A NEW LOOK AT THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA

The annexation of Korea was absolutely necessary
The annexation of Korea was not colonialist policy
The annexation of Korea requires no apology

By Committee Against Government Apologies to Korea

Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact ⓒ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
On the Publication of A New Look at the Annexation of Korea ................................................. 4
The Annexation of Korea Was Inevitable.......................................................................................... 6
Timeline: 100 Years After the Annexation of Korea ...................................................................11

1. BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION ................................................................. 14
Pre-annexation Korea as Observed by Western Visitors ..........................................................14
Perceptions of Japan’s Annexation of Korea ..................................................................................17
How the Korean Standard of Living Improved Under Japanese Guidance .........................19
The Korean Peninsula: Always a Dagger Pointed at Japan’s Side ..........................................20
China and Korea in the 19th Century .................................................................................................22
Western Powers Unleash Exploitative Colonialist Zeal on Asia .............................................24

2. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA WAS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY ........................ 26
The Debate over Korea and Saigo Takamori .................................................................................26
Korea Finally Emerges from Isolation..............................................................................................28
The Imo Incident ......................................................................................................................................30
The Gapsin Coup: China Once Again Blocks Korean Modernization Attempts..................32
Why Fukuzawa Yukichi Wanted Japan To Disassociate Itself from Asia .............................34
Why the Japan-Led Korean Modernization Program Failed ....................................................36
The Real Enemies of Korean Independence and Modernization: The Daewongun andQueen Min...................................................................................................................................................38
The First Sino-Japanese War: Japanese Blood Is Shed for Korean Independence ...........40
Who Really Killed Queen Min? ............................................................................................................42

3. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA WAS NOT COLONIALIST POLICY ....................... 44
Russia Attempts To Hijack Japanese Achievements in Korea .................................................44
Korea Awakens After 15 Centuries of Subservience ...................................................................47
Victory in Russo-Japanese War Creates a New World Power: Japan ....................................49
Megata Tanetaro: Financial Advisor Who Rescued Korea from the Brink of Bankruptcy........................................................................................................................................................................51
Why Japan Took Charge of Korean Diplomatic Affairs ..............................................................53
Duplicitous Gojong Betrays Japan: The Hague Secret Envoy Affairs .....................................55

Lee Wan-Yong: Hero or Traitor? Korea's Last Prime Minister and the JapanKorean Treaty of 1907……………………………………………………………………………...…….57

How the Assassination of Ito Hirobumi by Terrorist An Jung-Geun Affected Korea .......59
Iljinhoe: Annexation Advocate ............................................................................................................61
The Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty (Concluded on August 22, 1910) ...............................63
Korean “Illegitimate Annexation” Argument Soundly Defeated at International
Conference .................................................................................................................................................65
Military Government of Terauchi Masatake, First Governor General: With an Eye
Toward the Modernization of Korea ................................................................................................ 67
Japanese Tax Revenue (¥16 Trillion!) Finances Korean Railroad Construction .............69
Japan Did Not Seize Korean Farmland .............................................................................................71
Suppression of the March 1 Movement Was Essential ...............................................................73

4. NO APOLOGY REQUIRED FOR THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA............................. 75
Primary Agents of Strife in Asia: American Missionaries and the Comintern ...................75
Third Governor-General Saito’s Cultural Rule: Seeking Reconciliation with Korea .......77
Japanese Protect Koreans During the Turmoil Accompanying a Natural Disaster .........79
Japanese Resurrect Korean Alphabet and Compile a Korean Grammar .............................81
The Dawn of Modern Higher Education in Korea: The Founding of Keijo Imperial
University ...................................................................................................................................................83ii

The Drafter of South Korea’s Constitution Was a Leader of the Student Volunteer
Soldier Movement....................................................................................................................................85
Fuchizawa Yoshie: The Japanese Woman Who Brought Modern Women’s Education to
Korea ............................................................................................................................................................87
Governor-General Ugaki Kazushige’s Rural Development Program and the Japanese
Who Supported It .....................................................................................................................................89
Financial Cooperatives, Korean Farmers’ Lifeline, Sponsor Straw-Weaving Event ........91
Shigematsu Masanao: Guiding Spirit for Korean Farming Villages .......................................93
Nameless Fishing Village Transformed into Bustling Modern Industrial City ..................95
The Japanese Build the World’s Second-Largest Dam in Korea; Noguchi Shitago’s
Philanthropy..............................................................................................................................................97
Name-Change Policy Implemented in Response to the Wishes of the Korean People ...99
Japan Did Not Deprive the Koreans of Their Language........................................................... 101
Overwhelming Response To Special Volunteer System.......................................................... 103

5. KOREA REPAYS JAPANESE KINDNESS WITH EVIL............................................... 105
Korea Commandeers Takeshima; Occupied Japan Powerless To Retaliate .................... 105
Postwar Turmoil, the Third Nationals Problem, and the “Korean Occupation Forces”..................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Don’t Blame Japan for the Division of Korea .............................................................................. 109
Korean Woman Writes Japanese-Style Poems About Korean War..................................... 111
The Japan-Korea Treaty of 1965 and the Concomitant Financial Burden on Japan ..... 113
It’s the Japanese Who Were Robbed .............................................................................................. 115
Military Prostitutes: How Long Will the Koreans Go on Fooling Themselves? .............. 117
Lies of Self-Proclaimed Korean Slave Laborer Exposed ......................................................... 120
Koreans Violate Basic Principle of Civilization: The Right to Non-Retroactivity of Law..................................................................................................................................................................... 122

6. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA: A SOURCE OF PRIDE FOR JAPAN ..................... 124
Crown Princess Yi Bangja Takes Handicapped Korean Children Under Her Wing ...... 124
Women’s Lives and Cities Transformed During Annexation Period .................................. 126
Japan Earns Accolades from Lytton Commission for Government of Korea ................... 127
Wilson’s Self-Determination Principle Engenders Stagnation in Philippines ................ 129
Korea Under Japanese Rule as Observed by Foreigners ........................................................ 131
Korea Under Japanese Rule as Observed by Koreans ............................................................. 133
Foreigners’ Observations About Japanese Rule and Subsequent Annexation of Korea..................................................................................................................................................................... 135

7. EDITOR’S POSTSCRIPT ................................................................................................. 140

iii

On the Publication of A New Look at the Annexation of Korea

August 29, 2010 marks the centenary of Japan’s annexation of Korea.
The approach of this anniversary has prompted the South Koreans, under the pretext ofcorrecting the historical record, to proclaim that Japan’s annexation of Korea was in violationof international law. The Japanese government and media, as well as conservative
organizations, have opted not to respond to this accusation. They have ignored the Korean
posturing, as if it had no connection to them. This is not a new phenomenon. During the 65
years since World War II ended, our government and our compatriots have backed away every
time the “Korean problem” reared its ugly head, refusing to discuss or debate it. Every time
Diet representatives or scholars manage to summon up the courage to speak out on thelegitimacy of Japan’s actions, they are rewarded with a barrage of criticism from leftist groups
and the media. At least one minister of state has been forced to resign. Such attacks,
particularly those launched by the media, have succeeded in rendering the Japanese publicmute.
The unlawful occupation of Takeshima (the Liancourt Rocks) and the abductions perpetrated
by North Korean agents are unequivocal infringements of Japanese sovereignty. Nevertheless,the stance adopted by the Japanese government and media has been consistently irresolute,and the public reaction, inexplicably lethargic.
Why has Japan become such a cowardly nation?
The main reason is that during the postwar years, we have disavowed the very aspects of ourhistory of which we should be proud.
We have chosen to deny and trivialize historical fact by adopting a negative view of theannexation of Korea. Perceiving it as encroachment into the Korean peninsula and thecolonialization of Korea, we have concluded that the annexation is best forgotten, like anyother shameful misdeed. The Koreans’ distortion of historical fact is unforgiveable, andinjurious to our national interests. But we are to blame for fooling ourselves — we failed tocounter their accusations out of a desire to avoid trouble. Some conservative commentators
offer excuses like the following: “I refrain from challenging the Korean claims out ofcompassion; after all, their nation was stolen from them.” However, we must be mindful thatsuch sentiments are wasted on the Koreans, who have no intention of even attempting toappreciate them; our compassion is misplaced, hypocritical, and futile.
China ceded Taiwan, then completely undeveloped, to Japan after the First Sino-Japanese War.
Japan’s attempts at integration (not colonization, which was what the Western powers were
doing) resulted in remarkably rapid modernization. The same can be said of Korea, bled dryby China, after 1,500 years of tributary status. When it was annexed by Japan, by the sameprocess (integration) that took place in Taiwan, Korea too surprised the world by modernizing
at an astounding speed. The Japanese used the same methods to build an industrial state4

(Manzhouguo) in the wilderness that was Manchuria, in the short space of 15 years. There fiveethnic groups coexisted in harmony. The Japanese won high praise from all five groups, who
had entrusted them with the rule of Manzhouguo, for good government. Even the Western
powers recognized Japan as the leader of Asia, both in name and in fact.
The hopes of the residents of Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria — that the good fortune that had
befallen them would endure forever — ran very high. That those hopes were extinguished in
the space of a moment with Japan’s defeat may explain their subsequent resentment toward
Japan. However, efforts toward modernization — the legacy of the Japanese integration
process — bore fruit both in Taiwan and Korea. Japan’s Manchurian legacy contributed
mightily to the development of the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, we have every
reason to feel proud, and absolutely no reason to feel shameful, about the contributions ourforefathers made in Asia. Furthermore, we must remind ourselves, again and often, that there
is absolutely no need for us to apologize.
Any further masochistic behavior, indifference, or insincerity regarding these matters will
only serve to destroy Japan and bring suffering upon our descendants.
We must act now to correct the mistakes of the 65-year-long postwar era, during which
Japan’s resplendent history — a source of unparalleled pride marred only by one defeat —was summarily discarded. Time is of the essence: we must call upon historical fact to help us
revive Japanese pride.

Committee Against Government Apologies to Korea
July 30, 2010

5

The Annexation of Korea Was Inevitable
Sugimoto Mikio

After the Meiji Renovation in 1868, there were minor disputes between Japan and Korea.
Japan wanted Korea to open its doors to trade. Korea continued to insist that all commercewith Japan be conducted through the Tsushima domain (located midway between Japan and
Korea). In 1874 the Japanese attempted to change that situation, taking advantage of thetransfer of power in Korea from Yi Ha-eung, the regent (Daewongun) to Queen Min (later
known as Empress Myeongseong). The result was the Ganghwa Island Incident, in whichshots were exchanged between Japanese sailors and Koreans. In 1876, after prolonged
negotiations, the Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity (Treaty of Ganghwa) was concluded; at long
last, normal relations were established between the two states. Before long, Korea had forged
commercial and diplomatic relations with the US, England and Germany as well.
We shall describe the annexation process in the sections that follow. As history marched on,
the antagonism between Queen Min, whose wickedness was legendary, and the Daewongun
became intertwined with the antagonism between Japan and China, and antagonism between
radicals and moderates in Korea. Only a few laws had been enacted, and the Korean
government did not enforce them. Korea was incredibly backward then; the punishments
meted out there were of a cruelty unimaginable in Japan. For instance, the body ofassassinated reformist leader Kim Ok-gyun was dismembered and displayed in public.
In 1882 the Imo Incident erupted, a battle between an elite, modern military unit trained by theJapanese and traditional military units. It would have been surprising if there had not been amutiny, since men in the traditional military units had not been paid for 13 months. They were
finally provided with rice rations, but less than promised. To make matters worse, the rice was
mixed with sand or otherwise adulterated. Queen Min managed somehow to escape to themountains; she appealed to China for help.
In response to her request, Chinese soldiers abducted the Daewongun and took him to China,
where he was held captive for three years. His absence meant a steep decline in Japanese
influence. Korea was, once again, in China’s thrall.
The Donghak Rebellion, which triggered the First Sino-Japanese War, was also orchestrated
by the Daewongun, working behind the scenes. Also participating in the rebellion was
Ten’yukyo, a group of Japanese political activists led by Takeda Hanshi, a Buddhist priest.
One of its members was Uchida Ryohei, who, together with Donghak Party official Yi Yonggu, founded Iljinhoe, a pro-Japan organization. Iljinhoe became the driving force behind theannexation of Korea.
When Japan defeated China in the First Sino-Japanese War, Queen Min began making
overtures to Russia. She revised many of the laws, regulations and imperial ordinances
6

instituted by the Japanese. She also packed her Cabinet with pro-Russian and pro-Americanministers. A power struggle ensued, pitting Japan against a joint Russian-American effort togain ascendancy in Korea.
One outcome of that struggle was the plot to assassinate the queen, engineered by a group ofJapanese and Korean soldiers. The plot was a success, but in its aftermath Karl Ivanovich
Weber, a Russian diplomat stationed in Korea, gained the upper hand. He was able toapproach and comfort the bereaved King Gojong through the good offices of the latter’s
concubines and ladies-in-waiting. Having convinced the king that the Daewongun and theJapanese were going to usurp his throne, Weber ordered sailors on a battleship anchored atIncheon to abduct Gojong and take him to the Russian Legation, where he was held for a year.
The king was forced to conduct the affairs of state from the legation; during that time hegranted a variety of rights and interests to Russia.
Furthermore, two months prior to the king’s abduction the Chunsaengmun Incident had
broken out. It was an attempt on the part of Pro-Russian and pro-American Koreans to usurp
the throne, but their efforts were thwarted.
Japanese intervention in 1897 put an end to this abnormal state of affairs. If the Japanese had
not taken action, Korea would, without question, have become a Russian colony.
When King Gojong returned to the royal palace, he declared Korea an empire, and himself its
emperor. At that time, the Treaty of Protection was concluded between Japan and Korea, andJapan sent diplomatic and financial advisers to Korea.
Russia was making encroachments into the Far East and, via the Tripartite Intervention,seeking concessions from China in Lushun (Port Arthur), Guangdong and other areas. From
Korea, the Russians demanded concessions in Masan, a city near Busan (Pusan) and in
Ryongchonpo at the Yalu River. A Russian foothold in Masan would have been a formidable
threat to the Japanese, who countered the Russian threat by borrowing England’s might via theAnglo-Japanese Alliance, concluded in 1902.
The Russo-Japanese War began in 1904. One by one, King Gojong’s clandestine diplomatic
machinations were exposed. After Japan emerged victorious from the war in 1905, the JapanKorea Protectorate Treaty was concluded, which provided for the establishment of the officeof Resident-General. Korea was now a Japanese protectorate.
Prior to the Hague Peace Conference in 1907, King Gojong again engaged in diplomaticmaneuvering (for instance, he sent an emissary to the Hague to lodge a protest against
Japanese actions in Korea) without consulting the Korean government. This behavior angered
both the Japanese and Korean governments. At a Cabinet meeting, the Korean government
decided to hold the king responsible, and forced him to abdicate. In July, Japan and Korea
signed the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty.
However, the annexation created a great deal of resentment among the Korean people.
Irregular military organizations called Righteous Armies sprang up to resist the Japanese;7bitter battles ensued. In 1909 Ito Hirobumi, the most distinguished statesman of the Meiji era,
was assassinated by An Jung-geun, an independence activist.
In 1910, after the Righteous Armies uprisings were quelled, for the most part, through theefforts of Gen. Akashi Motojiro, the annexation went into effect. Terauchi Masatake, thengovernor-general of Korea, running what was essentially a military government, began
implementing reform policies. He made so many radical changes, and ruled with such an iron
hand, that he was at least an indirect cause of anti-Japanese demonstrations referred to as the
March 1 Incident in 1919.
Looking back at these events, we see that Japan’s good will and the dedication of government
administrators were, time and time again, betrayed by Queen Min and King Gojong. That is
why was absolutely necessary – the survival of the Korean people depended upon it.
Saito Makoto, the third governor-general of Korea, shouldered the responsibility of resolving
the problems that had engendered the March 1 Movement. He held that position from 1919 to1931, except for a two-year period (1927-29) during which he was replaced by Yamanashi
Hanzo. Saito succeeded in restoring and preserving public order, establishing local
administrative systems, expanding and improving education, and developing industry. He also
drafted and implemented programs designed to improve transportation and public health.
The main force behind the Righteous Armies uprisings and the March 1 Movement was
Cheondogyo (religion of the heavenly way), which drew from elements of both the Donghak
Movement and Christianity. Saito released all activists after they had served their prison
sentences, none of them longer than three years. He also conducted in-depth discussions with
American missionaries, striving to earn their trust by making, to the extent possible,
improvements they had suggested. One notable gesture was Saito’s attempt to make peacewith Cheondogyo leader Choe Rin by sending him to Ireland to observe the independence
movement raging there at the time.
Today Saito’s government is characterized as “cultural rule,” as compared with Terauchi’s“rule by military force.” He raised educational standards in Korea, establishing Keijo(Gyeongseong) Imperial University (present-day Seoul National University), and significantly
expanding the elementary school system.
The reign of the next governor-general, Ugaki Kazushige, was marked by the bolstering of
infrastructure. Ugaki stimulated the mining and manufacturing industries by applying
strategies that accomplished what was later referred to as the Korean Industrial Revolution. He
also oversaw the development of rural areas.
In a speech delivered in 1931 at the Bank of Tokyo Club, Ugaki said, “When World War I
broke out, partitioned Poland appeared to have been integrated into Germany and Russia. But
as the war dragged on and the situation became untenable, the Poles betrayed both nations.
Though the Poles seemed to be aligned with Germany and Russia, spiritually and materially,
they were not. (...) To prevent something like this happening to Japan, we must transfer someJapanese jobs to Koreans, and create more jobs for them by promoting industrial development.
8

(…) There are plenty of fields that are ripe for such development. What we lack is wisdom
and funds. I appeal to those of you here tonight for your cooperation in this effort.”
It was Ugaki’s ideas that proved to be the driving force behind the evolution of present-day
South Korea. We know that, according to communist teachings, colonies are exploited by thenations that rule them. But according to modern economic theory, colonies and the nations
that rule them are partners in the battle to survive competition with other nations. Unlike theWestern colonizers, the Japanese adopted the latter theory, making huge investments in
education and industrial development.
The result was that when the Special Volunteer System was initiated in 1938, eight times as
many Korean men volunteered as were accepted (in 1943, 57 times as many as accepted).
Many Koreans volunteered for the tokkotai, or suicide squads, and are enshrined at Yasukuni
Jinja. Japan and Korea truly presented a united front in World War II.
After the war, not one of the many nations colonized by the Western powers even approached
the degree of advancement achieved by Korea and Taiwan. Such progress is the greatest
accomplishment of the annexation of Korea, and the greatest source of pride for the Japanese.
Not long ago NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) aired a program that described national
self-determination (one of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points) as an unassailable doctrine.
But when we look for the cause of the current stagnation in the Philippines, we discover that
the US opted to give the Filipinos the right of self-determination. The Americans granted
autonomy to the Philippines, and drastically reduced their investments in the islands.
The Philippines came under American control in 1898, three years after Taiwan was ceded toJapan and 12 years before Korea became a Japanese protectorate. Prior to that, the Philippines
had been ruled by Spain. There had been an infusion of Western culture, and Filipinos werecertainly not less civilized than the inhabitants of Korea or Taiwan.
When the Americans first took over the Philippines, education was their first priority. The
University of the Philippines was founded in 1908, prior to the annexation of Korea. In 1886,
70% of the 2,000 students at the University of Santo Tomas, established during Spanish rule,
were Filipinos.
In 1913, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson was elected president of the US. In keepingwith his belief in national self-determination, Wilson made a policy shift, affording thePhilippines a great deal of autonomy. At that point, American capital ceased flowing into thePhilippines, causing its economy to slump and its educational standards to plummet. Thatsituation persists even today.
Self-determination was a policy designed to write off the Philippines. However, by integrating
Taiwan and Korea, by making them part of Japan, the Japanese were attempting to achievecoexistence and coprosperity. The fruits of Japan’s efforts are unmistakably visible today.
Today in Korea one hears a great deal of criticism about forced labor and forced prostitution
during World War II. But such criticism is inspired by tainted information — distorted or9invented historical fact. Incredibly, former President Roh Moo-hyun championed a law
intended to punish Japanese collaborators retroactively. The law was enacted, and in 2005,
Roh seized the assets of the descendants of Lee Wan-yong because he signed the Japan-Korea
Annexation Treaty, an event that took place 100 years ago! It is burdensome to have aneighbor with such a different set of values. A nation that refuses to look squarely at historicalfact has no future.

10

Timeline: 100 Years After the Annexation of Korea
April 13, 2010
Event

Year

Remarks

1868

Meiji Renovation (establishment of Meiji
government)

1871

Sino-Japanese Amity Treaty; abolition of han(domains) and establishment of the prefecture
systemSigned to facilitate establishment of relations
with Korea (China had sovereignty over
Korea)

1875

Treaty of Saint Petersburg

Defines border between Japan and Russia;
Karafuto (southern Sakhalin) exchanged for
Kuril Islands

1876

Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity (Treaty ofGanghwa)Ends isolation of Joseon-dynasty Korea

1879

Ryukyu han renamed Okinawa Prefecture;
Ryukyu monarchy abolished

Formerly a tributary state of both Japan and
China, the Ryukyus become Japanese
territory1882

Imo Incident (Imo Mutiny)

Massive soldiers’ mutiny provoked by the
Daewongun; Japanese legation attacked

1884

Gapsin CoupAttempted coup led by Kim Ok-gyun andother reformers; suppressed by Chineseintervention requested by Queen Min

1886

Burma made part of British Raj andadministered as a province of India

1887

Vietnam invaded and colonized by France

1887

Cambodia colonized by France andincorporated into French Indochina

1889

Constitution of the Empire of Japan enacted

1894

First Sino-Japanese War breaks out; ends in
March 1895

11

EventYear

Remarks

1894

Donghak Peasant Revolution

Uprising of peasants dissatisfied with
Korean politics; triggers First Sino-Japanese
War

1895

Treaty of Shimonoseki

China agrees to cede Taiwan, grant
independence to Korea, and pay reparations
to Japan

1895

Taiwan comes under Japanese rule

1895

Eulmi Incident

Assassination of Queen Min, wife of 26th
king of Joseon Dynasty

1896

Gojong takes up residence at Russian Legation

26th Joseon King Gojong reigns from
Russian Legation

1897

Korean Empire founded1897

Germany acquires Jiaozhou Bay (Shandong)concession

1898

France acquires Guangzhou Bay (Guangdong)concession

1898

Russia acquires Guandong (Manchuria)
concession

1900

Boxer Rebellion

1901

US invades and captures the Philippines; theislands become an American colony

1902

Anglo-Japanese Alliance concluded

Terminated on 08/17/1923

1904

Russo-Japanese War

02/10/1904 - 09/05/1905

1904

Japan-Korea Convention concluded

Megata Tanetaro appointed consultant to
Korean Finance Dept.; D.W. Stevens ofWashington appointed consultant to Korean
Foreign Office

1904

Indonesia colonized by the Netherlands

Renamed Netherlands East Indies

1905

Treaty of Portsmouth concluded

Japanese control over Korea formallyrecognized

1905

Second Japan-Korea Convention concluded

Known in Korea as the Eulsa Treaty

1905

Ito Hirobumi, first Resident-General of Korea,
installed

1905

France absorbs Laos into French Indochina

06/1900 – 09/1901

12

Year

Event

Remarks

1907

King Gojong, hoping to restore Korean
sovereignty, sends secret emissary to theHague Convention; Gojong forced to abdicate

1907

Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty concluded

1909

Great Britain colonizes Malay peninsula

1909

Ito Hirobumi assassinated at Harbin Railway
Station by An Jung-geun

1910

Japan annexes Korea

1910

Bhutan becomes British protectorate

1912

Emperor Meiji dies

1919

March 1 Incident (pro-independence
demonstrations)

1945

Japan defeated in World War II; new,independent government (South Korea)
established on 08/13/1948 after three years of
US military rule.

13

Japan gains full control of internal
government of Korea

1. BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION

Pre-annexation Korea as Observed by Western Visitors

Isabella Bird, British writer (Korea and Her Neighbours)1
I thought [Seoul] the foulest city on earth till I saw Peking, and its smells themost odious, till I encountered those of Shao-Shing. 2 For a great city and acapital its meanness is indescribable.3
Yet [Seoul] has no objects of art ... no public gardens, no displays ... and notheatres. It lacks every charm possessed by other cities. Antique, it has noruins ... no literature, and lastly an indifference to religion without a parallel
has left it without temples ... .4

1

Isabella Bird, Korea and Her Neighbours: A Narrative of Travel, with an Account of the Recent
Vicissitudes and Present Position of the Country (Rutland, Vermont: C.E. Tuttle, 1986).
2

Shaoxing

3Bird, op. cit., p. 40.

4Ibid., p. 60.

14Charles Dallet, French Catholic missionary (“Introduction to Korea”)5There is nothing national about scholarship in Korea. The books that one reads
are Chinese books; the language one studies is not Korean, but Chinese. The
history one studies is not the history of Korea, but that of China. The
philosophical systems that attract followers are Chinese.6
Diplomas for the imperial examinations are awarded not to the mostknowledgeable or capable candidates, but to those who have the most wealth or
the most powerful protectors.7
Koreans have demonstrated virtually no progress in scientific disciplines, but
their knowledge of matters industrial is even less advanced. In Korea, there has
been no progress whatsoever in the practical arts for centuries.8

5Charles Dallet, Histoire de l’église de Corée, précédée d’une introduction sur l’histoire, lesinstitutions, la langue, les moeurs et coutumes coréenes (Paris: V. Palmé, 1874), based almost entirely on thewritings of Marie Nicolas Antoine Daveluy.
6

Ibid., p. lxxi.

7

Ibid., p. lxxiv.

8

Ibid., p. clxxxii.

15

Charles Dallet
The status of Korean women is shockingly wretched and humble. A Korean
woman is not a companion of her husband. She is his slave ... an instrument ofpleasure or of labor.9

Bishop Marie Nicolas Antoine Daveluy (whose writings form the basis for Dallet’s book)
Korean nobles comport themselves like masters or tyrants. (...) They neverreturn what they have borrowed. When they purchase land or houses from
common people, they seldom pay for them, and there is no official capable ofhalting such thievery.10

9Ibid., p. cxvi.

10

Ibid., pp. cii-ciii.

16Perceptions of Japan’s Annexation of Korea
Do any of the following statements match your perception?
Japanese perceptions of the annexation of Korea
1. It was an encroachment on Korean territory, similar to Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasions in
1592 and 1594.
2. It was the colonialization of Korea, following the colonialization of Taiwan. Japan, theupstart empire, was emulating the Western powers.
3. The First Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War were wars of aggression against
other Asian nations, like the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Greater East Asia War
that followed.
4. Japan must be denounced as an amoral nation for having behaved so badly to Korea, towhich it owed a huge cultural debt.
5. It is the height of hubris for the Japanese to state that their actions benefited the Koreans,
who were robbed of their very nation.
6. Japan inflicted the shame it experienced when Perry’s black ships forced it to open its
doors on Korea, using military might to establish commercial and diplomatic relations
with Korea.
7. The Japanese assassinated the Korean queen, used military force to annex Korea, andkilled Koreans involved in the March 1 Movement.
8. Japan made huge investments in Korea to exploit its new colony.
9. The Japanese abducted Koreans and forced them to work under the worst possible
conditions, treating them like slaves; they also forced Korean women to serve as military
prostitutes.

North and South Korean perceptions of the annexation of Korea
1. The Japanese used military force to annex Korea; conquest was their true goal. The
annexation violated international law.
2. Japanese inroads into Korea destroyed independent Korean efforts toward modernization
before they could bear fruit.

173. Neither the First Sino-Japanese War nor the Russo-Japanese War had any connection with
Korea; both were Japanese wars of aggression in Asia.
4. Japan robbed Korea of everything: its ruler, its sovereignty, its citizens’ lives, land,
resources, language and names (the seven deprivations); Japan was a villainous, nefarious
nation.
5. For Japan, the modernization of Korea was just one facet of a colonialization policy; its
intent was efficient exploitation.
6. The Japanese, considered barbarians within the Chinese sphere of influence, cannot be
forgiven for taking control of Korea, which was part of the civilized world – a little China.
7. The Japanese abducted Koreans and enslaved them; they transported Korean women to
war zones and forced them to serve as military prostitutes.
8. Until we go to war with the Japanese and defeat them, our hatred for them will not
disappear.
The examples listed above are perceptions held by people who dislike the Japanese. For
the facts, see the next section.

18

How the Korean Standard of Living Improved Under Japanese Guidance
Because of 36 years of Japanese imperial control:
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙

∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙

The population of the Korean peninsula doubled
Average life expectancy (24 years) increased by 30 years or more
Slaves (30% of the population) were freed
Child prostitution and the buying and selling of children were abolished
Limits were placed on patriarchal power
Korean women, previously relegated to the status of livestock, were given names
Weights and measures were standardized
The Hangul Korean alphabet was revived; a standard Korean language was establishedA large number of textbooks and other educational materials for Korean language
education were produced or imported
More than 5,200 elementary schools were establishedMore than 1,000 teachers’ colleges and high schools were established
Nearly three million (2,390,000) Koreans enrolled in schools; the literacy rate rose from
4% to 61%
Universities and hospitals were established
Shamanistic medicine was prohibited
Water-supply and sewer systems were built
Open sewers were eliminatedJapanese were subject to conscription, many of them dying in war zones, while Koreans
were drafted for only one year just before the war ended, and required only to serve aslaborers in Japan proper
When Korean soldiers who enlisted died in action, they were enshrined as heroes just as
the Japanese were
Korea’s railways, which covered only 100 kilometers prior to annexation, were extended
to 6,000 kilometers
Many ports were opened; electricity became available throughout the peninsulaCompanies were founded; the barter system was replaced by a currency economy
Residences of two stories or more were built
Koreans were encouraged to bathe
Six hundred million trees were transplanted to bald mountains; reservoirs were built
Half of Korea’s reservoirs were built by the JapaneseRoads, rivers and bridges were improved
Farmland doubled in area
Crop yield increased by a factor of 3 when Koreans were taught modern agricultural
techniques
Korean women learned about modesty, and began to cover their breasts
Before the Koreans knew it, their nation had modernized
19

The Korean Peninsula: Always a Dagger Pointed at Japan’s Side

Mongol invasion of Japan

Battle of HakusukinoeFirst Sino-Japanese War

Russo-Japanese War

Map of Russo-Japanese War

Are you familiar with the argument that Korea has always been a dagger pointed at Japan’sside? In geopolitical terms, it certainly has. Japan’s worries began in ancient times, with thefear of invasion by Tang dynasty troops after Japan (and Baekje 11) were defeated in the Battleof Hakusukinoe (663). Then there were two Mongol incursions (1274 and 1281) during the
Middle Ages. Modern times brought the fateful wars with China (1894-95) and Russia (190405). Even today the threat of a military outburst from North Korea is a cause of anxiety.
11

One of the Three Kingdoms of Korea until 660; the other two were Goguryeo and Silla.

20

After Japan opened its doors to the rest of the world, the Western powers surged forward withcolonialist ambitions. At that time the only completely sovereign nations governed by peopleof the yellow race were Japan, Turkey, Siam (Thailand) and Ethiopia. That was the age ofimperialism, when the use of military and economic might to destroy other nations’civilizations and colonize them seemed just as natural as breathing.
Japan had exactly two options when strong-armed into emerging from 260 years of isolation:
become a colony of a nation ruled by the white race, or reinvent itself as the first yellow
empire. Japan chose the latter.
The first step taken in that direction was the Meiji renovation, accomplished so rapidly that noWestern power ever had the opportunity to invade Japan. The resulting Meiji government
chose “Enrich the nation, strengthen the military” as its slogan, and transformed Japan very
rapidly from a feudal agrarian society into a modern industrial nation. Japan adopted
international law as practiced by the Western powers, and concluded trade agreements,
however unequal, with those powers. The next challenge Japan faced was its closest neighbor,
Korea, which seemed like a dagger pointed in its direction.
Japan’s concerns focused on Korea more than on the Western powers, since the latter weredistant from the Far East. If China or Russia were to gain control of Korea, Japan’s security
would be threatened. As a tributary state of China, Korea was in no position to maintainstability on the Korean peninsula. Even while Japan was closed off from the rest of the world,
the Japanese engaged in trade with China and Korea. Therefore, they were conversant with thesituations in both countries. But the aggressively expansionist policy of Russia, a new empire,
brought fear to the hearts of the Japanese throughout the greater part of the Edo period (16031868).
Symbolic of the situation was the Tsushima Incident, which broke out in 1861. Seeking awinter anchorage, the Russians sent a ship southward and attempted to claim Tsushima(located midway between Japan and Korea) for Russia. For a full six months, they refused tolisten to Japanese protests, and were convinced to leave only when British warships arrived on
the scene.
Once the Japanese learned that might makes right, they sought to ensure the security of Japanby rushing headlong into two fateful wars – one with China and one with Russia.

21

China and Korea in the 19th Century

The decline of the Qing dynasty coincided with the advent of the 19th century. A spate ofmajor setbacks began in 1840, when the Chinese were forced to cede Hong Kong after losing
the First Opium War, and to accept extraterritoriality. They also lost tariff autonomy, and wereforced to grant most-favored-nation status to several of the Western powers.
Anglo-French forces occupied Beijing during the Second Opium War. With Russian diplomat
Nikolai Ignatiev acting as mediator, the Convention of Peking was concluded between Britain
and France, and the Qing emperor’s brother, Prince Gong. According to the terms of theConvention, the port of Tianjin was opened to foreign vessels, the Kowloon peninsula wasceded to Great Britain, and Chinese were permitted to travel abroad.
Li Hongzhang, Superintendent ofTrade for the Northern Ports
The Russian mediator reaped rewards for his country as
well. The Treaty of Aigun (signed in 1858) ceded Outer
Manchuria (present-day Primorsky Krai) to Russia. There
the Russians built the military port of Vladivostok, where
they stationed their Pacific Fleet. This expansionist move
was one of the causes of the Russo-Japanese War.
Commodore Matthew Perry arrived in Japan in 1853. In1858 Japan signed treaties of amity and commerce with
the US, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Russia.
Korea had also been closed, but by the beginning of the
19th century, French missionaries were infiltrating thecountry and proselytizing. The Daewongun at first
tolerated their presence. However, demands from
Confucianists to expel them and concerns about Chinese disapproval convinced him to change
his policy. The Daewongun had nine missionaries and several thousands of their converts
executed. The French reaction was to send nine warships to Korea in 1866, but the Korean
military managed to rise to the occasion and drove them away.
Six months earlier, the General Sherman, an armed merchant steamer, had sailed up theTaedong River and invaded Yanggak Island, near Pyongyang, seeking trade with Korea. The
local officials there intended to supply the ship with food, firewood and water, and then order
it to depart, as was their custom. But the crew of the American ship abducted Yi Hyun-ik, theKorean emissary. Then the General Sherman opened fire on the crowd that had gathered on
the bank of the river, killing more than 10 people; it then attempted to depart.
Enraged onlookers attacked the ship, which ran aground after several days of fighting. Under
the direction of Pak Gyu-su, governor of Pyongyang, the General Sherman was set on fire,22

and everyone on board was killed. In retaliation, the Americans dispatched six warships in
1871, which attacked Ganghwa Island, but they too were repelled by Korean troops.
Korea was a tributary state of China, which meant that it was obligated to pay tribute to China
each year, and to use Chinese era names and the Chinese calendar. In return, the Koreans
could ask China to send reinforcements when Korea was attacked by a foreign nation.

Yeongeun Gate, where Chinese envoys were received

Since the kings of Korea, the subservient state, needed a place to receive emissaries from the
Chinese imperial court, they had the Yeongeun Gate built. During the Qing dynasty, Koreankings greeted Chinese emissaries with the full kowtow (the three-kneelings-and-nine-kowtows
ritual).
When the Imo Incident erupted in 1882, Queen Min asked Qing China for help, in accordancewith the rules governing the tributary relationship. China responded by sending troops. Notlong thereafter, more troops, commanded by Yuan Shikai, arrived and stationed themselves in
Korea.
After the First Sino-Japanese War, the Yeongeun Gate was torn down and replaced by the
Dongnim (Independence) Gate.

23

Western Powers Unleash Exploitative Colonialist Zeal on Asia

Colonies and spheres of influence in Asia in the first half of the 20th century

Spheres of influence in the first half of the 20th century
24

COLONIZATION TIMETABLE
Year

ColonyColonizing nation

1571

Philippines

Spain

1639

India

Great Britain

1842

Hong Kong, China

Great Britain

1863

CambodiaFrance

1886

Burma

Great Britain

1887

Vietnam

France1893

LaosFrance1897

Jiaozhou Bay, China

Germany

1898

Guangzhou Bay, China

France1898

Guangdong province

Russia1898

Philippines

United States

1904

Indonesia

Netherlands

1909

Malay peninsula

Great Britain

1910

BhutanBritish protectorate

1910

Korea

Annexed by Japan

25

2. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA WAS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY
The Debate over Korea and Saigo Takamori
Some scholars claim that Saigo Takamori, a man often referred to as the last true samurai,
believed that Korea must be conquered, and argued in favor of invading that nation. But isthis view accurate?

The truth is that Saigo sincerely hoped for peaceful interchange with Korea.
On three occasions at the beginning of the Meiji era, the Japanese government issued lettersrequesting diplomatic and commercial relations with the Joseon dynasty. But the Korean
government refused to accept them on the grounds that they contained the Chinese charactersfor emperor and imperial edict.
In the minds of the Koreans, inhabitants of a vassal state over which China exercised politicalcontrol, those Chinese characters could only be used by the Qing emperor. From the Korean26perspective, it was rude for a “culturally backward” country like Japan to call its ruler anemperor.
Then in 1871 the Koreans objected to Japan’s calling its diplomatic mission in Busan the“Great Japan Legation.” The Japanese government held a Cabinet meeting, during which
deliberations on that problem and on the Koreans’ refusal to accept the letters from the Meiji
government took place.
Count Itagaki Taisuke’s proffered his opinion: “We need to send troops to Busan to protect
Japanese nationals residing there. I suggest concurrently sending an envoy to negotiate with
the Koreans.”
Saigo’s response: “Sending troops there immediately will serve only to anger the Koreansneedlessly, thus jeopardizing subsequent negotiations. I will be the envoy, and I will go alone.
If I explain our position in good faith, the Korean government will surely understand theimportance of good relations between our two countries. If the negotiations are unsuccessful,and the Koreans become hostile, they might even kill me. That would give you a reason to
exercise military force.”
It is generally believed that Saigo Takamori was the chief advocate of invading andconquering Korea. But that belief is a myth created to conform to a biased historicalperception, i.e., that Japan acted on ambitions of Asian conquest that had been nurtured in theearly days of the Meiji era.

27

Korea Finally Emerges from Isolation
A closed Korea was a threat both to itself and Japan.
In 1876 Japan finally succeeded in convincing Korea to open its doors to the world, after
seven years of negotiation, in accordance with the principles of international law asrecognized in the West. Subsequently, the Western powers followed Japan’s lead andestablished diplomatic relations with Korea.

Woodblock print depicting the signingof the Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity

Count Kuroda Kiyotaka, ambassador plenipotentiary■ The Ganghwa Incident
In September 1875 a Japanese warship, the Un’yo, was measuring the western coastline of
Korea. When it approached Ganghwa Island, where its crew hoped to obtain drinking water,
28

the ship was fired upon by a battery on the island. The Un’yo fired back and then landed
troops, who seized the battery. The next year the Japanese government sent Kuroda Kiyotaka
to Korea, as ambassador plenipotentiary, to negotiate with the Koreans on two matters: (1) the
Korean government’s having refused to accept official letters from the Japanese governmentand (2) the attack on the Un’yo.
■ Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity
The Koreans acknowledged that they had been at fault in both cases. In February 1876 theJapan-Korea Treaty of Amity was concluded between the two nations. Article 1 of that treaty
contains the following language.
Korea is an independent state possessing rights equal to those enjoyed by Japan.

In other words, “Korea is not subordinate to any other nation.” What Japan wanted from
Korea was for it to become independent from China at the earliest possible opportunity. Japanwished to trade with Korea on an equal basis, to enjoy a relationship that would benefit bothnations, and for Japan, Korea and China to form a united front, one that would enable the threenations to successfully oppose invasion by the Western powers.
According to the treaty, Korea would, in addition to opening the ports of Busan, Wonsan andIncheon, recognize Japanese consular jurisdiction in those port cities. This arrangement was inline with precedents established during the Edo era (1603-1868), when there was commerce
between the two nations. Additionally, a Japanese legation would be established in Hanseong(Seoul).
The Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity revived relations between Japan and Korea.

29

The Imo Incident
Why Korean efforts toward independence and modernization encountered their firststumbling block

Yuan Shikai, Chinesecommissioner in Korea

The Daewongun duringconfinement in China

Queen Min

Soldiers from a Japanese-trained modern military unit
■ Imo Incident
30

Korean military units were poorly outfitted. Their equipment was outdated to the point ofbeing virtually useless in defending their nation from foreign invaders. Relatives of Queen
Min (King Gojong’s consort) now controlled the government. Military advisers invited fromJapan formed a modern army and began training the soldiers in Western-style combat.
However, the Daewongun (Gojong’s father and now the former regent) and his followers
rebelled against Japanese-led modernization policies and military administration reforms.
In July 1882 soldiers in the traditionally equipped military units rioted due to a delay in theirsalary payments. The Daewongun took advantage of the incident by attempting to seize thegovernment from the Min family. At his instigation, the soldiers broke into the palace andkilled Min family members who held high positions in the court. Queen Min’s life was also in
danger, but she managed to make a miraculous escape.
Koreans who resented the Japanese joined the rebelling soldiers in attacking the Japanese
legation. More than 30 Japanese (military advisors and local residents) were killed in theattack. Hanabusa Yoshitada, head of the Japanese legation, and 28 members of his staff barely
escaped with their lives.
■ Korea once again in thrall to China
Qing China responded to a request from the Korean government by dispatching troops toKorea, who quelled the riot. The Daewongun, who had briefly taken over the government, wasescorted to China, where he was held for three years. Having witnessed Japanese impotence
during several incidents, the Min family shifted its policy from cultural enlightenment(modernization) to friendship with China. China used the Imo Incident as an excuse to station
troops in Korea, and once again began offering advice to the Min government.
Consequently, the Korean government scrapped its modernization policies, and instead of
striving to become the “independent state” described in the Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity,
reverted to its former status: subservience to China.

31

The Gapsin Coup: China Once Again Blocks Korean Modernization
Attempts

Kim Ok-gyun (pro-reform)

Bak Yeong-hyo (pro-reform)

Kim Ok-gyun asylum in Japan; assassinated in 1894 after having
been lured to Shanghai in a plot concocted by Queen Min.
32

■ The Gapsin CoupTwo years after the Imo Incident, when Korea was once again subservient to China, promodernization patriots like Kim Ok-gyun, Bak Yeong-hyo and Seo Jae-Pil emerged. Thesemen realized that Korea must become independent in order for Japanese-style modernization
to take place. King Gojong, who was unhappy because Korea’s fate was in the hands of China
and the Min clan, supported the independence movement. In December 1884 theIndependence Party executed a coup d’état and formed a new government, with Japanesesupport. Soon that government announced that it would implement the following
revolutionary policies:
1. The king of Korea shall no longer be a king, but an emperor, and shall conduct himself
like the ruler of an independent state.
2. The practice of paying tribute to China shall be abolished.
3. The Cabinet shall be dissolved, the taxation system amended, and the employment ofeunuchs shall cease.
4. An Imperial Household Ministry shall be established; it shall ensure that the shroud ofsecrecy surrounding the king’s court is removed.
But Qing China could not stomach a pro-Japanese government in Korea. In collaboration with
Queen Min, China orchestrated the destruction of the new government and the thwarting ofmodernization efforts. Chinese troops – 1,500 men led by Yuan Shikai – drove Independence
Party members Kim Ok-gyun, Bak Yeong-hyo and their followers out of the palace. Together
with Korean soldiers, the Chinese assaulted the Japanese legation, killing Japanese diplomats
and their guards. The troops also attacked Koreans and Chinese and Japanese residents, killing
everyone they encountered. Kim and Bak escaped to Japan. The new government collapsed inonly three days.
■ China earns Japanese suspicion for not adhering to the Tientsin Convention
In April 1885 Japan concluded the Tientsin Convention with China. According to the treaty,(1) Qing China promised to punish the officers who had been involved in the attack on theJapanese legation, (2) both Japan and China would withdraw military personnel from Korea,and (3) each party promised to inform the other when sending troops to Korea.
However, China did not punish the officers, failed to remove its soldiers from Hanseong, theKorean capital, and continued interfering in Korean government affairs.

33Why Fukuzawa Yukichi Wanted Japan To Disassociate Itself from Asia
Was Fukuzawa disdainful of Asia? By urging Japan to “leave” Asia, was he simply
inventing an excuse to invade Korea, as anti-Japanese elements claim?
The “leaving Asia” argument expresses the despair Fukuzawa felt when China and Korea
did not respond to Japan’s urging that the three nations cooperate in countering invasions
by the Western powers.

Kim Ok-gyun, then a rising star

Fukuzawa Yukichi hoped Korea wouldemulate Japan and renovate

With the dawning of the 19th century, Western encroachment on East Asia reached a peak.
The Russians were exhibiting particularly aggressive behavior. In a southward drive, they
were poised to invade the Korean peninsula.
Political scholar Fukuzawa Yukichi reacted to Russian expansionism as follows: “Westernadvances into Asia are like a rapidly spreading conflagration. To protect the house that is our
34

nation from the fire, we must do more than build it with stone blocks. If our neighbors havewooden houses, they will not escape the flames.”
What he meant was, “If we are to defend ourselves from invasion by the Western powers, it is
not enough for Japan to become a modern nation. We must ensure that Korea and China, ourneighboring states, also modernize. Then we three nations must pool our resources to stave off
invasions by Western forces.”
The philosophy of the Japanese government coincided with Fukuzawa’s. Both supported
modernization efforts by Korean activists. But Qing China, which viewed Korea as a tributarystate, was opposed to Japan’s having any influence on Korea. The Chinese joined withtraditionalist Korean elements in obstructing Korean modernization policies.
Fukuzawa lent his support to reformers like Kim Ok-gyun and other young Koreans studying
in Japan by allowing them to enroll in Keio Gijuku (today Keio University), a school that hehad founded. However, his generosity did not bear fruit – the reformist movement was
suppressed.
Such setbacks caused Fukuzawa to despair, and to argue in favor of leaving Asia.
Nevertheless, he continued to hope that Korea and China would see the light.

35

Why the Japan-Led Korean Modernization Program Failed
Korean politician Kim Hong-jip was painfully aware of the need for modernization.

Donghak Party leader Jeon Bong-jun

Prime Minister Kim Hong-jip■ The Donghak Peasant Revolution
In the spring of 1894 peasants rioted, outraged at the suffering they had endured because of
the corrupt and incompetent government run by Queen Min’s relatives and the yangban(nobles). The peasant soldiers, guerrillas who called themselves the Donghak army, werehighly motivated, so much so that government troops were unable to suppress them. The
Korean court asked its suzerain, Qing China, to help quell the uprising. The Chinese obligedby dispatching troops to Asan. In accordance with the Tsientsin Convention, Japan sent troops
to Hanseong (Seoul).
The Donghak army, which had not anticipated foreign intervention, quickly made peace withgovernment forces. The peace conditions included the following: (1) corrupt bureaucrats andnobles would be punished, (2) arbitrary taxation would be prohibited, (3) land would be
distributed equitably, and (4) bureaucrats would be recruited fairly.
■ Japan-led Gabo reform36Given the deplorable state of the Korean government, the Japanese judged that the peace
conditions would never be met. Therefore, they suggested a drastic overhaul, jointly
supervised by Japan and China, of the Korean government. However, since the Chinese
viewed Korea as a tributary state, they rejected the suggestion.
The Japanese realized that the reforms needed to protect Japanese national security could nottake place until the yoke of tributary status was lifted from Korea’s shoulders. To free Korea,
Japan would have to go to war with China. As soon as hostilities (the First Sino-JapaneseWar) commenced in July 1894, the Japanese asked the enterprising Kim Hong-jip to form a
Cabinet and begin reforming Korea’s government. To complement concessions already madeto Donghak demands, Kim made the following reforms: (1) elimination of imperial
examinations, (2) establishment of courts and police departments, (3) prohibition against
human trafficking, and (4) abolition of guilt-by-association laws whereby relatives ofcriminals were punished along with the criminals themselves. These were sweeping reforms
intended to eradicate feudalism.
Unfortunately, pro-Russian yangban who opposed the reforms gained the upper hand in 1896.
They staged a coup d’état and amid the ensuing chaos, Kim Hong-jip was clubbed to death bya Korean mob.

37

The Real Enemies of Korean Independence and Modernization: The
Daewongun and Queen Min

Korean patriots rose up and fought for independence and modernization for their country in1882 (the Imo Incident), 1884 (the Gapsin Coup) and 1894 (the Donghak Peasant Revolution).
However all their efforts were for naught. They failed because of a power struggle in thepalace that totally ignored the national interest, an unwavering conviction that the right thing
to do was serve mighty China (with which Korean minds had been poisoned), and Chinese
determination to keep Korea in its thrall.
When Cheoljong, the 25th Joseon king, died in 1863, his family chose the 11-year-old Gojong
as the next king. But it was Yi Ha-eung, the boy’s father, who ran the government as the
Daewongun, or regent. In 1858 Gojong married Queen Min; unlike the rather weak-willed
Gojong, his consort was shrewd beyond her years. The struggle between the unscrupulous,cunning Daewongun and Queen Min (who earned the hatred of the Korean people), was themain cause of the strife that plagued Korea until 1895, when she was assassinated.
In 1873 Queen Min dismissed the Daewongun on the grounds that King Gojong had reachedadulthood, and attempted to seize the reins of government. But she did not succeed until 1882,
when the Imo Incident broke out.
Traditional military units, angered by discrimination against them (and favoritism shown to
the modern forces supported by the Japanese), attempted a coup d’état intended to install the38

Daewongun as the ruler. Queen Min managed to escape to the mountains; from her refuge shesent an envoy on a secret mission to China seeking help. Qing China responded by sending
4,000 troops, who subdued the revolting soldiers, abducted the Daewongun and transported
him to China.
Subsequently Queen Min continued to rely on China, but when Japan emerged victorious fromthe First Sino-Japanese War, she attempted a rapprochement. But when she discovered thatJapan’s position was weak (having fallen victim to the Triple Intervention), the queen pinned
her hopes on Russia. Her subjects came to loathe her not only because she was responsible forthe deaths of many Korean patriots, but also because she dabbled in complex international
intrigue. Additionally, she misused government funds to the point of bankrupting Korea,
making that nation the laughingstock of the international community. She was finallyassassinated. It is truly unfortunate that Gojong was so spineless. But it was the Japanese whobrought the Daewongun back to Korea after a three-year period of confinement there.

39

The First Sino-Japanese War: Japanese Blood Is Shed for Korean
Independence

Progress of the War

Matsushima, flagship of the Combined Fleet

Signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki

By 1894 the Donghak Peasant Revolution had gained so much momentum that the Korean
government could not suppress it. The court asked Qing China to send troops. China
immediately sent 2,400 soldiers. In accordance with the Convention of Tsientsin the Japanesealso dispatched soldiers, 4,400 of them. The uprising was quelled and the ringleaders executed.
40But neither the Japanese nor the Chinese would withdraw their troops from Korea, resulting ina standoff, which culminated in the battle of Pungdo. Prior to the commencement of hostilities,
the Japanese had interceded with Queen Min and other conservatives, attempting to convince
them of the necessity of ordering the withdrawal of Chinese troops, whose presence impeded
the progress of Korean self-determination and independence and the dissolution of Korea’s
tributary status. Unfortunately, their arguments fell on deaf ears. Therefore, the Japanese
drove Min family court officials out of the government, and installed the Daewongun as headof a new government. Then they had the Daewongun order Chinese troops out of Korea; on
August 1 Japan declared war on China.
■ Treaty of Shimonoseki and the Triple Intervention: Japan endures hardship while waiting
for the right opportunity to exact vengeance
The Imperial Rescript, the instrument whereby Japan declared war on Qing China, states as
the goals of the conflict Korean independence and reforms, and peace throughout East Asia.
Battles were fought on sea and on land, with Japan dominating throughout. The Japanese
occupied the Liaodong peninsula, and in April of the following year a peace treaty was
concluded. However, six days after the treaty was signed, Russia, France and Germany
pressured Japan to impose less stringent conditions on defeated China, claiming that those set
forth in the treaty were too harsh.
Japan had no choice but to comply with this insulting demand, and returned the Liaodong
peninsula. However, the same treaty gave Japan Taiwan and reparations in the form of eight
million kilograms of silver (the equivalent of ¥400 billion yen at today’s values), and madeJapan the leading power in Asia.
Meanwhile, once the Western powers had wrested territory from Japan, they proceeded toacquire leaseholds in China. Russia gained the Liaodong peninsula, Germany, Jiaozhou Bay;
Great Britain, Weihaiwei in Shandong province and Kowloon; and France, Guangzhou Bay.
Consequently, Qing China was forced to recognize its only tributary state, Korea, as anindependent nation, while the Western powers carved up Chinese territory, forcing China intoa semi-colonial existence.
The 10-month-long conflict cost Japan ¥200 million. Two hundred forty thousand soldiers
were mobilized; there were 13,000 casualties (including 1,900 men killed in action).

41

Who Really Killed Queen Min?

Daewongun

Assassination of Queen Min as
fictionalized by Korea

Queen MinU Beom-seon

King Gojong andhis son Sunjong

Miura Goro,
resident minister

At the Independence Hall of Korea located in Cheonan, there is a tableau with life-size wax
figures allegedly recreating the assassination of Queen Min. Nearby is a stele engraved with“Site of the assassination of Empress Myeongseong” (Myeongseong is Queen Min’s
posthumous name.) In front of the stele are two murals. They depict two Japanese menbrandishing swords in Queen Min’s direction, as if about to murder her. Anyone looking at
the murals would know that the Koreans think the assassins were Japanese. But were they?
In 1895 a rumor spread that an army unit trained by the Japanese was going to be disbanded
and replaced by an American-trained defense unit. To Ambassador Miura Goro, who had
arrived in September, the rumor was very worrisome. The Daewongun and the reformers, who
42were concerned about Queen Min’s overtures to Russia, were equally concerned; they began
to contemplate ways of eliminating the queen and her followers.
On October 7 the Japanese-trained unit received orders to disband and disarm. Instead ofobeying the orders, the soldiers revolted, and together with Japanese sympathizers broke into
the palace and murdered Queen Min. After the assassination, the Daewongun once again took
up the reins of government. He stripped the former queen of her royal status and declared her
a commoner. This coup is referred to as the Eulmi Incident.
Since the international community suspected that the Japanese ambassador was complicit in
the assassination, the Japanese government had Miura and other Japanese nationals
transported to Japan and tried at the Hiroshima District Court. Back in Korea, however, Gen.
Yi Chu-hae came forward to take responsibility for the assassination; he and two other
Koreans were executed, and the case was considered closed. The Hiroshima District Court
dismissed the case against Ambassador Miura et al. due to lack of evidence, since the guilty
party had been determined in a Korean court.
Gojong, who was present when the assassination took place, testified that “it was my disloyal
servants who killed the queen.” His son, Sunjong, testified, “I saw my mother’s enemy, U
Beom-seon, kill her.” U admitted to the crime.
In 1903 U Beom-seon was assassinated in Kure, Hiroshima, by a killer hired by Sunjong.

43

3. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA WAS NOT COLONIALIST POLICY
Russia Attempts To Hijack Japanese Achievements in Korea

Japan viewed from Russia: The Russians fully intended to invade Japan, building militaryports at Ryongchonpo and Masanpo, in addition to Port Arthur. They did so knowing fullwell that they were violating the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
■

Royal confinement at Russian Legation (reckless Russian-Korean act)

In February 1896 the Russians mobilized 120 sailors from one of their ships anchored atIncheon. The men abducted King Gojong, under orders; he was forced to conduct state affairs
from the Russian Legation. This part of his reign is referred to as “royal confinement at theRussian Legation.” During his residence there, Korea ceded important interests to Russia.
This extraordinary situation was resolved in February 1897, when King Gojong returned to theroyal palace after consultations between [Resident Minister] Komura Jutaro and KarlIvanovich Weber in Korea, and between special envoy Yamagata Aritomo and Prince Alexei
Lobanov. Gojong proceeded to change the name of Korea to Empire of Korea, and elevate his44rank from king to emperor. Gojong gave a new name (Gwangmu, or “shining courage”) to thecurrent era. He also demolished the Yeongeun Gate, where Chinese envoys had been received,
replacing it with the Independence Gate, in commemoration of Korea’s independence.
■

Fall of the Qing dynasty

In 1895, when Qing China was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War, the Western powers
descended on China like vultures. Thanks to the Triple Intervention of 1895, Russia leased the
Liaodong peninsula, and other European nations began dissecting China, with Great Britain
taking Weihaiwei and Kowloon; Germany, Jiaozhou Bay; and France, Guangzhou Bay.
■

Russian threat to Japan

Additionally, Russia captured the right-of-way for a southern Manchurian branch of theChinese Eastern Railway, extending from Harbin to Dalian and Port Arthur. The Russians also
gained leaseholds in Masan (near Busan in the southern part of the Korean peninsula) andattempted to open military ports there.
■

Anglo-Japanese Alliance aids JapanThe threat to Japan would have been immense if the Russians had succeeded in building a
military port near Busan. The Japanese decided to look to the British as an alliance partner.
The draft of an agreement issued by Great Britain in 1901 stated that the governments of GreatBritain and Japan wished to maintain the status quo and general peace in East Asia. Bothnations promised to maintain the territorial integrity of China, and agreed that Korea was not
to be taken over by any other nation. However, the Japanese had wanted a guarantee
protecting their special rights in Korea, which did not appear in the draft.
In a confidential agreement, the Japanese requested a naval alliance (citing Russia as thetheoretical enemy nation) and a guarantee of their special rights in Korea. The negotiations
were difficult, but in January 1902 an agreement was reached. Article 1 states that both parties,“having mutually recognized the independence of China and Korea, declare themselves to be
entirely uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies in either country. Having in view, however,their special interests of which those of Great Britain relate principally to China, while Japan,
in addition to the interests which she possesses in China, is interested in a peculiar degree
politically as well as commercially and industrially in Korea, the High Contracting Parties
recognise that it will be admissible for either of them to take such measures as may be
indispensable in order to safeguard those interests if threatened either by the aggressive actionof any other Power, or by disturbances arising in China or Korea, and necessitating theintervention of either of the High Contracting Parties for the protection of the lives andproperty of its subjects.”1212

For the complete text of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, see http://www.jacar.go.jp/nichiro/uk-

japan.htm.

45

For Japan, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance provided the legal underpinning for military financing,eliminated the possibility of French participation in a war with Russia, paved the way for
military aid from Great Britain, and strengthened efforts to prevent further Russian expansion.
Two years later, in February 1904, hostilities commenced between Japan and Russia, fromwhich Japan emerged victorious.

46

Korea Awakens After 15 Centuries of Subservience

The establishment of the Korean Empire

Emperor Gojong in the days of
the Korean Empire

King Gojong during
the Joseon dynasty

Dongnim (Independence) Gate:
Pillars from the former gate (Yeongeun Gate),a symbol of subservience, remain

Yeongeun Gate: emissaries of the Qing emperor werereceived here when Korea was a tributary state of China

The unusual situation that had the Korean king conducting affairs of state at the Russian
Legation lasted approximately one year. It ended in 1897 when, thanks to the diplomacy of
Resident Minister Komura Jutaro and special envoy Yamagata Aritomo, Gojong resumed
residence in the palace.
Some of the terms of the resulting Komura-Weber Memorandum were:
1. The Korean king would return to the royal palace.
47

2. Suitable persons would be recommended for official positions.
3. Japanese troops would protect telegraph lines between Hanseong (Seoul) and Busan.
4. Japanese and Russian military units of equal strength would be stationed in Hanseong,
Busan and Wonsan.
5. Financial reforms, to be approved by both Japan and Russia, would be made.
6. Joint supervision of Korean military and police organizations
7. Recognition of Japanese-owned telegraph cables and approval of Russian constructionof telegraph lines between Hanseong and the Russian border.
After Gojong returned to the royal place, he proclaimed Korea an empire and himself its
emperor.
He changed the era name to Gwangmu, and tore down the Yeongeun Gate, a symbol of
Korea’s former tributary status, replacing it with the Independence Gate.
After 15 centuries, Korean subservience to China had come to an end. Korea began taking its
first steps as an independent nation.
What would have happened if Japan had not intervened, and the abnormal relationshipbetween Russia and Korea had been allowed to continue? Korea would, without a doubt, havebeen absorbed by Russia, and languished under Stalin’s yoke throughout the Russian
Revolution. We should take pride in the fact that Japan helped Korea achieve independence
and liberated Korea from Russia.

48Victory in Russo-Japanese War Creates a New World Power: Japan

Japan, basking in the limelight after having disposed of the much-feared Russian Empire(polar bear in illustration), now strikes fear in the hearts of the Western powers

The Russo-Japanese War was waged between the Japanese and Russian empires between
February 1904 and September 1905. Its battles were fought primarily in Korea and southern
Manchuria.
After the Triple Intervention and the Boxer Rebellion, Japan’s victory prevented the Russian
Empire, with its footholds in Manchuria, from taking control of Korea. It also helped ensure
Japanese national security and protect Japanese interests in Korea.
Aligned with Japan were the British Empire, the United States and the Ottoman Empire.
Siding with Russia were the French and German empires. Qing China declared neutrality early
on. The Korean Empire also declared neutrality, but the Iljinhoe (Progress) Party, proJapanese intellectuals and the yangban supported Japan. The ruling class, including Gojong
and pro-independence intellectuals, sided with Russia.

49

At negotiations between Japan and Russia commencing in August 1903, the Japanese
proposed exchanging their interests in Manchuria with Russian interests in Korea, thereby
bringing the Korean peninsula under Japanese control and Manchuria under Russian control.
But the Russians, convinced that Japan could never be a threat to their mighty empire, refused
outright. Since it would be easier for the Russians to move troops stationed in Europe to the
Far East once the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed, Japanese public opinion wasleaning toward going to war with Russia before completion. On February 6, 1904, Komura
Jutaro, Japan’s foreign minister, summoned Ambassador Roman Rosen to the Foreign
Ministry and announced that Japan was breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia. On
February 23 the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904 was concluded, which afforded the Japanese
freedom of military movement in Korea. Contrary to the Western powers’ prognostications,
the Japanese dominated the Russo-Japanese War, and after the following events had transpired,emerged victorious.
May 1904
August 1904
January 1905
March 1905
May 1905
September 1905

Japanese defeat Russians in Battle of Yalu River
Japanese win Battle of the Yellow Sea and Battle off Ulsan, thus
gaining control of the seas
Port Arthur falls to the JapaneseJapanese win Battle of Mukden
Japanese win Battle of Tsushima; Russia’s Baltic Fleet destroyed
Japan and Russia sign Treaty of PortsmouthJapan’s victory greatly heartened people of the yellow race whose lives were controlled by
one Western power or another. The Russo-Japanese War was the first step toward theannexation of Korea for the benefit of the Koreans, people who had consistently betrayed
Japan.

50

Megata Tanetaro: Financial Advisor Who Rescued Korea from the Brink ofBankruptcy

Baron Megata Tanetaro (1853-1926)
Politician, civil servant, legal scholar, judge, attorney,
member of the House of Peers, envoy to the League of
Nations, advisor to the Privy Council and financial
advisor to the Korean government. Megata was one of
the founders of Senshu College (today Senshu
University) and of the Tokyo Music School (today part ofTokyo University of the Arts)

The Japan-Korea Convention, concluded in 1904, appointed Megata Tanetaro, then head of
the Finance Ministry’s Tax Bureau, financial advisor to the Korean government.
Megata’s first surprise when he assumed his post was the irresponsible manner in which the
Korean finances were administered. The financial administration procedures introduced
during the Gabo reforms, and regulations governing public administration now existed inname only. There might as well not have been a budget, and there were, of course, nofinancial statements.
The most pressing task was the separation of court expenses and public finances. Court
officials would arbitrarily demand funds, claiming that His Majesty had requested them. But asolution was found where it was least expected.
One day a request came to Megata directly from the emperor: “Court expenses amount to twomillion yen, but I have access to only 20,000 yen.13 I would like that amount to be increasedslightly. Furthermore, the court officials’ salaries are too low.”
Not long before the royal request, Megata had discovered that bureaucrats were paid very
poorly. He announced that bureaucrats’ salaries would be doubled to stop rampant corruption.
Megata did not mention any increase in the remuneration for court officials. However, when
13

¥2 billion at today’s values

51

Emperor Gojong heard about his announcement, he asked for more money for himself and thecourt officials as well. Now Megata had an opportunity to state his opinions about court
expenditures. With the exception of contingency funds, he increased court expenditures by
80% to ¥1.3 million, thus succeeding in separating court expenses and public finances.
Megata’s next task was reforming the currency system. At the time a barter system was ineffect in Korea. The monetary system was still at an embryonic stage there. In circulation
were coins denominated in mun (then the main currency). Anyone planning a long trip or amajor purchase would fill straw bags with coins, which would then have to be transported onhorseback.
The decision was made to mint 2.5-sen copper-nickel coins. However, until then, thegovernment had always sold minting rights to high-ranking officials. The result was a wide
variety of styles (all of poor quality) that ended up being sold at prices far below face value.
Megata created, for Korea, a currency system equivalent to the one in place in Japan, using a
Japanese bank, the Daiichi Ginko. He also improved finances by abolishing an antiquatedbills-of-exchange system, and establishing a new bills-of-exchange union. The union would
guarantee bills issued by its members.
His contribution to Korean modernization was huge: not only did Megata restructure the
Korean financial system, he also established budgets and a financial reporting system, a tax
collection agency, an irrigation cooperative system, and financial cooperatives.

52

Why Japan Took Charge of Korean Diplomatic Affairs

Ito Hirobumi,
Gojong, author of his own downfall
Japanese statesman who opposed annexation■ Russo-Japanese War and Japan-Korea relations: the road to annexation
Date

Event

January 21, 1904

Korea declares neutrality

February 6, 1904

Hostilities between Japan and Russia commence

February 23, 1904

Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904 concluded

August 22, 1904

Japan-Korea Convention concluded

March 26, 1905

Gojong’s secret missive to Russian emperor discovered

July 1905

Gojong sends secret envoy to Russia and France

September 5, 1905

Russo-Japanese War ends

October 1905

Gojong sends secret envoy to the US and Great Britain

November 17, 1905

Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty concluded

December 21, 1905

Office of Resident-General of Korea established

June 1907

Gojong sends secret envoy to the Hague

July 20, 1907

Gojong abdicates because of secret envoy incident

July 24, 1907

Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907 concluded

53

When the Koreans realized that war between Japan and Russia was inevitable, they
immediately declared neutrality, realizing that the Korean empire was the cause of the conflict.
Japanese Foreign Minister Komura Jutaro, who was making a strenuous effort to maintainpeaceful and friendly relations with Russia, rejected the Korean declaration, maintaining thatthe time was ill chosen for talk of war and neutrality.
Shortly after war broke out, the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904, whereby Korea guaranteed
Japanese troops freedom of movement within Korea, and Japan took on the responsibility ofdefending the Korean empire and the imperial court, was concluded.
In August 1904, after Japan defeated Russia in the first battle of the war, the Japan-Korea
Convention was signed. There were provisions in this treaty for the assignment of diplomaticand financial advisors selected by Japan to Korea. An American named Durham Stevens waschosen as the diplomatic advisor due to the presumption that he would be effective innegotiations with the Western powers. Once Japan had control over Korean foreign affairs andfinance, the only remaining Japanese objective was the formation of a sound, pro-Japanese
government.
Since the Japanese were experiencing difficulties governing Taiwan, Ito Hirobumi and Sone
Arasuke, the second Resident-General of Korea, were adamantly opposed to direct Japaneserule over Korea. They argued that the Russo-Japanese War had emptied the nation’s treasury,leaving no funds to invest in Korea.
But in February 1905 the Korean emperor, who strongly disapproved of the Japan-Korea
Convention, sent a secret envoy to Russia. This was a blatant act of betrayal, since Japan andRussia were at war. To make matters worse, the Japanese discovered that between July andOctober Gojong had sent secret envoys to Russia, France, the US and Great Britain. Intending
to make Korea a Japanese protectorate, the Japanese began lobbying the Western powers withthat goal in mind. Assuming that the Koreans had no intention of honoring the Japan-Korea
Convention, whereby the Korean empire was required to consult with the Japanese
government about diplomatic matters, the Japanese demanded that the Koreans sign the JapanKorea Protectorate Treaty, which gave Japan total control over Korean diplomacy.
In November 1905 the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty was concluded; Korea was now a
Japanese protectorate. Ito Hirobumi was installed as the first Resident-General of Korea.

54

Duplicitous Gojong Betrays Japan: The Hague Secret Envoy Affairs

Daily newspaper
describing activities
Second Hague
Conference

The Second Hague Conference

In June 1907 Korean Emperor Gojong secretly dispatched envoys to the Second Hague
Conference. The envoys presented an appeal for the restoration of Korean diplomatic
representation. However, they were unable to accomplish their mission because the great
powers would not allow them to participate in the conference.
The claims Gojong made in the personal message he entrusted to the envoys follow:

55

1. I have never approved the treaty (Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty) signed on November
17, 1907 by the Japanese emissary and Park Che-soon, nor did I affix the Seal of the State
thereto.
2. I objected to Japan’s distributing the Treaty without consulting me.
3. I have not transferred the rights of the independent Korean empire to any other nation.
4. An unnecessary treaty relating to diplomatic rights has been forced upon me; I have notrecognized any clauses whatsoever relating to Korean domestic affairs.
5. I have not authorized the stationing of a resident-general in Korea, nor have I given
permission to a foreigner to exercise my imperial rights.
6. I hope that the nations of the world join together with me to protect Korean diplomatic
rights.
Not only Japan was outraged by Gojong’s incorrigible, traitorous duplicity. The Korean
Cabinet too was up in arms about his irresponsible behavior, and demanded that he atone for it
by abdicating. Ito Hirobumi, equally outraged by Gojong’s treachery, supported the Cabinet’s
decision. Gojong was compelled to abdicate.
Precisely because the great powers recognized the legality of the Japan-Korea Protectorate
Treaty, they refused to hear the Korean empire’s appeal at the Second Hague Conference.

56

Lee Wan-Yong: Hero or Traitor? Korea’s Last Prime Minister and theJapan-Korea Treaty of 1907

Prime Minister Lee Wan-yong
Lee Wan-yong (Yi Wan-yong) 1856-1926
A politician active during the waning days of
the Joseon dynasty, Lee helped pave the way
for the annexation of Korea. He passed theimperial examination in 1853, and worked in
the US from 1887 to 1891. Soon after his
return to Korea he came to the fore as apolitician with an international outlook. The
Japanese bestowed the title of Count on him
in 1910, and that of Marquess in 1920. In
1926 Lee was awarded the Grand Cordon of
the Supreme Order of the Chrysanthemum,
Japan’s most prestigious decoration. He was
the only Korean who received it prior toWorld War II.

Today in Korea former Prime Minister Lee Wan-yong is reviled as one of the five “Eulsa
traitors” for having supported the signing of the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty and thesubsequent Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. The current government has designated him acollaborator with the Japanese, and confiscated land owned by his descendants.
But Lee was certainly not categorically pro-Japanese. After Queen Min’s assassination in
1895, he joined forces with pro-Russian and pro-American elements in a plot to overthrow the
Daewongun’s government (the Eulmi Incident), which ended in failure. Lee also wasinstrumental in King Gojong’s escape to and confinement in the Russian Legation in 1896.
After toppling Kim Hong-Jip’s government, he was appointed foreign minister. In 1901 Lee
sided with pro-American elements attempting to suppress pro-Japanese activists. In otherwords, he was consistently involved in anti-Japanese activities.
But in 1904, when the Russo-Japanese War broke out, he began to show more sympathy forJapan. In 1907 he assumed the post of prime minister, thanks to the recommendation of
Resident-General Ito Hirobumi. When Gojong dispatched a secret envoy to the Hague, Leesided with Japan. Together with Ito, Lee adopted a harsh stance toward Emperor Gojong, who
habitually opposed Japan. Gojong was forced to abdicate, and Lee was instrumental in the
conclusion of the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907.

57

Having won both the First Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars, Japan had acquired agood deal of prestige in the eyes of the Western powers. It was this new status that convinced
Lee Wan-yong to cast his fate and that of his nation with Japan. From the speech he deliveredon the occasion of annexation, we can sense his anguish.
“Given the Korean race’s current level of competence, there is absolutely no possibility of
Korea’s preserving its dignity as an independent nation. Our nation’s ruin is inevitable. Only
annexation can save us from that fate, and there is no nation more suitable than Japan as anannexation partner. Europeans and Americans view Koreans as pigs or dogs, but the Japaneseare different. I find it annoying that they attempt to impose their moral code on us and have atendency to nag, but they do this because they view us as their peers. Japan is the only nationthat can guide Korea and enable us to participate in the civilization of all mankind. There is noother way for the Korean race to escape from the pig sty and enjoy the prosperity to which, ashuman beings, we are entitled.”14

14

Nagoshi Futaranosuke, Nikkan 2000 nen no shinjitsu (The truth about the 2,000-year-old relationshipbetween Japan and Korea) (Osaka: Kokusai Kikaku, 1997), p. 303.

58

How the Assassination of Ito Hirobumi by Terrorist An Jung-Geun
Affected Korea

Bullets from An Jung-geun’s gun did not kill Ito Hirobumi. The two fatal shots were fired
from a French cavalry gun wielded by an assailant on the second floor of Harbin Station. A
total of 13 shots were fired, but only Ito and a Japanese aide were hit. None of the five shots
fired by An struck Ito. We still do not know for certain who killed Ito. If it turns out that An
Jung-geun was not the killer, then what action will the Koreans take?

Ito Hirobumi in Harbin on October
26, 1909, immediately before he wasassassinated; he was to meet with
Vladimir Kokovtsov, Russian financeminister (far right)

Korean stamp commemorating
An Jung-geun

On October 26, 1909 at Harbin Station, terrorist An Jung-geun aimed his gun at Ito Hirobumi,
then 68 years old, and fired. Ito had just arrived there for a meeting with Vladimir Kokovstov,the Russian finance minister.
At that time Christian missionaries from Europe and the US, who harbored racial prejudiceagainst the Japanese, were inciting their Korean converts to engage in anti-Japanese activities.
One of those converts (to Roman Catholicism) was An Jung-geun. As Japan took control of
Korea, An joined one of the militias referred to as “righteous armies.” He never awakened to
the realities of the international situation, i.e., that the Western powers were preparing topounce on the Far East, and that Korea was capable of neither countering Western
encroachment nor surviving as an independent nation. Instead, An continued to engage in59

terrorist acts, without once stopping to look at Korea with a critical eye. His loathing of Japanand Ito Hirobumi never diminished.
The assassination sent shock waves through Japan and Korea. Fearing retaliation from Japan,
the Koreans (including the government) began leaning toward annexation, an eventuality that
had been talked about for some time. Japanese public opinion too was largely in favor ofannexation. Ironically, An Jung-geun’s crime, committed without a true understanding of theinternational climate, accelerated annexation (ironically, because Ito opposed annexation).
Emperor Gojong, who had abdicated when the Japanese discovered he had sent a secret envoy
to the Hague, spoke about the assassination as follows:
The loss of Ito is a calamity, not only for our nation, not only for Japan, but also for the entire
Far East. I am sorely ashamed that the man who committed this heinous act is a Korean. The
Japanese emperor has lost an irreplaceable elder statesman.
That notwithstanding, His Majesty has been gracious enough to agree to continue to educate
the crown prince of the nation that spawned the brute who felled Ito. How can I possibly show
my appreciation to the Japanese imperial family, to whom I owe a debt higher than a mountainand deeper than the sea?15

It is extremely likely that Korean resistance to annexation lessened when the populace heard
Gojong’s impassioned words.
On February 14, 1910, prior to annexation, An Jung-geun was executed. Today the South
Korean government celebrates this terrorist, referring to him as a patriot and the savior of his
nation. Lee Wan-yong, who was instrumental in Korea’s modernization, with considerable
Japanese help, is condemned as a traitor. Which was the true patriot? Will the day come when
the Korean people can contemplate this question dispassionately?

15

Report entitled Ito ko sonan ni tsuite no Kankoku kyuchu no moyo (Korean court’s reaction to theassassination of Ito Hirobumi) prepared by Wakabayashi Raizo, Korean police superintendent-general.

60Iljinhoe: Annexation Advocate

Yi Yong-gu

Song Byeong-jun

Bongyeongmun (Welcome Gate) built by
Iljinhoe to commemorate the annexation

Iljinhoe (literally, “progress society”), a group that emerged in 1904, at the beginning of theFirst Sino-Japanese War, was an outgrowth of the Donghak movement. At the time, it was thelargest political group in Korea, with several million members. Its objectives were political
reform and democracy. The group was in favor of a Japan-Korea military alliance to stave off
Russian encroachment, prevent the Western powers from gaining control over Asia, andfacilitate a Korean rebirth.
One of its leaders, Yi Yong-gu had read political activist Tarui Tokichi’s Great Asian Union,
and was particularly inspired by the following passage: “To compete with the Western nations,
there is no choice for the Asian peoples but to pool their resources and strength and form a
coalition headed by Japan.”16 Another Iljinhoe leader, Song Byeong-jun, had become involvedin the pro-Japanese movement in 1875, when he was employed as an aide by politician
Kuroda Kiyotaka on the occasion of the latter’s traveling to Korea to negotiate a treaty
concerning the opening of ports (the Treaty of Ganghwa). Song was an avuncular sort famousfor his chivalry.
In December 1909 Iljinhoe drafted a manifesto demanding a merger between Japan and Korea,
and sent it to Emperor Sunjong, to Sone Arasuke, the second resident-general of Korea, and to
Prime Minister Lee Wan-yong. In the manifesto, Yi Yong-gu included the following appeal,
which he said represented the hopes of a million members, for the formation of a federationthat would put Korea and Japan on an equal footing.

16

Tarui Tokichi, Daito gapporon (Great Asian union), 1893.

61

Thanks to Japan’s having expended an enormous amount of funds andcountless human lives during the Sino-Japanese War, Korea is now an
independent nation. Furthermore, by fighting the Russo-Japanese War, inwhich Japan incurred 20 times more casualties than we suffered in theDonghak Peasant Revolution, Japan saved Korea from being swallowed up by
Russia, and preserved peace in the Far East. We are at fault for failing to
express our gratitude to Japan. Instead, we made overtures to several othernations. Consequently, we lost our right of diplomatic representation, andwere forced to sign a protectorate treaty. It is difficult to predict what sort ofdanger may come our way, but whatever it is will be our fault as well. We
must appeal to our emperor and to the emperor of Japan to help us develop agovernment and society that will enable us to become first-class citizens.
On August 22, 1910, the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was concluded. Soon thereafter, theGovernor-General’s Office ordered Iljinhoe to disband.

62

The Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty (Concluded on August 22, 1910)

The annexation was brought about not by declaration, but by treaty.

Emperor Meiji

Emperor Sunjong

Article 1
His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to His Majesty
the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea.
Article 2
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the cession mentioned in the preceding article andconsents to the complete annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan.
Article 3
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan will accord to their Majesties the Emperor and ex-Emperorand His Imperial Highness the Crown Prince of Korea and their consorts and heirs such titles,
dignity, and honor as are appropriate to their respective ranks, and sufficient annual grants will
be made for the maintenance of such titles, dignity and honor.
Article 463

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan will also accord appropriate honor and treatment to themembers of the Imperial House of Korea and their heirs other than those mentioned in thepreceding article, and the funds necessary for the maintenance of such honor and treatment
will be granted.
Article 5
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan will confer peerage and monetary grants upon those
Koreans who, on account of meritorious services, are regarded as deserving such special
recognition.
Article 6
In consequence of the aforesaid annexation the Government of Japan assume the entire
government and administration of Korea, and undertake to afford full protection for the
persons and property of Koreans obeying the laws there in force to promote the welfare of all
such Koreans.
Article 7
The Government of Japan will, so far as circumstances permit, employ in the public service ofJapan in Korea those Koreans who accept the new regime loyally and in good faith and whoare duly qualified for such service.
Article 8This treaty, having been approved by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan and His Majesty theEmperor of Korea, shall take effect from the date of its promulgation.17

17

http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/kore1910.htm

64

Korean “Illegitimate Annexation” Argument Soundly Defeated at
International Conference

Professor James Crawford

Sunjong, Korea’s last emperor

Prime Minister Lee
Wan-yong

Document surrendering sovereignty over Korea to Japan (given to Lee Wan-yong by
Emperor Sunjong)

Let Korea brandish its claim that the annexation was unlawful! Japan must not apologize.

65About 10 years ago, a debate raged among Japanese and Korean scholars over the validity of
the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. The Koreans argued that the treaty was unlawful because
it was forced on them. When there was no clear victor even after two conferences, scholars ofother nations were invited to join the discussion so that a resolution could be reached.
“A Reconsideration of the Japanese Annexation of Korea from the Historical and International
Law Perspectives,” an international conference, was hosted by the Harvard University Asia
Center on November 16-17, 2001. The gathering was funded by an international interchangefoundation affiliated with the Korean government and organized by Korean scholars. Its
attendees hailed from the US, the United Kingdom, Japan and Korea.
,
Cambridge University Professor James Crawford, a specialist in international law, challenged
the Korean claim. He said that at the time of the annexation, it was not rare for one country toassume control of another if the latter could not survive on its own, from the perspective ofpreserving international order. He added that the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was notillegal in terms of international law.
Unsurprisingly, the Koreans voiced strenuous objection, contending that Korea had been
coerced into annexation. Crawford dismissed their argument, stating that coercion, if indeed
there was any, had no connection with the legitimacy of the treaty. When the Koreans argued
that Gojong neither signed nor gave formal consent to the treaty, the British scholar repliedthat international law did not require those actions.
At the same conference, Prefectural University of Hiroshima Professor Harada Tamaki statedthat Emperor Gojong approved of the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty, and overrode
Cabinet ministers critical of the treaty. Professor Harada’s presentation (based on the analysis
of sources like Ilseongnok (diaries of the Joseon kings) and Seungjeongwon Ilgi (records of
the Royal Secretariat)) garnered considerable attention, and deeply disappointed the Korean
attendees, who had failed to prove their case.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the annexation of Korea. Koreans are intent on
convincing Japan to admit that the annexation was illegal. But both they and the Japanese
should be mindful that today, as in 1910, the international community recognizes thelegitimacy of Japanese control of the Korean peninsula.

66

Military Government of Terauchi Masatake, First Governor General: Withan Eye Toward the Modernization of Korea

When governing people of a different ethnicity, it is necessary to implement policies
compulsorily without a mandate from the governed, backed by military force. One cangenerally expect such government to result in the rapid and efficient implementation ofpolicies, and a gradual transition to civilian rule and government by rule of law. These wereprecisely the products of Terauchi’s regime.

Ito Hirobumi, first residentgeneral

Sone Arasuke, second
resident-general

Terauchi Masatake, third
resident-general and firstgovernor-general

In May 1910 Sone Arasuke, the second resident-general, resigned due to poor health. He was
replaced by Terauchi Masatake, who served concurrently as minister of the Army. In Augustof the same year Japan annexed Korea, and the Government-General was established.
Terauchi (still serving as minister of the Army), received a new title: governor-general. With
the formation of the Saionji Cabinet in 1911, Terauchi was relieved of his duties as minister ofthe Army, and was able to devote all his energy to his duties in Korea.
In governing Korea, Terauchi inaugurated the following five policies:
1. Preservation of public order
2. Creation of a local government system
3. Improvement and augmentation of the educational system
4. Development of industry
5. Establishment of transportation and sanitation systems

67

For his local government system, Terauchi divided the peninsula into 13 do or provinces. Of
the 13 heads of the provinces he appointed, six were Koreans. For his administrative structure
he created geographical divisions, i.e., bu (cities), gun (counties) and myeon (townships).
Terauchi made an effort to appoint Koreans to important posts wherever possible. Koreansserved as mayors of counties and townships, and councilors in each province and city.
Terauchi also created a vast administrative organization, and formulated cost-cutting strategies.
The governor-general also conducted a land survey, which determined the rightful owners ofland. However, when the government confiscated land whose ownership could not be clearly
established, opponents of annexation accused it of theft.
Terauchi’s reforms must have seemed drastic when compared to the irresponsible behavior of
the Korean government. In fact, they may have provided some of the impetus for the March 1
Movement.

68

Japanese Tax Revenue (¥16 Trillion!) Finances Korean Railroad
Construction
Korean Rail System Completed with Japanese Capital

Even before Korea became a Japanese protectorate, Japan invested huge amounts of money in
Korean railroad construction projects. The first Japanese-sponsored project was the SeoulIncheon Line in 1900. By the time the Seoul-Busan Line was completed in January 1905, theJapanese had overseen the laying of 450 kilometers of track.
With the completion of the Seoul-Uiju Line (499 kilometers) in April 1906, Korea now had atrunk line extending from Busan in the south to Uiju in the north. The total investment of69

Japanese tax revenue in those lines was ¥66,380,000 or, multiplying that figure by 100,000 toarrive at the value in today’s yen, ¥6.6 trillion!
The Koreans dismiss these achievements, maintaining that Japan built the railway lines for its
own purposes – to facilitate further encroachment on the Asian continent. But the majority ofpassengers were Korean, and the round trip between Seoul and Incheon, which had once taken
five or six days, was reduced to two or three hours. Furthermore, the journey from Seoul to
Busan or Uiju, which previously took more than a month one way on foot, could now be
accomplished in just a few days, andseated, at that. It is obvious that the
Koreans reaped incalculable benefits
from those railroads. In fact, thepreparation of railroad infrastructure
formed the foundation for Korean
modernization, facilitating the flow ofpeople, goods and money on the Korean
peninsula. Since total Korean tax
revenue in 1905 was only ¥7.84 million,
the Korean empire could never havemade such a huge investment ininfrastructure on its own.
Railroad construction in Korea (ca. 1904)
After annexation the Government-General continued to invest heavily in railroad construction.
The purpose of these investments was not encroachment on the Asian continent this time,either, but to add regional and local lines. A total of ¥257 million in Japanese tax revenue waspoured into railroads and railroad-related projects (more than ¥10 trillion in today’s yen).18
If, in the face of this evidence, the Koreans continue to claim that Japan’s sole motivation forbuilding the railroads was the pursuit of its own interests in Asia, we would like them toanswer one simple question: Why did you not destroy all the railroad facilities when Korea
achieved independence after World War II?
Obviously they did not destroy the railroads, and their failure to do so weakens their argument
considerably. First the Koreans must destroy the railroads, the legacy of the annexation, sincefurther accusations of this sort will serve only to make them look ridiculous.

18

Choe Ki-ho, Nikkan heigo no shinjitsu (The truth about the Japanese annexation of Korea) (Tokyo:
Bijinesusha, 2003).

70

Japan Did Not Seize Korean Farmland

The seven deprivations
According to the delusional Korean historical perception, the Japaneseannexation deprived Koreans of (1) their emperor, (2) their sovereignty,(3) their lives, (4) their land, (5) their resources, (6) their language, and(7) their names.

Page in land survey register“In the absence of a strict judge, academia distorts history” (from interview with Seoul
University Professor Yi Yong-hun).
But in The Story of South Korea, Yi writes that there is absolutely no basis for accusation
like, “as a result of land survey, 40% of the nation’s territory ended up in Japanese71hands” or “ the Japanese made off with half the food in Korea. ”19
Since Korea did not have a land ownership system, after annexation Japan expended anenormous amount of money, ¥2.4 million, on a land survey conducted between 1910 and 1918.
The survey revealed that contrary to estimates of 2.8 million chobu,20 there were 4.2 million
chobu of farmland. It also revealed that the ownership of 900,000 chobu of uncleared land was
uncertain. It is true that the government appropriated that land, but it was uncleared land, notfarmland.
According to a Korean high school history textbook published in 1995, approximately 40% of
all farmland was illegally acquired by Japanese nationals after the land survey was conducted.
However, in 1922, only four years after the land survey was completed, only 6% of the
farmland in Korea was Japanese-owned. Most of that was purchased in a lawful manner. How
do we account for this huge discrepancy?
After many years of misgovernment, the ownership of a great deal of land in Korea was open
to question, for a variety of reasons. In some cases caretakers had become landowners. In
others, farmers who couldn’t pay their taxes simply disappeared, and the vacated land wasbought or sold illegally. The most serious problem was ownership disputes between the public
and private sectors involving parcels that had originally been state land or land belonging to
the Korean court, but were now in the hands of private citizens.
In making its decisions, the Government-General examined the records of the past several
hundred years, and assigned land that clearly belonged to it to the court. In many other cases,
it was impossible to find written records, and therefore impossible to establish ownership, so
those parcels of land were appropriated. However, only 6% of them were purchased by
Japanese, and those via legitimate, aboveboard transactions.
Furthermore, farmland appropriated by the government was sold on an installment basis. The
proceeds were applied to social welfare projects, such as the building of additional educational
facilities and research on and improvement of irrigation and agriculture.
In recent years scholars like Jo Seok-gon, author of “Reconsidering the Colonial Era,”21 andYi Yong-hun, author of The Story of South Korea,22 are now acknowledging that claims ofwidespread confiscation of land are distortions of historical fact.

19

Yi Yong-hun, Dai kan minkoku no monogatari (The story of South Korea), trans. Nagashima Hiroki(Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 2009).
20

One chobu is equal to 2.45 acres.

21

In Creation and Criticism, Summer 1996.

22

Yi Yong-hun, Dai Kan minkoku no monogatari (The story of South Korea), trans. Nagashima Hiroki(Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 2009).

72

Suppression of the March 1 Movement Was Essential

Hasegawa Yoshimichi,
2nd governor-general

Monument to the March 1st Movement
at Tapgol (Pagoda) Park in Seoul

Casualties of the Independence Movement
SourceParticipants

KilledWoundedThe Bloody History of the Korean
Independence Movement23

2.03 million

7,509

15,961Government-General (6/20/1919)

1.06 million

561

1,567

407

936

Korean Army Headquarters(9/29/1919)

According to research conducted by Korean journalist and educator Kim Won-seop, theMarch 1 Movement was an insurrection, not an independence movement.

On February 8, 1919, some Korean exchange students who had heard about US President
Woodrow Wilson’s reference to self-determination in his “Fourteen Points” speech gatheredin Tokyo and issued a manifesto demanding independence from Japan. News of their activities
23

Book written in 1920 by Park Eun-sik, a historian and later president of the “provisional government”
of Korea headquartered in Shanghai. Park relied on hearsay and newspaper articles for his estimates of casualties.

73

soon traveled to Korea, where it coincided with a gathering at Pagoda Park in Seoul to mournthe passing of former Emperor Gojong. The students’ manifesto was read aloud there.
The assembled crowd, numbering in the tens of thousands, began marching and soon launched
into a rampage, engaging in acts of vandalism, some of which involved destroying railroadcars. The violence continued into the next day, when disturbances began breaking out in otherparts of Korea as well.
The violence escalated until it had spread throughout the entire Korean peninsula. Crowds
attacked village mayors’ offices and military police offices. They also set fires and assaulted
police officers and pro-Japanese landowners. The Government-General strived mightily torestore order, augmenting the police force with military personnel, but there were many
casualties on both sides. This was the one and only unfortunate event in 35 years ofannexation.
Estimates of the casualties of this incident are shown in the chart above, but they differ
significantly according to the source consulted. It is impossible to arrive at accurate figures,
but the Japanese added up the numbers reported when they polled each village, whereas the
Korean figures were compiled by an anti-Japanese organization in Shanghai (the so-called“provisional government of Korea”) and accompanied by a note describing the difficulty ofascertaining accurate information about the movement’s activities.
Trials of those arrested for acts of violence were held, with surprising outcomes. Despite thefact that the defendants were charged with insurrection, a serious crime, Governor-General
Saito adopted a conciliatory policy. Even the principal agitators were sentenced to prison
terms not exceeding three years, and only 37 people were found guilty. Not one activist was
executed.
After the incident, the Government-General abandoned military government in favor ofcultural rule. He did away with the military police system whereby military personnel
augmented the police force, and afforded the Koreans a measure of freedom of assembly,
freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
It is worth noting here that the chief proponents of the March 1 Movement were Christians
and members of the Cheondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way). Beginning with therighteous armies wars, Christians were at the forefront of the anti-Japanese movement, and thesubsequent May 4 Movement in China. They were involved in subsequent anti-Japanese
guerrilla warfare, and the primary cause of the Greater East Asia War that followed.

74

4. NO APOLOGY REQUIRED FOR THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA
Primary Agents of Strife in Asia: American Missionaries and theComintern
Five Eulsa Traitors (five statesmen who acceded to the Japan-Korea Protectorate
Treaty in 1905, which paved the way for Japanese control of Korea)
Lee Wan-yong
Minister of Education
Lee Geun-Taek
Minister of the ArmyYi Ji-yong
Minister of the Interior
Bak Je-sun
Foreign Minister
Gwon Jung-Hyeon Minister of Agriculture and Industry
In Korea these men are reviled as traitors.
*********
Assassination attempt on Governor-General Terauchi
In August 1910, after Terauchi had been appointed Governor-General of Korea, several
attempts were made on his life. Since the majority of the 122 suspects were Christians,
Japanese suspicions that American missionaries in Korea were the masterminds behind theplots created friction between Japan and the US.
********
Chungsaeng Gate Incident
On November 28, 1895, Russian and American troops stationed in Korea and pro-Russian
former Minister of Agriculture and Industry Yi Beom-jin engineered a counter-coup whose
objective was the assassination of Prime Minister Kim Hong-jip. Their plan to abduct Gojong
and force him to issue an imperial order for the dismissal of Kim Hong-jip did not succeed.
******
Seven Jeongmi Traitors (seven ministers of state who forced Emperor Gojong to abdicate
after he dispatched secret envoys to the Hague)
Lee Wan-yong
Prime MinisterSong Byeong-jun
Minister of Agriculture and Industry
Yi Byeong-mu
Minister of the Army
Go Yeong-hui
Minister of Finance
Jo Jung-eung
Minister of JusticeYi Jae-gon
Minister of Education
Im Seon-jun
Minister of the Interior
In Korea these men are reviled as traitors.
***********New People’s Society (Sinminhoe)
A clandestine, US-based Korean independence activist group headed by Yun Chi-ho, the New
People’s Society was dismantled by the Japanese government during the investigation of theattempt on Governor-General Terauchi’s life. Later Yun turned pro-Japanese and was awarded
the title of baron in the peerage system.
75

An examination of the unrest that rocked Asia between the late 19th and early 20th century
discloses astonishing facts, in particular how deeply involved American missionaries were in
fomenting it.
Until the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese did not view Christian missionaries as dangerous
adversaries. They were more worried about Russia and the US joining forces against Japan.
But it is clear that American missionaries were actively involved in the Chunsaeng Gate
Incident. Upheavals occurring after the Russo-Japanese War pitted armies consisting ofChristians and members of the Cheondo religion against Japan.
Christians like An Jung-geun were at the forefront of incidents that took place after the Hague
Peace Conference (1907).
In 1911 there was an attempt to assassinate Governor-General Terauchi. That attempt ended in
failure. However, it is widely believed that the US-based New People’s Society was hoping to
win the sympathy of foreign nations by assassinating the governor-general and Cabinet
ministers it had designated as the five Eulsa traitors and the seven Jeongmi traitors.
The leaders of the March 1 Movement were also Christians. When Saito Makoto was
appointed Governor-General in 1919 to restrain the activists, his most important mission was
making peace with the Christians.
Christians were also responsible for the May 4 Movement, which arose in China in 1919, thesame year as the March 1 Movement. The demonstrators staged a series of anti-Japanese
terrorist acts, which escalated until Japan was enmeshed in the Second Sino-Japanese War andthen the Greater East Asia War. And adroitly manipulating the Christians was the Comintern,organized after the Russian Revolution.
During the 20th century communism spread like wildfire, and support for the dictatorship of
the proletariat grew, under the guise of freedom and equality. Just as the Christians had hoped,
China embraced communism. But did communism bring happiness to the Chinese people?
This question needs no answer.

76Third Governor-General Saito’s Cultural Rule: Seeking Reconciliation with
Korea

Saito Makoto, 3rd and 6th
governor-general of Korea
and 30th Prime Minister of Japan

General Government Office Building(demolished in 1995)

Saito Makoto was governor-general of Korea for the better part of 12 years, between August
1919 and June 1931, with the exception of a two-year period during which he was replaced by
Yamanashi Hanzo. Since Japan ruled Korea for 36 years, that means that Saito oversaw thatgovernment for one-third of its duration.
Saito’s appointment came when Governor-General Hasegawa resigned to take responsibility
for protests against Japanese rule referred to as the March 1 Movement. His most pressing task
was reconciliation with the Koreans. However, when he arrived in Seoul, someone in thecrowd of people who had come out to welcome him threw a bomb into the carriage that Saito
and his wife had just boarded. Pandemonium ensued. Fortunately for Saito, his belt saved his
life; he wasn’t even injured. However there were two holes in the belt where it had been
penetrated by shrapnel. More than 20 people were injured by that same bomb.
Unlike Terauchi and Hasegawa, who ran what was essentially a military government, Saito
practiced “cultural rule,” meaning that the Koreans were offered some cultural autonomy. But
first, he needed to restore order in Korea. He began by eliminating intimidating uniforms andswords worn at the belt, except for certain occupations such as the police. Saito also narrowed
the disparity between the status of Koreans and Japanese, although that had to be done instages. He raised salaries too, so Koreans were earning as much as Japanese nationals for thesame work.

77

An analysis of the riots and demonstrations that occurred reveals that American missionaries
were heavily involved in every single one of them: the March 1 Movement, the attempted
assassination of Governor-General Terauchi and, going back to pre-annexation times, therighteous armies wars. That is why Saito made every effort to placate them. For instance, heabolished caning as a form of judicial punishment, since the Christians hated it so much.
Saito also made significant investments in education. While emphasizing elementary andsecondary education, he established Keijo University (now Seoul National University) so that
Koreans could acquire the knowledge they needed to make them employable.
Saito attempted to improve communication by encouraging Koreans to learn the Japanese
language. He also encouraged Japanese government employees residing in Korea to learn
Korean, offering monetary rewards to those who made the effort. Other cultural improvements
included allowing the publication of newspapers in the Korean writing system, and sponsoring
exhibitions of Korean art. He also helped to preserve Korean culture in many ways, some ofwhich were supporting the compilation of Korean history works and building an annex to theGovernment-General Office to serve as a museum.

78

Japanese Protect Koreans During the Turmoil Accompanying a Natural
Disaster

Monument honoring Okawa
Tsunekichi, Tozen Temple:
home of the police chief who
protected Koreans************
Tozen Temple: home of themonument to Okawa

When the Kanto earthquake struck on September 1, 1923, rumors began to spread throughTokyo that Koreans were planning a riot, and had already set fires and poisoned well water.
Some Japanese panicked when they heard those rumors, and organized vigilante groups that
attacked and killed many Koreans.
According to a contemporaneous survey conducted by Tokyo University Professor Yoshino
Sakuzo, 2,613 Koreans were killed: another survey conducted by the Home Ministry’s Bureau
of Police and Public Order had the total at 231. A recent work by Kudo Miyoko, The Facts
about the Murder of Koreans in the Kanto Earthquake, concurs with the Home Ministry’s
figures.
At the heart of the problem were cells of Korean and Japanese socialists ensconced in the city
who were intent on staging a violent revolution. We know this is so from information politicalactivist Uchida Ryohei obtained through personal contacts and provided to the government.
But it is true that those false rumors stirred some Japanese to action, with tragic results.
However, in the Tsurumi district of Yokohama, Police Chief Okawa Tsunekichi saved thelives of many Koreans by taking them under his wing. An angry crowd gathered anddemanded that he hand them over. Okawa confronted the mob and said, “These Koreans arelaw-abiding people. The police will take charge, so you need not concern yourselves withthem. If they escape, I will make amends by committing harakiri.”79

In 1953 after World War II had ended, the members of the Tsurumi chapter of the Koreans’
United Democratic Front in Japan expressed their gratitude to Okawa by having a monument
erected in his honor on the grounds of Tozen Temple in Tsurumi, where his remains areenshrined. The inscription reads, in part: “We dedicate this monument to Okawa Tsunekichi,
who risked his life to right a wrong, and in doing so saved more than 300 lives. May he rest inpeace, and may his virtues be extolled for all eternity.”
Okawa is just one of the Japanese who went out of their way to save Korean lives. Numerous
examples of the heroism of other police officers, Army and Navy personnel under the
Yokosuka command, and even private citizens, can be found in official records.
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Koreans were the only victims of violence
associated with the earthquake, but it is important to remember that some Koreans did in factcommit acts of violence, taking advantage of the confusion that reigned.

80

Japanese Resurrect Korean Alphabet and Compile a Korean Grammar
In Korea one often hears the claim that during the annexation, the Japanese deprived the
Koreans of their language and prohibited the teaching of Korean history. However, the truth ofthe matter is the exact opposite. The Korean alphabet (Hangul) had fallen into disuse because
the Korean literary elite shunned it, considering it inferior to Chinese. Japanese politicalscholar Fukuzawa Yukichi discovered the alphabet while studying Korean culture. He
assigned Japanese and Korean scholars the task of developing a modern alphabet. After Japanannexed Korea, the Government-General had a great many elementary schools built in aneffort to raise the nation’s educational standard. (In fact, during the 35-year annexation, thenumber of elementary schools rose from 100 to 5,000.) Korean was the language of
instruction at those schools, and the Government-General committed itself to the diffusion of
the Hangul alphabet. Shown below is an elementary school textbook issued by theGovernment-General. Obviously, the Japanese not only did not prohibit Hangul, they also
encouraged its use.

In addition to the alphabet, the establishment of a standard Korean language was anotherbenefit of the Government-General’s modernization policies. When the annexation took effect,
the numerous dialects of Korean spoken sometimes prevented Koreans from different locales
from communicating with each other, and obstructed modernization. The GovernmentGeneral decided upon the language spoken in Seoul and its environs as standard Korean, anddisseminated it throughout Korea via the elementary schools. This form of the language tookhold and remains standard Korean to this day.
The accusation that Japan forbade the teaching of Korean history is an outright lie. To the leftare excerpts from a textbook issued by the Government-General in 1924 for use by fifth81graders in Korea. The book contains detailed descriptions of Korean historical events. Some
examples follow.
“The Cheomseongdae (platform from which one looks at the stars) was built in the Kingdomof Silla in the 7th century. The structure, which stands 9.4 meters high, has international value
and is the oldest observatory in East Asia.”“Gyeongju was once the capital of the Kingdom of Silla. The natural landscape conveys asense of eternal peace. It is no accident that the city flourished for more than 990 years as thecapital of a kingdom.”
In addition to the Korean Language Reader shown at left, the Government-General publishedhistory textbooks that described Korean historical events in great detail. The Japanese made aconcerted effort to instill pride in the Koreans by teaching them about their history. The claimthat the Japanese proscribed the teaching of Korean history is a distortion of fact, a lie
spawned by postwar anti-Japanese education.

82

The Dawn of Modern Higher Education in Korea: The Founding of Keijo
Imperial University

Keijo Imperial University24 Medical School in 1926*****
Keijo University Preparatory School in 1924********

Japan has been accused of treating Korea like a colony. We would like to ask the accusers if
Great Britain established an Oxford or Cambridge in India? Did France found a Sorbonne
in Vietnam? The answer to both questions is no. But the Japanese established universities
in Korea and Taiwan, which they modeled after the most prestigious universities in Japan,
and at which they offered the best possible education to the local population.

In 1924 the Keijo Imperial University Preparatory School was established, representing thesixth imperial university founded by Japan. In 1930 law and medical schools were established,
and not long after that, a department of science and engineering. The university was thehighest institute of learning in Korea.
Yu Jin-o, who served as president of Korea University after Korea achieved independence,
was the first graduate of Keijo Imperial University’s Faculty of Law. As a student he showed
a great deal of promise and scholastic aptitude. Soon after he entered the university’s
preparatory school, he joined a social group whose members were both Korean and Japanese.
One night members of the group went out drinking and, with the courage alcohol bestows,
24

Known today as Seoul National University.

83

paraded around the city, singing and shouting, astonishing city residents. They jeered at police
officers, infuriating them. Their “pranks” were written up and criticized in the newspapers.
Yu, along with a Japanese representing the Japanese students involved, apologized to theuniversity president. This was just one event in an otherwise productive youth. He and theother Korean students were careful not to neglect their studies. In fact, they spent most of theirtime engrossed in them. After World War II, Yu Jin-o reflected on his student days.
“In the academic and technical disciplines, I think I did very important work. If there had been
no Keijo University, nation-building would have been much more difficult for Korea. In thatsense, the university contributed a great deal to the Korea of today.”
Since the student body of Keijo Imperial University consisted of two (or sometimes three)Japanese students for every Korean student, one could argue that there was discrimination.
But the demographics were such that the ratio of Japanese to Koreans was about three to one.
Furthermore, since three out of four Korean children were unable to attend to school in the
mid-1930s because their families were too poor, a surprisingly large number of Korean
students were able to receive higher education. Toward the end of the annexation period,
about half the Keijo Imperial University students were Korean. The Korean students were
truly elite, and Keijo Imperial University nurtured them – the leaders of postwar Korea.

84

The Drafter of South Korea’s Constitution Was a Leader of the Student
Volunteer Soldier Movement

Korean Student Volunteer Soldiers

Yu Jin-o“Inspiration before Dawn,” a report
written by Yu Jin-o

On October 21, 1943, the Ministry of Education sponsored a send-off event for students who
had volunteered for military service, in the stadium in the Outer Precinct of the Meiji Shrine inTokyo. On that rainy day several tens of thousands of young enlistees from the Kanto District
were in attendance. In Japan students had been urged to go to war as the decisive phase of theGreater East Asia War approached, as they had been in Europe and the US.
85

Students were also encouraged to join the military in Taiwan and Korea, both under Japaneserule. At the forefront of the drive to promote student enlistment in Korea was Yu Jin-o (19061987). He was the first graduate of Keijo Imperial University, and served as an administratorof the Korean League for Total National Power. He represented Korea at the Greater East
Asian Writers’ Congress held in August 1943. There he garnered a great deal of attention witha speech entitled “Establishing Principles for Decisive-War Literature.” In November of thesame year Yu wrote an editorial for the Mainichi Shinpo, a Korean newspaper, entitled“Military Service Is Power,” which convinced many students to enlist. On January 19, 1944,
the day the first Korean student soldiers joined the Army, Yu wrote a report entitled“Inspiration before Dawn” in which he described that inspiration: “I am certain that the
spectacle I viewed on January 19 in front of Keijo Station has never been seen in all thehistory of Korea.”
Yu Jin-o was also the man who drafted the constitution of South Korea, promulgated in 1948.
He later became president of the prestigious Korea University. Events in his past caused Yu to
be condemned, even in death, by a Korea that perceives him as a collaborator. But while
Korea was governed by the Japanese, Yu was guilty only of refining his intellect, studying law
and developing his talents. He did exactly what any other Japanese citizen of his station would
have done. One needs profound erudition and education to draft a nation’s constitution. We
should be proud that someone like Yu blossomed after having benefited from the educational
environment in the Japanese Empire.
We cannot hold out much hope for the spread of forthright wisdom to the world from Korea, anation that continually perpetrates imbecilic acts like condemning Yu Jin-o for all eternity,
simply because he was involved in pro-Japanese activities.

86Fuchizawa Yoshie: The Japanese Woman Who Brought Modern Women’s
Education to Korea

Girls dressed in Korean costume at the Sookmyung
Girls’ High School

Fuchizawa Yoshie

Fuchizawa Yoshie (1850-1936) was a Japanese woman who made an immense contribution tomodern women’s education in Korea. She studied in the US for several years. In May 1905,
when the Russo-Japanese War was coming to an end, she traveled to Korea. When she arrived
there, she was overwhelmed by the abysmal social status of Korean women. Almost
immediately, she vowed to dedicate the rest of her life to their education.
In 1906 she established the Myeongsin Girls’ School, the forerunner of modern women’s
education in Korea. The school was built on land donated by Princess Eom (one of Gojong’s
concubines), who also contributed others of her assets. Yi Jeong-suk was appointed principal
because of her closeness to the princess. Fuchizawa was dean of the school and, for allpractical purposes, principal as well.
In 1910, the year of annexation, the school’s name was changed to Sookmyung Girls’ School(the name has endured). Its first students were daughters of Korean nobles, but soon girls fromordinary families were admitted, and the school flourished. But when the March 1 Movement
broke out, a great many of its students participated in anti-Japanese demonstrations.
In 1927, 400 students stayed away from classes in protest against Japanese rule of Korea. But
Fuchizawa never got angry at the girls who were arrested for participating in demonstrations.
She but did her best to protect them, convincing the police to release them into her custody.

87Such behavior was a manifestation of her deep-seated maternal affection for her students. The
students returned that affection, and trusted her implicitly.
In 1935 at a ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Government-General,
Fuchizawa was presented with a distinguished service award.
Today the school is known as Sookmyung Women’s University. Its original incarnation,
Sookmyung Girls’ School, is famous as one of the foremost institutions in Korea with aunified middle and high-school education program for girls.

88Governor-General Ugaki Kazushige’s Rural Development Program and theJapanese Who Supported It

Ugaki Kazushige,
4th and 7th governor-generalof Korea

Biography of agriculture-first
proponent Yamazaki Enkichi

In June 1931, during the Great Depression, Ugaki Kazushige was appointed governor-generalof Korea.
In a speech commemorating his appointment delivered in 1931 at the Bank of Tokyo Club,
Ugaki said, “At the time of World War I, partitioned Poland appeared to be part of Germany
and part of Russia. But as the war dragged on, and the situation became untenable, the Poles
betrayed both nations. Though the Poles seemed to be aligned with Germany and Russia,
spiritually and materially, they were not.
“What about Korea? Compared with the time four years ago, when I took over the duties offormer Governor-General Saito (Minoru) while he was attending the Geneva Naval
Conference, the standard of living has declined both spiritually and materially, because we arein the midst of a great depression.
(…)“To prevent something like this happening to Japan, we must transfer some Japanese jobs to
Koreans, and create more jobs for them by promoting industrial development.
89

“What industries should be promoted in Korea? First we should consider the exploitation ofmineral resources, such as gold, iron ore and coal, which are plentiful in Korea. Then weshould make effective use of the forest resources of northern Korea, as well as the wilderness
and the coastline. We should also develop water-power resources, and take advantage of thecheap and abundant labor force. There is a wealth of possibilities. What we lack is wisdom
and funds.
There are plenty of fields that are ripe for such development. What we lack is wisdom andfunding. I appeal to those of you here tonight for your cooperation in this effort.”
Soon after he became governor-general, Ugaki made an inspection tour of farming villages
and launched a rural development program. Part of it involved teaching villagers thatcultivation of the spirit is as important as cultivation of the fields.
Ugaki summoned pioneering agricultural educator Yamazaki Nobuyoshi to Korea to help withthe program. Yamazaki’s guiding principles were service, cooperation and self-reliance.
Another Japanese, Shigematsu Masanao, 25 worked together with rural Koreans, helping
them improve their standard of living. He brought hope to demoralized farmers, who came toconsider him a saint. He was one of many Japanese who devoted their lives to helping the
Koreans.
In 1970 ROK President Park Chung-hee initiated the Saemaul Movement, a rural
revitalization movement. Its guiding principles were independence, hard work and cooperation.
Both Yamazaki and the Saemaul Movement were inspired by the teachings Ninomiya Sontoku,
a 19th-century Japanese philosopher, economist and promoter of agriculture.

25

See p. 86

90

Financial Cooperatives, Korean Farmers’ Lifeline, Sponsor Straw-Weaving
EventAwards ceremony
Korean farmers at a straw-weaving event

The weaving of kamasu, or straw bags, is a craft that was once highly valued in rural Japan.
Villagers wove straw into bags that were used to hold and carry fertilizer, grains and salt,
among other things. According to historical records, there was a great demand for kamasu in
Korea, but the craft was not practiced there. Even as late as the 1920s, a great many were
imported from Japan. Obviously, the time had come for Korea to supply its own kamasu.
In the early days of annexation, approximately 80% of the Korean population consisted offarming families, the majority of which were indigent. The Japanese established financial
cooperatives to help the villagers make ends meet (an unjust social system had caused them tolose hope and, consequently, the will to work) . But simply helping them manage theirfinances was not going to make them prosperous. They needed to learn a skill or craft thatwould earn money.
91

The Japanese directors of the financial cooperatives in each region assembled the villagers andencouraged them to acquire agricultural skills and crafts. One of them was the weaving ofkamasu. The photograph above shows a weaving event. Villagers of all ages are seated in
front of looms, preparing to begin weaving. At such events they competed with each other to
see who could produce the best quality and the largest quantity. If the results were good, there
were prizes and commendations to be had. Friendly competition helped the villagers raise
their standard of living.
The Korean financial cooperatives, the joint effort of Japanese officials and private citizens,
infused Korean farming villagers with a new vitality. They continued to operate even afterWorld War II ended, and persist today in the form of the Korean Agricultural Bank.
The cooperatives were actually the model for microcredit (the offering of very small loans),
for which the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. That is
how innovative they were.

92

Shigematsu Masanao: Guiding Spirit for Korean Farming Villages

Shigematsu Masanao, standing to right ofmonument
Shigematsu Masanao

Agricultural economist Shigematsu Masanao had been working at a Korean financial
cooperative for two years, when he was shot by a Korean in 1919, during a March 1
Movement uprising. Though he nearly died, Shigematsu recovered, but never regained full useof his right leg.
For a brief time after the shooting, Shigematsu did desk work to lessen the strain on his leg.
But he found himself unable to go back on the vow he had made: to share good and bad times
with Koreans. He headed back to the fields.
At the time he was living in a place called Kangdong, in South Pyongan (today part of North
Korea). Farming families comprised 80% of the Korean population; most of them were very
poor. By the time each spring came, they would have no food left, and there would be a longwait until the first harvest of the year. At that point the desperate farmers would borrow ricefrom landowners or usurers, which they would pay back in the fall. But they would face thesame problem the following spring.
Shigematsu began teaching the farmers to raise chickens, funding the project with his own
money. He encouraged the villagers to raise and sell chickens and eggs, and save the money
they earned. His selfless acts and his passion for them were contagious. Gradually, thepreviously apathetic villagers became hopeful. Even near-miracles occurred (for instance, theson of a poor tenant farmer became a physician). Under Shigematsu’s guidance the villagers

93prospered. More and more of them became able to send their children to school and pay theirtaxes.
Word of Shigematsu’s good works as the guiding spirit for Korean farming villages soon
spread to Japan. He was commended by Prince Takamatsu, who gave him a silver vase. To thevillagers, Shigematsu was a saint. To show their appreciation, they built a monument to honor
him after he died. Shigematsu was a miracle worker, a man who transformed the Koreans’
hate into boundless love. His good works in Korea served as a symbol of Japan-Korea
relations in the Showa era, which evolved from conciliation to union.
Shigematsu’s distinctive physiognomy, his horn-rimmed glasses, beard and cane also madehim memorable to the point that even Koreans who had never met him knew who he was.
Shigematsu Masanao became quite famous, but neither the Japanese nor the Koreans should
forget the human love shown by many of his lesser-known countrymen who worked side byside with Korean farmers, and helped improve their lives.

94

Nameless Fishing Village Transformed into Bustling Modern Industrial
City

Heungnam, North Korea: modern industrial city built by Japan

Noguchi Shitago

Because of the threat it posed, US troops bombed
Heungnam city during the Korean War

Noguchi Shitago was an engineer, a graduate of Tokyo Imperial University. He was also anentrepreneur who operated chemical plants manufacturing rayon, nitrogen and ammonium
sulfate in Nobeoka and Minamata, Kyushu. All of these enterprises used electric power,
generated inexpensively thanks to an abundant water supply, and all of them were successful.
In 1926 Noguchi decide to participate in the development of Korea.

95

On the east coast of the Korean peninsula a chain of mountains more than 1,000 meters highstretches from north to south. The western side of the mountain range slopes gently down to
the Yellow Sea, into which three major rivers (the Yalu, Taedong and Han) flow.
Noguchi dammed up the Bujeon and Jangjin rivers, two tributaries of the Yalu River at its
upper reaches, creating two artificial lakes. Then he excavated a waterway in the steep
Taebaek Mountains. Water poured from a great height onto the Japan Sea side (inHamgyeongnam province), where it produced electricity. One artificial lake generated 200
megawatts, and the other, 400 megawatts of electric power.
Then Noguchi chose a nameless fishing village south of Hamheung, the capital of
Hamgeyongnam, as the site for what became the second largest nitrogen fertilizer plant in theworld, as well as gunpowder, magnesium and fire-resistant brick factories.
The fishing village was transformed into a modern industrial port city named Heungnam.
Even during the cold winters, each of the company units housing the 180,000 residents of thecity had hot water. After it had generated electricity, the water irrigated more than 15,000 new
rice fields. Further downstream, it was destined for industrial use in Heungnam.
Since Heungnam is located north of the 38th parallel, the city fell into the hands of the North
Koreans after World War II, like a gift from heaven. When the Korean War broke out,
realizing that it presented a significant threat, the Americans bombed Heungnam, reducing it
to ashes.

96

The Japanese Build the World’s Second-Largest Dam in Korea; Noguchi
Shitago’s Philanthropy

Supung Dam today
viewed from China

Supung Dam upon completion; height, 106.4 m;
length, 900 m
North Korean national emblem
featuring Supung Dam

In 1937 construction began on the Supung Dam, a joint project of the governments of Korea
and Manzhouguo, in the Yalu River flowing between Korea and Manchuria. Near the dam oneof the largest hydroelectric plants in the world was built. When completed in 1944, the plant
generated a total of 700 megawatts. Its construction provided social infrastructure that rapidlytransformed Korea, then an agrarian society, into an industrial one. Playing central roles in the
mammoth construction project were Noguchi Shitago, the owner of Nihon Chisso, andengineer Kubota Yutaka. (The Korean side of the dam is shown at the bottom of thephotograph.) It is easy to comprehend the immensity of this project when we realize that theentire hydroelectric output of Japan at that time was 2.8 gigawatts.
Assets created by Japan in Korea prior to World War II were estimated, on August 15, 1945,
at ¥89.12 billion (calculated at ¥15 to the dollar). Of those assets, ¥46.22 billion were createdin North Korea; they are worth ¥8 trillion today.

97

In August 1945, when the war was nearing an end, the Soviet troops invaded the Supung Dam
area, and appropriated five of the seven generators, which they transported back to the USSR.
The dam was also the target of American air attacks, but it was so solidly built that the attacks
failed to destroy it.
Those who think the exploits of Noguchi Shitago (1874-1944) were motivated by rapacity will
be surprised to learn that after suffering a cerebral hemorrhage in 1941, he willed all his assets,
which amounted to ¥30 million, to public works projects. Noguchi donated ¥5 million to theGovernment-General’s scholarship fund for Korean students. These acts of charity were,needless to say, greatly appreciated by the Korean people.

98Name-Change Policy Implemented in Response to the Wishes of the Korean
PeopleIn Korea the prevalent perception about the name-change policy is that the GovernmentGeneral robbed the Koreans of their surnames and forced them to take Japanese names. This
perception is a flagrant distortion of history.
Soon after the annexation, the Government-General issued Ordinance No. 124 (Concerning
the Changing of Surnames and Given Names), which prohibited Koreans from using Japanesegiven names out of respect for Korean customs.
Thirty years later, some Koreans argued that the prohibition
was discriminatory, since they were, for all intents andpurposes, Japanese. Koreans who had settled in Manchuria
were particularly insistent because they sensed danger.
Apparently, unless they bore Japanese names, they risked
being attacked by mounted bandits or other outlaws.
Operating from an impartial position that did not brookdiscrimination, the Government-General decided to allow
Koreans who wished to adopt Japanese names to do so.
That was the essence of the name-change policy.

Page from 1940 Government-General Yearbook
outlining name-change policy

Japanese names never forced upon Koreans

A grassroots movement arose among Koreans (sometimes
entire towns or villages!) who wanted to show theirappreciation to the Government-General by adopting
Japanese names. However, Governor-General Minami Jiro,
issued instructions that there be absolutely no coercion, on
three separate occasions. The newspaper article shown atleft center bears the headline “The Adoption of Japanesesurnames is totally discretionary.”

Article from Osaka Asahi Shimbun, central Korea
edition, March 6, 1940
99

The article simply states that the adoption of Japanesesurnames is in no way compulsory, but an opportunity
offered to Koreans by the Emperor to help them achievecomplete equality with their compatriots in Japan proper.”

Article from sports section of Osaka Asahi Shimbun,
central Korea edition, June 7, 1941; a year after
implementation of name-change policy, Korean
surnames still predominatedSurnames remained unchanged even when Japanese names were adopted
According to the name-change policy, Koreans wishing to adopt Japanese surnames had six
months to enter them in the “surname” column of their census records. The Korean surname
would remain in the record, unchanged. Those wishing to change their given names toJapanese names were free to do so, if they obtained approval from a family court.
The policy is stated clearly in the Korean Government-General’s 1940 Yearbook, shown at
upper left. The article at bottom left, which was written a year after the name-change
policy went into effect, describes a national athletic event held in Japan proper. Many Koreannames appear in it, including the winner, a Mr. Yi. Lt.-Gen. Hong Sa-ik is a famous example
of a successful man who retained his Korean name. But the article also shows clearly that
ordinary citizens who retained Korean names experienced no repercussions whatsoever.
Article from sports section of Osaka Asahi Shimbun, central Korea edition, June 7, 1941; ayear after implementation of name-change policy, Korean surnames still predominated100Japan Did Not Deprive the Koreans of Their Language

The Korean claim that Japan deprived them of
their language and forced the Japanese languageon them is patently untrue. An examination of
the page shown at left from the GovernmentGeneral Yearbook for 1941, reveals the truth,and conclusively so. As of December 31, 1941,
there were 3.9 million Koreans (16% of the
population) who could speak at least a few wordsof Japanese. If the Koreans had been forbiddento speak their own language, then the remaining
84% of the population would have had to
manage without a language. In fact, Korean was
the national language throughout the annexation
period. The Government-General encouraged
Koreans to learn Japanese so they could
communicate with their Japanese compatriots(Koreans were considered Japanese citizens.

Page from 1941 Government-General
Yearbook

Many Japanese studied Korean
The aforementioned yearbook also contains a notice encouraging Japanese government
employees to learn Korean. It reads, in part, as follows:
Misunderstandings attributable to the inability of Japanese employees of the GovernmentGeneral and associated entities to speak the Korean language might arise during the conduct ofpolice matters, the stimulation of industry, the collection of taxes, and other, similar situations.
Accordingly, the Government-General recognizes the necessity for employees of regional
government institutions who interact with the Korean people on a regular basis to learn the
Korean language. We wish to offer encouragement in the form of an allowance to be awarded
to those Japanese employees who demonstrate proficiency in the Korean language, in keepingwith criteria to be announced by the Government-General.

As of 1941, Japanese employees were making a concerted effort to learn Korean. The Korean
argument about being robbed of their language is ridiculous.

101Japanese language accelerates Korean modernization
The Japanese language was immensely instrumental in the modernization of Korea. Most of
the modern words and terms in the Korean language are literal translations of Japanese terms.
Words in the academic vocabulary like politics, economics, philosophy, chemistry andmedicine are examples of this phenomenon, as are even more common words like company,
chairman of the board, president and manager. The great majority of words in the language ofmodern civilization put down roots in Korea through Japanese language education provided
during the annexation period. For Koreans, the Japanese language opened the window to theworld’s technologies and intelligence.

102

Overwhelming Response To Special Volunteer System

Special Volunteer System
Korean enlistment rate (Ministry of Home Affairs statistics from May 1945)
Year

Recruitment goal

Volunteers

Over-achievement
factor

1938

406

2,946

7.3

1939

613

12,628

20.4

1940

3,060

84,443

28

1941

3,208

144,743

46.1

1942

4,077

254,273

62.4

1943

6,300

303,294

48.1

Source: NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF JAPAN, Japan Center for Asian Historical Records
http://www.jacar.go.jp/

First training session in urban warfare for
Elite Korean unit under the command
Korean volunteer soldiersof Maj. Jeong Hun
Photographed on March 10 by Nishimura Masao
From Asahi Graph, March 29, 1939103

Today we are reasonably certain that the Marco Polo Bridge Incident (July 1937) was thework of CCP (Chinese Communist Party) agitators. The incident escalated into the Second
Sino-Japanese War, which raged with no sign of ending. Japanese soldiers were dispatched tonorth China in a steady stream via the railways of the Korean peninsula.
At that time Koreans were neither obligated nor eligible to serve in the Japanese military. But
in April 1938, the Special Volunteer System was inaugurated, and Korean men who wished tojoin the Japanese Army could now do so. The official opening of the Training Center for
Korean enlistees was held on June 15, 1938.
The recruitment goal for fiscal 1938 was 400 men, but the number of volunteers, at 2,946, wasnearly seven times that! The next year’s goal was larger (600 men), as was the number ofvolunteers (12,628).
In 1940 and 1941 higher goals were set (3,000 men). Again, the response was overwhelming:
84,443 and 144,743, respectively.
The number of volunteers increased dramatically in 1942, when the quota was 4,500 men andthe number of volunteers 254, 273.
These statistics show definitively that, despite the rises and falls in the relationship between
the government and the governed, the Koreans gradually came to accept Japanese policy.

104

5. KOREA REPAYS JAPANESE KINDNESS WITH EVIL
Korea Commandeers Takeshima; Occupied Japan Powerless To Retaliate

Boundary line established by Korean
President Syngman Rhee

Japanese protesters demanding theabolition of the Syngman Rhee Line

February 24 is Takeshima Day
The two main islets are located at 37º 15' east
longitude and 131º 52' north latitude; they andthe rocks surrounding them are Japanese
territory.

Korean military police
interrogating Japanese fishermen

After Japan’s defeat in World War II, Korea asked to participate in the drafting of the Treatyof San Francisco as a victor nation. The Allies denied the request. The Koreans also insisted105

that both Tsushima and Takeshima were Korean territory, but the US rejected their claim via
the Rusk documents, official diplomatic correspondence dated August 10, 1951.
The Treaty of San Francisco, signed in September 1951, went into effect in April 1952.
However, in January 1952, Korean President Syngman Rhee, precipitously, unilaterally and in
violation of international law, established a military demarcation line, which came to bereferred to as the Syngman Rhee Line, in the Japan Sea. Within the demarcation line was
Takeshima, which Rhee then declared was Korean territory. This was an outrageous act ofthievery and aggression on the part of Korea, cleverly scheduled to take place during a gap in
diplomatic relations and three months before Japanese sovereignty was restored.
Subsequently, scores of Japanese fishermen were captured and held by the Koreans, charged
with having breached the Syngman Rhee Line; some were even shot to death. Until 1965,
when the Japan-Korea Fishing Agreement went into force, 3,929 Japanese were detained in
Korea, 328 fishing vessels were seized, and 44 Japanese were killed or wounded. To relieve
the terrible suffering of families whose husbands and brothers had been unjustly abducted andheld in Korea, the Japanese government reluctantly agreed to release 472 Korean criminals(repeat offenders and perpetrators of serious crimes) from Japanese prisons and allow them toremain in Japan, in exchange for the return of the Japanese fishermen.
Nearly 60 years have passed since Takeshima was stolen from Japan. The Japanese
government has urged the Korean government to settle the matter at an international tribunal.
But the Koreans, well aware of how weak their position is, refuse to cooperate. To curry favorwith international public opinion, they take advantage of every possible opportunity to
proclaim that Takeshima is their territory. When Japan establishes a Takeshima Day or
mentions Takeshima in textbooks, the Koreans create a huge uproar about Japanese“aggression.” It is unfortunate that Japan does not protest such behavior, but even moreunfortunate that the Koreans behave so hatefully toward the Japanese, to whom they owe themso much.

106

Postwar Turmoil, the Third Nationals Problem, and the “Korean
Occupation Forces”

Banner reads “Central Headquarters,
Federation of Koreans Residing in Japan”(this group claimed to be the Korean
Occupation Forces)

Black market in Shinbashi

On August 15, 1945, Japan acceded to the Potsdam Declaration and surrendered. At the time
the Japanese media was describing the declaration as “absurd” and “contemptible,” andimplied that there was to be a decisive, final battle fought in Japan proper. But when theJapanese people learned of the sudden surrender from an imperial rescript, they calmly
accepted it. However, some segments of society (Koreans and a few Taiwanese) seized upon
the situation to create havoc, even though they had supposedly sided with and fought
alongside the Japanese in the war.
At first the occupying forces assumed that Koreans and Taiwanese had been oppressed underJapanese rule. The Allies did not state clearly what the legal status of those people was(Japanese, citizens of a victor nation, or neither), but they did treat them differently from theJapanese. For that reason, Korean and Taiwanese residents of Japan demanded to be treatedas citizens of victor nations, and these demands were followed by a sudden increase in crimes
against Japanese nationals.
Particularly reprehensible was a group of 30,000 Koreans that called itself the Korean
Occupation Forces. Arming themselves with pistols and Japanese swords, its members
107ambushed helpless police officers (who were not permitted to carry weapons) and war-weary,ordinary Japanese. The Koreans stole land, money and other valuables. They robbed banks,
committed murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and rape. The violence soon spreadfrom Tokyo throughout Japan. According to GHQ records, which are not exhaustive, morethan 4,000 Japanese were killed during those rampages.
The crisis came to a head on December 20, 1946, in an attack on the prime minister’s official
residence. More than 10,000 Koreans stormed the building. Japanese police were unable torepel the attackers; not until American military police were called in was the situation brought
under control. At one point, Japanese organized crime groups, no longer able to stomach
crimes against their compatriots, attempted to retaliate by taking the law into their own hands.
The term sangokujin (third nationals) was coined to describe Koreans and Taiwanese residing
in Japan after World War II, since they were neither Japanese nor citizens of a victor nation.
At long last, the Allies grasped the seriousness of the situation, and issued instructions to theeffect that Koreans residing in Japan were subject to Japanese law. The Korean Occupation
Forces (in reality, the Federation of Koreans Residing in Japan would later transmogrify into
the League of Koreans in Japan. A further split resulted in the formation of two separate
groups: the Korean Residents Union in Japan (Mindan) and the General Association of
Korean Residents of Japan (Chongryon) due to differing political views and loyalties.
We should be mindful that members of both organizations committed despicable acts against
the Japanese during the chaotic period immediately following the war, even though they weregreatly indebted to us.

108

Don’t Blame Japan for the Division of Korea

South Korean President
Syngman Rhee

North Korean President
Kim Il-sung
So that he could become president, Syngman Rhee arranged forthe assassination of political rival Yeo Un-hyeong, who favoredcooperation with Japan. According to the late political scholar
Nagoshi Futarasuke, if Yeo had lived, Japan-Korea relations
would have been the exact opposite of what they are today. The
South Koreans claim they achieved independence on August 15,
1945 (August 15 is a public holiday in South Korea); the correct
date is August 13, 1948.

Yeo Un-hyeong, Korean politician assassinated in 1947

On August 9, 1945 the USSR joined the Allied nations in the war against Japan, in violationof the Japanese-Soviet Nonagression Pact, and invaded North Korea on August 12. The
Americans, still fighting in Okinawa, were caught off guard, and were ill prepared to invade
Korea. A hasty decision was made to occupy the portion of Korea south of the 38th parallel.
In North Korea the Soviets rounded up and imprisoned Japanese military personnel, civil
servants and police officers. Then they made a sweep of the area for Japanese sympathizers.
They organized commissariats (departments) staffed mainly by Communists, in each province,on which they bestowed administrative authority. Then they designated Kim Il-sung, whose109return home coincided with the Soviet invasion, leader of a government scheduled to takeoffice in February 1946.
Back in South Korea, the Americans established a military administration, which they staffedwith Korean civil servants, former employees of the Government-General. In January 1946 an
indirect election was held to form a temporary legislature. In February 1947 (one year later
than North Korea) a provisional government was established, with former independence
activist An Jae-hong at its head.
At the Yalta Conference it was decided that Korea would be a UN trusteeship until March
1948. However, due to tension between the US and USSR, negotiations broke down, and in
August 1948 the Republic of Korea, with Syngman Rhee at its president, was born. In
September the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was founded under the leadership of
Kim Il-sung.
Under Kim Il-sung, North Korean public policy gradually took shape. In the south, things did
not go smoothly, given the disparate assortment of people involved: former bureaucrats,
politicians returning from exile, and Communists released from prisons. Matters were madeworse when the US military, at first pro-Communist, allowed former Communist politicalprisoners to form labor unions. There were strikes all over the country, and widespread social
disruption.
Beginning in about October 1946 the US made a policy shift toward the suppression ofcommunism. But when Syngman Rhee was elected president in August 1948, his first order ofbusiness was a purge of pro-Japanese Koreans. Consequently, many of the competentbureaucrats trained by the Japanese were summarily ousted. Then came the sale of confiscatedJapanese assets and the redistribution of farmland.

110Korean Woman Writes Japanese-Style Poems About Korean War

Choe family photograph

Pitched battle during the Korean War

The Korean War commenced suddenly on June 25, 1950, when the North Korean army
invaded South Korea. It escalated into a large-scale war in which soldiers of the same
ethnicity battled each other; it claimed several million victims.
Choe Yong-suk, a schoolteacher during the annexation period, had the misfortune to lose twoof her three children (sons Jeong-ho and Jeong-ik) to the war. Inconsolable, Choe turned toJapanese tanka, 31-syllable poems to express her grief. She wrote more than 70 poems, threeof which follow.
In the distance, beyond the mountain on which I stand, beyond the next mountain and the next
Is the place where my sons, who went off to war, are fighting
See the young leaves so brilliantly shining there, in the gorge?
That must be the place where my sons fought and died, last year at about this time.
Those two stars aligned so harmoniously in the evening sky
Remind me of my two sons in happier times.

Her poetry was published in Japan thanks to the efforts of poet Kim So-un. Here is an excerpt
from the letter Choe wrote to him.
My only hope is that the teachers who instructed and guided my children years ago
will be proud of Jeong-ho and Jeong-ik and praise them for having fought bravely. As
their mother, I am convinced that until the moment they perished on the battlefield,
they fought with all their might for freedom, for their country, and for theircompatriots’ glory and happiness.

111

An article about Choe Yong-suk and her poems, which appeared in the June 1953 issue of
Fujin Gaho, a leading women’s magazine, drew an overwhelming response from the Japanesepublic.

112

The Japan-Korea Treaty of 1965 and the Concomitant Financial Burden on
Japan
Main Postwar Economic Aid Packages to South Korea
1. Economic cooperation specified in Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the ROK (1965)
Grants$300 million
Government loans$200 million
Private loans$300 million
TOTAL$800 million
1965 Korean national budget
1965 Korean export targets
1965 Japanese foreign currency holdings$350 million$100 million$1.8 billion

2. Economic assistance provided by Japan in 1983 per agreement between Prime Minister Nakasone andPresident Chun
Yen loans$400 million
3. Assistance provided during 1997 financial crisis
IMF$21 billionJapan$10 billion
World Bank
$10 billionUS$5 billion
Asian Development Bank
$4 billion
A significant portion of the funds supplied by the World Bank and the ADB originated in Japan.

Miracle on the Han River (wrought with Japanese funds)
South Korea lay devastatedafter the Korean War, a conflictthat pitted compatriots against
each other. Because withmaverick despot Syngman Rheeat its helm, the ROK had no
creditworthiness, other nations
shied away from investing inSouth Korea. To rebuild thecountry, there was no choice but
to accept financial assistancefrom Japan. Lacking themilitary power to eliminate theunlawfully drawn Syngman
Rhee Line, the Japanese had
exactly one, very unattractive option: respond to Korean requests for aid in the hope that doing
so would help resolve the territorial problem. In 1965 the Treaty on Basic Relations between
Japan and the Republic of Korea was concluded.
113

During the negotiations the Koreans made an extraordinary demand: they requested war
reparations, claiming that South Korea was one of the victor nations. However, the Japanesestood firm; they insisted that since Japan had acquired control of Korea lawfully, and had
never waged war against Korea, they were not obligated to pay war reparations. In Article IIof the aforementioned treaty, both parties agree that all treaties concluded between Korea or
the Korean Empire and Japan prior to Japanese annexation are now null and void. Article III
recognizes South Korea as the only lawful government on the Korean peninsula, andnormalizes diplomatic relations. Economic assistance accompanying normalization was totake the form of grants and government and private loans amounting to a total of $800 million.
With this treaty, Korea relinquished its right of claim. Furthermore, the ownership ofTakeshima was set aside as a problem to be resolved separately.
In its explanation to the Japanese public, the Japanese government described the treaty and theeconomic aid as gestures made to commemorate the independence of a nation and assist a
developing nation. The Korean government, however, characterized them as reparations
resolving problems relating to assets and claims against Japan, compensation and economic
cooperation.
The $800 million provided in 1965 was more than twice Korea’s national budget. In
accordance with the wishes of the Korean government, it was used for national development,
especially development of heavy industry and infrastructure. It funded postwar economic
development referred to as the “miracle on the Han River.” The Japanese had hoped that it
would be used to compensate individuals, but only $5.8 billion was used for that purpose, adecision whose repercussions are felt even today.
Since then Japan has dispensed huge amounts of money every time South Korea experiences
an economic crisis. However, still unable to extricate themselves from the annexation
mentality, the Koreans have never expressed gratitude to Japan. What is more, they are certain
to make demand after demand for compensation or for historical insults of their own invention.
During the first interactions between Japanese and Korean diplomats after the war, theKoreans were rude and arrogant. Not once did they acknowledge the benefits they had derived
from annexation. On their part, the Japanese have failed to show pride or satisfaction at having
ruled Korea so wisely and well. They have also failed to reclaim Takeshima. The deferential
doling out of huge amounts of money for economic assistance after World War II represents a
tragic defeat, as evidenced by subsequent relations between the two countries.

114

It’s the Japanese Who Were Robbed
Japanese Financial Aid to Korea During Annexation Period
Advances paid

1907-1910¥104 million

Supplementary funds

1911-1944¥535.31 million

Unredeemed government
bonds¥1.43971 billion

TOTAL¥2.07902 billion(¥60 trillion at current values)
Japanese Assets Confiscated by Korea after World War II

Total value$6 billion (¥16.93 trillion at current values)

Non-military private assets(Source: GHQ Civil Property Custodian survey)$5.3 billion (¥15.1 trillion at current values)

Korean Government-General Revenue and Expenditures(fiscal 1935-39)■ Financial support from the Japanese government to thetune of ¥6 billion!
Total tax revenue for the Korean Empire in fiscal 1906 was
only ¥7.48 million. Estimating that the modernization of
Korea would cost at least ¥30 million per year, the Japanese
government decided to foot the bill for the balance.
Beginning in 1907, Japan provided financial assistance in theform of advances (financial assistance to the Korean
Government-General) and direct support (for theconstruction of hospitals, harbors and railroads) amounting toapproximately ¥30 million per year (nearly ¥2 trillion incurrent values). Even after annexation took place, theJapanese government invested between ¥2.5 and ¥3 million in the form of subsidies (financial
assistance to the Government-General) and the purchase of Korean government bonds.
115

The chart at top left was taken from the 1941 edition of the History of Korean GovernmentGeneral Administrative Policy for 1935 to 1939 and shows Government-General revenue forthose years. Even in 1939, 25% of Government-General income emanated from Japan(subsidies and government bond purchases).
The Japanese government’s burden during the entire annexation period, calculating with a
30,000-to-1 adjustment in the real value of the yen, was ¥60 trillion at current values.
■ Japanese forced to abandon private assets
In addition to the amounts cited above, private Japanese assets on the Korean peninsula
totaled ¥5.3 billion at the end of World War II, according to a GHQ Civil Property Custodian
survey and “The Financial History of Japan: The Allied Occupation Period, 1945-52” editedby the Ministry of Finance, Financial History Section and issued by Toyo Keizai Shinposha in1984.
By rights, these assets (the property of private citizens) should have been returned to Japan.
But they were confiscated by the Koreans, and their owners forced to leave Korea with little
more than the shirts on their backs.
Yoko Kawashima Watkins was 11 years old when World War II ended. In So Far from the
Bamboo Grove, she describes the terrible plight of Japanese families attempting to return toJapan with their families. So many of them were attacked, raped, or murdered by Koreans.
Her book was assigned as supplementary reading at middle schools in almost every state in
the US.
Korean organizations in the US reacted by hurling invective at Watkins, accusing her ofdistorting history. They made such a fuss that the book was removed from school reading lists.
During the 35 years of annexation, the citizens of Japan were saddled with the obligation of
supporting Korea. They suffered under the burden of heavy taxation. Many of them settled in
Korea where they worked day and night, planting trees and rice fields, building harbors,
contributing significantly to the modernization of Korea. How were they repaid? By having all
their assets confiscated, and labeled as aggressors. Many Japanese lost their lives.
It is the Japanese who were the victims, robbed by Korea and the Koreans. What is more, after
the war the Koreans claimed that theirs was a victor nation, and demanded astronomical
reparations ($2.5 billion - $10 billion), amounts that would have bankrupted Japan. This is areversal of the worst kind.
We must be mindful that the inhabitants of the Korean peninsula will never understand ourgood intentions.

116Military Prostitutes: How Long Will the Koreans Go on Fooling
Themselves?
The newspaper articles reproduced here tell the whole story.
They are contemporaneous advertisements for military
prostitutes offering a generous monthly salary (¥300). Just as
at other similar instances in history, a great many poor womenfound the pay so attractive that they were willing to accept theconcomitant risks.

Advertisement in Keijo Nippo (Seoul Daily), 26 July 1944 edition
URGENT RECRUITMENT DRIVE FOR COMFORT WOMENAge requirements: Must be between the ages of 17 and 23
Place of employment: Behind-the-lines comfort station attached to Military Unit X
Monthly pay: ¥300 (may authorize advance pay of up to ¥3,000)
Working hours: 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., subject to consultation
Apply to:Imai Agency
4-20 Shinmachi, Keijo City
Telephone: East (3) 1613

Advertisement in Mainichi Shinpo, 27 October 1944 edition)
URGENTLY SEEKING MILITARY COMFORT WOMEN
1. Place of employment: comfort station attached to Military Unit X
2. Qualifications: Must be between the ages of 18 and 30, and in good health
3. Application dates: October 27 - November 8
4. Estimated departure date: November 10
5. Contract and working conditions: To be determined at interview
6. Number of persons to be hired: 40-50
7. Interested parties are to inquire immediately at location listed below
Apply to:Chosen Inn
195 Paradise Street, Shoro
Keijo City
Telephone: Hikari (3) 2645
(Ask for Mr. Ho.)117

Today Koreans argue that hundreds of thousands of young Korean women were victims of anationwide, systematic policy that involved rounding them up and forcing them to become
military prostitutes (usually referred to today as “comfort women”). These are confusing
military prostitutes with members of the Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps, in which young
women between the ages of 14 and 25 were obligated to serve.
This accusation is, plainly and simply, a distortion of history. At the time Korea was, as Japan
is today, a nation governed by the rule of law and therefore incapable of forcing its nationals(Koreans were Japanese nationals then) into prostitution.
Government officials rescued women deceived by procurers
From the 1930s to the early 1940s, malevolent procurers ran rampant on the Korean peninsula.
Many young women were deceived by them and sold off to brothels. Japanese government
officials made a concerted effort to investigate such cases and rescue the victims. The articles
excerpted bellow provide vivid, factual descriptions of the prevailing situation.
(Dong-a Ilbo (East Asia Daily), 15 March 1939 edition)
Article bearing the headline “Ha Yun-myeong Case Has Widespread
Repercussions” describes the arrest of Ha Yun-myeong, an unscrupulous
procurer who buys the daughters of poor families under false pretenses andsells them to brothels. Police attempt to rescue the young women, but findthat they have been resold to buyers outside Korea. Prosecutors launchprobe of recruiters, forming special investigative unit.
(Dong-a Ilbo, 31 August 1939 edition)
Article bearing the headline “Deceitful Procurers Run Rampant” reportsthat procurers have kidnapped more than 100 young women from farming
villages.

Since the Koreans insist that Korean women were coerced into prostitution, we must ask them
why they did not rise up in anger. At the time ethnic Japanese represented only 2% of the
population of the peninsula, and half the police officers were Korean. The Korean population
was certainly capable of rebelling or rioting.
But there were no rebellions. There was no rioting. If there were indeed abductions of young
women, did Koreans stand by in silence while their daughters, sisters and girlfriends wereabducted by a small number of Japanese and forced into prostitution? The Koreans of that era
were neither apathetic nor powerless. The absence of riots or rebellions proves beyond a doubtthat there were no abductions.
118

The bottom row of newspaper articles tells us that Korea supplied prostitutes to American
troops stationed there. Korea is certainly guilty of launching a nationwide effort to recruit
prostitutes to service the military personnel of another nation.
Korean government authorities directly involved in recruiting prostitutes to service US
military personnel.
(Dong-a Ilbo, 31 January 1961 edition)
The article shown above, which carries the headline“Training Course for Military Prostitutes Sponsored by
Idam Substation,” reads as follows:
A training course for approximately 800 military prostitutes
was held on January 27 at 11:00 a.m. at the Donggwang
Theater. The course, sponsored by the Idam Police Substation,
was also attended by many other persons, including American
officers from Military Police Headquarters and the Civil
Service Bureau, 7th Infantry Division, and otherrepresentatives of the US and Korea. The emphasis of thecourse was on taking strict precautions to prevent the spreadof venereal disease. Afterwards some of the prostitutes
provided entertainment, displaying their singing and dancing
prowess.

( Dong-a Ilbo, 21 July 1957 edition)
Two Korean Prostitutes Commit
Suicide: Despondent over Servicing
American GIs
PUSAN. Two prostitutes who serviced
American GIS at an establishment in the
Jeonpodong section of Busan, a Miss Jo(20) and a Miss Bak (21), died at theSongmijang Inn in Nampodong at
approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 19,
after taking poison. In a suicide note,they wrote, “Life as a military prostituteis unbearable. We will never be able to pay our debts. Death is our only escape.”

119

Lies of Self-Proclaimed Korean Slave Laborer Exposed

Cover of Accounts of Conscripted
Koreans

Bak Gyeong-sik

Cover of New Reports from
Korea by Kamata Sawaichiro

Accounts of Conscripted Koreans by Bak Gyeong-sik is supposedly the authoritative work on
this subject. However, the book has a fatal flaw. Let us demonstrate by offering an excerpt.
Worst of all was the conscription of laborers. As the war intensified, a volunteer system forsoldiers, like those put into effect in other countries, was inaugurated in Korea. At the sametime, the quota for conscripted laborers increased. Recruiters who took the time to persuade
Koreans to serve as laborers would never have achieved their quotas. Instead, they resorted toviolence. They would go to towns or villages in the middle of the night or at dawn, break into
homes, surprise men in their sleep and abduct them. In some cases the recruiters would
confront men working in the fields and invent excuses to get them into a truck waiting nearby.
When they had rounded up enough men, the recruiters transported them in groups to coalmines in Hokkaido or Kyushu.26

This excerpt was purportedly taken from a book entitled New Reports from Korea by Kamata
Sawaichiro. However, in New Reports from Korea, the last sentence cited is followed by:“The Government-General never issued conscription orders, but Korean petty bureaucrats
eager to curry favor with their superiors took it upon themselves to use these methods.”27

26

Bak Gyeong-sik, Chosenjin kyosei renko no kiroku (Accounts of conscripted Koreans) (Tokyo:
Miraisha, 1965).
27

Kamata Sawaichiro, Chosen Shinwa (New reports from Korea) (Osaka: Sogensha, 1950).

120

The same phenomenon occurred when the name-change policy was instituted. In Accounts ofConscripted Koreans, one of the works cited as evidence that Koreans were conscripted is aphotograph of the cover of Personnel Management of Recruited Korean Laborers. In actuality,that book is a manual containing advice about instilling good work habits in recruited laborers
and keeping their morale high. It does not contain anything remotely resembling stories of
exploited Koreans.
According to Accounts of Conscripted Koreans, the work Korean laborers were forced to do
was so hard that many of them escaped. At the same time, the book states that they would
escape after two or three days because they didn’t want to work in the mines. The truth of thematter is that at that time, the only way Koreans could work in Japan proper was asconscripted laborers. Therefore, many of them signed up for mining jobs (or other, similar
work, most of it in remote locations), planning to escape at the earliest possible opportunity
and make their way to a city, where life was more exciting. Their employers were certainly
placed in a difficult position.
As we have shown, Bak Gyeong-sik quoted his sources out of context. He simply omitted any
passages that contradicted his argument in his attempt to prove that the Government-General
was engaged in an insane activity like the rounding up of human beings.
According to Diary of a Conscripted Worker, written by Jeong Chung-hae, the author was
befriended by a Japanese war widow, who allowed him to live in her home while he worked ina factory in Hiroshima. There is no description of abduction or harsh treatment of any sort in
this, or in any of the other works mentioned here.

121

Koreans Violate Basic Principle of Civilization: The Right to NonRetroactivity of Law

Member of Korean National
Assembly defacing theJapanese flag

Former President
Roh Moo-hyun

Koreans use Japaneseflag as a doormat

In 2002 Korean voters elected Roh Moo-hyun, a member of the Democratic Party, South
Korea’s 16th president. An entrenched leftist, Roh enacted laws broadening freedom of speech.
Two of them are the Newspaper Law, which provides economic support to minor newspapers,
and the Press Arbitration Law, which permits victims of libel to initiate court suits.
Roh Moo-hyun approached the presidency with a strong desire to reexamine history. He
pressed for investigations into past incidents, including some dating back more than 100 years,
like acts of collaboration with the Japanese before or during the annexation, atrocities against
private citizens by Korean soldiers during the Korean war, and suppression of human rights
during military governments.
Under his leadership the Korean National Assembly advanced legislation designed to right
past wrongs. Including those passed during the Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jungadministrations, 13 special laws went into effect. One of them ostracizes the descendants of
Koreans who cooperated with the Japanese during the annexation. This particular law clearly
violates the principle of non-retroactivity, not to mention the Korean Constitution. For thatreason, individuals whose names were listed as collaborators by the Korean media have filed
protests.
Furthermore, the Investigative Commission on Pro-Japanese Collaborators’ Property [sic] hasannounced its decision to confiscate the assets of descendants of nine “pro-Japanesecollaborators,” with an estimated worth of 3.6 billion won (ca. ¥4.08 million).
122

Among the confiscated assets were those owned by the descendants of former Prime Minister
Lee Wan-yong, who signed the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty, and nine others. To date
255,000 square meters of land has been confiscated in this manner, and is now Korean
government property.
The aforementioned commission was formed in August 2010 in accordance with the Special
Law Concerning the Redemption of Pro-Japanese Collaborators’ Property, enacted in 2005.
Also established in August 2010 was the Presidential Committee for the Inspection ofCollaborations for Japanese Imperialism (PCIC) [sic], which in December of 2010 publicly
disclosed the names of 406 Koreans who cooperated with the Japanese during the annexation
period.

123

6. THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA: A SOURCE OF PRIDE FOR JAPAN
Crown Princess Yi Bangja Takes Handicapped Korean Children Under Her
Wing

Princess Yi Bangja (1901-1989)Princess

Bangja and Prince Eun

Princess Yi Bangja was the eldest daughter of Japanese Prince Nashimoto Morimasa; herJapanese name was Masako. In 1916 she became engaged to Yi Eun (Uimin) of the royal Yi
family. The wedding was delayed until 1920 because of the illness (cerebral hemorrhage) anddeath of Gojong, the Korean king.
The crown princess once wrote in her diary, “I am expected to serve as the foundation uponwhich harmony between Japan and Korea is established. I understand the notion, but it seems
extraordinarily burdensome and mystifying.” She also wrote that she stood in her gardennight after night, wishing she could vanish.
After World War II the Korean government was extremely unsympathetic to the Yi family,
failing to show any support even when Crown Prince Eun suffered a cerebral hemorrhage. Its
stance changed after 1961, when Park Chung-hee led a successful coup d’état. Then thegovernment began issuing a stipend to the Yi family and paying Prince Eun’s medical
expenses. The prince was finally permitted to return to Korea in 1963, but by that time he wasin a permanent vegetative state.
Upon her return to Korea, Princess Bangja launched a campaign to raise funds for social
service programs for the handicapped. She was widely criticized by the Korean public, and124

called shameless and brazen, but her determination never wavered. Eventually she was able tobuild two facilities for the handicapped. One was a school for deaf-and-dumb children andpolio victims called Myeonghwiwon; the other, a school for mentally retarded children called
the Jahye School.
Princess Bangja’s fund-raising activities continued in earnest even after the schools opened.
Ordinary people couldn’t understand her students when they spoke, but the Princess did,perhaps because she loved them so much.

125

Women’s Lives and Cities Transformed During Annexation Period

Modern dancer Choe Seung-hui
Nandaemun (South Grand Gate) before annexation

Nandaemun after annexation

126

Japan Earns Accolades from Lytton Commission for Government of Korea

Members of Lytton Commission pay their respects at Yasukuni Jinja
Cover of the Japanese translation of People and Power in the Far East: Impressions from a
Journey with the Lytton Commission by Heinrich Schnee, who represented Germany on theCommission

China issued a protest against the Manchurian Incident, which occurred on September 18,
1931, to the League of Nations. In January of the following year the Lytton Commission wasformed to investigate the incident. Its members travelled to Manchuria and at the end of June
1932, toured the Korean peninsula on their way to Japan.
When the group arrived in Seoul it paid a visit to then Governor-General Ugaki Kazushige.
Maj.-Gen. Frank McCoy, the American representative shared his impressions with thegovernor-general. They were recorded by Kamata Sawaichiro, one of Ugaki’s aides, who
included them in New Reports from Korea, published in 1950.

127

Last night I experienced an epiphany, which was perhaps the greatest reward reaped from thislong sojourn in the Orient. At the same time, I must confess that I am thoroughly ashamed that
I failed to inform myself better about Korea. What I speak of is simply the huge difference
between my previous perceptions and the reality. Since Korea is essentially an extension ofManchuria, geographically speaking, we assumed that bandits would be running rampant, that
there would be a dearth of industry, and that we would find the people leading idle lives on red
clay beneath bald mountains. Yet, when our train crossed the bridge over the Yalu River, wewere amazed at the sights that greeted us through the windows: luxuriant expanses of green,
farmers busily working in the rice fields or engaged in other forms of agriculture. In
Pyongyang and other cities we observed smoke emanating robustly from factory chimneys.
The people we observed at train stations were dressed neatly, behaved in an orderly fashion,and seemed content. Public order was well maintained; we had no fears whatsoever. Korea
seemed to be centuries ahead of Manchuria. We were very pleased to observe all these
phenomena, which were clear signs that Japan’s colonial policy was effective and that the
governors-general had ruled with passion and wisdom. We will surely continue to make drastic
adjustments of our perceptions of Korea.28

McCoy was quite conversant with the situation in European and American colonies
throughout the world. After having visited many of them, he had nothing but praise forJapan’s government of Korea.
At that point only 21 years had passed since Japan had begun to rule Korea. Japan was in theprocess of accomplishing the most brilliant economic feat in the world.

28

Kamata, op. cit.

128

Wilson’s Self-Determination Principle Engenders Stagnation in Philippines

In 2010 NHK, Japan’s national public television service, aired a
special program entitled “Japan and the Korean Peninsula, Part
2.” During the broadcast mention was made of national selfdetermination, a principle reiterated by US President Woodrow
Wilson during World War I, as though it were an immortal
canon.
Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines came under the rule ofanother nation (Japan in the case of the first two, and the US thethird) at approximately the same time and for the same duration.
South Korea and Taiwan became advanced nations, while North
Korea and the Philippines are still struggling, developing
nations. How do we explain the difference?
US President Woodrow Wilson
NATIONAL PER CAPITA INCOME (IN US DOLLARS)
1955
South Korea

1965
121

North Korea
Philippines

198

1970

1975

1980

120

250

580

1,450

190

330

450

450

150

210

380

710

■ Modern economics
Workers and capitalists are partners in the race to prevail in intercompany competition.
Colonizers and the colonized are partners in the race to win the competition among nations.
■ Communism
Workers are exploited by capitalists.
Colonies are exploited by colonizers.
The development of Taiwan and Korea, as undertaken by Japan, was based on the theories ofmodern economics: investing capital, emphasizing education, and working to enhance theinnate strengths of the Koreans and Taiwanese. It is obvious from the present-day situation in
those two nations that the Japanese path was the correct one. Note that three of Korea’s
presidents (Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, and Kim Dae-jung) expressed gratitude to
Japanese mentors when they were elected.

129After World War II, North Korea chose to embrace communism, and has yet to emerge fromabject poverty. With the collapse of the USSR and some of the Eastern European nations, it
became clear that communism had been a mistake.
The Philippines came under American control in 1898, three years after Japan began
governing Taiwan, and 12 years before Japan took control of Korea. Previously thePhilippines had been a Spanish possession; therefore, aspects of Western culture had already
infiltrated the islands. The Philippines were certainly more civilized than Korea or Taiwan.
In the early days of US rule, the Americans put most of their efforts into education, believingthat they were empowering the people by educating them. The University of the Philippines
was founded in 1908, prior to the annexation of Korea. In 1886 70% of the 2,000 students at
the University of Santo Tomas, established during Spanish rule, were Filipinos in 1886.
In 1913 when Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was inaugurated as President of the US, heawarded the Philippines a great deal of autonomy, shifting to a self-government policy. The
results were that the flow of American capital into the Philippines dwindled, the Philippine
economy stagnated, and the quality of university education declined. The situation haschanged little since then.
Giving the Philippines national self-determination amounted to abandoning them. Precisely
because the Japanese considered Taiwan and Korea nations just like Japan, and worked
toward coexistence and coprosperity, we can enjoy the fruits of their labors today.

130

Korea Under Japanese Rule as Observed by Foreigners
The following article appeared in the August 26, 1910 edition of Journal de Saint-Pétersbourg,aFrench-language newspaper issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry between 1825 and 1914.
Despite the fact that Russia and Japan had fought each other in the Russo-Japanese War(1904-05), the Russians were clearly in favor of Japan’s annexation of Korea.
If this is true, then the human race should rejoice in the addition of a new andprosperous nation to the civilized world.
When France lost Alsace-Lorraine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were incorporated
into the Habsburg Empire, the word annexation acquired an unpleasant connotation,
becoming a synonym for thievery among nations.
Yet we cannot apply this meaning to Japan’s seizure of Korea. In fact, it evokes
memories of the benefits reaped from the transfers of sovereignty that took place whenFrance annexed Algeria, when England occupied Egypt, and when Russia acquired theCaucasus and the Khanate of Khiva.29
From 1904 to 1905, when Russia and Japan were at war, Korea was an uncivilized,
backward nation. It was the breeding ground for endless disorder, and engendered
competition among its neighbors. Consequently, it was the primary cause of war
between China and Japan, and between Russia and Japan. Since coming underJapanese rule, Korea has progressed beyond our wildest dreams.
Practically overnight a far-reaching railway system, as well as telephone and telegraphsystems, were established. Now public buildings and factories are rising, and many
more children are receiving an education.
Agriculture too is flourishing. Exports have increased threefold in only five years.
Korea is in excellent financial health.
Korea’s ports are bustling with activity. The judicial system has undergone reforms,
and court procedures are on a par with those used in the courts of Europe.
As the world stands by in amazement, the magic wand of Japanese vitality waved at
the plains of Manchuria and in Port Arthur and Tsushima. The changes wrought will
no doubt render all remnants of the old Korea undetectable in four or five years.

29

Part of present-day Uzbekistan.

131

Civilization is defined as progress achieved by peaceful means. From this standpoint,
Japan’s annexation of Korea will become a new facet of Far Eastern prosperity andprogress.

132

Korea Under Japanese Rule as Observed by Koreans
Bak Yeong-cheol
Fifty Years of Recollections
Bak Yeong-cheol entered the Imperial Japanese Army Academy in 1902, prior to annexation.
He rose to the rank of major in the Imperial Japanese Army, and later served as a provincial
governor. In Fifty Years of Recollections, published in 1929, Bak moralizes on the destructionof Korea by means of Japanese annexation:
A certain critic once said, “If we were to express an observation – one formed fairly
and impartially, that is – we would have to conclude that Japan is practicing good
government in Korea, [no matter how opposed we are to the government of Korea byJapan. No matter how much we loathe Ito (Hirobumi), we cannot help but appreciate
his intentions.” In any case, it was not Japan that destroyed Korea; therefore, wecannot blame Japan. Furthermore, we should not attack Lee Wan-yong or others inhigh positions at the time. No, the responsibility rests with us – all 20 million of us.
Korea lacked the requisites for independence, and was not able to move forward on
its own power. Throughout history all Koreans have been lazy and impotent, andhave truly brought their troubles on themselves. After the Russo-Japanese War, when
Japan made a concerted effort to protect and develop Korea, Koreans in all levels ofsociety refused to believe that Japan was acting in good faith. They hatched out plots
and conspiracies openly and secretly, treating Japan like an enemy. Consequently,
Japan was forced to exercise its last resort: the annexation of Korea. (...) We have noone to blame but ourselves for the situation in which we find ourselves today.30

Widow of Korean suicide squad member meets Japanese newspaper reporter
The following account appears in The Truth about the 2,000-Year-Old Relationship Between
Japan and Korea.
I learned that the husband of a Korean elementary school principal had joined asuicide squad and died in action in Okinawa. When he made the decision to join thesquad he went to the elementary school he had attended and planted a cherry tree
there. His widow became principal of that school and, over time, the cherry tree
matured. Whenever she felt lonely she would stand under the tree; there she felt at
peace. I thought the Japanese people should hear her story, and passed it on to a
Japanese journalist in Seoul.
The reporter, employed by Newspaper A, interviewed the school principal. She
showed him where the cherry tree was, and together they stood under it. The reporter30

Bak Yeong-cheol, 50 nen no kaiko (Fifty years of recollections) (Tokyo: Osaka Yago Shoten, 1929).

133

said, “I am deeply sorry that your husband was deceived by Japanese militarism.”
The normally deferential widow bristled at the word “deceived.”“My husband wasn’t the sort of man who could be deceived. He went on his missionof his own volition. Your suggestion that he was deceived is insulting. I have nothing
more to say to you.”31

Kim Man-cheol (Korean critic from Jeju)
Korea modernized on its own power? What an absurd claim! Korean modernization was
accomplished through the infusion of a huge amount of Japanese capital and manpower.
Korea resisted Japanese rule? Don’t make me laugh! What my fellow Koreans did was tomeekly accept Japanese government, like sheep. There was some resistance on the part of avery few Koreans, but the great majority of Koreans admired Japan, and attempted to become
Japanese.
Korea is solely responsible for achieving independence? Such a claim leaves me speechless.
Nobody wanted independence from Japan. The US forced us to become independent.
The Han River miracle? The miracle was accomplished because Japan supplied an enormous
amount of financial and technical assistance (in the name of reparations). With gifts like those,
any nation, no matter how backward, will experience economic growth.

31

Nagoshi, op. cit.

134

Foreigners’ Observations About Japanese Rule and Subsequent Annexationof Korea
The inhabitants of the Korean peninsula are united in a campaign, which they call the“reexamination of history” with respect to the annexation. That campaign involves expunging
or rewriting aspects of history that show the Koreans in an unflattering light, and creating
events that they can be proud of. Spearheading this exercise in pandering are charlatans posing
as scholars, who have cast aside all pride.
On the other hand, conscientious scholars who refuse to espouse the government’s position
and attempt to publish research results contesting it are branded pro-Japanese, i.e., traitors, andtheir assets are confiscated. We cannot stop the Koreans from behaving badly in their own
nation, but we cannot allow them to cram their invented or distorted history down Japanesethroats. The worst example of such behavior was perpetrated by the Mindan (Korean
Residents Union in Japan) and Chongryon (General Association of Korean Residents inJapan), controlled by the South and North Korean government, respectively. These
organizations were used as the advance guard in outrageous national attacks on the New
History Textbook published in Japan in 2005.
No matter how patiently and carefully the Japanese attempt to expose the truth in the context
of historical fact, the Koreans close their ears. To them, history is nothing but a political tool.
At the same time, the Koreans, who aspire to a position among the advanced nations for theircountry, are hypersensitive to Westerners’ opinion of their country. In that case, it might be agood idea to require them to read foreigners’ opinions of the Japanese annexation of Korea.
In the meantime, we must remember that Japanese hypocrites who pander to the Koreans anddelight in damaging Japan’s reputation who are our real enemies.
● Helen Mears, Mirror for Americans, Japan
The [First Sino-Japanese War] was an unqualified success from the Japanese point ofview. The Western Powers applauded, and one after another gave up their “special
privileges” and admitted Japan as an equal sovereign Power. The Japanese bestowed
freedom on the Koreans, and to celebrate the event, the Korean King assumed thetitle of Emperor to indicate that he was now an equal of the Chinese and JapaneseEmperors.32***
When, in 1910, the Japanese annexed Korea, it was because the new Emperor“petitioned” them to do so. In commenting on Japan’s relations with Korea, many
32

Helen Mears, Mirror for Americans: Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), p. 190.

135

pre-Pearl Harbor Western historians have noted how punctilious the Japanese were infollowing the legal niceties of international relations as taught them by the WesternPowers. As Professor [Payson Jackson] Treat comments, “... every step in the process
was ‘correct’ diplomatically, and the final annexation was consummated by ... treaty,
not proclamation.” As a matter of record, Japan’s annexation of Korea had
considerably more “legal” documentation than most of the empire-building of theWestern Powers.33● London Times, 28 September 1904 edition
The Japanese Government are understood to have two principal aims in view. They
desire to promote Korea’s foreign commerce ... and to regulate her foreign relations sothat there shall be a minimum of friction and blundering. (...) It has therefore been
agreed that Korea shall accept a financial adviser recommended by Japan, and Mr.
Megata, one of the ablest among the junior members of the Japanese Treasury, hasbeen chosen for the post. (...) Then, in the conduct of her foreign relations also, Korea
is to have the benefit of an adviser franked by Japan – Mr. D. W. Stevens, during
many years Secretary of the United States Legation in Tokio, and now counsellor to
the Japanese Legation in Washington, a man of well proved ability.
(...)
The Koreans have had ample time to appreciate the advantages of reform, but they
have never shown the least disposition to be appreciative. There is only one fainthope – namely, that although Korea cannot discern the things making for her own
good, she may learn to value them by experience of their uses. On that slenderfoundation Japan intends to build, and if she succeed in raising a solid edifice she will
deserve much credit.

● San Francisco Chronicle, 21 March 1908 edition]
D.W. Stevens, diplomatic adviser to the Corean Council of State, was an arrival
yesterday on the Nippon Maru (...) In 1904, under the treaty between Japan and Corea,
he was appointed to his present position.
Stevens says the Corean people have been greatly benefited by Japanese protection
and that they are beginning to look more favorably on it. He says the Japanese aredoing for the Coreans what America is doing for the Philippines. Continuing, he said,“You can get some idea of the condition of Corea before the war from the statementthat the Government was spending 3,000,000 yen annually on a standing army and60,000 yen on public education. The people are divided into two classes, thepeasantry and the official classes. The former was ground down until nothing but abare existence was left from their labor, while the official class was thoroughly
corrupt.

33

Ibid., p. 196.

136

“The peasants have welcomed the Japanese, while the official class has not, but eventhe officials are beginning to see that the only hope for the country lies in areorganization of the old institutions.”● George Trumbull Ladd: American educator and philosopher
Nationally, a new life opens up before Korea. Japan has sent her veteran statesman toadvise and guide Korea, the man to whom in the largest sense Japan owes so much –the most conspicuous statesman in Asia to-day, Marquis Ito. Plans for the reform of
the Government, codification of the laws, development of the industry and businessof the people, and extension of education, have been formulated, and in acomparatively short time most promising results achieved. In spite of difficulties
which necessarily for the present encumber the situation, the outlook is mosthopeful.34● New York Times (29 April 1905 edition)
Wonderful is the spectacle of transformation in Korea.
The reforms already effected are remarkable and are an unmixed benefit to the people,
but they are causing dismay to the Emperor and his corrupt Court of attendants,
soothsayers, fortune tellers, and foreign parasites. The Emperor has suffered a crueldisillusion, but is still hoping for the ultimate success of Russia, a power which has
fostered the worst influences of his barbaric reign.

● Correspondent Esson Third in the North China Herald (18 August 1905 edition)
Japan, meanwhile, is being soundly rated by the ignorant classes and by someforeigners for her whole course of action during the past year. She is threatening aprotectorate, we are told. But what of that? We have had a protectorate ever since thetreaty was signed and since war broke out.
(...)
In a word the bane of Corea to-day is not the Japanese, but the Palace, where
ignorance, superstition, and cruelty hold sway.
(...)
To the fullest extent of her territory and influence, [Korea] stands responsible for thewar. In the blood and sweat and suffering of it she has shared nothing. Let us help her
to see her faults, her sins, her good-for-nothingness, help her to awake to an earnest,
diligent, honest life, and it will be time enough then to declaim against a protectorate
and the high-handedness of the Japanese.

34

George Trumbull Ladd, In Korea with Marquis Ito (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908), p. 168.

137

● North China Herald (24 November 1905 edition)
Even those who like the Coreans best, and all who know them allow that they have
many amiable qualities, are forced to admit that Corea cannot maintain herself in thetwentieth century as an independent State.

● Comments made by General Dmitri Horvath, general manager of the Chinese Eastern
Railway, about the assassination of Ito Hirobumi in Kharbinskii viestnik (a RussianManchurian newspaper)
The more I contemplate [the assassination], the more miserable I feel.
If Russia had heeded the advice of Marquis Ito prior to the great war of recent times[the Russo-Japanese War], both that cruel war and the dishonor defeat brought toRussia could have been avoided.
Everyone knows that the purpose of Marquis Ito’s visit to Harbin was decidedly not
empty, ritualistic diplomatic exchanges with our finance minister.

● Shen Bao (Chinese-language newspaper published in Shanghai between 1872 and 1949; 01
September 1910 edition)
Korea has perished. Nevertheless, the Korean emperor is smiling, the Korean liege
lords are ecstatic, and the former emperor (Gojong) too bears no grudge. All of themseem to be skilled at acquiring special treatment from a foreign nation. Only thestudents are gloomy and disaffected.

● London Times (04 October 1904 edition)
Of all the many remarkable circumstances of this Far-Eastern war, the fact that
dominates everything else is the courage and conduct of the Mikado’s armies. We
recognise, almost grudgingly and in spite of ourselves, the existence of a moral force
that appears to govern and sway the whole conduct of a whole people, inspiring not acaste but a nation from highest to lowest, to deeds that are worthy to rank with themost famous of history or of legend. We want to know what this force is, whence it
comes, and what it means; the sense of its existence makes us jealous, uncomfortable,
almost annoyed. We are told that the Japanese are scientific fanatics; in effect that isapparently the result; but effects are nothing and causes everything. What we desire
to know is the cause, the underlying motive that inspires the deeds of valour, too
numerous to name, that are told us from all sides, without a single dissentient voice,both from one side of the battlefield and from the other, even finding a generous
acknowledgment in a rescript of the Tsar’s. (...) Valor is nothing new to the West,since the annals of all armies are crowded with it. It was not that; there wassomething more behind, something which, had all Western armies possessed it,
would have prevented black marks which besmirch the military escutcheons of allnations of the West without exception. What was it? What is it?

138

● Alleyne Ireland, British historian
From such a study [of the available data], which has occupied me for more than three
years, and of which the results are presented in this volume, I have formed theopinion that Korea is today infinitely better governed than it ever was under its own
native rulers, that it is better governed than most self-governing countries, that it is as
well governed as any of the British, American, French, Dutch, and Portuguese
dependencies which I have visited, and is better governed than most of them, having
in view as well the cultural and economic development of the people as the techniqueof administration.35***
From year to year since annexation the number of prisons has increased, and theircondition improved, so that today, the larger prisons, at least, will bear comparison
with those of any country, and are greatly superior to most of the prisons in the
United States.36
In the fiscal year 1918 public schools for Korean children numbered 466 throughout
the country, and the expenditure for them amounted to 1,835,000 yen, of which only
195,000 yen, namely about ten per cent of the whole, fell upon the Korean population,
the average burden on each household being as low as six sen (1 sen = ½ cent U.S.),
while the rest was met by government assistance. However, in view of the growing
need of common education among the people a programme was drawn up in 1919 tofound 400 more schools within the next four years on the standard of “one school toevery three villages at least,” and this necessarily meant [a] large increase in
expenditure and consequent increase in the incidence of the school tax, as well as in
the amount of government aid. (...) It is to be noted that between 1918 and 1922 theexpenditure on the elementary education of Koreans increased nearly eight-fold.37

35

Alleyne Ireland, The New Korea (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1926), p. 17.

36

Ibid., p. 162.

37

Ibid., pp. 133-134.

139

7. EDITOR’S POSTSCRIPT
For more than 100 years, beginning in 1910, the Koreans have made it a national cause tobroadcast their condemnations of Japan and their claims that the annexation was invalid to all
the world. Their ultimate objective is to have the Japanese government announce at a Diet
session that Japan’s annexation of Korea was both unlawful and invalid, and to issue anapology. Should such an event actually come to pass, Japan would be refuting its grandmission, validated by the world’s leading nations when it was put into effect. It would also be
refuting the very existence and survival of the Japanese people from their origin, through thepresent, and into the future, as well as herculean efforts of our ancestors, of which we should
be proud.
We cannot tolerate the insulting behavior of the Koreans, who refuse to face the facts ofhistory squarely, or of hypocritical Japanese politicians or intellectuals who, time after time,
turn their backs on their country and apologize where no apology is due. For that purpose, wemust dispense with any feelings of chivalry or pity for the Koreans, whose hate for Japan and
the Japanese knows no bounds (and no reason), and who insist their country was stolen fromthem. We must, boldly and resolutely expose the facts of history and demonstrate our pride in
the annexation of Korea. We must also prevent any of our politicians contemplating indulging
the Koreans by issuing an apology from dishonoring themselves by following in the footstepsof former Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi or former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei,
both of whom issued needless apologies.
It is our hope that this booklet will inform our compatriots and equip them with the
ammunition they need to engage in a debate with the Koreans.

Committee Against Government Apologies to Korea
July 30, 2010140