Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

The other article about Gerry in the San-In Chuo Shinpou

February 27th, 2007 . by Matt

There was one other article about Gerry in the San-In Chuo Shinpou that appeared in the print version of the newspaper, but not online. The text of the print article was kindly sent by a reader in Japan.




竹島は隠岐島から北西157キロ、韓国 欝陵島の南東92キロの日本海に突き出た形の二つの岩からなる小島だ。周囲の海域は豊かな漁場で、だからこそ、この小島が日韓両国の漁民にとって重要になっている。




私は日本の皆さんが竹島独島紛争にもっと興味を寄せることを願っている。知識を得て、広めていくことがあふれ出している反日プロパガンダを押しとどめる手段になるからだ。 どうか島根県の「竹島の日」を大切にしてほしい。竹島に関する真実を世界に向かって伝えることができる絶好の機会なのだから

Here is the text in English –

Stop spreading anti-Japanese propaganda
Mr. Bevers’s article on “takeshima day”

Mr. Gerry bevers,. an English teacher in Korea who studies the issue of Takeshima, sent an article to us at the San-In Chuo Shinpou , and in the article in which he included maps that refute the Korean claims, he expressed the concern about the rampant anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. He calls on Japan to propagate facts about Takeshima by making full use of the opportunity provided by Takeshima day. (The following is an summary of what he wrote)

When the assembly of Shimane Prefecture established “Takeshima Day,” this act by Shimane Prefecture set off a firestorm of protest in South Korea , whose government and people claim the islets are Korean territory and are called “Dokdo.” The problem with Korea ’s claim on the islets, however, is that Korean historical documents and maps do not support it.

Takeshima is essentially two large rocky islets jutting out of the Sea of Japan 157 kilometers northwest of Shimane Prefecture ’s Oki Island and ninety-two kilometers southeast of Korea ’s Ulleung Island (Ulleungdo). The surrounding waters are rich fishing grounds, which is why the islets are important to both Korean and Japanese fishermen. Japan has known about the islets since the 1600s and officially made them a part of Japanese territory in 1905. Today, however, a small detachment of South Korean maritime police occupy the islets and have been there since the 1950s. In Japan , most people seem unaware of or unconcerned with the Japanese-Korean dispute over the islets, but in Korea almost everyone knows about the dispute and passionately defends Korea ’s claim. That Korean passion is creating a problem that I think Japan needs to deal with.

The real problem is not that South Korea is occupying Japanese territory and fishing Japanese waters, but that the Korean government, media, and education system is using the dispute over the islets to foster anti-Japanese feelings not only in South Korea but also in other countries around the world.

The historical evidence overwhelmingly supports Japan ’s claim to the islets. Japanese need to study that evidence, so that they can help tell the world the truth of Takeshima and stop the spread of anti-Japanese propaganda

I hope the Japanese people start showing more interest in the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute because knowledge and education can help stop the anti-Japanese propaganda coming out of Korea . Please do not ignore Takeshima Day. It is an opportunity to tell the world the truth about Takeshima.

Good job, Gerry! The article with the maps sent by Gerry to the San-In Chuo Shinpou seems to be the most popular one on their site with 47283 views and counting.

31 Responses to “The other article about Gerry in the San-In Chuo Shinpou”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    Congrats, Gerry!!!

  2. comment number 2 by: jion999

    “I hope the Japanese people start showing more interest in the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute because knowledge and education can help stop the anti-Japanese propaganda coming out of Korea . “

    Many Japanese people have started to have interest not only in Takesima dispute but also in Korea itself since 2002 World Cup. The point is Japanese government is very negative to confront with ROK when Japan needs its help regarding N.Korea problem. In short, friendly relationship between Japan and ROK is more important than poor Shimane fishermen for Japanese politicians so far.
    If Japanese government starts to point out the distortion of ROK over Takeshima loudly, Korean will be enraged and Japan-ROK relationship will be damaged a lot temporally.
    We have to do it someday to dissolve the disputes between both countries completely.
    But, it is important to find the correct timing.

  3. comment number 3 by: jion999

    If the lies of Korean government regarding Dokudo/Takeshima are exposed, the shock of Korean people would be 100 times bigger than Hwang Useok case. I can not expect that magnitude. It must mean the collapse of national identity of Korean.
    Anyway, the damage to Korean president at that time would be so big.
    It is preferable that it happens in the end of Roh Moo-hyun’s term. Even if anti-Japan president loses his face, it is no problem for Japan-ROK relationship.

  4. comment number 4 by: jion999

    The truth of Dokudo/Takeshima dispute for Korean is NOT the matter of historical evidences. This is the matter of national pride, which was damaged by Japan in modern history. 100 years ago, Japan was more westernized than Korea and understood the importance to claim territorial rights over an island which sovereignty is unknown.
    After its independence, ROK invaded Takeshima not because of historical right but because of revenge against Japan.
    In short, Dokudo/Takeshima dispute is just a small war against Japan, NOT historical debate.
    Historical evidence is just an excuse for Korean leaders and historians. This is a reason why they do not care to distort the evidences.
    But ordinary Korean people believe its historical claim because of the brainwash education.
    Even if the true history is exposed, Korean government will not give up Takeshima.

  5. comment number 5 by: void

    Frankly, it is the biggest problem of us Japanese that most of Japanese haven’t have interest on this issue.
    Korean’s anti-Japanese education system has made anti-Japanese peoples for last 60 years.
    Then, their anti-Japanese-educated teachers teach their next generations now.
    I guess most of them can do these anti-Japanese propaganda with sence of justice.

  6. comment number 6 by: ponta

    This article by Gerry is very educational for Japanese people.
    I think in general Japanese people (and Japanese government) are too apathetic about Dokdo, Korean anti-Japan-ism and Korea.

  7. comment number 7 by: toadface

    What a pile of rubbish.

    Japanese maps and documents simply don’t prove that Japan incorporated Dokdo at all. In fact, almost all Japanese references either exclude Dokdo from Japanese territory or place is as part of Ulleungdo/Korea.

    Why don’t you tell us all how and why Japan “incorporated” Dokdo??
    Let me help. Here is how and why courtesy of Japanese Historical Archives from the Russo~Japanese War.



    The reals problem isn’t Korea. The real problem is Japanese historic amnesia about her past expansionist era.

  8. comment number 8 by: ponta

    The real problem is Japanese historic amnesia about her past expansionist era.

    Sorry Japanese expansionism at the time has nothing to do with the title to Dokdo, since Korean government knew nothing about Dokdo, and Korean government had no effective control before 1905.
    If you are interested in how Japan incorporated Takeshima, you might want to vist the site of Shimane prefecture.
    I am a bit surprised you didn’t know that.

  9. comment number 9 by: T_K


    There’s a strange similarity with websites that support the Korean claim. They all refer to the rocks in singular, to the point of having the graphics read “Liancourt rock” from time to time? Since it’s obvious that they’re two rocks of equal size, not connected by any sort of land, why would they keep maintaining otherwise?
    Is this just an oversight, or is there some reasoning behind it?
    …for example, it being necessary to insist on the singular to prove that “Usando=Dokdo”…

  10. […] Takeshima/Dokdo researcher Gerry Bevers has appeared in another Japanese news article, this time issuing a statement about the importance of Takeshima Day. [Link] […]

  11. comment number 11 by: Gerry-Bevers

    If they make a movie about me, I would like Bruce Willis to play my role.

  12. comment number 12 by: pacifist

    How about Tom Hanks?
    Just joking, sorry.
    I just thought you look more gentle than Bruce Willis, although he is a good actor too.

  13. comment number 13 by: Kaneganese

    This is very touching and moving article, Gerry. I agree that the real problem in Japan is most people had not been interested in the issue. To be exact, I was one of them until last April. But the situation is changing. Most Japanese now realized that Korean are very anti-Japanese no matter what they say. The more Japanese aware of the issue and make noise about it, the less Korean get excited and behave badly. In fact, this year’s demonstaration on Takeshima day was not as crazy as it used to be. It is good that they noticed that cutting finger, stabbing your belly and covering yourself with thousands of bees does nothing but makes Korean silly and stupid. I hope many Japanese have opportunity to read as much as possible.

    Actually, I hope you don’t mind but I commented about Gerry and his articles and of course Matt the Occidentalism for support on some Japanese blogs which deals with Takeshima issue, and some of them showed interests. That includes 小林少年 who organized Takeshima project 2007 on blog sphere. By the way there is a brief report of this year’s Takeshima day ceremony in Shimane prefecture on his blog.

    I think before making movie, you should write a book about your life in Korea in the future. I don’t think Korean are not that stupid and they will understand why you did this. They will understand that real friend were you, and enemy was someone else.

  14. comment number 14 by: toadface

    T-K Korean or Japanese records or maps almost always draw or refer to Dokdo as a singular island rather than two islets. Here are some Japanese maps that are typical as to how they mapped Matsushima (Dokdo)

    Kanganese, Koreans are more anti-Japanese foreign policy than anti-Japanese. But you must get another thing straight. It is not just Korea that feels this way. Many of my Korean friends live in China or Taiwan and they harbour the exact same feelings. It’s time for Japan to stop blaming other Asian countries for their animosity toward Japan and to start blaming the foreign policy of their own government.

    Ponta, I don’t think you are listening. Whether or not Dokdo belonged to Korea in 1905 does not justify Japan’s military motives for taking Dokdo. I have linked you to the maps that Japan took Dokdo for the installation of military watchtowers and submarine telegraph lines. Not legal.

    I’ve visited the Shimane Prefecture Propaganda headquarters and I think it is pretty funny…. The website says in 1883 Ulleungdo was opened up to Japanese when in reality in 1883 Japan was forcibly removing illegal Japanese squatters from Ulleungdo.

    Jion999 a hundred years ago when Japan claimed Dokdo, they were fighting the largest land battle of the day in Shenyang, China which would define modern warfare. Japan wasn’t learning the importance of claiming territory at all. They were militarily posturing for the Russian Navy’s Baltic Fleet due to arrive at the Tsushima Straits that May. Historical context to Japan’s annexation of Dokdo is inseparable from the dispute.

    Korea took back Dokdo after WWII because upon hearing the Japanese annexed it in 1906 they already considered it Chosun territory.

  15. comment number 15 by: ponta

    You comment was predicted.

  16. comment number 16 by: pacifist


    Korea took back Dokdo after WWII

    Your English is wrong, toadface. Somebody who didn’t own it CAN’T take back it.
    You should prove that Korea owned it before but in reality they even didn’t know about it (location and shape) and they had no name for it until 20th century.

  17. comment number 17 by: pacifist


    who didn’t own it CAN’T take back it.
    who didn’t own it CAN’T take it back.

  18. comment number 18 by: Kaneganese

    “Koreans are more anti-Japanese foreign policy than anti-Japanese”
    That is exactly the Chinese communist told her people. I thought Korean had benn liberated from China more than hundred years ago. Are they still colonized? I’m not sure if Korean are not really anti-Japanese as a whole because I don’t know much about them. But I am not that interested in what Korean themselves think or feel. I just don’t want neighbours from hell. They don’t have to be pro-Japan or pro-Japanese at all. I just want them to stop lying and go to ICJ then leave us alone.

    “It’s time for Japan to stop blaming other Asian countries for their animosity toward Japan and to start blaming the foreign policy of their own government.”
    Asia? In case you don’t realize, you shold know that there are lots of Asian countries other than just a three countries. Maybe you don’t know, butJapan has been trying really hard to help Asian countries after the economical resurgence feeling sorry for what Emperial Japan did to Asian countries and tried compensate very hard for more than 50 years. And I myself went to many Asian countries to help kids for a long time. Not only ODA or economical aids, but also hundreads of thousands young and old Japanese went to developping countries to help the people all over the world as 青年海外協力隊 and NGO worker. Many of my friends also went to Asia, Africa, South America and other places. And most countries actually thank Japan and Japanese, while Korea and China never appreciate good deeds Japan did after WWII. Additon to that, thousands of Chinese 華僑 all over the world and Korean 僑胞 in U.S. spreading anti-Japanese propaganda. And Japanese will not torelate those propaganda which is not based on fact anymore. They are so good at manipulating international media and getting sympathies especially from white people like you, Toadface. If you want to spread hate-Japan, that is pretty fine with me, but you should do that based on fact and speak logically. And if you distort the fact and advocate the half-truth, which exactly you are doing on your site ritht now, you have to face the music.You are just using Korean’s so called “anti-Japanese foreign policy” feeling. Shame on you. Stop hating someone you don’t even know and start loving people you really know. You are not helping Korean at all. Normal Japanese except extream left wingers are stating to feel something ugly is going on in Korean feeling toward Japanese.
    BBC Poll: Attitudes towards Countries(Original source doesn’t exist anymore)

  19. comment number 19 by: tomato

    Your English is wrong, toadface. Somebody who didn’t own it CAN’T take back it.

    More like the problem of weak mind rather than a simple grammar mistake…also trying to argue that the Cairo Communique was meant to “return” Liancourt to Korea is sheer nonsense. The Cairo Communique is just one of those objectives announced by the allies aimed set rules on how the axis countries will be treated after their defeat. This and other announcements/objectives (like the Potsdam Announcement) no doubt influenced the SF Peace Treaty, but the fact is that the only valid and effective treaty for post-war order for Japan is the

    SF Peace Treaty

    (and other treaties that post-war Japan was a signatory to).

  20. comment number 20 by: Kaneganese

    I have a strong feeling that Korean will not be happy at all if they realize that you basically gave up and abandoned Korean old documents and maps saying that they are not reliable at all, instead adopted Japanese beautiful maps and “not perfect” but far more “accurate” than Korean ones to prove sovereignty saying they are lot more reliable than Korean ones and shifted your point to the Japanese militaly presence at that time. I know Korean government and humorous Korean president are saying that military nonsence, but they still seem to firmly believe they have “numerous” maps and documents to prove.

  21. comment number 21 by: toadface

    Kanganese, I adopt Japanese maps only because they employed more modern cartography techniques introduced by Westerners. Because of this Japanese maps are more consistent and less open to different interpretation. They also employ modern techniques such as appended smaller maps so in the event a territory was very far away, Japanese mappers could attach a map on the side to include it.

    Knowing that, if a Japanese national map doesn’t include Dokdo on the main image area or in the appended maps we can be sure Dokdo was not thought to be part of Japan. This is the case with the vast majority of Japanese maps, thus there is only one conclusion. Japan did not consider Dokdo as part of their territory until the 1905 annexation.

    Chosun maps are different. The didn’t use appended maps, they relocated islands in different locations to include them on the main map or to denote territorial ownership. So I’m not abandoning Chosun maps at all. I’m simply saying you can’t hold these maps to the same standards of modern maps by superimposing Google-Earth or by interpreting them as to scale or distance representations.

    The Japanese were using lines of longitude and latitude over a century before Korea however, prior to the introduction of European cartography practices Japanese maps were equally as crude as those of Korea.

    Kanganese, don’t lump me together with other Koreans on the Dokdo issue. I have done my studies on this subject on my own. My only connection with Koreans on this is for gathering maps and documents. Unlike Ponta and Pacifist I’m not an errand-boy for my local political organization such as Shimane Prefecture. I’m not Korean nor am I a part of a political movement like Ponta.

    Here is Ponta’s site. It has information to support all controversial issues any Japanese right-winger would be interested in.

  22. comment number 22 by: toadface

    Ponta’s site is here.


  23. comment number 23 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface (Steve Barber) wrote:

    Kanganese, don’t lump me together with other Koreans on the Dokdo issue. I have done my studies on this subject on my own. My only connection with Koreans on this is for gathering maps and documents. Unlike Ponta and Pacifist I’m not an errand-boy for my local political organization such as Shimane Prefecture. I’m not Korean nor am I a part of a political movement like Ponta.

    The following is an August 31, 2006 letter from Steve Barber (Toadface) to a Mr. Cho, who appears to have been a member of the anti-Japanese Web site, Killzap.cafe:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: steve barber [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:01 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: RE: Hanmaumy

    Dr Mr Cho:

    I went onto Hanmaumy’s website and just by the visual images I saw I can say his website is the best I’ve ever seen !! I’m very impressed.

    The problem is that it is all in Korean language. Koreans already believe Dokdo is Korean land so Hanmaumy is in a sense wasting his time. We must get this valuable information out to the global community. If the Dokdo issue ever goes to the ICJ it is absolutely necessary that all of the related information be available to the public in English.

    Mr Cho I must stress these days there are more Japanese working with foreigners promoting Takeshima is Japanese and they are doing it in English while working with idiots like Gerry Bevers. Like after WW2 Korea isn’t getting its message out there about Dokdo.

    That being said, Mr Lovmo’s site is up and running and I’ve been working on my own to try to gather information and translate it but to be honest my lack of ability in Korean language makes it impossible to gather images on some of these Korean National Archives Websites because they are totally in Korean.

    We should use Mr Lovmo’s site because it is already quite popular and it has the greatest amount of exposure on the English/Foreign Internet.

    Please me must work together to get the message out there. I will do my best. In addtion please tell Hanmaumy I am going to gather images from his website and translate as well as I can for Mark.

    I would love to meet both of you someday.

    Yours Truly:

    Link my post of Mr. Barber’s letter.

    So, Toadface, your “only connection with Koreans on this is for gathering maps and documents”? What else do you need? By the way, Toadface, could you get me a cup of coffee?

  24. comment number 24 by: ponta

    As expected, you are just repeating your old claims including my identity.
    Here is a revised edition to your end.

    There is an end to everything.
    It seems Toadface’s discussion is coming close to the end.

    As for Korean maps, he says Korean cartography techniques were so bad we can not used them for and against Korean claims.
    Korean has no evidence based on maps for Korean claim.
    Suppose Korean maps were relatively accurate enough to be examined. Gerry has shown Usando is not Dokdo.
    In either case, Korea has no map to be used as evidence for her claim..

    As for Korean documents, Korean claims Usando is Dokdo, but the documents make it clear that Usando is the island, e.g.,where you could see sandy beach from Ulleungdo. Hence that is not Dokdo;since you can not see sandy beach of Dokdo from Ulleungdo and since the reference of the proper name must be determined by the description associated with it.(See Gerry’s articles for further details)

    Hence, Korean documents themselves refute Korean claim.

    As for Ahn’s statement that Matsuhima is Usando, he says that proves Korea recognized Dokdo as Korean territory because “Matsushima “is Dokdo/takeshima and Ahn said that was Korean territory.

    It is not clear at all Usando that Ahn referred to is Dokdo: for, as discussed above, based on Korean maps and documents, there is no way to know Usando is Dokdo. Rather it is most likely Usando is not Dokdo; Gerry’s arguments are convincing.
    Again, the reference of the proper name must be determined by the description associated with it. Ahn talked of Matsuhima as the island where people were able to live, where people can get there in a short time (at least less than a half day) from Ulleungdo, where more than 20 people….this is confirmed by Japanese records: more than 20 people were there,…..could cook and fight each other( and Ahn himself said Korean people were not himself alone). But Dokdo is not such a place.

    Ahn at another time said, according to Japanese record, Matsuhima is 50 Korean ri (200km) from Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo to Dokdo is 92 km and 50 Korean ri from Ulleungdo is much
    closer to Oki island.

    In either case, Ahn’s Usando=Matsuhima is not Dokdo.

    As for Japanese maps, he claims there are many Japanese maps that lacks Dokdo on them and that Japan was confused about islands at a specific time. But the fact that there are such maps by itself does not show Japan was not cognizant of Dokdo:for, Japan has maps accurately enough to identify Dokdo. And it does not show Korea was cognizant of Dokdo.

    He also claim that Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. Again the reference of the proper name on the map must be determined by the description associated with it. In case of the maps, the location of the islands on the map associated with the proper name must be major determinant as to the reference.
    Judging from the location, all the Japanese maps Korea claims show Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory turned out to be the ones in which there are either non-existent islands or Jukdo near Ulleungdo, mislead, or guided by Korean or western maps. Without the non-existent island, the maps amount to the map without Dokdo, and that does not show Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory and it does not show Korea was cognizant of Dokdo.

    Japan DOES have maps and documents that show Japan was cognizant of Dokdo and Japan had effective control over Dokdo.
    (Look at opp’s site and Tanaka’s site)
    And that justifies Japanese claim to Dokdo.

    Realizing Korea had no historical evidence, Toadface has taken another strategy.

    Since Cairo communique declared that Japan should return the islands which she took by greed and force, and since Dokdo, he claims, was taken away by force and greed, Japan has no title to the title.
    But his reference to Cairo communique is pointless, because it is absorbed in the Potsdam declaration. And the minor islands other than Honsyu, Kyusuu, Shikoku, Hokkaido which were mentioned in Potsdam declaration were specified by SF treaty by defining islands that should be returned to Korea. And Dokdo, by any reasonable interpretation, is not included in it.
    Japanese expansionism was wrong, but Japan returned everything she was supposed to return.
    Therefore his attempt to connect Japanese expansionism at the time with Japanese validity of the title to Dokdo has failed.
    Dokdo/Takeshima, which Japan acquired because it had belonged to no state before, was taken away by Korea by greed and force. Korea tried to get the US to give them the Japanese island of Tsushima, claiming that it was historically Korean land. They even tried to land grab some islands that did not even exist (but which Korea thought exists). The US rejected Korea’s claim on both Tsushima and Dokdo/Takeshima, noting that they were not historically Korean lands. Japanese fishermen were injured/detained/killed for Korea to grab Dokdo. No Korean were injured when Japan incorporated Dokdo.

    Keep in mind that Korean government had not discovered nor had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.
    Korea was in no position to protest against Japanese incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo.

    What Korea needs to show is Korean historical documents and maps that clearly prove Korea had discovered and had effective control over Dokdo. Toadface has been avoiding it, with reasons.
    Korean had an empty island policy over Ulleungdo until 1883, prohibiting Korean people from visiting Ulleungdo.. No wonder Korea had little knowledge about Ulleungdo, and no knowledge about Dokdo and hence Toadface is in trouble giving Korean historical evidence for Korea’s claim to Dokdo.

    Feel free to criticize.

    But let’s keep paying attention from now on when he comments on this issue, whether he is making new arguments, or he is just repeating his old refuted claim so as to mislead people who are not familiar with the subject.

    For your reference.
    The acquisition of sovereignty over territory(page 144~)
    1 The exercise of effective control
    2 Discovery
    3 Cession and treaty
    4 Use of force –conquest
    Prior to 1945, or perhaps 1928(the date of the Kellog -Briand Pact), the use of force was perfectly lawful and title to territory acquired through conquest was quite common.
    (5 Accretion and avulsion/6 Judicial decision/7 Uti possidentis and other principle relating to territorial acquisition/8 Self-determination.)
    IMO, the related mode of acquisition would be 1~4

  25. comment number 25 by: ponta

    Unlike Ponta and Pacifist I’m not an errand-boy for my local political organization such as Shimane Prefecture

    I wish shmane prefecture or Japanese government would pay me for my contribution, errand or whatever. I also wish shimane and Japanese government were more assertive on this issue.

  26. comment number 26 by: void

    I wish shmane prefecture or Japanese government would pay me for my contribution, errand or whatever. I also wish shimane and Japanese government were more assertive on this issue.


  27. comment number 27 by: toadface

    Ponta, I didn’t realize you were an international lawyer. The stance I take on whether or not Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo was a military acquisition was not my idea or position in itself the basis of it was written by a Japanese man about ten years ago.

    Let the public see the maps and documents I’ve posted then they can decide if Japan’s claim has merit or not.

    Ponta, did you simply cut and paste your other post and then repost it? Look, don’t insult the readers here by being so shabby and take the time to construct a new thought instead of just posting junk mail!! Spammer.

    Gerry the information you posted is months old and a flimsy attempt to divert attention away from the real argument that is of course…..

    The Japanese have no documented claim to Dokdo prior to 1905. All maps prior to this either fail to include Dokdo or show both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. None of which are proof of ownership. Some Japanese maps and documents show Dokdo as Korean.

    Finally the only documented Japanese claim to Dokdo was a military annexation and thus not a part of the natural peaceful process by which a state must follow to incorporate territory.

  28. comment number 28 by: toadface

    Ponta Korea had an empty island policy on Ulleungdo however they conducted regular surveys of the island without exception for hundreds of years. This inspections were not optional even during poor harvests. Again you show your ignorance on the issue of Dokdo.


  29. comment number 29 by: pacifist


    the only documented Japanese claim to Dokdo was a military annexation and thus not a part of the natural peaceful process by which a state must follow to incorporate territory.

    Navy’s survey and The Ministry of Internal’s land incorporation has no relation.
    It is no wonder if the Navy surveyed every island on Japan Sea and harbor cities of China and Korea in preparation for the war.
    Every country has an intelligence organization, even South Korea now.

  30. comment number 30 by: Kaneganese

    “Because of this Japanese maps are more consistent and less open to different interpretation.”
    So you admit that it is just a matter of comparison, not by a definition by precise, academic, legal and international definition but by the definition of you. By the way, the geography text book( 2006 edition of “新しい社会科地図”東京書籍) of my daughter I mentioned before, which is approved by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, has a page “中国地方(p59-60)” which include Shimane prefecture. And Voila! There is no Takeshima on that page!! just like the old maps on your site! Of course MEXT clearly understand Takeshima is Japanese territory, and states as “Takeshima is Japanese territory” in the book, but it doesn’t put it on that map. Not because they mean to exclude the Takeshima from Japanese territory, but simply because drawing every single tiny and distant islands is not the purpose of the map. Every map has it’s own purpose and if it is not important to draw the island which is only 0.48km2 and inhabitable and locate beyond the limit of the page, they simply don’t draw the island. Look, Toad face, the maps do not show the soverignty. Please stop using beautiful and artistic old Japanese maps on your distorted site right away.

    By the way, I went to a libraly today and got a copy of 1970 edition of “國史編纂委員會編 邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島” and it looks like there are no “蔚陵島事蹟” nor even the name of 張漢相… I am really confused. Who is a liar? Do you know who he/she is, Toadface?
    And on the way back to the subway station, I doropped by another libraly and found a new book written by Korean Professor (and donated by someone). I haven’t read it through yet, but it looks like he uses the same logic just as Toadface. Is this a common theory in Korea? If so, I seriously doubt the intelligence of Korean academics. Though I honestly hope not.

  31. comment number 31 by: void

    BTW, have your gentelmen evaluate the “Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951)” for this issue already? http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/peace1951.htm