Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Nanjing Campaign According to Officers' testimony (1) April 1984 review

The editor of this Nanjing Campaign history is Unemoto Masami, graduated from officers school of IJA, Class of 46th.  He used to be a professor at University of Defense.  When he wrote this, he was in 70s, and had long been retired as a farmer.

The background of this history was textbook conflict: China protested that Japanese government was water downing  history text books, which they were not (the initial newspaper article that provoked Chinese response was false, or fabrication).  But any how, Nanjing incident was brought into Japanese and global attention again in 80s, because of this.  Actually, PRC began to build monuments of Nanjing incident in the city in 1980s.  The museum was opened in 1985.

PRC claims that more than 300,000 civilians were slaughtered in Nanjing after the fall of Nanjing in December 1937 and  during early 1938.  Tokyo Tribunal after the war ruled that the victims were slightly lower number, 150,000 to 200,000.  The natural feeling of officers, including Unemoto, who participated in the campaign was that the numbers were too large to be believable.  Since IJA burned down most of the military documents immediately before the surrender, there are not many official documents left.  Since Japanese government has never contested the ruling of Tokyo Tribunal, and probably never will, the officers decided to find out what really happened by the testimonies of the veterans of the campaign.

Nanjing Campaign was a large military attack after the fall of Shanghai.  The battle was quick and swift, involving 16th and 9th divisions and 10th regiment (11th division) of Shanghai expeditionary army; 114th, 6th, and 18th divisions of 10th army; 41th regiment; the third fleet of Navy; and army air force.

The decision to attack Nanjing was made on December 1, and Nanjing fell on December 13, 1937.

This section describes:
1. The battle in the cities between Shanghai and Nanjing was fierce.  Chinese army often used machine guns from concrete bunkers.  The cities were seriously destroyed when Chinese army resisted.  When Japanese army occupied the city, they were usually barren and nobody was in sight except dead soldiers.
2. In contrast, Suzhou surrendered without fight and the destruction was minimal.
3. Chinese army destroyed, burned and looted cities before they retreated so as not to leave anything valuable to Japanese army (Empty the house and clean the field strategy).
4. Chinese army resorted to guerrilla tactics.
5. Logistics of Japanese army was not so difficult.

Two other things:
1. Who decided the Nanjing campaign?
At the end of November 1937, the battle of Shanghai was over.
It was the army at Shanghai (probably meaning Matsui Iwane), and Shimomura Sadamu, the director of 1st division of Chief of Staffs.  The campaign was well prepared.
2. Negotiation with Chang Kaishek through Trautmann
This section stresses Japanese government (Hirota Koki, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Yoneuchi Mitsumasa, Minister of Navy) decided to discontinue the peace negotiation with KMT through Trautmann, and the military backed off.  This led to the declaration by the Japanese government that Japan no longer negotiates with KMT government.

The officers condemns the action of the government that resulted in the protracted war.  Chiang Kaishek had already decided to resort to total war long before the fall of Nanjing.  His plan was to lure Japanese army to machine guns in concrete bunkers (Seeckt line), prepared around Shanghai by Germans.

Chiang Kaishek's failure was that he had no option when Seeckt line was crossed by Japanese army.  In the end, the only chance of peace was right after the fall of Nanjing.  The government should have used the every opportunity to cease fire.

The government was even more naive to believe Germans were neutral third party, when they were actively helping KMT in the very war.  Germans and Hitler changed their pro-China policy in mid-1938 and became pro-Japan, resulting in the anti-communism pact.  Germans broke the pact and allies with Soviet (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), which led to the collapse of Hiranuma cabinet, commenting that the situations in Europe was too mysterious.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Nanjing Campaign According to Officers' testimony (1) April 1984

In April 1984, Kaiko sha (the organization of IJA officers) started to publish the compiled records of officers who participated in Nanjing campaign in 1937, after the second battle of Shanghai.  I would be happy if you can have an idea of what was going on on the fateful month of December.

Except for the format change to suit the web, the text is the same as the original.
46期 畝本正巳










従軍者の証言を基盤とするこの「戦史」は今後もさらに多くの証言を得られることを期待しています。畝本君の研究によって記憶を新たにされた方々の御協力を、この上ともにお願いいたします。(42加登川 記)











15日の大本営政府連絡会議 中国側の回答に接し、日本の態度を決定するため、15日9時半から連絡会議が開かれた。まず外相から日支和平交渉の経緯を説明したのち討議に入ったが、中国側の誠意の有無が論議の焦点となった。政府側は、記述の理由から誠意なしと断じ、交渉打ち切りを主張し、陸海統帥部は、いま交渉を打ち切るのは尚早であるとした。











都市の攻防と破壊 中国軍はわが進撃路上の重要都市で頑強に抵抗した。太湖以北では、福山、常熟、呉山、江陰、泗安、広徳などでは、城壁に拠る敵と激戦を交えた。わが陸海の航空部隊は爆撃をくりかえし、砲撃を加えたので、抵抗した都市の破壊は甚大であった。



蘇州の無血占領 敵が城壁によって抵抗した都市・村落は、彼我の戦闘、中国軍退却時の「焼光作戦」(家を焼きはらい敵に利用させないようにする)により破壊焼失したが、無抵抗の城市は無傷のまま占領されたのである。当時の上海派遣軍参謀、大西一氏36期は蘇州の「無血占領」について次のように述懐している。
「日本軍の入城を禁ず 上海派遣軍司令官、陸軍大将松井石根」
支那軍による掠奪 (歩兵第十九旅団司令部通信班長、犬飼総一郎氏談)


便衣の敗残兵の出没 日本軍は主要な道路に沿って、敵の抵抗を排除しながら進撃したから、逃げ遅れた支那軍は道路を離れて周辺の村落に潜入し、便衣に化けて出没し、後方部隊を襲撃した。



不如意の補給・給養 上海ー南京間約二百里を概ね三十日間で進撃した(追撃発起11月11日前後、南京占領12月13日)。したがって、一日の行程は平均七里であり、当時の軍兵站の常識からみれば、第一線への補給追随が困難な作戦ではなかった。









第十六師団方面 11月13日、白茆口に上陸した第十六師団の、12月1日侍従武官に対する状況報告は、追撃作戦の実態とくに補給・給養の状況をうかがうことができるので、その概要を転記する。
経 理
衛 生


Friday, February 19, 2010

Shigemitsu Mamoru - A brave diplomat and Class A war criminal

Shigemitsu Mamoru (the man with a hat and a stick) was standing on battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay (September, 1945) to sign the surrender, as a representative of Japanese government.  He carried a stick because he lost his right leg by a bomb thrown by a Korean terrorist in Shanghai.  Standing right was General Umezu, who represented Imperial Japanese Army.  Shigemitsu describes the fact that the Americans demanded signatures from both government and military as a symbol of out of control military, the fact recognized even by the Americans.
 Shigemitsu signs the surrender on the battleship.

The book I refereed to, 昭和の動乱, is a best history book of Japan during 1920-1945 period.  The book gives a reasonable narrative to the situation spiraling into a catastrophic war. This might be the English translation.  He was a British style liberal diplomat and an important player during the war time.  He was later arrested as a class A war criminal because a Soviet prosecutor insisted that his handling of border crash between Korea and Soviet (battle of Lake Khasan) is an act of aggression.  Shigemitsu was not a military commander, but an ambassador to Soviet at the time who was trying to establish cease fire.  Nevertheless, he was arrested and later convicted as a class A war criminal.  Why this was possible was beyond normal understanding, except that the tribunal was a political show.  Seven year imprisonment sentence were later shortened to four year and seven months.  He wrote this book during that prison time.  After independence, he was active as a politician and became a minister of foreign affairs in Hatoyama Ichiro cabinet (the grandfather of Hatoyama Yukio). 

Shigemitsu negotiated with Soviets to reopen the diplomatic relationship between the two countries.  This was necessary for Japan to join UN, because Soviets, as a permanent member of security counsel, vetoing the motion.  The negotiation was finalized by Hatoyama.  The diplomatic relationship enabled the repatriation of 500,000 Japanese captives who were enslaved in glags in Siberia by Soviets, who simply broke the non-aggression treaty to grab anything and anybody they could.  100,000 perished before they could come back home.  Shigemitsu gave acceptance speech when Japan joined UN in 1956, and one month later he died.

Shigemitsu defines the irresponsible behavior of Imperial Japanese Army and Navy as a consequence of the flaw in Meiji Constitution, which gave the emperor, not the government, the power to control the armed forces.  Since the emperor (Hirohito) did not give orders and stayed away from the politics, Army and Navy bureaucrats used this as a foundation to do whatever they wanted, and war plan was haphazardly created by a small group of people outside the control of government.  In addition to the division between the government and military, Army and Navy were divided. The situation was different when Japan fought Sino-Japanese war, as evidenced by 褰々録 written by Mutsu Munemitsu.  Then primer minister, Ito Hirobumi, had a total control of the military at that time.  It is ironic that Constitution written by Ito himself produced the devastating results decades later, when all the Meiji revolutionaries died out.  The last one, Saionji Kimmochi died one year before the Pearl Harbor attack.

Some criticize Yasukuni shrine because class A war criminals are enshrined.  Then I wonder if they know Shigemitsu Mamoru.  He was not killed, so he is not enshrined. He was convicted but he has nothing to be ashamed of.  Sometimes I also think of lieutenant general Okada Tasuku, who was tried and sentenced to death by hanging at Yokohama class BC tribunal.  Okada Tasuku sentenced to death US pilots of B29 bombers who did carpet bombing of Nagoya.  His logic was that they were captured as war criminals, not prisoners of war who have legal protection, because carpet bombing targeting civilians is violation of international law.  He maintained his argument in Yokohama tribunal, took all the responsibility, and accepted the death sentence as a matter of fact.  For Okada Tasuku, the court was simply an extension of military defense in a legal form.  That was why he kept on protecting his men.  After his death sentence, even his prosecutor submitted a plea to save his life.  He was killed on Sept 17, 1949.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Global trends before and affter the war

 apple407 wrote:
Your research and scholarship is impressive. But, I feel you remain too focussed on your (impressive) details that you fail to brush in the larger global picture for the cause of so-called Japanese war of aggression: African continent-colonized by Europe; India-colonized by Britain; China-about to be colonized; South-east Asian zone variously owned by european interests; not to omit Russian expansionist intentions in Mongolia and in China and in the middle east.

Didn’t these wider global trends instruct Japan in its own survival strategies?

You are talking about a world view from a corner of Asia sill remaining to be colonized at the beginning of 20th century.  You forgot to add the expansion of USA from the East.  It is symbolic that Japan's modernization began from the direct threat by US gunships in Tokyo Bay led by Commodore Perry.  Togo Heihachiro, the captain of battle ship Naniwa and the commander of the battle of Sea of Japan during Russo-Japanese war, was sent to pressure the coup of Hawaii, but the weak island nation was colonized in no time by US in front of the eyes of Japan.  US and Japan started to crash over the interests in Manchuria and Manchurian railways.

I agree with your premise that the global trends shaped the strategy of Japan at the time, but two things happened since then.  First, Japan lost concrete strategies as to what to build, some time between Manchuria incident (1931) and the second battle of Shanghai (1937).  Second, UK and US began to shape a new narrative of a world view with Atlantic charter and the foundation of UN.  The global trends changed.

The second battle of Shanghai (1937) was a deliberate aggression to international concession by Nationalist Party (KMT) with a help of Nazi Germany.  Japan should have abandoned the interests in Shanghai for long term security reasons.  Actually, Ishihara Kanji, the architect of Manchurian Empire, maintained that Japan should concentrate the efforts in building Manchuria, and defense, not offense.  Instead, Japan chose to send Army, which was followed by the fall of Nanjing, collapse of the KMT government there, and the endless and aimless war in China with numerous casualties.  After this wrong decision, I do not think the leaders knew what they were doing.

Second, UK and US formed a new political vision, which is still dominant to this day.  The Atlantic charter declares anti-colonialism, which showed the major colonial powers, UK and US, abandoned the future expansionist approach, at least publicly.  This is brilliant because this absolves any colonization or aggrandizement of their own in the past.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
This undermined the validity of anti-colonialism of Japan. As a political counteraction, Japan promoted East Asian Prosperity Sphere, multi-ethnic regional community.  In a sense, official discourse in Japan was more multi-ethnic in prewar era than after the war.  For example, the war time slogan 一億火の玉 (one hundred million as a fireball) meant 80 million Japanese and 20 million Koreans.  "Japanese as a single race" or "insular mentality" was a postwar invention. 

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the objector securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;
The opposites of these three (freedom of trade (even to the vanquished), freedom of high seas and economic advancement) were the real cause of Japanese expansion to Manchuria.  The reaction to Great Depression and blockade of trade militarized major powers and nurtured totalitarian ideas.  Actually, in 1930s, totalitarian politics looked much rosier as it does now.  Soviets, Nazis and Roosevelt eternal regime all seemed recovering miraculously from the economic predicament, and they were building up their military in a incredible speed.

As history tells, since Japan lost the war, the Japanese version of the narrative did not prevail.  However, the Japanese invasion wiped out all colonial governments, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Burma, Philippine, Burma in a very short period.   Even though Philippine was re-invaded by US, Malaysia and Hong Kong by UK, Viet Nam and Cambodia by France, Indonesia by Holland, all of them could not last long.  Free trade was established making it unnecessary to set up market colonies by force.  Abandoning Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea made the defense of Japan very simple.  Japan no longer had to carry the burden of defending Korea and now US did.  Japan did not have to face Soviet invasion into Inner Mongolia (e.g. Nomonhan incident). US paid a high price in defending South Korea, and had to face Soviets, whom US had been giving aid all along.  Ironically, Japan obtained two aims of the war, anti-colonialism and free trade, by losing the war.  Both of these two ideas were good for Japan from the beginning.

Back to the Korean issue.
The new political narrative has a ethic/judgmental component in it, something similar to guilt by association game: Nazi Germany - evil - ethnic cleansing - aggressor.  Korean version replaces "Nazi Germany" with "Japan." This new pattern of association is considered to be proven because Japan lost the war. 

However, there are some flaws in this logic.
First, if the defeat is the proof of righteousness, then making Korea a protectorate of Japan was also a righteous conclusion of Korea's defeat.  In this case, they were defeated even before the possibility of war.
Second, there is no "ethnic cleansing" counterpart in Japan.  Japan might have xenophobia but this is equal opportunity xenophobia, and not even remotely resembles antisemitism.  Japan did not oppress white Russian Jews in Manchuria.  There were many Polish Jews fled from Lithuania with transit visas to Japan. This is done by a Japanese diplomat of Kanaus, Sugihara Chiune.
Therefore, they have to make up the ethnic cleansing of Koreans during the Japanese administration of Korea, which are far from reality if you check the details one by one.  Unfortunately or fortunately, Japan did not have concentration camps in Korea, or total control districts, in which North Korea put 100,000 inmates to maintain their Chuch'e style police state. 

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Haraguchi Kazuhiro decided to fight back

 According to Nikkei, Haraguchi decided to fight back CHIKEN.  This sounds like coordinated effort with Suzuki  Muneo.  This is what exactly DPJ should do.  This is what we call "match pump."  Stir up the fire and extinguish it.

検察などの裏金存在調査を指示 総務相

原口一博総務相は17日、検察庁を含むすべての行政機関の「裏金」の存在を調べるよう省内に指示したことを明らかにした。各省庁の業務の実施状況を調べ る行政評価局を活用する。「検察に裏金があるとの告発もあった。すべての機関について例外なく検査してくれということだ」とも述べた。総務省内で記者団に 語った。
新党大地の鈴木宗男衆院議員が1月19日に提出した質問主意書で、検察庁の調査活動費が裏金として飲食費などに流用されたとする一部報道の事実関係を質 問。政府は29日に閣議決定した答弁書で「調査活動費は適正に執行されている。調査をする必要はない」と回答した。
 This has a background story.  A prosecutor of Osaka Koken, Mitsui Tamaki was arrested  in 2002 on minor charges and he was convicted and jailed later.  The arrest was made on the same day, just hours before he was scheduled to be interviewed by a journalist and TV caster, Torigoe Shuntaro, regarding the illegal embezzlement of "investigation fund" inside the prosecutor's office.  The series of abnormal events at the Osaka local court, such as leak of the sentence before the official judgment, gave an impression that prosecutor's office and the court are all in it together.

Since Suzuki Muneo's arrest and ever-lasting trial also took abnormal path  (in his case, by Tokyo CHIKEN, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office), it is natural that he has deep-rooted grudge against CHIKEN. He has been publicly and openly criticizing CHIKEN for a long time.

We will see the developments soon.

Mitsui Tamaki Just got out of jail this January after 15 months, and there will be a symposium regarding Ozawa on Feb 26, streamed on internet.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Three reasons why modern history is lost in Japan

 I think where Japan gets this wrong is by not educating the younger generations of what happened between 1900 and 1945. All Japanese know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but little else.

There are three aspects to the lack of modern history teaching in Japan.

First, Japanese education is not focused on injecting hatred.  For example, as Nick says, every student in Japan knows Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But the education does not stretch to the fact that mass bombing aiming massacre of civilians are war crimes which requires punishment.  If this is just like Korean style education (North and South), Japanese students will be crammed with hatred against the war crimes committed by Americans and there will be suicide bombers in Washington.  However, that does not happen in Japan.  Students in Japan were not told that ROK invaded Takeshima during the occupation era, when US was responsible for the defense of Japan.  Again, Japan does not stress retaliation or use of force.  What Japan does is to endlessly persuade ROK to settle the issue in International Court, which ROK refuses every year.  You might prefer Korean style indoctrination of hate.  In Japan, thought-police style education is not generally liked.

Second, the real black box of history teaching in Japan is 1955-2009, LDP era.  Thanks to GHQ, most of important prewar documents were disclosed.  Under LDP one party rule, critical information has been kept secret, while SPJ/SDP maintained the other side of fantasy.  There is no adequate freedom of information act yet, and even though DPJ is trying (Okinawa and nuclear bombs), the effort is hardly it systematic.  For example, Kantei Kimitsuhi (secret discretionary budget) has been suspected to be used for political purposes for a long time, but DPJ (Hirano Hirofumi, to be exact) has no intention of pursuing the secret.  There are numerous issues still to be disclosed: Did CIA illegally fund Kishi Nobusuke (Most likely so, according to US side documents); Did Nakasone Yasuhiro receive money from Boeing when JSDF purchased P3C? (the other side of Rockheed corruption involving Tanaka Kakuei).  Without basic records, the consistent narrative is very difficult. 

Third, There are fundamental flaws in Constitution. The Article 9 of Constitution says no military is allowed, and Japan has JSDF.  Historically speaking, IJA was totally destroyed at first.  New Constitution was written by GHQ, and ratified by general vote under US occupation.  At that point, there was no military.  The government was maintaining that Japan was not allowed to have military.  But soon the Korean War was started by DPRK, and JSDF was re-established.  Then the government changed the interpretation, and now claimed that JSDF was not military because equipments were not powerful enough to be called military equipments.  Then Japan regained sovereign power, which came with San Francisco Treaty and US-Japan security treaty.  All these years, Supreme Court avoided any meaningful judgement regarding JSDF and US-Japan security treaty.  That rendered a division of cabinet (Naikaku Houseikyoku) a de facto interpreter of Constitution, which has no such constitutional power.    Constitution defines Supreme Court as supreme, and no special courts are allowed (Article 76 2).  Then, there is no military courts to judge war crimes, which should have different standards than penal code.  At this moment, war crimes have to be tried as regular crimes.  If JSDF has to battle, this would be a real legal chaos.  What kind of rational narrative is possible?

New Supreme Court appointees are subjected to general vote of confirmation, which has never fired anybody or never will (Article 79 2).  Article 89 says that tax money should not be spent on non-public or religious schools, which is totally ignored.  Actually, nobody knows or cares. 

All these come from Article 96 1, which requires 2/3 super majority of both houses to propose amendments, which has never been done.   As Ozawa Ichiro says, without changing Article 96 1, there would be no amendments.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

What is the basis of anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea?

This is the fifth piece of my rebuttal to Tobias Harris's post.

Then what is different in South Korea (Republic of Korea)?

First, ROK needed an emotional narrative of the foundation of a state.
ROK did not fought for independence. Independence was a free gift from USA.
On the other hand, in Taiwan, since KMT won the war (even though they lost the civil war), they did not need to fabricate the history. Every nation has to create or fake a history and authenticity of the regime, if they do not have it already. As King George was called the absolute tyrant in USA (the declaration of independence is filled with resentment towards the king, occupying two thirds of the space), the previous ruler should be vilified. This gave the political momentum to the anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea. The situation in North Korea is similar if one replaces USA with USSR and add USA to bad bad Japan. To secure the authenticity, ROK governments used educational system to reinforce the narrative. However, if they go outside the political arena, they are not so anti-Japanese. For example, ROK still bans Japanese Manga comics on the political surface, but it is widely pirated and accepted by many in real life. Some even believe Doraemon is Korean. Banning Japanese culture might be an excuse to massively pirate Japanese Manga. Although anti-Japanese sentiment was widely advertised, many South Koreans visits Japan and some simply stay. This type of emotional reaction will decrease as the society matures, because democratic election will build the necessary authenticity gradually. Okada Katsuya could apologize for hurting the Korean pride, but that does not change anything. Perhaps, "matter of fact"ly attitude is the only important aspect of it. I do not think narcissistic view does any good to ROK, but Japan should refrain from politicizing the futile topic.

Second, traditional Sino-centric world view created prejudice.
In North East Asia, China was THE superpower. Japan successfully prevented two Chinese invasion in 7th and 13th century (Tang dynasty and Mongolian dynasty). Korea was not so fortunate because they did not have Sea of Japan. Korea was subjugated by Chinese empires, one after another for two thousand years. This is why Korea ended up having the world view that China is first, Korea is second, and Japan should be beneath. Unfortunately, the Japanese rule totally contradicted this world view. If the physical wound is the cause of the resentment, as Tobias says, millions of death caused by Chinese military intervention during the Korean war should be more serious and fresh. However, ROK government did not demand apology when they established their diplomatic relationship. Apology is not even a topic because China will laugh at their face. This asymmetric attitude comes from the skewed Sino-centric view: China is the ruler and they have their way. Since 1635 when the emperor of Qing dynasty conquered defiant Korea and made them build a monument honoring the generosity of the emperor himself, for 250 years Korea was paying respect, money, women to the Qing emperors. The independence gate in Seul was built after Japan expelled Chinese influence from Korea by Sino-Japanese war. But nowadays, Koreans in Seoul falsely believe that the independence gate is meant for independence from Japan, which is not. This is not "love of their country" like Tobias says. This is loving the stronger power. By the way, China in Chinese (中華) means "center, flourish".

Many people might know that ROK has been claiming that Imperial Japan changed the name of East Sea into Sea of Japan. This I think is the silliest international dispute, but they do not think so. It is as if they think name defines the ownership of the sea. If that is the case, USA would have renamed Mexican Gulf several times over. Historically speaking, Sea of Japan was established after Russian and Japanese geologists explored northern periphery of the sea and defined the area. Without Japanese archipelago, Sea of Japan is Pacific Ocean. For this reason, Europeans named the sea Sea of Japan. If Japan names the sea, it could have been Korean Sea or North Sea because those are the landmarks that defines the sea viewed from the Japanese side of the sea.

My point is, Koreans call Yellow Sea as West Sea. Chinese simply laugh at them and correctly point out that Yellow Sea is Yellow Sea, and "East Sea" is west of Japan.

24.この2年でいろいろと思い通りになったあなたがたは、中国に「日本海」を「東海」と表記するよう求めています。しかしこれは全くもって噴飯もの。あ なたがたに教えて差し上げましょう。「日本海」というのはこれまで慣習として呼ばれてきたもので、「日本の海」という意味ではありません。インド洋、アラ ビア海、ベンガル湾然り、皆その国に属してませんよね。
日本の国の面積と人口はあなたの国より遙かに多く、数百年という欧米との交流の歴史をも ち、国力も強大がため、この海域が日本海と称されるのは必然的な要因があったのです。
それに日本はその片側半分をこの海域に浸しています。その長 さから見ても論拠には充分で、あなたがたが「東海」と呼ぶ海域は、日本からみれば「西海」ではありませんか。
中国では古来、この海域を「青海」も しくは「鯨海」と称していました。唐代の渤海は現在のウラジオストックから日本海をまたぎ、十数回と渤海使を派遣して日本と交流をおこなっていたのです。 このときに中国はこの海域を「日本海」と呼んでいます。精巧で美しい海図と多くの文献が残されています。古地図を展示するのが大好きなあなたがたがまさか それを知らない筈はないでしょう。

25.あなたがたは60年代あたりから、黄海をこっそりと「西海」に改めるよう国際社会に働きかけてい ますよね。いまではあなたがたの国の出版社はすべて黄海を「西海」と表記しています。でも無駄です。英語読みで黄海は「Yellow Sea」。黄海は永遠に黄海です。

Third, Korean history does not relate to real history.
South Korea almost abandoned Chinese characters. (North Korea abandoned Chinese characters completely and uses only Hangul now.) This is a serious problem because all history documents before the Japanese era are completely written in Chinese characters. Hangul, the phonetic letters, were not for official use before then. Even the first communication between Meiji Japan and Korea (Li dynasty) was written in Chinese. When 袁世凱 interrogated 大院君, the father of 高宗, the communication between the two was written Chinese. The records during the Japanese era are written in Japanese with massive Chinese characters. Therefore, younger generations in South Korea have no basic skills to read the historical records other than what is written in Hangul. This makes Korean history education into Orwellian form: students cannot verify the original source or do they care at all? Koreans are now claiming they have 5,000 years of history.

The first history book in Korea 三国史記 (history of three nations, meaning three Koreas) was written in 12th century, 500 years after the Japanese one. Chinese wrote the first history book 史記 in 1st century BC. All historical records of Korea before 12th century relies either Chinese or Japanese records, as if they were not important at all to Koreans. Hangul was created in 15th century. Nothing was written in Hangul before then, and everything was written in Chinese. Japanese phonetic alphabets, the counterpart of Hangul, were established in 8th century. 三国史記 places beginning of Korea at right after the occupation by 武帝 of Han dynasty (1st century AD). Since Chinese have all the documentation, 三国史記 could not fake the history before that, but at least the author read and knew the Chinese documents. Japanese were again fortunate (?) in that sense, because in the first two history books written in 7th century, they could place the origin of Japan (and the emperor) in 7th century BC.

The Orwellian system could be found in the purest form in North Korea, because they completely abolished Chinese characters. They can create and recreate the history as they wish and as often as they like. Now, Kim Jong Il was born in mountain shack in North Korea, when actually he was born in Russia under the protection of Soviets.

For these reasons, past history means something different from the actual history in South Korea, which is reinforced through their educational system motivated by political agenda and their fear for identity. This situation makes politics of history completely futile. Therefore, Japan should leave history to historians and direct things to more pragmatic aspects.

Taiwan does not hold grudge against Japan

This is the fourth piece of my rebuttal to Tobias Harris's post.

The first thing that comes to my mind was Taiwan when I read Tobias's idea that the brutal reign created everlasting resentment, Taiwan was under Japanese administration for 50 years, which is more than several generations. Korea was 35 years. Generally speaking, the Taiwanese are pro-Japanese. Millions of Taiwanese, young and old, come, visit and enjoy Japan. Former Taiwanese President Lee studied at Kyoto University, and served in Imperial Japanese Army. His brother was killed in the war and enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine, where President Lee pays his respect to the memories of his fallen brother. There are many fans of President Lee in Japan, even though he is a political enemy of PRC.

Why are the Taiwanese so sympathetic to the Japanese? Taiwan was re-invaded by the mainland Chinese Nationalist Party (国民党 Kuo Ming Tang) after the war. Starting from chaotic slaughter of the 28,000 Taiwanese on 2.28 incident (1947), Generalissimo Chang Kai Shek 蒋介石 governed the island much more brutally than the Japanese. For four decades since then, Taiwan had been under military rule of Generalissimo and KMT mainlanders. For the Taiwanese like President Lee, it would not have been difficult to find better points in Japanese administration.

During that time, Taiwan gradually lost international presence. They lost the permanent seat in the security council of UN. Many countries, including USA and Japan, abandoned diplomatic relationship with Taiwan and chose People's Republic of China instead. In short, Taiwanese locals emotionally valued Japanese era, which was much better than KMT days, and they need Japan (and US military presence in Japan) for their security against growing threatening gigantic PRC.

The Taiwanese have two reasons: the Japanese administration was benign when compared to the military regime of KMT, and they need Japan for their fragile security environment.

Japanese annexation of Korea is the same as USA's colonization of Philippine

This is the third piece of my rebuttal to Tobias Harris's post.

Tobias compares Japanese annexation of Korea (1905 protectorate, 1910 annexation) with British annexation of Ireland. In my opinion, closer example should be USA's annexation of Hawaii in 1898. Or rather, USA's annexation of Philippine after the Philippine-American war (1899-1902). Actually, around the time of the annexation, USA was a good imperial friend of Japan. USA recognized Japanese superiority over Korea in exchange of Japanese recognition of USA's annexation of Philippine. This is evidenced by the Katsura-Tuft agreement on Sept 27, 1905. If I infer from Tobias's characterization, should USA keep apologizing to Philippine? Or has USA ever apologized at all? In other words, does it improve the relationship between the two countries? If one looks at the current situations in South Korea and in Taiwan, and compare them with Philippine, I think it is obvious which annexation left better influence.

(My translation of the whole text of the agreement between Katsura and Tuft.)

Firstly, some of pro-Russian Americans insist that this victory of Japan over Russia will be the first stage of Philippine invasion by Japan. However, Secretary Tuft believes that the only concern of Japan towards Philippine is that the island should be governed by strong and friendly USA. Count Katsura firmly affirmed Tuft's observation, and assured that Japan has no intention of invading Philippine at all.

Secondly, Count Katsura stated that the primary principle of Japanese diplomatic policy is to sustain overall peace in Far East. Therefore, in order to achieve that goal, the only practical method is to accomplish a good agreement among Japanese, American and British governments.

Thirdly, Count Katsura said that since Korea is the direct cause of the war between Japan and Russia, the logical conclusion of the war should be the complete and final solution of the Peninsula issue, which has the absolute importance to Japan.

If Korea were left alone, Korea would sign inconsiderate agreements or treaties with foreign countries, as she has been doing, which would certainly reproduce international conflicts which existed before the war.

Considering these situations, Japan thinks that Japan has to take serious options to prohibit Korea from returning to the previous situation, and from forcing Japan to fight war with foreign countries again.

Secretary Tuft agreed on the Count Katsura's view and expressed, as his personal opinions, that it is the logical conclusion of the war that Japan provide protective governance of Korea, which requires Korea to acquire the agreement of Japan before Korea signs treaties with foreign countries, and that this will sustain the eternal peace over the East.

Secretary Tuft said that he does not have the right to confirm his opinions, but according to him, President Roosevelt will surely agree with him.


Roosevelt telegraphed Tuft, saying that his opinions is correct in all aspects and that Tuft should convey the message to Count Katsura that his opinion is the words of the President. (Sept 31, 1905)

Japan did not Japanize Korean names

This is the second piece of my rebuttal to Tobias Harris's post.

Japan did not force Koreans to Japanize their Korean names. Japan forced them to use "Japanese style family name system" instead of "Confucian style paternal clan name system". The issue was how to adjust civil laws to the reality at the time with increasing intermarriage.

Japan had already established family registration system to certify birth and death, and rights and duties arising from the kinship, such as inheritance and protection. Modern Japanese family system is not Confucian, meaning that family has a single family name 氏 as that of the head of the family. Family names of children 氏 in the household is automatically the same as the name of the family. This means when two people (usually with different family names) marry, one of the two has to change their family name 氏 to that of the other. The new family name can be maternal or paternal. There is no taboo in marrying a person with the same name 氏, unless they are directly related.

In Confucian system (Korea and China), women do not share their "last name 姓 (which comes first in North East Asia)" with other member of the same family. Names of children 姓 are inherited from the father, so this is paternalistic. The name does not belong to the family, but to the paternal clan. Korean system added the origin of the clan 本貫 to their clan name 姓. There is a taboo in marrying a person with the same clan name 姓 and the same origin 本貫. On the other hand, it is a taboo to adopt a child of a different clan name 姓 or a different origin 本貫. Even when the child belongs to the same clan, it is not permissible to adopt them if the generation order is higher than their future parents in law. This makes it almost impossible to adopt an orphan. As a result international adoption of Korean orphans, as found after the mayhem of Korean war, were much more than Japanese, because in Japan, there is no such restriction.

Aristocratic class (貴族, 両班 Yanban) of Korean people keep 族譜 Jogbo, a family tree book. As a logical conclusion of the paternalistic idea, women are often listed as "women", since they were irrelevant. Others, regular people 中人/常民, or slaves, untouchables, Buddhist priests (白丁/奴婢/倡優/僧侶/駅人) did not belong to Jogbo system. Slaves and untouchables did not have their clan name at all, and they had to respect and obey the aristocrats and upper class.

This Confucius clan name is deeply connected to their religious belief of ancestral worship, since Clan defines the ancestor. It is also deeply connected to the discrimination and caste and out-caste system with magical thinking. How these outcasts had their own place or how women were confined in their own residence can be found in the book of Isabella Bird.

The modernization by Japan is to destroy this archaic system and organize each national into functional members of a family devoid of historical dirty color. A slave 白丁 who was brutally exploited by Yanban 両班 for no other reason than that they were born in that class can now be a soldier or worker. This is why many people from oppressed Chejudo island found their home in Osaka. This is a radical idea, but perhaps this is the only method Japan knew at the time to modernize and militarize a country in Asia, including Japan herself. Obviously the radical reform was opposed by those who have and those who hold the Confucian feeling. Nobody admits they were slaves 白丁, and everybody behaves as if they were from the upper class Yanban 両班, if you ask them. This makes the opposition to the reform politically correct. All Koreans could unite if Japanization of the names were the issue.

The whole point of the reform was to destroy the medieval system. One could say that Japan is guilty of changing the system modern, but not of changing Korean sounding names into Japanese sounding ones. I have other reasons why I think Koreans were not forced to Japanize their names. Many old time Korean residents in Japan use Japanized names, but most Chinese old timers use Chinese name, suggesting that Koreans changed their name as they thought fit. For example, 張本勲 (real name 張 勲) is Korean, 王貞治 (his real name) is Chinese, both are renowned baseball players. Korean residents in Japan use their Japanized name even among themselves, when they were not obviously forced by the Japanese. For example, Shin Sugok 辛淑玉, a famous Korean activist said:

在日の1月1日は日本のような正月をせず、「ミョンジョル(名節)」という法事のようなことをするので、大晦日はおじいさん、 おばあさんの家に行って女の子が台所で準備をします。その時、おじいさんが「節子(私の日本名)、来い」と呼ぶのです。

In this case, her grandfather called her Setsuko, her Japanized name, not Sugok.

She also writes in her autobiographical book:

In this case, her mother called her Setsuko, not Sugok, at this most intimate moment when she was strangling her daughter.

Under Japanese administration, 90 % of Koreans Japanized their name, but in Taiwan, the number remained several percent. Some prominent Koreans used their Korean names any way. The one and only Korean congressman in prewar Tokyo used his Korean name (朴春琴). A lieutenant general executed as a class B war criminal also had a Korean name (洪思翊). Or other military men (白洪錫,金錫源).

Why Taiwanese did not Japanize their names, while Koreans did? Of course there could be numerous individual reasons. Traditional 事大主義 (respect of the powerful) could be one of them. Because of the geological reasons, Chinese influence over Korea runs deep. Korea has been given brutal lessons from China since the conquest by 武帝 of 前漢, Han dynasty, in 1st century AD. Currently, almost all Korean names are Chinese, but before 7th century, there are many records of non-Chinese names, which are long gone now. They changed their names so that they could belong to the powerful and the upper class. When Korea was conquered by Mongols, Korean kings had Mongolian names too. If the Japanese reign were longer enough, I think all Chinese names that Koreans use would have disappeared as they did in 7th century.