Korean Job Discussion Forums

[caniff]

[Guri Guy]

Really, in the end when you have a problem as big and as confusing as the Dokdo/Takeshima issue, it is best to just use common sense.

Even if you discount every single Japanese map prior to 1905 it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Like I have said many times, show me a Korean map accurately depicting Dokdo before 1905. If you can do that, I'll concede the discussion.

If you think the map that Bluelake provided is accurate, we can have a discussion on why Usando does not equal Dokdo. South Korea still uses this argument of Usando = Dokdo to brainwash their people and naive foreigners but you'll note that the Director of the Dokdo museum even admits that Usando does not equal Dokdo.

If Korea has zero evidence that they knew or effectively controlled Dokdo prior to 1905 then they stole the islets at gunpoint and need to give them back. Pure and simple.

The ball is in your court.

[Guri Guy]

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[The Grumpy Senator]

[visitorq]

[Guri Guy]

[The Grumpy Senator]

Here is a site with some info I am sure you "experts" will dismiss as Korean propaganda.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html

[Guri Guy]

There is no need to dismiss it as Korean propaganda.

Why don't we actually study this a little closer instead of giving it a cursory glance?

It is pretty clear after looking at everything. Songdo is really just another name for Jukdo. Just like Usando was.

In fact, a scant 12 years later...

Lee Gyu-won, surveyed Ulleungdo in 1882, twelve years after Hokubo�s report, and in Lee�s report there was no mention of Liancourt Rocks. However, in Lee's pre-inspection interview with King Kojong, both Lee and King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songjukdo," which they also said was sometimes called "Songdo" and "Jukdo." As mentioned above, "Songdo" is the Korean pronunciation of Matsushima (松島).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, June 17, 2007
1870 - "How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon"
The following is a description of Ulleungdo, from an 1870 Japanese mission report on Korea. It said that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) had a neighboring island called Matsushima (松島), which is pronounced as "Songdo" in Korean. This document is often used by Korean historians to claim that the Japanese recognized Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory, but they focus only on the title of the document and ignore the contents.

Koreans say that the Japanese also used the name "Matsushima" to refer to Liancourt Rocks at the time, so the document was recognizing Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks; however, in the report, the Japanese clearly said that they had no previous record of Ulleungdo's Matsushima, which means Ulleungdo's Matsushima could not have been Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) since Japan did have records of Liancourt Rocks. Also, the report was describing Ulleungdo from information they received in Korea, which means that it was the Koreans who were calling Ulleungdo's neighboring island Songdo (Matsushima), not the Japanese, which also means it was not referring to Liancourt Rocks since Koreans have never used Songdo (Matsushima) to refer to Liancourt Rocks. Moreover, the Japanese writing the report were not recognizing anything; they were only describing what they heard about Ulleungdo during their stay in Korea, and what they heard was that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songdo" (Matsushima).

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1870-report-how-tamkshima-matsushima.html

Here is the translation of the above text:

How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Chosun

Matsushima (Songdo) is a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo). We have no previous records of Matsushima. In regard to Takeshima, after the Genroku years (1688 - 1704), Chosun (Korea) sent people there to live for awhile, but now, as before, it is uninhabited. It produces bamboo and also reeds thicker than bamboo. Ginseng and other products also grow naturally. We have also heard that there is an abundance of marine products.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the document says that Matsushima (Songdo) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo and that the Japanese had no records of it. In other words, Koreans told the Japanese that �Songdo� (Matsushima) was Ulleungdo�s neighboring island. The document does not mention anything about Usando, which had been appearing on Korean maps and in Korean documents up until then. This suggests that by 1870, the name �Songdo� had replaced �Usando� as, or was a substitute for, the name of Ulleungdo�s neighboring island. This was corroborated in 1882 by King Kojong in a conversation with Lee Gyu-won, who was preparing to leave for an inspection of Ulleungdo. Here is what was said:

召見檢察使李奎遠 辭陛也 敎曰 鬱陵島近有他國人物之無常往來 任自占便之弊云矣 且松竹島芋山島 在於鬱陵島之傍而其相距遠近何如 亦有何物與否 未能詳知 今番爾行 特爲擇差者 各別檢察 且將設邑爲計 必以圖形與別單 詳紀錄達也 奎遠曰 芋山島卽鬱陵島而芋山 古之國都名也 松竹島卽一小島 而與鬱陵島 相距爲三數十里 其所産 卽檀香與簡竹云矣 敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島 皆輿地勝覽所載也而又稱松島竹島與芋山島爲三島統稱鬱陵島矣 其形便一體檢察 鬱陵島本以三陟營將越松萬戶 輪回搜檢者 而擧皆未免疎忽 只以外面探來 故致有此弊爾則必詳細察得也 奎遠曰 謹當深入檢察矣 或稱松島竹島 在於鬱陵島之東 而此非松竹島以外 別有松島竹島也 敎曰 或有所得聞於曾往搜檢人之說耶奎遠曰 曾往搜檢之人 未得逢著 而轉聞其梗개矣.

�우산도는 바로 울릉도이며 우산(芋山)이란 바로 옛날의 우산국의 국도(國都) 이름입니다. 송죽도는 하나의 작은 섬인데 울릉도와 떨어진 거리는 30리(里)쯤 됩니다. 여기서 나는 물건은 단향(檀香)과 간죽(簡竹)이라고 합니다.�

하였다. 하교하기를,

�우산도라고도 하고 송죽도라고도 하는데 다 《동국여지승람(東國輿地勝覽)》에 실려있다. 그리고 또 혹은 송도�죽도라고도 하는데 우산도와 함께 이 세 섬을 통칭 울릉도라고 하였다. 그 형세에 대하여 함께 알아보라.

울릉도는 본래 삼척 영장(三陟營將)과 월송 만호(越松萬戶)가 돌려가면서 수검(搜檢)하던 곳인데 거의 다 소홀히 함을 면하지 못하였다. 그저 외부만 살펴보고 돌아왔기 때문에 이런 폐단이 있었다. 그대는 반드시 상세히 살펴보라.�

하니, 이규원이 아뢰기를,

�삼가 깊이 들어가서 검찰하겠습니다. 어떤 사람들은 송도와 죽도는 울릉도의 동쪽에 있다고 하지만 이것은 송죽도 밖에 따로 송도와 죽도가 있는 것은 아닙니다.�

하였다. 하교하기를,

�혹시 그전에 가서 수검한 사람의 말을 들은 것이 있는가?�

하니, 이규원이 아뢰기를,

�그전에 가서 수검한 사람은 만나지 못하였으나 대체적인 내용을 전해 들었습니다.�

하였다.

The king called Lee Gyu-won forward to give his pre-departure greeting.

The king said, �It is said that these days there is the evil practice of foreigners freely coming and going to Ulleungdo and doing as they please. Also, Songjukdo (松竹島 � 송죽도) and Usando (于山島 � 우산도) are next to Ulleungdo, but there are still no details on the distance between them and what products they have. You were chosen especially for this trip, so pay particular attention to your inspection. Also, we have plans to establish a settlement there, so be sure to prepare a detailed map with your report.�

Lee Gyu-won replied, Usando is just Ulleungdo. Usan was the name of the ancient country�s capital. Songjukdo is a small island about thirty ri offshore (相距爲三數十里). The products there are rosewood trees and pipestem bamboo.�

The king said, �It is called either Usando or Songjukdo (敎曰 或稱芋山島或稱松竹島), which are both written in the Yeojiseungram (輿地勝覽 � 여지승람). It is also called Songdo (松島 � 송도) and Jukdo (竹島 � 죽도). Together with Usando, there are three islands that make up what is called Ulleungdo. Inspect the situation on all of them.

Originally, the Samcheok commander (三陟營將 � 삼척 영장) and the Wolsong commander (越松萬戶 � 월송 만호) took turns searching Ulleungdo, but they were all careless, inspecting only the exterior of the island. This has led to these evil practices.

Lee Gyu-won said, �I will go deep inside and conduct my inspection. Some say that Songdo and Jukdo are east of Ulleungdo, but there is only Songjukdo, no separate Songdo and Jukdo.�

The king asked, �Did you possibly hear that from previous inspectors?�

Lee Gyu-won said, �I have not yet talked with previous inspectors, but that is the gist of what I have heard.�

Notice that King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands, �Usando� and �Songjukdo,� but that Lee Gyu-won said that Ulleungdo had only one neighboring island, �Songjukdo.� Though the two disagreed on Usando, they both agreed that �Songjukdo� was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Again, that suggests that the name, Usando, was in the process of being replaced by �Songjukdo,� which both King Kojong and Lee said was also referred to as �Songdo� and �Jukdo.�

Korean maps had so far shown Ulleungdo with one neighboring island, which suggests that �Usando,� �Songjukdo,� �Songdo,� and �Jukdo� were all competing for that island�s name. However, when Lee Gyu-won inspected Ulleungdo in 1882, he found that it had two neighboring islands, Jukdo (竹島) and Dohang (島項), which appear on the following section of Lee�s 1882 map of Ulleungdo.

http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=583
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

The An Yong-bok incident in the 1690s renewed Korean interest in Ulleungdo and helped win Japanese recognition of Korean jurisdiction over the island. The incident also led to the determination that Usando was a small, neighboring island just off Ulleungdo�s east shore, instead of her west shore, which was what previous maps had shown.

Regardless of whether An Yong-bok�s Usando was Liancourt Rocks or Ulleungdo�s neighboring island of Jukdo, the Joseon government never recognized Usando as being Liancourt Rocks. Almost all of Korea�s maps after the An Yong-bok incident showed Usando as being, almost certainly, Ulleungdo�s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo�s east shore. The only consequence that seems to have come about by An�s claiming that the Japanese referred to Usando as �Songdo� (Matsushima) was that Koreans, eventually started referring to Ulleungdo�s neighboring island of Jukdo as �Songdo.�

By 1882, Ulleungdo�s neighboring island of Jukdo was being referred to by a variety of names, including Usando, Songjukdo, Songdo, and Jukdo. By 1899, the names for the island had been narrowed down to �Usando� and �Jukdo.� And by 1900, the Korean government seems to have settled on one name for the island, �Jukdo.� The name, �Seokdo� (石島), in the 1900 Imperial Edict was most likely just a catchall phrase used to refer to all the other small, rocky islets around Ulleungdo.

Korea had no maps of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), and the only possible references to the islets in Korean documents were vague and inaccurate. One thing is certain, however; Usando was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

[TheUrbanMyth]

Anyway it doesn't matter what historial claims Japan had or didn't have.

In 1945 it was defeated and its territorial boundaries were determined by SCAPIN 677 which explicitly EXCLUDED DODKO. In fact Japan was forbidden to go within 12 miles or so of it.

http://geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html

"This instruction defined the territorial boundaries of Japan, explicitly excluding Dokdo..."

Dokdo was then placed "within the Korea based XXIV Corps's area of responsibility.."

Note the 10/3/52 entry in which John M. Steeves says that the history of Dokdo has been reviewed more than once by the U.S State Department and the conclusion was that Dodko was at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. Since said Department's resources are far greater than those of Garry Bevers and their credentials are better I would trust them over GB.

[Guri Guy]

Ah, yes. Mark Lovmo's page. I am quite familiar with it.

Yes, I have seen the SCAPIN argument before. This is a common Korean argument that doesn't hold any water either.

Perhaps you might want to read the original documents. It's not hard to do that you know.

Here it is:

According to the staff memorandum #4 dated January 24th 1946, all the orders by Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP) to Japanese government were called as �SCAPIN� (SCAP Index Number or SCAP Instruction Note) or �連合軍最高司令部訓令� in Japanese.

SCAPIN 677 was issued on January 29th 1946, which was titled as �Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan� and signed by H.W. Allen, Colonel, AGD, Asst Adjutant General.


The third item from the SCAPIN is as follows;


�3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) islands north of 30� North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima island);

and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) island, Liancourt Rocks (Take island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30� North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Nazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Valece Vela (Okino-tori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Sangos (Nakano-tori) Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan island.�

(Japanese text):

3　この指令の目的から日本と言ふ場合は次の定義による。

日本の範囲に含まれる地域として

日本の四主要島嶼（北海道、本州、四国、九州）と、対馬諸島、北緯30度以北の琉球（南西）諸島（口之島を除く）を含む約1千の隣接小島嶼


日本の範囲から除かれる地域として

(a)欝陵島、竹島、済州島。(b)北緯30度以南の琉球（南西）列島（口之島を含む）、伊豆、南方、小笠原、硫黄群島、及び大東群島、沖ノ鳥島、南鳥島、中ノ鳥島を含むその他の外廓太平洋全諸島。(c)千島列島、歯舞群島（水晶、勇留、秋勇留、志発、多楽島を含む）、色丹島。


Pro-Korean scholars used to say that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Korea based on this SCAPIN. As the matter of fact, many islands including Liancourt Rocks were separated from Japan at this point but it didn�t mean all of them are not Japanese islands. Actually, many of them including the Ryukyu islands, Izu Islands, Nanpo Islands, Bonin and Volcano Islands etc were later returned to Japan. So this �separation� didn�t mean the separation of sovereignty.

In addition, the 6th item from the SCAPIN reads;

"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication
of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands
referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

（6 この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。）

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1946-scapin-677-history-of-sf-peace.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, February 01, 2009
1946 - Feb. 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"
GHQ/SCAP confirmed that SCAPIN677 was only for administrative convenience, not territorial direction.

On Feb. 13, 1946, 15 days after SCAPIN677 was issued, GHQ/SCAP officers verbally explained Japanese government official that the directive( SCAPIN677) was only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty（San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） in the future. This newly confirmed Japanese MOFA's official document re-confirmed Japanese government's claim that SCAPIN677 has nothing to do with territorial issue, and rejected Korea's distorted interpretation again.

Miscellaneous matters of old Japanese oversea land situation
2. The 1st conference concerning separation of the administration (Section 1, Division 1 of Postwar Processing)

(1946)13th Feb., a liaison officer Khoda had a first conference with GS "Lodge(?)" and "Pool(?)" concerning for the titled subject. Summary is as follows.

Khoda "Today, I visited to make some question about our doubt concerning the directive, not mentioning about the issue of territory nor the validity of this directive. "
American "This directive(* SCAPIN677) was issued merely for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers. It only re-confirmed the administration which had already been done so far. Namely, it means the others (*which were excluded from Japan in SCAPIN677) were not SCAP's jurisdiction. For example, Ohshima(*大島) is CIN(*C)PAC's jurisdiction and Ulleungdo is under the command of the 24th army corps. Therefore, the decision of the range of Japan by this directive has anything to do with the territorial issue, since territorial issue is something which has to be decided by the peace treaty（*San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） at some future time. "

* notes added by me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
旧日本外地情況雑件
2. 行政の分離に関する第一回会談録（終戦第一部第一課）

（昭和二十一年）二月十三日黄田連絡官GS「ロッヂ」大尉及び「プール」中尉と標記の件に関し第一回会談を行ひたり要旨左の如し
黄「本日は領土の歸屬問題乃至は本指令の妥当性等に付いては触れさることとし単に疑義に付質問を為さんか為参上せり」 米「本指令は単なる連合国側の行政的便宜より出てたるに過きす従来行はれ来りたることを本指令に依り確認せるものなり即ち其の他はSCAPの所管するところにあらす例えは大島はCINPACの所管。鬱陵島は第二十四軍団の指揮下に在り従って本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり」


Though the South Korean government claims that SCAPINs No.677, which is the instruction concerning the separation of the administration, issued by GHQ/ SCAP, has defined Takeshima/Dokdo outside of Japanese territory, this official document re-confirmed the claim is totally groundless. The fact is, the directive is only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers, and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty in the future, just like Japanese government claims. It is absurd for Korean to claim territorial sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo based on SCAPIN677, since the administrator who issued the directive itself clearly answered Japanese official that the directive(ＳＣＡＰＩＮ677) does not define Japan's territory.

To begin with, article No. 1 of SCAPIN677 itself clearly says "The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any over persons within such areas. ", and Takeshima was simply listed as one of the "such areas" which Japanese government was not able to administrate under the occupation, not the areas outside of "Japanese territory as well as Ogasawara and Izu islets, etc. all of them were returned to Japan later, except for Ulleugndo and Jeju, which had been Korean territory before Japan's annexation, and Kurils, Habomai and Shikotan, which are still under the negotiation between Russia. Moreover, the article No.6 of the directive clearly wrote "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. " As the articles of SCAPIN677 clearly defines, it never direct the "territorial issue." The Korean claim is nothing but a irrational argument in the first place.

In addition, SCAPIN1033, which also Korean sovereignty claim bases on, clearly states "5. The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area�. It is clear that Korean interpretation of the document is only far-fetched argument as well.

On top of that, "The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年). ", which Korean media reported as the evidence of Japanese government's recognizing Takeshima as outside of the territory this January, only followed SCAPIN677 that limits the administrative power of Japan, unrelated to any territorial issue.

As it was showed, pro-Korean always take up only convenient parts of the documents, disregarding inconvenient parts. I hope they stop this kind of nonsense and develop the true discussion with the academic value based on a historical fact immediately. The first thing they need to do is to present clear evidence that Korea's Lee Dynasty or Great Korean government had recognized Takeshima as their territory before 1905. Secondly, Korean government is required to open all internal documents of the Great Korean Empire around 1905-1906 so that we can understand why Korean government didn't protest nor even made inquiry about Takeshima incorporation while they did for the similar case of 竹邊浦 near Ulleungdo. Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search?q=SCAPIN+677

[Guri Guy]

Would you care to back up your claim that the United States said that Dokdo was a part of Korea? Please provide a link or offer some kind of evidence or retract the statement please.

BTW, it's Gerry Bevers. Instead of attacking him, why don't you refute the information that he has provided?

Oh, and it is nice to have a civilized debate.

PS Did you find that map yet?

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Guri Guy]

I would be happy to do that UrMy. If you do not wish to continue this debate here, I will respect that.

I do think that Japan and South Korea do need to resolve this debate, however.

I think it is a stumbling block for both countries and it hurts them to let this issue fester. I do believe it hurts South Korea more though. Especially economically.

I believe after looking at all the evidence on both sides objectively, you will find that Japan is the rightful owner. The longer South Korea puts this off, the worse it will be for them when the truth comes out.

Now, not that I am suggesting that it would ever come to this and I am sincerely hoping it won't, here is some information some posters might find interesting on the military capabilities of both countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------