Rocks for months after the annexation. This also shows their annexation wasn't "open and public"
    No-Takeshima

    You say the Japanese didn't need annex Liancourt Rocks for the Russo-Japanese War. Well they certainly didn't need to incorporate the islets to hunt seals. The Japanese fishermen already had access to Chosun waters and had swarmed Ulleungdo Island en masse for years before 1905.

    Nakai Yozaburo's dairy clearly records the statements of the Japanese minister Yamaza Enjiro. He stated it was urgent to incorporate the islands to build telegraph lines to monitor hostile ships in the region. Another thing, it was only months after the Russo Japanese War was over that Japan's navy tore down the watchtowers. This is clear proof the construction of these facilities was only for war, period.
    Japanese-Politics

    The Japanese Navy did not have the position to unilaterally declare Japanese limits. However, the Japanese Imperial Navy certainly did have the clout to prod radical factions of Japanese government such as the Yamagata Faction into seizing Liancourt Rocks. And they did.

    Pacifist and Kaneganese, stop trying to sell this snake oil that Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks to wack seals during the largest war of the day. Making such biased, easily refuted statements is really damaging your website that already has serious credibility issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve the frog-hearted,

    Are you still saying the old empty slogan?

    1) If Japan recognised Liancourt Rocks as "No one's land", it was free for them to investigate the rocks in order to fight against Russia. (Do you agree? That's fine.)

    2) Even if Japan recognised Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory, Japan could use the land as Kaneganese already showed you. You didn't refute for the posting below:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1904-1905-watchtowers-during-russo.html

    Why din't you refute? The answer is clear for everyone, Steve.

    --------------------------
    In either case, the investigation by Tsushima was not unlawful deed.

    In addition, the investigation uncovered the fact that Liancourt Rocks were already used by Japanese fishermen in the early 20th century, not by Koreans. It was a firm evidence that the rocks were not under control of Korea. It was not a Korean territory in 1900 when Korea issued the Edict #41.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, Pacifist I don't agree.

    Claiming new territory must be part of a peaceful natural process such as stated by Max Huber of the ICJ. As I've told you before the issue of Korea's prior ownership of Dokdo is a separate issue here. In other words, you can't just annex territory during a war and call it an incorporation. On top of that, why should we honor this shameless wartime landgrab 100 years later during this peaceful modern era Pacifist? Your demands are antiquated.

    Pacifist even Korea was under Korean control in the early 1900s.
    Korea-Was-Japan's

    How funny Pacifist. You've gone from saying Japan's claim to Dokdo had nothing to do with the Russo-Japanese War. Now you say it was legal. Do you think Japan can get any support for their claim to Dokdo on the grounds they annexed the island in their bid to colonize Korea during the largest war of the day? You are dreaming out loud

    Only a Japanese right wing radical would make such outrageous demands in the year 2008? The modern situation in northeast Asia make your assertions impossible to entertain Pacifist. The economic, political and geographic situation in modern Asia make Japan's claim to Dokdo an impossibility.

    Pacifist, if you can't justify Japan's claim to Dokdo in a modern context you are truly screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear bearded frog,

    You are misleading the readers again.

    I wrote that if Japan recognised the rocks to be ownerless ones, it was not unlawful thing to investigate and decide whether installation of watchtower or cable would be adequate or not.

    I didn't say the investigation was for the incorporation. The incorporation and the investigation by Navy is not related.

    Do you insist that the investigation of the ownerless rocks is illegal? It was the era of a big war for Japan. You must learn about the situation of the 1900's when asian countries were on the verge of colonizaton by western countries. And Russia was one of the giant western powers in the world, nicknemaed as White Bear. Japan had to prepare completely for the battle.

    As to incorporation, it was not necessary to incorporate for the installation of watchtower/cables as Kaneganese already proved.

    The incorporation was done because of Nakai's plea. Navy didn't think about it, it didn't matter for them. Even if it was a Korean island they could install watchtowers lawfully.

    Sorry for you - my dear frog but this is the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pacifist, you say Japan didn't need to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to build watchtowers on the island.

    Unfortunately for you, Nakai Yozaburo records Yamaza Enjiro's statement that proves you are wrong. As I've stated Yamaza Enjiro (Japan's Political Affairs Bureau Director and Genyosha gangster) said it was was urgent to incorporate the islands to build watchtowers to keep watch on hostile warships.

    This one historical record shows you are misleading your readers.

    Nakai-Yozaburo's-Diary

    Pacifist, countries incorporate lands for a reason. Japan's annexation was not a random event. There are two possibilities as to why Japan annexed Dokdo.

    a)Japan needed the islets to hunt seals....?
    OR
    b)The Japanese military needed the islets for military reasons.

    Please study the political background of those involved with Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks Pacifist.

    Dokdo-Politics

    As long as you insist the Japanese incorporated Dokdo because they felt an urgent need to support a grubby squatters enterprise to wack seals you continue to show your lack of knowledge of Japanese history. You shouldn't insult the intelligence of your readers, you are fooling nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry, there were some mis-spellings. to folow is the corrected version:

    ----------------------------
    Steve the frog hearted,

    Your theory is wrong because of your inability of reading Japanese documents. You only translated Korean nationalistic documents which are not reliable at all. You can't argue relying on such unreliable sources.

    Nakai wrote the "履歴書(CV)" and "事業経営概要(Outline of Business Management)" (NOT DIARY!) himself and Okuhara Hekiun wrote a biography called "竹島経営者 中井養三郎氏立志伝(The Manager of Takeshima; The Success Story of Mr. Nakai Yozaburo)". These books are sources of your information but you couldn't read them directly, could you?

    According to the "Success Story", "When the business seemed to be hopeful, competitive people like Ishibashi Matsutaro, Iguchi Ryuta and Kato Juzo appeared and the bad effect of indiscriminate hunting became apparent. Nakai worried that seal hunting business would be exterminated in several years. He felt that rent of the hunting area and limitation of hunting would be necessary."

    The "Success Story" goes on: "In addition, the island is in the Korean territory according to a chart, so 'if foreign people assaulted the island we would not be protected'. As he thought of a risk to invest capital to such a risky business, he decided to petition Korean government for the rent of the island and to possess the right to hunt exclusively".

    Please note the "chart" Nakai saw was "朝鮮全岸" which was written for the safe voyage from Japan to Korean peninsula. It depicted Liancourt Rocks but it didn't mean the rocks were Korean territory. It was Nakai's misunderstanding, which was corrected later.

    Nakai met 牧朴真 (Maki Naomasa), the chief of the Fisheries Bureau of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce through the introduction by 藤田勘太郎(Fujita Kantaro), an officer in the same bureau, who was from Oki island. Maki agreed the Nakai's idea.

    Then Nakai went to 海軍水路部 (Waterway Section of Navy) and met 肝付兼行(Kimotsuki Kaneyuki) who was the chief of the section to "check who owns Ryanko island" (according to "Success Story").

    Kimotsuki answered to Nakai, "同島の所属は確固たる徴証なく、ことに日韓両国よりの距離を測定すれば、日本の方十浬の近距離にあり(出雲国多古鼻より百○八浬、朝鮮国リッドネル岬より百十八里)、加うるに朝鮮人にして同島経営に関する形跡なきに反し、本邦人にして既に同島経営に従事せるものあるが上は、当然日本領土に編入すべきものなり”("There is no firm sign about to whom the island belongs. After measuring the distances from Japan and from Korea, Japan is closer to the island by 10 nautical miles [108 nautical miles from Tako-hana cape of Izumo and 118 nautical miles from Lidnell cape of Korean peninsula], and as far as there are Japanese who are already engaging in managing the island while there is no trace of Koreans who managed the island, it is natural to incorporate it to Japan.")

    After heard this Kimotsuki's opinion, "Nakai was in high spirits, he decided at last to make a petition to three Cabinet ministers - of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture and Commerce." But the local bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs thought that "It is during the war between Japan and Russia, so it is not an adequate time of incorporation diplomatically. An order to reject the petition should be transmitted to the local agency."

    Then, Nakai met Yamaza Enjiro (山座円次郎), the chief of the State Affairs of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by the introduction of Kuwata Kumazo (桑田熊蔵) - a member of the House of Peers.

    Yamaza listened to Nakai's story and said, "外交上のことは他省の関知する処にあらず、●(目に少)たる岩島編入の如き些々たる小事件のみ、地勢上より見るも、歴史上より見るも、はたまた時局上より見るも、今日領土編入は大に利益あるを認むる旨" (As for the diplomatic thing, it is no concern to other ministries. Although an incorporation of a small rock island is a trivial matter, I admit that it would be very advantageous to incorporate lands in views of topography, history, and in addition in view of the current state of affairs.)

    After reading all these documents, it is apparent that it was Nakai who energetically acted to incorporate Liancourt Rocks, Kimotsuki and Yamaza only gave advices to this young and earnest businessman.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pacifist, I don't mean to burst your bubble but your "earnest businessman" was nothing but a two-bit squatter and trespasser. Even Nakai's diary application to lease Liancourt Rocks shows he became aware of Dokdo through his trespassing on Chosun's Ulleungdo.

    Yes, Nakai's diary records the statement of Yamaza Enjiro and these were written by a Japanese man who unlike you has integrity and honesty. His name is Kazuo Hori.

    You didn't finish Yamaza Enjiro's quote Pacifist. He said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it was necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on hostile warships You are a slippery little devil aren't you?

    This was from Nakai's own personal diary made around 1910. You can see a Japanese man (Kazuo Hori) who I assure you is fluent in Japanese wrote it in this excellent article about Japan's illegal incorporation of Liancourt Rocks. Every piece of data is cited, and he had the integrity to post his name unlike the anonymous bloggers on this forum.

    You can read about it here. Please read page number 24.
    Japan's-Illegal-Incorporation

    Nakai Yozaburo was a dirty squatter who didn't have a pot to piss in. He had to resort to poaching fish on Korea's Ulleungdo to make a living. And this is your hero?? Naksi's application to lease Liancourt was guided by right wing expansionists like Komura Jutaro, Yamaza Enjiro, and Kiyoura Kiego.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve the frog-belly,

    The paper you mentioned seems nothing but a pro-Korean opinion, because the author didn't understand the Dajokan order (1877) - it is obvious that he didn't read the order by himself like you. If one read all of the order and related documents, it is clear that the order meant only Ulleungdo belonged to Korea but no mention of Liancourt Rocks.

    And your wrong view about Japan's great Minister of Foreign Affairs, Komura Jutaro, and other persons will damage your fame, Steve the frogman. They were not right wingers. (Steve yourself seem to be a Korean right winger like Rhee Syngman who stole a Japanese island because he hated Japan.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve the bearded frog,

    I forgot to comment on your writing: "You didn't finish Yamaza Enjiro's quote Pacifist".

    Your writing revealed that you didn't read the "Success Story" by yourself at all. The quote in the "Success Story" is all what I wrote. You can't argue without reading original books, Steve the frog belly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pacifist, quit trying to baffle us with bullshit.

    Yamaza Enjiro said Liancourt Rocks had to be incorporated to install watchtowers. This was from Nakai Yozaburo's own diary. I've already given you the published article from a Japanese author and his references have citations. It has nothing to do with the 1877 Dajokan's Order, dont' change the subject.

    I can't read from original Japanese books. However, respected Japanese authors have already published English articles with cited references of data. So, we don't have to listen to the slanted ramblings of a Japanese lobbyist like yourself Pacifist.

    Again, read Kazuo Hori's reference to Nakai's diary on page 24.
    Nakai-Yozaburo-On-Page-24

    You are an anonymous poster who has not the credibility to contest articles from well-known published authors on the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute. In other words, your opinions amount to squat.

    Your link to Komura Jutaro has no information about his involvement with the colonization of Korea Pacifist. What a big surprise! However, the article does cite Peter Duus book 'The Abacus and the Sword, I have a copy right beside me. I suggest you read it too. Here is what it says about Komura Jutaro.

    "Ito's departure opened the way for advocates of the annexation of Korea, Katsura, Terauchi and Komura..."

    "In July 1909 a month after Ito's resignation...Prime Minister Katsura and Foreign Minister Komura worked in extreme secrecy waiting for the appropriate moment to annex Korea." (abbreviated)

    "..On August 22, 1910, the advocates of the annexation, Yamagata, Katsura, Komura and Terauchi saw their goal achieved..."


    So you see Pacifist, all of the Japanese Politicians and Military strategists involved with the annexation of Liancourt Rocks were not surprisingly expansionist colonialists who were advocates of the annexation of Korea itself.

    I've written a page just for people like you who are in denial about the political circumstances surrounding Japan's annexation of Dokdo. I've received many favourable e-mails about this page. Please read and learn about the history of your own country instead of citing wikipedia.

    Japanese-Expansionists

    Pacifist, you seem obsessed with the beard I had in my photo. Maybe when you enter puberty you can grow one too! Or better yet, maybe Kaneganese will shave off hers and let you wear it for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve the frog brain,

    The person you mentioned is not a "well-known published author", he's just a pro-Korean person. I don't have any interest in what this kind of person wrote.

    Steve the frog leg, you must learn Japanese language and read the original documents by yourself to argue about Japanese documents. Your website is full of untrue translation of Japanese documents, it's because you translated them from pro-Korean sources.

    Steve the frog belly, you have to bring the evidence first that shows Korea really reached Liancourt Rocks before Japan did. But you couldn't. Korea didn't reach Liancourt Rocks until they were hired by Japanese - you must admit this fact. If you admit this fact, how do you keep insisting "Japan annexed Dokdo" theory?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Frog-Brain? Is this your idea of intellectual debate?

    Look Pacifist, I've given you the historical fact from a published journal written by a Japanese man who cited the sources of his data. If you have no academic response but a shabby attempt to discredit him by saying he's pro-Korean then I feel sorry for you.

    The fact is Nakai's own personal diary records Yamaza Enjiro wanted to incorporate Liancourt Rocks for watchtowers and telegraph lines BEFORE the Japanese annexed the islands. In other words, Japan's whole claim was an act of aggression done during Japan's bid to colonize Korea during the largest war of the day.

    Please keep up the childish name calling Pacifist, it shows your faithful Japanese readers what an infantile person you are.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve the toadface,

    This is your official nickname, so you won't be hurt with this name, will you?

    As I repeatedly wrote, I don't believe what the pro-Korean person wrote even if he saw the original source.

    Steve the toadface, you should reach the original document if you want to persuade someone to believe it. As I read your website, your translation is full of distortion because of pro-Korean interpretation of the original sources.

    As I wrote before, Yamaza gave an advice to Nakai as a favour, it was not a malicious intention of Navy. You can't feel it if you can't read the original documents.

    ReplyDelete
  19. pacifist,

    I think it is a waste of time to talk to brainless guy who keeps citing radical left-wing Japanese scholar's English translated stupid zombi article which was written more than 20(!!) years ago. We have more new resources right now, as you keep saying. Hori's artilcle had been debunked as a garbage for ages ago. The biggest mistake he made was he belieiives Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo, which is a lie. It seems that he can't read 漢文 eigher. Well, no wonder his expertise is economy. Kyoto Uni's Faculty of Economy is famous for Marxism. But sometimes, I kind of think that his article (and Kajimura's too) played a role of "毒饅頭" for Korean , in some way, considering Korean intellectuals and government, including Prof. Shin adopted this Japanese left winger's delusional story and still keep coping to support their claim even now. It is very funny for Japanese to see Korean bases their territorial claims on Japanese scholar's delusional article. Kinda guilty pleasure, though...

    Anyway, we, and certainly Korean too, really need decent intellectual pro-Korean who always keeps up new information, like "中井養三郎氏立志伝" which you kindly introduced before and is capable of reading it in original language. Then we can have more logical debate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kaneganese,

    Thanks for the advice. I've just...(遊び相手がい無さそうなので遊んであげていただけなのですが)..

    Anyway, he is just struggling desperately to overturn the predominant theory.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yeah, I can see that. But I think you are too kind giving so many informations he should have read ages ago before he made fool out of himself for his ignorance openly to the world on the web. I already gave him a big hint to repair his big mistake and I think that is enough. "Kaneganese will shave off hers and let you wear it for a while."? Disgusting. I hope there is a word and law for "sexual harrasment" even in Korea as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kaneganese, the article published by Kazuo Hori is accurate in every detail and he has cited every one of the sources of his data. Why shouldn't I cite is 20 year old article? You hang on every word written by Kawakami written in 1966 which is 40 years ago. Kawakami was the same man who said Dokdo couldn't be seen from Ulleungdo. Of course this was debunked.

    The only statement I've made is the undeniable fact that Yamaza Enjiro stated it was necessary to install watchtowers and telegraph lines on Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese government annexed the islets. That's all.

    All you and Pacifist have is attack the man personally. How shabby is that?

    Why should anybody on this forum trust posts made by two anonymous posters who don't even have enough integrity to use their real names when they spew their rhetoric?

    Kanganese. What does my beard comment have to do with "sexual harassment"? I was being quite literal with my joke. Did you think my joke was something sexual? If you did, I think that is quite hilarious...and very Freudian of you.

    Anyway, if you don't want to be insulted maybe you should keep Pacifist on a shorter leash.

    ReplyDelete